Stability analysis of rice (Oryza sativa) hybrids and their parents

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to evaluate 115 rice (Oryza sativa L.) hybrids, their parents (5 cyto plasmic male sterile lines and 23 restorer parents) and four checks for their stability at three different locations, viz Hyderabad, Warangal and Jagtial representing three different agro-climatic zones of Andhra Pradesh. The study indicated that a substantial portion of G × E interaction was due to the linear component for days to 50% flowering, productive tillers/ plant, panicle weight, filled grains/panicle, grain yield/plant and productivity/day. Hybrids were less predictable than the parents for days to 50% flowering, productive tillers/plant, panicle weight and grain yield/plant. Several highyielding hybrids and parents were identified for general ('CRMS 32A' × 'RPHR 517' and 'APMS 6A' × 'RPHR 118'), favourable ('PUSA 5A' × 'RPHR 1096', 'IR 58025A' × 'KMR 3' and 'CRMS 32A' × 'GQ 120') and poor ('CRMS 32A' × 'GQ 70') environments. Thus the present study confirmed that stable hybrids were developed from stable parents but stable parents need not necessarily generate stable hybrids.

Full text

x
Based on complete information of PhD thesis of the first author
submitted to ANGRAU, Hyderabad during 2008
1Assistant Professor (e mail: saidu_genetics@yahoo.co.in),
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Andhra Pradesh
Horticultural University, Kothakota, Andhra Pradesh 509 381
2Professor (e mail: sagisudheer@yahoo.com), Dept. of Genetics
and Plant Breeding, College of Agriculture, ANGRAI, Hyderabad
500 030
3Rice Breeder and Senior Project Investigator (e mail:
mugalodimsr@yahoo.com), Cereals System Initiative for South
Asia (CSISA), IRRI Regional Office, Barwale Research
Foundation, 3–6–666, Street No.10, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh 500 029.
Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 81 (2): 111–15, February 2010
Stability analysis of rice (Oryza sativa) hybrids and their parents
P SAIDAIAH1, S SUDHEER KUMAR2 and M S RAMESHA3
Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 500 030
Received: 6 February 2009; Revised accepted: 10 December 2010
ABSTRACT
An experiment was conducted to evaluate 115 rice (Oryza sativa L.) hybrids, their parents (5 cyto plasmic male
sterile lines and 23 restorer parents) and four checks for their stability at 3 different locations, viz Hyderabad, Warangal
and Jagtial representing 3 different agroclimatic zones of Andhra Pradesh. The study indicated that a substantial portion
of G × E interaction was due to the linear component for days to 50% flowering, productive tillers/plant, panicle weight,
filled grains/panicle, grain yield/plant and productivity/day. Hybrids were less predictable than the parents for days to
50% flowering, productive tillers/plant, panicle weight and grain yield/plant. Several high yielding hybrids and parents
were identified for general (‘CRMS 32A’ × ‘RPHR 517’ and ‘APMS 6A’ × ‘RPHR 118’), favourable (‘PUSA 5A’ ×
‘RPHR 1096’, ‘IR 58025A’ × ‘KMR–3’ and ‘CRMS 32A’ × ‘GQ 120’) and poor (‘CRMS 32A’ × ‘GQ 70’) environments.
Thus the present study confirmed that stable hybrids were developed from stable parents but stable parents need not
necessarily generate stable hybrids.
Key words: G × E, Rice hybrids, Yield stability
Rice (Oryza sativa L.)is the staple crop and important
cereal crop of India, being a thermo and photosensitive in
nature, due to its buffering capacity it is being cultivated
round the year in different agro-climatic zones of the country.
However, the hybrids and breeding material are likely to
interact differently with different environments. The presently
cultivated varieties and hybrids though having high seed yield
potential, they are erratic in their performance even under
less varied conditions of cultivation. Lack of hybrids suitable
to specific locations accounts for the decline in the area and
productivity in rice, apart from the biotic and abiotic stresses.
Therefore, assessment of its adaptability is of important
concern. Productivity of a population is the function of its
adaptation, whereas stability is the statistical measure of
genotype × environment interaction. Relative ranking of
genotype in different seasons for a given attribute is rarely
the same. This results in difficulty in detecting superior
genotypes. Therefore, it is necessary to select genotype(s)
showing a high degree of stability of performance over a
wide range of environments (Das et al. 2010). Precise
knowledge on the nature and magnitude of
genotype×environmental interaction is important in
understanding the stability in yield of a particular variety or
a hybrid before it is being recommended for a given
situation(s). However, little information is available on the
stability of rice hybrids. Panwar et al. (2008) and Young and
Virmani (1990) also observed varying magnitude of heterosis
over environments and stressed the need to evaluate hybrids
across environments to identify stable hybrids with high yield
that shows least interaction with environment. Therefore, an
attempt is made to study the stability parameters of the
hybrids developed and evaluated at three different agro-
climatic zones in Andhra Pradesh in the present investigation,
using Eberhart and Russel (1966) model.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
One hundred and fifteen F1 hybrids were generated by
crossing 23 restorer parents with 5 male sterile lines in line
× tester mating design during winter season (rabi) 2006–07.
The resulting hybrids along with 28 parents including 5B
lines and 23 restorers and 4 checks (two hybrid checks, viz

112 SAIDAIAH ET AL.[Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 81 (2)
x
‘KRH 2’ and ‘PA 6201’ and 2 varietal checks, viz ‘Jaya’ and
‘IR 64’) were evaluated for their stability during rainy season
(kharif) 2007 at 3 different locations, viz Directorate of Rice
Research, Hyderabad, Regional Agricultural Research
Station, Warangal and Regional Agricultural Research
Station, Jagtial. All the entries at the age of 28 days were
transplanted in randomized complete block design with two
replications. Each entry was planted in two rows of 1.8 m
length. Single seedling was transplanted/hill by adopting a
spacing of 20 cm × 15 cm and all recommended package of
practices were followed to raise a healthy crop. Observations
were recorded for yield and its attributes such as productive
tillers/plant, panicle weight, number of filled grains per
panicle, spikelet fertility percentage, 1000 seed weight, grain
yield per plant and productivity per day on five plants of
each entry in each replication. Days to 50% flowering was
recorded on plot basis. The data were subjected to stability
analysis as per the model suggested by Eberhart and Russel
(1966).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of variance of stability following Eberhart
and Russell’s model revealed that the genotypes and
environments were significant for all the characters except
for 1000 seed weight and spikelet fertility percentage for
genotypes, indicating the diversity among the genotypes and
environments studied. The GE interactions were significant
for 6 characters, viz days to 50% flowering, productive tillers
per plant, panicle weight, filled grains per panicle, grain
yield/plant and productivity/day. Significant GE interactions
implied differential behaviour of genotypes under three
different locations. Similar reports were earlier made by
Deshpande and Dalvi (2006) and Ramya and Senthil Kumar
(2008). Significant variation due to environment (linear)
revealed the linear contribution of environmental effects and
additive environment variance on these characters. Similar
results were reported earlier by Lavanya et al. (2005),
Deshpande and Dalvi (2006) and Arumugam et al. (2007).
The linear component of GE interaction was significant for
six characters suggesting that the genotypes differ for their
linear response to environments as also revealed by Babu et
al. (2005) and Ramya and Senthil Kumar (2008). The pooled
deviation was significant for all the characters indicating the
non-linear response and unpredictable nature of the genotypes
by significantly differing for stability. Significant non-linear
responses were also observed earlier by Babu et al. (2005),
Bhaktha and Das (2008) and Johnson et al. (2010), while
both significant and non-significant linear responses were
reported by Lavanya et al. (2005) and Vidhu francis (2005)
Environmental index reveals the favourability of an
environment at a particular location. Breeze (1969) pointed
out that the estimates of environmental index can provide
the basis for identifying the favourable environments for the
expression of maximum potential of the genotype. Based on
environmental indices, Hyderabad was found to be the most
favourable location for productive tillers per plant and grain
yield per plant, while Jagtial was the most favourable for
days to 50% flowering and productivity per day. The Warangal
location was most favourable for panicle weight and filled
grains/ panicle. The results are in broad agreement with the
findings reported by Babu et al. (2005) and Sedghi-Azar
(2008).
Linear regression (bi) is a measure of response or
sensitivity to environmental changes of a variety while
deviation from regression measures the stability of genotypes
with the lowest standard deviation near to zero being the most
stable and vice versa. According to Eberhart and Russel
(1966), a stable genotype is one which shows high mean yield,
regression coefficient (bi=1) equal to unity and mean square
deviation from regression (S2di) near to zero. In interpreting
the results, S2di was considered as the measure of stability as
suggested by Breeze (1969). Then, the type of stability
(measure of response or sensitivity to environmental changes)
was decided on regression coefficient (bi) and mean values
(Finlay and Wilkinson, 1963). For the yield/plant, 48 hybrids,
4 lines, 10 testers and 4 checks recorded non-significant S2di
Table 1 ANOVA for yield and yield components for stability in rice
Source d.f Days to Productive Panicle Filled Spikelet 1000 Grain Productivity/
50% tillers per weight grains/ fertility seed yield/plant day
flowering plant (g) panicle (%) weight (g) (g) (kg/ha)
Genotypes 146 31.65** 6.32** 1.48** 3716.38** 60.23 12.78** 78.21** 349.03**
Environment + (Genotype× 294 54.64** 2.26** 0.49** 1216.05** 59.78 6.50 33.09** 155.36**
Environment)
Environments 2 3598.62** 18.32** 5.08** 6506.24** 2168.37** 14.94** 142.53** 1421.45**
Genotype × Environment 292 30.37** 2.15** 0.46** 1179.81** 45.34 6.44 32.34** 146.69**
Environments (linear) 1 6197.25** 74.47** 8.16** 12012.49** 4336.73** 29.88* 885.06** 4842.90**
Genotype × Environment 146 42.04** 2.65** 0.59** 1549.53** 42.21 7.37* 36.26** 171.30**
(linear)
Pooled deviation 147 25.36** 1.38** 0.34** 872.61** 48.13** 5.48** 24.14** 107.65**
Pooled error 438 1.90 0.48 0.076 68.72 3.12 0.19 1.81 8.12

February 2011] STABILITY ANALYSIS IN RICE 113
x
values, whose performance could be predicted. Among the
stable hybrids, two hybrids ‘CRMS 32A’ × ‘RPHR 517’
(32.46 g) and ‘APMS 6A’ × ‘RPHR 118’ (31.86 g) possessed
significantly higher grain yield than the best check ‘KRH 2’
(28.06 g) with unit bi values were considered as ideal and
highly adaptable hybrids having average stability and
predictable in performance over three locations. The stable
performance in ten high yielding hybrids, viz ‘PUSA 5A’ ×
‘IR 55’ (31.72 g), ‘PUSA 5A’ × ‘RPHR 124’ (31.29 g),
‘APMS 6A’ × ‘GQ–120’ (31.23 g), ‘APMS 6A’ × ‘SG 27–
77’ (30.69 g), ‘APMS 6A’ × ‘RPHR 124’ (29.54 g), ‘PUSA
5A’ × ‘RPHR 517’ (29.29 g), ‘CRMS 32A’ × ‘RPHR 1005’
(28.94 g), ‘IR 79156A’ × ‘RPHR 1096’ (28.77 g), ‘IR 79156A’
× ‘SG 26–120’ (28.67 g) and ‘PUSA 5A’ × ‘GQ–120’ (28.38
g) was found to be predictable under all the environments.
Other superior performing hybrids ‘PUSA 5A’ × ‘RPHR
1096’ (32.80 g), ‘IR 58025A’ × ‘KMR–3’ (29.88 g) and
‘CRMS 32A’ × ‘GQ–120’ (28.49 g) which showed above
average response were stable under favourable environments.
The hybrid ‘CRMS 32A’ × ‘GQ–70’ (30.33 g) recorded
regression coefficient value (bi) of less than one and
considered to perform stably in poor environments.
Table 2 Stable hybrids for various characters in rice
Character Hybrids/parents
Days to 50% flowering (earliness) Hybrids; ‘IR 58025A’בBR 827–35’, ‘CRMS 32 A’ב IBL 57’, ’APMS 6A’ב GQ 37–1’ (stable)
Parents; ‘PUSA 5A’, ‘CRMS 32 A’, ‘APMS 6A’, ‘KMR 3’, ‘BL 57’, ‘BR 827–35’, ‘SC5 9–3’, ‘SG
27–77’, ‘RPHR 124’, ‘RPHR 517’, ‘IR 43’, ‘IR 55’, ‘IR60’ (stable); ‘RPHR 1096’ (favourable
environments)
Productive tillers/plant Hybrids; ‘IR 79156A’בKMR 3’, ‘IR 58025A’בRPHR 619–2’, ‘IR 58025A’בRPHR 612–1’, ‘IR
58025A’בGQ 120’, ‘IR 79156A’בRPHR 1096’, ‘IR 79156A’בGQ 37–1’, ‘IR 79156A’בGQ 70’,
‘IR 79156A’בIBL 57’, ‘IR 79156A’בBR 827–35’, ‘IR 79156A’בSG 26–120’, ‘APMS 6A’בGQ-
25’, ‘APMS 6A’בGQ 37–1’, ‘APMS 6A’בGQ 70’, ‘APMS 6A’בSC5 2–2–1’, ‘APMS 6A’בSG
27–77’, ‘APMS 6A’בSG 26–120’ (stable); ‘CRMS 32A’בGQ 25’ (favourable environments);
‘CRMS 32 A’בRPHR 1096’, ‘CRMS 32 A’בKMR 3’, ‘CRMS 32A’x ‘IBL 57’ (poor environments)
Parents;‘IR 58025A ‘, IR 79156A, PUSA 5A, 1005, 619–2, 611–1, GQ 25, GQ 70, GQ 120, KMR
3, BR 827–35, EPLT 109, SG 27–77, 118, 124, 517, IR 43, IR 55, IR60(stable)
Panicle weight Hybrids; ‘IR 79156A’בSG 27–77’, ‘APMS 6A’בRPHR 1005’, ‘APMS 6A’בRPHR 619–2’, ‘APMS
6A’בSG 27–77’, ‘APMS 6A’בRPHR 124’, ‘PUSA 5A’בRPHR 611–1’, ‘PUSA 5A’בSC5 9–3’,
‘CRMS 32 A’בIBL 57’, ‘CRMS 32 A’בBR 827–35’, ‘CRMS 32 A’בSC5 9–3’, ‘CRMS 32
A’בRPHR 118’ (stable);‘APMS 6A’בSC5 2–2–1’ (favourable environments) Parents; ‘IR 79156ª’,
‘PUSA 5A’, ‘CRMS 32 A’, ‘RPHR 1096’, ‘RPHR 1005’, ‘RPHR 619–2’, ‘RPHR 611–1’, ‘RPHR
GQ 37–1’, ‘IBL 57’, ‘EPLT 109’, ‘SC5 2–2–1, ‘SG 27–77’, ‘RPHR 118’, ‘RPHR 124’, ‘IR 43’, ‘IR
55’(stable); ‘RPHR 612–1’ (favourable environments)
Filled grains/panicle Hybrids; ‘IR 79156A’בSG 27–77’, ‘APMS 6A’בRPHR 1096’, ‘APMS 6A’בRPHR 619–2, ‘APMS
6A’בRPHR 124’, ‘PUSA 5A’בRPHR 619–2’, ‘PUSA 5A’בSG 26–120’, ‘CRMS 32 A’בRPHR
1005’, ‘CRMS 32 A’בRPHR 619–2’, ‘CRMS 32 A’בIBL 57’, ‘CRMS 32 A’בEPLT 109’, ‘CRMS
32 A’בSC5 9–3’ (stable); ‘APMS 6A’בSC5 2–2–1’, ‘CRMS 32 A’בBR 827–35’, ‘CRMS 32
A’בRPHR 118’, ‘CRMS 32 A’בIR 60’ (favourable environments) Parents; ‘CRMS 32 A’, ‘RPHR
1096’, ‘RPHR 619–2’, ‘IBL 57’, ‘RPHR 118’, ‘RPHR 124’, ‘IR 43’, ‘IR 55’(stable)
Grain yield/plant Hybrids; ‘CRMS 32 A’בRPHR 517’, ‘APMS 6A’בRPHR 118’, ‘IR 79156A’בRPHR 1096’, ‘IR
79156A’בSG 26–120’, ‘APMS 6A’בGQ 120’, ‘APMS 6A’בSG 27–77’, ‘APMS 6A’בRPHR
124’, ‘PUSA 5A’בGQ 120’, ‘PUSA 5A’בRPHR 124’, ‘PUSA 5A’בRPHR 517’, ‘PUSA 5A’בIR
55’, ‘CRMS 32 A’בRPHR 1005’ (stable), ‘IR 58025A’בKMR 3’, ‘PUSA 5A’בRPHR 1096’,
‘CRMS 32 A’בGQ 120’ (favourable environments); ‘CRMS 32 A’בGQ 70’ (poor
environments)Parents; ‘IR 58025A’, ‘APMS 6A’, ‘PUSA 5A’, ‘RPHR 1096’, ‘RPHR 612–1’, ‘GQ
37–1’, ‘GQ 70’, ‘GQ 120’, ‘SC5 9–3’, ‘SG 27–77’, ‘RPHR 517’, ‘IR 43’ (stable); ‘RPHR 619–2’
(favourable environments); ‘IR 79156A’ (poor environments)
Productivity/day Hybrids; ‘APMS 6A’בRPHR 118’, ‘PUSA 5A’בRPHR 1096’, ‘APMS 6A’בRPHR 124’, ‘PUSA
5A’בRPHR 124’, ‘PUSA 5A’בIR 55’, ‘CRMS 32 A’בGQ 70’ (stable); ‘IR 58025A’ב SG 27–77’,
‘APMS 6A’בRPHR 612–1’, ‘PUSA 5A’בIR 43’, ‘CRMS 32 A’בRPHR 517’ (favourable
environments)Parents; ‘IR 58025A’, ‘IR 79156A’, ‘APMS 6A’, ‘CRMS 32 A’, ‘GQ 37–1’, ‘GQ
70’, ‘RPHR 517’, ‘IR 60’ (stable); ‘IBL 57’, ‘SG 27–77’ (favourable environments) ; ‘RPHR 1096’,
‘IR 43’ (poor environments)

114 SAIDAIAH ET AL.[Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 81 (2)
x
Among the stable parents (Table 2), none could record
significantly higher grain yield/pant than the best check
‘KRH 2’. However, the lines ‘IR 58025A’, ‘APMS 6A’, and
‘PUSA 5A’ and the testers ‘SC5 2–2–1’, ‘GQ 37–1’, ‘RPHR
1096’, ‘RPHR 612–1’, ‘GQ 120’, ‘SG 27–77’, ‘GQ 70’,
‘RPHR 517’ and ‘IR 43’ exhibited average stability, while,
the line ‘IR 79156A’ exhibited more than the average stability.
The tester ‘RPHR 619–2’ recorded more than one of bi values
and behaved stably under better environments. All the four
standard checks, viz ‘KRH 2’, ‘PA 6201’, ‘Jaya’ and ‘IR 64’
were ranked as highly stable in performance for grain yield
that can be predictable.
Hybrids were less predictable than parents for days to
50% flowering, productive tillers/plant, panicle weight and
grain yield per plant. While both hybrids and parents were
less predictable for filled grains per panicle and per day
productivity (Table 4). This is in conformity to Babu et al.
(2005) and Deshpande and Dalvi (2006), who reported that
hybrids were less stable and less predictable than parents for
grain yield and days to 50% flowering.
Fifteen superior yielding hybrids (also showing significant
sca effects) with significant standard heterosis (> 13% over
‘KRH 2’, leading public hybrid) were compared for their
stability parameters of grain yield and yield component traits
(Table 3). The first 12 high yielding hybrids were
unpredictable in their performance and a hybrid, ‘CRMS 32A’
× ‘RPHR 517’ which was ranked 13th in grain yield was
stable over the environments with predictable performance
for grain yield/plant. This stable hybrid was of medium
duration (129 days). Other stable hybrids with predictable
performance for yield and other yield traits were ‘APMS
6A’ × ‘RPHR 118’ and ‘PUSA 5A’ × ‘IR 55’ for grain yield/
plant and productivity per day. One hybrid ‘PUSA 5A’ ×
‘RPHR 1096’ with above average response was desirable
for specific (favourable) environments. These three hybrids
were also medium in duration. The hybrids with specific
adaptability (favourable/poor environments) rather than
general might overcome the problem of genetic vulnerability.
Lavanya et al. (2005) and Panwar et al. (2008) also recorded
similar results.
The stable hybrid ‘CRMS 32A’ × ‘RPHR 517’ was derived
from one stable parent ‘CRMS 32A’ and an unstable parent
‘RPHR 517’. Among the two other stable hybrids, ‘APMS
6A’ × ‘RPHR 118’ was with stable ‘APMS 6A’ and an
unstable ‘RPHR 118’; ‘PUSA 5A’ × ‘IR 55’ was with an
unstable ‘PUSA 5A’ and stable ‘IR 55’. Thus the present
Table 3 Over all performance of top 15 heterotic hybrids for grain yield per plant in rice
Hybrid Standard Average Heterobe Mean per Sca effect
Heterosis% Heterosis% ltiosis% formance Stable/unstable
‘APMS 6A’בGQ–25’ 36.54** 87.13** 77.48** 38.31 10.49** unstable
‘PUSA 5A’בKMR 3’ 35.77** 90.27** 62.65** 38.09 7.10** unstable
‘APMS 6A’בRPHR 1005’ 29.90** 13.31** 88.28** 36.44 7.56** unstable
‘APMS 6A’ב SC5 9–3’ 28.93** 70.17** 56.21** 36.17 7.63** unstable
‘IR 79156A’בSG27–77’ 23.86** 74.53** 98.68** 34.75 5.96** unstable
‘APMS 6A’בRPHR 612–1’ 23.34** 58.59** 68.08** 34.60 6.99** unstable
‘PUSA 5A×IR 43’ 23.28** 121.69** 108.10** 34.59 10.08** unstable
‘IR 79156A’בIBL 57’ 18.08** 102.33** 87.46** 33.12 7.55** unstable
‘PUSA 5A’בRPHR 1096’ 16.91** 59.32** 33.57** 32.80 4.45** unstable
‘PUSA 5A’בSG 27–77’ 16.78** 79.37** 64.55** 32.76 0.65 unstable
‘CRMS 32A’בIBL 57’ 16.68** 55.29** 33.64** 32.74 3.02** unstable
‘IR 79156 A’בKMR 3’ 16.44** 69.75** 39.48** 32.67 5.01** unstable
‘CRMS 32A’בRPHR 517’ 15.71** 55.12** 32.54** 32.46 3.85** stable
‘APMS 6A’בRPHR 118’ 13.57** 55.67** 47.65** 31.86 3.57** stable
‘PUSA 5A’בIR 55’ 13.07** 77.21** 365.38** 31.72 7.89** stable
CD at 5% =3.76 SE ij = 0.81
Table 4 Per cent of stability of parents, hybrids and checks in rice
Character No. of parents Parents(%) No. of crosses Crosses(%) No. of checks Checks(%)
Days to 50% flowering 14 50.00 33 28.70 3 75
Number of productive tillers per plant 22 78.57 80 69.57 4 100
Panicle weight 17 60.71 67 58.26 3 75
Filled grains per panicle 8 28.57 47 40.87 2 50
Grain yield per plant 14 50.00 48 41.74 4 100
Productivity per day 12 42.86 45 39.13 3 75

February 2011] STABILITY ANALYSIS IN RICE 115
x
study also confirmed the earlier reports of Lavanya et al.
(2005) and Deshpande and Dalvi (2006) that stable hybrids
involved stable parents but stable parents need not necessarily
generate stable hybrids. For example, ‘IR 79156A’ and ‘SG
27–77’ were stable parents for grain yield but their hybrid
‘IR 79156A’ × ‘SG 27–77’ was unstable for grain yield.
REFERENCES
Arumugam M, Rajanna M P and Vidyachandra B. 2007. Stability
of rice genotypes for yield and yield components over extended
dates of sowing under cauvery command area in Karnataka.
Oryza 44 (2): 104–7.
Babu S, Anbumalarmathi J, Sheeba A, Yogameenakshi P and
Rangasamy P. 2005. Stability in performance of salt tolerant
rice hybrids. Oryza 42(3): 222–4.
Bhaktha N and Das S R. 2008. Phenotypic stability for grain yield
in rice. Oryza 45(1): 115–9.
Breeze E L.1969. The measurement and significance of genotype
– environment interactions in grasses. Heredity 24: 181–200.
Das S, Mishra R C and Das S R. 2010. G×E interaction, adaptability
and yield stability of mid early rice genotypes. Indian Journal
of Agricultural Research 44 (2): 104–11.
Deshpande V N and Dalvi V V. 2006. Genotype×Environment
interactions in hybrid rice. Oryza 43(4): 318–9.
Eberhart S A and Russel WA. 1966. Stability parameters for
comparing varieties. Crop Science 6: 36–40.
Johnson P L, Mishra L K and Sarawai A K. 2010. Stability
analysis for grain yield and its components in rainfed low land
rice (Oryza sativa). Journal of Agricultural Issues 14 (1): 15–
9.
Lavanya C, Vijayakumar R and Sreerama Reddy N. 2005. Choice
of rice hybrids for varying environments. Oryza 42(1): 1–4.
Panwar L L, Joshi V N and Ali M. 2008. Genotype × environment
in scented rice. Oryza 45 (1):103–9.
Ramya K and Senthil Kumar N. 2008. Genotype×environment
interaction for yield and its component traits in rice (Oryza
sativa). Crop improvement 35(1): 11–5.
Sedghi-Azar M, Ranjbar G A, Rahimian H, Arefi H. 2008. Yield
stability and adaptability study on rice (Oryza sativa) promising
lines. Journal of Agriculture and Social Sciences 4: 27–30.
Vidhu francis P, Kankamani M T, Radhakrishnan V V and
Jaikumaran U. 2005. Genotype×environment interaction in rice
(Oryza sativa). Oryza 42(3): 174–8.
Young Y B and Virmani S S. 1990. Stability analysis of agronomic
traits in rice hybrids and their parents. Oryza 27: 109–121.