PHENOTYPIC STABILITY OF ELITE BARLEY GEN

Egypt J Plant Breed 22(6):1181– 1203 (2018) PHENOTYPIC STABILITY OF ELITE BARLEY GENOTYPES ACROSS HETEROGENEOUS ENVIRONMENTS F.Sh Ahmed, H.I.A Farag, Wafaa A Hassan and S.A Afiah Plant Genetic Resources Dept Desert Research Center, El-Matareya, Cairo, Egypt ABSTRACT Eight field experiments were carried out in four different locations, at the Agricultural Experimental stations of Desert Research Center (DRC) at Siwa, Maryout, El-Maghara and Elqantara during the two successive seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15 to evaluate variation, mean performance and stability parameters of 12 diverse barley genotypes including the three check varieties Giza 123, Giza 126 and Giza 2000.Wide range of variability between locations and high genotypic differences were detected The genotype x environment interaction was significant The tested genotypes had a wide diversity and ranked differently among locations and seasons The average plant height (cm), number of tillers/plant, number of spikes/plant, number of spikelets/spike, 1000grain weight (g), number of grains/main spike, number of grains/plant, grain yield/plant (g), straw yield/plant (g) and biological yield/plant (g) were recorded under different environments The four environments; E1, E2, E5 and E6 (Siwa Oasis and El-Maghara locations during the two seasons, respectively) produced higher mean values for grain yield and its components than other studied environments The three genotypes line 1, Line and Line 4, followed by Line showed the highest means for grain yield and one/or more of yield components, which could be used for barley yield improvement according to their performance across different environments under study Stability parameters and coefficient of variation were fitting together in determining the stable barley genotypes overall tested environments Genotypes varied in their calculated b i values as well as S2di and CV% The promising two lines Line and Line were the most stable genotypes across different environments and showed b i below average stability These two genotypes performed well for grain yield and its components and could be recommended to be grown under undesirable environments as new elite genotypes or used it as parental lines in barley breeding programs under the targeted environments Key words: Hordeum vulgare, Stability parameters, Regression, G x E interaction, Multienvironments INTRODUCTION Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) is one of the major widely cultivated cereal crops ranked fourth in the worldwide in quantity, produced (142.37 million metric tons in 2017/2018, Statistica 2018) after corn (Zea mays), rice (Oryza sativa), and wheat, (Triticum species) which grown under varying agro climatic conditions This crop is considered as a primary staple food in the semi-arid tropics of Asia, Africa, and South America and the most adequate crop under non-favorable environmental conditions The barley grains are usually used as food and animal fodder, and moreover it has also been applied as raw material for the production of beer (PourAboughadareh et al 2013 and Khalili and Pour-Aboughadareh 2016) 1111 Barley improvement breeding programs in many countries aimed at increasing grain yield and developing stable barley varieties The information on the performance of yield and various yield components under different growth environments will be quite useful for the breeders for selection purposes The testing of genotypes at multi-locations or under different growth environments produces significant genotype-environment interaction that reduces the accuracy for estimation of yield and its components and for selecting appropriate germplasm (Nachit et al 1992) The crop productivity is the function of genotype, environment and their interaction (G×E) Significant GEI results in changing behavior of the genotypes across different environments, i.e changes the relative ranking of the genotypes (Crossa 1990) The existence of genotype × environment interactions and their effects on selection progress are widely recognized under erratic and unpredictable climatic conditions and have been evaluated in multi-location trials and determined by stability tests (Dehghani et al 2006, Amer et al 2012, Abd El- Moneam et al 2014 and Saleh and Farag 2016) Backer and Leon (1988) reported that a genotype is considered stable if its performance is consistent regardless of any variation in environmental conditions While, Mühleisen et al (2014) concluded that the high demand on test intensity for precise assessment of yield stability exceeds the capacity of normal barley breeding programs Lin et al (1986) reported that unless the concept of stability and the kind of environments included in the experiment are clearly understood, many stability statistics become of little usefulness and may be misleading Many authors showed that several stability statistics probably measure similar aspect of phenotypic stability (Aastveit and Aastveit 1984 and Backer and Léon 1988) Genetic variation of stability in barley to different growing conditions is well known from the classical experiments conducted by Finlay and Wilkinson (1963) and Allard and Bradshaw (1964) Several parametric methods including univariate and multivariate ones have been developed to assess the stability and adaptability of varieties The most widely used is the joint regression including regression coefficient (bi) and variance of deviations from the regression (S 2di) proposed by Eberhart and Russell (1966) and Tai (1971) who suggested partitioning genotype x environment interaction into two components: alpha (i) statistic that measures the linear response to environmental effects and lambda (i) statistic that measures the deviation from linear response The present investigation aimed to evaluate lines and three check varieties of barley for their performance and stability across different environments for yield and its components by using regression analysis to identify the promising genotypes with high yield and stability, which can be used as useful genetic sources in barley breeding programs 1111 MATERIALS AND METHODS Experimental work Four different experiments were carried out during winter of the two successive seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15 at four experimental locations, namely Siwa oasis Research Station at Matrouh governorate (29.2032° N, 25.5195° E), Maryout research station at North Western Coast of Egypt (31.1512° N, 29.9018° E) under rainfed conditions which received, "89.15 and 136.84 mm in the first and the second seasons, respectively", ElMaghara Research Station at North Sinai governorate (30° 43' N, 33° 19' E), and Elqantara Research Station at Ismailia governorate (30.8675° N, 32.3303° E) of Desert Research Center using 12 genotypes of barley which were introduced from three different regions; 1- International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) (lines No’s; to 6), 2The Arab Center for the Studies of Arid zones and Dry lands (ACSAD) (the two lines No and 8), 3-The two newly breeding lines No and which were developed by Plant breeding unit, Plant Genetic Resources Department, Desert Research Center (DRC), Egypt and the three check varieties Giza 123,Giza 126 and Giza 2000 (Table 1) Table Name, pedigree and origin of all barley genotypes tested under different four experimental locations and two seasons No 10 11 12 Name Pedigree Mar 17# ASS/M50 C65-196-17Mar-12Su-16Su-1Su-0Su Line1 Hml/Galleon ICB93-1096-0AP-12AP-21TR-1TR-0AP Line W12291/Roho//W12269/3/W12291/Bgs//Hml-02 ICB97-0154-0AP-12AP-10TR-3TR-0AP Rt013/6/Caco'S'/3/Api/CM67//1594/4/P1382934/5/Lignee5 Line 27/NK1272 ICB98-0893-0AP-17AP-0AP-7TR-0AP Lignee527/Chn-01//Gusbe/5/AlandaLine 01/4/W12291/3/Api/CM67//L2966-69 ICB96-0432-0AP-4AP-10TR-1TR-0AP Arar/Rhn-03/8/Api/CM67//HmaLine 524 03/4/Cq/Cm//Apm/3/RM1508/5/Attiki/6/Aths/7/ DeirAlla106/Cel/3/BcoMr/Mzq//Apm/5106 ICB94-0486-0AP-15AP-11TR-10TR-0AP A-410 ACSAD 176 //(Manchuria / Api) CM67- CMB 75A-432-1B-3Y- 1B- 3Y-1B -0Y A.1028 ACSAD 214 / Arrivat Su 12303# ICB 86/Giza123*-C03-3Su-15Su-2Su-5Su – Su Giza-123 Giza 117/FAO 86 Giza-126 Baladi Bahteem/S D729-Por12762-BC Giza-2000 Giza 117/Bahteem 52//Giza 118/FAO 86/3/Baladi 16/Gem Row type Origin Six row EGYPT Six row ICARDA* Six row ICARDA Six row ICARDA Six row ICARDA Six row ICARDA Six row ACSAD** Six row Six row Six row Six row Six row ACSAD EGYPT EGYPT EGYPT EGYPT *: The International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas **: The Arab Center for the Studies for Arid zones and Dry lands #: Newly bred line produced through barley breeding program of Desert Research Center 1111 Physical and chemical properties of soil as well as irrigation water for the four locations are presented in Table (2) The other agricultural practices recommended for growing barely were followed At harvest time, the middle six rows / plot were harvested to estimate plant height (cm), number of tillers/plant, number of spikes/plant, number of spikelets/spike, 1000-grain weight (g), number of grains/ main spike, number of grains/plant, grain yield/plant (g), straw yield/plant (g) and biological yield/plant (g) Table Soil physical and chemical properties and irrigation water chemical analysis at the four experimental locations; Siwa Oasis, Maryout, El-Maghara and Elqantara A) Soil physical and chemical properties Chemical analysis Mechanical Analysis (%) Location Siwa Oasis Anions (meq/L.) Cations (meq/L.) pH ECe O.M CaCO3 -1 paste dSm % % -sand Silt Clay Soil texture Cl HCO3 SO4 Na+ K+ Ca++ Mg++ 22.2 60.82 16.98 Sandy loam 7.9 12.3 0.53 17.5 83.6 2.3 36.2 68.9 1.60 34.5 17.4 Maryout 55.07 21.67 23.26 Loamy clay 7.7 4.80 0.28 24.0 32.00 3.6 22.66 30.65 1.09 17.3 9.22 El96.57 2.00 1.43 Maghara Sandy 7.4 1.54 11.7 5.20 1.80 1.95 3.30 0.15 4.00 1.50 Elqantara 94.35 3.42 2.23 Sandy 7.7 1.12 3.38 1.5 1.94 2.35 0.12 3.53 0.82 B) Irrigation water analysis Siwa Oasis 7.3 3.96 18.60 10.8 7.48 22.1 0.45 8.3 Maryout 7.8 3.52 16.44 9.33 6.87 17.33 0.42 7.02 8.03 ElMaghara 8.4 4.06 32.20 4.40 3.57 24.6 0.69 11.4 3.48 Elqantara 7.5 5.01 36.98 5.73 4.68 28.35 0.88 13.87 4.29 8.7 Statistical analysis The data were analyzed on an individual plant mean basis by the ordinary analysis of variance for RCBD, according to Gomez and Gomez (1984) L.S.D was computed to compare differences among means of environments, genotypes and their interaction at 5% level (McNicol 2013) Following the detection of significant GE interaction, homogeneity test (Bartlett 1947) for error terms of each set of analysis was practiced When error terms among years and locations were homogeneous, enabling combined analysis of variance across environments In the combined 1111 analysis, GE variance was partitioned into heterogeneity (linear effect) of fitted regression of variety mean on environmental index, and residual component (non-linear effect) or pooled deviation from fitted regression, and both components were tested using the pooled error (Shukla 1972) Eberhart and Russell (1966) proposed to supplement the regression coefficient with a second stability parameter, namely the mean square deviation from the regression line for each individual genetic entry Coefficient of variation (CV %) proposed by Francis and Kannenberg (1987) was also used as a stability parameter Similar measures were proposed by Finlay and Wilkinson (1963) and Tai (1971) Stability analysis was computed as outlined by Eberhart and Russell (1966) to detect the phenotypic stability under different environments: Yij= ìi +âi Ij + äij Where: Yij= genotype mean for ith genotypes at jth environments ìi = mean of all genotypes over all environments âi = the regression coefficient of the ith genotypes on the environmental index, which measure the response of this genotype to varying environments Ij = environmental index, which is defined as the deviation of the mean of all genotypes at a given environment from grand mean äij = the deviation from regression of ith genotypes at jth environments RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Analysis of variance and mean performance across environments The combined analysis of variance due to the effect of environmental conditions (locations and seasons) and the 12 barley genotypes showed highly significant variances among locations, lines and their interactions, indicating the existence of a genetic variability among different barley genotypes with different origins related to the traits under study (Table 3) This variability was expected considering that the combination of environmental components was sufficient to obtain reliable information about the studied barley genotypes Besides the genetic differences were also reported by Abdel-Sattar (2005), Akcura et al (2005), Dehghani et al (2006), Mohamed et al (2011), Amer et al (2012), Farag et al (2012), Sabaghnia et al (2013), Abd El- Moneam et al (2014), Saleh and Farag (2016) and Amabile et al (2017) 1111 Table Mean squares from combined analysis of variance for different studied traits of 12 barley genotypes under the studied environments SOV df Plant height (cm) Seasons (S) 66.57 Locations (L) Number of Number of Number of 1000-grain tillers spikes spikelets weight (g) /plant /plant /spike 1.56 0.96 11.44 49.04 4569.23** 36.63** 4.30** 230.27** 2562.28** L×S Genotypes (G) G×S 50.27 1.23 0.04 6.77 5.97 11 2440.37** 6.79** 7.37** 112.76** 1098.10** 11 30.81* 0.42 0.12 9.31* 3.49 L× G 33 274.29** 2.28** 1.50** 62.63** 444.46** L× G×S 33 9.83 0.12 0.04 2.84 1.44 Error 176 SOV df Seasons (S) 17.60 Number of grains/main spike 207.04 0.43 Number of grains /plant 262.14 832.68** 6531.91** 12.68** 34.90** 79.80** Locations (L) 0.35 6.46 12.43 Grain Straw yield Biological yield yield /plant (g) /plant (g) /plant (g) 0.85 2.72 0.52 L×S Genotypes (G) G×S 278.94 579.98 0.77 1.21 3.51 11 1289.63** 23772.15** 19.08** 118.84** 219.11** 11 130.62* 353.53** 0.48** 4.08 8.69** L× G 33 528.31** 2892.47** 3.46** 12.24** 27.28** L× G×S 33 78.50 274.18 0.22 1.35 2.95 Error 176 127.56 424.71 0.59 2.79 4.39 *, ** significant at 5% and 1% probability levels, respectively The mean performances of the 12 barley genotypes across different environments for the studied traits are presented in two Tables (4 and 5) Results indicated that the magnitude of difference between genotypes is high for all traits under the experiment conditions Regarding plant height, the individual environments gave significant differences with mean values ranging from 95.89cm at E3 (Maryout (L2) in 2013/2014) to 115.25 cm at E8 (Elqantara (L4) in 2014/2015) While, the combined analysis showed highly significant differences among barley genotypes which had mean values for genotypes ranged from 79.61cm for Line 524 under Maryout (L2) conditions to 135.02cm for the cv Giza Giza-123 under El-Maghara (L3) conditions with an average of 107.64cm (Table 4) 1111 Elqantara (L4) El-Maghara (L3) Maryout (L2) Siwa Oasis (L1) Location Table Mean performance of 12 barley genotypes for plant height, number of tillers/plant, number of spikes/plant, number of spikelets/spike and 1000-grain weight in four locations and two seasons (2013/14 and 2014/15) and their combined data Plant height (cm) Number of tillers/plant Genotypes 1st Mar 17 Line1 Line Line Line Line 524 A-410 A.1028 Su 12303 Giza-123 Giza-126 Giza-2000 Mean Mar 17 Line1 Line Line Line Line 524 A-410 A.1028 Su 12303 Giza-123 Giza-126 Giza-2000 Mean Mar 17 Line1 Line Line Line Line 524 A-410 A.1028 Su 12303 Giza-123 Giza-126 Giza-2000 Mean Mar 17 Line1 Line Line Line Line 524 A-410 A.1028 Su 12303 Giza-123 Giza-126 Giza-2000 Mean Average (S) (L) (G) (L×G) 101.58 105.88 109.29 114.50 118.63 110.96 102.47 104.46 109.77 112.17 104.70 118.08 109.37 80.59 84.70 114.75 91.60 94.91 77.67 89.15 83.56 105.38 118.90 88.99 120.44 95.89 90.62 97.35 129.02 102.28 106.59 93.15 101.42 99.32 118.17 130.08 101.16 131.31 108.37 106.00 104.33 107.83 121.33 116.83 111.17 102.83 104.67 107.83 132.24 103.19 124.50 111.90 106.38 -2.03 3.51 7.03 2nd Comb 104.63 103.10 109.05 107.47 112.57 110.93 117.94 116.22 122.19 120.41 114.28 112.62 105.54 104.00 107.59 106.02 113.06 111.41 115.54 113.86 107.84 106.27 121.62 119.85 112.65 111.01 81.02 80.80 84.73 84.71 109.02 111.88 96.18 93.89 99.65 97.28 81.55 79.61 87.36 88.25 87.74 85.65 100.11 102.74 124.85 121.88 84.54 86.77 114.42 117.43 95.93 95.91 94.18 92.40 99.74 98.55 127.74 128.38 108.86 105.57 114.61 110.60 100.71 96.93 103.69 102.56 107.02 103.17 117.30 117.73 139.96 135.02 100.10 100.63 126.54 128.93 111.71 110.04 109.18 107.59 107.46 105.90 111.07 109.45 124.97 123.15 120.34 118.59 114.50 112.83 105.92 104.38 107.81 106.24 111.07 109.45 136.21 134.23 106.28 104.73 128.24 126.37 115.25 113.58 108.89 107.64 L.S.D (0.05) -n.s 2.18 2.48 3.77 2.39 7.54 3.38 1111 1st 2nd Comb 3.00 4.11 2.56 3.67 4.37 3.22 3.67 5.67 4.78 2.32 3.11 2.44 3.58 2.38 3.29 1.98 2.93 3.82 2.26 2.61 1.60 2.67 2.46 2.64 2.49 2.59 2.57 3.61 2.28 3.25 4.26 2.53 3.00 1.94 3.18 2.77 3.00 2.80 2.93 3.33 3.00 1.57 3.00 3.67 2.33 3.00 1.77 2.33 2.81 3.06 2.33 2.68 2.95 3.09 4.23 2.63 4.11 4.50 3.56 4.15 5.84 4.92 3.54 3.62 2.52 3.89 2.76 4.11 2.55 3.74 5.28 3.73 3.46 2.31 2.60 3.68 2.89 3.45 3.38 3.11 4.50 3.10 4.18 5.96 4.20 4.08 2.90 3.50 4.31 3.51 3.92 3.94 3.43 3.09 1.62 3.09 3.78 2.40 3.09 1.82 2.40 2.90 3.15 2.40 2.76 3.49 3.05 4.17 2.59 3.89 4.44 3.39 3.91 5.75 4.85 2.93 3.36 2.48 3.73 2.57 3.70 2.27 3.34 4.55 2.99 3.03 1.96 2.63 3.07 2.77 2.97 2.99 2.84 4.05 2.69 3.71 5.11 3.36 3.54 2.42 3.34 3.54 3.25 3.36 3.43 3.38 3.05 1.56 3.05 3.72 2.37 3.05 1.80 2.37 2.85 3.11 2.37 2.72 3.22 -0.34 0.59 1.19 -0.26 0.45 0.90 n.s 0.20 0.38 0.53 Elqantara (L4) El-Maghara (L3) Maryout (L2) Siwa Oasis (L1) Location Table Cont Genotypes Mar 17 Line1 Line Line Line Line 524 A-410 A.1028 Su 12303 Giza-123 Giza-126 Giza-2000 Mean Mar 17 Line1 Line Line Line Line 524 A-410 A.1028 Su 12303 Giza-123 Giza-126 Giza-2000 Mean Mar 17 Line1 Line Line Line Line 524 A-410 A.1028 Su 12303 Giza-123 Giza-126 Giza-2000 Mean Mar 17 Line1 Line Line Line Line 524 A-410 A.1028 Su 12303 Giza-123 Giza-126 Giza-2000 Mean Average (S) (L) (G) (L×G) Number of spikes/plant Number of spikelets/spike 1st 2nd Comb 2.78 4.11 1.89 3.56 4.11 3.22 2.78 2.00 2.56 2.32 2.88 2.44 2.89 2.20 3.29 1.98 2.84 3.29 2.26 2.42 1.60 2.45 2.46 2.45 2.49 2.48 2.40 3.58 2.28 3.14 3.72 2.53 2.79 1.93 2.90 2.77 2.78 2.78 2.80 2.67 2.33 1.69 2.67 3.33 2.33 2.67 1.65 2.00 2.81 2.84 2.33 2.44 2.65 2.86 4.23 2.43 3.66 4.23 3.32 2.86 2.06 2.63 2.39 2.96 2.52 3.01 2.18 3.41 1.88 2.99 4.21 2.37 2.38 1.68 2.33 2.58 2.32 2.37 2.56 2.44 3.76 2.27 3.34 4.77 2.71 2.88 2.09 3.05 2.99 2.76 2.73 2.98 2.75 2.40 1.74 2.75 3.43 2.40 2.75 1.70 2.06 2.90 2.92 2.40 2.52 2.77 2.82 4.16 2.16 3.61 4.17 3.27 2.82 2.03 2.59 2.36 2.92 2.48 2.95 2.19 3.35 1.93 2.92 3.75 2.31 2.40 1.64 2.39 2.52 2.38 2.43 2.52 2.42 3.67 2.28 3.24 4.25 2.62 2.84 2.01 2.97 2.88 2.77 2.76 2.89 2.71 2.37 1.72 2.71 3.38 2.37 2.71 1.67 2.03 2.85 2.88 2.37 2.48 2.71 -0.29 0.50 n.s -0.27 0.46 0.52 1st 2nd 22.33 23.00 21.89 22.55 22.00 22.66 23.22 23.92 23.00 23.69 18.33 18.55 20.22 20.83 24.22 24.95 18.22 18.77 14.46 14.89 21.06 21.69 15.22 15.68 20.35 20.93 15.59 17.78 21.00 21.30 23.10 21.95 23.03 21.44 20.06 23.06 12.83 23.08 17.59 17.24 18.33 22.67 17.49 16.62 15.33 20.81 17.90 17.00 15.53 14.75 18.15 19.81 17.79 21.18 23.10 23.80 24.94 25.07 25.18 23.99 22.83 26.62 15.83 26.84 20.61 20.84 20.45 25.36 20.23 20.61 17.23 24.83 20.37 20.13 17.66 17.93 20.52 23.10 20.00 20.60 20.67 21.29 19.67 20.26 18.33 18.88 22.67 23.35 18.00 18.54 18.67 19.23 21.00 21.63 18.67 19.23 17.52 18.04 20.78 21.40 16.00 16.48 19.33 19.91 19.59 20.94 L.S.D (0.05) n.s 0.22 0.78 0.75 0.34 1.35 1.29 0.42 2.70 2.59 n.s = not significant 1111 1000-grain weight (g.) Comb 1st 2nd Comb 22.67 22.22 22.33 23.57 23.35 18.44 20.53 24.59 18.50 14.68 21.37 15.45 20.64 16.68 21.15 22.52 22.24 21.56 17.96 17.42 20.50 17.06 18.07 17.45 15.14 18.98 19.48 23.45 25.00 24.59 24.73 21.33 20.73 22.90 20.42 21.03 20.25 17.79 21.81 20.30 20.98 19.96 18.61 23.01 18.27 18.95 21.32 18.95 17.78 21.09 16.24 19.62 20.26 27.11 28.70 21.00 25.15 20.68 23.49 24.87 18.36 25.12 34.11 28.36 35.90 26.07 27.56 53.54 22.05 48.51 43.59 16.45 21.64 47.73 24.12 36.15 24.10 36.62 33.51 33.29 56.43 26.39 51.40 50.36 19.61 27.81 52.60 30.16 38.51 27.44 40.62 37.89 28.37 23.43 22.23 25.67 17.87 27.90 22.23 20.37 25.10 39.15 27.99 36.43 26.39 30.97 27.92 29.56 21.63 25.90 21.30 24.20 25.62 18.91 25.88 35.13 29.21 36.98 26.85 27.44 56.07 20.95 50.93 45.77 17.27 21.21 50.11 22.91 37.96 22.90 34.79 34.03 34.95 59.50 26.64 54.37 54.70 21.26 29.36 56.12 31.12 41.15 27.30 40.03 39.71 29.22 24.14 22.90 26.44 18.40 28.74 22.90 20.98 25.85 40.32 28.83 37.53 27.19 31.95 27.52 29.13 21.32 25.52 20.99 23.85 25.24 18.64 25.50 34.62 28.78 36.44 26.46 27.50 54.80 21.50 49.72 44.68 16.86 21.42 48.92 23.51 37.06 23.50 35.71 33.77 34.12 57.97 26.52 52.89 52.53 20.44 28.58 54.36 30.64 39.83 27.37 40.32 38.80 28.79 23.78 22.57 26.05 18.13 28.32 22.57 20.67 25.48 39.74 28.41 36.98 26.79 31.46 n.s 0.77 1.27 1.79 -1.66 2.87 5.74 -1.69 2.92 5.84 n.s 1.43 2.01 4.02 Elqantara (L4) El-Maghara (L3) Maryout (L2) Siwa Oasis (L1) Location Table Mean performance of 12 barley genotypes for number of grains/main spike, number of grains/plant, grain yield/plant, straw yield/plant and biological yield/plant in four locations and two seasons (2013/14 and 2014/15) and their combined data Genotypes Number of grains/main spike 1st Mar 17 Line1 Line Line Line Line 524 A-410 A.1028 Su 12303 Giza-123 Giza-126 Giza-2000 Mean Mar 17 Line1 Line Line Line Line 524 A-410 A.1028 Su 12303 Giza-123 Giza-126 Giza-2000 Mean Mar 17 Line1 Line Line Line Line 524 A-410 A.1028 Su 12303 Giza-123 Giza-126 Giza-2000 Mean Mar 17 Line1 Line Line Line Line 524 A-410 A.1028 Su 12303 Giza-123 Giza-126 Giza-2000 Mean Average (S) (L) (G) (L×G) 57.57 44.72 43.21 67.09 42.00 38.01 51.87 54.58 43.12 32.86 19.80 32.86 43.98 47.48 44.72 53.59 57.04 45.77 39.01 58.23 44.36 45.58 32.86 62.40 32.86 46.99 52.80 50.19 51.80 64.53 51.79 46.48 61.33 49.06 62.17 38.44 69.76 39.20 53.13 25.67 50.78 51.15 58.44 34.24 50.17 37.61 49.50 45.17 39.09 47.83 30.17 43.32 46.86 5.69 9.85 15.70 2nd Comb 59.30 58.43 48.06 46.39 44.50 43.85 69.10 68.10 43.26 42.63 40.55 39.28 53.43 52.65 56.22 55.40 44.41 43.77 33.85 33.36 20.40 20.10 33.85 33.36 45.58 44.78 44.57 46.02 46.45 45.59 50.30 51.94 48.83 52.94 31.44 38.61 44.01 41.51 57.53 57.88 42.27 43.31 43.12 44.35 32.86 32.86 19.80 41.10 46.43 39.65 42.30 44.65 50.91 51.85 54.92 52.56 49.07 50.43 51.81 58.17 39.68 45.74 48.38 47.43 61.07 61.20 48.34 48.70 62.46 62.32 40.12 39.28 28.96 49.36 40.50 39.85 48.02 50.57 26.44 26.05 52.30 51.54 53.29 52.22 60.20 59.32 35.27 34.76 51.67 50.92 38.74 38.18 50.99 50.24 46.52 45.84 40.26 39.68 49.27 48.55 31.07 30.62 44.67 43.99 45.14 46.00 L.S.D (0.05) n.s 5.00 4.57 8.65 6.43 16.31 12.87 1111 Number of grains/plant 1st 2nd Comb 103.61 178.67 115.99 232.97 153.71 122.33 143.78 102.3 106.67 76.42 55.00 80.44 122.66 98.72 142.93 128.56 162.17 132.62 87.97 109.72 70.93 107.13 81.01 146.63 82.05 112.54 107.23 155.79 125.28 179.77 151.32 102.30 150.14 82.32 119.44 93.28 164.65 94.92 127.20 86.33 152.33 167.94 155.33 124.33 111.67 108.67 75.00 101.67 94.87 71.67 68.33 109.85 118.06 106.72 180.03 118.47 241.62 158.32 126.00 148.09 108.12 109.87 82.52 56.65 82.86 126.61 95.98 165.28 126.20 143.03 131.63 92.37 103.31 67.88 97.28 85.06 44.41 77.95 102.53 106.16 179.87 121.07 149.69 158.61 109.77 148.65 81.96 116.06 101.52 66.71 93.87 119.50 88.92 156.90 172.98 159.99 128.06 115.02 111.93 77.25 104.72 97.72 73.82 70.38 113.14 115.44 105.17 179.35 117.23 237.30 156.02 124.17 145.94 105.21 108.27 79.47 55.83 81.65 124.63 97.35 154.11 127.38 152.60 132.13 90.17 106.51 69.41 102.20 83.03 95.52 80.00 107.53 106.70 167.83 123.18 164.73 154.96 106.04 149.39 82.14 117.75 97.40 115.68 94.40 123.35 87.63 154.62 170.46 157.66 126.20 113.34 110.30 76.13 103.19 96.30 72.74 69.36 111.49 116.75 7.02 12.15 19.30 6.62 11.46 19.92 n.s 3.10 8.54 17.08 Siwa Oasis (L1) Location Table Cont Genotypes 1st Mar 17 Line1 Line Line Line Line 524 A-410 A.1028 Su 12303 Giza-123 Giza-126 Giza-2000 Maryout (L2) Mean Mar 17 Line1 Line Line Line Line 524 A-410 A.1028 Su 12303 Giza-123 Giza-126 Giza-2000 El-Maghara (L3) Mean Mar 17 Line1 Line Line Line Line 524 A-410 A.1028 Su 12303 Giza-123 Giza-126 Giza-2000 Mean Elqantara (L4) Number of Grain yield/plant Straw yield/plant grains/main spike (g.) (g.) Mar 17 Line1 Line Line Line Line 524 A-410 A.1028 Su 12303 Giza-123 Giza-126 Giza-2000 Mean Average (S) (L) (G) (L×G) 57.57 44.72 43.21 67.09 42.00 38.01 51.87 54.58 43.12 32.86 19.80 32.86 43.98 47.48 44.72 53.59 57.04 45.77 39.01 58.23 44.36 45.58 32.86 62.40 32.86 46.99 52.80 50.19 51.80 64.53 51.79 46.48 61.33 49.06 62.17 38.44 69.76 39.20 53.13 25.67 50.78 51.15 58.44 34.24 50.17 37.61 49.50 45.17 39.09 47.83 30.17 43.32 46.86 2nd Comb 1st 59.30 48.06 44.50 69.10 43.26 40.55 53.43 56.22 44.41 33.85 20.40 33.85 45.58 44.57 46.45 50.30 48.83 31.44 44.01 57.53 42.27 43.12 32.86 19.80 46.43 42.30 50.91 54.92 49.07 51.81 39.68 48.38 61.07 48.34 62.46 40.12 28.96 40.50 48.02 26.44 52.30 53.29 60.20 35.27 51.67 38.74 50.99 46.52 40.26 49.27 31.07 44.67 45.14 58.43 46.39 43.85 68.10 42.63 39.28 52.65 55.40 43.77 33.36 20.10 33.36 44.78 46.02 45.59 51.94 52.94 38.61 41.51 57.88 43.31 44.35 32.86 41.10 39.65 44.65 51.85 52.56 50.43 58.17 45.74 47.43 61.20 48.70 62.32 39.28 49.36 39.85 50.57 26.05 51.54 52.22 59.32 34.76 50.92 38.18 50.24 45.84 39.68 48.55 30.62 43.99 46.00 5.69 5.00 9.85 8.65 15.70 16.31 n.s 4.57 6.43 12.87 2nd Comb 2.04 4.69 3.68 4.85 3.79 2.41 1.58 2.33 2.69 2.74 2.31 2.08 2.93 2.99 4.11 3.14 3.91 3.30 2.15 2.15 2.00 2.58 2.25 3.35 2.94 2.99 3.23 4.42 3.04 4.43 3.83 2.44 3.67 2.40 2.42 2.54 4.79 3.33 3.38 3.12 3.95 4.79 3.66 3.14 2.39 2.66 1.98 2.40 2.58 1.66 2.33 2.87 3.04 2.1 2.07 4.89 4.79 3.48 3.58 5.06 4.96 3.93 3.86 2.85 2.63 1.62 1.6 2.74 2.54 2.77 2.73 2.82 2.78 2.32 2.32 2.17 2.13 3.06 3.00 1.78 2.38 4.30 4.20 3.08 3.11 3.11 3.51 4.13 3.71 2.47 2.31 2.04 2.09 1.73 1.87 2.46 2.52 2.72 2.48 2.83 3.09 2.46 2.70 2.67 2.83 2.04 2.63 4.67 4.54 3.18 3.11 3.38 3.91 4.83 4.33 2.84 2.64 3.59 3.63 2.15 2.27 2.45 2.43 3.14 2.84 2.37 3.58 2.77 3.05 3.12 3.25 3.22 3.17 4.07 4.01 4.53 4.66 3.77 3.71 3.23 3.19 2.47 2.43 2.74 2.70 2.03 2.00 2.47 2.43 2.66 2.62 1.71 1.68 2.40 2.36 2.96 2.91 2.96 3.00 L.S.D (0.05) n.s 0.30 0.28 0.18 0.52 0.48 0.36 1.05 0.96 0.72 n.s = not significant 1111 1st 2nd Comb Biological yield/plant (g.) 1st 2nd Comb 7.53 11.10 9.43 12.13 13.51 4.36 4.24 5.27 8.00 6.90 7.40 7.27 8.10 6.60 11.10 4.58 8.47 11.84 4.42 6.44 4.84 7.01 7.32 6.78 7.41 7.41 7.19 11.94 8.60 9.52 13.27 5.07 7.58 5.93 5.45 7.93 9.69 8.27 8.37 6.92 7.57 9.89 8.91 9.56 5.66 4.65 4.56 6.32 8.06 5.58 5.91 6.97 7.71 8.84 12.77 10.04 13.50 13.91 4.49 4.37 5.43 7.57 7.11 7.96 7.48 8.62 5.60 11.63 4.80 8.08 13.34 6.28 6.31 5.04 8.29 6.69 6.68 7.04 7.31 6.35 12.87 10.58 8.78 15.27 7.15 7.63 6.14 5.81 7.76 5.83 7.99 8.51 7.13 7.80 10.19 9.18 9.85 5.83 4.79 4.70 6.51 8.30 5.74 6.09 7.17 7.90 8.19 11.93 9.74 12.82 13.71 4.42 4.31 5.35 7.78 7.01 7.68 7.38 8.36 6.10 11.36 4.69 8.27 12.59 5.35 6.38 4.94 7.65 7.00 6.74 7.23 7.36 6.77 12.40 9.59 9.15 14.27 6.11 7.61 6.04 5.63 7.84 7.76 8.13 8.44 7.02 7.69 10.04 9.04 9.71 5.74 4.72 4.63 6.42 8.18 5.66 6.00 7.07 7.81 9.94 15.79 13.11 16.98 17.30 6.40 5.82 7.60 10.69 9.64 9.71 9.35 11.03 9.58 15.21 6.72 12.38 15.14 6.57 9.58 6.84 9.59 9.57 10.13 10.35 10.40 10.42 16.36 11.65 13.95 17.10 7.51 11.26 8.33 7.87 10.47 14.49 11.60 11.75 10.04 11.52 14.78 12.57 12.70 8.05 7.31 6.24 8.72 10.64 7.24 8.24 9.84 10.76 11.69 17.66 13.52 18.56 17.84 6.59 5.99 8.17 10.34 9.93 10.28 9.65 11.68 7.38 15.92 6.84 11.19 17.47 8.75 9.39 6.77 10.75 9.40 9.51 9.50 9.98 8.38 17.54 13.76 12.16 20.10 9.98 11.22 8.29 8.25 10.90 8.20 10.76 11.63 10.34 11.87 15.22 12.95 13.08 8.29 7.53 6.42 8.98 10.96 7.45 8.48 10.13 10.86 10.82 16.72 13.32 17.78 17.57 6.49 5.91 7.89 10.51 9.79 10.00 9.51 11.36 8.48 15.57 6.78 11.78 16.30 7.66 9.49 6.81 10.17 9.49 9.82 9.93 10.19 9.40 16.95 12.71 13.06 18.60 8.75 11.24 8.31 8.06 10.68 11.34 11.18 11.69 10.19 11.70 15.00 12.76 12.89 8.17 7.42 6.33 8.85 10.80 7.35 8.36 9.98 10.81 0.80 1.39 2.77 0.81 1.41 2.81 n.s 0.78 0.95 1.90 1.01 1.75 3.50 1.00 1.73 3.46 n.s 0.94 1.19 2.39 For No of tillers/plant, the means of individual environments ranged from 2.59 tillers at E3 at (Maryout (L2) in 2013/2014) to 3.94 tillers at E6 at (El-Maghara (L3) in 2014/2015) Moreover, the two locations; Siwa Oasis (L1) and El-Maghara (L3) recorded higher mean values (3.73 and 3.43 tillers respectively) than the overall mean of environments (3.22 tillers/plant) The mean values for genotypes ranged from 1.56 tillers/plant for the Line -2 to 5.75 tillers for the A.1028 under Elqantara (L4) and Siwa Oasis (L1) respectively, with an average of 3.22 tillers (Table 4) Regarding No of spikes/plant (Table 4), the individual environments gave mean values varied from 2.44 spikes/plant at E7 Elqantara (L4) in 2013/2014 to 3.01spikes/plant at E2 (Siwa Oasis (L1) in 2014/2015) Meanwhile, the two locations; Siwa Oasis (L1) and ElMaghara (L3) had higher mean values (2.95 and 2.89 spikes/plant respectively) than the overall mean of environments 2.71 spikes/plant The mean values for genotypes ranged from 1.64 spikes for the A.1028 to 4.25 spikes/plant for the line under Maryout (L2) and El-Maghara (L3) respectively, with an average of 2.71spikes/plant Concerning No of spikelets/spike, the means of individual environments ranged from 18.15 spikelets/spike at E3 (Maryout (L2) in 2013/14) to 23.10 spikelets/spike at E6 (El-Maghara (L3) in 2014/2015) This environment E6 (El-Maghara (L3) in 2014/15) produced the highest mean values 23.10 spikelets/spike than the other environments and overall mean of environments 20.26 spikelets/spike The mean values for genotypes ranged from 14.68 spikelets/spike for the cv Giza-123 to 25.00 spikelets/spike for the Line under Siwa Oasis (L1) and El-Maghara (L3) respectively, with an average of 20.26 spikelets/spike While, for 1000-grain weight, the individual environments ranged from 26.07 and 26.85g at E1 and E2 for Siwa Oasis (L1) in 2013/14 and 2014/15 respectively to 39.71g at E6 for El-Maghara (L3) in 2014/15 Moreover, the four environments; E3, E4, E5 and E6 produced the highest mean values with significant differences (33.51, 34.03, 37.89 and 39.71g respectively) than the average of environments (30.97 in the st season and 31.95 in the 2nd season) The mean values for genotypes ranged from 16.86g for the Line 524 under Maryout (L2) to 57.97g for the Line1 under El-Maghara (L3) with an average of 31.46g for this trait (Table 4) With respect to number of grains/main spike, number of grains/plant and grain yield/plant, the individual environments ranged from 42.30, 102.53 and 2.67g at E4 (Maryout (L2) in 2014/15) to 53.13, 127.20 and 3.38g at E5 (El-Maghara (L3) location in 2013/14) for the three traits under study, respectively Moreover, the environments; E5 and E6 (El1111 Maghara (L3) during the two seasons) recorded the highest mean values for number of grains/main spike, number of grains/plant and grain yield/ plant than the average of the three traits and all environments The mean values for genotypes ranged from 20.10, 55.83 for the cv Giza-126 and 1.60g for A-410 to 68.10, 237.30 and 4.96g for the Line under Siwa Oasis (L1) with an average of 46.00, 116.75 and 3.00g for the three studied traits, respectively (Table 5) For mean performance of straw yield/plant and biological yield/plant (g) the means of individual environments ranged from 6.97 and 9.84g, respectively at E7 (Elqantara (L4) in 2013/14) to 8.62g at E2 (Siwa Oasis (L1) in 2014/2015) and 11.75g at E5 (El-Maghara (L3) in 2013/14 Moreover, the four environments; E1, E2, E5 and E6 produced the highest mean values with significant differences for both traits than the average across environments The three genotypes Line 524, A-410 and A.1028 recorded the lowest mean values under Siwa Oasis (L1), Maryout (L2) and Elqantara (L4) under different environments in both seasons, meanwhile the three genotypes line1, line and Line had the highest mean values under different environments under study with an average of 7.81 and 10.81 g for both traits, respectively (Table 5) In conclusion, the four environments; E1, E2, E5 and E6 (Siwa Oasis and El-Maghara locations during the two seasons) produced higher mean values for grain yield and its components than other studied environments However, the increases were obtained in yield and its components at these locations might be due to type of water irrigation, soil conditions and suitable environmental conditions through different growth periods (Table 1) While, the three genotypes line1, Line3 and Line followed by Line showed the highest values for grain yield and one/or more of yield components, which could be used for barley yield improvement according to its performance across different environments Similar findings were obtained by Mohamed et al (2011), Amer et al (2012), Farag et al (2012), Sabaghnia et al (2013), Abd El- Moneam et al (2014) and Saleh and Farag (2016) Phenotypic stability The results of stability analysis based on Eberhart and Rusell (1966), showed that the effects of mean squares for plant height, number of tillers/plant, grain yield and yield components indicated that the barley genotypes, environments and G x E were highly significant for the most studied traits, indicating that barley genotypes differed in their regression on the environmental index and proceeded further to estimate bi values (Table 6) Similar results were also reported earlier for number of tillers/plant, 1111 1000- grain weight (Kavitha et al 2009 and Saleh and Farag 2016) and grain yield and its component (Costa and Bollero, 2001, Farag et al 2012, Sabaghnia et al 2013, Abd El- Moneam et al 2014 and Saleh and Farag 2016) Highly significant mean squares due to Environment (E) + genotype x environment (G x E) and environment (linear) mean squares were also highly significant for all studied traits, providing evidence that genotypes were more sensitive to changes in the environments Also, Env.+ (G.xEnv.) interaction revealed that genotypes interacted considerably with the eight environmental conditions A major portion of these interactions may be attributable to Env (linear) component These results are in line with the findings of Backer and Leon (1988), Bahrami et al (2009), Zerihun (2012) and Gebremedhin et al (2014) who reported that the response to environments was genetically controlled and revealing the differential response of barley genotypes to different agro-climates Pooled deviation mean squares for all studied traits were non-significant, indicating that the linear regression model fits the data (Table 6) Similar findings were also reported by other authors (Mohammadi and Mahmoodi 2008, Kavitha et al 2009, Amer et al 2012, Abd El- Moneam et al 2014 and Saleh and Farag 2016) 1111 Table Mean squares of pooled analysis of variance for plant height, grain yield and its components in barley across eight environments (Eberhart and Russell’s 1966 model) SOV Number Number Number Number of Number of Biological Plant of 1000-grain grains/main grains Grain yield Straw yield df of tillers of spikes yield height (cm) spikelets weight (g) /plant (g) /plant (g) /plant /plant spike /plant /plant (g) /spike Environment 2039.33** 10.76** (E.) Genotypes (G) 11 2423.40** 6.79** G×E 77 126.15** 1.09* Env.+ GxEnv 84 285.58 1.90* i) Env (linear) 14275.30** 75.33** ii) GxEnv 11 295.94** 2.15** (linear) c) Pooled Dev 72 89.70** 0.84 Mar 17 67.61** 0.45 Line1 31.45** 0.11 Line 246.45** 0.13 Line 92.10** 0.02 Line 67.00** 0.82 Line 524 46.70** 0.86 A-410 109.12** 0.25 A.1028 3.54* 0.05 Su 12303 12.33** 4.72** Giza-123 65.96** 1.59** Giza-126 310.39** 0.91 Giza-2000 23.76** 0.15 Pooled error 176 17.60 0.43 2.01* 73.22** 1101.88** 2885.10** 5.45** 15.83** 35.78** 7.35** 112.83** 1098.09** 1291.33** 23272.35** 0.25 11.11** 191.58** 258.32** 1564.79** 0.40 16.29** 267.44** 268.35** 1674.81** 14.07** 512.57** 7713.14** 2650.32** 20195.70** 19.07** 1.88** 2.18** 38.13** 1185.89** 6.41** 7.19** 110.79** 219.11** 13.92** 15.75** 250.46** 1325.35** 5.77** 15.35** 35.02** 236.68** 1470.97** 308.09** 181.74** 39.45** 604.20** 85.07** 876.64** 167.56** 2289.97** 110.85** 205.59** 62.30** 223.90** 89.35** 422.20** 199.70** 398.19** 76.58** 296.00** 2.94** 142.42** 31.84** 257.77** 1666.45** 11753.01** 127.56 224.71 1.13* 1.30* 1.22* 0.26 0.96 0.23 1.16* 0.37 0.25 0.08 0.22 0.22 7.28** 0.39 4.51** 6.02** 4.80** 1.24* 8.44** 0.75 4.09** 4.67** 0.74 0.22 3.41** 1.15** 18.56** 2.79 9.54** 11.57** 7.54** 1.49* 17.44** 1.90** 10.20** 7.41** 1.73** 0.33 6.11** 1.38** 47.41** 4.39 0.65 12.68** 1140.00** 0.17 0.22 0.49 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.36 0.17 0.06 0.01 0.17 0.21 0.15 0.35 9.95** 14.52** 0.97 9.47** 17.84** 2.78** 0.92 24.96** 3.15** 6.97** 3.20** 25.91** 8.67** 2.46 30.72** 13.10** 90.02** 7.99** 46.68** 8.56** 32.19** 38.23** 23.42** 58.87** 18.10** 17.22** 14.26** 12.43 *, ** Significant at 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively 1111 378.62** 259.08** Consequently, the regression coefficient (bi) and deviation from regression (S2di) pooled across the eight environments for different traits under study for each genotype and its coefficient of variation (CV %) were listed in Tables (7, and 9) and presented graphically in Fig’s (1 to 10) The stable genotype had high mean performance across a range of environments, the regression coefficient (bi) insignificantly different from unity and the deviation from regression (S2di) near to zero (Eberhart and Russel 1966) Also, the targeted barley genotypes recorded the lowest coefficient of variation values Francis and Kanenberg (1987) Such genotypes, i.e Line and Line for plant height, number of tillers/plant, number of spikes/plant number of spikelets/spike, 1000-grain weight, number of grains/main spike, number of grains/plant, grain yield/plant and straw yield/plant; Mar 17 and Giza 2000 for number of tillers/plant and number of spikes/plant; A 1028 for number of spikes/plant as well as Giza 123 and Giza 126 for grain yield/plant seemed to be consistent in their performance across all environments, suggesting the consistency of their response ability for different traits under environmental conditions tested, indicating that these lines could be grown under less favourable environmental conditions (Sabaghnia et al 2013, Abd El- Moneam et al 2014 and Saleh and Farag 2016) Meanwhile, The two cultivars Giza 123 and Giza 126 for plant height and 1000 grain weight; the two cultivars Giza 123 and Giza 2000 for number of spikelets/spike, Mar 17, A 410, A 1028 and the cultivar Giza 2000 for 1000- grain weight; the lines, 1, 2, 4, A410 and Su 12303 for number of grains/main spike and the cultivar Giza 126 for number of grains/plant had bi