基于甘薯区试产量数据的AMMI 模型分析

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.05.007

新疆农业科学 ›› 2022, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (5): 1093-1098.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.05.007

• 作物遗传育种·耕作栽培·生理生化·种质资源 • 上一篇下一篇

基于甘薯区试产量数据的AMMI 模型分析

王仙¹(), 罗正乾², 徐琳黎², 周志林³, 唐君³, 高海峰⁴, 刘恩良¹(), 金平²()

1.新疆农业科学院粮食作物研究所, 乌鲁木齐 830091
2.新疆农业科学院综合试验场, 乌鲁木齐 830013
3.江苏徐淮地区徐州农业科学研究所, 江苏徐州 221245
4.新疆农业科学院植物保护研究所, 乌鲁木齐 830091

收稿日期:2021-12-11 出版日期:2022-05-20 发布日期:2022-06-09
通信作者: 刘恩良,金平
作者简介:王仙(1984-),女,河北人,硕士研究生,研究方向为遗传育种,(E-mail) 283215056@qq.com
基金资助:
自治区科技支疆项目(2020E02099)

AMMI Model Analysis of Yield Data of Xinjiang Sweet Potato Region Test

WANG Xian¹(), LUO Zhengqian², XU Linli², ZHOU Zhiling³, TANG Jun³, GAO Haifeng⁴, LIU Enliang¹(), JIN Ping²()

1. Institute of Food Crops, Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Urumqi 830091, China
2. Comprehensive Test Site of Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Urumqi 830013, China
3. Xuzhou Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Xuhuai District, Jiangsu Province, Xuzhou Jiangsu 221245, China
4. Institute of Plant Protection, Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Urumqi 830091, China

Received:2021-12-11 Online:2022-05-20 Published:2022-06-09
Correspondence author: LIU Enliang, JIN Ping
Supported by:
S & T Assisting Xinjiang Project(2020E02099)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】评价不同甘薯品种的生态适应性,分析新疆各试验区的鉴别力,筛选出适合新疆种植的甘薯新品种,为新疆甘薯新品种的选育和推广提供依据。【方法】采用AMMI模型对2018~2019年新疆甘薯品种区域试验中的5个甘薯品种、3个试验点综合评价,分析5个甘薯品种的稳定性及丰产性,以及3个试验点的鉴别力。【结果】Z15-1和H6-1的稳定性较强,徐薯18号的稳定性较差;Z15-1属于高产稳产品种,可作为示范推广品种;H6-1、印尼紫薯属于低产稳产品种;烟薯25号和徐薯18号属于高产不稳产品种;乌苏试验点对品种的选择性最高,具有较强的代表性,伊宁试验点对品种的鉴别力低。【结论】Z15-1整体表现较好,可在新疆甘薯产区推广种植;烟薯25号和徐薯18号属于高产不稳产品种,可在局部地区示范推广。

关键词: 甘薯; AMMI模型; 稳定性

Abstract:

【Objective】 To evaluate the ecological adaptability of different sweet potato varieties, verify the discrimination of various experimental areas in Xinjiang, and screen out new sweet potato varieties suitable for planting in Xinjiang in the hope of providing basis for the breeding and promotion of new sweet potato varieties in the region. 【Method】 AMMI model was used to comprehensively evaluate 5 sweet potato varieties and 3 pilots in the regional experiment of sweet potato varieties in Xinjiang Autonomous Region from 2018 to 2019 and analyze the stability and high yield of 5 sweet potato varieties and the discrimination of 3 pilots. 【Result】 The stability of Z15-1 and H6-1 was higher than that of Xushu 18. Z15-1 was a high and stable yield variety, which could be used as a demonstration variety. H6-1, Indonesian purple sweet potato belonged to low-yield and stable varieties; Yanshu No. 25 and Xushu No. 18 were high-yielding and unstable varieties. Wusu had the highest selection of varieties and had strong representativeness, while Yining had low discrimination. 【Conclusion】 Z15-1 shows good overall performance, and can be popularized and planted in Xinjiang sweet potato producing area. Yanshu No. 25 and Xushu No. 18 are high-yielding and unstable varieties, which can be demonstrated and popularized in local areas.

Key words: sweet potato; AMMI model; stability

中图分类号:

S632.2

王仙, 罗正乾, 徐琳黎, 周志林, 唐君, 高海峰, 刘恩良, 金平. 基于甘薯区试产量数据的AMMI 模型分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(5): 1093-1098.

WANG Xian, LUO Zhengqian, XU Linli, ZHOU Zhiling, TANG Jun, GAO Haifeng, LIU Enliang, JIN Ping. AMMI Model Analysis of Yield Data of Xinjiang Sweet Potato Region Test[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(5): 1093-1098.

图/表 5

表1 产量的基因型和环境互作效应

Table 1 Analysis of genotypic and environmental interactions of yield

变异来源 Source of variation	自由度 df	平方和 SS	SS(%)	均方 MS	F值 F-value	Prob.
总变异Total variance	44	16 485 692.00		374 674.80
处理Treatment	14	16 160 775.00		1 154 341.00	106.5 $8 * *$	0.000 1
基因Genotype	4	8 960 140.00	55.44	2 240 035.00	206.8 $3 * *$	0.000 1
环境Environment	2	743 336.30	4.60	371 668.10	34.3 $2 * *$	0.000 1
基因型×环境 Genotype×Environment	8	6 457 298.00	39.96	807 162.30	74.5 $3 * *$	0.000 1
PCA1	5	5 912 805.00	91.57	1 182 561.00	6.5 $2 * *$	0.000 3
IPCA1	3	1 289 967.00	22.60	429 988.90	39.7 $0 * *$	0.000 1
IPCA2	1	2 492 247.00	43.67	2 492 247.00	230.1 $1 * *$	0.000 1
误差Error	30	324 917.00		10 830.57

表1 产量的基因型和环境互作效应

Table 1 Analysis of genotypic and environmental interactions of yield

变异来源 Source of variation	自由度 df	平方和 SS	SS(%)	均方 MS	F值 F-value	Prob.
总变异Total variance	44	16 485 692.00		374 674.80
处理Treatment	14	16 160 775.00		1 154 341.00	106.5 $8 * *$	0.000 1
基因Genotype	4	8 960 140.00	55.44	2 240 035.00	206.8 $3 * *$	0.000 1
环境Environment	2	743 336.30	4.60	371 668.10	34.3 $2 * *$	0.000 1
基因型×环境 Genotype×Environment	8	6 457 298.00	39.96	807 162.30	74.5 $3 * *$	0.000 1
PCA1	5	5 912 805.00	91.57	1 182 561.00	6.5 $2 * *$	0.000 3
IPCA1	3	1 289 967.00	22.60	429 988.90	39.7 $0 * *$	0.000 1
IPCA2	1	2 492 247.00	43.67	2 492 247.00	230.1 $1 * *$	0.000 1
误差Error	30	324 917.00		10 830.57

图1 AMMI1 双标图

Fig.1 The biplot of AMMI1

图2 AMMI2 双标图

Fig.2 The biplot of AMMI2

表 2 品种稳定性参数

Table 2 Stability parameter of cultivar

品种 Varieties	平均产量 Mean Yield(kg/667m²)	IPCA1	IPCA2	稳定性参数(D_i) Stability parameter (D_i)	位次
Z15-1	2 712.565 7	-10.662 8	-0.357 6	10.67	4
H6-1	1 901.670 9	10.254 2	0.343 9	10.26	5
印尼紫薯 Indonesia purple potato	2 195.723 3	20.901 3	0.700 9	20.91	2
烟薯25号 Yanshu 25	2 677.94	-13.683 4	-0.458 8	13.69	3
徐薯18号 Xushu 18	2 434.005 6	106.858 4	-6.809 3	107.08	1

表 3 试验点鉴别力参数

Table 3 Discernment parameter of test site

试验点 Pilot	产量平均 Mean Yield (kg/667m²)	IPCA1	IPCA2	稳定性参数(D_i) Stability parameter (D_i)	位次
安宁渠Anningqu	2 456.57 5	-20.710 3	-0.694 5	20.72	2
乌苏Wusu	2 420.172 1	21.444 3	0.719 1	21.45	1
伊宁Yining	2 319.321 7	-0.734	-0.024 6	0.73	3

参考文献 22

[1]	岳海旺, 李春杰, 李媛, 等. 河北省春播玉米品种产量稳定性及试验点辨别力综合分析[J]. 核农学报, 2018, 32(7): 1267-1280.
	YUE Haiwang, LI Chunjie, LI Yuan, et al. Comprehensive analysis of yield stability andtesting site discrimination of spring sowing maize variety in Hebei province[J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 32(7): 1267-1280.
[2]	曹元元, 丁逸帆, 左示敏, 等. 基于GGE 双标图和AMMI模型对江苏省水稻区试品种的丰产性和稳定性分析[J]. 种子, 2021, 40(6): 38-43, 51.
	CAO Yuanyuan, DING Yifan, ZUO Shimin, et al. Analysis of yielding ability and stability of rice varieties tested in Jiangsu province based on GGE biplot and AMMI model[J]. Seed, 2021, 40(6):38-43, 51.
[3]	汪洲涛, 苏炜华, 阙友雄, 等. 应用AMMI和HA-GGE双标图分析甘蔗品种产量稳定性和试点代表性[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2016, 24(6): 790-800.
	WANG Zhoutao, SU Weihua, QUE Youxiong, et al. Analysis of yield stability and test site representativeness ofsugarcane trials using combined AMMI and HA-GGE biplot models[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2016, 24(6): 790-800.
[4]	王欣, 李强, 曹清河, 等. 中国甘薯产业和种业发展现状与未来展望[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(3):483-492.
	WANG Xin, LI Qiang, CAO Qinghe, et al. Current status and future prospective of sweet potato production and seed industry in China[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(3):483-492.
[5]	Food and Agriculture Organization. FAOSTAT agriculture data. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en.
[6]	Wolfgang J G, Manrique K, Zhan D, et al. Genotype×environmentinteractionsforadiverseset of Sweet potato clonesevaluated across varying ecogeographic conditions in Peru[J]. Crop Science, 2005, 45:2160-2171. DOI URL
[7]	Chiona M. Towards Enhancement of β-Carotene Content of High Dry Mass Sweet potato Genotypes in Zambia[D]. School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, 2009.
[8]	Osiru M O, Olanya O M, Adipala E, et al. Yield stability analysis of Ipomoea batatas L. cultivars in diverse environments[J]. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 2009, 3:213-220.
[9]	Kivuva B M, Githiri S M, Yencho G C, et al. Genotype × environment interaction for storageroot yield in sweetpotato under managed drought stress conditions[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science, 2014, 6(10): 1-16. DOI URL
[10]	后猛, 李强, 辛国胜, 等. 甘薯块根产量性状生态变异及其与品质的相关性[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2013, 21(9):1095-1099.
	HOU Meng, LI Qiang, XIN Guosheng, et al. Variability of sweet potato storage root under different ecological environments and its correlation with quality traits[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2013, 21(9): 1095-1099.
[11]	Abdullah A M, Mohamed M H, Md J A, et al. Farmers’preference yield, and GGE-Biplot analysis-based evaluation of four sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) Varieties Grown in Multiple Environments[J]. Sustainability, 2021, 13:3730. DOI URL
[12]	卢会翔, 唐道彬, 吴正丹, 等. 甘薯产量、品质及农艺性状的基因型与环境效应研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2015, 23(9): 1158-1168.
	LU Huixiang, TANG Daobin, WU Zhengdan, et al. Genotypic variation and environmental effects on yield, quality and agronomic traits of sweet potato[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2015, 23(9): 1158-1168.
[13]	肖富良, 黄天宝, 吕伟生, 等. 红壤旱地食用型甘薯主要农艺性状的稳定性分析及适应性评价[J]. 江西农业学报, 2021, 33(7):6-12.
	XIAO Fuliang, HUANG Tianbao, LÜ Weisheng, et al. Stability analysis and adaptability evaluation of main agronomic characters of edible sweet potato in Red Upland soil[J]. Acta Agriculturae Jiangx, 2021, 33(7):6-12.
[14]	贾赵东, 谢一芝, 尹晴红, 等. 甘薯品种产量性状的稳定性和适应性分析[J]. 扬州大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2008, 29(2):77-81.
	JIA Zhaodong, XIE Yizhi, YIN Qinghong, et al. Stability and adaptability analysis on yield characters of sweet potato varieties[J]. Joumal of Yangzhou University (Agricultural and Life Science Ed.), 2008, 29(2):77-81.
[15]	陆国权. 甘薯重要品质性状的基因型差异及其环境效应研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2002.
	LU Guoquan. Genotype variation and environmental effects on some important quality traits of sweetpotatoes (Ipomoea batata (L) Lam.)[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University, 2002.
[16]	聂迎彬, 穆培源, 桑伟, 等. AMMI模型和GGE双标图法在新疆冬小麦区域试验产量分析上的应用[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2012, 49(9):1569-1575.
	NIE Yingbin, MU Peiyuan, SANG Wei, et al. Application of AMMI model and GGE biplot method to yield analysis of winter wheat in Xinjiang[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2012, 49(9):1569-1575.
[17]	李鸿文, 林存亮, 李诚, 等. 应用AMMI模型分析冬性饲草型小黑麦品种稳定性[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2012, 49(5):802-807.
	LI Hongwen, LIN Cunliang, LI Cheng, et al. AMMI model was used to analyze the stability of winter forage triticale varieties[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2012, 49(5):802-807.
[18]	穆培源, 庄丽, 张吉贞, 等. 应用AMMI模型分析春小麦区试数据的研究[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2003,(1):1-5.
	MU Peiyuan, ZHUANG Li, ZHANG Jizhen, et al. Analysis of regional trial data of spring wheat using AMMI model[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2003,(1):1-5.
[19]	王磊, 杨仕华, 沈希宏, 等. 作物品种区试数据分析的主效可加互作可乘模型(AMMI) 图形[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 1998, 21(2):18-23.
	WANG Lei, YANG Shihua, SHEN Xihong, et al. Additive main effects and multiplicative iteraction model(AMMI) graphs used in the plant variety trial data analysis[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University, 1998, 21(2):18-23.
[20]	陆国权, 黄华宏, 何腾弟. 甘薯维生素C和胡萝卜素含量的基因型、环境及基因型与环境互作效应的分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2002, 35(5): 482-486.
	LU Guoquan, HUANG Huahong, HE Tengdi. Genotype and environmental effects on vitamin C and carotene contents in sweetpotato[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2002, 35(5): 482-486.
[21]	刘丽华, 胡远富, 陈乔, 等. 利用 AMMI模型分析寒地水稻3个品质性状的基因型与环境互作[J]. 作物学报, 2013, 39(10):1849-1855. DOI
	LIU Lihua, HU Yuanfu, CHEN Qiao, et al. Interaction of genotypes with environments for three quality traits of rice in cold region by AMMI model[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2013, 39(10):1849-1855. DOI
[22]	林坤, 郭凤芝, 葛振勇, 等. 鲁西南地区10个小麦品种丰产性和稳产性分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(36):6-10.
	LIN Kun, GUO Fengzhi, GE Zhenyong, et al. High yield and stability of 10 wheat cultivars in Southwest Shandong[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2019, 35(36):6-10.

基于甘薯区试产量数据的AMMI 模型分析

AMMI Model Analysis of Yield Data of Xinjiang Sweet Potato Region Test

在线阅读

PDF下载

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 22

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	徐鹏飞, 王旭哲, 杨寒珺, 黄星宇, 付东青, $\boxed{\hbox{鲁为华}}$, 孙新文. 添加糖蜜对棉秆微贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(3): 715-726.
[2]	沙米西努尔·牙森, 李晓荣, 蔡大润, 李娟, 刘志刚, 杨洋, 李波, 陈勋基, 陈果. 玉米淀粉含量测定影响因素分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(2): 301-308.
[3]	王文静, 刘亚军, 胡启国, 储凤丽. 生物降解膜对甘薯干物质分配及产量构成的效应分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(9): 2288-2294.
[4]	吴巧玉, 何天久. 紫色甘薯资源的形态学和ISSR荧光标记分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(7): 1625-1631.
[5]	贺婷婷, 王旭哲, 宋磊, 马春晖. 不同添加剂对油莎豆青贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(7): 1767-1775.
[6]	马燕, 许铭强, 李喜弟, 孟新涛, 邹淑萍, 张婷, 张谦. 响应面法优化辣椒籽油碱异构化制备共轭亚油酸工艺及其氧化稳定性[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(4): 908-915.
[7]	杜月梅, 高丽萍, 邵华. 呋虫胺及其代谢物UF和DN在水稻上残留行为及其储存稳定性[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(3): 663-673.
[8]	霍锦双, 隋伟策, 孙红男, 木泰华. 甘薯茎叶多酚类物质的组分构成及抑菌活性[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2021, 58(3): 556-564.
[9]	坤杜孜阿依·阿布都沙拉木, 姜志强, 刘娅菲, 熊静璠, 娜斯拜·阿卜杜瓦哈普, 李江伟. 新疆双峰驼纳米抗体、重链抗体和常规抗体的热稳定性比较[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2020, 57(2): 319-325.
[10]	李铭东, 梁晓玲, 阿不来提·阿布拉, 韩登旭, 杨杰, 郗浩江, 商佳鑫, 滕元旭, 杨新军, 李召锋, 王业建. 玉米自交系灌浆期耐热性评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2019, 56(8): 1382-1387.
[11]	张航, 林宁, 陈利, 付开赟, 金平, 刘恩良, 高海峰. 荒漠绿洲区甘薯田杂草组成及其群落特征[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2019, 56(11): 2079-2089.
[12]	刘恩良;曹清河;唐君;金平. 甘薯抗旱鉴定及生理响应研究[J]. , 2016, 53(6): 999-1005.
[13]	王莉;阿同古丽·吾斯曼;库尔班·牙生;李卫平;曲延英. 优质高品质陆地棉品种(系)数量性状因子分析及稳定性评价[J]. , 2013, 50(4): 589-598.
[14]	王祥军;齐军仓;王仙;曹连莆. 基于AMMI模型分析大麦籽粒酚酸含量的基因型与环境效应[J]. , 2013, 50(3): 422-427.
[15]	刘焕鲜;李宁;盛建东. 稳定性15N示踪技术在农业氮肥利用中的应用[J]. , 2013, 50(1): 124-131.