Parsimonious genotype by environment interaction covariance models for cassava ().

Moshood A Bakare, Siraj Ismail Kayondo, Cynthia I Aghogho, Marnin D Wolfe, Elizabeth Y Parkes, Peter Kulakow, Chiedozie Egesi, Jean-Luc Jannink, Ismail Yusuf Rabbi
Author Information
  1. Moshood A Bakare: Plant Breeding and Genetics Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
  2. Siraj Ismail Kayondo: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.
  3. Cynthia I Aghogho: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.
  4. Marnin D Wolfe: Plant Breeding and Genetics Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
  5. Elizabeth Y Parkes: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.
  6. Peter Kulakow: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.
  7. Chiedozie Egesi: Plant Breeding and Genetics Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
  8. Jean-Luc Jannink: Plant Breeding and Genetics Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
  9. Ismail Yusuf Rabbi: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Abstract

The assessment of cassava clones across multiple environments is often carried out at the uniform yield trial, a late evaluation stage, before variety release. This is to assess the differential response of the varieties across the testing environments, a phenomenon referred to as genotype-by-environment interaction (GEI). This phenomenon is considered a critical challenge confronted by plant breeders in developing crop varieties. This study used the data from variety trials established as randomized complete block design (RCBD) in three replicates across 11 locations in different agro-ecological zones in Nigeria over four cropping seasons (2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020). We evaluated a total of 96 varieties, including five checks, across 48 trials. We exploited the intricate pattern of GEI by fitting variance-covariance structure models on fresh root yield. The goodness-of-fit statistics revealed that the factor analytic model of order 3 (FA3) is the most parsimonious model based on Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). The three-factor loadings from the FA3 model explained, on average across the 27 environments, 53.5% [FA (1)], 14.0% [FA (2)], and 11.5% [FA (3)] of the genetic effect, and altogether accounted for 79.0% of total genetic variability. The association of factor loadings with weather covariates using partial least squares regression (PLSR) revealed that minimum temperature, precipitation and relative humidity are weather conditions influencing the genotypic response across the testing environments in the southern region and maximum temperature, wind speed, and temperature range for those in the northern region of Nigeria. We conclude that the FA3 model identified the common latent factors to dissect and account for complex interaction in multi-environment field trials, and the PLSR is an effective approach for describing GEI variability in the context of multi-environment trials where external environmental covariables are included in modeling.

Keywords

References

  1. Genet Sel Evol. 2018 Apr 13;50(1):16 [PMID: 29653506]
  2. Curr Genomics. 2012 May;13(3):225-44 [PMID: 23115524]
  3. Front Plant Sci. 2020 Sep 04;11:572200 [PMID: 33013995]
  4. J Dairy Sci. 2010 Feb;93(2):743-52 [PMID: 20105546]
  5. PLoS One. 2014 Feb 28;9(2):e90346 [PMID: 24587335]
  6. Am J Hum Genet. 2016 Jan 7;98(1):116-26 [PMID: 26748515]
  7. PLoS One. 2022 Jul 18;17(7):e0268189 [PMID: 35849556]
  8. Genet Sel Evol. 2009 Jan 30;41:21 [PMID: 19284520]
  9. Plant Genome. 2016 Nov;9(3): [PMID: 27902800]
  10. Theor Appl Genet. 2007 May;114(8):1319-32 [PMID: 17426958]
  11. Theor Appl Genet. 2015 Jan;128(1):55-72 [PMID: 25326722]
  12. Theor Appl Genet. 2014 Oct;127(10):2193-210 [PMID: 25145447]
  13. PLoS One. 2011 May 04;6(5):e19379 [PMID: 21573248]
  14. Trop Plant Biol. 2012 Mar;5(1):88-94 [PMID: 22523606]
  15. Biometrics. 2001 Dec;57(4):1138-47 [PMID: 11764254]
  16. Genome. 2010 Nov;53(11):1002-16 [PMID: 21076516]
  17. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2011;62:251-72 [PMID: 21526968]
  18. Genet Sel Evol. 2014 Feb 26;46:16 [PMID: 24571451]
  19. J Dairy Sci. 2008 Nov;91(11):4414-23 [PMID: 18946147]
  20. Front Plant Sci. 2021 Sep 09;12:737462 [PMID: 34567051]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0acrossmodelenvironmentsinteractiontrialsfactorvarietiesGEIFA3loadings[FA]temperaturecassavayieldvarietyresponsetestingphenomenongenotype-by-environment11Nigeriatotalstructuremodelsrevealedanalytic35%0%geneticvariabilityweatherpartialleastsquaresregressionPLSRgenotypicregionmulti-environmentenvironmentalcovariablesassessmentclonesmultipleoftencarrieduniformtriallateevaluationstagereleaseassessdifferentialreferredconsideredcriticalchallengeconfrontedplantbreedersdevelopingcropstudyuseddataestablishedrandomizedcompleteblockdesignRCBDthreereplicateslocationsdifferentagro-ecologicalzonesfourcroppingseasons2016-20172017-20182018-20192019-2020evaluated96includingfivechecks48exploitedintricatepatternfittingvariance-covariancefreshrootgoodness-of-fitstatisticsorderparsimoniousbasedAkaikeInformationCriterionAICthree-factorexplainedaverage27531142effectaltogetheraccounted79associationcovariatesusingminimumprecipitationrelativehumidityconditionsinfluencingsouthernmaximumwindspeedrangenorthernconcludeidentifiedcommonlatentfactorsdissectaccountcomplexfieldeffectiveapproachdescribingcontextexternalincludedmodelingParsimoniousgenotypeenvironmentcovariancescoreshybridrelationshipmatrixvariance

Similar Articles

Cited By