Evaluation of genotype environment interaction and

stability of corn hybrids and relationship among

univariate parametric methods
Mahdi Changizi1, Rajab Choukan2, Eslam Majidi Heravan1,
Mohammad Reza Bihamta3, and Farrokh Darvish1
1
Department of Plant Breeding, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Tehran, Iran (e-mail: mahd.changizi@gmail.com); 2Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Karaj, Iran; and
3
Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, University of Tehran, Iran.
Can. J. Plant Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 186.46.90.98 on 06/07/16

Received 7 December 2013, accepted 5 May 2014. Published on the web 20 May 2014.
Changizi, M., Choukan, R., Heravan, E. M., Bihamta, M. R. and Darvish, F. 2014. Evaluation of genotypeenvironment
interaction and stability of corn hybrids and relationship among univariate parametric methods. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94:
12551267. There have been many approaches available in multi-location crop variety trial. However, the relationship
among these approaches is not understood. In this study, therefore, grain yields of 16 corn hybrids were measured in
12 locations in Iran in 2011 and 2012 in order to compare the 23 parametric methods and to assess stability and
adaptability of the hybrids. The combined ANOVA indicated that variances due to the genotypes, environments
and genotype environment interaction were substantially significant, which represents great variation among them.
Principal component analysis based on rank correlation matrix indicated that stability methods can be classified into
four groups. The group related to the dynamic concept and strongly associated with mean grain yield consisted of the
measures, superiority index (Pi), desirability index (DI), geometric adaptability index (GAI) and genotypic stability (Di2).
This group was more useful in agronomic goals in comparison with other methods. The second group also indicated
the dynamic concept contained slope of regression models. The third group reflected the static concept included, the
environmental variance (EV), the variance in regression deviation (S2di) and type IV stability concept (S2y(l)). The fourth
For personal use only.

group impressed concurrently by grain yield and stability included the measures coefficient of variability (CV), Wricks
ecovalence (W2), Shuklas stability variance (SH), Plaisted and Petersons parameter (pp59), Plaisteds parameter (p60),
yield reliability index (Ii), residual MS of regression models and coefficient of determination (R2). Based on both
concepts of stability (dynamic and static), hybrids (KLM76002/3MO17), (KLM77002/10-5-1 K19/1) and (K47/2 
MO17) were the most stable and (KSC704), (KSC720 (K74/1K19)) and (K48/3 K18) were found to be the most
adaptable to favorable environments. The methods of Pi, Di2, DI and GAI were more useful and more convenient than
other methods. S2y(l)a and S2y(l)b showed an acceptable static concept of stability methods whereas study S2y(l)b was more
efficient than S2y(l)a.

Key words: Genotype environment interaction, stability, univariate stability methods,

cluster analysis, Zea mays (L.)

Changizi, M., Choukan, R., Heravan, E. M., Bihamta, M. R. et Darvish, F. 2014. Evaluation de linteraction genotype 
environnement et de la stabilite des hybrides du mas, et lien entre les methodes danalyse unidimensionnelles. Can. J. Plant Sci.
94: 12551267. Les essais de varietes realises a divers endroits recourent a maintes approches. Cependant, on saisit mal les
liens qui existent entre ces approches. Dans la presente etude, les auteurs ont mesure le rendement grainier de 16 varietes
hybrides de mas a 12 endroits, en Iran, en 2011 et 2012, avec pour objectifs de comparer les vingt-trois methodes
parametriques ainsi que devaluer la stabilite et la capacite dadaptation des cultivars. Lanalyse combinee de la variance
indique que la variance attribuable aux interactions du genotype, de lenvironnement et genotypeenvironnement est
nettement significative, ce qui signifie que les resultats varient beaucoup de lune a lautre. Lanalyse en composantes
principales, qui repose sur une grille de correlation des rangs revele quon peut repartir les methodes de stabilite en quatre
groupes. Le groupe de la stabilite dynamique, fortement associe au rendement grainier moyen, comprend les mesures,
lindice de superiorite (Pi), lindice de caractere desirable (DI), lindice geometrique de la capacite dadaptation (GAI) et la
stabilite du genotype (Di2). Ce groupe savere plus utile que les autres pour les objectifs agronomiques. Le deuxieme groupe
integre aussi le concept de stabilite dynamique exprime par la pente des modeles de regression. Le troisieme reflete
davantage le concept de stabilite statique et englobe la variance environnementale (EV), la variance de lecart de regression
(S2di) et le concept de stabilite de type IV (S2y(l)). Enfin, le quatrieme groupe, affecte a la fois par le rendement grainier et la
stabilite, comprend le coefficient de variabilite (CV), lecovalence de Wrick (W2), la variance de la stabilite de Shukla (SH),
le parametre de Plaisted et Peterson (pp59), le parametre de Plaisted (p60), lindice de fiabilite du rendement (Ii), la

Abbreviations: EV, environmental variance; GEI, genotype 

environment interaction; PCA, principal component analysis

Can. J. Plant Sci. (2014) 94: 12551267 doi:10.4141/CJPS2013-386 1255

 1256 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT SCIENCE

variance residuelle des modeles de regression et le coefficient de determination (R2). Dapres les deux concepts de stabilite
(dynamique et statique), les hybrides (KLM76002/3MO17), (KLM77002/10-5-1 K19/1) et (K47/2MO17) saverent
les plus stables, tandis que les hybrides (KSC704), (KSC720 (K74/1K19)) et (K48/3K18) sont ceux qui sadaptent le mieux
a des conditions favorables. Les methodes Pi, Di2, DI et GAI sont plus utiles et plus commodes que les autres. S2y(l)a et S2y(l)b
offrent un concept statique acceptable pour les methodes de stabilite, la seconde etant plus efficace que la premiere.

Mots cles: Interaction genotype environnement, stabilite, methodes de stabilite unidimensionnelles,

analyse par grappe, Zea mays (L.)

Corn (Zea mays L.) production and trading mainly
aim for livestock feeding; however, corn is an important
and integral part of the human food basket as well.
Given the importance of corn and its planting potential
Can. J. Plant Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 186.46.90.98 on 06/07/16
and biological limitations in the regression approach
(Lin et al. 1986; Westcott 1986; Crossa 1990; Flores 1998).
The other univariate stability parameters are Hansons
(1970) genotypic stability index (Di2), Hernandezs (1993)

throughout the world and in Iran, the sustainability
of its yield has been seriously taken into account in
previous research. The features of stable genotype are
complex due to genotype environment interactions
(GEI) (Alwala 2010; Moghaddam et al. 2013). As a
result, plant breeders target GEI and undertake multi
environment trials in appropriate and inappropriate
environments (Alwala 2010). In this way, different res-
ponses of genotypes for changing environmental condi-
tions are used to estimate the mean yield and to identify
high yield and stable genotypes (Yates and Cochran
1938; Moghadam et al. 2012; Tsegaye et al. 2012). It
can be considered that the GEI are due to predictable
For personal use only.
desirability index (DI), Kataokas (1963) yield reliability
index (Ii), Pinthuss (1973) coefficients of determination
(R2), geometric adaptability index (GAI) (Mohammadi
and Amri 2008), Lin and Binns (1988) superiority index
(Pi), and type IV stability concept (S2y(l)a) and (Sy(l)
2
b).
In the present study, the experiments were carried out
during 2 yr in 12 locations under the macro-environment
condition and the aims of the study were to assess the
stability and adaptability of desired hybrids in order to
introduce stable genotypes and also the evaluation of
stability assessment methods by comparing their relative
efficiency and relationships.

and unpredictable effects (Allard and Bradshow 1964).

The former effects are due to macro-environment and MATERIALS AND METHODS
the latter ones are attributable to temperature and micro- Sixteen corn hybrids (Table 1) were tested during 2011
environment (Abo-Hegazy 2013). In addition, the adapt- 2012 at 12 locations including Karaj, Shiraz, Gharakhil-
Ghaemshahr, Moghan, Khorramabad, Miandoab,
ability of a cultivar results from its stability under
Mashhad, Gorgan, Dezfoul, Isfahan, Jiroft and Ilam
different conditions (De Souza Goncalves et al. 2003;
in Iran, The environmental characteristics of these loca-
Rasul et al. 2005; Sharma et al. 2010; Moghaddam
tions are presented in Table 2. A randomized com-
et al. 2011). There are various methods for describing
plete block design with four replicates was used at
the effects of GEI along with identifying and recom-
each location. The plot size was as follows: four rows
mending stable genotypes in breeding programs. The con-
ventional methods are grouped in parametric (univariate
and multivariate) and nonparametric approaches based Table 1. Code, hybrids, mean yield (t ha 1) and grouping means by
on different strategies. The univariate parametric strategy Duncans test (at the 5% level)
includes the methods which are based on variance com-
ponents and joint regression. The combined variance Code Hybrids Grain mean yield (t ha 1)
analysis is the most common method used for the G1 KLM 76002/3MO17 10.002a
identification of GEI in repeated multi-environment G2 KLM 77002/10-5-1K19/1 10.003a
trials. Environmental variance (EV) [Roemer (1917), G3 K48/3K19/1 9.378cde
as reported in Becker and Leon (1988)], Francis and G4 K3612/2K19 8.523g
G5 K3651/2K19 8.726gf
Kanenbergs (1978) coefficient of variability (CV), G6 K3651/1K19/1 9.261de
Wrickes (1962) ecovalence (W2), Shulkas (1972) stabi- G7 KLM 77002/10-2-3K19/1 8.965efg
lity variance (SH), Plaisted and Petersons (1959) mean G8 K47/2MO17 9.933ab
variance component for genotype environment interac- G9 KLM 77007/7K3615/2 9.253de
G10 KLM 77002/10-6-1K19/1 9.09def
tion (GEI) (PP59), Plaisteds (1960) variance compo- G11 K47/22A679 9.495bcd
nent for GEI (P60), regression analysis as detailed by G12 K48/3K18 9.897ab
Finlay and Wilkinson (1963) (FW), Eberhart and G13 KLM 78027/2MO17 8.748gf
Russells (1966) deviation from the regression line G14 KLM 78018/6MO17 8.719gf
G15 KSC 720 (K74/1K19) 9.921ab
(S2di) and regression coefficient (bi), Perkins and Jinks G16 KSC 704 9.779abc
(1968) (PJ), and Freeman and Perkins (1971) (FP)
methods have been widely used as important measures ag Grouping mean yield of hybrids by Duncans test at the 0.05 level;
of stability. Though there are well-recognized statistical similar letters indicate similar grouping.
 CHANGIZI ET AL. * GE INTERACTIONS AND STABILITY OF CORN HYBRIDS 1257

Table 2. Geographical positions and information of where the experiments were conducted

Code Growing season Environment Longitude Latitude Rainfall mm Mean yield (t ha1)

E1 20102011 Karaj 51.00E 35.49N 320 12.134

E2 20102011 Shiraz 52.43E 46.25N 286.6 12.021
E3 20102011 G-Ghaemshahr 52.25E 31.28N 808.4 8.152
E4 20102011 Moghan 47.32E 39.41N 376.7 9.417
E5 20102011 Khoramabad 48.2E 33.29N 287.9 5.33
E6 20102011 Miandoab 32.24E 46.06N 287.5 16.476
E7 20102011 Mashhad 59.38E 36.16N 250 13.593
E8 20102011 Gorgan 54.25E 36.45N 309 7.323
E9 20102011 Dezful 32.24E 48.28N 290 8.138
E10 20102011 Isfahan 51.51E 32.51N 164 5.512
E11 20102011 Jiroft 56.17E 26.43N 68.8 7.434
E12 20102011 Ilam 46.16E 33.5N 298 8.194
Can. J. Plant Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 186.46.90.98 on 06/07/16

E13 20112012 Karaj 51.00E 35.49N 274 9.375

E14 20112012 Shiraz 52.43E 46.25N 226.5 10.179
E15 20112012 G-Ghaemshahr 52.25E 31.28N 585 6.285
E16 20112012 Moghan 47.32E 39.41N 275.7 9.35
E17 20112012 Khoramabad 48.2E 33.29N 165.3 5.67
E18 20112012 Miandoab 32.24E 46.06N 200 14.607
E19 20112012 Mashhad 59.38E 36.16N 288 15.347
E20 20112012 Gorgan 54.25E 36.45N 400 6.093
E21 20112012 Dezful 32.24E 48.28N 254 4.579
E22 20112012 Isfehan 51.51E 32.51N 126.3 10.909
E23 20112012 Jiroft 56.17E 26.43N 175.6 9.964
E24 20112012 Ilam 46.16E 33.5N 142.5 8.455

(furrows), 6 m length, 0.75 m apart and 0.35 m between The stability analysis was used according to 23 uni-
For personal use only.

hills and plant density fixed at 76 000 plants ha 1. All of
the common practices were followed throughout the
growing season. The inner two rows of each plot were
harvested and grain production was measured based on
14% of grain moisture.
Statistical Methods
At each location, the statistical design analysis was
carried out for determining the mean yield. Bartletts
test was employed to test the homogeneity of error mean
squares. The yield data were subjected to ANOVA by
using the following model:
Yijkr  mYk Lj LYjk Rr (Lj Yk )Gi GLij
GYik GLYijk eijkr
where Yijkr is the response variable of ith genotype at jth
location, kth year, and rth replication, m is the overall
mean, y is the main effect of year k, L is the main effect
of location j, LY is the interaction effect of location-by-
year jk, R is the effect of replication (r) within location
and year (Lj Yk), G is the main effect of genotype i, GL is
the interaction effect of genotype-by-location ij, GY is
the interaction effect of genotype-by-year ik, GLY is the
interaction effect of genotype-by-location-by-year ijk
and e is the random error ijkr.
In the above-mentioned model, genotypes were se-
lected by Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Karaj,
Iran, and locations were considered as fixed factors.
Because the weather conditions can change from year
to year, the effect of year was considered as a random
factor.
variate stability methods as follows: Environmental
variance [Roemer (1917), as reported in Becker and Leon
(1988)] indicates the variance of each genotype across
all of the tested environments as phenotype stability.
Francis and Kanenbergs (1978) coefficient of variability
indicates the general CV% of each genotype as a stability
measure (Lin and Binns 1986). Wrickes (1962) equiva-
lence (W2) reveals the GE interaction for genotype (i)
across all environments squared and summed as a geno-
type stability measure (Lin and Binns 1986; Mohammadi
et al. 2012). Lin and Binns (1988) introduced the super-
iority index (Pi) as the general superiority of genotype
and defined it as the mean square distance between the
genotypes response and the maximum response at all
locations (Mohammadi et al. 2012).
Plaisted and Peterson (1959) proposed the variance
mean for each pair of genotypes in order to estimate
the interaction variance (pp59). Plaisted (1960) intro-
duced the variance-based contribution of each genotype
in forming the genotype environment interaction as
the stability parameter (p60). Hansons (1970) genotypic
stability parameter (Di2) is derived from regression ana-
lysis, since it uses the minimum slope from the Finlay
and Wilkinson (1963) method. Hernandezs (1993) pro-
posed a desirability index (DI) that would combine both
yield and regression coefficient (Dehghani et al. 2008).
Geometric Adaptability Index (GAI) (Mohammadi and
Amri 2008) is used to evaluate the adaptability of
genotypes and it is calculated as follows:
p
E
GAI  (X 1:)(X 2:) . . . (X i:)
 1258 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT SCIENCE
Where, X 1:; X 2: and X i: are the mean yields of the first,
second and ith genotypes across all environments and E
is the number of environments (E: locationyear).
The genotypes with the higher GAI will be acceptable
(Mohammadi and Amri 2008; Pourdad 2010). Based on
Kataoka index, Eskridge (1990) calculated the lowest
yield expected for a specified probability (say 0.95).
In this way, for each genotype i, the index is given as
follows:
(Ii mi Z(p) Si )
where, mi is the mean yield, Si is the square root of
stability variance, and Z(p) is the percentage of normal
Can. J. Plant Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 186.46.90.98 on 06/07/16
distribution at the probability level [Food and Agricul-
ture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2002]
for which the cumulative distribution function reaches
the value P. Z(p) can assume the following values depe-
nding on the chosen P level: 0.675 for P0.75; 0.840 for
P 0.80; 1.040 for P 0.85; 1.280 for P 0.90; and
1.645 for P 0.95 (FAO 2002).
This reliability index, Ii, gives the lowest yield ex-
pected in l00P% cases. The selection based on Ii gives
an confidence that in 100P% cases the yield would be
greater than Ii and selection of genotype can be based on
the greatest Ii (Shulka 2004).
The residual MS of Perkins and Jinks (1968) (MSPJ)
For personal use only.
and Freeman and Perkin (1971) (MSFP) regression
models were used as the stability parameter. Lin and
Binns (1988) proposed type IV stability concept on the
basis of predictable and unpredictable component non-
genetic variation; predictable component and unpredict-
able components are related to the location and year,
respectively (FAO 2002). In fact, the estimation of this
variation as provided by My(L) is inflated by the ex-
perimental error variance. The actual variance of this
effect (S2y(l)) could be estimated as follows:
S2y(l)  My(l) (Merr =r)
Where, Merr is pooled error (i.e., average experimental
error for the genotypes) in the combined ANOVA, and r
is the number of experiment replicates (in the present
paper, it is shown as (S2y(l)a)).
S2y(l) values can also be estimated through a hierarch-
ical ANOVA performed on plot values of each geno-
type, which includes the MS value for the replicate
within years as a source of variation (Mr(y)). In this case,
it is shown as follows:
S2y(l)  (My(l) Mr(y) )=r
2 while the main effect of location and genotype were
(In this paper it is represented as (Sy(l) b)).
2
The current estimates of Sy(l) values may differ slightly
from the estimate obtained from the previous formula
(FAO 2002).
Joint Regression
Yates and Cochran (1938) explained, for the first time,
the combined evaluation of phenotypic value and its
interaction with the environment employing joint re-
gression; after that Finlay and Wilkinson (1963) and
then Eberhart and Russell (1966) modified the method
(Tiawari et al. 2011). Then, it was further developed by
Perkins and Jinks (1968), and also by Freeman and
Perkins (1971). In the Finlay and Wilkinson (1963)
regression model (FW), the difference between the grand
mean of the environments and the general mean is
shown by the regression of observations and environ-
mental indices. Eberhart and Russell (1966) further
developed FWs regression model of stability and pro-
posed the use of two stability measures (S2di and bi)
when determining the performance of one cultivar across
various environments. The Perkins and Jinks (1968)
regression coefficient (PJ) is similar to the FW method,
but the observations are adjusted for site effects. Tai
(1971) proposed two measures of stability (ai and li).
These two stability parameters are very similar to the
regression coefficient and the deviation from regression
of Eberhart and Russell, but are attained by a method
that is a continuance of the analysis of variance. They
are obtained using the principle of structural relation-
ships (Dehghani et al. 2008). Pinthus (1973) (R2)
proposed that the ability of the linear regression model
for definition of the observed variation could be
characterized using coefficients of determination which
are computed by an individual linear regression analysis
(Mohammadi et al. 2012).
Rank Correlation Coefficient and Principal
Component Analysis
The stability methods were evaluated using Spearmans
rank. In this method, the linear relationship between the
considered methods is evaluated based on the computed
parameters ranking. The other approach is based on
principal component analysis (PCA) (Piepho and Lotto
1992). For this purpose, the biplot analysis was carried
out with the rank correlation matrix to determine the
relationship between the stability parameters (Lipkovich
and Smith 2002; Kilic et al. 2010). Most of the analyses
were undertaken by employing SAS software V.9.1.3
(SAS Institute, Inc.) as well as SPSS V.16.0 (SPSS Inc.,
2007) and Minitab V.16.2.1 (MINITAB Inc., 2010).
RESULTS
ANOVA Results and Joint Regression Analysis
The results of variance analysis are presented in (Table 3).
The effect of year indicated no significant difference
significant (PB0.01) indicating the differences in geno-
types and locations. The highest difference is determined
for the main effect of location (65.58%), while the
differences related to G, G L, G Y, and G Y L
totally reach (8.579%), which demonstrates the diversity
of the tested environments. A comparable percent has
already been reported by Alwala (2010) and Namorato
et al. (2009). As is indicated in Table 1, the highest mean
 CHANGIZI ET AL. * GE INTERACTIONS AND STABILITY OF CORN HYBRIDS 1259

Table 3. Combined analysis of variance for yield data of 16 corn between these parameters were very high and equal
genotypes tested across 12 locations in two years to 1 (Table 6). Karimizadeh et al. (2012) proposed
that the above parameters emphasize the gen-
Total variation
SOV DF SS MS explained (%)
otype environment interaction and establish the
stable genotypes with lower contribution in the
Year (Y) 1 25.034 25.034 NS 0.12 interaction. In addition, Mohebidini et al. (2006)
Location (L) 11 13659.639 1241.785** 65.586 and Kilic (2010) reported a strong relationship
LY 11 2264.632 205.876** 10.874
R (LY) 72 551.409 7.658 2.648
between the above parameters using the correlation
Genotype (G) 15 394.345 26.29** 1.893 method. Based on the superiority index (Pi) (Lin
GL 165 772.427 4.681** 3.709 and Binns 1998), a genotype is stable if it has a low
GY 15 78.351 5.223** 0.376 Pi (Kilic 2010). In this term, G8, G15 and G2 were
GLY 165 541.787 3.284** 2.601 the most stable genotypes respectively. And, G10,
Error 1080 2539.427 2.351 0.154
Corrected total 1535 20827.051 G7, G14, G5, G13 and G4 were not acceptable
Can. J. Plant Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 186.46.90.98 on 06/07/16

R2 0.878071 because of their high Pi. In desirability index (DI)

** Significant at the 1% level; NS, not significant.
yields are attributed to G2, G1, G12, G8, G15 and G16,
respectively; their mean yields are classified in a statistic
group using Duncan method. The computed para-
meters, values and the rankings are illustrated in Tables
4 and 5, respectively. Based on the EV (Roemer 1917)
G13, G4, and G1 were more stable and exhibited bio-
logical stability. The results of the CV stability para-
meter showed little difference and G1, G2, and G13 were
For personal use only.
(Hernandez et al. 1993) G12, G15 and G8 had the
highest DI values as well as average yield, and were
stable, but G4, G13, G14, and G5 were unstable.
Based on Hansons (1970) genotypic stability para-
meter (D2i ), G1, G8 and G2 had the lowest Di2
values and thus were stable, while G14, G4, G5,
and G10 had the highest Di2 values and were
unstable. The GAI is based on geometric mean of
genotype; thus, genotypes with high GAI are accept-
able (Pourdad 2011). In this respect, G1, G2 and
G8 were the most acceptable genotypes and G4,
G14, G5, and G13 had the lowest GAI. Kataokas

more stable and also based on Fig. 1 (CV vs. MEAN)
the genotypes can be categorized in four groups:
1. Genotypes with relatively high mean yield and low
coefficient of variability that are proposed as stable
genotypes (group 1).
2. Genotypes with the mean yield higher than total
average and high coefficient of variability (indicat-
ing the specific stability (group 2)). Among them G3
and G13 indicated the lower mean yield than others
in this group; thus, they are not recommended.
3. Genotypes with relatively low mean yield and also
low coefficient of variability, which are indicated
as stable genotypes due to their low coefficient of
variability, but they were not acceptable because of
their low mean yield (group 3). Among them G4,
G13 and G7 indicated the lowest mean yield; thus,
they are not recommended at all.
4. Genotypes with low mean yield and high coefficient
of variability, which are not recommended due
to their low yield and high variability (group 4).
Genotypes G6 and G8 revealed the best stability
according to their SH values (Table 5) similar to
W2 results, but G6 was not acceptable because of
its low mean yield; where G3 and G11 had the
lowest stability as well as average yield. Results of
Plaisteds (1960), and Plaisted and Petersons (1959)
methods were very similar to Wrikes (1962) and
Shulkas (1972) methods. Table 5 shows that the
genotype rank, based on these four stability para-
meters were similar and the correlation coefficients
(1963) yield reliability index (Ii) is obtained from
a combination of yield and stability. A genotype
is stable if it has a high Ii value. In this way, G16
and G8 were classified in the stable group and G11
and G15 were unstable. Type IV stability (Lin and
Binns 1988) (S2y(l)) has been estimated with two
different formulas (FAO 2002), which are similar in
results. The lower the parameter, the more stable
the genotype. Accordingly, G4 was the most stable,
while G3, G16 and G12 were the most unstable;
however, G16 and G12 had a relatively accept-
able mean yield but low stability. The most unstable
genotype was G3 and the most stable one was G4,
but these were not acceptable due to theri unac-
ceptable mean yields; these results were similar to
environmental variance.
The results of the different linear regression stability
parameters are given in Table 4. The deviations from
linear regression of Eberhart and Russells (1966) (S2di)
showed that G13 and G4 were stable genotypes and
based on slope (bi) they had specific adaptability to poor
environments (b 0.852 for G13 and b0.865 for G4),
but G16 had specific adaptability to favorable environ-
ments (b 1.149). According to Eberhart and Russells
(1966) method, the use of diagram (S2di vs. bi) is useful
for a better understanding of genotypes stability [Haufe
and Geidel (1978) as cited by Becker and Leon (1988)].
Genotypes G13, G4, G1, G7, G2, and G6 are classified
in the high yield stability group and were adapted
to low-yielding environment; they are classified in this
group due to their coefficient, which is less than 1
 1260 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT SCIENCE
Table 4. Mean grain yield values (t ha) and 23 stability parameters of 16 corn genotypes across 24 environmentsz

MEAN EV CV W2 pp59 p60 SH FW PJ MSPJ bi S2di R2 FP MSFP Pi Di2 DI ai li Ii S2y(l)a S2y(l)b GAI

G1 10 10.02 31.67 21.72 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.92 0.081 0.91 0.919 10.4 0.913 0.92 0.91 1.7 59.5 11.08 0.0821 1.241 4.91 13.62 3.2 9.51
G2 10 10.45 32.29 24.19 1.07 1 1.13 0.93 0.066 1.05 0.934 10.87 0.9039 0.93 1.05 1.5 63.4 11.1 0.067 1.429 5.22 13.53 3 9.48
G3 9.38 13.37 38.93 34.16 1.3 0.97 1.63 1.05 0.048 1.53 1.048 13.95 0.891 1.05 1.52 2.8 89 10.61 0.048 2.08** 4 26.11 5.84 8.68
Can. J. Plant Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 186.46.90.98 on 06/07/16

G4 8.52 8.91 34.97 19.1 0.95 1.02 0.88 0.87* 0.127* 0.68 0.873* 9.13 0.9265 0.87* 0.68 4.4 105 9.55 0.128* 0.931 8.43 5.79 1.19 8.06
G5 8.73 12.06 39.81 16.33 0.88 1.03 0.74 1.02 0.023 0.74 1.024 12.6 0.9415 1.02 0.74 4 100 9.93 0.023 1.001 9 16.11 3.57 8.12
G6 9.26 10.57 35.2 10.28 0.74 1.05 0.44 0.97 0.032 0.46 0.967 11.04 0.9587 0.97 0.46 2.6 63.7 10.4 0.033 0.619 5.46 12.19 2.14 8.72
G7 8.96 10.18 35.59 18.26 0.93 1.02 0.84 0.93 0.066 0.78 0.934 10.6 0.9268 0.93 0.78 3.5 82.6 10.06 0.067 1.060 4.18 16.18 3.45 8.44
G8 9.93 11.92 34.81 13.35 0.81 1.04 0.59 1.02 0.023 0.6 1.023 12.46 0.9518 1.02 0.6 1.3 59.7 11.14 0.023 0.818 9.35 12.36 2.11 9.35
G9 9.25 12.47 38.21 23.86 1.06 1 1.11 1.03 0.027 1.08 1.028 13.03 0.9176 1.03 1.08 2.7 83.2 10.46 0.028 1.464 7.13 9.59 2.33 8.65
G10 9.09 12.5 39 23.48 1.05 1 1.1 1.03 0.029 1.06 1.030 13.06 0.919 1.03 1.06 3.1 93.3 10.3 0.03 1.438 7.64 11.05 2.68 8.49
G11 9.49 14.09 39.57 31.62 1.24 0.98 1.5 1.09 0.086 1.35 1.087 14.65 0.908 1.09 1.35 2.3 88 10.77 0.087 1.84* 1.24 18.37 4.49 8.81
G12 9.9 13.81 37.45 25.14 1.09 1 1.18 1.09 0.086 1.06 1.087 14.35 0.9268 1.09 1.06 1.8 75 11.18 0.087 1.438 6 23.92 5.39 9.22
G13 8.75 8.47 33.22 14.98 0.85 1.03 0.67 0.86* 0.139** 0.46 0.86** 8.63 0.9479 0.86* 0.46 4 86.1 9.76 0.14* 0.627 6.13 13.11 1.87 8.31
G14 8.72 11.93 39.81 25.57 1.1 1 1.2 1 0.0007 1.16 0.999 12.47 0.907 1 1.16 4 109 9.9 0.0007 1.581 3.74 10.4 2.39 8.07
G15 9.92 12.73 36.05 20.74 0.99 1.01 0.96 1.05 0.05 0.92 1.046 13.29 0.931 1.05 0.92 1.4 68.5 11.15 0.046 1.25 1.61 18.61 4.62 9.3
G16 9.78 15.02 39.72 25.36 1.09 1 1.19 1.14* 0.14* 0.92 1.142* 15.48 0.9412 1.14* 0.92 1.7 81.8 11.12 0.143* 1.256 9.24 24.97 5.24 9.01

z
MEANgrain mean yield (t ha1); biregression coefficient of Eberhart and Russell; FWregression coefficient of Finlay and Wilkinson; PJregression coefficient of Perkins and
Jinks; FPregression coefficient of Freeman and Perkins; MSFPresidual MS of Freeman and Perkins model; MSPJresidual MS of Perkins and Jinks model; S2dideviation from
regression Eberhart and Russell; R2 Pinthuss coefficient of determination; W2 Wricks equivalence; EV environmental variance; CV coefficient of variability; SHShuklas stability
For personal use only.

variance; pp59Plaisted and Petersons stability parameter; p60 Plaisted stability parameter; DIHernandezs desirability index; a and l Tais stability parameters; Pi Lin and Binns
superiority index; Di2 Hansons genotypic stability parameter; Iireliability index; GAIgeometric adaptability index; Ii yield reliability index; (Sy(l)
2 2
a and Sy(l)b) Lin and Binns type
IV stability. *, ** Significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively.

Table 5. Rank of the 16 corn genotypes using mean grain yield and 23 univariate methods of stability in 24 environmentsz

MEAN EV CV W2 pp59 p60 SH FW PJ MSPJ bi S2di R2 FP MSFP Pi Di2 DI ai li Ii S2y(l)a S2y(l)b GAI

G1 2 3 1 8 8 8 8 14 14 7 14 3 12 14 7 5 1 6 14 7 11 9 9 1
G2 1 5 2 11 11 11 11 12 12 10 13 5 15 13 10 3 3 5 12 10 10 8 8 2
G3 8 13 11 16 16 16 16 4 4 16 6 13 16 4 16 10 12 8 4 16 13 16 16 9
G4 16 2 5 6 6 6 6 15 15 4 15 2 9 15 4 16 15 16 15 4 4 1 1 16
G5 14 9 16 4 4 4 4 8 8 5 9 9 4 8 5 15 14 13 8 5 3 10 11 14
G6 9 6 6 1 1 1 1 11 11 1 11 6 1 11 1 8 4 10 11 1 9 5 4 8
G7 12 4 7 5 5 5 5 13 13 6 12 4 7 12 6 12 8 12 13 6 12 11 10 12
G8 3 7 4 2 2 2 2 9 9 3 8 7 2 9 3 1 2 3 9 3 1 6 3 3
G9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 7 13 7 10 11 7 13 9 9 9 7 13 6 2 5 10
G10 11 11 12 9 9 9 9 6 6 11 5 11 10 6 12 11 13 11 6 11 5 4 7 11
G11 7 15 13 15 15 15 15 2 2 15 2 15 13 3 15 7 11 7 2 15 16 12 12 7
G12 5 14 9 12 12 12 12 2 2 11 3 14 7 2 11 6 6 1 2 11 8 14 15 5
G13 13 1 3 3 3 3 3 16 16 2 16 1 3 16 2 14 10 15 16 2 7 7 2 13
G14 15 8 15 14 14 14 14 10 10 14 10 8 14 10 14 13 16 14 10 14 14 3 6 15
G15 4 12 8 7 7 7 7 5 5 8 4 12 6 5 8 2 5 2 5 8 15 13 13 4
G16 6 16 14 13 13 13 13 1 1 9 1 16 5 1 9 4 7 4 1 9 2 15 14 6

z
MEAN grain mean yield (t ha 1); biregression coefficient of Eberhart and Russell; FWregression coefficient of Finlay and Wilkinson; PJregression coefficient of Perkins and
Jinks; FPregression coefficient of Freeman and Perkins; MSFP residual MS of Freeman and Perkins model; MSPJ residual MS of Perkins and Jinks model; S2dideviation from
regression Eberhart and Russell; R2 Pinthuss coefficient of determination; W2 Wricks ecovalence; EV environmental variance; CV coefficient of variability; SHShuklas stability;
pp59Plaisted and Petersons stability parameter; p60 Plaisted stability parameter; DIHernandezs desirability index; a and l Tais stability parameters; PiLin and Binns
superiority index; Di2 Hansons genotypic stability parameter; Iireliability index; GAIgeometric adaptability index, Iiyield reliability indexl (S2y(l)a and S2y(l)b) Lin and Binns type
IV stability.
 CHANGIZI ET AL. * GE INTERACTIONS AND STABILITY OF CORN HYBRIDS
Can. J. Plant Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 186.46.90.98 on 06/07/16
Fig. 1. Grain yield means versus CV% from 16 corn genotypes in 24 environments.
For personal use only.
(Fig. 2). Regarding the mean yield, G1 and G2 with high
yield were more acceptable than others. Genotype G14
showed a general adaptability and is placed in the
middle of the chart. Other genotypes were placed in the
low yield stability region, and were adapted to high-
yielding environments (their coefficient was more than
1). In terms of their mean yield, G8, G15, G12, and G16
were more acceptable than other genotypes and, accord-
ing to Duncans test, they are classified in the high mean
yield group, respectively. Coefficients of regression
based on FW, PJ models and the ai parameter marked
G16 as stable. Based on the PJ regression model, geno-
type G16 gave a significant positive coefficient but G4
and G13 gave a significant negative coefficient. As a
result, G16 was stable because of the high regression
coefficient and had specific adaptability to favorable
environments. The results of independent linear regres-
sion coefficient (Freeman and Perkins 1971) including re-
gression coefficients and deviation mean square (Table 4)
imparted that G16 was stable. The assessments of the
parameters ai and li for genotypes are given in Table 4.
G16 was marked as stable and G3 and G11 regarded as
unstable based on the ai and li parameters, respectively.
Based on Pinthuss (1973) coefficients of determination
(R2), the stability parameter values are the predictability
of response estimates (R2 1) (Kilic 2010), and range
from 0.891 to 0.958; the variation of mean yield is
explained by the genotype response across different
environments. None of the values of coefficient of
determinations was significantly different from 1.0. In
terms of this parameter, all genotypes could be regarded
1261
as stable (Table 4). However, G6, G8 and G13 were res-
pectively the genotypes with higher determination coef-
ficient. Genotypes G3 and G2 had a lower R2 (Table 5).
Methods Comparison and their Association
The rank correlations between the mean yield and
stability methods are given in Table 6. To find out the
relationships among the rank-based statistics, the PCA
was carried out on the rank correlation matrix. Figure 3
indicates the loading of the first two principal comp-
onents (PCs) of ranks in the stability methods. These
first two PCs accounted for 77.5% of the variation of
the original variance (55.4 and 22% by PC1 and PC2,
respectively). Based on biplot of both PC axes of the
stability measures, the area of biplot can be divided into
four separate groups. The place of mean yield (MEAN),
Pi, GAI, Di2 and DI were in the first group, indicating
that the selection of the most stable genotypes based
on these measures caused high yield genotypes to be
presented as most stable genotypes. In the second group,
there were coefficients of FW, FP, PJ, bi and ai re-
gression models. The EV, S2y(l)a, S2y(l)b and S2di pro-
cedures were in group 3. Group four consisted of 10
stability parameters including the W2, SH, pp59, p60, li,
MSPJ, MSFP, Ii, CV, and R2 procedures.
DISCUSSION
The stability analysis should be carried out in two steps:
first to distinguish high-yielding genotypes via ANOVA;
then use of the stability measures (Elsahookie 1996).
Analysis of variance can measure the main effects of
years, locations, genotypes and their interaction. In fact,
 1262 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT SCIENCE
Can. J. Plant Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 186.46.90.98 on 06/07/16

Table 6. Spearmans rank correlation coefcients between yields and stability parametric measures for 16 corn genotypes across 24 environmentsz
MEAN EV CV W2 SH pp59 p60 bi FW PJ FP ai S2di MSFP MSPJ li R2 Pi Di2 DI Ii S2y(l)a S2y(l)b GAI

MEAN 1
EV 0.256 1
CV 0.406 0.712** 1
W2 0.162 0.641** 0.474 1
SH 0.162 0.641** 0.474 1.000** 1
pp59 0.162 0.641** 0.474 1.000** 1.000** 1
p60 0.162 0.641** 0.474 1.000** 1.000** 1.000** 1
bi 0.294 0.979**0.653**0.535* 0.535* 0.535* 0.535* 1
FW 0.294 0.996**0.674**0.602* 0.602* 0.602* 0.602* 0.985** 1
For personal use only.

PJ 0.294 0.996**0.674**0.602* 0.602* 0.602* 0.602* 0.985** 1.000** 1

FP 0.265 0.991**0.682**0.579* 0.579* 0.579* 0.579* 0.985** 0.996** 0.996** 1
ai 0.294 0.996**0.674**0.602* 0.602* 0.602* 0.602* 0.985** 1.000** 1.000** 0.996** 1
S2di 0.256 1.000** 0.712** 0.641** 0.641** 0.641** 0.641**0.979**0.996**0.996**0.991**0.996** 1
MSFP 0.106 0.653** 0.532* 0.932** 0.932** 0.932** 0.932**0.568* 0.615* 0.615* 0.597* 0.615* 0.653** 1
MSPJ 0.115 0.658** 0.528* 0.937** 0.937** 0.937** 0.937**0.571* 0.621* 0.621* 0.603* 0.621* 0.658** 0.999** 1
li 0.115 0.658** 0.528* 0.937** 0.937** 0.937** 0.937**0.571* 0.621* 0.621* 0.603* 0.621* 0.658** 0.999** 1.000** 1
R2 0.096 0.159 0.121 0.796** 0.796** 0.796** 0.796**0.049 0.116 0.116 0.085 0.116 0.159 0.817** 0.814** 0.814** 1
Pi .944** 0.353 0.285 0.121 0.121 0.121 0.121 0.424 0.39 0.39 0.365 0.39 0.353 0.079 0.087 0.087 0.041 1
Di2 .856** 0.106 0.650** 0.279 0.279 0.279 0.279 0.026 0.057 0.057 0.065 0.057 0.106 0.329 0.319 0.319 0.259 0.826** 1
DI .906** 0.547* 0.121 0.259 0.259 0.259 0.259 0.597* 0.589* 0.589* 0.576* 0.589* 0.547* 0.215 0.23 0.23 0.004 0.929** 0.718** 1
Ii 0.135 0.112 0.021 0.429 0.429 0.429 0.429 0.056 0.062 0.062 0.056 0.062 0.112 0.465 0.469 0.469 0.542* 0.082 0.009 0.082 1
S2y(l)a 0.456 0.571* 0.209 0.385 0.385 0.385 0.385 0.532* 0.583* 0.583* 0.594* 0.583* 0.571* 0.262 0.277 0.277 0.046 0.382 0.241 0.574* 0.294 1
S2y(l)b 0.379 0.741** 0.45 0.606* 0.606* 0.606* 0.606* 0.679**0.737**0.737**0.747**0.737** 0.741** 0.550* 0.562* 0.562* 0.287 0.315 0.068 0.556* 0.368 0.903** 1
GAI .994** 0.229 0.424 0.109 0.109 0.109 0.109 0.276 0.268 0.268 0.241 0.268 0.229 0.053 0.062 0.062 0.043 0.944** 0.885** 0.897** 0.126 0.426 0.347 1

z
MEANgrain mean yield (t ha1); biregression coefficient of Eberhart and Russell; FWregression coefficient of Finlay and Wilkinson; PJregression coefficient of Perkins and
Jinks; FPregression coefficient of Freeman and Perkins; MSFPresidual MS of Freeman and Perkins model; MSPJ residual MS of Perkins and Jinks model; S2dideviation from
regression Eberhart and Russell; R2  Pinthuss coefficient of determination; W2 Wricks equivalence; EVenvironmental variance; CV coefficient of variability; SHShuklas stability
variance; pp59Plaisted and Petersons stability parameter; p60 Plaisted stability parameter; DIHernandezs desirability index; a and lTais stability parameters; PiLin and Binns
superiority index; Di2 Hansons genotypic stability parameter; Iireliability index; GAIgeometric adaptability index; Iiyield reliability index; (S2y(l)a and Sy(l)
2
b)Lin and Binns type
IV stability.
*, ** Significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively.
 CHANGIZI ET AL. * GE INTERACTIONS AND STABILITY OF CORN HYBRIDS
Can. J. Plant Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 186.46.90.98 on 06/07/16
Fig. 2. Interpretation of parameters bi and S2di for the regression approach for 16 corn genotypes in 24 environments. [Adapted
from Haufe and Geidel (1978) as cited by Becker and Leon (1988).]
For personal use only.
the ANOVA is not convenient for the description of
GE interactions, and the other statistical procedures are
necessary to understand and describe GE interactions.
Almost all breeders have used the term stability to
characterize a genotype which ever indicated a constant
yield under variable environmental conditions (Dehghani
et al. 2008). This suggestion of stability concurs with
the concept of homeostasis broadly used in quantitative
genetics, and might be considered as a biological (static)
concept of stability (Becker and Leon 1988). Also, a geno-
type that combines both high mean yield and stability
performance together is favorable, and so it is suitable
over variable environmental conditions (Allard and
Bradshaw 1964). This suggestion for identifying favor-
able genotypes reveals the agronomic (dynamic) concept
of stability. The agronomic concept of stability is pre-
ferable for plant breeders, because in this concept of
stability, it is not necessary for the genotypic response to
environmental conditions to be equal for all genotypes.
The relationships among the parametric stability mea-
sures are graphically displayed in a biplot of PC1 versus
PC2 in Fig. 3, where both axes were considered con-
currently. Four groups in Fig. 3 can be classified: Group
1 contained mean yield and the parametric measures
Pi, GAI, Di2 and DI. These measures were positively
correlated with each other and with mean yield (Table 6).
This result indicates that the selection of stable geno-
types, based on these measures, caused high yield geno-
types to be introduced as stable genotypes. In this
assay, the four above-mentioned measures had the
highest efficiency for introducing high yield and stable
hybrids simultaneously. Pourdad (2010) in safflower
1263
and Mohammadi et al. (2010) in wheat reported high
positive rank correlation between the Pi, GAI and mean
yield, and they can be helpful for identifying high yield
and stable genotypes; also, Karimzadeh et al. (2012)
reported that mean yield and the Di2 and DI methods
were in the same group of stability measures in durum
wheat and can also be used for genotype selections
based on high performance and stability. The coeffi-
cients of FW, FP, PJ, bi and ai regression models
were in the second group (Group II); they were in the
dynamic region and also placed near the mean yield area
of biplot. Mohebodini et al. (2006), Dehghani et al.
(2008), Karimzadeh et al. (2012) and Mohammadi et al.
(2012) reported that the coefficients of regression models
benefit from the dynamic concept of stability.
Group III consisted of the static stability concept as
EV, S2di, S2y(l)a and S2y(l)b methods. Due to the high
2 2
correlation of (Sy(l) a) and (Sy(l) b) with environmental
variance, these two methods could be appropriate
alternatives for static concept of stability methods and
2
also because of more consistent results, Sy(l) b measure
with static concept of stability methods was more
efficient than S2y(l)a. Mohammadi et al. (2012) in wheat
and Karimzadeh et al. (2012) in durum wheat reported
high positive rank correlation between the EV and S2di.
Lin et al. (1986) stated that the types I and IV stability
2 2
(Sy(l) a and Sy(l) b) are grouping in static concept of
stability. The stability measures of MSPJ, MSFP, W2,
SH, pp59, p60, li, R2, CV, and Ii were in group IV. The
high correlation between W2, SH, pp59 and p60, and
the introduction of similar stable genotypes shows that
using only one of them is sufficient. For this reason,
 1264 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT SCIENCE
Can. J. Plant Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 186.46.90.98 on 06/07/16
Fig. 3. Biplot of PC1 versus PC2 for 23 parametric methods of 16 corn hybrids stability.
EV and S2di could be considered as appropriate alter-
For personal use only.
natives for each other.
Kang and Pham (1991) indicated that W2 showed a
high correlation with SH. Flores et al. (1998) found that
the SH, S2di and li methods were related to each other.
Lin et al. (1986) and Kang et al. (1987) suggested that
Wrickes ecovalence (W2) and stability variance (SH)
were the same; these two methods should not be used as
separate methods, because the stability variance is a
coded value of ecovalence. There is also a high correla-
tion between these methods and the pp59 and p60
measures. Mohammadi et al. (2012) stated that R2
showed a positive correlation with SH, W2, MSPJ and
li, in bread wheat. Although the CV should be located
in group III, but placed in group IV because of its high
correlation with MSPJ, MSFP and li; this group also
showed the static concept of stability. Dehghani et al.
(2008) reported that parameters MSPJ, MSFP, W2, SH,
pp59, p60 and li were grouped in static concept of
stability. Yield reliability index (Ii) was located in the
fourth group and showed the static concept of stability.
Pourdad (2010) in safflower and Mohammadi et al.
(2010) in barley reported that Ii was grouped in the
static concept by its correlation with EV and CV.
However, in this study the Ii was placed in group IV
by its correlation with R2. In other words, the 14 mea-
sures above (groups III and IV) follow the biological
stability concept, and the selection of stable genotypes,
based on these measures, caused the introduction of
stable genotypes that show static stability.
One of the complex issues about stability concepts
is that in reviewing rank correlation across different
stability methods, plant breeders have found some
inconsistencies between the results, especially when the
stability is classified in four groups (Lin and Binns
1994). Numerous stability measures that were used in
this study quantified genotype stability with considering
the yield. Mohammadi and Amri (2008) and Dehghani
et al. (2008) stated that the stability values do not
provide adequate information for attaining definitive
conclusion, and both stability and yield should be
considered concurrently. Accordingly, among genotypes
with high mean yield, G1 by the EV method and G1 and
G2 by the CV method were introduced as the most
stable; G8 was the most stable based on W2, SH, pp59,
p60, li, Ii and the R2 procedures; and, based on the
slope of the regression models, G16 was the most stable;
according to the evaluation methods of stability dy-
namic concept that strongly correlated with the yield
mean, the genotypes of G2, G1, G8, G12, G15 and G16
were the most stable ones with a little difference. This
little difference can be seen in Figs. 4 and 5. These
genotypes had the highest grain yield among the corn
genotypes studied (and also among them G1, G2
and G8 were introduced as stable genotypes by static
methods). Among the high-yielding genotypes (Fig. 1)
those with lower CV, indicate greater stability and those
with greater CV indicate lower stability, but by using
the plot of (S2di vs. bi) (Fig. 2) it is indicated that those
genotypes with higher average yield and high CV could
be related to specific stability. Becker and Leon (1988)
stated that definition of Eberhart and Russell (1966)
about regression model is in accordance with the
 CHANGIZI ET AL. * GE INTERACTIONS AND STABILITY OF CORN HYBRIDS 1265
Can. J. Plant Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 186.46.90.98 on 06/07/16
For personal use only.

Fig. 4. Superiority index versus grain yield means of 16 corn genotypes in 24 environments and position of stable genotypes.

dynamic concept, but it is preferable to use the eco- In summary, according to Figs. 1 and 2 and pre-
valence instead, which combines bi and S2di, into one vious results, we can state that among high-yielding
parameter and this approach is schematically shown in genotypes, G1, G2 and G8, introduced as stable
(S2di vs. bi) plot. genotypes by both dynamic and static methods, were

Fig. 5. Desirability index versus grain yield means of 16 corn genotypes in 24 environments and proximity of stable genotypes.
 1266 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT SCIENCE
the most stable, and G16, G15 and G12, with specific
stability, had a high mean yield and can be recom-
mended with regard to both stability and yield.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study we found: (1) Since both performance and
stability must be considered simultaneously to exploit
the beneficial effects of GE interaction and to have more
accurate selection, Pi, Di2, DI and GAI methods were
more useful and more convenient than other methods.
(2) Most of the parametric stability measures in each
concept can be alternated by another; it is not necessary
to use all of them. (3) Using the plots of (CV vs. MEAN)
Can. J. Plant Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 186.46.90.98 on 06/07/16
and (S2di vs. bi) simultaneously can help improve the
interpreting quality of stability of genotypes based on
both concepts. (4) Type IV stability parameter (S2y(l)a and
S2y(l)b), which previous research did not take seriously
into account, was used, and its comparison with other
parameters showed that it could be an acceptable
parameter for the determination of stability as well as
2
static concept of stability methods and Sy(l) b measure
2
showed a better efficiency than Sy(l)a in this study.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors extend their appreciations to the Seed and
For personal use only.
Plant Improvement Institute, Karaj-Iran for technical
supports in all eld and laboratory activities.
Abo-Hegazy, S. R. E., Selim, T. and Ashrie, A. A. M. 2013.
Genotype environment interaction and stability analysis for
yield and its components in lentil. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 5:
8590.
Allard, R. W. and Bradshaw, A. D. 1964. Implications of
genotype-environmental interactions in applied plant breeding.
Crop Sci. 4: 503508.
Alwala, S., Kwolek, T., McPherson, M., Pellow, J. and Meyer,
D. 2010. A comprehensive comparison between Eberhart and
Russel joint regression and GGE biplot analyses to identify
stable and high yielding maize hybrids. Field Crop. Res. 119:
225230.
Becker, H. C. and Leon, J. 1988. Stability analysis in plant
breeding. Plant Breed. 101: 123.
Crossa, J. 1990. Statistical analyses of multi-location trials.
Adv. Agron. 44: 5585.
Dehghani, H., Sabaghpour, S. H. and Ebadi, A. 2010. Study of
genotype environment interaction for chickpea yield in Iran.
Agron. J. 102: 18.
Dehghani, H., Sabaghpour, S. H. and Sabaghnia, N. 2008.
Genotype environment interaction for grain yield of some
lentil genotypes and relationship among univariate stability
statistics. Span. J. Agric. Res. 6: 385394.
De Souza Gonzales, P., Bortoletto, N., Lucio Mello Martins,
A., Brito Da Costa, R. and Boller Gallo, P. 2003. Genotype-
environment interaction and phenotypic stability for girth
growth and rubber yield of Hevea clones in Sao Paulo State,
Brazil. Genet. Mol. Biol. 26: 441448.
Eberhart, S. A. and Russell, W. A. 1966. Stability parameters
for comparing varieties. Crop Sci. 6: 3640.
Elsahookie, M. M. 1996. Applications on stability analysis of
genotypes. Iraqi J. Agric. Sci. 27: 1120.
Eskridge, K. M. 1990. Selection of stable cultivars using a
safety-rst rule. Crop Sci. 30: 369374.
Finlay, K. W. and Wilkinson, G. N. 1963. The analysis of
adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Aust. J. Agric.
Res. 14: 742754.
Flores, F., Moreno, M. T. and Cubero, J. I. 1998. A comp-
arison of univariate and multivariate methods to analyze envi-
ronments, Field Crop. Res. 56: 271286.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2002.
Genotype environment interactions: Challenges and oppor-
tunities for plant breeding and cultivar recommendations.
FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 174. FAO,
Rome, Italy.
Francis, T. R. and Kannenberg, L. W. 1978. Yield stability
studies in short-season maize: I. A descriptive method for
grouping genotypes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 58: 10291034.
Freeman, G. H. and Perkins, J. M. 1971. Environmental and
genotype-environmental components of variability VIII. Rela-
tions between genotypes grown in different environments and
measures of these environments. Heredity 27: 1523.
Hanson, W. D. 1970. Genotypic stability. Theor. Appl. Genet.
40: 226231.
Haufe, W. and Geidel, H. 1978. Zur beurteilung der ertagssi-
cherheit von sorten und zuchstammen.I. Denitionen. Stabi-
litatsparameter und deren nterpretationsmoglichkeiten. Z.
Panzenuchtg 80: 2437.
Hernandez, C. M., Crossa, J. and Castillo, A. 1993. The area
under the function:an index for selecting desirable genotypes.
Theor. Appl. Genet. 87: 409415.
Kang, M. S. and Pham, H. N. 1991. Simultaneous selection for
high yielding and stable crop genotypes. Agron. J. 83: 161165.
Kang, M. S., Miller, J. D. and Darrah, L. L. 1987. A note
on relationship between stability variance and ecovalence.
Heredity 78: 107112.
Karimizadeh, R., Mohammadi, M., Sabaghnia, N., Shefazadeh,
M. K. and Pouralhosaini, J. 2012. Univariate stability analysis
methods for determining genotype environment interaction
of durum wheat grain yield, Afr. J. Biotechnol. 11: 25632573.
Kataoka, S. 1963. A stochastic programming model. Econo-
metrika 31: 181196.
Kilic, H., Akura, M. and Aktas, H. 2010. Assessment of
parametric and non-parametric methods for selecting stable
and adapted durum wheat genotypes in multi-environments.
Not. Bot. Hortic. Agrobot. Cluj. 38: 271279.
Lin, C. S. and Binns, M. R. 1988. A superiority measure of
cultivar performance for cultivar location data. Can. J. Plant
Sci. 68: 193198.
Lin, C. S. and Binns, M. R. 1994. Concepts and methods for
analyzingregional yield trial data for cultivar and location
selection. Plant Breed. Rev. 12: 271297.
Lin, C. S., Binns, M. R. and Lefkovitch, L. P. 1986. Stability
analysis: where do we stand? Crop Sci. 26: 894900.
Lipkovitch, I. and Smith, E. P. 2002. Biplot and SVD macros
for EXCEL. J. Stat. Softw. 7: 5.
MINITAB Inc. 2010. Ver. 16. Minitab, Inc., State College, PA.
Moghadam, A., Pietsch, G., Ardakani, M. R., Raza, A.,
Vollmann, J. and Friedel, J. K. 2011. Genetic diversity and
distance among Iranian and European alfalfa (Medicago sativa
L.) genotypes. Crop Breed. J. 1: 1328.
Moghaddam, A., Raza, A., Vollmann, J., Ardakani, M. R.,
Wanek, W., Gollner, G. and Friedel, J. K. 2013. Carbon isotope
discrimination and water use efciency relationships of alfalfa
 CHANGIZI ET AL. * GE INTERACTIONS AND STABILITY OF CORN HYBRIDS
genotypes under irrigated and rain-fed organic farming. Eur. J.
Agron. 50: 8289.
Moghaddam, A., Vollmann, J., Wanek, W., Ardakani, M. R.,
Raza, A., Pietsch, G. and Friedel, J. K. 2012. Suitability of
drought tolerance indices for selecting alfalfa (Medicago sativa
L.) genotypes under organic farming in Austria. Crop Breed. J.
2: 7989.
Mohammadi, R. and Amri, A. 2008. Comparison of parametric
and non-parametric methods for selecting stable and adapted
durum wheat genotypes in variable environments. Euphytica
159: 419432.
Mohammadi, M., Karimzadeh, R., Sabaghnia, N. and
Shefazadeh, M. K. 2012. Genotype environment interaction
and yield stability analysis of new improved bread wheat
Can. J. Plant Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 186.46.90.98 on 06/07/16
genotypes. Turk. J. Field Crops. 17: 6773.
Mohammadi, R., Roostaei, M., Ansari, Y., Aghaee, H. and
Amri, A. 2010. Relationships of phenotypic stability measures
for genotypes of three cereal crops. Can. J. Plant Sci. 90:
819830.
Mohebodini, M., Dehghani, H. and Sabaghpour, S. H. 2006.
Stability of performance in lentil (Lens culinaris Medik)
genotypes in Iran. Euphytica 149: 343352.
Namorato, H., Miranda, G. V., Souza, L. V., Oliviera, L. R.,
Delima, R. O. and Mantovani, E. E. 2009. Comparing biplot
multivariate analysis with Eberhart and Russell method
for genotype environment interaction. Crop Breed. Appl.
Biotechnol. 9: 299307.
Perkins, J. M. and Jinks, J. L. 1968. Environmental and
genotype-environmental components of variability. Heredity
For personal use only.
23: 339356.
Piepho, H. P. and Lotto, S. 1992. Rank correlation among
parametric and nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability.
Euphytica 64: 221225.
Pinthus, J. M. 1973. Estimate of genotype value: a proposed
method. Euphytica 22: 121123.
Plaisted, R. I. 1960. A shorter methods for evaluating the
ability of selections to yield consistently over locations. Am.
Potato J. 37: 166172.
Plaisted, R. I. and Peterson, L. C. 1959. A technique for
evaluating the ability of selection to yield consistently in
different location or season. Am. Potato J. 36: 381385.
1267
Pourdad, S. S. 2011. Repeatability and relationships among
parametric and non-parametric yield stability measures in
safower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) genotypes. Crop Breed. J.
1: 109118.
Rasul, S., Khan, M. I., Javed, M. M. and Haq, I. 2005. Stability
and adoptability of Maize Genotypes in Pakistan. J. Appl. Sci.
Res. 1: 307312.
Roemer, J. 1917. Sinde die ertagdreichen Sorten ertagissi-
cherer? Mitt DLG 32: 8789.
Sharma, C. S., Morgounov, A. I., Braun, H. J., Akin, B., Keser,
M., Bedoshvil, D., Bagci, A., Martius, C. and Van Ginkel, M.
2010. Identifying high yielding stable winter wheat genotypes
for irrigated environments in Central and West Asia. Euphy-
tica 171: 5364.
Shulka, G. K. 1972. Some aspects of partitionity genotype-
environmental components of variability. Heredity 28: 237
245.
Shulka, G. K. 2004. On the choice of genotype using location
specic information when stability variances are heteroge-
neous. J. Ind. Soc. Ag. Stat. 57: 94102.
SPSS Inc. 2007. SPSS for Windows, Version 16.0. SPSS Inc.,
Chicago, IL.
Tai, G. C. C. 1971. Genotypic stability analysis and applica-
tion to potato regional trials. Crop Sci. 11: 184190.
Tiawari, D. K., Pandey, P., Singh, R. K., Singh, S. P. and
Singh, S. B. 2011. Genotype environment interaction and
stability analysis in elite clones of sugarcane (Saccharum
ofcinarum L.). Int. J. Plant Breed. Genet. 5: 9398.
Tsegaye, D., Wuletaw, T. and Muluken, B. 2012. Genotype 
environment interactions and grain yield stability of haricot
bean varieties in Northwest Ethiopia. Sci. Res. Essays 7: 3487
3493.
Westcott, B. 1987. A method of assessing the yield stability of
crop genotypes. J. Agric. Sci. 108: 267274.
Wricke, G. 1962. Uber eine methodezur erfassung der ekolo-
gischen streubreite in feldversuchen. Z.F. Panzenzuecht. 47:
9296.
Yates, F. and Cochran, W. G. 1938. The analysis of groups of
experiments. J. Agric. Sci. 28: 556580.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Ali Moghaddam, Amir Raza, Johann Vollmann, M. Reza Ardakani, Wolfgang Wanek, Gabrielle Gollner, Juergen K. Friedel. 2015.
Biological nitrogen fixation and biomass production stability in alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.) genotypes under organic management
conditions. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 31, 177-192. [CrossRef]
Can. J. Plant Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 186.46.90.98 on 06/07/16
For personal use only.