This document discusses various linear regression models for analyzing genotype-environment interactions:
1. Finlay and Wilkinson (1963) developed the first model where the mean yield of each genotype is regressed onto the mean yield of environments.
2. Eberhart and Russell (1966) improved on this by regressing the phenotypic value of each genotype onto an environmental index to estimate two stability parameters.
3. Perkins and Jinks (1968) extended the model to partition GE interaction into linear and nonlinear components to measure sensitivity to environmental changes.
4. The models are analyzed using ANOVA to test for significance of GE interaction and its linear and nonlinear components. Parameters like regression coefficients and deviation from regression are estimated to
Stability refers to the performance with respective changing environmental factors overtime within given location.
Selection for stability is not possible until a biometrical model with suitable parameters is available to provide criteria necessary to rank varieties / breeds for stability.
Stability parameters for comparing varieties (eberhart and russell 1966)Dhanuja Kumar
Phenotype is a result of genotype, environment and GE interaction. GENOTYPE- environment interactions are of major
importance to the plant breeder in developing
improved varieties. The performance of a single variety is not the same in all the environments. To identify a genotype whose performance is stable across environments various models were proposed. One such model was proposed by EBERHART and RUSSELL in 1966. Even after decades, this model is still preferred over others and used till date for stability analysis.
Stability refers to the performance with respective changing environmental factors overtime within given location.
Selection for stability is not possible until a biometrical model with suitable parameters is available to provide criteria necessary to rank varieties / breeds for stability.
Stability parameters for comparing varieties (eberhart and russell 1966)Dhanuja Kumar
Phenotype is a result of genotype, environment and GE interaction. GENOTYPE- environment interactions are of major
importance to the plant breeder in developing
improved varieties. The performance of a single variety is not the same in all the environments. To identify a genotype whose performance is stable across environments various models were proposed. One such model was proposed by EBERHART and RUSSELL in 1966. Even after decades, this model is still preferred over others and used till date for stability analysis.
Advanced biometrical and quantitative genetics akshayAkshay Deshmukh
Additive and Multiplicative Model
Shifted Multiplicative Model
Analysis and Selection of Genotype
Methods and steps to select the best model
Bioplot and mapping genotype
The shifted multiplicative model was developed by Cornelius and Seyedsadr in 1992.
SHMM is used to analyze the complete separability, genotypic separability, environmental separability, and inseparability of environment effects and genotypic effects.
Gregorius and Namkoong (1986) defined Separability as the property which is that cultivar effect is separable from environmental effect so that there is no rank.
The shifted multiplicative model (SHMM) is used in an exploratory step-down method for identifying subsets of environments in which genotypic effects are "separable" from environmental effects. Subsets of environments are chosen on the basis of a SHMM analysis of the entire data set. SHMM analyses of the subsets
may indicate a need for further subdivision and/or suggest that a different subdivision at the previous stage should be tried. The process continues until SHMM analysis indicates that a SHMM with only one multiplicative term and its "point of concurrence" outside (left or right) of the cluster of data points adequately fits the data in all subsets.
Power Point is deals with the different aspects of Quantitative genetics in plant breeding it converse Basic Principles of Biometrical Genetics, estimation of Variability, Correlation, Principal Component Analysis, Path analysis, Different Matting design and Stability so on
Presentation by Jacob van Etten.
CCAFS workshop titled "Using Climate Scenarios and Analogues for Designing Adaptation Strategies in Agriculture," 19-23 September in Kathmandu, Nepal.
Stability analysis and G*E interactions in plantsRachana Bagudam
Gene–environment interaction is when two different genotypes respond to environmental variation in different ways. Stability refers to the performance with respective to environmental factors overtime within given location. Selection for stability is not possible until a biometrical model with suitable parameters is available to provide criteria necessary to rank varieties / breeds for stability. Different models of stability are discussed.
It comprises on mating designs used in plant breeding programs. 6 basic mating designs are briefly explained in it with their requirements as well limiting factors...
Presentation delivered by Dr. Jesse Poland (Kansas State University, USA) at Borlaug Summit on Wheat for Food Security. March 25 - 28, 2014, Ciudad Obregon, Mexico.
http://www.borlaug100.org
GGEBiplot analysis of genotype × environment interaction in Agropyron interme...Innspub Net
In order to identify genotypes of Agropyron intermedium with high forage yield and stability an experiment was carried out in the Research station of Kermanshah Iran.The 11 accessions were sown in a randomized complete block design with three replications under rainfed and irrigated conditions during 2013-21-014 cropping deasons. Combined analysis of variance indicated high significant differences for location, genotype and G × E interaction (GEI) at 1% level of probability. Mean comparisons over environments introduced G4, G3 and G5 with maximum forage yield over rainfed and irrigated conditions. Minimum forage yield was attributed to genotype G1. GGEbiplot analysis exhibited that the first two principal components (PCA) resulted from GEI and genotype effect justified 99.37% of total variance in the data set. The four environments under investigation fell into two apparent groups: irrigated and rainfed. The presence of close associations among irrigated (E1 and E3) and rainfed (E2 and E4) conditions suggests that the same information about the genotypes could be obtained from fewer test environments, and hence the potential to reduce testing cost.The which-won-where pattern of GGEbiplot introduced genotypes G3 and G4 as stable with high forage yield for rainfed condition, while G5 was stable with high yield for irrigated condition. According to the comparison of the genotypes with the Ideal genotype accessions G4, G3 and G9 were more favorable than all the other genotypes. Get more articles at: http://www.innspub.net/volume-6-number-4-april-2015-jbes/
Advanced biometrical and quantitative genetics akshayAkshay Deshmukh
Additive and Multiplicative Model
Shifted Multiplicative Model
Analysis and Selection of Genotype
Methods and steps to select the best model
Bioplot and mapping genotype
The shifted multiplicative model was developed by Cornelius and Seyedsadr in 1992.
SHMM is used to analyze the complete separability, genotypic separability, environmental separability, and inseparability of environment effects and genotypic effects.
Gregorius and Namkoong (1986) defined Separability as the property which is that cultivar effect is separable from environmental effect so that there is no rank.
The shifted multiplicative model (SHMM) is used in an exploratory step-down method for identifying subsets of environments in which genotypic effects are "separable" from environmental effects. Subsets of environments are chosen on the basis of a SHMM analysis of the entire data set. SHMM analyses of the subsets
may indicate a need for further subdivision and/or suggest that a different subdivision at the previous stage should be tried. The process continues until SHMM analysis indicates that a SHMM with only one multiplicative term and its "point of concurrence" outside (left or right) of the cluster of data points adequately fits the data in all subsets.
Power Point is deals with the different aspects of Quantitative genetics in plant breeding it converse Basic Principles of Biometrical Genetics, estimation of Variability, Correlation, Principal Component Analysis, Path analysis, Different Matting design and Stability so on
Presentation by Jacob van Etten.
CCAFS workshop titled "Using Climate Scenarios and Analogues for Designing Adaptation Strategies in Agriculture," 19-23 September in Kathmandu, Nepal.
Stability analysis and G*E interactions in plantsRachana Bagudam
Gene–environment interaction is when two different genotypes respond to environmental variation in different ways. Stability refers to the performance with respective to environmental factors overtime within given location. Selection for stability is not possible until a biometrical model with suitable parameters is available to provide criteria necessary to rank varieties / breeds for stability. Different models of stability are discussed.
It comprises on mating designs used in plant breeding programs. 6 basic mating designs are briefly explained in it with their requirements as well limiting factors...
Presentation delivered by Dr. Jesse Poland (Kansas State University, USA) at Borlaug Summit on Wheat for Food Security. March 25 - 28, 2014, Ciudad Obregon, Mexico.
http://www.borlaug100.org
GGEBiplot analysis of genotype × environment interaction in Agropyron interme...Innspub Net
In order to identify genotypes of Agropyron intermedium with high forage yield and stability an experiment was carried out in the Research station of Kermanshah Iran.The 11 accessions were sown in a randomized complete block design with three replications under rainfed and irrigated conditions during 2013-21-014 cropping deasons. Combined analysis of variance indicated high significant differences for location, genotype and G × E interaction (GEI) at 1% level of probability. Mean comparisons over environments introduced G4, G3 and G5 with maximum forage yield over rainfed and irrigated conditions. Minimum forage yield was attributed to genotype G1. GGEbiplot analysis exhibited that the first two principal components (PCA) resulted from GEI and genotype effect justified 99.37% of total variance in the data set. The four environments under investigation fell into two apparent groups: irrigated and rainfed. The presence of close associations among irrigated (E1 and E3) and rainfed (E2 and E4) conditions suggests that the same information about the genotypes could be obtained from fewer test environments, and hence the potential to reduce testing cost.The which-won-where pattern of GGEbiplot introduced genotypes G3 and G4 as stable with high forage yield for rainfed condition, while G5 was stable with high yield for irrigated condition. According to the comparison of the genotypes with the Ideal genotype accessions G4, G3 and G9 were more favorable than all the other genotypes. Get more articles at: http://www.innspub.net/volume-6-number-4-april-2015-jbes/
The Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) jointly hosted the International Conference on Climate Change and Food Security (ICCCFS) November 6-8, 2011 in Beijing, China. This conference provided a forum for leading international scientists and young researchers to present their latest research findings, exchange their research ideas, and share their experiences in the field of climate change and food security. The event included technical sessions, poster sessions, and social events. The conference results and recommendations were presented at the global climate talks in Durban, South Africa during an official side event on December 1.
This slide explains term biostatistics, important terms used in the field of bio statistics and important applications of biostatistics in the field of agriculture, physiology, ecology, genetics, molecular biology, taxonomy, etc.
Gezgin, U. B. (2010). Environmental psychology, urban planning and economics: Intersections, crossroads & tangents. (Paper to be presented at ACP 2011: the Asian Conference on Psychology and the Behavioral Sciences 2011. 20-22 March 2011, Osaka, Japan.) Gezgin, U. B. (2011). Environmental psychology, urban planning and economics: Intersections, crossroads & tangents. (Paper prepared for ACP 2011: the Asian Conference on Psychology and the Behavioral Sciences 2011. 20-22 March 2011, Osaka, Japan.) Full text published in ACP Conference Proceedings, pp.50-67, ISSN: 2186-615X. http://www.iafor.org/ACP_Proceedings_2011.pdf
Genotype x Environment Interaction and Grain Yield Stability of Maize (Zea ma...Premier Publishers
Testing of genotypes in multi-environments is an important to estimate genotype x environment interaction (GEI) and identify stable genotypes with superior performance. The study was to evaluate different maize hybrids at multi-environments as well as to identify high yielding and stable maize hybrids. Twenty maize hybrids were tested across eight environments in a randomized complete block design in the 2015 cropping season. Combined analysis of variance and AMMI analysis showed that genotype, environment and GEI effect were highly significant (p < 0. 01) for grain yield. Genotype, environment and GEI explained 6.62, 84.87 and 4.50% of the total experimental variations, indicating the importance of environment for variations in grain yield. Mean grain yield of tested hybrids ranged from 4.98 t ha-1 in G2 to 7.51 t ha-1 in G16. As evident from significant GEI, performances of the hybrids were inconsistent across environments indicated that suitable to specific environment. Based on AMMI stability value and mean ranking of GGE biplot indicated that G18 (BH 546) had high grain yield (7.16 t ha-1) and more stable across tested environments. This study identified maize hybrids with high grain yield and stable across environments that need to be further validated for possible new maize variety release and or the newly released hybrid is used for possible commercial production.
State of ICS and IoT Cyber Threat Landscape Report 2024 previewPrayukth K V
The IoT and OT threat landscape report has been prepared by the Threat Research Team at Sectrio using data from Sectrio, cyber threat intelligence farming facilities spread across over 85 cities around the world. In addition, Sectrio also runs AI-based advanced threat and payload engagement facilities that serve as sinks to attract and engage sophisticated threat actors, and newer malware including new variants and latent threats that are at an earlier stage of development.
The latest edition of the OT/ICS and IoT security Threat Landscape Report 2024 also covers:
State of global ICS asset and network exposure
Sectoral targets and attacks as well as the cost of ransom
Global APT activity, AI usage, actor and tactic profiles, and implications
Rise in volumes of AI-powered cyberattacks
Major cyber events in 2024
Malware and malicious payload trends
Cyberattack types and targets
Vulnerability exploit attempts on CVEs
Attacks on counties – USA
Expansion of bot farms – how, where, and why
In-depth analysis of the cyber threat landscape across North America, South America, Europe, APAC, and the Middle East
Why are attacks on smart factories rising?
Cyber risk predictions
Axis of attacks – Europe
Systemic attacks in the Middle East
Download the full report from here:
https://sectrio.com/resources/ot-threat-landscape-reports/sectrio-releases-ot-ics-and-iot-security-threat-landscape-report-2024/
Builder.ai Founder Sachin Dev Duggal's Strategic Approach to Create an Innova...Ramesh Iyer
In today's fast-changing business world, Companies that adapt and embrace new ideas often need help to keep up with the competition. However, fostering a culture of innovation takes much work. It takes vision, leadership and willingness to take risks in the right proportion. Sachin Dev Duggal, co-founder of Builder.ai, has perfected the art of this balance, creating a company culture where creativity and growth are nurtured at each stage.
Encryption in Microsoft 365 - ExpertsLive Netherlands 2024Albert Hoitingh
In this session I delve into the encryption technology used in Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Purview. Including the concepts of Customer Key and Double Key Encryption.
Essentials of Automations: Optimizing FME Workflows with ParametersSafe Software
Are you looking to streamline your workflows and boost your projects’ efficiency? Do you find yourself searching for ways to add flexibility and control over your FME workflows? If so, you’re in the right place.
Join us for an insightful dive into the world of FME parameters, a critical element in optimizing workflow efficiency. This webinar marks the beginning of our three-part “Essentials of Automation” series. This first webinar is designed to equip you with the knowledge and skills to utilize parameters effectively: enhancing the flexibility, maintainability, and user control of your FME projects.
Here’s what you’ll gain:
- Essentials of FME Parameters: Understand the pivotal role of parameters, including Reader/Writer, Transformer, User, and FME Flow categories. Discover how they are the key to unlocking automation and optimization within your workflows.
- Practical Applications in FME Form: Delve into key user parameter types including choice, connections, and file URLs. Allow users to control how a workflow runs, making your workflows more reusable. Learn to import values and deliver the best user experience for your workflows while enhancing accuracy.
- Optimization Strategies in FME Flow: Explore the creation and strategic deployment of parameters in FME Flow, including the use of deployment and geometry parameters, to maximize workflow efficiency.
- Pro Tips for Success: Gain insights on parameterizing connections and leveraging new features like Conditional Visibility for clarity and simplicity.
We’ll wrap up with a glimpse into future webinars, followed by a Q&A session to address your specific questions surrounding this topic.
Don’t miss this opportunity to elevate your FME expertise and drive your projects to new heights of efficiency.
Neuro-symbolic is not enough, we need neuro-*semantic*Frank van Harmelen
Neuro-symbolic (NeSy) AI is on the rise. However, simply machine learning on just any symbolic structure is not sufficient to really harvest the gains of NeSy. These will only be gained when the symbolic structures have an actual semantics. I give an operational definition of semantics as “predictable inference”.
All of this illustrated with link prediction over knowledge graphs, but the argument is general.
Slack (or Teams) Automation for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Soluti...Jeffrey Haguewood
Sidekick Solutions uses Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apricot) and automation solutions to integrate data for business workflows.
We believe integration and automation are essential to user experience and the promise of efficient work through technology. Automation is the critical ingredient to realizing that full vision. We develop integration products and services for Bonterra Case Management software to support the deployment of automations for a variety of use cases.
This video focuses on the notifications, alerts, and approval requests using Slack for Bonterra Impact Management. The solutions covered in this webinar can also be deployed for Microsoft Teams.
Interested in deploying notification automations for Bonterra Impact Management? Contact us at sales@sidekicksolutionsllc.com to discuss next steps.
DevOps and Testing slides at DASA ConnectKari Kakkonen
My and Rik Marselis slides at 30.5.2024 DASA Connect conference. We discuss about what is testing, then what is agile testing and finally what is Testing in DevOps. Finally we had lovely workshop with the participants trying to find out different ways to think about quality and testing in different parts of the DevOps infinity loop.
Dev Dives: Train smarter, not harder – active learning and UiPath LLMs for do...UiPathCommunity
💥 Speed, accuracy, and scaling – discover the superpowers of GenAI in action with UiPath Document Understanding and Communications Mining™:
See how to accelerate model training and optimize model performance with active learning
Learn about the latest enhancements to out-of-the-box document processing – with little to no training required
Get an exclusive demo of the new family of UiPath LLMs – GenAI models specialized for processing different types of documents and messages
This is a hands-on session specifically designed for automation developers and AI enthusiasts seeking to enhance their knowledge in leveraging the latest intelligent document processing capabilities offered by UiPath.
Speakers:
👨🏫 Andras Palfi, Senior Product Manager, UiPath
👩🏫 Lenka Dulovicova, Product Program Manager, UiPath
The Art of the Pitch: WordPress Relationships and SalesLaura Byrne
Clients don’t know what they don’t know. What web solutions are right for them? How does WordPress come into the picture? How do you make sure you understand scope and timeline? What do you do if sometime changes?
All these questions and more will be explored as we talk about matching clients’ needs with what your agency offers without pulling teeth or pulling your hair out. Practical tips, and strategies for successful relationship building that leads to closing the deal.
GraphRAG is All You need? LLM & Knowledge GraphGuy Korland
Guy Korland, CEO and Co-founder of FalkorDB, will review two articles on the integration of language models with knowledge graphs.
1. Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.08302
2. Microsoft Research's GraphRAG paper and a review paper on various uses of knowledge graphs:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/graphrag-unlocking-llm-discovery-on-narrative-private-data/
2. GE Interaction
• A dynamic approach to interpretation of varying
environments was developed by Finlay and
Wilkinson (1963)
• It leads to the discovery that the components
of a genotype and environment interaction were
linearly related to environmental effects.
• The regression technique was improved upon by
Eberhart and Russell (1966) adding another
stability parameter.
3. • The approaches given by Finlay and Wilkinson
(1963) and Eberhart and Russell (1966) are
purely statistical
• The components of this analysis have not
been related to parameters in a biometrical
genetical model.
•
4. • The second approach was developed by Bucio
Alanis (1966), based on fitting of models which
specify contributions of genetic, environmental
and genotype-environment interactions to
generation means, variances, etc.,
• Bucio Alanis and Hill (1966) extended the above
model by including some parental effect for
averaged dominance over all environments.
5. • Perkins and Jinks (1968a) extended the
technique to include many inbred lines and
considered analysis of GE interaction with
different angle.
6. • Perkins and Jinks (1968a) extended the technique
to include many inbred lines and considered
analysis of GE interaction with different angle.
• The approach was known as ‘joint regression
analysis’ as each genotype is regressed onto the
environments, which is measured by the joint
effect of all genotypes.
• This technique has been widely used to measure
the contribution of genotypes to the GE
interactions and predicting performance of
genotypes over environments and generations.
7. GE Interaction
• Gene–environment interaction (or genotype–
environment interaction or G×E) is
the phenotypic effect of interactions
between genes and the environment.
• There are two different conceptions of gene–
environment interaction.
• biometric and developmental interaction,
• uses the terms statistical and commonsense
interaction
8. • Biometric gene–environment interaction has
particular use in population
genetics and behavioral genetics
• Developmental gene–environment interaction
is a concept more commonly used
by developmental geneticists and developmental
psychobiologists
9. • The GE interactions extensively used in many
crop plants and animals to evaluate the
stability of genotypes to varying
environments.
• There are four types of GE interactions
I.
II.
III.
IV.
intra - population, micro-environment
Intra- population, macro- environment
Inter- population, micro- environment
Inter- population, macro- environment
10. • The first and third types of interaction – very
difficult to handle.
• The second and fourth types of interaction
could be handled by performing well designed
experiments.
11. Regression method
• Environments are defined clearly and
distinguishable from one another.
• The changes in the expression of different
genotypes can be related to changes from one
environment to another by regression
technique( Bucio Alanis 1966)
12. Finlay and Wilkinson (1963) Model
• In this technique, the mean yield of all
genotypes for each location is considered for
quantitative grading of the environments
• The linear regression of the mean values for
each genotype onto the mean values for
environments is estimated
• The model is defined as
• yij = μi + BiIj + δij + eij
13. • where yij is the ith genotype mean in the jth
environment, i=1,2,...,v; j=1,2,...,b
• μi is the overall mean of the ith genotype
• Bi is the regression coefficient that measures
the response of the genotype of varying
environments,
• δij is the deviation from regression of the ith
genotype at the jth environment;
• eij is the error such that E(eij) = 0 and Var (eij) =
V
15. Analysis of Variance (Finlay and
Wilkinson, 1963 Model)
Source of
variation
Degrees of
freedom
Sum of Squares
Environments pooled
over
1
2
CF
i Yi
b
Mean sum of
Square
Replication with
environments
b(n-1)
Genotypes(G)
(v-1)
Environments (E)
(b-1)
GE interaction (GE)
(v-1)(b-1)
Regressions
(v-1)
Deviation from
regression
(v-1)(b-2)
GE SS – Regression SS
MD
Error
b(v-1)(n-1)
Pooled
Me
Ij (
j
2
ij Yij
i
(
j
j
1
b
I j )2 / b
i
j
ME
MGE
Yi 2
Yij I j )2 /
MG
I2
j
MR
16. Eberhart and Russell (1966) Model
• A linear relationship between phenotype and
environment and measured its effect on the
character
• Adopted another approach to obtain the
phenotypic regression (bi) of the value yij on
the environment Ej, as against to genotypic
regression (Bi) of gij on Ej as formulated by
Finlay and Wilkinson.
17. • The model by Eberhart and Russell may be written as
• yijk = μi + bi Ej + δij + eijk
• where yijk is the phenotypic value of the ith genotype at the jth
environment in the kth replicate (i = 1,2,...,v; j = 1,2,...,b; k =
1,2,...,n),
• μi is the mean of the ith genotype over all the environments,
• bi is the regression coefficient that measures the response of ith
genotype to the varying environments
• Ej is the environmental index obtained
• δij is the deviation from regression of the ith genotype in the jth
environment, and is the random component.
18. Analysis of Variance
(Eberhart and Russell, 1966 Model)
Source of
variation
Degrees of
freedom
Genotypes(G)
(b-1)
GE interaction
(GE)
(v-1)(b-1)
Environment
(linear) (El)
1
GE (linear)
(GEl)
(v-1)
Pooled
Deviation (d)
v(b-2)
Deviation due
to genotype i
(v-2)
Pooled Error
b(v-1)(n-1)
1
2
CF
i Yi
b
1
2
CF
j yj
v
(v-1)
Environments
(E)
Sum of Squares
1
b
2
ij Yij
1
(
v
i
j
1
v
2
i Yi
(
y Ej ) /
i
j
y
ME
y. jE j )2 /
j ij
2
ij
MG
2
CF
j Yj
j
2
yi2
(
b
j
j
j
Mean sum
of Square
E
MR
E2
j
2
j
SSEnv(linear)
MGEI
Md
2
ij
E j )2 /
MGE
j
E2
j
Pooled over environments
Mi
Me
19. • The first stability parameter is a regression
coefficient, bi which can be estimated by
bi
j
yij E j /
E2
j
j
• The second stability parameter played a very
important role as the estimated variance,
2
di
S
[
j
ˆ2 /(b 2)] S 2 / n
ij
e
20. • Where
ˆ
ij
ˆ
[ yij
yi2
] (
b
j
yij E j )2 /
ˆ
E2
j
j
• δij is the deviation from regression of the ith
genotype in the jth environment
21. Perkins and Jinks (1968) Model
• Perkins and Jinks (1968) extended the
technique of Bucio Alanis (1966) and Bucio
Alanis and Hill (1966) by improving their
models.
• They describe the performance of the ith
genotype in the jth environment as given by
the model
• yij= μ + di + Ej + gij + eij
22. • where μ is the general mean over all
genotypes and environments;
• di is the additive effect of the ith genotype ;
• Ej is the effect of the jth environment;
• gij is the GE interaction of the ith genotype
with jth environment; and
• eij is the error terms.
23. • Since di , Ej and gij are fixed effects over the
jth environment
• Therefore
i
di
0;
j
Ej
0.and
i
g ij
0
• If the ith genotype is regressed onto the jth
environment
g ij
Bi E j
ij
24. • where Bi is the linear regression coefficient for
the ith genotype and δij is the deviation from
regression for the ith genotype in the jth
environment.
• Hence the model can be written as
• yij= μ + di + (1 + Bi ) Ej + δij + eij
25. • By this approach two aspects of phenotypes
are recognized:
(i) linear sensitivity to change in environment as
measured by the regression coefficient, Bi and
(ii) non linear sensitivity to environmental changes
which is expressed by δij .
26. Source of variation
Degrees of
freedom
Genotypes(G)
(b-1)
GE interaction (GE)
d i2
i
MG
j
( E j )2
ME
(v-1)(b-1)
v
( yij ) 2
2
ij
Heterogeneity between
regression(H)
(v-1)
Reminder
(v-1) (b-2
Pooled Error
b(v-1)(n-1)
Mean
sum of
Square
b
(v-1)
Environments (E)
Sum of Squares
y ij
i
i
j
Bi2
j
ij
vb
2
ij
(E j ) 2
Pooled
MGE
SSG SSE
Mh
MD
Me
27. • The analysis of variance consists of two parts:
1. A conventional analysis of variance so as to check
whether GE interaction is significant, and
2. To test whether GE interaction is a linear function of
the additive environmental component
• For this purpose the GE interaction is partitioned
further into two parts:
(i) heterogeneity between regression sum of squares,
and
(ii) the reminder sum of squares.
28. • The two components of GE interaction can be
tested for their significance against Me, which
is the error mean square due to within
genotype, and within environmental
variations averaged over all environments.
• If either of the heterogeneity regression mean
square, the remainder mean square or both
are significant, one may conclude that GE
interactions are significant.
29. • If heterogeneity mean square alone is significant
one may derive the finding that GE interactions
for each genotype may be treated as linear
regression (for genotype) on the environmental
values
• If the remainder mean square alone is significant,
it may be assumed that there is no evidence of
any relationship between the GE interactions and
the environmental values and no prediction can
be made with this approach.
30. • When both the components are significant the
usefulness of any prediction will depend on the
relative magnitude of these mean squares
• In this approach, two measures of sensitivity of
the genotype to changes on environment are
calculated:
(i) the linear regression coefficient, Bi, of the ith
genotype to the environmental measure giving as
a measure of the linear sensitivity, and
(ii) the deviation from regression mean square,
∑jδ2i / (b-2) a measure of the non-linear sensitivity
31. • If model of Eberhart and Russell (1966) and
model of Jinks and Perkins (1968) are compared
then the following relationships hold between
the parameters:
• μi = (μ + di); bi = (1 + Bi) and δij.= δij
• The estimates of the various parameters can be
obtained as
ˆ
y..
• Where y.. is the mean yield of all the genotypes in
all environments;
32. • di can be obtained as the deviation from the
mean yield for the ith genotype
ˆ
di
yi
y..
• Ej environmental index can be obtained as the
deviation from the mean yield for the jth
environment
Ej
y. j
y..