Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Plant Sci.
Sec. Plant Abiotic Stress
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpls.2025.1538661
This article is part of the Research Topic Advanced Breeding for Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Crops, Volume II View all 12 articles

Assessing the role of genotype by environment interaction of winter wheat cultivars using envirotyping techniques in the North China

Provisionally accepted
Haiwang Yue Haiwang Yue 1Yanbing Wang Yanbing Wang 2*Zhaoyang Chen Zhaoyang Chen 1*Jiashuai Zhu Jiashuai Zhu 3Dr. PARTHA PRATIM BEHERA Dr. PARTHA PRATIM BEHERA 4Pengcheng Liu Pengcheng Liu 1*Haoxiang Yang Haoxiang Yang 1Jianwei Wei Jianwei Wei 1*Junzhou Bu Junzhou Bu 1*Xuwen Jiang Xuwen Jiang 5*Wujun Ma Wujun Ma 5*
  • 1 Institute of Dry land Farming, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Hengshui, China
  • 2 Institute of Cereal and Oil Crops of Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Shijiazhuang, China
  • 3 The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  • 4 Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, India
  • 5 College of Agronomy, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Winter wheat is a crucial crop extensively cultivated in northern China, where its grain yield is influenced by genetic factors (G), environmental conditions (E), and their interactions (GEI). Accurate yield estimation depends on understanding the patterns of GEI in multi-environment trials (METs). From 2014 to 2018, continuous experiments were conducted in the Heilonggang region of the North China Plain (NCP), evaluating 71 winter wheat genotypes across 16 locations over five years. Leveraging 30 years of environmental data, including 19 meteorological parameters and 6 soil physicochemical properties, the study analyzed GEI and identified four distinct mega-environments (MEs) using advanced environmental classification techniques.Variance analysis of genotype-year combinations at individual locations revealed significant differences among genotypes. Furthermore, the joint analysis showed that GEI variance exceeded the variance attributed to genotypic effects alone. The Additive Main Effects and Multiplicative Interaction (AMMI) model indicates that the first three interaction principal component axes (IPCAs) account for over 70% of the GEI variance, thereby demonstrating the relevance of this model to the current study. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) across the five-year study period revealed positive correlations between grain yield and vapor pressure deficit (VPD), evapotranspiration potential (ETP), temperature range (TRANGE), available soil water (ASKSW), and sunshine duration. Conversely, negative correlations were observed with relative humidity at 2 meters (RH2M), total precipitation (PRECTOT), potential evapotranspiration (PETP), and dew point temperature at 2 meters (T2MDEW). Among the meteorological and soil variables, minimum temperature (TMIN), fruiting rate (FRUE), temperature at 2 meters (T2M), and clay content (CLAY) emerged as the most significant contributors to yield variation during the study period. Based on GGE biplot analysis, superior genotypes were

    Keywords: Mega-environment, GGE biplot, Mixed model, grain yield, envirotyping techniques

    Received: 03 Dec 2024; Accepted: 16 Jan 2025.

    Copyright: © 2025 Yue, Wang, Chen, Zhu, BEHERA, Liu, Yang, Wei, Bu, Jiang and Ma. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence:
    Yanbing Wang, Institute of Cereal and Oil Crops of Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Shijiazhuang, China
    Zhaoyang Chen, Institute of Dry land Farming, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Hengshui, China
    Pengcheng Liu, Institute of Dry land Farming, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Hengshui, China
    Jianwei Wei, Institute of Dry land Farming, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Hengshui, China
    Junzhou Bu, Institute of Dry land Farming, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Hengshui, China
    Xuwen Jiang, College of Agronomy, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao, China
    Wujun Ma, College of Agronomy, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao, China

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.