Journal of Global Agriculture and Ecology

ADAPTATION AND STABILITY OF FIELD PEAS

(Pisum sativum L.) CULTIVARS
NATALIA GEORGIEVA1*, IVELINA NIKOLOVA1 AND VALENTIN KOSEV1
Institute of Forage Crops, Pleven, General Vladimir Vazov 89, Bulgaria.

AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS
This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. Valentin Kosev designed the study, wrote the
protocol and interpreted the data. Natalia Georgieva and Ivelina Nikolova anchored the field study, gathered the
initial data and performed preliminary data analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Original Research Article

ABSTRACT
A small-plot field trial was carried out from 2012 to 2014 with five field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars with
origin Ukraine and Bulgaria. The performance, adaptability and stability of the tested pea cultivars were
determined in relation of seed yield (kg da-1) and yield components. The traits plant height, pods per plant, seeds
per plant, seed weight per plant, 1000 seed weight and seed yield showed a significant genotype-environment
interaction which indicates the participation of different genetic systems in their control. According to the used
models in this study, the genotype Svit was stable and widely adapted. The genotypes Kamerton and Glyans
were well adapted to seed yield in good environments. They are sensitive to changes in environmental
conditions. Pleven was the most stable genotype having score closer to zero, indicating that seed yield did not
increase as environmental index increased. Glyans was classified as cultivar with high general adaptability for
seed weight per plant, 1000 seed weight and grain yield. For almost all traits Kamerton and Modus were
classified as having adaptability above the average while Pleven 4 was classified as poorly adapted cultivar for
seed weight per plant, 1000 seed weight and seed yield. The genotypes exhibited specific adaptation ability to
different environment; therefore, they represent interest for breeding programs as initial plant material for
combinative selection.
Keywords: Adaptability; breeding; pisum sativum; seed yield; stability.

1. INTRODUCTION
Pea is an important annual legume grown and
consumed extensively both human and animal feed.
Forage peas widely grown for hay, pasturage or
silage production either alone or mixed with cereals
[1, 2]. Both seeds and forages of pea are rich in
protein and mineral content [3].
Breeding varieties for high yields has been the
main objective and standing ability to overcome
harvesting difficulties is the main priority in seed

* Corresponding author email: natalia@abv.bg

production in pea [4]. One of the main issues to be

considered in plant breeding programs is the
evaluation of changes in seed yield and quality of
candidate or new cultivars under different
environments or seasons. The adaptability of a
genotype is usually tested by the degree of its
interactions with diverse environments. A variety is
considered more adaptive and stable if it has a high
mean of yield with low degree of fluctuation in
yield ability for growing over different locations

and seasons [5]. Several biometrical methods have

been proposed to determine the stability of new
cultivars. The most widely used method is the joint
regression analysis for yield stability [6].
The joint regression analysis of either phenotypic
values or interactions on environment indices, was
first discussed by Yates and Cochran [7] and was
later modified and used by Finlay and Wilkinson
[8] and Eberhart and Russell [9]. Part of the
genotype stability is expressed in terms of three
empirical parameters: the mean performance, the
slope of regression line, and the sum of squares
deviation from regression [10]
A two-stability parameter method similar to that of
Eberhart and Russell [9] was also proposed by Tai
[11]. In this method, environmental effects and
deviation from the linear response can be regarded
as special form of the regression parameters, when
the environmental index is assumed to be random
[12]. Wricke [13] suggested using genotype
environment interaction (GEI) for each genotype as
a stability measure, which he termed as ecovalance.
Francis and Kannenberg [14] used the
environmental variance and the coefficient of
variation [15]. The centroid (ideotypes) method
[16, 17] is a non-parametric method that aims
facilitate the recommendation of genotypes, it
allows the direction of genotypes for environmental
variation, waiver examining several parameters, as
occurs in the methods regression-based, and does
not allow the ambiguity in interpretation observed
in methodology of Lin and Binns [12]. To use the
centroid method, environments should be classified
into favorable and unfavorable based on the
environmental index proposed by Finlay and
Wilkinson [8].
The practical use of different statistical methods to
explain G x E interaction, thereby facilitate variety
release decision have been extensively reviewed by
different authors. However not all methods are
equally effective enough in analyzing the multienvironment data in breeding programs [18, 19].
Better understanding of the level of G E
interaction and performance stability in crops
serves as a decision tool, particularly at the final
stage of variety development process, to generate
essential information on pattern of adaptation in
breeding lines, new varieties for release and to
determine the recommendation domains for
released varieties [20, 21]. One subject to be
considered in breeding programs is the evaluation
of changes in yield and yield components of
candidate or registered varieties under different
environmental conditions [6].

* Corresponding author email: natalia@abv.bg

The aim of present study was to evaluate some

yield components, seed yield for different
environmental conditions and to made an
assessment for phenotypic stability and adaptability
of studied characters owing to stability parameters.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Experimental Layout and Design
A small-plot field trial was carried out from 2012
to 2014 at the Institute of Forage Crops, Pleven
(43.41N, 24.61E), situated in the central part of
the Danube hilly plain. Five spring pea (Pisum
sativum L.)cultivars were included in the trial
namely Glyans, Svit, Kamerton and Modus from
Ukraine and Pleven 4 from Bulgaria. The trial was
set up as a long-plot design method with three
replications and with a plot size of 4 m2. The
sowing was done by hand, at a depth of 4 cm and
with a rate of 120 viable seeds m-2. The chemical
composition of the soil (leached chernozem) is
given in Table 1. The data show that the soil is
slightly acidic, poor in hydrolyzable nitrogen, rich
in potassium and moderately provisioned with
phosphorus. The plants were cultivated in
conditions of organic farming (without use of any
fertilizers and pesticides). Weeds were controlled
mechanically during growth period.

2.2 Data Collected

Ten randomly selected plants from each unit were
marked and used to estimate yield components
plant height (cm); stem (mm) and length (cm) of
the pod; number of seeds and pods per plant,
number seeds per pod, 1000 seed weight (g) and
seed weight per plant (g). For seed yield (kg da-1)
data for each cultivar was recorded on the basis of
seed yield per plot at the end of growing season.

2.3 Statistical Analysis

The obtained data were processed by two-factor
analysis of variance for each trait for determine of
effects of genotypes (G), (E) environments and
genotype environment interaction (G E).
The estimation of the ecological stability of the
tested cultivars was done through the application of
following methods:
-

regression analysis - according to Eberhart

and Russell [9], in which the regression
coefficient (bi) and the variance of the
deviations from regression (Si2) were
calculated; Tai [11], (ai; i); Theil [22], (T).
A stable genotype is above the general
average yield. Regression

Table 1. Chemical composition of soil

Humus (%)

Nitrogen
(mg 10-3 soil)
0.225

2.48

Phosphorus
(mg 10-2 soil)
4.29

Potassium
(mg 10-2 soil)
31.1

pH
in KCl
5.87

pH
in H2O
6.54

The experimental data were processed statistically using the computer software GENES 2009.7.0 for windows XP [25]

coefficient of a stable genotype is equal to 1,

and deviation from regression is 0 or close to
0. Those genotypes with regression
analysis of variance mean variance
component (PP) according to Plasteid and
Peterson [23]; ecovalence (W2), Wricke
[13]; Francis and Kannenbergs [14]
coefficient of variability (CV,%). Plaisted
and Petersons [23] mean variance
component (PP) was a measure of a variety's
contribution to the GE interaction and was
computed from a total of pair-wise analysis.
Annicchiaricos
method
proposed
a
reliability index (Wi) which estimates the
probability of a particular genotype
(cultivar) to present a performance bellow
the environmental average or below any
standard used. The analysis of adaptability
was performed according to the methods
proposed by Nascimento et al. [24].

coefficient >1 would be more adapted to

favourable environmental conditions, those
with regression coefficient.
temperatures in 2012 and 2013 were by 1.4 oC and
0.6 oC higher than that in 2014.
The variance analyses of investigated traits in this
study are presented in Table 2. There were
statistically significant (p<0.01) differences for
both of Environments (E) and Genotypes (G) for all
characters with exception of pod stem, pod length
and pod width. The genotypes showed significant
difference (p<0.01) for traits plant height, pods per
plant, seeds per plant, seed weight per plant, 1000
seed weight and seed yield indicating the presence
of sufficient genetic variability for effective
selection of superior genotypes. Statistical
significance was observed for traits plant height,
seeds per plant, 1000 seed weight and seed yield
with respect of genotype environment
interactions.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Lin et al. [12] determine the stability of quantitative
traits which form productivity as a dynamic, for
that there is predictable reaction of genotype in
certain change of environmental conditions.
According to Eberhart and Russel [9] the ideal
genotype has the highest yield (or other traits of
interest) over a broad range of environments, a
regression (b) value of 1.0 and a deviation from the
regression () value of 0.0 worth.

The study period covered years differing in

meteorological conditions (Fig. 1). The year 2014
was characterized by the highest sum of vegetation
rainfall (354 mm) and the lowest average daily air
temperature (14.8 oC). The experimental years
2012 and 2013 had considerably lower sums of
vegetation rainfall as compared to 2014 (by 49 and
25%, respectively). The average daily air
Rainfalls

160

2012

Temperature

2013

2014

25

120

80

15

60

10

40

20

100

Temperature,

Rainfalls, mm h

140

30

20
0

0
III IV V VI

III IV V VI

III IV V VI

Fig. 1. Climatic characterization of the experimental period

* Corresponding author email: natalia@abv.bg

Table 2. Analysis of variance for stability for seed yield and yield components in pea cultivars for the
period 2012-2014
Source of
variation

Environments
(E)
Genotypes (G)
GxE
Interactions
Env/Gen
Env/ Glyans
Env/ Svit
Env/ Kamerton
Env/ Modus
Env/ Pleven 4
Total

Df

3692.562**

Means sum of squares for the traits studied

Pods per Pod
Pod
Pod
Seeds
Seed
1000 seed Seed
plant
stem
length width
per plant weight weight
yield
per plant
45.806** 0.0486ns 0.3551 ns 0.0953 ns 336.67** 17.2851** 59.9985** 61514.88**

4
8

594.923**
267.107**

4.063*
2.476

0.0345 ns 0.1908 ns 0.0417 ns 88.38**

0.0224 ns 0.7271 ns 0.007 ns 16.95**

4.5424* 7577.009** 10532.01**

1.0573 356.4768** 4120.701**

10
1
2
3
4
5
14

952.198**
1803.5**
1620.5**
3733.98**
2294.64**
69.36**

11.142**
39.0201
14.46
22.1601
24.0201
11.76

0.0276 ns
0.0411 ns
0.1482 ns
0.0114 ns
0.0705 ns
0.0054 ns

4.3028*
21.7575*
5.0259
4.7247
7.8702*
3.6504

Plant
height

0.1437 ns
0.0615 ns
0.3216 ns
0.1665 ns
0.0417 ns
0.8463 ns

0.0246 ns
0.0975 ns
0.0873 ns
0.0129 ns
0.0012 ns
0.0474 ns

80.90**
307.52**
97.34**
81.02**
138.26**
184.82**

297.1811** 15599.54**
236.565** 42773.38**
1646.891** 33738.91**
141.5913** 44159.3**
933.2649** 33722.78**
13.5*
1600.993**

*; ** significant at 5% and 1% level of probability; ns non-significant

3.1 Plant Height

3.4 Seed Weight Per Plant

The best assessment for stability (Table 3) in this trait

according to the criteria of both methods for analysis
showed Svit and Glyans followed by Modus.
Kamerton was from the type varieties (bi>1.0) with
highly predictable reaction toward environmental
conditions and manifested certain responsiveness to
improve the growing conditions.

In regard of this trait as valuable for the selection was

outlined a cultivar Modus (bi=0.943; Si2=0.240).
Considerable differences were established among
cultivars in terms of responsiveness to favorable
conditions. Glyans (bi=1.774) can be assessed as
ecological unstable but mostly responsive to
improving the growing environment. The remaining
varieties were ecologically stable to unfavorable
conditions but also insensible to intensive growing.
To improve the parameters of stability and expression
of trait, it is recommended application of methods of
combined selection.

3.2 Pods Per Plant

The values of parameters of phenotypic stability
according to regression analysis of Eberhart and
Russell [9], Tai [11] and Theil [22] defined as the
most valuable cultivar Kamerton (bi =1.067;
si2=0.096).
Glyans (bi=1.455) was more responsive to favourable
environmental conditions. Of breeding interest are
Svit and Modus, which according to criteria based on
dispersion analysis could be characterized as stable. It
could be recommended their mutually combining
because of their different responsiveness to the
changing conditions.

3.3 Seeds Per Plant

Applying the methodologies developed by Plasteid
and Peterson [23] and Wricke [13] demonstrated that
the genotypes Svit and Kamerton were the most stable
because they expressed the highest phenotype stability
i.e. they achieved the lowest values. In this trait
cultivar Svit was highly valued also by parameters of
Eberhart and Russell [9], Tai [11] and Theil [22].

3.5 1000 Seed Weight

According to the shown level of stability in this trait
studied cultivars Kamerton (PP=64.273, W2=49.857)
and Pleven 4 (PP=66.051, W2=66.929) can be
characterized as selectively valuable on the
methodology of Plaisted and Peterson [23] and
Wricke [13]. The high values of this indicator in Svit
and Modus determined them as responsive cultivars
which can exhibit lower values at worsening of
conditions.

3.6 Seed Yield

The genotype Svit had a mean yield higher than the
average, bi did not differ significantly from unity
and Si2 approaching zero. This implied that this
genotype was stable and widely adapted. Cultivars
Kamerton and Glyans had a high positive value of bi
(bi>1.0) indicating that seed yield increased as
environmental index increased. Whereas, Pleven 4
had mean yields lower than the average and a low

value of bi (Fig. 2) which indicated that seed yield did

not increase as environmental index increased.

stability of traits is expressed by the corresponding

coefficient of variation (CV, %).

Fig. 3 shows the distribution of the studied varieties

according to a medium level of the trait depending on
the regression coefficient (bi). It is apparent that the
varieties can be grouped in following sequence: Svit
high-yielding, with stable type of reaction; Kamerton
and Glyans high-yielding, unstable (bi>1.0) but with
good adaptability, Modus low-yielding but with
stable type of reaction and Plewen 4 stable, but lowyielding. For breeding of spring peas in limiting
environmental conditions (drought) is very important
to combine the high productivity with high
environmental stability.

According to the graphic representation of the

stability of the studied traits of productivity according
to Francis and Kannenberg [14], cultivars within the
first quadrant (in the desirable group) were most
important in terms of selection.

The quantity and stability of yield and its components

are determined by different genetic bases. The
distribution of varieties in average annual productivity
and grain yields is presented graphically in Fig. 3. The

In this quadrant fell variety Pleven 4 based on the

following traits: plant height and number of pods per
plant, and varieties Glyans and Kamerton based on
the mass of 1000 seeds. The position of Glyans in
second quadrant based on the number of seeds per
plant and seed weight per plant, and position of Svit
and Modus based on the mass of 1000 seeds,
indicated that these varieties can be successfully used
in combined selection to create varieties with more
and heavier seeds.

Table 3. Estimates of the adaptability and stability parameters for the seed yield and yield components in
investigated varieties
Cultivar

Eberhart and Russell

bi
Si2

Plant height
Glyans
1.105
Svit
1.046
Kamerton
1.554
Modus
1.246
Pleven 4
0.050
Pods per plant
Glyans
1.455
Svit
0.879
Kamerton
1.067
Modus
1.137
Pleven 4
0.463
Seeds per plant
Glyans
1.511
Svit
0.831
Kamerton
0.773
Modus
0.878
Pleven 4
1.006
Seed weight per plant
Glyans
1.774
Svit
0.850
Kamerton
0.827
Modus
0.943
Pleven 4
0.607
1000 seed weight
Glyans
-1.839
Svit
2.237
Kamerton
2.411
Modus
2.804
Pleven 4
-0.613
seed yield
Glyans
1.318
Svit
1.171
Kamerton
1.340
Modus
1.131
Pleven 4
0.041

ai

Tai
i

Theil
T

Plaisted and Peterson

PP

Wricke
W2

0.130
1.5087*
56.1861**
0.312
21.5354**

1.105
1.046
1.554
1.246
0.050

0.860
3.456
105.897
1.195
40.778

1.114
1.064
1.453
1.257
0.113

46.012
45.081
108.976
53.689
189.754

17.5446
8.6049
622.0008
91.2408
1397.465

-0.248
-0.228
0.096
-0.216
2.277*

1.465
0.876
1.069
1.140
0.451

0.107
0.194
0.803
0.216
4.821

1.466
0.891
1.092
1.149
0.402

0.500
0.140
0.222
0.152
1.445

4.043
0.587
1.370
0.695
13.114

-0.314
1.098
-0.153
11.1209**
15.8056**

1.513
0.831
0.772
0.878
1.006

-0.032
2.676
0.324
21.473
30.261

1.511
0.831
0.773
0.878
1.006

6.161
3.339
3.271
6.279
7.536

35.221
8.132
7.477
36.355
48.422

-0.332
-0.324
-0.333
0.240
0.036

1.821
0.841
0.816
0.940
0.582

-0.156
0.012
-0.008
1.075
0.651

1.760
0.817
0.822
1.192
0.406

0.275
-0.138
-0.135
0.025
0.070

4.144
0.184
0.208
1.744
2.178

51.4767**
508.6074**
0.354
247.8619**
1.159

-1.887
2.258
2.435
2.834
-0.640

95.095
953.876
0.785
464.542
2.137

-3.017
5.928
2.276
0.226
-0.413

95.415
221.947
64.273
144.775
66.051

348.818
1563.530
49.857
822.682
66.929

21.173**
-0.190
-0.295
742.811**
519.813**

1.317
1.171
1.340
1.131
0.041

40.624
0.262
0.043
1393.392
974.063

1.337
1.169
1.341
1.017
0.137

951.492
761.410
982.144
962.890
3208.232

2544.4
719.6109
2838.662
2653.827
24209.1

* Corresponding author email: natalia@abv.bg

Grain yield (kg da-1)

*; ** significant at 5% and 1% level of probability

300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Glyans
Svit
Kamerton
Modus
Pleven 4

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

bi

Plant height, cm

90.00

II
Kamerton

Pleven 4

80.00

Pod per plant

Fig. 2. Determination of the varieties breeding significance according to regression coefficient (bi) and
grain yield (kg da-1)
7.00

II
Glyans

I
6.50
Pleven 4
6.00
Svit

5.50

Kamerton

5.00

70.00

Modus

Glyans
IV

Svit

III

Modus

4.50

III

IV

4.00

60.00
3

13

18

23

23

25

27

29

Pleven 4

II

5.50

Seed per plant

25.00
24.00
23.00

Glyans

22.00
21.00

Kamerton

20.00

Svit

19.00
IV

18.00

Seed weigth per plant

26.00

Modus
19

21

23

25

II

5.00
4.50
Svit
4.00
3.50

Modus
Kamerton
Pleven 4

IV

Glyans

20

22

24

26

II

1000 seed weight, g

Svit

210.00
Kamerton

190.00

Modus

180.00

150.00

30

270.00

32

II

Svit
Kamerton

230.00

Modus

210.00

IV

34

Glyans

250.00

170.00
160.00

28

CV, %

220.00

200.00

III

3.00

27

seeds yield k da-1

35

Glyans

CV, %

230.00

33

III

17.00
17

31

CV, %

CV, %

III

IV

190.00

III

Pleven 4

Pleven 4

170.00

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7

CV, %

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

CV, %

Fig. 3. Stability of studied traits in pea cultivars according to Francis and Kannenbergs (1978)

* Corresponding author email: natalia@abv.bg

There were no cultivars within the first quadrant

with high ecological stability and high yield.
Cultivars within second quadrant (Glyans, Svit and
Kamerton) represent particular interest they have
high average yield, high variability and are
responsive only under favorable conditions.
Cultivar Modus, which was in third quadrant, is
characterized with lower yield and high variability.

Within fourth quadrant is low-productive but stable

cultivar Pleven 4.
For the centroid method (Table 4), it was found that
Modus (for traits as plant height, pods per plant,
seeds per plant) and Pleven 4 (for seed weight per
plant, 1000 seed weight, seed yield) were grouped
in class IV, i.e. behaving as poorly adapted
cultivars.

Table 4. Estimation of parameters of adaptability of pea cultivars for yield, based on the methodologies of
centroid (Nascimento et al. 2009)
Cultivar
Rank*
Plant height
Glyans
V
Svit
IV
Kamerton
VI
Modus
IV
Pleven 4
III
Pods per plant
Glyans
VI
Svit
V
Kamerton
V
Modus
IV
Pleven 4
VII
Seeds per plant
Glyans
VI
Svit
IV
Kamerton
V
Modus
IV
Pleven 4
I
Seed weight per plant
Glyans
I
Svit
VII
Kamerton
V
Modus
V
Pleven 4
IV
1000 seed weight
Glyans
I
Svit
VI
Kamerton
V
Modus
V
Pleven 4
IV
Seed yield
Glyans
I
Svit
V
Kamerton
V
Modus
V
Pleven 4
IV

Prob(I)

Prob(II)

Prob(III)

Prob(IV)

Prob(V)

Prob(VI)

Prob(VII)

0.061
0.033
0.138
0.065
.0

0.100
0.053
0.142
0.121
0.

0.074
0.042
0.073
0.075
1.000

0.295
0.676
0.073
0.302
0.

0.297
0.107
0.118
0.250
0.

0.097
0.049
0.363
0.109
0.

0.076
0.041
0.093
0.077
0.

0.1936
0.0634
0.0765
0.0649
0.1355

0.1668
0.0615
0.0787
0.0736
0.1134

0.0707
0.145
0.14
0.1294
0.1404

0.0691
0.1265
0.1556
0.3744
0.1162

0.1319
0.3386
0.2909
0.1698
0.1744

0.2462
0.0656
0.0814
0.071
0.1292

0.1216
0.1994
0.177
0.1168
0.191

0.1497
0.0695
0.0735
0.0282
0.3408

0.2043
0.0749
0.0754
0.0312
0.1212

0.0632
0.1508
0.1298
0.0654
0.0644

0.066
0.2582
0.1417
0.7332
0.0577

0.1437
0.2301
0.3252
0.0637
0.1077

0.26
0.0754
0.0785
0.0306
0.1845

0.113
0.1411
0.176
0.0477
0.1236

0.9999
0.0356
0.0518
0.0754
0.0475

0.
0.0353
0.0519
0.0763
0.0479

0.
0.0646
0.13
0.15
0.2652

0.
0.0626
0.1316
0.1575
0.3419

0.
0.3612
0.3112
0.2426
0.1272

0.
0.0356
0.0521
0.0761
0.0478

0.
0.4051
0.2714
0.2221
0.1225

0.5867
0.1936
0.0637
0.0992
.0

0.0341
0.08
0.0672
0.085
0.

0.0504
0.0919
0.0526
0.0712
0.

0.0283
0.0635
0.0545
0.0654
1

0.0706
0.1858
0.5342
0.3309
.0

0.0791
0.2123
0.159
0.2452
0.

0.1509
0.1729
0.0689
0.1031
0.

1
0.1801
0.1206
0.1059
0.0644

0.
0.1133
0.1693
0.1626
0.0668

0.
0.0497
0.052
0.075
0.2077

0.
0.0471
0.0546
0.0889
0.3988

0.
0.2168
0.2681
0.2863
0.1023

0.
0.2049
0.2052
0.1445
0.0674

0.
0.1881
0.1302
0.1367
0.0927

*Class I: high general adaptability; class II: specific adaptability to favorable environments; class III: specific adaptability to
adverse environments; class IV: partially adapted; class V: adaptability overall average; class VI: specific adaptability to favorable
environments; class VII: adaptability specific to unfavorable environments

Svit for seed weight per plant and Pleven 4 for pods
per plant were grouped in Class VII that represents
specific adaptability to unfavorable environment,
while Glyans for pods per plant and seeds per plant
presents the group VI (specific adaptability to
favorable environments). The cultivar Kamerton
had a mean overall adaptability for almost all traits

* Corresponding author email: natalia@abv.bg

(except for plant height) and was in class V.

Cultivar Glyans is grouped in class I for seed
weight per plant, 1000 seed weight and seed yield,
indicating high general adaptability.
Jain and Pandya [26], Goal and Hussen [27]
suggested that the desired genotype in any practical

situation is one with high mean performance,

desired linear response (bi) and low nonlinear
sensitivity coefficient (Si2).

stability should not be based on a single or a few

stability parameters but rather on a combination of
stability parameters.

Acikdoz et al. [28] reported that the best genotype

of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) at one environment
is not the best at other environments. Other
researchers [29, 6] also reported similar results.
Zubair and Ghafoor [30] evaluated 12 genotypes of
mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) for stability of grain
yield at seven different environments in Pakistan.
They reported highly significant genotype
environment interaction with regard to yield.
Wamatu and Thomas [31] tested early maturing
genotypes of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) and
they found a substantial environment interaction
interaction for grain yield.

4. CONCLUSIONS

According to Freeman [32] and Szilagyi et al. [33]

one of the main reasons for growing genotypes
over a wide range of environments is to estimate
their stability and adaptability. The result by
Rezene et al. [34] showed that the grain yield
performance of field pea was highly influenced by
the genotype x environment interaction. The
magnitude of the environmental effect was by far
higher than the genotype effect. Temesgen et al.
[35] consider that the different stability parameters
can explaine genotypic performance differently,
irrespective of yield performance. They concluded
that assessment of G E interaction and yield

The traits plant height, pods per plant, seeds per

plant, seed weight per plant, 1000 seed weight and
seed yield showed a significant genotypeenvironment interaction which indicates the
participation of different genetic systems in their
control.
The genotype Svit was stable and widely adapted.
Kamerton and Glyans were well adapted to seed
yield in good environments. They are sensitive to
changes in environmental conditions. Pleven 4 was
the most stable genotype, indicating that seed yield
did not increase as environmental index increased.
Glyans was classified as cultivar with high general
adaptability for seed weight per plant, 1000 seed
weight and grain yield. For almost all traits
Kamerton and Modus were classified as having
adaptability above the average while Pleven 4 was
classified as poorly adapted cultivar for seed weight
per plant, 1000 seed weight and seed yield. The
genotypes exhibited specific adaptation ability to
different environment; therefore, they represent
interest for breeding programs as initial plant
material
for
combinative
selection.

COMPETING INTERESTS
Authors have declared that no competing interests
exist.
6.

REFERENCES
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

McKenzie, D.B., D. Spooner, 1999. White

lupin: An alternative to pea in oat-legume
forage mixtures grown in New Foundland.
Can. J. Plant Sci. 79: 43-47.
Tan, M., A. Koc, Z. D. Gul, 2012.
Morphological characteristics and seed yield
of east anatolian local forage pea (pisum
sativum ssp. arvense l.) ecotypes. Turkish
Journal of Field Crops, 17(1): 24-30.
Acikgoz, E., V. Katkat, S. Omeroglu, B.
Okan, 1985. Mineral elements and amino
acid concentrations in field pea and common
vetch herbages and seeds. J. Agron. Crop
Sci. 55: 179-185.
Uzun, A., U. Bilgili, M. Sincik, I. Filya, E.
Ackgoz, 2005. Yield and quality
performances of forage type pea strains
contrasting leaf types. Eur. J. Agron. 22: 8594.
Amin, M., T. Mohammad, A. J. Khan, M.
Irfaq, A. Ali, G. R. Tahir, 2005. Yield

* Corresponding author email: natalia@abv.bg

7.

8.

9.

10.
11.

12.

stability of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum

L.) in the North West Frontier Province,
Pakistan. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol.,
27 (6): 1147-1150.
Ceyhan, E., A. Kahraman, M. K. Ates, S.
Karadas, 2012. Stability analysis on seed
yield and its components in peas. Bulgarian
Journal of Agricultural Science, 18 (No 6):
905-911.
Yates, F., Cochran W. F. 1938. The analysis
of groups of experiments. J Agri Sci. 28:
556-580.
Finlay, K. W. Wilkinson, G. N. 1963. The
analysis of adaptation in a plant-breeding
Programme. Aust. J. Agric Res., 14: 742
754.
Eberhart, S. A., W. A. Russel. 1966.
Stability parameters for comparing varieties.
Crop Science,6: 36-40.
Crossa, J.1990. Statistical analysis of multi
location trials.Adv Agro. 44: 55-86.
Tai, G.C.C. 1979. Analysis of genotype
environment interactions of potato yield.
Crop Sci 19:434.
Lin, C.S., Binns, M.R., Lefkovitch, L.P.
1986. Stability analysis: Where do we stand?
Crop Sci.26: 894 - 900.

13.

Wricke, G. 1965. Zur berechnung der

Agricultural Research Brazil, Brasilia, 44,
kovalenz bei sommerweizen und hafer.
(3): 263-269.
Pflanzenzuchtung 52: 127-138.
25. Cruz, C. D. 2009. Programa Genes:
14. Francis, T.R., Kannenberg, L.W. 1978.
Biometria. version 7.0. University of Federal
Yield stability studies in short season 1.
Viosa, Viosa, Brazil.
Maize. A descriptive method for grouping
26. Jain, K. C., B. P. Pandya. 1998. Relationship
genotypes. Can J Plant Sci. 58: 10291034.
between mean performance and stability
15. Fikere, M., T. Tadesse, S. Gebeyehu, B.
parameter in chickpea. Legume research,11
Hundie. 2010. Agronomic performances,
(3): 103-108.
disease reaction and yield stability of field
27. Goal, Y., Hussen, M. 2013. Genotype x
pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes in Bale
environment interaction and yield stability in
Highlands, Ethiopia. Australian journal of
Field pea (pisum sativum L.) tested over
crops science 4(4):238-246.
different locations in Southern Ethiopia.
16. Rocha, R. B., Wall-Abad, J. I., Araujo, E. F.,
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and
Cruz, CD. 2005. Evaluation of the centroid
Healthcare,3 (19): 91-100.
method study of the adaptability of clones of
28. Acikgoz, E., Ustun, A, Gul, I., Anlarsal, E.,
Eucalyptus grandis environment. Forest
Tekeli, A. S., Nizam, I.., Avcoglu, R.,
Science, Santa Maria, 15: 255-266.
Geren, H., Cakmakci, S., Aydinoglu, B.,
17. Marques, M. C., O. T. Hamawaki, T.
Yucel, C., Avci, M., Acar, Z., Ayan, I., Uzun,
Sediyama, M. R. Bueno, M. S. Reis, C. D.
A., Bilgili, U., Sincik, M., Yavuz, M. 2009.
Cruz, A. P. O. Nogueira. 2011. Adaptability
Genotype x environment interaction and
and stability of soybean genotypes under
stability analysis for dry matter and seed
different times of sowing.
Biosci. J.,
yield in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Span J
Uberlandia, 27(1): 59-69.
Agric Res 7: 96-106.
18. Ferreira D.F., Demetrio C.G.B., Manly
29. Arshad, M., A., Bakhsh, A. M. Haqqani, M.
B.F.J. Machado A.A., Vencovsky R. 2006.
Bashir, 2003. Genotype - Environment
Statistical model in agriculture: biometrical
interaction for grain yield in chickpea (Cicer
methods for evaluating phenotypic stability
arietinum L.). Pakistan Journal of Botany,
in plant breeding. Cerne (Lavras) 12, 4: 37335: 181-186.
388.
30. Zubair, M., Ghafoor, A. 2001. Genotype
19. Navabi, A., Yang, R.C., Helm, J., Spawer,
environment interaction in mungbean.
D.M. 2006. Can spring wheah growing
Pakistan J Bot 33: 187-190.
mega-environments in the Northem Great
31. Wamatu, J. N., Thomas, E., 2002. The
Plain be dissected for representative
influence
of
genotype-environment
locations or niche-adapted genotypes. Crops
interaction on the grain yields of 10
Science 46: 1107-1116.
pigeonpea cultivars grown in Kenya. J Agr
20. Yan, W. 2011. GGE Biplot vs. AMMI
Crop Sci 188: 25-33.
graphs for genotype-by-environment data
32. Freeman G.H., 1972. Statistical methods for
analysis. Indian Society of Agricultural
the analysis of genotype x environment
Statistics 65 (2): 181-193.
interactions. Heredity, 29: 339-351.
21. Tolessa, T. T., Keneni, G., Sefera, T., Jarso,
33. Szilagyi L., I. Alabboud, Gh.V. Roman.
M., Bekele, Y. 2013. Genotype x
2011. Stability analysis for seed yield in
Environment Interaction and performance
lentils (lens culinaris Medik.). Scientific
stability for grain yield in field pea (Pisum
Papers, UASVM Bucharest, Series A, Vol.
sativum L.) genotypes. International Journal
LIV: 338 348.
of plant breeding, 7 (2): 116-123.
34. Rezene Y., A. Bekele, Y. Goa. 2014. GGE
22. Theil, H. 1950. A rank-invariant method of
and ammi biplot analysis for field pea yield
linear and polynomial regression analysis.
stability
in
snnpr
state,
Ethiopia.
Indagationes Mathematicae 12: 85-91.
International
Journal
of
Sustainable
23. Plaisted, R. L., Peterson, L.C. 1959. A
Agricultural Research, 2014, 1(1): 28-38.
technique for evaluating the ability of
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article
selection to yield consistently in different
/pii/S2214514115000367 - item1
location and seasons. Am. Potato J. 36: 38135. Temesgen, T., G. Kenenib, T. Seferaa, M.
385.
Jarsob.
2015.
Yield
stability
and
24. Nascimento, M., Cruz, C. D., Campana, A.
relationships among stability parameters in
C. M., Tomaz, R. S., Salgado, C. C.,
faba bean (Vicia faba L.) genotypes, The
Ferreira, R. 2009. Change in centroid
Crop
Journal
(2015),
method for assessing genotypic adaptability.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2015.03.004.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Copyright International Knowledge Press. All rights reserv

* Corresponding author email: natalia@abv.bg