Genotype-by-environment interaction analysis for cotton seed yield using various biometrical methods under irrigation regimes in a semi-arid region

References

• Acciaresi HA, Chidichimo HO, Fuse CB. 1997. Study of genotype x environment interaction for forage yield in oat (Avena sativa L.) with joint linear regression analysis and AMMI analysis. Cereal Res Commun. 25(1):55–62. doi: 10.1007/BF03543884.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed YN, Delin H. 2019. Current situation of Egyptian cotton: econometrics study using ARDL model. J Agric Sci. 11(10):88–97.‏. doi: 10.5539/jas.v11n10p88.
   Google Scholar
• Ajay BC, Aravind J, Abdul Fiyaz R, Bera SK, Narendrakumar Gangadhar K, Kona P. 2018. Modified AMMI stability index (MASI) for stability analysis. Groundn Newsl. 18:4–5.
   Google Scholar
• Alizadeh K, Mohammadi R, Shariati A, Eskandari M. 2017. Comparative analysis of statistical models for evaluating genotype × environment interaction in rainfed safflower. Agric Res. 6(4):455–465. doi: 10.1007/s40003-017-0279-1.
   Google Scholar
• Allard RW, Bradshaw AD. 1964. Implication of genotype environmental interactions in plant breeding. Crop Sci. 4(5):503–508. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1964.0011183X000400050021x.
   Google Scholar
• Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M 1998. Crop evapotranspiration-guidelines for Computing Crop water requirements-FAO irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO, p. 56, Rome, Italy
   Google Scholar
• Alwala S, Kwolek T, McPherson M, Pellow J, Meyer D. 2010. A comprehensive comparison between Eberhart and Russell joint regression and GGE biplot analyses to identify stable and high yielding maize hybrids. Field Crops Res. 119(2–3):225–230. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2010.07.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Annicchiarico P. 1997. Joint regression vs AMMI analysis of genotype-environment interactions for cereals in Italy. Euphytica. 94(1):53–62. doi: 10.1023/A:1002954824178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aremu C, Ojo DK, Oduwaye OA, Amira J. 2006. Comparison of joint regression analysis (JRA) and additional main effect and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) model in the study of g x e interaction in soybean across two agroecological zones in Nigeria. Niger J Genet. 20(1):74–83. doi: 10.4314/njg.v20i1.42256.
   Google Scholar
• Baker RJ. 1988. Tests for crossover genotype-environment interactions. Can J Plant Sci. 68(2):405–410. doi: 10.4141/cjps88-051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakhsh A, Rehman M, Salman S, Ullah R. 2019. Evaluation of cotton genotypes for seed cotton yield and fiber quality traits under water stress and non-stress conditions. Sarhad J Agric. 35(1):161–170. doi: 10.17582/journal.sja/2019/35.1.161.170.
   Google Scholar
• Basford KE, Cooper M. 1998. Genotype × environmental interactions and some considerations of their implications for wheat breeding in Australia. Aust J Agric Res. 49(2):153–174. doi: 10.1071/A97035.
   Google Scholar
• Bowman JC. 1972. Genotype × environment interactions. Genet Sel Evol. 4(1):117. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-4-1-117.
   Google Scholar
• Brouwer C, Heibloem M. 1986. Irrigation water management: irrigation water needs. Training manual. Rome: FAO. https://ftp.fao.org/agl/aglw/fwm/Manual3.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Burbano-Erazo E, León-Pacheco RI, Cordero-Cordero CC, López Hernández F, Cortés AJ, Tofiño-Rivera AP. 2021. Multienvironment yield components in advanced common bean (phaseolus vulgaris L.) tepary bean (P. acutifolius A. Gray) interspecific lines for heat and drought tolerance. Agronomy. 11(10):1978. doi: 10.3390/agronomy11101978.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke JM, De Pauw RM, Townley-Smith TM. 1992. Evaluation of methods for quantification of drought tolerance in wheat. Crop Sci. 32(3):728–732. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1992.0011183X003200030029x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossa J. 1990. Statistical analysis of multilocation trials. Adv Agron. 44:55–86. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113:60818-4.
   Google Scholar
• Crossa J, Gauch HG, Zobel RW. 1990. Additional main effects and multiplicative interaction analysis of two international maize cultivar trials. Crop Sci. 30(3):493–500. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1990.0011183X003000030003x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ding M, Tier B, Yan W, Wu HX, Powell MB, TA M. 2008. Application of GGE biplot analysis to evaluate genotype (G), environment (E) and G × E interaction on P. radiata: a case study. New Zealand J Forest Sci. 38(1):132–142.
   Google Scholar
• Ebdon JS, Gauch HG. 2002. Additional main effects and multiplicative interaction analysis of national turfgrass performance trials. Crop Sci. 42(2):497–506. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2002.4970.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebem EC, Afuape SO, Chukwu SC, Ubi BE. 2021. Genotype × environment interaction and stability analysis for root yield in sweet potato [ipomoea batatas (L.) lam]. Front Agron. 3:665564. doi: 10.3389/fagro.2021.665564.
   Google Scholar
• Eberhart SA, Russell WA. 1966. Stability parameters for Comparing Varieties 1. Crop Sci. 6(1):36–40. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1966.0011183X000600010011x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Hashash EF, Abou El-Enin MM, Abd El-Mageed TA, Attia MAEH, El-Saadony MT, El-Tarabily KA, Shaaban A. 2022. Bread wheat productivity in response to humic acid supply and supplementary irrigation mode in three Northwestern coastal sites of Egypt. Agronomy. 12(7):1499. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12071499.
   Google Scholar
• El-Hashash EF, Agwa AM. 2018. Comparison of parametric stability statistics for grain yield in barley under different drought stress severities. Merit Res J Agric Sci Soil Sci. 6(7):098–111.
   Google Scholar
• El-Hashash EF, Hassan AE, Agwa AM. 2018. Genotype by environment interaction effects and evaluation of drought tolerance indices under normal and severe stress conditions in barley. Int J Plant Breed Crop Sci. 5(2):300–316.
   Google Scholar
• El-Hashash EF, Tarek SM, Rehab AA, Tharwat MA. 2019. Comparison of non-parametric stability statistics for selecting stable and adapted soybean genotypes under different environments. Asian J Res Crop Sci. 4(4):1–16. doi: 10.9734/ajrcs/2019/v4i430080.
   Google Scholar
• El Sherbiny HA, El-Hashash EF, El-Enin MM A, Nofal RS, El-Mageed TA A, Bleih EM, El-Saadony MT, El-Tarabily KA, Shaaban A. 2022. Exogenously applied salicylic acid boosts morpho-physiological traits, yield, and water productivity of lowland rice under normal and deficit irrigation. Agronomy. 12(8):1860. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12081860.
   Google Scholar
• Falconer DS, Mackay TFC. 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 4th ed. New York: Longman; pp. 132–133.
   Google Scholar
• Finlay KW, Wilkinson GN. 1963. Analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Aust J Agric Res. 14(6):742–754. doi: 10.1071/AR9630742.
   Google Scholar
• Gauch HG. 2013. A simple protocol for AMMI analysis of yield trials. Crop Sci. 53(5):1860–1869. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2013.04.0241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gauch HG, Piepho HP, Annicchiarico P. 2008. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE: further considerations. Crop Sci. 48(3):866–889. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2007.09.0513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gauch HG, Zobel RW. 1996. AMMI analysis of yield trials. In: Kang M Gausch H, editors Genotype-by environment interaction. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; pp. 85–122.
   Google Scholar
• Gauch HG, Zobel RW. 1997. Identifying mega-environment and targeting genotypes. Crop Sci. 37(2):381–385. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700020002x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghaed-Rahimi L, Heidari B, Dadkhodaie A. 2014. Genotype × environment interactions for wheat grain yield and antioxidant changes in association with drought stress. Arch Agron Soil Sci. 61(2):153–171. doi: 10.1080/03650340.2014.926004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibely R, Hassan S. 2018. Estimating of stability parameters among some extra-long staple cotton genotypes under different environments. Journal Of Plant Production. 9(5):459–468. doi: 10.21608/jpp.2018.35805.
   Google Scholar
• Hall AE. 1993. Is dehydration tolerance relevant to genotypic differences in leaf senescence and crop adaptation to dry environments? In: Close TJ, and Bray EA, editors. Plant responses to cellular dehydration during environmental stress. California: Academic; pp. 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Hassani M, Heidari B, Dadkhodaie A, Stevanato P. 2018. Genotype by environment interaction components underlying variations in root, sugar and white sugar yield in sugar beet (beta vulgaris L.). Euphytica. 214(4):79. doi: 10.1007/s10681-018-2160-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Israelsen OW, Hansen VC. 1962. Irrigation principles and practices. New York, U.S.A: John Wiley & Sons Inco.
   Google Scholar
• Kamali A, Fakheri BA, Zabet M. 2015. The study of drought stress effects on yield and yield components of cotton using biplot analysis. Iranian J Cotton Res. 3(5):33–47. doi: 10.22092/IJCR.2016.106074.
   Google Scholar
• Kang MS. 1998. Using genotype-by-environment interaction for crop cultivar development. Adv Agron. 62:199–252. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60569-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendal E. 2019. Comparing durum wheat cultivars by genotype × yield × trait and genotype × trait biplot method. Chil J Agric Res. 79(4):512–522. doi: 10.4067/S0718-58392019000400512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendal E, Tekdal S. 2016. Application of AMMI model for evaluation spring barley genotypes in multi-environment trials. Bangladesh J Bot. 45(3):613–620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan MMH, Rafii MY, Ramlee SI, Jusoh M, Al Mamun MD. 2021. AMMI and GGE biplot analysis for yield performance and stability assessment of selected Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc.) genotypes under the multi-environmental trials (METs). Sci Rep. 11(1):22791. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-01411-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Killi F, Harem E. 2006. Genotype × environment interaction and stability analysis of cotton yield in Aegean region of Turkey. J Environ Biol. 37(2):427–430.
   Google Scholar
• Klute A, Dirksen C. 1986. Methods of soil analysis: physical and mineralogical methods. Madison (WI): ASA and SSSA Chapter 28, Hydraulic Conductivity And Diffusivity. Lab Method. 687–734. doi: 10.2136/sssabookser5.1.2ed.c28.
   Google Scholar
• Kroonenberg PM. 1995. Introduction to biplots for G×E tables. Brisbane: University of Queensland.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar V, Kharub AS, Verma RPS, Verma A. 2016. AMMI, GGE biplots and regression analysis to comprehend the G × E interaction in multi-environment barley trials. Indian J Genet. 76(2):202–204. doi: 10.5958/0975-6906.2016.00033.X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumbhalkar HB, Gawande VL, Deshmukh SB, Gotmare V, Waghmare VN. 2021. Genotype x environment interaction for seed cotton yield and component traits in upland cotton (gossypium hirsutum L.). Electron J Plant Breed. 12(4):1209–1217. doi: 10.37992/2021.1204.166.
   Google Scholar
• Levene H. 1960. Robust tests of equality of variances. In: Olkin I, Ghurye SG, Hoeffding W, Madow WG Mann HB, editors Contributions to probability and statistics, essays in honor of Harold Hoteling. Stanford, CA, USA: Stanford University Press; pp. 278–292.
   Google Scholar
• Lingaiah N, Sudharshanam A, Rao VT, Prashant Y, Kumar MV, Reddy PI, Prasad BR, Reddy PRR, Rao PJM. 2020. AMMI biplot analysis in cotton (gossypium hirsutum L.) genotypes for genotype × environment interaction at four agro-ecologies in Telangana state. Current J Applied Sci Technol. 39(15):98–103. doi: 10.9734/cjast/2020/v39i1530722.
   Google Scholar
• Machado NG, Lotufo-Neto N, Hongyu K. 2019. Statistical analysis for genotype stability and adaptability in maize yield based on environment and genotype interaction models. Ciência E Natura. 41(e25):1–9. doi: 10.5902/2179460X32873.
   Google Scholar
• Mahmood T, Wang X, Ahmar S, Abdullah M, Iqbal MS, Rana RM, Yasir M, Khalid S, Javed T, Mora-Poblete F, et al. 2021. Genetic potential and inheritance pattern of phenological growth and drought tolerance in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Front Plant Sci. 12:705392. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.705392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma B, Yan W, Dwyer LM, Frégeau-Reid JA, Voldeng HD, Dion Y, Nass HG. 2004. Graphic analysis of genotype, environment, nitrogen fertilizer, and their interactions on spring wheat yield. Agron J. 96(1):169–180. doi: 10.2134/agronj2004.1690.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKeand SE, Li B, Hatcher AV, Weir RJ. 1990. Stability parameter estimates for stem volume for loblolly pine families growing in different regions in the southeastern United States. Front Sci. 36(1):10–17. doi: 10.1093/forestscience/36.1.10.
   Google Scholar
• Mekbib F. 2002. Simultaneous selection for high yield and stability in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) genotypes. J Agric Sci. 138(3):249–253. doi: 10.1017/S0021859602001946.
   Google Scholar
• Mekdad AAA, Ahmed MAE, Mostafa MR, Ahmed S. 2021b. Culture management and application of humic acid in favor of Helianthus annuus L. oil yield and nutritional homeostasis in a dry environment. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 22(1):71–86. doi: 10.1007/s42729-021-00636-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mekdad AA, El-Enin MMA, Rady MM, Hassan FA, Ali EF, Shaaban A. 2021a. Impact of level of nitrogen fertilization and critical period for weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Agronomy. 11(5):909. doi: 10.3390/agronomy11050909.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohammadi R, Amri A. 2008. Comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods for selecting stable and adapted durum wheat genotypes in variable environments. Euphytica. 159(3):419–432. doi: 10.1007/s10681-007-9600-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moll RH, Cockerham CC, Stuber CW, Williams WP. 1978. Selection responses, genetic-environmental interactions, and Heterosis with recurrent selection for yield in maize 1. Crop Sci. 18(4):641–645. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1978.0011183X001800040029x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mudada N, Chitamba J, Macheke TO, Manjeru P. 2017. Genotype × environmental interaction on seed cotton yield and yield components. Open Access Library J. 4(11):1–22. doi: 10.4236/oalib.1103192.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy SE, Lee EA, Woodrow L, Seguin P, Kumar J, Rajcan I, Ablett GR. 2009. Genotype × environment interaction and stability for isoflavone content in soybean. Crop Sci. 49(4):1313–1321. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2008.09.0533.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira A, Oliveira TA, Mejza S 2012. Joint regression analysis and AMMI model applied to oat improvement. In: AIP conference proceedings 2012 Sep 26 (Vol. 1479, No. 1, pp. 1720–1723). American Institute of Physics. 10.1063/1.4756504
   Google Scholar
• Page AI, Miller RH, Keeny DR. 1982. Methods of soil analysis, in part II. Chemical and microbiological methods. 2nd ed. Madison: Amer Soc Agron; pp. 225–246.
   Google Scholar
• Perkins JM, Jinks JL. 1968. Environmental and genotype-environmental interactions and physical measures of the environment. Heredity. 25(1):29–40. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1970.4.
   Google Scholar
• Pour-Aboughadareh A, Khalili M, Poczai P, Olivoto T. 2022. Stability indices to decipher the genotype-by-environment interaction (GEI) effect: an applicable review for use in plant breeding programs. Plants. 11(3):414. doi: 10.3390/plants11030414.
   Google Scholar
• Purchase JL 1997. Parametric analysis to describe G × E interaction and yield stability in winter wheat. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, University of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
   Google Scholar
• Rana C, Sharma SA, Sharma KC, Mittal P, Nath Sinha B, Kumar Sharma V, Chandel A, Thakur H, Kaila V, Sharma P, et al. 2021. Stability analysis of garden pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes under Northwestern Himalayas using joint regression analysis and GGE biplots. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 68(3):999–1010. doi: 10.1007/s10722-020-01040-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao SS, Tanwar SPS, Regar PL. 2016. Effect of deficit irrigation, phosphorous inoculation and cycocel spray on root growth, seed cotton yield and water productivity of drip irrigated cotton in arid environment. Agric Water Manage. 169:14–25. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2016.02.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Razali N, Wah YB. 2011. Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. J Stat Modeling Anal. 2:21–33.
   Google Scholar
• Riaz MJ, Farooq S, Ahmed S, Amin M, Chattha WS, Ayoub M, Kainth RA. 2019. Stability analysis of different cotton genotypes under normal and water-deficit conditions. J Integer Agric. 18(6):1257–1265. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(18)62041-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodrigues PC, Dgs P, Mexia JT. 2011. A comparison between joint regression analysis and the additional main and multiplicative interaction model: the robustness with increasing amounts of missing data. Sci Agric (Piracicaba, Braz). 68(6):679–686. doi: 10.1590/S0103-90162011000600012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romagosa I, Fox PN. 1993. Genotype × environment interaction and adaptation. In: Hayward M, Bosemark N Romagosa I, editors. Plant breeding: principles and prospects. London: Chapman Hall; pp. 373–390. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-1524-7_23.
   Google Scholar
• Rosa L, Chiarelli DD, Rulli MC, Dell’angelo J, D’Odorico P. 2020. Global agricultural economic water scarcity. Sci Adv. 6(18):eaaz6031.‏. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz6031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabri RS, Rafii MY, Ismail MR, Yusuff O, Chukwu SC, Hasan N. 2020. Assessment of agro-morphologic performance, genetic parameters and clustering pattern of newly developed blast resistant rice lines tested in four environments. Agronomy. 10(8):1098. doi: 10.3390/agronomy10081098.
   Google Scholar
• Sadabadi MF, Ranjbar GA, Zangi MR, Kazemi Tabar SK, Najafi Zarini H. 2018. Analysis of stability and adaptation of cotton genotypes using GGE biplot method. Trakia J Sci. 16(1):51–61. doi: 10.15547/tjs.2018.01.009.
   Google Scholar
• Shaaban A, Mahfouz H, Megawer EA, Saudy HS. 2023. Physiological changes and nutritional value of forage clitoria grown in arid agro-ecosystem as influenced by plant density and water deficit. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 23(3):3735–3750. doi: 10.1007/s42729-023-01294-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaaban A, OAAI A-E, Abdou NM, Hemida KA, El-Sherif AMA, Abdel-Razek MA, Semida WM, Mohamed GF, Abd El- Mageed TA. 2022. Filter mud enhanced yield and soil properties of water-stressed lupinus termis L. in saline calcareous soil. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 22(2):1572–1588. doi: 10.1007/s42729-021-00755-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shahriari Z, Heidari B, Dadkhodaie A, Chen Z-H. 2018. Dissection of genotype × environment interactions for mucilage and seed yield in Plantago species: application of AMMI and GGE biplot analyses. PLoS ONE. 13(5):e0196095. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196095.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silveira LCI, Kist V, Paula TOM, Barbosa MHP, Peternelli LA, Daros E. 2013. AMMI analysis to evaluate the adaptability and phenotypic stability of sugarcane genotypes. Sci Agric. 70(1):27–32. doi: 10.1590/S0103-90162013000100005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivapalan S, O’Brien L, Ortiz-Ferrara G, Hollamby GJ, Barclay I, Martin PJ. 2000. An adaptation analysis of Australian and CIMMYT/ICARDA wheat germplasm in Australian production environments. Aust J Agric Res. 51(7):903–915. doi: 10.1071/AR99188.
   Google Scholar
• Ssemakula G, Dixon A. 2007. Genotype × environment interaction, stability and agronomic performance of carotenoid-rich cassava clones. Scientific Research And Essays. 2:390–399. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/92828.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tekdal S, Kendal E. 2018. AMMI model to assess durum wheat genotypes in multi-environment trials. J Agric Sci Technol. 20(1):153–166.
   Google Scholar
• Tena E, Goshu F, Mohamad H, Tesfa M, Tesfaye D, Seife A, Tejada Moral M. 2019. Genotype × environment interaction by AMMI and GGE-biplot analysis for sugar yield in three crop cycles of sugarcane (Saccharum officinirum L.) clones in Ethiopia. Cogent Food & Agriculture. 5(1):1651925. doi: 10.1080/23311932.2019.1651925.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teodoro PE, Azevedo CF, Farias FJC, Alves RS, Peixoto LA, Ribeiro LP, Carvalho LP, Bhering LL. 2019. Adaptability of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) genotypes analysed using a bayesian AMMI model. Crop Pasture Sci. 70(7):615–621. doi: 10.1071/CP18318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thillainathan M, Fernandez GCJ. 2002. A novel approach to plant genotypic classification in multi-site evaluation. Hort Sci. 37(5):793–798. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.37.5.793.
   Google Scholar
• USDA-ERS 2020. Cotton and Wool Outlook: August 2020. (Accessed 29 August 2021). https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=84691
   Google Scholar
• Vavdiya PA, Chovatia VP, Bhut NM, Vadodariya GD. 2021. G × E interactions and stability analysis for seed cotton yield and its components in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Electron J Plant Breed. 12(2):396–402. doi: 10.37992/2021.1202.058.
   Google Scholar
• Yan W. 2001. GGE biplot a windows application for graphical analysis of multi-environment trial data and other types of two-way data. J Agron. 93(5):1111–1118. doi: 10.2134/agronj2001.9351111x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan W. 2002. Singular-value partition for biplot analysis of multienvironment trial data. Agron J. 94(5):990–996. doi: 10.2134/agronj2002.9900.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan K, Chen P, Shao HB, Zhao S, Zhang L, Xu G, Sun J, Sun J. 2012. Photosynthetic characterization of Jerusalem artichoke during leaf expansion. Acta Physiol Plant. 34(1):353–360. doi: 10.1007/s11738-011-0834-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan W, Hunt LA. 2001. Interpretation of genotype × environment interaction for winter wheat yield in Ontario. Crop Sci. 41(1):19–25. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2001.41119x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan W, Hunt LA, Sheng Q, Szlavnics Z. 2000. Cultivar evaluation and mega-environment investigation based on GGE biplot. Crop Sci. 40(3):596–605. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2000.403597x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan W, Kang MS2002GGE biplot analysis: a graphical tool for breeders, geneticists, and agronomists1stCRC Pressp. 28810.1201/9781420040371
   Google Scholar
• Yan W, Kang MS, Ma BL, Woods S, Cornelius PL. 2007. GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype-by-environment data. Crop Sci. 47(2):643–655. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2006.06.0374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan WK, Rajcan I. 2002. Biplot analysis of test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Crop Sci. 42(1):11–20. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2002.1100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan W, Tinker NA. 2006. Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data: principles and applications. Can J Plant Sci. 86(3):623–645. doi: 10.4141/P05-169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaşar M. 2023. Yield and fiber quality traits of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) cultivars analyzed by biplot method. J King Saud Univ Sci. 35(4):102632. doi: 10.1016/j.jksus.2023.102632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yau SK. 1995. Regression and AMMI analysis of genotype × environment interactions: an empirical comparison. Agron J. 87(1):121–126. doi: 10.2134/agronj1995.00021962008700010021x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zobel BJ, Talbert J. 1984. Applied forest tree improvement. New York: Wiley; p. 505. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19840699048.
   Google Scholar
• Zobel RW, Wright MJ, Gauch HG. 1988. Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agron J. 80(3):388–393. doi: 10.2134/agronj1988.00021962008000030002x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar