Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T04:25:12.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

YIELD STABILITY ANALYSIS OF LATE BLIGHT RESISTANT POTATO SELECTIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2008

J. M. K. MULEMA
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062 Kampala, Uganda
E. ADIPALA
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062 Kampala, Uganda
O. M. OLANYA*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, University of Maine, New England Plant, Soil and Water Lab, Orono, ME 04469, USA
W. WAGOIRE
Affiliation:
Kachwekano Agricultural Research and Development Centre, P.O. Box 421 Kabale, Uganda
*
‡Corresponding author: modesto.olanya@ars.usda.gov
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Potato is an important source of food and income in the highlands of East Africa. Identification of superior genotypes for improved agronomic characteristics will enhance tuber yield. Seven promising clones from population B potato selections (quantitative resistance to late blight) obtained from the International Potato Center, two genotypes from population A (qualitative resistance) and three control cultivars were evaluated for three cropping seasons at four locations in western Uganda in order to determine performance and yield stability. The additive main effects and multiplicative interactive (AMMI) model was used for the analysis. The analysis of variance of yield data for genotypes × locations, genotypes × seasons and genotypes × locations × seasons was significant (p < 0.05) showing the variable response of genotypes and the need for stability analysis. The AMMI statistical model showed that the most stable genotypes were 392618.250 (B5) and 392127.270 (B6) (high yield) and 392618.256 (B1), 391049.255 (B2) and 392127.256 (B7) (low yield) and had negligible interactions with the environments. Across environments, the ranking of genotypes for tuber yield was not consistent. The clones 381471.18 (A2), 387121.4 (A1) and cultivar Victoria had high average yields, but these yields were below average in a few environments. Selective deployment of cultivars can improve tuber yield in the highland tropics.

Note: Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation for endorsement by the US Department of Agriculture, Makerere University or Kachwekano Agricultural Research and Development Center.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008
Figure 0

Table 1. Site characteristics and meteorological parameters of the locations used in the study on yield stability in Uganda†.

Figure 1

Table 2. Analysis of variance on tuber yield (t ha−1) of twelve potato genotypes grown at four locations during three cropping seasons.

Figure 2

Table 3. Total tuber yield (t ha−1) of 12 potato genotypes grown at four locations during three cropping seasons in Uganda.

Figure 3

Table 4. Combined additive, multiplicative interaction and analysis of variance for tuber yield of twelve potato genotypes grown at four locations and three cropping seasons.

Figure 4

Table 5. Ranking of genotypes based on AMMI-1 estimates and observed means (in parenthesis) for tuber yield (t ha−1) of 12 potato genotypes grown in 12 environments

Figure 5

Figure 1. Plot of unadjusted mean tuber yield (t ha−1) and AMMI interaction with (IPCA1) scores for twelve potato genotypes evaluated at four locations and three cropping seasons. The average tuber yield of potato clones from 3.65 to 52.34 t ha−1 are plotted on the x-axis), while the principal component analysis scores (IPCA1) are plotted from −4.59 to 6.49 on the y-axis. The variable along the x-axis reflect differences in the main effects, and the values along the y-axis show differences in the interaction effects. The genotypes to the right side of the mid-point are classified as high yield potential, and those to the left side as low yield potential. The designations for the genotypes are: B1-392618.256, B2-391049.255, B3-392144.250, B4-392170.250, B5-392618.250, B6-392127.270, B7-392127.256, A1-387121.4, A2-381471.18. The environments are represented by: E1-Buginyanya 2001B, E2-Buginyanya 2002A, E3-Buginyanya 2002B, E4-Kachwekano 2001B, E5-Kachwekano 2002A, E6-Kachwekano 2002B, E7-Kalengyere 2001B, E8-Kalengyere 2002A, E9-Kalengyere 2002B, E10-Mbarara 2001B, E11-Mbarara 2002A, E12-Mbarara 2002B.