Evaluation of Genotype × Environment Interactions in Chinese Spring Wheat by the AMMI Model, Correlation and Path Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An understanding of the characteristics of crop varieties and advanced lines could help improve their cultivation and to further enhance their potential. The objectives of this study were to estimate the genotype (G), environment (E) and genotype × environment (GE) interactions on the grain yield of Chinese spring wheat genotypes in 2000 and 2001 by the additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) model, and to evaluate the relationships between yield and its components by correlation and path analysis. Grain yield varied from 3.9 to 5.2 t ha −1 , among which SW8188 had the highest yield performance, followed by 58769‐6 and Chuannong 16. Three interaction principal components (IPC) accounted for a total of 79.99 % and 72.96 % of the interactions with 41.05 % and 52.08 % for the corresponding degrees of freedom in 2000 and 2001, respectively. When IPC3 was significant, the stability coefficient D i was more useful in the evaluation of the stability of each genotype. The estimates of D i in the 2 years indicated that the D i values varied between genotypes and years. The D i values ranged from 1.804 to 14.665 and 2.497 to 12.481 in 2000 and 2001 respectively. The suitable locations (environments) for all genotypes were characterized. These results would be useful for improving the Chinese spring wheat cultivation and improvement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".