| Literature DB >> 36204050 |
Ashok K Parihar1, Sanjeev Gupta2, Kali K Hazra1, Amrit Lamichaney1, Debjyoti Sen Gupta1, Deepak Singh3, Raju Kumar3, Anil K Singh1, Rakesh Vaishnavi4, M Samuel Jaberson5, Sankar P Das6, Jai Dev7, Rajesh K Yadav8, B S Jamwal9, B R Choudhary10, O P Khedar11, Vijay Prakash12, Harsh K Dikshit13, R K Panwar14, Manoj Katiyar15, Pankaj Kumar16, C S Mahto17, H K Borah18, M N Singh19, Arpita Das20, A N Patil21, H C Nanda22, Vinod Kumar23, Sumer D Rajput24, D A Chauhan25, M H Patel26, Raja R Kanwar27, Jitendra Kumar28, S P Mishra29, Hitesh Kumar30, Indu Swarup31, Suma Mogali32, D Kumaresan33, Narayana Manivannan34, M Byre Gowda35, Muthaiyan Pandiyan36, Polneni J Rao37, D Shivani38, A M Prusti39, P Mahadevu40, K Iyanar33, Sujata Das39.
Abstract
Crop yield varies considerably within agroecology depending on the genetic potential of crop cultivars and various edaphic and climatic variables. Understanding site-specific changes in crop yield and genotype × environment interaction are crucial and needs exceptional consideration in strategic breeding programs. Further, genotypic response to diverse agro-ecologies offers identification of strategic locations for evaluating traits of interest to strengthen and accelerate the national variety release program. In this study, multi-location field trial data have been used to investigate the impact of environmental conditions on crop phenological dynamics and their influence on the yield of mungbean in different agroecological regions of the Indian subcontinent. The present attempt is also intended to identify the strategic location(s) favoring higher yield and distinctiveness within mungbean genotypes. In the field trial, a total of 34 different mungbean genotypes were grown in 39 locations covering the north hill zone (n = 4), northeastern plain zone (n = 6), northwestern plain zone (n = 7), central zone (n = 11) and south zone (n = 11). The results revealed that the effect of the environment was prominent on both the phenological dynamics and productivity of the mungbean. Noticeable variations (expressed as coefficient of variation) were observed for the parameters of days to 50% flowering (13%), days to maturity (12%), reproductive period (21%), grain yield (33%), and 1000-grain weight (14%) across the environments. The genotype, environment, and genotype × environment accounted for 3.0, 54.2, and 29.7% of the total variation in mungbean yield, respectively (p < 0.001), suggesting an oversized significance of site-specific responses of the genotypes. Results demonstrated that a lower ambient temperature extended both flowering time and the crop period. Linear mixed model results revealed that the changes in phenological events (days to 50 % flowering, days to maturity, and reproductive period) with response to contrasting environments had no direct influence on crop yields (p > 0.05) for all the genotypes except PM 14-11. Results revealed that the south zone environment initiated early flowering and an extended reproductive period, thus sustaining yield with good seed size. While in low rainfall areas viz., Sriganganagar, New Delhi, Durgapura, and Sagar, the yield was comparatively low irrespective of genotypes. Correlation results and PCA indicated that rainfall during the crop season and relative humidity significantly and positively influenced grain yield. Hence, the present study suggests that the yield potential of mungbean is independent of crop phenological dynamics; rather, climatic variables like rainfall and relative humidity have considerable influence on yield. Further, HA-GGE biplot analysis identified Sagar, New Delhi, Sriganganagar, Durgapura, Warangal, Srinagar, Kanpur, and Mohanpur as the ideal testing environments, which demonstrated high efficiency in the selection of new genotypes with wider adaptability.Entities:
Keywords: HA-GGE biplot; adaptability; crop phenology; genotype × environment (G × E) interaction; mega-environment analysis
Year: 2022 PMID: 36204050 PMCID: PMC9530336 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.984912
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 6.627
Figure 1Multi-location study sites located at major mungbean producing areas in different agroecological zones of India. The yellow, green, violet, blue, and red color location dot represents North Hill Zone (NHZ), North Eastern Plain Zone (NEPZ); North Western Plain Zone (NWPZ); Central Zone (CZ), and South Zone (SZ), respectively.
Figure 2Changes in crop phonological events (A–C), 100-seed weight (D), and grain yield (E) of mungbean across 39 locations. Please see Supplementary Table 1 for environment (E1–E39) detail.
Associations of crop phonology with grain yield according to linear mixed regression in different testing locations.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| AKM 12-24 | 41.8 | 21.7 | 24.0 | 39 | 205.8 | 5.44 | 11.26 | 0.27 | 0.308 | 0.630 | 0.531 | 0.153 |
| AKM 12-28 | 40.6 | 21.6 | 22.9 | 39 | 668.4 | −1.45 | 3.98 | 0.18 | 0.608 | 0.068 | 0.869 | 0.323 |
| BM 2012-9 | 47.0 | 21.3 | 27.2 | 39 | 429.9 | 4.35 | 0.18 | 0.08 | 0.910 | 0.370 | 0.667 | 0.978 |
| COGG 13-39 | 44.8 | 21.1 | 24.8 | 39 | 1047.4 | −9.24 | 0.98 | 0.20 | 0.537 | 0.023 | 0.277 | 0.901 |
| DGG 7 | 53.4 | 20.7 | 22.5 | 39 | 541.7 | −0.27 | 2.89 | 0.14 | 0.734 | 0.143 | 0.975 | 0.435 |
| IGKM 2016-1 | 46.3 | 21.1 | 22.9 | 39 | 1295.9 | −10.86 | −7.01 | 0.28 | 0.274 | 0.003 | 0.158 | 0.402 |
| IPM 410-9 | 38.6 | 21.4 | 30.3 | 39 | 1049.3 | −2.21 | −6.21 | 0.17 | 0.641 | 0.035 | 0.840 | 0.356 |
| IPM 512-1 | 36.3 | 20.9 | 24.2 | 39 | 1402.8 | −11.98 | −4.59 | 0.28 | 0.273 | 0.001 | 0.148 | 0.540 |
| JAUM 0936 | 33.9 | 19.3 | 22.5 | 39 | 484.9 | 0.87 | 9.96 | 0.22 | 0.452 | 0.302 | 0.931 | 0.212 |
| JLM 302-46 | 42.9 | 19.6 | 25.2 | 39 | 624.8 | −0.68 | 0.93 | 0.03 | 0.985 | 0.133 | 0.934 | 0.892 |
| KM 2355 | 36.7 | 19.3 | 22.1 | 39 | 536.9 | 0.28 | 7.28 | 0.17 | 0.625 | 0.162 | 0.970 | 0.336 |
| LGG 607 | 41.3 | 23.1 | 40.5 | 39 | 713.2 | 3.53 | −4.12 | 0.14 | 0.738 | 0.065 | 0.647 | 0.564 |
| MDGGV-18 | 35.0 | 18.9 | 22.5 | 39 | 1184.3 | −14.48 | 5.50 | 0.33 | 0.174 | 0.009 | 0.100 | 0.443 |
| MGG-387 | 39.3 | 18.8 | 25.0 | 39 | 954.8 | −2.35 | −1.50 | 0.06 | 0.941 | 0.020 | 0.760 | 0.844 |
| MH 1323 | 33.2 | 18.7 | 22.2 | 39 | 709.0 | 0.53 | 1.45 | 0.03 | 0.985 | 0.153 | 0.954 | 0.866 |
| ML 2479 | 39.4 | 17.7 | 22.4 | 39 | 1037.9 | −8.74 | 2.77 | 0.17 | 0.645 | 0.031 | 0.384 | 0.735 |
| NDMK 16-324 | 37.6 | 18.0 | 22.9 | 39 | 945.3 | −11.94 | 10.82 | 0.32 | 0.198 | 0.047 | 0.213 | 0.204 |
| NMK 15-08 | 39.2 | 17.8 | 22.9 | 39 | 413.3 | 1.90 | 8.51 | 0.16 | 0.686 | 0.414 | 0.857 | 0.404 |
| NVL-855 | 46.7 | 18.3 | 22.5 | 39 | 930.3 | −1.16 | −5.83 | 0.12 | 0.801 | 0.043 | 0.900 | 0.517 |
| OBGG 56 | 42.3 | 17.8 | 22.1 | 39 | 869.4 | −9.47 | 10.55 | 0.28 | 0.270 | 0.048 | 0.314 | 0.173 |
| OBGG 58 | 38.2 | 18.4 | 25.6 | 39 | 575.7 | −1.85 | 8.30 | 0.18 | 0.584 | 0.209 | 0.844 | 0.310 |
| PM 14-11 | 41.4 | 17.4 | 23.1 | 39 | 726.4 | −11.27 | 15.69 | 0.47 | 0.022 | 0.053 | 0.098 | 0.038 |
| PM 14-3 | 38.3 | 16.5 | 21.0 | 39 | 914.9 | −2.33 | −2.22 | 0.07 | 0.933 | 0.035 | 0.764 | 0.793 |
| Pusa M 1771 | 37.3 | 17.0 | 23.0 | 39 | 1023.3 | −8.53 | 2.80 | 0.24 | 0.412 | 0.010 | 0.234 | 0.702 |
| Pusa M 1772 | 33.9 | 16.5 | 22.6 | 39 | 720.0 | 1.59 | −1.80 | 0.06 | 0.949 | 0.095 | 0.846 | 0.820 |
| RMB 12-07 | 39.2 | 16.6 | 23.5 | 39 | 816.5 | −1.22 | −1.71 | 0.04 | 0.971 | 0.064 | 0.879 | 0.833 |
| RMG 1097 | 36.4 | 16.1 | 22.0 | 39 | 442.3 | 2.79 | 5.45 | 0.12 | 0.786 | 0.308 | 0.749 | 0.533 |
| SKNM 1502 | 39.9 | 16.3 | 21.2 | 39 | 852.3 | −0.27 | −4.58 | 0.13 | 0.758 | 0.020 | 0.971 | 0.460 |
| SKNM 1504 | 31.5 | 16.2 | 23.3 | 39 | 836.0 | −3.59 | 2.31 | 0.08 | 0.909 | 0.088 | 0.724 | 0.799 |
| SML 1808 | 39.4 | 15.6 | 21.3 | 39 | 518.7 | 3.58 | 2.98 | 0.10 | 0.847 | 0.196 | 0.655 | 0.699 |
| SVM-6133 | 37.3 | 16.1 | 23.4 | 39 | 717.8 | −1.50 | 2.06 | 0.04 | 0.976 | 0.202 | 0.899 | 0.853 |
| TMB 126 |
| 16.2 | 22.7 | 39 | 937.9 | −4.79 | −2.42 | 0.20 | 0.516 | 0.001 | 0.385 | 0.747 |
| VGG 16-036 | 44.0 | 15.7 | 28.5 | 39 | 977.4 | −7.07 | 4.21 | 0.16 | 0.655 | 0.036 | 0.435 | 0.642 |
| VGG 16-055 | 36.5 | 15.1 | 20.9 | 39 | 373.9 | 3.61 | 5.50 | 0.18 | 0.607 | 0.348 | 0.674 | 0.361 |
Analysis of variance for grain yield (kg ha−1) in 34 genotypes of mungbean evaluated over 39 environments in India.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Replication | 2 | 94,411.40 | 47,205.70 | 0.02 | 2.21 |
|
| Environment (E) | 38 | 232,686,549.90 | 6,123,330.26 | 54.17 | 286.78 | <0.01 |
| Genotype (G) | 33 | 12,803,521.30 | 387,985.49 | 2.98 | 18.17 | <0.01 |
| G × E interaction | 1254 | 127,348,599.90 | 101,553.91 | 29.65 | 4.76 | <0.01 |
| Error | 2650 | 56,582,602.50 | 21,351.93 | 13.17 | ||
| Total | 3977 | 429,515,685.10 |
Figure 3The average productivity of mungbean in different agroecological regions of India. The error bar represents the standard error of means. North Hill Zone (NHZ), North Eastern Plain Zone (NEPZ); North Western Plain Zone (NWPZ); Central Zone (CZ); South Zone (SZ).
Figure 4Associations between crop phenology, temperature variables, and grain yield of mungbean according to linear regression models.
Figure 5According to linear regression models, there are associations between grain yield, weather parameters, and the seed weight of mungbean.
Figure 6Scatter plot environments on PCA coordinates and biplot presentation of crop phenology, seed weight, grain yield parameters, and weather variables. Please see Supplementary Table 1 for environment (E1–E39) detail.
Figure 7Relationship among the test environments (A), mean vs. stability (B), and 'Which-won-where' (C) view of test locations based on heritability-adjusted GGE (HA-GGE) biplot analysis of 34 mungbean genotypes across 39 testing locations. No transformation of data (transform = 0); and data were centered by means of the environments (centering = 2). The biplot was based on “Column metrics preserving', i.e., genotype and environment-focused singular-value partitioning. Therefore, it is most appropriate for illustrating the relationship between genotypes and environments. Numbers correspond to environment and genotypes, as listed in Supplementary Tables 1, 2.
Figure 8Hierarchical cluster analysis explaining the relationship between mungbean genotypes (n = 34) for grain yield across different testing locations (n = 39).
Figure 9Representativeness, discriminating power, and desirability index of different locations. Please see Supplementary Table 1 for environment (E1–E39) detail.