Genotype x environment interaction and genotype evaluation for yield, yield components and qualities in sugarcane (Saccharum Spp.), Ethiopia


  • Mebrahtom Ftwi Ethiopian Sugar Corporation, Research and Development Center, Wonji, Ethiopia
  • Firew Mekbib Haramaya University, P.O. Box 138, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia
  • Eyasu Abraha Tigray Agricultural Research Institute, P.O. Box 492, Mekelle, Ethiopia


Discriminating power, GGE bi-plot, Representative, Yield performance, Stability


The presence of genotype x environment interaction (GEI) and the limited knowledge on the relationships among production environments complicate selection of superior varieties in sugarcane. For this reason, studying about the nature of GEI, genotype evaluation and classification of the production environments in to distinct mega environments is very important in sugarcane breeding program. The study was conducted to investigate the nature of genotype x environment interaction, classify environments in to mega environments and evaluate genotypes based on yield performance and stability. Forty-three genotypes along with six standard varieties were evaluated across location and over crop years using simple lattice design. Data of cane yield, cane yield components and yield qualities were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results from ANOVA declared the importance of GEI under Ethiopian agro climatic conditions. When the data was analyzed using the GE model, the f-values were inflated and the genetic variation was under estimated. Thus, for multi-environment trials conducted across locations and over seasons, data analysis based on the GLC model would be appropriate. The genotype + genotype x environment interaction (GGE) bi-plots divided the target environment in to distinct mega environments where a repeatable genotype x location interaction was observed for recoverable sucrose% and sugar yields. Moreover, GGE bi-plots identified introduced genotypes that have better broad and specific adaptations than the commercial varieties and can be commercially exploited according to their respective regional niche. Moreover, we recommend a breeding strategy for specific adaptation in future sugarcane breeding programs in Ethiopia


Alarmelu, S., Balakrishnan, R., Hemaprabha, G., 2015. GxE interaction studies in multi-location trials of sugarcane using GGE bi-plot and ANOM analysis. J. Sugar. Res., 5, 12-23.

Barry, G.A., Kang, M.S., 2008. Location contributions determined via GGE bi-plot analysis of multi-environment sugarcane genotype-performance trials. USDA-ARS Sugarcane Field Station, Highway 441 N, Canal Point. Crop Sci., 48, 941-950.

Berg, V., 1972. Control of the cane sugar manufacture. Manual for sugar chemist course of H.V.A. Wonji-Shoa Sugar Factory, Ethiopia.

Esayas, T., Firew, M., Amsalu, A., 2016. Correlation and path coefficient analyses in sugarcane genotypes of Ethiopia. Am. J. Plant Sci., 7, 1490-1497.

Feyissa, T., Negi, T., Abiy, G., Zinaw, D., Netsanet, A., Yeshmebet, T., 2014. Genetic variability, heritability and character association of twelve sugar cane varieties in Finchaa Sugar Estate. Int. J. Adv. Res. Biol. Sci., 1(7), 131-137.

Ftwi, M., Mekbib, F., Abraha, E., 2017. Temporal and spatial factors affecting the nature of genotype x environment interaction in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) under Ethiopian agro-climatic conditions: An integrated approach. Am. J. Plant Sci., 8, 1721-1749.

Gauch, H.G., Zobel, R.W., 1997. Identifying mega-environments and targeting genotypes. Crop Sci., 37, 311-326.

Jin, S.Q., Xu, N.Y., 2012. The discussion of necessity about GGE double labeling chart applied in crop cultivar experiment in China. Seed, 31, 89-92.

Khan, I.A., Seema, N., Raza, S., Yasmine, S., 2013. Environmental interaction of sugarcane genotypes and yield stability analysis. Nuclear Institute of Agriculture, Tando Jam. Pakistan J. Bot., 45, 1617-1622.

Kimbeng, C.A., Zhou, M.M., da Silva, J.A., 2009. Genotype x environment interactions and resource allocation in sugarcane yield trials in the Rio Grande valley region of Texas. Proc. S Afr. Sug. Technol. Ass., 29, 11-24.

Luo, J., Pan, Y., Que, Y., Zhang, H., Grisham, M.P., Xu, L., 2014. Biplot evaluation of test environments and identification of mega-environment for sugarcane cultivars in China. Sci. Rep., 5, 15505.

Luo, J., Yong-Bao, P., liping, X., Michael, P.G., Hua, Z., Youxxiong, Q., 2015. Rational regional distribution of sugarcane cultivars. Sci. Rep., 5, 15505.

Mebrahtom, F., 2017. Genotype x environment interaction, in vitro screening for salinity and drought tolerance in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). PhD Dissertation in Plant Breeding. School of Plant Sciences, Haramaya University, Ethiopia.

Mulema, J.M.K., Adipala, E., Olanya, O.M., Wagoire, W., 2008. Yield stability analysis of late blight resistant potato selections. Exp. Agr., 44, 145-155.

Payne, R., Murray, D., Harding, S., Baird, D., Soutar, D., 2014. Introduction to GenStat® for WindowsTM (17th Edition).

Ramburan, S., 2012. The nature and causes of sugarcane genotype x environment interactions: Integrated approaches to analysis and interpretation. Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Philosophiae Doctor in plant breeding. Department of Plant Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein.

Ramburan, S., 2014. A multivariate illustration and interpretation of non-repeatable genotype x environment interactions in sugarcane. S. Afr. Sugar. Res. Inst. Field Crop Res., 157, 57-64.

Ramburan, S., Zhou, M., 2011. Investigating sugarcane genotype by environment interactions under rainfed conditions in South Africa using variance components and bi-plot analysis. S. Afr. Sug. Technol. Ass., 84, 245-362.

Rea, R., de Sousa-Vieira, O., 2002. Genotype x environment interactions in sugarcane yield trials in the central Western region of Venezuela. Interciencia, 27, 620-624.

Sandhu, K.S., Brar, S., Singh, R.S., Singh, P., Bhagatand, I., Kang, M.S., 2014. GGE bi-plot analysis for cane and sugar yield from advanced-stage sugarcane trials in subtropical India. J. Crop Imp., 28, 641-659.

Statistical Analysis System Institute, SAS Users Guide; Version 9.2. 2009. SAS Ins. Inc. Cary North Carolina, USA.

Tahir, M., Khalil, H.I., Mc Cord, P.H., Barry, G., 2014. Sugarcane genotype performance in three environments (Based on crop cycle) at Mardan, Pakistan. Am. J. Exp. Agr., 4, 362-375.

Vargas, M., Combs, E., Alvarado, G., Gary, G., Mathews, K., Crossa, J., 2013. A suite of SAS programs to analyze multi-environment breeding trials. Biometrical, Modeling and Statistics. Universidad Autonoma Chapingo, Chapingo, Mexico. Agron. J., 105, 11-19.

Yan, W., 2001. GGE bi-plot. A windows application for graphical analysis of multi-environment trial data and other types of two-way data. Agron. J., 93, 1111-1118.

Yan, W., Kang, M.S., 2003. GGE bi-plot analysis: A graphical tool for breeders, geneticists and agronomists. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Yan, W., Pageau, D., Frégeau-Reid, J.A., Durand, J., 2011. Assessing the representativeness and repeatability of test locations for genotype evaluation. Crop Sci., 51, 1603-1610.

Yan, W., Tinker, N.A., 2005. Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data: Principles and applications. Can. J. Plant Sci., 86, 623-645.

Yan, W.K., 2010. Optimal use of bi-plots in analysis of multi-location cultivar test data. Acta Agonomica Sinica, 36, 1805-1819.

Zhou, M., 2015. Influence of locations and seasons and their implications on breeding for sugarcane yield and sucrose content in the irrigated region of South Africa. South African Sugarcane Research Institute, South Africa. S. Afr. Sug. Technol. Ass., 88, 403-412.

Zhou, M., Joshi, S., Martnez, T., Koberstein, H., 2011. Components of genotype by environment interaction among SASRI regional breeding and selection programs and their implications. S. Afr. Proc. S. Afr. Sug. Technol. Ass., 84, 363-374.



How to Cite

Ftwi, M. ., Mekbib, F. ., & Abraha, E. . (2018). Genotype x environment interaction and genotype evaluation for yield, yield components and qualities in sugarcane (Saccharum Spp.), Ethiopia. Scientific Journal of Crop Science, 7(1), 249-264. Retrieved from



Original Article