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

Research Articles

Early Access

Stability analysis of promising sugarcane genotypes for cane and sugar yields using the AMMI model and GGE biplot

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.7405
Submitted
24 January 2025
Published
19-03-2025
Versions

Abstract

The sugarcane clone G 2008019 is a general cross progeny of CoV 92102 that outyielded the checks in initial breeding trials. To assess its stability and yield potential under saline stress, multi-environment trials comprising 20 environments were conducted from 2022 to 2024. It produced the highest mean cane yield of 123.41 t/ha with a commercial cane sugar percentage of 13.06, representing a 27.46%, 28.89% and 31.79% increase over the checks Co 86032 (96.82 t/ha), CoG 94077 (93.64 t/ha) and CoG 95076 (95.75 t/ha) respectively. Further, it exhibited a 29.35%, 35.09% and 34.16% increase in sugar yield over the checks, respectively. From the AMMI (additive main effects and multiplicative interactions) and GGE (genotype × genotype interaction with environment) biplots, the performance and stability of the test genotypes were ascertained. The ANOVA analysis showcased a significant contribution of genotypes to total variation followed by the genotype × environment interaction and the environment itself. The yield potential and the stability of G 2008019 were confirmed through minimal ASV values and higher values for cane yield and juice-based quality traits. The biplots of AMMI I, AMMI II and GGE confirmed the constancy of G 2008019. Additionally, the sugarcane clone G 2008019 possessed good jaggery qualities, including 65.36% juice recovery, 91.84% juice purity, 11.32% jaggery recovery and 15.21 t/ha jaggery yield. The mean fibre content of the clone was 13.25%. These combined results indicate the suitability of clone G 2008019 for further utilization in the breeding cycle.

References

  1. O’Connell A, Deo J, Deomano E, Wei X, Jackson P, Aitken KS, et al. Combining genomic selection with genome-wide association analysis identified a large-effect QTL and improved selection for red rot resistance in sugarcane. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:1021182. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1021182
  2. Thangavelu S. Role of sugarcane varieties on jaggery research- A review. Cooperative Sugar. 2005;36(10):823-26. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:221214038
  3. Santaella J. The sugarcane agribusiness – An energy focused vision. Bulletin Published by Technische Universität Berlin – TU International. 2007;60(8):3.
  4. Sudhagar R, Rajkumar S, Ramachandiran K, Saravanan NA. Identification of location-specific male and female sugarcane parents and formulation of breeding strategies. Sugar Tech. 2023;25(3):670–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-022-01225-0
  5. Shahbaz M, Ashraf M. Improving salinity tolerance in cereals. Crit Rev Plant Sci. 2013;32(4):237–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2013.758544
  6. Glick BR, Cheng Z, Czarny J, Duan J. Promotion of plant growth by ACC deaminase-producing soil bacteria. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2007;119:329–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-007-9162-4
  7. Williams ARE, Ahmed MPP. Impact of leather industries on groundwater in Tamil Nadu with special reference to Vellore district. Int Rev Bus Econ. 2020;4:351–57. https://doi.org/10.56902/irbe.2020.4.2.65
  8. Sinduja M, Sathya V, Maheswari M, Dinesh GK, Prasad S, Kalpana P. Groundwater quality assessment for agricultural purposes at Vellore district of Southern India: A geospatial based study. Urban Clim. 2023;47:101368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101368
  9. Hu Y, Schmidhalter U. In: Limitation of salt stress to plant growth. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc; 2004. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203023884.ch5
  10. Javid MG, Sorooshzadeh A, Moradi F, Sanavy SAMM, Allahdadi I. The role of phytohormones in alleviating salt stress in crop plants. Aust J Crop Sci. 2011;5(6):726–34. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.282135746215551
  11. Mani AK, Santhi R, Sellamuthu KM. A Handbook of laboratory analysis. AE Publications; 2007. p. 156–67
  12. Chen JCP, Chi CC. Cane sugar handbook: A manual for cane sugar manufacturers and their chemists. John Wiley and Sons; 1993
  13. Whalley HCS. ICUMSA methods of sugar analysis official and tentative methods recommended by the International commission for uniform methods of sugar analysis (ICUMSA). New York: Elsevier; 1964
  14. Meade GP, Chen JCP. Cane sugar handbook. 10th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1977
  15. Gauch HG, Zobel RW. Imputing missing yield trial data. Theor Appl Genet. 1990;79:753–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00224240
  16. Yan W, Kang MS. GGE biplot analysis: A graphical tool for breeders, geneticists and agronomist. CRC Press; 2002. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420040371-4
  17. 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. South African J Plant Soil. 2013;17(3):101–07. https://doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2000.10634878
  18. Dashiell KE, Ariyo OJ, Ojo K. Genotype X environment interaction and simultaneous selection for high yield and stability in soybeans (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). Ann Appl Biol. 1994;124(1):133–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1994.tb04121.x
  19. Nelson PN, Ham GJ. Exploring the response of sugar cane to sodic and saline conditions through natural variation in the field. Field Crops Res. 2000;66(3):245–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-4290(00)00077-0
  20. Rietz DN, Haynes RJ. Effect of irrigation-induced salinity and sodicity on sugarcane yield. Proc S Afr Surg Technol Assoc. 2002;76:173–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(03)00125-1
  21. Rao VP, Sengar RS, Singh S, Sharma V. Molecular and metabolic perspectives of sugarcane under salinity stress pressure. Prog Agric. 2015;15(1):77–84.
  22. Alarmelu S, Balakrishnan R, Hemaprabha G. G × E interaction studies in multi-location trials of sugarcane using GGE biplot and ANOM analysis. J Sugarcane Res. 2015;5(1):12–23.
  23. Farshadfar E, Mahmodi N, Yaghotipoor A, Sability A. Value and simultaneous estimation of yield and yield stability in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Aust J Crop Sci. 2011;5(13):1837–44.
  24. Oladosu Y, Rafii MY, Abdullah N, Magaji U, Miah G, Hussin. Genotype × Environment interaction and stability analyses of yield and yield components of established and mutant rice genotypes tested in multiple locations in Malaysia. Acta Agric Scand Sect B Soil Plant Sci. 2017;67(7):590–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2017.1321138
  25. Sudhagar R, Saravanan NA, Kanchanarani R, Shanmuganathan M, Ganapathy S, Babu C, et al. Evolution, identification, evaluation and characterization of a stable salinity tolerant sugarcane variety CoG 7. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):20448. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-70756-1
  26. Bose KL, Jambhulkar NR, Pande K, Singh NO. Use of AMMI and other stability statistics in the simultaneous selection of rice genotypes for yield and stability under direct-seeded conditions. Chil J Agric Res. 2014;74(1):3–9. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-58392014000100001
  27. Bhatt R, Kumar R, Kashyap L, Alataway A, Dewidar AZ, Mattar MA. Growth, yield, quality and insect-pests in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) as affected by differential regimes of irrigation and potash under stressed conditions. Agronomy. 2022;12(8):1942. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081942

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.