Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Genotype × environment interaction for yield and reaction to leaf spot infections in groundnut in semiarid West Africa

Genotype × environment interaction and leaf spot resistance in groundnut

  • Published:
Euphytica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Capitalizing on the yield potential in available groundnut germplasm, and high stability of kernel yield are important requirements for groundnut producers in semiarid environments. Forty-seven groundnut genotypes were evaluated from 2003 to 2005 at 4 locations representative of the Guinea and Sudan savanna ecologies in Ghana. The objectives were to assess genotypic differences in reaction to early and late leaf spot infections under natural field conditions, assess the extent of genotype × environment (G × E) interaction for kernel yield, and determine the relationship between yield potential and yield stability. Genotypes differed significantly in their reaction to leaf spot infections indicated by the area under disease progress curve (AUDPC). Genotypic AUDPC was negatively correlated with maturity period (P < 0.01), with kernel yield (P < 0.05) at each of the 3 locations in the Guinea savanna ecology but not in the Sudan savanna ecology and with each of four stability parameters (P < 0.05). High or low yielding genotypes were grouped based on Dunnett’s test at P < 0.10. High yielding groups had significantly low AUDPC, high biomass, high partitioning of dry matter for kernel growth, and were later in maturity compared to low yielding genotypes. Significant G × E interaction effect for kernel yield was dominated mainly by the lack of correlation among environments variance (76–78%) relative to the heterogeneity of genotypic variance component (22–24%). Stability of yield assessed through the among-environment variance, Wricke’s ecovalence, and Finlay-Wilkinson regression coefficient revealed that genotypes in the higher yielding group were relatively unstable compared to the low yielding group. Indicated by the Kataoka’s index of yield reliability, however, relatively unstable genotypes in the high yielding group are expected to be more productive even under assumptions of high risk aversion (P = 0.75–0.95) compared to the more stable, low yielding genotypes. The findings indicate that deploying these recently developed germplasm in semiarid regions in West Africa provides a better match to farmers’ risk-averse strategies compared with the use of existing earlier maturing cultivars.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Annicchiarico P (2002) Genotype × environment interactions: challenges and opportunities for plant breeding and cultivar recommendations. FAO Plant Protection and Production Papers-174. 126 pp Available online: http://www.fao.org/documents/pub_dett.asp?pub_id=103142&lang=en Accessed November 11, 2006

  • Asafo-Adjei B, Singh BB, Atuahen-Amankwah G (2005) Registration of ‘Asontem’ cowpea. Crop Sci 45:2649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker RJ (1990) Crossover genotype-environmental interaction in spring wheat. In: Kang MS (ed) Genotype-by-environment interaction and plant breeding. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, pp 42–51

  • Basford KE, Cooper M (1998) Genotype × environment interactions and some considerations of their implications for wheat breeding in Australia. Aust J Agric Res 49:153–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker WA (1975) Manual of quantitative genetics. Washington State University Press, Pullman, USA, 170 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker HC, Léon J (1988) Stability analysis in plant breeding. Plant Breed 101:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum A (1989) Breeding methods for drought resistance. In: Jones FG, Flowers TJ, Jones MB (eds) Plants under stress. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 197–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Byth DE, Eissmann RL, Delacy IH (1976) Two-way pattern analyses of a large data set to evaluate genotypic adaptation. Heredity 37:215–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calderini DF, Slafer GA (1999) Has yield stability changed with genetic improvement of wheat yield? Euphytica 107:51–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceccarelli S (1989) Wide adaptation: how wide? Euphytica 40:197–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceccarelli S, Grando S (1991) Selection environment and environmental sensitivity in barley. Euphytica 57:157–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper M, Delacy IH, Basford KE (1996) Relationships among analytical methods used to study genotypic adaptation in multi-environment trials. In: Cooper M, Hammer GL (eds) Plant adaptation and crop improvement. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp 193–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Craufurd PQ, Prasad PV, Summerfield RJ (2002) Dry matter production and rate of change of harvest index at high temperature in groundnut. Crop Sci 42:146–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crossa J (1990) Statistical analyses of multilocation trials. Adv Agron 44:55–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson GE (1962) Implications of genetic-environmental interaction in animal breeding. Anim Prod 4:47–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan WG, McGraw RL, Boote KJ (1978) Physiological aspects of groundnut yield improvement. Crop Sci 18:1015–1020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebdon JS, Gauch Jr HG (2002) Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis of national turfgrass performance trials. I. Interpretation of genotype × environment interaction. Crop Sci 42:489–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberhart SA, Russell WA (1966) Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci 6:36–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekbohm G (1981) A test for the equality of variances in the paired case with incomplete data. Biom J 23:261–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flores F, Moreno MT, Cubero JJ (1998) A comparison of univariate and multivariate methods to analyze G × E interaction. Field Crops Res 56:271–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finlay KW, Wilkinson GN (1963) The analysis of adaptation in a plant-breeding programme. Aust J Agric Res 14:742–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frimpong A, Padi FK, Kombiok J, Salifu AB, Marfo KO (2006a) Registration of ‘Edorpo-Munikpa’ groundnut. Crop Sci 46:1396–1397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frimpong A, Padi FK, Kombiok J (2006b) Registration of foliar disease resistant and high yielding groundnut varieties, ICGV 92099 and ICGV 90084. Int Arachis Newslett 26:22–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauch HG, Zobel RW (1997) Identifying mega-environments and targeting genotypes. Crop Sci 37:311–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg DC, Williams JH, Ndunguru BJ (1992) Differences in yield determining processes of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) genotypes in varied drought environments. Ann Appl Biol 120:557–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta SS (1965) On some multiple decision (selection and making) rules. Technometrics 7:225–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook CC, Dong W (2005) Development and evaluation of a mini core collection for the U.S. groundnut germplasm collection. Crop Sci 45:1540–1544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland JB (2006) Estimating genotypic correlations and their standard errors using multivariate restricted maximum likelihood estimation with SAS Proc MIXED. Crop Sci 46:642–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson PA, McRae TA (1998) Gains from selection of broadly adapted and specifically adapted sugarcane families. Field Crops Res 59:151–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang MS (1998) Using genotype-by-environment interaction for crop cultivar development. Adv Agron 62:199–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kataoka S (1963) A stochastic programming model. Econometrika 31:181–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp SJ, Stroup WW, Ross WM (1985) Exact confidence intervals for heritability on a progeny mean basis. Crop Sci 25:192–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin CS, Binns MR, Lefkovitch LP (1986) Stability analysis: where do we stand? Crop Sci 26:894–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marfo KO, Padi FK (1999) Yield stability of some groundnut accessions in Northern Ghana. Ghn J Agric Sci 32:137–144

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloud DE, Duncan WE, McGraw RL, Sibale PK, Ingram KT, Dreyer J, Campbell IS (1980) Physiological basis for increased yield potential in groundnuts. In: Gibbons, RW (ed), Proceedings of international workshop on groundnuts. International crops research institute for the semi-arid tropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India, pp 125–131

  • McDonald D, Subrahmanyam P, Gibbons RW, Smith DH (1985) Early and late leaf spots of groundnuts. Information Bulletin No. 21. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India, 19 pp

  • Nigam SN, Dwivedi SL, Gibbons RW (1991) Groundnut breeding, constraints, achievements and future possibilities. Plant Breeding Abstr 61:1127–1136

    Google Scholar 

  • Padi FK (2004) Relationship between stress tolerance and grain yield stability in cowpea. J Agric Sci Camb 142:431–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padi FK, Frimpong A, Kombiok J, Salifu AB, Marfo KO (2006) Registration of ‘Nkatiesari’ groundnut. Crop Sci 46:1397–1398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pande S, Bandyopadhyay R, Blümmel J, Narayana Rao J, Thomas D, Nasi SS (2003) Disease management factors influencing yield and quality of sorghum and groundnut residues. Field Crops Res 84:89–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinebo W (2005) Trade off between yield increase and yield stability in three decades of barley breeding in a tropical highland environment. Field Crops Res 92:35–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh AK, Mehan VK, Nigam SN (1997) Sources of resistance to groundnut fungal and bacterial diseases: an update and appraisal. Information Bulletin No. 50. International crops research institute for the semi-arid tropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India, 44 pp

  • Steel RGD, Torrie JH (1960) Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Subrahmanyam P, McDonald D, Waliyar F, Reddy LJ, Nigam SN, Gibbons RW, Ramanatha Rao V, Singh AK, Pande S, Reddy PM, Subba Rao PV (1995) Screening methods and sources of resistance to rust and late leaf spot of groundnut. Information Bulletin No. 47. International crops research institute for the semi-arid tropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India, 24 pp

  • Tollenaar M, Lee EA (2002) Yield potential, yield stability and stress tolerance in maize. Field Crops Res 75:161–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wricke G (1962) Über eine Methode zur Erfassung der ökologischen Streubreite in Feldversuchen Z. Pflanzenzüchtg 47:92–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu R, Stettler RF (1997) Quantitative genetics of growth and development in Populus. II. The partitioning of genotype × environment interaction in stem growth. Heredity 78:124–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates S, Cochran WG (1938) The analyses of groups of experiments. J Agric Sci 28:556–580

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Food Crops Development Project (FCDP) under the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Ghana; and the Agricultural Services sub-Sector Investment Programme (AgSSIP) of the Government of Ghana.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CSIR, Savanna Agricultural Research Institute, P.O. Box 52, Tamale, Ghana

    Francis Kwame Padi

Authors
  1. Francis Kwame Padi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francis Kwame Padi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Padi, F.K. Genotype × environment interaction for yield and reaction to leaf spot infections in groundnut in semiarid West Africa. Euphytica 164, 143–161 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-008-9677-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-008-9677-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation