Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp5 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Assessment of genotype by environment interaction for yield stability and sucking pest resistance in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) using AMMI, GGE biplot and multi-trait stability index

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.13796
Submitted
23 January 2026
Published
24-07-2026

Abstract

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is a major fibre crop underpinning the global textile industry; however, its productivity is increasingly threatened by climatic variability and the resurgence of sap-sucking insect pests. The interaction between genotype and environment (G × E) further complicates the identification of stable and high-yielding genotypes, particularly under rainfed conditions. The present study evaluated 7 cotton genotypes across 9 environments (three locations over 3 consecutive years: 2021–24) in Odisha, India, to assess G × E interaction for 14 quantitative traits related to yield and sucking pest resistance using advanced statistical approaches. Combined analysis of variance revealed
highly significant (p < 0.01) effects of genotypes, environments and G × E interaction for all traits studied. The interaction component was particularly significant for key traits, including seed cotton yield (SCY), lint yield (LY) and populations of major sucking pests, necessitating a comprehensive stability analysis. High broad-sense heritability coupled with moderate to high genetic advance for yield and pest resistance traits indicated the predominance of additive gene action. Stability analyses using the Eberhart and Russell model, additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) and genotype plus genotype by environment (GGE) biplot consistently identified genotype BS 3-17 as superior, exhibiting the highest mean SCY (1978 kg ha-1) and LY (675 kg ha-1), along with the lowest mean populations of aphids (APH) (5.28 per 3 leaves) and jassids (JAS) (1.82 per 3 leaves) across environments. The multi-trait stability index (MTSI) further ranked BS 3-17 as the most desirable genotype (MTSI score = 5.51), indicating its closest proximity to the ideotype. Agronomic validation trials demonstrated that high-density planting (90 × 30 cm) combined with 125 % of the recommended dose of fertilisers significantly enhanced the yield potential of BS 3-17, achieving up to 3114 kg ha-1. These findings establish BS 3-17 as a climate-resilient, high-yielding genotype suitable for commercial cultivation and a promising donor parent for breeding programs targeting yield stability and sucking pest resistance.

References

  1. 1. Khan MA, Wahid A, Ahmad M, Tahir MT, Ahmed M, Ahmad S, et al. World cotton production and consumption: An overview. In: Cotton production and uses: Agronomy, crop protection and postharvest technologies. 2020; p.1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1472-2_1
  2. 2. AICRP. Annual report of All India Coordinated Research Project on Cotton. Central Institute for Cotton Research, Coimbatore, India; 2020.
  3. 3. Rizwan M, Abro S, Asif MU, Hameed A, Mahboob W, Deho ZA, et al. Evaluation of cotton germplasm for morphological and biochemical host plant resistance traits against sucking insect pests complex. J Cotton Res. 2021;4(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42397-021-00093-5
  4. 4. Kranthi KR, Jadhav DR, Kranthi S, Wanjari RR, Ali SS, Russell DA. Insecticide resistance in five major insect pests of cotton in India. Crop Prot. 2002;21(6):449–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(01)00131-4
  5. 5. Yan W, Kang MS. GGE biplot analysis: A graphical tool for breeders, geneticists and agronomists. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2002. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420040371
  6. 6. Gauch HG Jr. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE. Crop Sci. 2006;46(4):1488–500. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2005.07-0193
  7. 7. Yan W, Kang MS, Ma B, Woods S, Cornelius PL. GGE biplot vs AMMI analysis of genotype-by-environment data. Crop Sci. 2007;47(2):643–53. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.06.0374
  8. 8. Olivoto T, Lúcio AD, da Silva JA, Marchioro VS, de Souza VQ, Jost E. Mean performance and stability in multi-environment trials I: Combining features of AMMI and BLUP techniques. Agron J. 2019;111(6):2949–60. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2019.03.0220
  9. 9. Zali H, Farshadfar E, Sabaghpour SH, Karimizadeh R. Evaluation of genotype × environment interaction in chickpea using measures of stability from AMMI model. Ann Biol Res. 2012;3(7):3126–36.
  10. 10. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV. Statistical methods for agricultural workers. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research; 1967.
  11. 11. Burton GW, Devane EH. Estimating heritability in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea). Agron J. 1953;45(10):478–81.
  12. 12. Johnson HW, Robinson HF, Comstock RE. Estimates of genetic and environmental variability in soybeans. Agron J. 1955;47(7):314–18.
  13. 13. Eberhart SA, Russell WA. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci. 1966;6(1):36-40.
  14. 14. Olivoto T, Lúcio AD. Metan: An R package for multi-environment trial analysis. Methods Ecol Evol. 2020;11(6):783–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13384
  15. 15. Batool S, Khan NU, Gul S, Baloch MJ, Turi NA, Taran SA, et al. Genetic analysis for yield and yield contributing variables in upland cotton. J Food Agric Environ. 2013;11(3-4):624–30.
  16. 16. Sambamurthy JS, Reddy DM, Reddy KH. Genetic variability, correlation and path analysis in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J Indian Soc Cotton Improv. 1995;20(2):133–38.
  17. 17. Dewey DR, Lu KH. A correlation and path-coefficient analysis of components of crested wheatgrass seed production. Agron J. 1959;51(9):515–18.
  18. 18. Farooq J, Anwar M, Riaz M, Farooq A, Mahmood A, Shahid MT, et al. Correlation and path coefficient analysis of earliness, fiber quality and yield contributing traits in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). JAPS: J Anim Plant Sci. 2014;24(3).
  19. 19. Gnanasekaran M, Thiyagu K, Gunasekaran M. Studies on genetic variability correlation and path analysis in upland cotton. Electron J Plant Breed. 2020;11(3). https://doi.org/10.37992/2020.1103.160
  20. 20. Vavdiya PA, Chovatia VP, Bhut NM, Vadodariya GD. G × E interactions and stability analysis for seed cotton yield and its components in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Electron J Plant Breed. 2021;12(2).
  21. 21. Abro S, Rajput MT, Sial MA, Deho ZA, Rizwan M. Stability analysis for seed cotton yield of newly developed upland cotton genotypes. Adv Agric Anim Sci. 2020;36(2):97–100. https://doi.org/10.47432/2020.36.2.2
  22. 22. Purchase JL, Hatting H, Van Deventer CS. Genotype × environment interaction of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in South Africa: II. Stability analysis of yield performance. S Afr J Plant Soil. 2000;17(3):101–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2000.10634878
  23. 23. Verma K, Sharma P, Tripathi K, Yadav R, Singh SP. Recent advances in genetic improvement of cotton. In: Genetic engineering of crop plants for food and health security. 2024; p. 69–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5034-8_4
  24. 24. Venugopalan MV, Kranthi KR, Blaise D, Lakde S, Sankaranarayana K. High density planting system in cotton—the Brazil experience and Indian initiatives. Cotton Res J. 2013;5(2):172–85.
  25. 25. Maleia MP, Raimundo A, Moiana LD, Teca JO, Chale F, Jamal E, et al. Stability and adaptability of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) genotypes based on AMMI analysis. Aust J Crop Sci. 2017;11(4):367–72.
  26. 26. Kothari K, Ale S, Bordovsky JP, Munster CL, Singh VP, Nielsen-Gammon J, et al. Potential genotype-based climate change adaptation strategies for sustaining cotton production in the Texas High Plains: A simulation study. Field Crops Res. 2021;271:108261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108261
  27. 27. Fasahat P, Rajabi A, Rad JM, Derera J. Principles and utilization of combining ability in plant breeding. Biom Biostat Int J. 2016;4(1):1–24.
  28. 28. Dinesh Kumar G, Manikanda Boopathi N, Geethanjali S, Subramanian A, Somasundaram S, Kannan M, et al. Guarding the cotton fields by refining the resilience against sucking pests: use of cutting-edge breeding and other techniques. J Cotton Res. 2025;8(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42397-025-00220-6
  29. 29. Shaheen M, Abdul Rauf H, Taj MA, Yousaf Ali M, Bashir MA, Atta S, et al. Path analysis based on genetic association of yield components and insect pest in upland cotton varieties. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0260971. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260971
  30. 30. Kanchana T, Sakthivel N, Thavaprakash N, Balamurugan J. Performance of compact cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) genotypes to varied nutrient levels under high density planting system in winter irrigated condition. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;8(3):3084–88.
  31. 31. Elsamman EY, Ge Q, Wang X, Lamlom SF, Gong J, Li J, et al. Elucidating the phenotypic basis of multi-environment stability for fiber yield and quality traits of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) using 498 recombinant inbred lines. Industrial Crops and Products. 2024;215:118593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2024.118593
  32. 32. Zhang Z, Ahmed S, Chattha MS, Liu A, Liu J, Lv N, et al. Managing plant density and nitrogen fertilizer to reduce nitrogen input without yield reduction of late-sown cotton after wheat by improving light interception and sink nitrogen partitioning in a double cropping system. Field Crops Res. 2023;295:108875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2023.108875

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.