Genotype × environment interaction and grain yield stability of quality protein maize hybrids under stress and non-stress environments

Figures & data

Table 1. Genotype name, seed source and protein quality traits of 45 hybrids used in this study.

Entry	Genotype	Source	Hybrid type	Protein	Tryptophan	Entry	Genotype	Source	Hybrid type	Protein	Tryptophan
	name			%			name			%
1	ZS261	DR and SS	QPM check	8.3	0.085	24	CZH17193Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	10	0.093
2	Mama MQ623	DR and SS	QPM check	8.2	0.088	25	CZH17194Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	9.5	0.066
3	PAN53	Pannar	NM check	9.4	0.059	26	CZH17195Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	9.3	0.064
4	SC533	Seed Co	NM check	9.1	0.061	27	CZH17196Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8	0.075
5	CZH04032	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.3	0.091	28	CZH17197Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.7	0.079
6	CZH132044Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.2	0.09	29	CZH17198Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	9	0.096
7	CZH132018Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.5	0.096	30	CZH17199Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	9.3	0.071
8	CZH142236Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	7.5	0.097	31	CZH17200Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	9	0.076
9	CZH142237Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	7.4	0.096	32	CZH17201Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.5	0.079
10	CZH142238Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	7.8	0.102	33	CZH17202Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.7	0.075
11	CZH15098Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	9.2	0.081	34	CZH17203Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.2	0.081
12	CZH15099Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	7.4	0.09	35	CZH17204Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.1	0.082
13	CZH15117Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.0	0.088	36	CZH17205Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.1	0.082
14	CZH15142Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.1	0.096	37	CZH17206Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	9	0.084
15	CZH16006Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.8	0.071	38	CZH17207Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8	0.079
16	CZH16022Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.3	0.104	39	CZH17208Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.4	0.078
17	CZH16021Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	9.4	0.077	40	CZH17209Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.4	0.08
18	CZH17187Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	9.1	0.072	41	CZH17210Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.4	0.08
19	CZH17188Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.4	0.069	42	MH1633	Mukushi	New QPM	8.7	0.093
20	CZH17189Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.6	0.084	43	MH1634	Mukushi	New QPM	7.4	0.09
21	CZH17190Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	9.0	0.07	44	QS7646	Mukushi	New QPM	7.6	0.081
22	CZH17191Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.0	0.068	45	Local check	–	–	–	–
23	CZH17192Q	CIMMYT	New QPM	8.4	0.079

NM = normal maize; QPM = Quality protein maize.

Table 2. Description of the study sites, mean grain yield and CV of the trials evaluated during 2018–2020.

No	Country	Location	Location code	Management	Latitude	Longitude	Altitude (asl m)	Mean grain yield (t ha^−1)	CV
1	Ethiopia	Ambo season_1	AM1	Optimum	8°57’N	38°7’E	2225	8.9	7.64
2		Ambo season_2	AM2	Optimum	8°57’N	38°7’E	2225	7.6	8.84
3		Ambo season_1	AM1	Low N	8°57’N	38°7’E	2225	3.5	21.78
4		Ambo season_2	AM2	Low N	8°57’N	38°7’E	2225	2.6	11.09
5		Bako season_1	BK1	Optimum	9006’N	37°009’E	1650	8.0	9.35
6		Bako season_2	BK2	Optimum	9006’N	37°009’E	1650	8.9	9.3
7		Bako season_1	BK1	Low N	9006’N	37°009’E	1650	1.4	22.91
8		Bako season_2	BK2	Low N	9006’N	37°009’E	1650	2.7	17.76
9	Zimbabwe	Harare	HAR	Optimum	17°49’S	31°1’E	1489	7.9	8.35
10		Harare	HAR	Low N	17°49’S	31°1’E	1489	4.1	11.44
11		Gwebi	GWB	Low N	17°13’S	31°E	1406	2.1	15.61
12		Gwebi	GWB	Random stress	17°13’S	31°E	1406	5.2	10.71
13		Rattray-Arnold	RAT	Optimum	17°67’S	31°17’E	1452	8.1	6.91
14		Rattray-Arnold	RAT	Low N	17°67’S	31°17’E	1452	1.3	20.45
15		Bindura	BIN	Random stress	17°18’S	31°19’E	NA	5.2	19.63
16		Glandale	GLA	Optimum	17°08’S	31°3’E	1250	7.3	13.79
17		Chinhoyi	CHI	Optimum	17°21’S	30°11’E	1168	7.4	11.74
18		Lionsden	LIO	Optimum	19°19’S	30°58’E	1438	9.0	7.43
19		Kwekwe	KWE	Optimum	19°00’S	29°45’E	1187	10.1	8.3
20		AREX Harare	AREX	Low N	17°49’S	31°1’E	1489	1.5	21.12
21		Gweru	GWR	Random stress	19°28’S	29°48’E	1457	3.5	13.47
22		Makoholi	MAK	Managed drought	19°83’S	30°78’E	1111	2.2	25.35
23		Chisumbanje	CHS	Managed drought	20°48’S	32°14’E	455	3.0	22.49
24	Zambia	Mpongwe	MPO	Optimum	13°32’S	28°03’E	1300	8.3	7.69
25		Lusaka	LUS	Optimum	15°19’S	28°0’E	1153	8.1	7.83
26		Magobo	MAG	Random stress	14°3’S	32°7’E	1075	2.6	19.81
27		ZamSEED	ZAM	Random stress	15°19’S	28°18’E	NA	4.4	13.72
28		ETG-Farm	ETG	Random stress	15°42’S	28°26’E	1277	3.6	15.02
29		Chokwe	CHO	Managed drought	24°53’S	33° E	NA	2.9	13.88
30		Msekera	MSE	Optimum	13°38’S	32°39’E	1267	7.8	10.11
31	Mozambique	Lichinga	LIC	Random stress	13°30’S	35°23’E	1305	4.9	14.39
32		Umbuluzi	UMB	Random stress	26°58’S	32°38’E	23	5.4	13.1
33	Malawi	Meru	MER	Random stress	09°44’S	33°23’E	1231	4.2	21.35
34		Chitala	CHT	Optimum	13°13’S	34°07’E	733	8.5	11.74

NA = the data is not available; CV = Coefficient of variation.

Table 3. Mean squares for grain yield and agronomic traits for 40 QPM hybrids and four commercial checks evaluated under different environmental conditions in 2018–2020.

Source variation	OP		RS		MD		LN
	Df	GY	Df	GY	Df	GY	Df	GY
E	13	48.88**	8	80.94**	2	17.78**	7	86.76**
Rep (E)	14	5.07**	9	4.73**	3	6.59**	8	3.99**
Block (Rep × E)	224	1.89**	144	1.79**	48	1.32**	128	0.91**
Genotype	43	3.84**	43	3.06**	43	0.90**	43	1.18**
G × E	559	1.45**	344	0.99**	86	0.74**	301	0.53**
Residuals	378	0.74	243	0.68	81	0.3	216	0.22
Broad-sense heritability		0.64		0.69		0.08		0.61
CV (%)		10.37		19.02		20.58		19.29
R-Square		0.88		0.9		0.9		0.95
Source variation	Across all environments
	Df	GY	DA	ASI	PH	EPO	EPP
E	33	647.02**	13990.74**	189.66**	145555.55**	0.24**	2.36**
Rep (E)	34	4.86**	29.48**	5.36**	2616.11**	0.01**	0.06**
Block (Rep × E)	544	1.58**	9.07**	3.10**	601.00**	0.00**	0.04**
Genotype	43	5.42**	66.93**	9.91**	2554.27**	0.01**	0.27**
G × E	1419	1.08**	4.05**	2.37**	257.99*	0.00**	0.03**
Residuals	918	0.56	2.66	1.34	225.26	0	0.02
Broad-sense heritability		0.81	0.95	0.74	0.91	0.87	0.9
CV (%)		13.97	2.27	55.99	6.83	9.28	14.13
R-Square		0.98	0.99	0.91	0.96	0.88	0.89

*P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01; E = environment; Rep = replication; G × E = genotype × environment interaction; CV = Coefficient of variation; Df = degree of freedom; GY = grain yield; DA = days of anthesis; ASI = anthesis silking interval; PH = plant height; EPO = ear position; EPP = number of ears per plant; OP = Optimum management; RS = random stress; MD = managed drought; LN = low nitrogen.

Table 4. Grain yield and some agronomic traits of top ten QPM hybrids and commercial checks evaluated under different environmental conditions in ESA during 2018 to 2020.

Optimum			Random stress			Managed drought			Low N			Across all environments
Entry	Genotype name	GY	Entry	Genotype name	GY	Entry	Genotype name	GY	Entry	Genotype name	GY	Entry	GY	DA	ASI	PH	EPO	EPP
44	QS7646	8.9	14	CZH15142Q	5.3	9	CZH142237Q	3.6	14	CZH15142Q	3.2	14	6.0	70.6	1.6	218.6	0.47	1.11
12	CZH15099Q	8.9	44	QS7646	4.9	10	CZH142238Q	3.5	34	CZH17203Q	3.0	9	5.8	72.0	1.3	213.6	0.49	1.13
9	CZH142237Q	8.8	23	CZH17192Q	4.9	23	CZH17192Q	3.3	11	CZH15098Q	3.0	44	5.8	70.4	2.9	218.8	0.49	1.14
17	CZH16021Q	8.8	10	CZH142238Q	4.8	40	CZH17209Q	3.3	7	CZH132018Q	2.9	10	5.8	70.9	1.6	211.7	0.47	1.13
6	CZH132044Q	8.7	9	CZH142237Q	4.8	14	CZH15142Q	3.2	27	CZH17196Q	2.8	12	5.7	70.4	1.6	212.5	0.51	1.13
38	CZH17207Q	8.7	34	CZH17203Q	4.7	12	CZH15099Q	3.2	43	MH1634	2.7	34	5.7	72.5	2.3	221.8	0.52	1.07
10	CZH142238Q	8.7	8	CZH142236Q	4.7	35	CZH17204Q	3.1	12	CZH15099Q	2.6	23	5.7	72.5	2.3	231.4	0.50	1.00
20	CZH17189Q	8.7	38	CZH17207Q	4.7	22	CZH17191Q	3.1	9	CZH142237Q	2.6	11	5.6	69.8	1.6	213.1	0.49	1.14
14	CZH15142Q	8.7	18	CZH17187Q	4.6	8	CZH142236Q	3.1	29	CZH17198Q	2.6	17	5.6	72.4	2.4	226.1	0.49	0.96
11	CZH15098Q	8.6	16	CZH16022Q	4.6	7	CZH132018Q	3.0	10	CZH142238Q	2.6	6	5.6	72.9	1.7	226.8	0.49	1.07
ZS261 (QPM check)		7.3			3.2			2.6			2.2	1	4.6	70.3	2.1	214.1	0.47	0.98
Mama MQ623 (QPM check)		7.8			4.1			2.8			2.8	2	5.2	70.2	2.1	208.3	0.50	1.02
PAN53 (normal check)		8.8			4.9			3.0			2.8	3	5.9	71.9	2.0	228.5	0.49	0.92
SC533 (Normal check)		7.6			3.5			2.1			2.1	4	4.7	70.2	1.7	212.9	0.47	0.93
LSD		0.5			0.5			0.6			0.3		0.3	0.5	0.4	5.1	0.02	0.05
Mean		8.3			4.3			2.7			2.4		5.4	71.8	2.1	219.7	0.49	1.05
Minimum		7.3			3.2			1.8			1.9		4.6	69.8	1.3	207.2	0.47	0.92
Maximum		8.9			5.3			3.6			3.2		6.0	74.5	3.0	232.1	0.53	1.14
Mean of top 10 hybrids		8.7			4.8			3.3			2.8		5.7	71.44	1.93	219.45	0.49	1.09
Mean of QPM checks		7.5			3.6			2.7			2.5		4.9	70.26	2.10	211.21	0.48	1.00
Mean of normal checks		8.2			4.2			2.5			2.5		5.3	71.05	1.89	220.71	0.48	0.93
Best QPM hybrid		8.9			5.3			3.6			3.2		6.0	69.79	1.26	211.71	0.47	1.14
Best QPM check		7.8			4.1			2.8			2.8		5.2	70.2	2.1	208.3	0.5	1.0
Best normal check		8.8			4.9			3.0			2.8		5.9	70.2	1.7	212.9	0.5	0.9
Top 10 hybrids over QPM checks (%)		15.8			32.0			20.1			11.4		17.0	1.7	−7.9	3.9	1.2	8.7
Top 10 hybrids over normal maize checks (%)		6.4			13.3			27.6			13.2		8.0	0.5	2.1	−0.6	2.4	17.3
Best hybrid over best QPM check (%)		13.7			30.3			29.3			15.4		15.7	−0.6	−38.6	1.6	−0.8	12.3
Best hybrid over best normal maize check (%)		0.4			7.8			19.2			13.0		2.2	−0.6	−27.1	−0.5	−1.2	22.9

GY = grain yield (t ha⁻¹); DA = days to anthesis; ASI = anthesis silking interval; PH = plant height (cm); EPO = ear position; EPP = number of ears per plant; LSD = least significant difference.

Table 5. Percentage of grain yield and agronomic performance reduction under random stress, managed drought and low N stress conditions compared to the performance under optimum management condition.

Traits	OP	RS	% change	MD	% change	LN	% change
Grain yield (t ha^-1)	8.3	4.3	48	2.7	68	2.40	71
Days to anthesis (days)	71.5	66.5	7	63.5	11	81.08	−13
Days to silking (days)	72.6	68.5	6	67.0	8	84.41	−16
Anthesis silking interval (days)	1.1	2.0	−80	3.5	−218	3.33	−203
Plant height (cm)	253.3	202.3	20	177.3	30	196.16	23
Ear height (cm)	129.3	97.3	25	91.3	29	94.14	27
Ear position (cm)	0.51	0.47	7	0.50	2	0.48	6
Number of ears per plant (#)	1.16	1.03	11	0.88	24	0.92	20

OP = Optimum management; RS = random stress; MD = managed drought; LN = low nitrogen; negative value of traits indicates an increase under random stress, managed drought and low N stress conditions.

Table 6. AMMI analysis of variance for grain yield of 40 QPM hybrids and four commercial checks evaluated under optimum and stressed environments in ESA during 2018 to 2020.

Optimum management							Low nitrogen stress
Source of variation	Df	SS	MS	Total variation	% G × E interaction	% total G × E interaction	Source of variation	Df	SS	MS	Total variation	% G × E interaction	% total G × E interaction
Environment	13	635.39	48.88**	35.8			Environment	7	607.31	86.76**	69.8
Genotype	43	183.02	4.26**	10.3			Genotype	43	66.64	1.55**	7.7
E × G	559	956.35	1.71**	53.9			E × G	301	196.36	0.65**	22.5
PC1	55	214.26	3.90**		22.5	22.5	PC1	49	70.07	1.43**		34.6	34.6
PC2	53	152.77	2.88**		16	38.5	PC2	47	51.92	1.10**		25.7	60.3
PC3	51	123.81	2.43**		13	51.5	PC3	45	27.69	0.62**		13.7	74
PC4	49	92.57	1.89**		9.7	61.2	PC4	43	20.29	0.47**		10	84
PC5	47	87.8	1.87**		9.2	70.4	PC5	41	13.69	0.33*		6.8	90.8
PC6	45	53.64	1.19**		5.6	76.1	PC6	39	12.78	0.33*		6.3	97.1
PC7	43	50.8	1.18*		5.3	81.4	Residuals	352	141.93	0.4
PC8	41	44.88	1.09*		4.7	86.1
Residuals	616	611.85	0.99
Random stress							Managed drought stress
Source of variation	Df	SS	MS	Total variation	% G × E interaction	% total G × E interaction	Source of variation	Df	SS	MS	Total variation	% G × E interaction	% total G × E interaction
Environment	8	647.54	80.94**	54			Environment	2	35.56	17.78**	20.4
Genotype	43	132.73	3.09**	11.1			Genotype	43	48.1	1.12**	27.6
E × G	344	418.89	1.22**	34.9			E × G	86	90.73	1.06**	52
PC1	50	109.47	2.19**		27.5	27.5	PC1	44	51.3	1.17**		59.2	59.2
PC2	48	96.87	2.02**		24.4	51.9	PC2	42	35.36	0.84**		40.8	100
PC3	46	53.67	1.17**		13.5	65.4	Residuals	132	71.37	0.54
PC4	44	45.74	1.04*		11.5	76.9
Residuals	396	384.24	0.97

*P ≤ 0.05; ** P ≤ 0.01; Df = degree of freedom; MS = mean squares; SS = sum of squares; G × E = genotype by environment interaction; PC = principal component.

Table 7. Mean grain yield and IPCA scores and ASV values of 40 QPM hybrids and four commercial checks evaluated under stress and non-stress environments.

Entry no	Hybrids	Optimum				Random stress				Managed drought				Low N stress
		GY	IPCA1	IPCA2	ASV	GY	IPCA1	IPCA2	ASV	GY	IPCA1	IPCA2	ASV	GY	IPCA1	IPCA2	ASV
1	ZS261	7.3	−0.01	−0.02	0.02	3.2	−0.24	−0.32	0.42	2.6	−0.16	0.41	0.47	2.2	−0.28	0.32	0.50
2	Mama MQ623	7.8	−0.31	−0.38	0.57	4.1	0.30	−0.25	0.42	2.8	0.42	0.16	0.63	2.8	−0.42	0.22	0.61
3	PAN53	8.8	0.50	0.36	0.79	4.9	−0.12	−0.28	0.31	3.0	−0.61	0.12	0.90	2.8	0.08	−1.00	1.01
4	SC533	7.6	0.25	−0.31	0.47	3.5	0.37	−0.29	0.50	2.1	−0.14	−0.39	0.44	2.1	0.34	−0.51	0.69
5	CZH04032	7.8	0.18	−1.00	1.03	3.7	0.22	0.03	0.25	2.6	0.36	0.22	0.57	2.4	0.17	0.78	0.81
6	CZH132044Q	8.7	−0.01	0.19	0.19	4.5	0.05	−0.39	0.40	2.3	−0.15	−0.06	0.23	2.6	0.39	−0.06	0.52
7	CZH132018Q	8.2	−0.20	0.12	0.30	4.1	−0.50	−0.26	0.62	3.0	0.09	−0.17	0.21	2.9	−0.84	0.41	1.21
8	CZH142236Q	8.4	0.19	0.19	0.33	4.7	0.15	0.09	0.19	3.1	0.81	0.48	1.27	2.2	0.54	−0.12	0.74
9	CZH142237Q	8.8	−0.22	−0.09	0.32	4.8	0.16	0.79	0.81	3.6	−0.81	−0.12	1.18	2.6	0.30	−0.14	0.42
10	CZH142238Q	8.7	−0.19	0.84	0.88	4.8	0.62	−0.01	0.70	3.5	0.69	0.13	1.01	2.6	0.63	−0.18	0.87
11	CZH15098Q	8.6	−0.74	0.15	1.05	4.4	−0.50	−0.66	0.86	2.6	0.08	0.31	0.33	3.0	−0.29	0.29	0.49
12	CZH15099Q	8.9	0.43	0.41	0.73	4.5	−0.01	0.18	0.18	3.2	−0.27	−0.17	0.43	2.6	0.32	0.02	0.43
13	CZH15117Q	8.5	0.46	−0.08	0.65	4.4	−0.60	−0.61	0.91	3.0	−0.30	0.41	0.60	2.6	−0.26	0.52	0.63
14	CZH15142Q	8.7	0.11	0.13	0.20	5.3	0.77	−0.20	0.89	3.2	−0.49	−0.14	0.72	3.2	−0.29	0.51	0.64
15	CZH16006Q	8.5	−0.68	0.38	1.02	4.2	−0.27	0.15	0.34	2.8	0.77	−1.00	1.49	2.3	−0.30	0.42	0.59
16	CZH16022Q	8.4	0.52	−0.47	0.87	4.6	0.23	−0.32	0.41	2.3	−0.01	−0.07	0.07	2.6	0.32	−0.17	0.47
17	CZH16021Q	8.8	−0.41	−0.56	0.80	4.5	−0.23	0.43	0.50	2.5	0.18	0.27	0.37	2.5	−0.38	0.06	0.52
18	CZH17187Q	8.1	0.13	0.22	0.28	4.6	0.65	0.20	0.76	2.3	−0.21	0.02	0.30	2.1	0.86	0.12	1.17
19	CZH17188Q	8.1	−0.13	−0.50	0.54	4.6	−0.17	0.90	0.92	3.0	−0.01	0.68	0.68	2.4	0.43	0.02	0.59
20	CZH17189Q	8.7	0.01	−0.09	0.09	4.0	−0.66	0.29	0.81	2.7	0.29	0.35	0.54	2.4	−0.22	0.24	0.38
21	CZH17190Q	7.9	0.25	−0.33	0.48	3.8	−0.48	0.60	0.81	2.5	−0.37	0.37	0.65	2.1	0.34	0.57	0.73
22	CZH17191Q	8.4	0.37	0.23	0.56	4.3	−0.10	0.42	0.43	3.1	−0.63	−0.04	0.92	2.3	0.28	0.08	0.39
23	CZH17192Q	8.6	0.40	−0.19	0.59	4.9	−0.06	−0.05	0.09	3.3	0.67	−0.54	1.11	2.2	−0.03	0.47	0.47
24	CZH17193Q	8.6	−0.07	0.09	0.13	4.4	0.68	0.10	0.77	2.2	0.18	−0.10	0.28	2.0	0.46	0.15	0.63
25	CZH17194Q	7.9	−0.20	0.50	0.57	3.9	−0.51	0.34	0.67	1.8	0.28	−0.42	0.58	2.5	−0.35	−0.38	0.60
26	CZH17195Q	7.7	0.29	0.03	0.41	4.1	0.04	−0.03	0.05	1.9	−0.05	−0.11	0.13	2.1	0.16	−0.59	0.63
27	CZH17196Q	8.2	−0.43	0.09	0.61	3.8	−0.38	−0.18	0.46	1.9	−0.31	−0.66	0.80	2.8	−0.58	−0.38	0.88
28	CZH17197Q	8.3	0.11	−0.03	0.16	4.2	0.05	−0.59	0.60	2.8	0.38	−0.35	0.65	1.9	0.31	0.15	0.44
29	CZH17198Q	8.4	−0.26	0.01	0.37	4.3	0.09	−0.48	0.49	2.7	−0.06	−0.36	0.37	2.6	−0.87	−0.72	1.37
30	CZH17199Q	8.1	0.26	−0.15	0.40	4.2	0.10	−0.25	0.28	2.5	0.18	0.33	0.42	2.0	−0.12	0.11	0.19
31	CZH17200Q	8.0	0.01	−0.74	0.74	4.1	−0.02	0.09	0.10	2.3	−0.54	−0.65	1.02	2.1	0.27	−0.01	0.37
32	CZH17201Q	7.8	0.36	0.32	0.60	4.2	−0.83	−0.19	0.95	2.3	0.21	−0.46	0.55	2.4	0.04	−0.25	0.26
33	CZH17202Q	8.3	−0.53	0.03	0.74	3.8	−0.49	0.29	0.62	2.5	0.06	0.12	0.15	2.2	0.02	−0.53	0.53
34	CZH17203Q	8.5	0.75	0.17	1.07	4.7	0.79	−0.17	0.91	2.3	−0.27	0.02	0.39	3.0	−0.36	−0.44	0.66
35	CZH17204Q	8.1	−0.10	−0.02	0.14	4.2	0.07	1.00	1.00	3.1	0.14	0.38	0.44	2.5	−0.24	0.15	0.35
36	CZH17205Q	8.1	−0.37	−0.25	0.57	4.5	0.43	−0.54	0.73	2.4	−0.46	−0.06	0.67	1.9	0.09	0.56	0.57
37	CZH17206Q	8.5	−0.75	−0.18	1.06	4.5	−0.08	0.17	0.19	2.4	−0.02	0.37	0.37	2.2	−0.21	0.13	0.32
38	CZH17207Q	8.7	−0.21	0.30	0.42	4.7	0.57	0.60	0.88	2.8	−0.47	0.02	0.68	2.2	0.59	−0.09	0.81
39	CZH17208Q	7.8	0.45	0.33	0.71	4.6	0.61	0.26	0.74	2.4	0.32	0.16	0.50	2.0	0.13	−0.18	0.25
40	CZH17209Q	7.8	−0.28	0.19	0.43	4.1	0.09	0.05	0.12	3.3	0.08	0.09	0.15	2.4	0.17	−0.40	0.46
41	CZH17210Q	8.4	−0.73	0.11	1.03	4.0	−0.24	0.00	0.28	2.7	−0.21	−0.19	0.37	2.0	0.35	0.04	0.47
42	MH1633	7.9	0.32	0.16	0.48	4.3	0.23	−0.53	0.59	2.7	0.35	0.22	0.56	2.4	−0.17	0.00	0.23
43	MH1634	8.3	0.13	−0.40	0.44	4.0	−0.60	−0.05	0.68	2.6	0.28	0.06	0.41	2.7	−0.52	0.26	0.75
44	QS7646	8.9	0.32	0.24	0.51	4.9	−0.19	−0.32	0.39	2.8	−0.26	0.34	0.50	2.5	−0.82	−0.44	1.19
	mean	8.3				4.3				2.7				2.4

GY (t ha⁻¹) = mean grain yield ton per hectare; ASV = AMMI stability value; IPCA = interaction of principal component analyses.

Figure 1. “Which won where” polygon view of the GGE biplot for 40 QPM hybrids and four standard checks evaluated across (a) optimum management, (b) random stress, (c) managed drought and (d) low nitrogen stress. Environment codes are explained in Table 2.

Figure 2. Mean vs. stability view of GGE biplot based on grain yield of 40 new QPM hybrids and four standard checks evaluated across (a) optimum management, (b) random stress, (c) managed drought and (d) low nitrogen stress. Environment codes are explained in Table 2.

Figure 3. GGE biplot view showing ranking of hybrids based on grain yield of 40 new QPM hybrids and four standard checks evaluated across (a) optimum management, (b) random stress, (c) managed drought and (d) low N environments. Environment codes are explained in Table 2.

Figure 4. Discriminativeness vs. representativeness view of the GGE biplots based on grain yield of 40 new QPM hybrids and four standard checks evaluated across (a) optimum management, (b) random stress, (c) managed drought and (d) low nitrogen. Environment codes are explained in Table 2.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are included in the manuscript and further inquiries can be forwarded to the corresponding author.