Crops ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (6): 91-99.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2025.06.012

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Analysis of Genotype and Environmental Interaction Effects of New Silage Corn Varieties in Henan Province

Chen Guoli1(), Xu Chaofeng1, Wei Changmin1, Wang Ruyin1, Zhang Yanfang1, Li Haoyuan2, Zhang Jun3()   

  1. 1 Zhoukou Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Zhoukou 466000, Henan, China
    2 Kaifeng Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Kaifeng 475004, Henan, China
    3 Zhumadian Agricultural Technology Extension and Plant Protection Quarantine Station, Zhumadian 463200, Henan, China
  • Received:2024-07-22 Revised:2024-11-08 Online:2025-12-15 Published:2025-12-12

RichHTML

1

PDF (PC)

119

Abstract:

Using AMMI model and GGE-biplot, the agronomic traits (biological dry weight, moisture content of whole plant, plant height, spike height, and green leaf number) of 20 new varieties from 12 test sites in the 2023 Henan Muyuan silage corn regional trial were investigated. The results indicated that the two analysis methods were largely consistent. Yayuqingzhu 8 and Xinke 917 exhibited higher moisture content of whole plant; Kaiqing 229 and Zhoudan 326 had higher plant height; Zhengdan 3582 and Nongqing 903 had lower spike height; and Zhoudan 326 and Zhengdan 612 had more green leaves. All these varieties demonstrated good stability. However, there were partial differences in the assessment results between the two methods. For instance, the AMMI model indicated that Zhoudan 326 exhibited a moderately above-average performance in terms of stability for plant height and number of green leaves, whereas the GGE-biplot showed it had strong stability. The effects of genotype, environment, and genotype × environment interaction on all agronomic traits were extremely significant (P < 0.01). The cumulative contribution rate of the three principal components to the genotype × environment interaction effect ranged from 65.49% to 74.50%, indicating that the AMMI model effectively explained the interaction between genotype and environment. Furthermore, Ganyuqing 78 and Zhoudan 326 exhibited higher starch and crude protein content, along with lower neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber content, which indicated that their comprehensive quality was outstanding. Through comprehensive comparison, Zhoudan 326 and Zhengdan 612 performed well, and can be planted and popularized in Henan Province and its neighboring provinces.

Key words: Silage corn, AMMI model, GGE-biplot, Interaction effect, Agronomic traits

Table 1

Information of tested silage corn varieties"

编号
Code		 品种
Variety		 选育单位
Breeding unit
G1 淦玉青58 河南敦敏农业科技有限公司
G2 淦玉青78 河南敦敏农业科技有限公司
G3 开青219 开封市农林科学研究院
G4 开青229 开封市农林科学研究院
G5 名育212 河南名鼎农业科技有限公司
G6 农青902 河南农业大学
G7 农青903 河南农业大学
G8 新科917 新乡市农业科学院
G9 豫单569 河南农业大学
G10 豫单8207 河南农业大学
G11 郑单101 河南省农业科学院粮食作物研究所
G12 郑单3191 河南省农业科学院粮食作物研究所
G13 郑单3582 河南省农业科学院粮食作物研究所
G14 郑单612 河南省农业科学院粮食作物研究所
G15 郑单805 河南省农业科学院粮食作物研究所
G16 周单326 周口市农业科学院
G17 驻青贮4号 驻马店市农业科学院
G18 雅玉青贮8号 四川雅玉科技股份有限公司（对照）
G19 大京九4059 河南省大京九种业有限公司（辅助对照）
G20 郑单801 河南省农业科学院粮食作物研究所（辅助对照）

Table 2

Agronomic traits and stability parameters of silage corn varieties"

编号Code X1 SI1 X2 SI2 X3 SI3 X4 SI4 X5 SI5
G1 20 417.00 47.78 61.5 3.16 332.4 7.31 151.5 3.41 13.0 0.51
G2 17 181.50 25.63 61.7 1.77 267.2 4.11 115.0 3.11 7.6 2.03
G3 21 025.88 28.22 61.1 3.27 276.9 3.84 103.3 3.40 10.7 1.03
G4 19 376.00 31.06 58.3 1.82 296.4 2.27 112.8 1.77 8.1 2.10
G5 20 657.13 50.47 60.1 1.95 292.5 3.59 120.2 5.99 10.5 0.65
G6 20 108.25 33.50 58.2 1.44 263.6 4.61 101.3 4.12 9.1 0.40
G7 18 096.25 73.53 59.8 1.30 251.3 3.71 98.2 0.51 9.1 2.12
G8 20 756.25 47.71 62.4 1.00 253.5 3.12 101.7 2.34 12.0 2.58
G9 21 036.13 18.45 61.4 1.63 278.3 4.23 103.7 4.05 10.8 1.39
G10 21 941.13 20.66 60.5 0.81 291.6 3.62 132.4 4.20 12.4 1.15
G11 21 406.50 37.01 60.8 0.86 279.7 4.07 114.0 2.03 11.4 1.58
G12 18 737.25 63.73 58.3 1.42 269.4 3.39 111.0 4.10 7.2 1.43
G13 20 382.75 32.46 59.8 1.08 250.3 1.63 96.9 2.67 9.3 0.33
G14 21 827.13 46.95 62.1 1.58 296.5 4.01 129.0 2.86 12.1 0.99
G15 21 639.63 26.99 61.0 1.20 293.1 3.15 113.7 1.91 11.2 0.58
G16 21 428.50 18.66 61.3 1.39 331.2 3.60 132.2 3.24 11.7 0.86
G17 20 487.00 17.53 60.3 1.53 303.5 4.88 131.1 2.11 10.8 0.34
G18 19 066.13 18.08 65.6 0.43 310.6 6.56 141.2 7.80 10.6 2.12
G19 19 366.00 17.72 61.0 2.59 285.6 4.55 117.0 3.04 9.9 1.48
G20 21 005.00 45.01 61.0 3.38 295.5 4.10 121.8 3.84 12.4 1.06

Table 3

Variance analysis and AMMI model analysis of agronomic traits of silage corn"

性状
Trait		 项目
Item		 变异来源
Source of
variation		 自由度
df		 平方和
SS		 均方
MS		 F检验
F-test		 占总变异比例
Percentage in total
variation (%)		 占基因型×环境互作效应的比例
Percentage in genotype×
environment interaction effect (%)
X1 方差分析 总计 239 3.37E+09 1.41E+07
G 19 3.79E+08 1.99E+07 16.22** 11.26
E 11 2.53E+09 2.30E+08 187.16** 75.19
G×E 209 4.56E+08 2.18E+06 1.77** 13.55
AMMI模型 PCA1 29 1.37E+08 4.73E+06 3.85** 30.10
PCA2 27 9.91E+07 3.67E+06 2.99** 21.74
PCA3 25 6.22E+07 2.49E+06 2.02** 13.65
误差 128 1.57E+08 1.23E+06 34.51
X2 方差分析 总计 239 1.06E+04 4.46E+01
G 19 6.17E+02 3.25E+01 6.39** 5.80
E 11 7.68E+03 6.99E+02 137.31** 72.17
G×E 209 2.35E+03 1.12E+01 2.21** 22.03
AMMI模型 PCA1 29 8.50E+02 2.93E+01 5.76** 36.22
PCA2 27 5.84E+02 2.16E+01 4.25** 24.90
PCA3 25 2.61E+02 1.04E+01 2.05** 11.12
误差 128 6.51E+02 5.09E+00 27.76
X3 方差分析 总计 239 2.35E+05 9.84E+02
G 19 1.25E+05 6.56E+03 39.18** 53.02
E 11 4.61E+04 4.19E+03 25.05** 19.62
G×E 209 6.44E+04 3.08E+02 1.84** 27.36
AMMI模型 PCA1 29 2.16E+04 7.46E+02 4.45** 33.62
PCA2 27 1.24E+04 4.58E+02 2.74** 19.23
PCA3 25 8.91E+03 3.56E+02 2.13** 13.84
误差 128 2.14E+04 1.67E+02 33.31
X4 方差分析 总计 239 1.30E+05 5.44E+02
G 19 5.16E+04 2.71E+03 29.27** 39.62
E 11 4.18E+04 3.80E+03 40.97** 32.12
G×E 209 3.68E+04 1.76E+02 1.90** 28.26
AMMI模型 PCA1 29 1.31E+04 4.50E+02 4.85** 35.49
PCA2 27 6.15E+03 2.28E+02 2.46** 16.72
PCA3 25 5.70E+03 2.28E+02 2.46** 15.51
误差 128 1.19E+04 9.27E+01 32.27
X5 方差分析 总计 239 2.33E+03 9.76E+00
G 19 6.18E+02 3.26E+01 21.43** 26.52
E 11 9.51E+02 8.65E+01 56.93** 40.79
G×E 209 7.63E+02 3.65E+00 2.40** 32.70
AMMI模型 PCA1 29 3.55E+02 1.22E+01 8.06** 46.54
PCA2 27 1.19E+02 4.39E+00 2.89** 15.54
PCA3 25 9.47E+01 3.79E+00 2.49** 12.42
误差 128 1.94E+02 1.52E+00 25.50

Fig.1

“Which Won Where/What” biplot of silage corn varieties based on different agronomic traits (a) dry weight; (b) moisture content of whole plant; (c) plant height; (d) ear height; (e) the number of green leaves."

Fig.2

“Mean vs. Stability” biplots for agronomic traits of silage corn varieties (a) dry weight; (b) moisture content of whole plant; (c) plant height; (d) ear height; (e) the number of green leaves."

Table 4

Quality testing results of silage corn varieties %"

编号
Code		 全株淀粉含量
Whole plant starch content		 中性洗涤纤维含量
Neutral detergent fiber content		 酸性洗涤纤维含量
Acidic detergent fiber content		 粗蛋白含量
Crude protein content
G1 30.6±0.56ab 39.2±0.95abc 19.7±0.41ab 8.7±0.81abc
G2 34.0±1.08ab 35.1±0.93cd 17.8±1.39ab 8.9±0.25a
G3 35.0±1.37a 35.4±1.85bcd 18.5±1.25ab 7.7±0.76abcde
G4 32.4±1.46ab 35.6±1.95bcd 18.3±0.12ab 7.4±0.42bcde
G5 32.8±1.29ab 38.6±2.12abc 19.7±1.01ab 7.1±0.68e
G6 31.1±1.00ab 38.9±0.85abc 16.9±0.35b 7.2±0.36de
G7 31.9±1.66ab 38.0±1.01abc 19.6±1.72ab 8.5±0.51abcd
G8 30.3±2.14b 39.3±0.97abc 18.7±2.62ab 8.8±0.71ab
G9 33.6±0.96ab 37.3±1.91abcd 18.3±1.32ab 7.6±0.76abcde
G10 31.2±2.61ab 38.9±0.44abc 18.7±1.33ab 7.5±0.51abcde
G11 34.2±0.51ab 37.8±1.25abc 19.4±2.16ab 7.3±0.35cde
G12 35.0±1.49a 33.2±2.76d 17.1±0.75ab 7.8±0.42abcde
G13 32.0±2.10ab 38.7±0.92abc 19.5±1.96ab 7.3±0.47bcde
G14 30.3±1.25ab 39.5±1.49ab 20.1±1.37ab 8.5±0.36abcd
G15 33.4±1.05ab 37.1±0.06abcd 19.2±2.21ab 7.2±0.10de
G16 34.2±0.85ab 36.7±0.51abcd 18.3±0.21ab 8.7±0.51abc
G17 30.3±1.15b 39.9±2.10a 21.2±2.01a 7.0±0.46e
G18 30.9±1.32ab 39.5±0.49ab 19.5±0.49ab 8.6±0.64abcd
G19 31.2±1.12ab 38.8±1.69abc 18.7±0.86ab 7.8±0.71abcde
G20 31.8±2.08ab 37.1±1.21abcd 18.8±0.99ab 8.3±0.85abcde
[1] 苏胜宇, 王长里, 周禹, 等. 唐山地区青贮玉米筛选与机械化种植栽培技术. 现代农村科技, 2024(5):108-109.
[2] 姚海梅, 王芳, 方永丰, 等. 甘肃省玉米区域试验品系产量稳定性及试点代表性分析. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2016, 51(6):17-23.
[3] 张恺东, 张凡巧, 董博, 等. 基于R语言的AMMI模型和GGE双标图在大豆区试中的应用评价. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40 (13):140-145.
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0388
[4] 岳海旺, 卜俊周, 魏建伟, 等. AMMI模型与BLUP方法相结合评价河北省冬小麦品种丰产性和稳定性. 中国农业大学学报, 2024, 29(8):50-61.
[5] 常世豪, 王金霞, 耿臻, 等. 基于AMMI和GGE模型对大豆区域试验进行综合评价. 分子植物育种. (2024-05-09)[2024-07-22]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/46.1068.s.20240508.1538.008.
[6] 穆兰海, 常克勤, 杜燕萍, 等. AMMI模型和GGE双标图对宁夏不同气候类型区苦荞品种稳产性适应性分析. 黑龙江农业科学, 2024(2):8-14.
[7] 万星, 刘燚, 肖本泽. 基于AMMI模型和GGE双标图分析长江中下游水稻区试品种的适应性. 中南农业科技, 2024, 45(1):7-11,25.
[8] 赵长延, 段维, 朱志锋, 等. 基于AMMI模型和GGE双标图对油用向日葵多点试验稳定性和适应性分析. 干旱区资源与环境, 2023, 37(11):123-131.
[9] 江婉玥, 胡晓航, 马亚怀, 等. 基于AMMI模型和GGE双标图在甜菜品种区试中的应用. 分子植物育种. (2023-03-27) [2024-07-22]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/46.1068.s.20230324.1716.006.
[10] 鲁月, 张子惠, 陆洲, 等. 基于AMMI模型和GGE双标图对江苏省甜玉米区域试验的分析. 分子植物育种, 2022, 20(20):6939-6946.
[11] 步清, 鲁月, 郝德荣, 等. AMMI模型和GGE双标图在江苏省糯玉米品种区域试验中的应用. 分子植物育种, 2022, 20 (22):7628-7636.
[12] 朱艳彬, 樊晓琴, 吉闻天, 等. 基于AMMI模型和GGE双标图的西北春玉米品种区域试验综合评价. 中国农业大学学报, 2023, 28(12):15-24.
[13] 李雪, 丁逸帆, 左示敏, 等. 基于AMMI模型和GGE双标图对2018年江苏省水稻杂交中粳品种区域试验结果的评价分析. 杂交水稻, 2021, 36(3):96-102.
[14] 魏常敏, 许卫猛, 邢永锋, 等. 黄淮海糯玉米品种基因型与环境互作效应分析. 南方农业学报, 2021, 52(4):888-896.
[15] 中华人民共和国农业农村部. 农作物品种试验与信息化技术规程玉米:NY/T 1209-2020. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2020.
[16] 中华人民共和国国家卫生健康委员会. 食品安全国家标准食品中淀粉的测定:GB 5009.9-2023. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2023.
[17] 国家市场监督管理总局. 饲料中中性洗涤纤维(NDF)的测定:GB/T 20806-2022. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2022.
[18] 中华人民共和国农业农村部. 饲料中酸性洗涤纤维的测定:NY/T 1459-2022. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2022.
[19] 国家市场监督管理总局. 饲料中粗蛋白的测定凯氏定氮法:GB/T 6432-2018. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2018.
[20] 张泽, 鲁成, 向仲怀. 基于AMMI模型的品种稳定性分析. 作物学报, 1998, 24(3):304-309.
[21] 唐启义. 实用统计分析及其DPS数据处理系统. 北京: 科学出版社, 2002.
[22] 苗建利, 邓丽, 郭敏杰, 等. 基于BLUP和GGE双标图的全国北方片花生区域试验分析. 分子植物育种, 2024, 22(3):832-839.
[23] 张晓申, 杨育峰, 雒峰, 等. GGE双标图对甘薯‘郑红23号’丰产稳产性和适应性的评价. 分子植物育种. (2024-02-21) [2024-07-22]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/46.1068.S.20240221.1431.004.
[24] 邹景伟, 黄丙欣, 黄宏宇, 等. 国审玉米新品种泊玉26的丰产性、稳产性及适应性分析. 种子, 2023, 42(10):129-133,138.
[25] Gauch H G J, Piepho H, Annicchiarico P. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE: further considerations. Crop Science, 2008, 48(3):866-889.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2007.09.0513
[26] 魏鹏程, 陈杜, 罗英舰, 等. 基于AMMI和GGE双标图的贵州不同生态区春玉米丰产性稳产性和试点辨别力评价. 玉米科学, 2023, 31(1):22-31.
[27] Yan W K, Tinker N A. Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data: principles and applications. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 2006, 86(3):623-645.
doi: 10.4141/P05-169
[28] 王虎宁, 秦伟娜, 焦婷, 等. 甘肃不同青饲玉米品种产量、农艺性状及营养品质评定. 草业科学, 2023, 40(6):1617-1628.
[29] 郭江, 瓮巧云, 宋亚菲, 等. 不同肥料配施对青贮玉米产量和品质的影响. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(27):21-26.
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0753
[1] Chen Zhihao, Wang Ting, Chang Xuhong, Wang Yanjie, Liu Xiwei, Yang Yushuang, Wang Yujiao, Wang Demei, Zhao Guangcai. Comprehensive Analysis of Yield and Quality Traits of Wheat Lines in the Northern Huang-Huai Winter Wheat Region [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 148-155.
[2] Qin Nana, Huang Linhua, Chen Ying, Wang Shengmou, Xie Yong, Miao Kai, Li Wanming, Qi Lan. Effects of Foliar Propionyl Brassinolide Application on Photosynthesis, Agronomic Traits and Yield of Summer Soybean [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 164-171.
[3] Yan Xiaowen, Liang Junchao, Zeng Pan, Zhou Hongying, Wang Zhiqi, Le Meiwang, Sun Jian. Effects of Late Sowing on Main Agronomic Traits and Yield of Autumn Sesame [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 189-194.
[4] Zhao Caixia, Baima Yangzhen, Yang Guanghuan, Tang Lin. Identification and Cluster Analysis of Agronomic Traits in Different Types of Rapeseed Resources [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 120-127.
[5] Dong Yang, Yan Feng, Zhao Fuyang, Hou Xiaomin, Li Qingquan, Li Qingchao, Liu Yue, Lan Ying, Yang Huiying, Wang Bingxue, Xu Yan. Effects of Different Herbicide Application Schemes on Foxtail Millet Growth and Soil Microorganisms [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 238-244.
[6] He Bing, Wang Xiaohang, Li Chao, Luo Liqiang, Zhang Qiang, Han Kangshun, Chen Dianyuan, Yan Guangbin, Liu Zhenjiao. Data Analysis of Approved Rice Varieties in Jilin Province from 1987 to 2022 [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 16-22.
[7] Zhang Shengchang, Wei Yuming, Ma Lina, Yang Zhao, Liu Wenyu, Huang Jie, Liu Huan, Yang Farong. Effects of Planting Density and Fertilization on Growth Characteristics of Forage Quinoa [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 128-134.
[8] Zhao Fuyang, Ma Bo, Hu Jifang, Tan Kefei, Liu Chuanzeng, Yan Feng, Dong Yang, Hou Xiaomin, Li Qingquan, Han Yehui. Evaluation of Photoperiod Sensitivity of Japonica Rice in Cold Regions under Different Photoperiod Conditions [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 135-140.
[9] Ji Jinghong, Liu Shuangquan, Ma Xingzhu, Hao Xiaoyu, Zheng Yu, Zhao Yue, Wang Xiaojun, Kuang Enjun. Effects of Different Controlled-Release Urea on Agronomic Traits, Yield and Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Cold Region Rice [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 149-154.
[10] Lu Jing, Yu Bo, Jiang Mi, Peng Lianxin, Ren Yuanhang, Wu Qi. Assessment of Genetic Diversity in 58 Germplasm Resources of Highland Barley [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 20-28.
[11] Luo Jianke, Zhang Kehou, Wang Zeyu, Zhang Pingzhen, Nan Ming. Research on the Production Performance of 18 Oat Varieties (Lines) in the Irrigation Area along the Yellow River in Baiyin City [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 93-100.
[12] Yang Ruping, Jia Zhen, Wei Ying, Wei Yechou, Wang Liming, Chen Guangrong, Zhang Guohong, Song Wenwen. The Relationship between the Growth Period Traits of Soybean Varieties from Various Regions of Gansu and Meteorological Factors as well as Agronomic Traits [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(1): 123-132.
[13] Yan Qunxiang, Pang Yuhui, Hong Zhuangzhuang, Bi Junge, Wang Chunping. Genetic Diversity Analysis and Specificity Evaluation of Main Traits of 141 Wheat Germplasm Resources at Domestic and Foreign [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(1): 26-34.
[14] Sun Mingmao, Liu Lixia, Sun Hu, Cui Di. Analysis of Anthocyanin and Important Agronomic Traits in a Population of Recombinant Inbred Lines of Rice [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(6): 26-38.
[15] Ma Lina, Wei Yuming, Wen Lifang, Zhang Xuejian, Yang Zhao, Huang Jie, Zhang Shengchang, Li Xiaoyu, Liu Huan, Yang Farong. Analysis of Agronomic Traits and Nutritional Quality of 22 Quinoa Germplasms in Yuanmou Area of Yunnan Province [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(6): 47-54.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!