Next Article in Journal
Intensive Production and Management of Marandu Palisadegrass (Urochloa brizantha ‘Marandu’) Accelerates Leaf Turnover but Does Not Change Herbage Mass
Next Article in Special Issue
Semi-Quantification of Lectins in Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Genotypes via Hemagglutination
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of the Effect of Different Concentrations of Spirotetramat on the Diaspine Scale Parlatoria ziziphi in Citrus Orchards
Previous Article in Special Issue
Phylogenetic Analyses of Rhizobia Isolated from Nodules of Lupinus angustifolius in Northern Tunisia Reveal Devosia sp. as a New Microsymbiont of Lupin Species
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 11
Issue 9
10.3390/agronomy11091839
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

GGE Biplot Analysis of Genotype × Environment Interaction and Yield Stability in Bambara Groundnut

by
Oluwaseyi Samuel Olanrewaju
1,2,
Olaniyi Oyatomi
2,
Olubukola Oluranti Babalola
1 and
Michael Abberton
2,*
1
Food Security and Safety Niche Area, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North-West University, Private Bag X2046, Mmabatho 2735, South Africa
2
Genetic Resources Center, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), PMB 5320, Oyo Road, Ibadan 200001, Nigeria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(9), 1839; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091839
Submission received: 26 July 2021 / Revised: 20 August 2021 / Accepted: 30 August 2021 / Published: 14 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Analysis of the Genetic Diversity of Crops and Associated Microbiota)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In plant breeding and agricultural research, biplot analysis has become an important statistical technique. The goal of this study was to find the winning genotype(s) for the test settings in a part of the Southwest region of Nigeria, as well as to investigate the nature and extent of genotype × environment interaction (GEI) effects on Bambara groundnut (BGN) production. The experiment was carried out in four environments (two separate sites, Ibadan and Ikenne, for two consecutive years, 2018 and 2019) with ninety-five BGN accessions. According to the combined analysis of variance over environments, genotypes and GEI both had a substantial (p < 0.001) impact on BGN yield. The results revealed that BGN accessions performed differently in different test conditions, indicating that the interaction was crossover in nature. The results revealed that BGN accessions performed differently in different test conditions, indicating that the interaction was crossover in nature. To examine and show the pattern of the interaction components, biplots with the genotype main effect and genotype × environment interaction (GEI) were used. The first two PCs explained 80% of the total variation of the GGE model (i.e., G + GE) (PC1 = 48.59%, PC2 = 31.41%). The accessions that performed best in each environment based on the “which-won-where” polygon were TVSu-2031, TVSu-1724, TVSu-1742, TVSu-2022, TVSu-1943, TVSu-1892, TVSu-1557, TVSu-2060, and TVSu-2017. Among these accessions, TVSu-2017, TVSu-1557, TVSu-2060, TVSu-1892, and TVSu-1943 were among the highest-yielding accessions on the field. The adaptable accessions were TVSu-1763, TVSu-1899, TVSu-2019, TVSu-1898, TVSu-1957, TVSu-2021, and TVSu-1850, and the stable accessions were TVSu-1589, TVSu-1905, and TVSu-2048. In terms of discriminating and representativeness for the environments, Ibadan 2019 is deemed to be a superior environment. The selected accessions are recommended as parental lines in breeding programs for grain yield improvement in Ibadan or Ikenne or similar agro-ecological zones.

1. Introduction

Bambara groundnut (BGN) belongs to the family Fabaceae and is commonly grown in sub-Saharan Africa and some parts of Asia [1]. The pod, seed qualities, plant vigor, plant spread, leaf shape, nutritional, and antinutrient components all have a wide range of diversity. Farmers, particularly those in rural communities, benefit from it as a source of revenue. It can be utilized as a human food source and as a livestock feed additive. Reports have emerged that it can be used in the treatment of diseases such as diarrhea [2]. The seeds are rich in protein, carbohydrates, fat, mineral content, and fiber [3,4]. BGN is believed to be the most resilient to drought among grain legumes [5,6]. Wild varieties predominate due to limited research into domesticating new varieties. The major producing/exporting countries are Niger, Ghana, Chad, Nigeria, Mali, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, and Togo. Some parts of southern Africa also grow the crop; however, Purseglove [7] reported that the most extensive production of the crop in southern Africa is in Zambia.
BGN seeds are not sold on world markets as they are not widely accepted as a major crop yet, but these seeds are an important part of the diet in several countries in West Africa, where they are highly valued. Their consumption in this region is 3rd to only cowpea and peanut according to the national production and consumption statistics [8]. In Ghana specifically, the seeds are canned, which makes them available throughout the year. Over 40,000 cans of different sizes are available. The seeds can be consumed when they are still immature or when fully matured, although matured seeds are hard and not easy to cook; they can, however, be ground into powder before further processing for consumption [9]. To soften them more quickly, they can also be boiled until soft after soaking for a while.
The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, in Nigeria, retains over 1900 accessions obtained from various countries in their Genetic Resources Center [10]. BGN seeds are nutrient-dense and economically important. Demand for the seeds is high, and supply is limited in their area of cultivation [11]. Despite these benefits, BGN’s agro-ecological and genetic potential remains untapped. Instead of agro-ecological or production-specific varieties, it is still grown from local landraces.
Despite intensive national breeding efforts for BGN, there are few studies on yield stability in this agricultural zone, which limits the sustainability of sufficient grain production. Even though BGN yield varies greatly among landraces, no landrace can be considered a true variety [12]. The situation can be improved by breeding crops that produce high yields in a wide range of agro-climatic conditions. However, the potential large interaction with a complex set of bio-physical environments prevailing in a region complicates direct selection for yield in the field [13]. To effectively identify the yield potential of consistently performing BGN accession, yield and stability must be considered simultaneously in a variety of accessions.
Its yield stability and adaptability determine any crop variety’s ability to thrive in a given environment. Due to differences in the various environments, these traits are influenced by genotype × environment interactions (GEI). Plant breeders are increasingly interested in GEI to identify long-term solutions to issues controlling plant growth and development. Because of the increasing interest, several statistical methods have been developed for multi-environment trials (MET) to study GEI effects [14,15]. The two most common methods used for MET are additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI), and genotype plus genotype environment interaction (GGE) biplot [16]. Both methods are used for straightforward graphical representation of a complex genotype by two-way environment tables using principal component analysis [17]. The difference between the two methods is based on how the means are treated before the singular value decomposition (SVD) is performed. With AMMI, SVD is applied to the data excluding genotype and environment means, while GGE biplot excludes from the data the environment means only [18]. According to Alizadeh et al. [16], both methods are highly correlated, and therefore can be used interchangeably.
The biplot and the GGE concepts are used in the GGE biplot method to visually analyze the results of site regression analysis in MET data [19]. The concept of GGE biplot involves the use of biplot to show the two important factors, which are also sources of variation (viz., G and GE). GGE biplot fits best for genotype evaluation (mean vs. stability), test environments which provide discriminating power vs. representativeness, and multi-environment analysis (such as “which-won-where” pattern) [20,21]. GGE biplot is a versatile method with the ability to analyze a range of data types using a two-way structure [22]. Since the introduction of the GGE biplot, numerous applications of the method on MET analysis have been reported. Alake et al. [23] determined the yield stability of 24 BGN landraces using GGE biplot analysis. Elsewhere, GGE biplot analysis of yield stability for Andean dry bean accessions grown under different abiotic stress regimes in Tanzania was reported by Mndolwa et al. [24]. Soybean performance and stability in MET using GGE biplot analysis was also reported by Dalló et al. [25]. Other applications of GGE biplot have been reported on various crops such as maize [26], sugarcane [27], sunflower [28], rice [17], and wheat [29].
The goals of this study were to examine and quantify the magnitude of GEI effects on BGN yield, as well as to determine the adaptability and stability of the 95 BGN accessions in the studied test environments in Southwest Nigeria.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site Descriptions

The study was conducted in two different agroecological zones: Ibadan (7°40′19.62″ N, 3°91′73.13″ E), which is a derived savannah, and Ikenne (6°51′00.873″ N, 3°41′48.528″ E), which is a rain forest. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) field stations in Ibadan and Ikenne were used. The study was carried out in the 2018 and 2019 planting seasons. The average climate data for the study sites are shown in Table 1.

2.2. Soil Sampling and Analysis

Topsoil samples were obtained from 0–15 cm over the entire plot using a soil auger and put together to obtain a composite sample before establishing the experiment after the harvest. The soil sample was dried under shade, and passed through a 2 mm sieve for subsequent chemical analyses (sand, clay, silt, pH, organic carbon (OC), total N, exchangeable Ca, Mg, K, available P, Na, Mn, Cu, Fe, and Zn) and particle size distribution at the onset of the experiment.

2.3. Plant Materials, Field Trials, and Yield Data Collection

A set of 95 accessions out of the BGN germplasm that was housed at the Genetic Resources Centre, IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria, was used in this study (Table 2).
The accessions were evaluated using randomized complete block design. Sixty seeds of each accession were planted during the 2018 and 2019 planting seasons. The accessions were planted in three replicates, with each replicate having 20 plants per accession on a plot, which were later thinned to 10 plants at 2 weeks after emergence. The length of each plot was 3 m, with 0.3 m spacing between each plant and a row spacing of 0.7 m between each plot. Each replicate contained 3 blocks, which were separated by 1 m spacing, and the replicates were separated from one another by 2 m spacing. The first planting in 2018 was on 1 and 12 September, while that of the 2019 season was on 26 August and 16 September, in Ikenne and Ibadan, respectively. Plants were rain fed until the stop of rain, then irrigation was applied once a week until harvest. The 2018 planting was harvested on 2 and 18 January 2019, while the 2019 harvesting was done on 11 and 15 January 2020, for Ikenne and Ibadan, respectively. Seeds were weighed to obtain the total seed weight per plot, which was then converted to kg/ha using the following formula:
Yield ( kg / ha ) = plot   yield ∗ 10 , 000 plot   area

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The analysis of yield data was carried out using the R statistical package [30]. The yield data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) after the data had been normalized by log-transforming. Each year at each location was considered as a separate environment.
In this study, Eberhart and Russell’s joint regression model was used for the stability analysis. Eberhart and Russell’s [14] model uses joint linear regression where the yield of each genotype is regressed on the environmental index. The behavior of the genotype was determined by the following model: Yij = μi + βiIj + δij.
In the above model, Yij = the mean performance of the ith genotype in the jth environment, μi = the grand mean of the ith genotype over all the environments, βi = the regression coefficient which measures the response of the ith genotype on the environmental index, Ij = the environmental index obtained by the difference between the mean of each environment and the grand mean, and δij = the deviation from the regression of the ith variety in the jth environment.
If there was a significant difference in genotype–environment interaction, the GGE biplot method was employed to analyze and assess the interaction and yield stability. The GGE biplot was constructed using the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) derived using environment-centered yield data [31]. GEA-R version 4.1 [32] was used to analyze GGE biplot and stability analysis. SVD of the first two principal components was used to fit the GGE biplot model [33]:
Y i j = μ + β j + λ 1 ξ i 1 η j 1 + λ 2 ξ i 2 η j 2 + ε i j
where Yij is the trait mean for genotype i in environment j; μ is the grand mean; βj is the main effect of environment j; μ + βj is the mean yield across all genotypes in environment j; λ1 and λ2 are the singular values (SV) for the first and second principal components (PC1 and PC2), respectively; ξi1 and ξi2 are eigenvectors of genotype i for PC1 and PC2, respectively; η1j and η2j are eigenvectors of environment j for PC1 and PC2; and εij is the residual associated with genotype i in environment j. In GGE biplot analysis, scores of PC1 were plotted against PC2 [20].
Accordingly, GGE biplot analysis was also used to generate graphs for the (i) mean performance and stability analysis, (ii) which-won-where pattern, (iii) relationship among test locations, and (iv) ranking discrimination and representativeness of test locations. Angles between location vectors in GGE biplot were used to judge the correlation between pairs of locations [19].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Soil Analysis

Soil physicochemical properties for the two locations in both seasons are presented in Table 3. Higher amounts of sand, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, manganese, iron, copper, and zinc were recorded in Ikenne compared to Ibadan for the 2018 planting season, while in the 2019 planting season, Ibadan had the highest pH, sand, nitrogen, organic carbon, manganese, iron, and zinc when compared with Ikenne (Table 3). Different soil properties were recorded at both locations for both years.
Crop yield has been shown to be influenced by soil and climatic conditions. Crops respond differently to various soil types [34]. BGN produces well in sandy soils. Even though sandy soil inhibits crop emergence, BGN benefits from it because it bears fruit underground. Sandy soil has a porous structure with large pores, allowing pods to grow. When sandy soils dry out, they produce thin, loose fissures [35]. This is an advantageous trait, especially in the semi-arid tropics, where rainfall is unpredictable and soil is subjected to prolonged periods of dryness. Although clay soil has a high water-retention capacity, it expands when wet and contracts when dry over long periods of time [36].

3.2. Pooled Analysis of Variance

To check for a significant GEI, analysis of variance was performed (Table 4). Finding the most suitable genotypes for yield improvements is quite difficult due to the GEI’s large impact on yield. To produce successful breeding strategies for complex and highly quantitative traits like grain yield in BGN, breeders must quantify GEI. An identifiable and distinct selection pressure was brought to bear in each environment due to varying environmental factors, such as topography and climate. If an adaptation based on environment is ignored, then an overall mean that disregards it would be misleading. Therefore, in order to produce quality results, the method of selection should consider both genotype and environmental factors. According to Bhartiya et al. [37], the number of years of an experiment should be prioritized over the number of locations, and genotype–environment interactions should be considered for the selection of superior genotypes [38,39]. The accessions and environments on their own displayed significant level of variability in their yield responses at p < 0.001 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively, while the GEI effect was significant at p < 0.001. This indicates that the accessions do not show consistent performance across the studied environments. The present findings agree with those of Chibarabada et al. [40], who found significant interaction between site and species for BGN grain yield.

3.3. Stability Analysis

Following the Eberhart and Russell [14] method, the stability of the accessions across the environments was analyzed (Table 5 and Figure 1). Becker and Léon [41] reported that genotypes having bi = 0 are not affected by environmental factors; thus, they are said to be stable, while those showing average responses possess bi = 1. On the other hand, Eberhart and Russell [14] proposed that genotypes are stable if they show high mean performances, their regression coefficient equals 1, and their deviation from regression is as low as possible.
Coefficient of variation (CV) analysis showed 22 out of the 95 accessions as highly productive and stable (Figure 1A). TVSU-1763, TVSU-1850, TVSU-1898, TVSU-1899, TVSU-1957, TVSU-2019, and TVSu-2021 were the best-adapting accessions, while TVSU-1589, TVSU-1905, and TVSU-2048 were the most stable accessions, according to Eberhart and Russell’s model (Figure 1B). In this study, none of the accessions were recorded to be adaptable and stable in the environments tested.

3.4. GGE Biplot Analysis

GGE biplot allows environment evaluation based on the discriminating ability and representativeness of the GGE view [42]. This ability gives it an edge over the AMMI biplot analysis [43]. The GGE biplot analysis was used to identify the best accessions for each environment and assess their stabilities. The relationship among the test environments was modelled based on environment-centered (centering, 2) and environment-metric-preserving (SVP, 2) without scaling option in the GEA-R software. The biplot explained 80% of the total variation observed, of which 48.59% was explained by the first principal component (axis1), while the second principal component (axis2) explained 31.41%. Any test environment’s capability can be visualized by examining the environment’s discriminating power and representativeness [44]. The length of the environment vectors is proportional to the standard deviation within each biplot’s environment and indicates the environment’s ability to discriminate [45]. From the biplot analysis (Figure 2A) and representation of the accessions in the various environments (Figure 2B), none of the environments are close to the mean environment (Figure 2B). Accession performance in each environment is shown in Figure 3. For the four environments, most of the accessions are clustered close to the average yield, especially in both IB2018 and IB2019 environments. IK2018 and IK2019 are also clustered to the average yield but have a clearer distinction than the other two environments.
The use of the polygon view of the “which-won-where” biplot is a key component of the GGE, which helps to visualize the interaction patterns between genotypes and environments, to show the presence of crossover GEI, mega-environment differentiation, and specific adaptation [45]. Accessions TVSu-1866, TVSu-2022, TVSu-2017, TVSu-1943, TVSu-1892, TVSu-2060, and TVSu-1557 were all situated at the corners of the polygon (Figure 4), indicating that these accessions were outstanding in terms of their yield in those environments. Accessions/genotypes at the corners of the polygons in a “which-won-where” polygon are the outstanding accessions/genotype in that environment [45]. Among these accessions, TVSu-1943 was the highest-yielding accession in all test environments. Some accessions such as TVSu-1706, TVSu-2018, TVSu-1785, TVSu-1895, and TVSu-1951 were located close to the center of the GGE biplot. This indicates that they showed a stable performance across the test sites [45]. The result in Figure 4 indicates three mega-environments: IB2019, IB2018, and IK2018 and IK2019 together forming the third environment.
Figure 5 shows the comparison plot for environments and accessions. Ideal environments and accessions are those which are near or at the center of the concentric circle. Therefore, in this study, the plot in Figure 5A reflected that IB2019 is the closest to being an ideal environment, while TVSu-2020 and TVSu-1649 are the ideal accessions, as shown by their positions (Figure 5B), followed by accessions TVSu-2021, TVSu-1664, TVSu-1866, and TVSu-2025. Accessions close to the ideal accessions are also said to be good. However, accessions TVSu-1557, TVSu-2060, TVSu-2056, and TVSu-2042 are the worst accessions, as they are located far from the concentric circle. In the relationship among the environments, all the environments are positively correlated to one another, but IK2018 and IK2019 are more highly correlated with one another than all the other environments (Figure 5C).
High nutrient uptake, ability to compete favorably with weeds, and yield improvement are some of the prerequisites for developing high-yield crops. The significant differences and the high coefficient of variation observed (39%) (Table 3) indicate the existence of variability in the selected population that can be exploited for an improved breeding program. Variability in traits aid in the trait-assisted selection of best lines for improvement [46,47]. This result is supported by the studies of Olukolu et al. [48] and Gbaguidi et al. [49]. Various studies have shown the GEI effect on several crops such as cassava [50], rice [51,52], sweet potato [53], and sorghum [54]. Yan and Kang [19] stated that the number of genotypes and environments determines the extent of environmental variation. However, according to Aremu et al. [55], the environment is always the dominant source of variation, and it must be prioritized in plant breeding.
Stability and adaptability are important factors in determining the production efficiency of plant varieties. An accession can be good if it has high grain production and potential for improving its production even in varying environments [56]. Thus, adaptability and stability evaluation are important in improving crop production. GGE biplot is effective in analyzing stability and adaptability in MET [57].
Selection of test environments should consider the discriminating ability due to genotype differences and representative ability to represent target environments [37,58]. In the present study, IB2019 has a longer vector and the smallest angle with an ideal environment, so it is identified in this study as a perfect test environment in terms of being more discriminating and most representative of the overall test environments.

4. Conclusions

First, the number of environments and agro-ecological zones can be increased to allow for greater diversity in test locations. This will aid in drawing more accurate conclusions from the outputs. Second, because there have been few or no reports of MET in BGN yield using GGE biplot, many accessions can be used for research. Finally, this study identified genotypes that are uniquely adapted to each environment by observing how different genotypes performed in each of these locations. This knowledge will enable breeders to advise farmers appropriately on which accession to use where, provided that the various accessions meet the end-user quality preferences. Thus, stability analyses aided in the discovery of unique genotypes for all environments studied, as well as a stable genotype that can be cultivated in all the environments studied and in areas with similar characteristics to the test environments. This can be used as a preliminary study for future breeding programs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.S.O., O.O., O.O.B. and M.A.; data curation, O.S.O., O.O. and M.A.; formal analysis, O.S.O.; funding acquisition, O.O. and M.A.; investigation, O.S.O. and O.O.; methodology, O.S.O.; project administration, O.O., O.O.B. and M.A.; resources, O.O.B. and M.A.; supervision, O.O., O.O.B. and M.A.; validation, O.S.O.; visualization, O.S.O.; writing—original draft, O.S.O.; writing—review and editing, O.S.O., O.O., O.O.B. and M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The work of GRC was funded by the Global Crop Diversity Trust and CGIAR.

Data Availability Statement

This manuscript has no associated data.

Acknowledgments

North-West University and IITA are gratefully acknowledged for giving a school bursary and research fellowship, respectively, to the first author. The assistance rendered by the staff of the Genetic Resources Center, IITA, is greatly appreciated. The authors would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the staff of the soil microbiology laboratory, IITA, for analysis of soil samples.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mayes, S.; Ho, W.K.; Chai, H.H.; Gao, X.; Kundy, A.C.; Mateva, K.I.; Zahrulakmal, M.; Hahiree, M.K.I.M.; Kendabie, P.; Licea, L.C.S.; et al. Bambara groundnut: An exemplar underutilised legume for resilience under climate change. Planta 2019, 250, 803–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Obidiebube, E.; Eruotor, P.; Akparobi, S.; Okolie, H.; Obasi, C. Assessment of Bambara Groundnut (Vigna Subterranea (L) Verdc) varieties for adaptation to rainforest agro-ecological zone of Anambra state of Nigeria. Crops 2020, 5, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  3. Atoyebi, O.J.; Osilesi, O.; Adebawo, O.; Abberton, M. Evaluation of nutrient parameters of selected African accessions of Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.). Am. J. Food Nutr. 2017, 5, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Halimi, R.A.; Barkla, B.J.; Mayes, S.; King, G.J. The potential of the underutilized pulse Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) for nutritional food security. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2019, 77, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jørgensen, S.T.; Liu, F.; Ouédraogo, M.; Ntundu, W.H.; Sarrazin, J.; Christiansen, J.L. Drought responses of two Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc.) landraces collected from a dry and a humid area of Africa. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2010, 196, 412–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ntundu, W. Tanzania Country Report Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.). In Proceedings of Promoting the Conservation and Use of Underutilized and Neglected Crop of Proc., of the Workshop on Conservation and Improvement of Bambara Groundnut, Harare, Zimbabwe, 14–16 November 1995; Heller, J., Begamann, F., Mushonga, J., Eds.; International Plant Genetic Resources Institute: Rome, Italy, 1995; pp. 14–16. [Google Scholar]
  7. Purseglove, J.W. Tropical Crops (Dicotyledons); House Burnt Mill: Harlow, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cook, D. Small Scale Farmers Utilization and Perceptions of Bambara Groundnut Production in South Africa: A Case Study in a Semi-Arid Region of Limpopo. Master’s Dissertation, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  9. Alobo, A.P.; Arueya, G.L. Effect of Grewia venusta (‘Ururu’) mucilage on the physicochemical and sensory properties of fried cake (‘akara’) prepared from Bambara groundnut seed flour. Afr. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 6, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
  10. Paliwal, R.; Abberton, M.; Faloye, B.; Olaniyi, O. Developing the role of legumes in West Africa under climate change. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2020, 56, 242–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Coudert, M.J. Market openings in West Africa for cowpeas and bambara groundnuts. In International Trade Forum; International Trade Centre (ITC): Geneva, Switzerland, 1984; pp. 147–241. [Google Scholar]
  12. Massawe, F.; Mwale, S.; Azam-Ali, S.; Roberts, J. Breeding in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.): Strategic considerations. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2005, 4, 463–471. [Google Scholar]
  13. Masindeni, D.R. Evaluation of Bambara Groundnut (Vigna subterranea) for Yield Stability and Yield Related Characteristics. Master’s Dissertation, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  14. Eberhart, S.T.; Russell, W. Stability parameters for comparing varieties 1. Crop Sci. 1966, 6, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Crossa, J. Statistical Analyses of Multilocation Trials. In Advances in Agronomy; Brady, N.C., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990; Volume 44, pp. 55–85. [Google Scholar]
  16. Alizadeh, K.; Mohammadi, R.; Shariati, A.; Eskandari, M. Comparative analysis of statistical models for evaluating genotype × environment interaction in rainfed Safflower. Agric. Res. 2017, 6, 455–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Oladosu, Y.; Rafii, M.Y.; Abdullah, N.; Magaji, U.; Miah, G.; Hussin, G.; Ramli, A. Genotype × Environment interaction and stability analyses of yield and yield components of established and mutant rice genotypes tested in multiple locations in Malaysia. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2017, 67, 590–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Frutos, E.; Galindo, M.P.; Leiva, V. An interactive biplot implementation in R for modeling genotype-by-environment interaction. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2014, 28, 1629–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yan, W.; Kang, M.S. GGE Biplot Analysis: A Graphical Tool for Breeders, Geneticists and Agronomists; CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003; pp. 1–263. [Google Scholar]
  20. Yan, W.; Kang, M.S.; Ma, B.; Woods, S.; Cornelius, P.L. GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype-by-environment data. Crop Sci. 2007, 47, 643–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Angelini, J.; Faviere, G.S.; Bortolotto, E.B.; Arroyo, L.; Valentini, G.H.; Domingo Lucio Cervigni, G. Biplot pattern interaction analysis and statistical test for crossover and non-crossover genotype-by-environment interaction in peach. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 252, 298–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fayeun, L.S.; Alake, G.C.; Akinlolu, A.O. GGE biplot analysis of fluted Pumpkin (Telfairia occidentalis) landraces evaluated for marketable leaf yield in Southwest Nigeria. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2018, 17, 416–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Alake, C.O.; Ayo-Vaughan, M.A.; Ariyo, J.O. Selection criteria for grain yield and stability in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranean (L) Verdc) landraces. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2015, 65, 433–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mndolwa, E.; Msolla, S.; Porch, T.; Miklas, P. GGE biplot analysis of yield stability for Andean dry bean accessions grown under different abiotic stress regimes in Tanzania. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 2019, 27, 413–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Dalló, S.C.; Zdziarski, A.D.; Woyann, L.G.; Milioli, A.S.; Zanella, R.; Conte, J.; Benin, G. Across year and year-by-year GGE biplot analysis to evaluate Soybean performance and stability in multi-environment trials. Euphytica 2019, 215, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Badu-Apraku, B.; Akinwale, R. Biplot analysis of line × tester data of maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines under stress and nonstress environments. Cereal Res. Commun. 2019, 47, 518–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tena, E.; Goshu, F.; Mohamad, H.; Tesfa, M.; Tesfaye, D.; Seife, A. Genotype × environment interaction by AMMI and GGE-biplot analysis for sugar yield in three crop cycles of sugarcane (Saccharum officinirum L.) clones in Ethiopia. Cogent Food Agric. 2019, 5, 1651925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ahmed, M.; Ahmad, S.; Qadir, G.; Hayat, R.; Shaheen, F.A.; Raza, M.A. Innovative processes and technologies for nutrient recovery from wastes: A comprehensive review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Buenrostro-Rodríguez, J.F.; Solís-Moya, E.; Gámez-Vázquez, A.J.; Raya-Pérez, J.C.; Mandujano-Bueno, A.; Cervantes-Ortiz, F.; Covarrubias-Prieto, J. Yield performance and GGE biplot analysis of Wheat genotypes under two irrigation treatments at El Bajío, Mexico. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2019, 79, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. R Core Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  31. Camacho, C.; Coulouris, G.; Avagyan, V.; Ma, N.; Papadopoulos, J.; Bealer, K.; Madden, T.L. BLAST+: Architecture and applications. BMC Bioinform. 2009, 10, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Pacheco, A.; Vargas, M.; Alvarado, G.; Rodríguez, F.; Crossa, J.; Burgueño, J. GEA-R (Genotype × Environment Analysis with R for Windows) Version 4.0. CIMMYT Research Software, Mexico, 2015. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/11529/10203 (accessed on 19 July 2021).
  33. Yan, W. Singular-value partitioning in biplot analysis of multienvironment trial data. Agron. J. 2002, 94, 990–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Tolk, J.A.; Howell, T.A.; Evett, S.R. Effect of mulch, irrigation, and soil type on water use and yield of maize. Soil Tillage Res. 1999, 50, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tester, C.F. Organic amendment effects on physical and chemical properties of a sandy soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1990, 54, 827–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Brady, N.C.; Weil, R.R. Elements of the Nature and Properties of Soils; Prentice-Hall. Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  37. Bhartiya, A.; Aditya, J.P.; Singh, K.; Pushpendra, P.; Purwar, J.P.; Agarwal, A. AMMI and GGE biplot analysis of multi environment yield trial of Soybean in North Western Himalayan state Uttarakhand of India. Legume Res. Int. J. 2016, 40, 306–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Okori, P.; Charlie, H.; Mwololo, J.; Munthali, T.; Kachulu, L.; Monyo, E.; Muitia, A.; Mponda, O.; Okello, D.; Makweti, L. Genotype-by-environment interactions for grain yield of Valencia groundnut genotypes in East and Southern Africa. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2019, 2030–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sserumaga, J.P.; Oikeh, S.O.; Mugo, S.; Asea, G.; Otim, M.; Beyene, Y.; Abalo, G.; Kikafunda, J. Genotype by environment interactions and agronomic performance of doubled haploids testcross maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids. Euphytica 2016, 207, 353–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Chibarabada, T.P.; Modi, A.T.; Mabhaudhi, T. Adaptation and Productivity of Selected Grain Legumes in Contrasting Environments of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2018, 12, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Becker, H.C.; Léon, J. Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant Breed. 1988, 101, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sharma, S.P.; Leskovar, D.I.; Crosby, K.M.; Ibrahim, A. GGE biplot analysis of genotype-by-environment interactions for melon fruit yield and quality traits. Hortic. Sci. 2020, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Aktaş, H. Tracing highly adapted stable yielding bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes for greatly variable South-Eastern Turkey. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2016, 14, 159–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dehghani, H.; Ebadi, A.; Yousefi, A. Biplot analysis of genotype by environment interaction for barley yield in Iran. Agron. J. 2006, 98, 388–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yan, W.; Tinker, N.A. Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data: Principles and applications. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2006, 86, 623–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Moradi, Y.; Khadivi, A.; Salehi-Arjmand, H. Morphological and pomological characterizations of cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.) to select the superior accessions. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 249, 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dewi, N.; Nugroho, K.; Terryana, R.T.; Lestari, P. Evaluation of SSR and important agronomical characters of promising mutant lines of Soybean. Biodiversitas J. Biol. Divers. 2020, 21, 299–310. [Google Scholar]
  48. Olukolu, B.A.; Mayes, S.; Stadler, F.; Ng, N.Q.; Fawole, I.; Dominique, D.; Azam-Ali, S.N.; Abbott, A.G.; Kole, C. Genetic diversity in Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) as revealed by phenotypic descriptors and DArT marker analysis. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2012, 59, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gbaguidi, A.A.; Dansi, A.; Dossou-Aminon, I.; Gbemavo, D.; Orobiyi, A.; Sanoussi, F.; Yedomonhan, H. Agromorphological diversity of local Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) collected in Benin. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2018, 65, 1159–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tumuhimbise, R.; Melis, R.; Shanahan, P.; Kawuki, R. Genotype × environment interaction effects on early fresh storage root yield and related traits in cassava. Crop J. 2014, 2, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Rahman, A.; Shah, S.M.A. Genotype × Environment interaction for yield and associated traits in rice. Sarhad J. Agric. 2019, 35, 532–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Calayugan, M.I.C.; Formantes, A.K.; Amparado, A.; Descalsota-Empleo, G.I.; Nha, C.T.; Inabangan-Asilo, M.A.; Swe, Z.M.; Hernandez, J.E.; Borromeo, T.H.; Lalusin, A.G. Genetic analysis of agronomic traits and grain iron and zinc concentrations in a doubled haploid population of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Ngailo, S.; Shimelis, H.; Sibiya, J.; Mtunda, K.; Mashilo, J. Genotype-by-environment interaction of newly-developed sweet potato genotypes for storage root yield, yield-related traits and resistance to sweet potato virus disease. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Wang, X.; Hunt, C.; Cruickshank, A.; Mace, E.; Hammer, G.; Jordan, D. The impacts of flowering time and tillering on grain yield of sorghum hybrids across diverse environments. Agronomy 2020, 10, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Aremu, C.O.; Ojuederie, O.B.; Ayo-Vaughan, F.; Dahunsi, O.; Adekiya, A.O.; Olayanju, A.; Adebiyi, O.T.; Sunday, I.; Inegbedion, H.; Asaleye, A.J.; et al. Morphometric analysis and characterization of the nutritional quality in African yam bean accessions. Plant Physiol. Rep. 2019, 24, 446–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhang, P.; Song, H.; Ke, X.; Jin, X.; Yin, L.; Liu, Y.; Qu, Y.; Su, W.; Feng, N.; Zheng, D.; et al. GGE biplot analysis of yield stability and test location representativeness in proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) genotypes. J. Integr. Agric. 2016, 15, 1218–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Ullah, H.; Khalil, I.H.; Durrishahwar; Iltafullah; Khalil, I.A.; Fayaz, M.; Yan, J.; Ali, F. Selecting high yielding and stable mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] genotypes using GGE biplot techniques. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2012, 92, 951–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Aruna, C.; Rakshit, S.; Shrotria, P.K.; Pahuja, S.K.; Jain, S.K.; Siva Kumar, S.; Modi, N.D.; Deshmukh, D.T.; Kapoor, R.; Patil, J.V. Assessing genotype-by-environment interactions and trait associations in forage Sorghum using GGE biplot analysis. J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 154, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 11 01839 g001 550
Figure 1. Stability analysis of the accessions with the environments. (A) Francis (CV) vs. (B) mean biplot for grain yield. Eberhart and Russell (bi, S2di) biplot for grain yield.
Figure 1. Stability analysis of the accessions with the environments. (A) Francis (CV) vs. (B) mean biplot for grain yield. Eberhart and Russell (bi, S2di) biplot for grain yield.
Agronomy 11 01839 g001
Agronomy 11 01839 g002 550
Figure 2. (A) Biplot analysis result. (B) Discriminativeness and representativeness of the accessions with the environments.
Figure 2. (A) Biplot analysis result. (B) Discriminativeness and representativeness of the accessions with the environments.
Agronomy 11 01839 g002
Agronomy 11 01839 g003 550
Figure 3. Evaluation of the performances of accessions in the tested environments: (A) Ibadan 2018, (B) Ibadan 2019, (C) Ikenne 2018, and (D) Ikenne 2019.
Figure 3. Evaluation of the performances of accessions in the tested environments: (A) Ibadan 2018, (B) Ibadan 2019, (C) Ikenne 2018, and (D) Ikenne 2019.
Agronomy 11 01839 g003
Agronomy 11 01839 g004 550
Figure 4. Which-won-where analysis of the accessions. Identifying the best accessions suitable for each test environment.
Figure 4. Which-won-where analysis of the accessions. Identifying the best accessions suitable for each test environment.
Agronomy 11 01839 g004
Agronomy 11 01839 g005 550
Figure 5. Ranking environments and genotypes based on both mean and stability relative to an ideal genotype. (A) Ranking environments with respect to an ideal environment. (B) Ranking genotypes with respect to an ideal genotype. (C) Relationship among tested environments.
Figure 5. Ranking environments and genotypes based on both mean and stability relative to an ideal genotype. (A) Ranking environments with respect to an ideal environment. (B) Ranking genotypes with respect to an ideal genotype. (C) Relationship among tested environments.
Agronomy 11 01839 g005
Table
Table 1. Monthly mean meteorological data of the experimental sites during BGN growing season (average of 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 crop season).
Table 1. Monthly mean meteorological data of the experimental sites during BGN growing season (average of 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 crop season).
AugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuary
Ibadan2018/2019Average temperature (°C)252525303029
Average precipitation (mm)94.899.253.53.3037.6
Average relative humidity (%)858786695362
2019/2020Average temperature (°C)262626282929
Average precipitation (mm)266.7319.866169.81.30.9
Average relative humidity (%)828385776246
Ikenne2018/2019Average temperature (°C)262627282929
Average precipitation (mm)113.2163.969.313.30.645.1
Average relative humidity (%)879087867982
2019/2020Average temperature (°C)262626282828
Average precipitation (mm)390.3300.9565.8145.412.71
Average relative humidity (%)858889858371
Table
Table 2. Bambara groundnut accessions and their origin.
Table 2. Bambara groundnut accessions and their origin.
AccessionsPassport Data AccessionsPassport Data AccessionsPassport Data
1TVSu-1470Ghana33TVSu-1866Zimbabwe65TVSu-2017Burundi
2TVSu-1538unknown34TVSu-1868Zimbabwe66TVSu-2018Burundi
3TVSu-1547unknown35TVSu-1874Botswana67TVSu-2019Burundi
4TVSu-1557unknown36TVSu-1879Botswana68TVSu-2020unknown
5TVSu-1574unknown37TVSu-1892Botswana69TVSu-2021unknown
6TVSu-1589unknown38TVSu-1895Botswana70TVSu-2022unknown
7TVSu-1649Senegal39TVSu-1898Unknown71TVSu-2025unknown
8TVSu-1663Senegal40TVSu-1899Unknown72TVSu-2030unknown
9TVSu-1664Senegal41TVSu-1905Unknown73TVSu-2031unknown
10TVSu-1680Togo42TVSu-1912Cameroon74TVSu-2032unknown
11TVSu-1701Togo43TVSu-1915Cameroon75TVSu-2034unknown
12TVSu-1706Zambia44TVSu-1918Cameroon76TVSu-2038unknown
13TVSu-1724Zambia45TVSu-1920Senegal77TVSu-2042unknown
14TVSu-1733Zambia46TVSu-1921Malawi78TVSu-2043unknown
15TVSu-1739Zambia47TVSu-1923Zimbabwe79TVSu-2045unknown
16TVSu-1740Zambia48TVSu-1930Zimbabwe80TVSu-2046unknown
17TVSu-1742Zambia49TVSu-1937Zimbabwe81TVSu-2048unknown
18TVSu-1745Malawi50TVSu-1939Zimbabwe82TVSu-2051unknown
19TVSu-1758Malawi51TVSu-1941Zimbabwe83TVSu-2055unknown
20TVSu-1763Malawi52TVSu-1943Zimbabwe84TVSu-2056unknown
21TVSu-1764Malawi53TVSu-1945Zimbabwe85TVSu-2060unknown
22TVSu-1765Malawi54TVSu-1951Zimbabwe86TVSu-2065unknown
23TVSu-1785Malawi55TVSu-1952Zimbabwe87TVSu-2067unknown
24TVSu-1787Cameroon56TVSu-1956Zimbabwe88TVSu-2068unknown
25TVSu-1823Niger57TVSu-1957Zimbabwe89TVSu-2071unknown
26TVSu-1836Niger58TVSu-1959Swaziland90TVSu-2074unknown
27TVSu-1839Zimbabwe59TVSu-1962Swaziland91TVSu-2075unknown
28TVSu-1843Zimbabwe60TVSu-1964DRC92TVSu-2076unknown
29TVSu-1850Zimbabwe61TVSu-1972DRC93TVSu-2083unknown
30TVSu-1851Zimbabwe62TVSu-1979Burundi94TVSu-2085unknown
31TVSu-1859Zimbabwe63TVSu-2000Burundi95TVSu-2086unknown
32TVSu-1863Zimbabwe64TVSu-2003Burundi
Table
Table 3. Soil properties at the beginning of the experiment for individual locations and seasons.
Table 3. Soil properties at the beginning of the experiment for individual locations and seasons.
Properties20182019
IbadanIkenneIbadanIkenne
Sand%73.6780.3379.3375.00
Clay%19.6713.6714.0015.67
Silt%6.676.006.679.33
pH6.706.426.595.02
%N0.170.100.100.09
Bray P13.4522.4811.2718.89
%OC1.020.410.440.41
Ca (cmol/kg)1.133.531.193.53
Mg (cmol/kg)0.070.800.270.80
K (cmol/kg)0.140.560.220.56
Na (cmol/kg)0.060.080.050.08
Mn (ppm)150.39154.82135.30112.15
Fe (ppm)86.2285.8489.4685.58
Cu (ppm)0.551.170.201.17
Zn (ppm)1.051.962.721.96
Table
Table 4. Analysis of variance for yield data obtained from BGN trials conducted in Ibadan and Ikenne in 2018 and 2019 (environments constitute year–location combinations).
Table 4. Analysis of variance for yield data obtained from BGN trials conducted in Ibadan and Ikenne in 2018 and 2019 (environments constitute year–location combinations).
Source of VariationsDfSum Sq.Mean Sq.F ValuePr (>F)
ENV36.1462.048782.96750.09717.
REP(ENV)85.5230.690414.73621.10 × 10−5***
GEN9443.1820.459383.1513<2.2 × 10−16***
ENV: GEN28255.9030.198241.35990.0007***
Residuals752109.6220.14577
Coefficient of variation = 0.39. DF = Degree of freedom. Sum sq. = sum of squares. Mean sq. = mean square. . Significant at p ≤ 0.05. *** Significant at p < 0.001.
Table
Table 5. Mean and stability analysis for the accessions based on Eberhart and Russell method.
Table 5. Mean and stability analysis for the accessions based on Eberhart and Russell method.
AccessionsMeanSdCV (%)biS2diAccessionsMeanSdCV (%)biS2di
TVSu-14708.320.364.350.420.15TVSu-19378.260.273.271.750.03
TVSu-15388.120.232.821.440.01TVSu-19398.160.080.94−0.03−0.04
TVSu-15478.400.263.101.760.02TVSu-19418.050.202.532.08−0.03
TVSu-15578.610.343.93−1.910.08TVSu-19438.510.546.393.640.25
TVSu-15748.210.283.452.060.03TVSu-19458.130.141.74−1.39−0.04
TVSu-15898.290.212.542.46−0.05TVSu-19518.430.242.812.11−0.01
TVSu-16498.240.334.001.300.10TVSu-19528.170.506.123.990.15
TVSu-16638.330.141.651.35−0.04TVSu-19568.260.222.63−1.70−0.01
TVSu-16648.030.344.220.790.12TVSu-19578.150.283.432.600.00
TVSu-16808.190.303.651.740.05TVSu-19598.380.192.311.92−0.03
TVSu-17018.180.172.04−0.74−0.01TVSu-19628.160.242.981.120.03
TVSu-17068.160.111.400.54−0.03TVSu-19648.140.495.961.900.27
TVSu-17247.950.253.102.17−0.01TVSu-19727.970.212.670.870.01
TVSu-17338.350.182.16−0.560.00TVSu-19798.240.121.501.23−0.04
TVSu-17398.360.101.17−0.19−0.03TVSu-20008.200.273.240.920.05
TVSu-17408.160.212.521.99−0.03TVSu-20038.500.283.270.300.07
TVSu-17428.370.475.583.350.16TVSu-20178.560.394.59−1.400.16
TVSu-17458.450.293.460.640.08TVSu-20188.350.273.252.66−0.01
TVSu-17588.260.273.241.400.04TVSu-20198.620.303.452.98−0.01
TVSu-17638.440.394.634.130.00TVSu-20208.160.333.991.680.08
TVSu-17648.090.253.121.510.02TVSu-20218.080.283.442.350.01
TVSu-17658.290.182.171.76−0.03TVSu-20228.330.495.934.280.12
TVSu-17858.230.121.500.85−0.03TVSu-20257.860.425.333.210.10
TVSu-17878.030.354.361.390.11TVSu-20308.130.475.733.490.15
TVSu-18238.040.192.32−0.060.00TVSu-20318.260.182.22−0.230.00
TVSu-18368.150.141.731.40−0.04TVSu-20328.040.161.960.72−0.02
TVSu-18398.280.121.46−0.89−0.04TVSu-20348.180.242.97−0.990.03
TVSu-18438.440.293.39−1.980.03TVSu-20388.490.192.20−1.32−0.02
TVSu-18508.010.253.162.180.00TVSu-20428.310.242.92−1.520.02
TVSu-18517.630.293.801.460.05TVSu-20438.400.252.93−1.060.03
TVSu-18598.040.273.322.90−0.03TVSu-20458.390.121.370.57−0.03
TVSu-18638.030.334.092.760.03TVSu-20468.600.465.342.430.20
TVSu-18668.150.516.244.940.08TVSu-20488.140.050.60−0.16−0.05
TVSu-18687.880.202.540.590.01TVSu-20518.190.131.540.91−0.03
TVSu-18748.360.080.970.33−0.04TVSu-20558.370.212.471.330.00
TVSu-18797.990.202.450.300.01TVSu-20568.620.364.201.150.13
TVSu-18928.730.364.100.980.13TVSu-20608.580.303.50−0.790.08
TVSu-18957.930.070.830.25−0.04TVSu-20658.270.242.95−0.660.04
TVSu-18988.170.293.532.680.00TVSu-20678.270.131.610.64−0.03
TVSu-18998.020.354.313.79−0.02TVSu-20688.430.091.120.34−0.04
TVSu-19058.390.040.47−0.27−0.05TVSu-20718.460.182.110.67−0.01
TVSu-19128.360.050.65−0.13−0.04TVSu-20748.480.212.52−0.980.01
TVSu-19158.340.172.040.66−0.01TVSu-20758.420.273.150.180.06
TVSu-19188.240.202.43−1.25−0.01TVSu-20768.410.202.390.220.01
TVSu-19208.540.121.39−0.31−0.03TVSu-20838.260.121.500.21−0.03
TVSu-19218.500.252.910.430.04TVSu-20858.340.263.080.440.05
TVSu-19238.530.303.542.150.04TVSu-20868.190.172.07−0.62−0.01
TVSu-19308.340.141.680.36−0.02
Sd = Standard deviation, CV = coefficient of variation, bi = Regression coefficient, S2di = Standard deviation from linearity of regression.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Olanrewaju, O.S.; Oyatomi, O.; Babalola, O.O.; Abberton, M. GGE Biplot Analysis of Genotype × Environment Interaction and Yield Stability in Bambara Groundnut. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1839. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091839

AMA Style

Olanrewaju OS, Oyatomi O, Babalola OO, Abberton M. GGE Biplot Analysis of Genotype × Environment Interaction and Yield Stability in Bambara Groundnut. Agronomy. 2021; 11(9):1839. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091839

Chicago/Turabian Style

Olanrewaju, Oluwaseyi Samuel, Olaniyi Oyatomi, Olubukola Oluranti Babalola, and Michael Abberton. 2021. "GGE Biplot Analysis of Genotype × Environment Interaction and Yield Stability in Bambara Groundnut" Agronomy 11, no. 9: 1839. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091839

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop