J. Env. Bio-Sci., 2015: Vol.

29 (2):519-522
(519) ISSN 0973-6913 (Print), ISSN 0976-3384 (On Line)

RICE YIELD PERFORMANCE STABILITY IN DEMONSTRATIONS CONDUCTED DURING

KHARIF SEASON
N. N. Jambhulkar1*, N. C. Rath2, H. N. Subudhi3, Lipi Das4 and G. A. K. Kumar5
1-2, 4-5
Social Sciences Division, Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack - 753006 India.
3
Crop Improvement Division, Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack - 753006
[Corresponding author E-mail1*: nitiprasad1@gmail.com]
Received: 29-08-2015 Accepted: 29-09-2015
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is the staple food for a large proportion of the world’s population. India is one of the largest rice producing
country of the world. The rice production areas in the country are very diverse; hence, evaluation of genotype for its stable
performance across the environment is vital. This study was undertaken to identify the stable rice varieties tested in five
environments. Twelve rice varieties grown in five consecutive years (environments) from 2009-10 to 2013-14 in kharif season
were used. The biplot of AMMI analysis showed that the best genotype in environment E3 was G10. G3 and G9 were best in
environment E2; G12 was best in environment E1; G8 was best in environment E4 and G1, G4 and G7 were best in environment E5.
Stability ranking was done based on AMMI Stability Index (ASI) criteria for all the varieties. Result of AMMI Stability Index (ASI)
showed that G2 was the most stable variety followed by G6; and G5 was the most unstable variety followed by G11 out of the
studied twelve varieties.

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is the staple food for a large proportion
of the world’s population1. India is the second largest rice
producing country in the world. In India, rice is cultivated on
44.01 million hectares with a production of 105.31 million tons
and productivity of 2.23 t ha-1.
The rice production areas in the country are very diverse in
hydrology and combined to other soil and climatic factors
make a difference in rice yield 2. Analysis of genotype
interaction with seasons and other agro-ecological conditions
would help to get information on the stability performance of
genotypes.
Information on genotype × environment interaction will be
helpful in evaluation of stable genotype, which could be used
for cultivation across environment. Yield is a complex
quantitative character and is greatly influenced by
environmental fluctuations; hence, the evaluation of genotypes
under varying environmental conditions is very important to
study its stable performance.
Additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI)
method is widely used to study genotype × environment
interaction and stability analysis 3-5. Biplot of the AMMI analysis
provides visual inspection for interpretation of genotype (G) ×
environment (E) interaction. To quantify the result based on
first two interaction principal components and percentage of
the interaction sum of squares explained by them AMMI
Stability Index (ASI) was proposed by earlier workers6. With
this background the present study was undertaken with the
objective to identify the stable rice genotypes and rank them.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The data on rice yield used in this study was taken from the
demonstration plot of Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack,
India during five consecutive years from 2009-10 to 2013-14
in kharif season. Seeds of twelve rice varieties (Table-1) were
sown in the nursery bed and subsequently three weeks
seedlings were transplanted in the demonstration plot.
Fertilizer was applied at 100:50:50 kg ha-1 of N:P:K for hybrid
varieties (Ajay and Rajlaxmi) and 80:40:40 kg ha-1 of N:P:K
for other high yielding varieties. The entire dose of P and K
along with one third dose of N were applied as the basal
dose, while two third dose of N was applied in two equal split.
First one applied at 21 days after germination and the other
at panicle initiation stage. Appropriate cultural practices such
as weeding, intermittent irrigation, and need-based plant
protection measures were undertaken to raise a healthy crop.
At harvest, grain yields were adjusted at 12% moisture level
and then converted to yield t ha-1. Data analysis was done by
using SAS 9.2 software7.
The AMMI analysis first fits additive effects for host genotypes
and environments by the usual additive analysis of variance
procedure and then fits multiplicative effects for genotype ×

NAAS Rating (2016)-4.20

Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)

 RICE YIELD PERFORMANCE STABILITY IN DEMONSTRATIONS (520)

environment by principal component analysis. The AMMI model A biplot generated using genotypic and environmental scores
is: of the first two AMMI components have four sections,
n depending upon signs of the genotypic and environmental
Yij    g i  e j    k ik  jk   ij scores 8. In biplot, the genotypes which are close to
k 1
intersection lines of zero are considered as stable. In Fig.-1,
where Yij is the yield of the ith genotype in the jth environment,
G2 is very close to intersection line of zero appears to be
g i is the ith genotype mean deviation, e j is the jth environment
stable followed by G6. The best genotype with respect to
mean deviation, k is the square root of the eigen value of
environment E3 was G10. Genotypes G3 and G9 were best
the PCA axis k,  ik and  jk are the principal component
for environment E2; genotype G12 was best for environment
scores for PCA axis k of the ith genotype and the jth environment,
E1; genotype G8 was best for environment E4 and genotypes
respectively and  ij is the residual.
G1, G4, and G7 were best for environment E5 (Fig.-1).
The environment and genotypic PCA scores are expressed
Considering all the environments, no single environment had
as unit vector times the square root of k i.e. environment
0.5 0.5 both IPCA1 and IPCA2 nearer to the zero line which indicated
PCA score = k  ik ; genotype PCA score = k  ik 5.
the presence of G × E interaction over the grain yield
Based on the first two principal components and the
performance of the twelve rice varieties. In general, factors
percentage of variation explained, AMMI Stability Index (ASI)
like type of crop, diversity of the germplasm, and range of
was used 6.
environmental conditions will affect the degree of complexity
AMMI Stability Index (ASI) is calculated as follows:
of the best predictive model 9. With respect to environments,
  
ASI  IPCA1score 2  IPCA1% exp lainedsumofsquare   IPCA2 score 2  IPCA2% explainedsumofsquare  E3 was most discriminating as indicated by the longest
distance between its marker and the origin. Due to its large
where, IPCA1score - First principal component score of
first principal component score for environment E3, it
interaction effect
distinguishes from all other environments reflecting that its
IPCA2 score - Second principal component score of
average genotypic yield is higher that average genotypic yield
interaction effect
of all other environments.
IPCA1% exp lainedsumofsquares - Percentage sum of squares
Biplots of AMMI analysis gives only visual inspection and
explained by first principal component interaction effect
does not provide any quantitative value. Hence, AMMI stability
IPCA2 % exp lainedsumofsquares - Percentage sum of squares
index (ASI) has been computed for all the twelve varieties.
explained by second principal component interaction effect.
Result showed that G2 having lowest ASI ranks first was the
The genotype with lowest ASI value is most stable genotype.
most stable rice variety of the twelve tested varieties followed
by G6, G4 and G7. G5 was the most unstable variety followed
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION by G11, G8 and G10 (Table-1). G1 was high yielding variety
but ranked seventh; G9 was third high yielding variety ranked
The G × E interaction was studies by additive main effect and
sixth; G7 ranked last in grain yield but ranked fourth in stability.
multiplicative interaction (AMMI) analysis. In AMMI, the additive
Thus, high yielding variety may be unstable and low yielding
portion is separated from interaction by analysis of variance.
variety may be stable in grain yield. This showed that high
Then the principal component analysis, which provides a
yielding variety need not necessarily to be stable.
multiplicative model, is applied to analyze the interaction effect
Further, each variety was grouped according to their grain
from the additive model. First principal component explained
yield and ASI. Fig.-2 indicates that three varieties viz., Ajay
45% of the variation with 14 degrees of freedom and second
(G2), Naveen (G4) and Satyakrishna (G9) were found to be
principal component explained 35% of the variation with 12
stable and with high yield. Varieties Hazaridhan (G7), Abhishek
degrees of freedom. First two principal components
(G6) and Ketekijoha (G12) were highly stable with lower grain
cumulatively explained 80% of the variation with 26 degrees
yield. Rajlaxmi (G1), Latat MAS (G11) and Chandan (G5) were
of freedom. Both first two principal components were
significant at 1% probability level.

Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)

 (521) JAMBHULKAR, RATH, SUBUDHI, DAS AND KUMAR

Table-1. Variety name along with its grain yield, ASI value and its rank.

Lower Stability
A Chandan

5.00 A
A Lalat MAS
Kamesh
A
IR 64 Sub 1
4.00
A
Geetanjali
Rajalaxmi
A
ASI

3.00
A

Satyakrishna

2.00 Ketekijoha
A
A A
Naveen
Hazaridhan
1.00
A
Abhisek
Ajay
A
0.00
Higher Stability
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

Average Grain Yield

Lower Yield Higher Yield

Figure-1. Biplot of genotypic and environmental scores
Figure-2. Grouping of 12 varieties according to yield
from AMMI analysis of twelve rice genotypes
and ASI.
grown in five environments for grain yield.

Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)

 RICE YIELD PERFORMANCE STABILITY IN DEMONSTRATIONS (522)

less stable varieties with high grain yield. Kamesh (G8), IR64 5. Zobel, R.W., Wright, M.J. and Gauch, H.G. (1988). Agron. J. 80:
Sub1 (G10) and Geetanjali (G3) were found to be low yielding 388.
varieties with less stability. 6. Jambhulkar, N.N., Bose, L.K., Pande, K. and Singh, O.N. (2015).
Ecology, environment and conservation. (In press)
REFERENCES 7. SAS Institute (2010). SAS/STAT Version 9.2 SAS Institute, Cary,
North Carolina, USA.
1. Zhang, Q. (2007). In: Proceeding of the National Academy of 8. Vargas, M. and Crossa, J. (2000). Biometrics and Statistics
Sciences US. 104:16402. Unit, CIMMYT.
2. Singh, B.N., Fagade, S., Ukwungwu, M.N., W illiams, C., Jagtap, 9. Crossa, J., Gauch, H.G. and Zobel, R.W. (1990). Crop Science.
S.S., Oladimeji, O., Efisue, A. and Okhiavebie, O. (1997). Met. 30: 493.
J. 2(1): 35.
3. Gauch, H.G. (1988). Biometrics. 44: 705.
4. Gauc h, H.G. and Zobel, R.W . (1996). In: Genotype by
environment interaction, M.S. Kang and H.G. Gauch (Eds), CRC,
Boca Raton, Florida.

Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)