alexa Performance and Yield Stability Analysis of Potato Genotypes in Ethiopia
ISSN: 2329-8863

Advances in Crop Science and Technology
Open Access

Our Group organises 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events every year across USA, Europe & Asia with support from 1000 more scientific Societies and Publishes 700+ Open Access Journals which contains over 50000 eminent personalities, reputed scientists as editorial board members.

Open Access Journals gaining more Readers and Citations
700 Journals and 15,000,000 Readers Each Journal is getting 25,000+ Readers

This Readership is 10 times more when compared to other Subscription Journals (Source: Google Analytics)

Performance and Yield Stability Analysis of Potato Genotypes in Ethiopia

Alemu Worku1*, Gedif Mulugeta1, Baye Berhun1, Tesfaye Abebe1, Gebremedihin W Giorgis2, Abebe Chindie2 and Getachew Kebede3
1Adet Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia
2Holeta Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia
3Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia
*Corresponding Author: Alemu Worku, Adet Agricultural Research Center, Potato National Research Program, Adet Northwest, Ethiopia, Tel: +251 918 73 0476, Email: [email protected]

Received Date: Jan 12, 2018 / Accepted Date: Jan 29, 2018 / Published Date: Feb 05, 2018

Abstract

Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is one of the most widely grown root and tuber crop in the mid and high altitude areas of Ethiopia. It has both dietary and income generating role to produces. However the yield obtained at farm levels is very low other compared with other county. One of the main reason for such low yield of potato in the country is luck of high yielding and disease resistance variety. To this effect, potato national variety trial was conducted by Adet, Holleta and Kulumsa Agricultural Research Centers with the main objective of identifying high yielder and disease tolerant potato genotypes in 2009 and 2010. In this trial 10 genotypes were tested against standard and local checks in randomized complete block design with three replications on gross plot size of 9 m2 planted at a spacing of 75 cm × 30 cm between rows and plants, respectively. Combined analysis over locations and seasons revealed that the clone CIP-396004.337 gave the highest marketable tuber yield of 345.60 qt/ha followed by CIP-395096.2 (344.20 qt/ha) whereas the lowest tuber yield (156.40 qt/ha) was from CIP-396029.250. Moreover, the lowest percentage (4.03%) of late blight infestation was from CIP-396004.337 as compared to 21.17% from genotype CIP-396029.250. GGE biplot as well as ASV analysis identified CIP-396004.337 as high yielder and stable clone and therefore recommended for release as commercial variety. Since 2013, it is released as new potato variety in Ethiopia with local name of “Dagem”.

Keywords: AMMI; ASV; GGE biplot; Stability; Yield

Introduction

Root and tubers are said to be one of the most efficient crops in converting natural resource, labor and capital into a high quality food with wide consumer acceptance [1]. Among the root and tuber crops potato is the first and the most predominant crop in Ethiopia. In Ethiopia potato cultivation extends from mid altitude areas to the extreme highland areas above 3000 m.a.s.l, where the environment preclude the choice for cultivating other crops except hardy crops such as potato and Barly. This emanates from the crop inherent nature to grow under wider agro-ecology conditions. Such quality of potato together with its short crop cycle makes it is a strategic food security crop in this areas. Hence, potato serves as both stable food and income generating crop.

However, the recent five years (2008-2012) mean national average yield is approximately 80.83 qt/ha (http://faostat3.fao.org), which are very low compared to the world average of 184.94 qt/ha (http://faostat3.fao.org). Diseases, poor crop management practices, lake of improved verities for different purpose and troubles, use of inferior quality seed tubers of unknown origin and health status and inappropriate storage structure are among the key factors contributing to this yield level. To overcome these problems research has been done for long periods. As a result reasonable number of disease tolerant varieties, improved crop management practices and postharvest handling technologies were identified. Pilot level demonstration of these technologies revealed the possibility of increasing the current yield three to four folds. However, our pervious released technologies and promotion activities as compared to the existing production constraints of the crop in the area indicates, till more research effort is required to overcome the problems.

One of the primary factor that determine the production and productivity of potato in the country is varieties under production. The local varieties are low yielder susceptible to major potato disease and narrow genetic base. Therefore, to develop high yielding, disease tolerant and stable potato varieties and increase the production and productivity of potato conducting variety development experiments in different part of the country is vital. This paper presents the result of potato national variety trials conducted for two main cropping seasons.

Materials and Methods

The trial was carried out for two years (2009 and 2010 main cropping seasons) across three agro-ecology zones of major potato growing areas (Adet, Holleta and Kulumsa). In this trial a total of 10 potato clones were tested against standard and local checks in randomized complete block design with three replications on a gross plot size of 9 m2. A spacing of 75 cm × 30 cm between rows and plants, respectively were used for this trial. Fertilizer and crop husbandry practices were applied as per the recommendation. Finally agronomic and yield data were taken from the central two rows of 16 plants and used for analysis. The data were subjected to SAS V9 and GenStat V16 [2,3] for ANOVA and stability analysis, respectively.

Results and Discussion

Analysis of variance

Combined ANOVA result of each location over two years indicated significant (P<0.01) genotypic differences for plant height, stem number per plant, number of tubers per square meters, late blight score, average tuber weight tuber yield (Tables 1-4).

Year/s Source DF SS MS %(L+G+GL)
2009 Location (L) 2 418485.99 209242.99** 40.78
  Genotype (G) 11 544939.02 49539.91** 53.1
  GL 22 62772.77 2853.31** 6.12
2010 Location (L) 2 181526.59 90763.30** 17.37
  Genotype (G) 11 480404.99 43673.18** 45.97
  GL 22 383214.63 17418.85** 36.67
          % (L+G+Y+GL
+GY+GYL)
Combined Location (L) 2 334404.25 167202.13** 15.81
  Genotype (G) 11 963291.85 87571.99** 45.54
  Year (Y) 1 44112.37 44112.37** 2.09
  GL 22 246894.61 11222.48** 11.67
  GY 11 62052.16 5641.10** 2.93
  YL 2 265608.33 132804.16** 12.56
  GLY 22 199092.8 9049.67** 9.41

Table 1: Genotype (G), environment (L and Y), genotype by environment (GE), variance terms for rainfed potato yield trials in 2009 and 2010 and combined over these years/seasons.

Genotypes Plant height(cm) Main stem/plant Late blight (%) No of tubers/m2 Average tuber weight(gm) MTY(qt/ha) TTY
(qt/ha)
CIP-396033.102 67.31ab 4.36ab 16.33b 46.2d 68.71c 305.76cd 315.20b
CIP-392641.4 51.76d 2.98cd 43.66a 37.2e 68.99c 239.73efg 255.77cd
CIP-395112.36 53.30cd 2.98cd 36.66a 54.33bcd 59.03d 314.83cd 320.45b
CIP-396004.337 64.35ab 3.12cd 8.58bcd 46.80d 89.57a 398.69ab 411.55a
CIP-395096.2 71.3a 4.43ab 10.33bc 64.13a 68.50c 422.39a 434.52a
CIP-395111.13 37.85f 1.17e 10.50bc 30.93e 31.07f 185.46g 193.34e
CIP-395011.2 63.90ab 2.41d 10.08bc 46.58d 81.90ab 357.65bc 381.20a
CIP-396031.108 69.3a 3.74abc 10.91bc 52.48cd 74.65bc 374.95ab 388.58a
CIP-396029.250 43.71ef 3.32cd 42.33a 28.93e 81.07b 210.22fg 261.13ed
CIP-396004.225 70.68a 3.57bc 16.5b 61.7ab 47.66e 287.12de 300.47bc
GUDENIE 60.11bc 4.73a 15.5b 48.33d 57.33d 265.37def 273.8bcd
LOCAL 50.06de 3.08cd 12.46bc 58.13abc 47.38e 261.74def 267.56bcd
Mean 58.67 3.32 18.13 47.97 64.66 301.99 314.04
CV (%) 11.01 26.87 37.63 15.72 11.01 16.05 15.08
LSD (5%) 7.5 1.03 7.93 8.76 8.27 56.35 55.04

Table 2: Performance of potato clones combined over season at Adet.

Genotypes Plant height (cm) Main stem/plant No of tubers/m2 Average tuber weight (gm) MTY(qt/ha) TTY
(qt/ha)
CIP-396033.102 55.33bc 3.91bcd 37.18de 71.08ab 272.01abc 275.72ab
CIP-392641.4 33.16e 2.10f 22.38f 29.87e 60.14d 65.54c
CIP-395112.36 51.66c 3.40cde 47.01bcd 59.27bcd 279.21abc 282.48ab
CIP-396004.337 50.16c 4.10c 41.11de 76.14ab 309.21abc 311.99ab
CIP-395096.2 60.66ab 4.43ab 69.01a 42.45de 274.29abc 280.35ab
CIP-395111.13 35.83de 1.78f 66.70b 53.31cd 249.65bc 259.08b
CIP-395011.2 50.00c 2.08f 43.43d 74.12a 327.13a 330.38a
CIP-396031.108 62.66a 3.18cde 45.05cd 67.64abc 305.65abc 308.80ab
CIP-396029.250 40.00d 3.15de 31.13ef 28.47e 81.97d 87.70c
CIP-396004.225 52.83c 3.91bcd 41.11de 61.55cd 246.60c 253.05b
GUDENIE 60.66ab 4.26a 56.23b 60.10bc 315.93ab 320.83ab
LOCAL 41.16D 2.71EF 54.08BC 40.99F 48.05D 62.26C
Mean 49.51 3.33 45.37 53.33 230.81 236.51
CV (%) 10.85 24.38 20.00 27.32 25.66 25.01
LSD (5%) 6.24 0.98 10.54 16.93 68.85 68.77

Table 3: performance of potato clones combined over seasons at Holleta.

Genotypes Plant height (cm) Main stem/plant Late blight (%) No of tubers/m2 Average tuber weight (gm) MTY(qt/ha) TTY
(qt/ha)
CIP-396033.102 60.23cd 4.22a 14.43cd 43.07f 54.55bcd 221.30d 227.87d
CIP-392641.4 43.48ef 2.55de 19.40bc 31.06g 55.30bcd 161.71e 172.43e
CIP-395112.36 56.46d 3.19bcd 18.58bc 50.03bcde 47.29ef 232.30cd 236.74cd
CIP-396004.337 59.15cd 3.51b 3.51f 44.80edf 70.06a 305.34a 313.16a
CIP-395096.2 64.83ab 4.33a 8.30ef 62.83a 50.66ed 308.77a 317.86a
CIP-395111.13 61.26bc 2.34e 11.45de 63.80a 47.85ef 292.36a 304.36a
CIP-395011.2 60.50cd 2.33e 10.38de 43.56ef 60.07b 246.40bc 259.80bc
CIP-396031.108 65.65a 3.54b 14.26cd 47.41cdef 57.70bc 262.12b 270.51b
CIP-396029.250 40.95f 3.26bc 21.23b 30.86g 52.16cde 144.59e 155.41e
CIP-396004.225 62.55abc 3.57b 12.70de 54.80b 39.81g 207.99d 217.89d
GUDENIE 60.43cd 4.76a 10.81de 51.15bcd 42.42fg 208.39d 215.05d
LOCAL 45.46e 2.83cde 31.46a 53.13bc 31.69h 157.34e 167.35e
Mean 56.75 3.37 14.71 48.04 50.80 229.05 238.20
CV (%) 6.56 16.59 31.20 11.93 11.34 9.39 9.89
LSD (5%) 4.33 0.65 5.33 6.66 6.69 25.00 27.38

Table 4: Performance of potato clones combined over seasons at kullumsa.

At Adet, the highest plant height (71.30 cm), number of tubers per square (64.13) and maximum marketable tuber yield (422.39 qt/ha) was recorded from genotype CIP-395096.2 but it didn't should statistical difference with clone CIP-39604.337 and CIP-396031.108. Whereas the largest average tuber weight (89.57 gm) and the lowest late blight score (8.58%) was obtained from clone CIP-396004.337 (Table 2). The lowest marketable tuber yield (185.46 qt/ha) was obtained from genotype CIP-395111.13. At Holleta, the maximum number of stems per plant (4.43) and number of tubers per square meters (69.01) was counted from the clone CIP-395096.2 and the highest marketable tuber yield (327.13 qt/ha) was harvested from CIP-395011.2 (Table 3). In contrast the lowest marketable tuber yield (48.05 qt/ha) was harvested from the local variety. At Kulumsa, the maximum stem number per plant (4.76) was counted from the standard check Gudenie. The highest average tuber weight (70.06 gm) and the lowest late blight score (3.51%) was recorded from genotype CIP-396004.337 whereas the maximum tuber number per square meter (63.80) was from CIP-395111.13 and marketable tuber yield of 308.77 qt/ha was obtained from CIP-395096.2 but it didn't showed statistical difference with CIP-396004.337 and CIP-395111.13 (Table 4).

Combined analysis over location in a year as well as combined over locations and years discovered presence of significant (P<0.01) difference among marketable tuber yield of tested genotypes (Table 1). During 2009 season, the maximum mean MTY (Marketable Tuber Yield) was obtained from CIP-395096.2 (329.49 qt/ha) while the minimum was from CIP-396029.250 (123.65 qt/ha) (Table 5) but there was no statistical difference between clone CIP-396004.337, CIP-395096.2 and CIP-396031.108. During 2010 season, the maximum and significant (P<0.01) mean MTY was obtained from clone CIP-396004.337(361 qt/ha) [4]. Across locations and season, the highest marketable tuber yield (337.70 qt/ha) was obtained from genotype CIP-396004.337. In contrast the lowest marketable tuber yield (145.60 qt/ha) was harvested from CIP-396029.250 (Table 5). This manly attributed to genetic difference in yielding ability and tolerance to late blight of potato (Table 6). The highest yielding genotype gave a yield advantage of 28.30 and 116.89% over the standard checks Gudenie and local check, respectively (Table 7).

Genotype MTY (qt/ha) during 2009 season MTY(qt/ha) during 2010 season Combined over loc and seasons
E1(Adet) E3
(Holleta)
E5
(Kulumsa)
Combined over 2009 E2 (Adet) E4 (Holleta) E6
(Kulumsa)
Combined over 2010
CIP-396033.102 318.70bc 157.04bc 241.00de 238.913c 292.82cd 386.98ab 201.41bcd 292.74d 265.82d
CIP-392641.4 209.81de 47.32d 133.60f 130.244f 269.64cd 72.95c 189.82bcde 177.47g 153.86f
CIP-395112.36 364.85b 207.59ab 268.19cd 280.210b 282.81cd 350.83ab 196.41bcde 278.65e 278.45c
CIP-396004.337 371.11ab 229.82ab 342.54ab 314.489a 426.27a 388.59ab 268.14a 361.00a 337.19a
CIP-395096.2 423.15a 213.62ab 351.71a 329.493a 421.64a 334.95ab 265.81a 340.80b 335.15a
CIP-395111.13 370.33ab 208.18ab 294.55c 291.020b 254.68cd 291.11b 290.17a 278.65e 284.84c
CIP-395011.2 328.43bc 260.29a 277.69cd 288.803b 386.88ab 393.96ab 215.10bc 331.98b 310.39b
CIP-396031.108 419.91a 222.22ab 304.23bc 315.453a 329.99bc 389.70ab 220.00b 313.23c 314.34b
CIP-396029.250 185.00e 69.49cd 116.46f 123.650f 235.44d 94.44c 172.72de 167.53gh 145.59f
CIP-396004.225 353.15ab 147.73bc 250.44d 250.440c 221.09d 345.46ab 165.55e 244.03f 247.24e
GUDENIE 224.35de 192.22ab 208.58e 208.383d 306.39bcd 439.63a 208.19bc 318.07c 263.23d
LOCAL 267.13cd 50.67d 131.50f 149.767e 256.35cd 45.43c 183.18cde 161.65h 155.71f
MEAN 318.21 162.18 243.38 243.4056 285.77 294.45 214.70 271.99 257.65
CV 13.19 33.01 9.54 6.22 18.61 22.21 9.61 4.046 5.13
LSD 72.67 93.45 39.31 18.898 90.06 110.76 34.96 13.738 11.51
Range 238.15 212.97 235.25   205.18 394.2 124.62    

Table 5: Genotype performance over 2009 and 2010 season and combined over these years.

Genotypes Plant height (cm) Main stem/plant Late blight (%) No of tubers/m2 Average tuber weight (gm) TTY
(qt/ha)
CIP-396033.102 60.99cd 4.17bc 10.25c 42.13e 64.78b 272.9b
CIP-392641.4 42.80fg 2.54fg 21.02a 30.18f 51.39c 164.6c
CIP-395112.36 53.80e 3.19ed 19.41a 50.46bc 55.20c 279.9b
CIP-396004.337 57.88d 3.58d 4.03e 44.24de 78.59a 345.6a
CIP-395096.2 65.60ab 4.39b 6.21de 65.32a 53.87c 344.2a
CIP-395111.13 44.98fg 1.76h 4.16e 50.47bc 44.08d 252.6b
CIP-395011.2 58.13d 2.27g 6.82de 44.52de 73.70a 323.8a
CIP-396031.108 65.87a 3.49d 8.39cd 48.31cd 66.66b 322.6a
CIP-396029.250 41.55g 3.42de 21.17a 30.31f 53.91c 156.4c
CIP-396004.225 62.02bc 3.68cd 6.48de 52.53bc 49.67cd 257.1b
GUDENIE 60.53cd 4.92a 8.77cd 51.90bc 53.28c 269.9b
LOCAL 45.56f 2.87ef 14.64b 55.11b 30.02e 165.7c
Mean 54.98 3.34 10.95 47.12 56.26 262.9
CV (%) 10.01 22.90 43.16 15.98 17.50 17.60
LSD (5%) 3.62 0.50 3.11 4.96 6.48 30.5

Table 6: Yield, agronomic and disease reaction of potato clones combined over locations and seasons.

Genotypes MTY (qt/ha) Advantage over the standard check Advantage from the local check
CIP-396033.102 264.6 0.53 69.94
CIP-392641.4 153.9    
CIP-395112.36 275.4 4.63 76.88
CIP-396004.337 337.7 28.30 116.89
CIP-395096.2 335.5 27.17 115.48
CIP-395111.13 242.5   55.75
CIP-395011.2 310.4 17.93 99.36
CIP-396031.108 314.2 19.37 101.79
CIP-396029.250 145.6    
CIP-396004.225 247.2    
GUDENIE 263.2    
LOCAL 155.7    

Table 7: Mean marketable tuber yield and yield advantage of potato clones across locations.

The two genotypes CIP-396004.337 and CIP-395062.2 were the two superior genotypes that produced the highest tuber yield as well as the lowest late blight percentage. There for, these clones are selected as a candidate for variety verification trial of 2012 year for release to maximize potato yield in the country. At appropriate stage we invited technical committee to see the field performance of candidate clones across Adet, Holleta and Kulumsa location. During this trial stage, the maximum mean on-station as well as on-farm tuber yield was obtained from clone CIP-396004.337 (Table 8). The mean on-station and onfarm of tuber yield (qt/ha) of clone CIP-396004.337 were ranged from 332.80 (Holleta) to 472.50 (Kulumsa) and 243.90 (Holleta) to 460 (Kulumsa), respectively. This clone, also showed minimum late blight score (Table 8). It also had better mineral and starch content (Table 8). This result assures that clone CIP-396004.337 is one of the potential variety to bust production in the country.

Genotype Total tuber yield (tons/ha) Late blight score (%) Dry matter content (%) Starch yield (t/ha)* Mineral content (mg/kg)*
Adet Holleta Kulumsa
On-Station Means across on- farms On-Station Means across on farms On-Station Means across on farms Adet Kulumsa FE ZN
CIP-396004.337 337.5 308.0 332.8 243.9 472.5 460.0 6 8.5 24.22 5.63 79.96 8.10
CIP-395096.2 292.5 281.0 321.0 223.1 267.9 266.2 17 10 22.50 4.21 32.98 10.8
Gudenie 270.0 213.5 314.8 226.9 274.7 255.3 24 32 23.30 6.91 24.63 7.07
Belete 295.0 281.0 323.0 239.6 430.0 432.2 4 6 22.58 4.25    

Table 8: mean total tuber yield, late blight score and quality parameters of candidates and standard checks during VVT during 2012 main season. *adapted from: Tesfaye et al. [5].

Stability analysis

GGE Biplot: The partitioning of GGE through GGE biplot analysis showed that PC1 and PC2 accounted 78.50% and 12.13% of GGE sum of squares, respectively explaining a total of 90.63% variation (Figure 1). This result revealed that there was a differential yield performance among potato genotypes across testing environments due to the presence of GEI. Genotypes that had PC1 scores>0 were identified as higher yielding and those that had PC1 scores<0 were identified as lower yielding [6]. Thus, of the tested genotypes G4, G5, G7 and G8 identified as high yielder genotypes (PC1 score>0) while G2, G9 and G12 as low yielder genotypes (PC1 score<0 (Figure 1). Unlike the PC1, PC2 was related to genotypic stability/instability. The minimum the absolute PC2 value is the more stable than the other. Thus, G7and G8 were the most stable genotypes. Similarly, among high yielder genotypes G4 also had better stability.

advances-crop-science-technology-genotype

Figure 1: GGE-biplot based on genotype focused scaling for the trait MTY (qt/ha), 2009 and 2010. Where G1-CIP-396033.102; G2- CIP-392641.4; G3-CIP-395120.36; G4-CIP-396004.337; G5- CIP-395096.2; G6-CIP-395111.13; G7-CIP-395011.2; G8- CIP-396031.108; G9-CIP-396029.250; G10-CIP-396004.225, G11- Gudenie and G12-Local variety.

Mean performance and stability of potato genotypes: Figure 2 shows the AEC view of the GGE biplot. The average tester coordinate (ATC) ordinate separates genotypes with above average mean from below average means. Therefore, genotypes with above average means were from G3 to G4 on the figure, while G9, G2 and G12 were genotypes which had below average mean performance. Whereas G1, G11 and G10 were had near to average mean yield. The shorter the genotype vector is more stable than others. Thus, among tested genotypes G4 identified as maximum yielder genotype as well as better stability while G11 identified as poorly stable (long vector length) and mean yielder genotypes. Among the tested genotypes G5 identified as high yielder genotype but less stable genotype.

advances-crop-science-technology-marketable-tuber

Figure 2: GGE ranking biplot shows the mean marketable tuber yield and stability performance.

Comparison of genotypes with ideal genotypes: An ideal genotype should have both high mean yield performance and high stability across environments. It is a genotype to be on average environmental coordinate (AEC) on positive direction and has vector length equal to the longest vector of the genotype on the positive side of AEC with longest vector length of high yielding genotypes and indicated by an arrow pointed to it [4,6]. Thus, Figure 3 shows that G4 nearest to the ideal genotypes (the center of concentric circles) so it is more desirable than other tested genotypes.

advances-crop-science-technology-genotypes

Figure 3: Comparison biplot views of marketable tuber yield of genotypes with the ideal genotype.

Suitability of genotypes for particular environment using the “Which-Won-Where” function of a GGE biplot: Figure 4 shows the which-won- Where view of this study. The vertex genotypes in this figure were G4, G5, G7, G9, G11 and G12. Four rays divide the biplot in to four sectors. Out these test environments fall in three of them. The vertex genotype for sector which encompasses E1, E2, E5 and E6 was G4 and sector content E3 was G7, for E4 was G11, these implying that these genotypes were the winning genotypes for respected environments. However, Which-won-where views of the GGE biplot of each year was repeated across years (Figure 5). In this case GE can be exploited by recommending specific genotype to specific locations [7]. Thus, G4 can be recommended to Adet and Kulumsa and G7/11 for location Holleta.

advances-crop-science-technology-season

Figure 4: Where E1 and E2; E3 and E4, E5 and E6 were 2009 and 2010 rain fed season in Adet, Holleta and Kulumesa, respectively.

advances-crop-science-technology-biplot

Figure 5: Which won where view of GGE biplot of 12 genotypes over three locations during 2009 (left) and 2010 (right).

AMMI’s stability value (ASV): AMMI’s stability value (ASV) was calculated using the following formula, as suggested by Purchase [8].

equation

Where, ASV=AMMI’s stability value, SS=Sum of Squares, IPCA1=Interaction of Principal Component Analysis one, IPCA2=Interaction of Principal Component Analysis two IPCASS1 and IPCASS2 are engine values Sum of squares of PCA 1 and PCA2 respectively.

The AMMI stability value (ASV) [8] based on the AMMI model‘s IPCA1 and IPCA2 scores for each genotype was also computed. The larger the IPCA scores, either negative or positive, the more specifically adapted a genotype is to a certain environments; the smaller the IPCA scores, the more stable the genotype is over all environments studied. Stability in performance of genotypes across locations and seasons (2009 and 2010 rainfed seasons) using ASV for MTY was performed (Table 9). During 2009 season, clone CIP-395112.36 identified as stable while Gudenie was identified as the most unstable variety. Whereas during 2010 season as well as combined over seasons and locations analysis identified, CIP-396004.337 and clone Local variety as stable and unstable clones, respectively.

Genotype 2009 season 2010 season Combined over locations
Genotype mean IPCA1 IPCA2 ASV RANK Genotype mean IPCA1 IPCA2 ASV RANK Genotype mean IPCA1 IPCA2 ASV Rank
1 238.9 0.57 -0.32 3.26 2 292.7 4.80 0.49 32.37 7 265.8 -4.79 0.18 16.08 7
2 130.2 0.62 -0.53 3.59 4 177.5 -8.53 -0.28 57.52 11 153.9 8.28 2.90 27.95 11
3 280.2 0.26 1.98 2.46 1 276.7 3.43 0.82 23.16 5 278.4 -3.11 -3.28 10.96 4
4 314.5 -0.60 -4.63 5.76 5 361 0.54 -4.04 5.42 1 337.7 -0.75 2.63 3.64 1
5 329.5 3.56 -3.49 20.61 9 340.8 -1.71 -4.18 12.23 3 335.1 2.08 -1.21 7.08 3
6 291 0.60 -0.56 3.48 3 278.7 -1.06 7.88 10.63 2 284.8 1.39 -4.95 6.81 2
7 288.8 -5.19 1.59 29.69 11 332 2.88 -4.60 19.94 4 310.4 -3.44 4.11 12.25 6
8 315.5 2.73 1.96 15.72 7 313.2 3.66 -0.63 24.68 6 314.3 -3.10 -4.04 11.18 5
9 123.7 -2.28 1.07 13.08 6 167.5 -6.48 1.05 43.72 9 145.6 6.02 3.22 20.49 9
10 250.4 3.24 0.14 18.49 8 244 5.16 2.97 34.94 8 247.2 -4.49 -5.86 16.17 8
11 208.4 -7.36 -0.36 42.03 12 318.1 6.64 0.48 44.76 10 263.2 -7.71 7.31 26.92 10
12 149.8 3.86 3.16 22.25 10 161.7 -9.33 0.04 62.93 12 155.7 9.62 -1.01 32.35 12

Table 9: AMMI stability value (ASV) with the IPCA 1 and IPCA 2 scores, mean marketable tuber yield and ranks of 12 clones during 2009, 2010 and combined over all environments.

Conclusion

During variety releasing committee meeting, the technical committee report was in line with our submitted data. However, both candidate clones have similar merits variety releasing committee accept the release of CIP-366004.337 clone as a new variety with local name of 'Dagem' during April, 2013 meeting at Addis Ababa.

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend sincere gratitude to Mr. Wubet, Mr. Melaku and Mr. Zewuge for their unreserved technical assistance during field work and data compilation of these trials. We also thank Ethiopia Institute of Agriculture Research (EIAR) for full budget support.

References

Citation: Worku A, Mulugeta G, Berhun B, Abebe T, Giorgis G, et al. (2018) Performance and Yield Stability Analysis of Potato Genotypes in Ethiopia. Adv Crop Sci Tech 6: 336. DOI: 10.4172/2329-8863.1000336

Copyright: © 2018 Worku A, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language

Post Your Comment Citation
Share This Article
Article Usage
  • Total views: 2184
  • [From(publication date): 0-2018 - Dec 02, 2020]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views: 2012
  • PDF downloads: 172
Top