COBISS Code 1.01 DOI: 10.14720/aas.2014.103.1.12 Agrovoc descriptors: lens culinaris, lentils, statistical methods, methods, genotypes, environment, crop yield, arid zones, semiarid zones Agris category code: f30 Graphic analysis of yield stability in new improved lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) genotypes using nonparametric statistics Naser SABAGHNIA1*, Rahmatollah KARIMIZADEH2, Mohtasham MOHAMMADI2 Received November 16, 2012; accepted Janury 25, 2014. Delo je prispelo 16. novembra 2012, sprejeto 25. januaija 2014. ABSTRACT IZVLEČEK Yield stability is an interesting feature of today's lentil breeding programs, due to the high annual variation in mean yield, particularly in the arid and semi-arid areas. The genetic effects including genetic main and genotype x environment (GE) interaction effects for grain yield of eighteen lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) genotypes were studied with fourteen nonparametric stability statistics. Results of five distinct nonparametric tests of GE interaction and combined ANOVA showed there were both additive and crossover interaction types and genotypes varied significantly for grain yield. According to most of the nonparametric stability statistics, genotypes G5, G6, G8 and G18 were the most stable genotypes. Considering mean yield versus stability values via their plotting, indicates that genotypes G2, G11 and G14 following to G5, G16 and G18 were the most favorable genotypes. None of the nonparametric stability statistics were correlated with mean yield and so had static concept of stability. Our results confirmed that rankings of genotypes within environments and using mean yield information permit ease of interpretation of nonparametric results. Finally genotypes G2 (FLIP 92-12L), G11 (Gachsaran) and G14 (ILL 6206) were found to be the most stable and high mean yielding genotype and thus recommended for commercial release. Such an outcome could be used to delineate predictive, more rigorous recommendation strategies as well as to help define stability concepts for lentil and other crops. Key words: adaptability, dynamic stability, genotype x environment interaction GRAFIČNA ANALIZA STABILNOSTI PRIDELKA NOVIH IZBOLJŠANIH GENOTIPOV LEČE (Lens culinaris Medik.) Z UPORABO NEPARAMETRIČNE STATISTIKE Stabilnost pridelka je zaradi velikih letnih nihanj, še posebej v aridnih in semi-aridnih območjih, zanimiva lastnost v današnjih žlahtniteljskih programih pri leči (Lens culinaris Medik.). Pri 18 genotipih leče smo s 14 neparametričnimi statističnimi testi, ki vrednotijo stabilnost pridelka, preučevali glavne vplive genotipa in interakcije med genotipom in okoljem (GO) na pridelek zrnja. Rezultati petih neparametričnih testov GO interakcij, ter parametrične ANOVA so pokazali, da so se genotipi značilno razlikovali v pridelku zrnja tako v povezanjih kot prekrižanih interakcijah. Gleda na večino neparametričnih testov stabilnosti pridelka so se genotipi G5, G6, G8 in G18 izkazali kot najbolj stabilni. Primerjava povprečnih pridelkov in stabilnosti je pokazala, da so genotipi G2, G11, G14 in G5, G16 ter G18 najbolj primerni. Nobeden izmed neparametričnih testov stabilnosti ni koreliral s povprečnim pridelkom, kar kaže na njihov statičen značaj. Naši rezultati potrjujejo, da rangiranje genotipov po povprečnem pridelku za vsake okoljske razmere posebej omogoča uporabo rezultatov neparametričnih testov. Na koncu so bili genotipi G2 (FLIP 92-12L), G11 (Gachsaran) in G14 (ILL 6206) prepoznani kot najbolj stabilni, z velikim povprečnim pridelkom in priporočeni za komercialno uporabo. Takšni izsledki bi lahko bili uporabljeni za ponazoritev napovedovanj in resnejših priporočil kot tudi pomoč pri določanju stabilnost pridelave leče in drugih poljščin. Ključne besede: prilagodljivost, dinamična stabilnost, interakcije med genotipom in okoljem 1 Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Maragheh, Maragheh, Iran. 'Corresponds to: sabaghnia@maragheh. ac.ir 2 Dryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARI), Gachsaran, Iran 1 INTRODUCTION Iran is one of the foremost countries in terms of lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) production and sowing area in the world, and is followed by Canada, Turkey and India. Although, the lentil is the second grain legume crop after the chickpea in Iran but its average yield (489 kg ha"1) is not acceptable for many local farmers (Sabaghnia et al., 2008). According to the latest statistics from The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 162000 ha were used for lentil production and 79000 t of production were obtained in 2000 (FAOSTAT, 2010). This low yield performance of the cultivated lentil cultivars in comparison to the highest global yields (14580 kg ha"1, produced in Canada; FAOSTAT, 2010), encouraged Dryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARI) of Iran for performing an important lentil"breeding program in recent years, supported by the International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA). Like to the other crops, increasing the potential of yield is an important target of lentil breeding programs. The new improved genotypes are evaluated in multi"environment trials to test their performance across different environmental conditions. In most trials, crop yield fluctuates due to suitability of genotypes to different conditions which is known as genotype x environment (GE) interaction (Kang, 1998). In presence of GE interaction, a genotype does not exhibit the same phenotypic characteristics under test environments and various genotypes respond differently to a specific environment. GE interaction exploration and yield stability is an area of current interest and the success of plant breeding efforts depend on the identification of superior genotypes from stability and yield aspects. Exploring, measurement and interpretation of GE interaction can be aided by different statistical modeling and a number of statistics, parametric as well as nonparametric have been proposed for the study of yield stability (Huehn, 1996). These statistical models can be linear formulations (Eberhart and Russell, 1966), multiplicative formulations such as additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (Zobel et al., 1988), or nonparametric procedures (Huehn, 1979). The use of nonparametric statistics in the assessment of yield stability had several benefits. In this approach, no assumptions about the observations are needed and there is less sensitivity to measurement errors or to outliers (Huehn, 1990a). Also, additions or deletions a few genotypes do not cause distortions and these statistics are useful in situations where parametric statistics fail due to the presence of large non" linear GE interaction (Huehn, 1990b). In most cases the plant breeder is concerned with non" additive (crossover) GE interaction and so yield stability measuring based on rank-information, seems more relevant and usefulness. Therefore, the nonparametric statistics are widely used in the selection of favorable genotypes especially when the interest lies in crossover GE interaction (Nassar and Huehn, 1987; Huehn, 1996; Mut etal., 2009). Although, it is demonstrated that the nonparametric procedures are less powerful than their parametric methods but Raiger and Prabhakaran (2000) have shown that when the number of genotypes is large, the power efficiency of the nonparametric statistics will be quite close to the parametric statistics. According to both GE interaction types, additive (non-crossover) and crossover (non-additive), several nonparametric tests based on ranks were proposed by different authors. These methods of Bredenkamp (1974), Hildebrand (1980) and Kubinger (1986) for testing of additive GE interaction and methods of de Kroon and van der Laan (1981) and, Azzalini and Cox (1984) for testing of crossover GE interaction were introduced. Also, several nonparametric stability statistics proposed by Huehn (1979), Kang (1988), Ketata et al. (1989), Fox et al. (1990), and Thennarasu (1995) which are identifying genotypes with similar ranking across environments as the most stable genotypes. Nassar and Huehn (1987) developed two distinct statistical tests as Z1 and Z2 for the two first nonparametric stability statistics of Huehn (1979) which known as ' and ! . The objectives of present study were to (1) test presence of GE interaction through different nonparametric tests, (2) interpret GE interaction via ranks obtained by nonparametric stability statistics of 18 lentil genotypes over twelve environments, (3) visually assess how to vary rank statistics versus yield performances based on the plot, (4) determine promising favorable genotype(s) with high mean yielding and good stability, and (5) investigate interrelationships among different nonparametric stability statistics in lentil dataset. 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1 Plant Material and Field Conditions The study included 18 lentil genotypes (16 new improved lines and 2 cultivars) that were grown in 4 different locations under rainfed conditions during the 2007-2009 growing seasons. The names of studied lentil genotypes are given in Table 1. Table 1. Geographical properties and mean yield of the 18 lentil genotypes, studied in 4 locations Code Location Altitude Longitude (meter) Latitude 55! ■■' 12! ■■■ E 37! ■■' 16! ■■■ N 47! ■■' 19! ■■■ E 34! ■■■ 20 ! ■■■ N 50! ■■■ 50 ! ■■■ E 30! ■■■ 20 ! ■■■ N 58! ■■■ 07 ! ■■■ E 37 ■■' 19! ■■■ N Soil Texture Rainfall Yield (mm) (kg ha"1) Gorgan Kermanshah Gachsaran Shirvan 45 1351 710 1131 Silty Clay Loam 367 767 Clay Loam 455 1923 Silty Clay Loam 460 1747 Loam 267 384 All trials were arranged in accordance with a randomized complete block design with 4 replicates. The experimental plots consisted of 4 rows, each 4 m in length with 25 cm row spacing. The planted plot size was 4 m2 and the harvested plot size was about two 3.5 m rows with 1.75 m2. All trials were fertilized with 20 kg of N ha-1 and 80 kg of P2O5 during sowing stage. Weeds were controlled by hand twice in the high weed density (pre-flowering and post-flowering stages). The test locations (Gorgan, Gachsaran, Kermanshah and Shirvan) were selected as sample of lentil growing areas of Iran and to vary in latitude, rainfall, soil types, temperature and other agro-climatic factors. Gorgan in the north-east of Iran is characterized by semi-arid conditions with sandy loam soil. Gachsaran, in southern Iran, is relatively arid and has silt loam soil. Kermanshah in the west of Iran is characterized by semi-arid conditions with clay loam soil. Gachsaran, in southern Iran, is relatively arid and has silt loam soil. Shirvan in the north-east of Iran is characterized by moderate conditions, relatively high rainfall and have clay loam soil. Some of the important properties and the location of the experimental environments are given in Table 2. Table 2: The name and yield (kg ha -) of 18 lentil genotypes studied in multi-environmental trials Code Name Type Yield Code Name Type Yield G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 FLIP 96-7L FLIP 92-12L FLIP 96-13L FLIP 96-8L FLIP 96-4L FLIP 96-14L ILL 5583 FLIP 96-9L ILL 6002 Line Line Line Line Line Line Line Line Line 1418.73 1365.64 1287.29 1272.07 1324.46 1096.53 1304.15 1191.14 1329.48 G10 G11 G12 G13 G14 G15 G16 G17 G18 ILL 6030 Gachsaran ILL 7523 ILL 6468 ILL 6206 ILL 62-12 FLIP 82-1L CABRALIA FLIP 92-15L Line Cultivar Line Line Line Line Line Cultivar Line 1187.98 1374.14 1334.75 1292.16 1401.88 1307.35 1272.40 1203.28 1314.63 2.2 Nonparametric Statistical Methods Conventional combined analysis of variance as well as nonparametric tests for presence of GE interaction was done. Three nonparametric tests including Bredenkamp (1974), Hildebrand (1980) and Kubinger (1986) procedures were applied for additive GE interaction and two nonparametric tests including de Kroon and van der Laan (1981) and Azzalini and Cox (1984) procedures were applied for crossover GE interaction. These nonparametric tests have been described in detail by Huehn and Leon (1995) and Truberg and Huehn (2000). For computing of the above mentioned statistics, a SAS-based computer program was used. Huehn (1979) developed six nonparametric stability statistics, which Kang and Pham (1991) and Kaya and Taner (2002) described only four s(1) S(2) S(3) S.6> and ' statistics. The two other nonparametric statistics are expressed as follows: XI r'J - ru\ s,(5) = ^- for k genotypes and n environments, the value of 7th genotype in jth environment is xtj, where i = 1,2,..., k , j = 1,2,..., n, Tj as the rank of the ith genotype in the jth environment, and rj as the mean rank across all environments for the ith genotype. Ketata et al. (1989) proposed plotting mean rank across environments against standard deviation of ranks for all genotypes (or) or plotting mean yield across environments against standard deviation of yields for all genotypes (omy )■ The formula for calculating both standard deviations are expressed as: X (rn -R)2 j=1_ n-1 X (r¡j - r,)2 s(4) =il j^l 1 X (rj -x-)2 j=1 n -1 Nonparametric stability statistics as Top, Mid and Low were introduced by Fox et al. (1990) as n n nonparametric superiority measure (NSM) using stratified ranking of the genotypes and their ranking was done at each environment separately and the number of environment at which the genotype occurred in the top, middle, and bottom third of the ranks was computed. Kang's (1988) rank-sum is another nonparametric stability statistics where both mean yield and Shukla's (1972) stability variance are used as selection criteria. Thennarasu (1995) proposed the use of the four nonparametric statistics based on the corrected ranks. In other word, the ranks of genotypes in each environment were determined according adjusted values (x* = xij - xi ). For calculation of these nonparametric stability statistics, SAS-based computer programs of Lu (1995) and Hussein et al. (2000) were used. 3 RESULTS The residuals mean squares were not correlated to environment mean yield (r = 0.12, P > 0.05) thus the data were not transformed. Variances homogeneity test via Bartlett procedure (x2 = 25.1, P < 0.05) showed that the mean squares of individual environments were homogeny and so the combine analysis of variance could be done. Analysis of variance was conducted to determine the effects of year, location, genotype, and their interactions on grain yield of lentil genotypes (Table 3). Table 3: Combined ANOVA of lentil performance trial yield data Source DF Mean Squares Year (Y) 2 8400774ns Location (L) 3 3962077ns YxL 6 ** 4579496 R (YxL) 36 38152 Genotype (G) 17 320003** YxG 34 80769 ns LxG 51 * 134137 YxLxG 102 ** 84021 Error 612 31713 Genotypes and locations were regarded as fixed effects, while years were regarded as random effects. The main effect of Y, L and Y * L were tested against the replication within environment (R/Y*L). The main effect of G was tested against the G * Y * L interaction and the G * Y * L interaction was tested against error term. The main effects of year (Y) and location (L) were not significant (P > 0.05), but their interactions (YL) were highly significant (P < 0.01). The main effect of genotypes was significant (P < 0.01), the genotype * year interaction (GY) was not significant (P > 0.05), the genotype * location interaction (GL) was significant (P > 0.05) and three way interactions (GYL) or GE were highly (P < 0.01) significant (Table 3). The GE interaction, which arising from the lack of genetic correlation among environments, must be used to understand in breeding program. Analyses of the quantitative traits like grain yield indicate important sources of genetic variation attributed to GE interactions (Gauch et al., 2008). The relative large contributions of GE interaction in grain yield of lentil which found in this study is similar to those found in other multi-environmental trials studies of lentil in rain-fed conditions (Mohebodini et al., 2006; Sabaghnia et al., 2008). Table 4: Analysis of GE interaction using different non-parametric tests on 18 durum lentil genotypes grown in 12 environments Nonparametric tests Nonparametric tests df Z2 P-value Additive Bredenkamp 187 894.05 0.00 < Hidebrand 187 364.21 0.00 < Kubinger 187 385.67 0.00 < Crossover de Kroon-van der Laan 187 368.46 0.00 < Azzalini-Cox 187 305.31 0.00 < The results of various nonparametric tests verified the results combined ANOVA. According to chi-squares statistics of Bredenkamp (1974), Hildebrand (1980) and Kubinger (1986) producers, the existence of additive (non-crossover) GE interaction; and based on de Kroon and van der Laan (1981) and Azzalini and Cox (1984) producers, the existence of crossover (nonadditive) GE interaction were demonstrated (Table 4). The high significance of GE interactions for lentil grain yield via combined ANOVA and five nonparametric tests indicated the genotypes exhibited both crossover and non-crossover types of GE interaction. In other word, results of nonparametric tests are in agreement with the ANOVA, but provide more specific information about the nature of GE interactions from additive and crossover aspects. Cooper and Byth (1996) explained that the large magnitude of GE interaction due to the more dissimilarity of the genetic systems controlling the physiological processes conferring adaptation to different environments. The values of the first two nonparametric stability S (!) S (2) statistics of Huehn (1979), ' and ' , indicated that genotype G18, followed by G5 and G11 were the most stable genotypes (Table 5). Nassar and Huehn (1987) and Flores et al. (1998) pointed out that the Sf"1 and S;(2) are associated with the static or biological concept of stability and define stability in the sense of homeostasis. However, the stability property alone is of limited use and for a successful genotype testing program, both stability and mean yield must be considered simultaneously. Graphic analysis of yield ... (Lens culinaris Medik.) genotypes using nonparametric statistics Table 5: Nonparametric stability statistics for grain yield of 18 lentil genotypes evaluated in 12 environments Sf(1) S<2) S<3) S (4) S! (5) s, (6) Top Mid Low RS NP(1) NP(1) NP? NPi(4) jr j my 25.00 16.67 16 5.42 1.806 0.919 0.525 5.67 420.82 33.33 8.33 9 5.21 1.157 0.743 0.385 4.76 401.19 25.00 41.67 21 4.54 0.454 0.527 0.290 4.80 375.57 41.67 33.33 25 4.04 0.385 0.434 0.320 5.33 376.62 66.67 0.00 9 3.96 0.396 0.388 0.259 3.89 391.36 25.00 75.00 22 4.46 0.262 0.282 0.087 2.53 319.74 50.00 25.00 24 4.21 0.411 0.478 0.300 4.90 379.45 33.33 58.33 23 3.71 0.239 0.335 0.179 4.31 345.34 33.33 25.00 24 6.04 0.863 0.615 0.414 5.95 392.23 25.00 58.33 33 5.63 0.388 0.516 0.268 5.83 347.71 58.33 0.00 9 3.63 0.483 0.533 0.339 3.80 399.98 33.33 25.00 13 4.58 0.509 0.506 0.310 4.68 391.93 41.67 33.33 14 3.88 0.456 0.406 0.284 4.60 378.08 50.00 0.00 15 4.88 0.750 0.792 0.330 3.52 415.54 41.67 25.00 19 4.71 0.523 0.534 0.325 5.05 387.68 58.33 16.67 25 3.71 0.371 0.416 0.284 4.75 375.91 8.33 50.00 32 6.96 0.535 0.549 0.333 6.42 358.98 50.00 8.33 9 2.88 0.338 0.435 0.254 3.52 385.67 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10 G11 G12 G13 G14 G15 G16 G17 G18 7.61 6.52 6.18 6.15 4.83 5.92 5.86 6.03 7.45 7.74 5.02 6.56 5.26 6.85 6.08 5.76 7.98 4.53 42.00 31.24 28.09 26.82 16.57 25.36 24.81 25.55 41.18 43.54 18.27 30.45 19.90 34.42 27.66 23.91 49.30 14.81 73.75 44.24 32.99 39.44 23.75 5.58 34.02 18.57 57.60 38.19 29.75 33.77 30.38 26.97 38.11 31.48 51.59 20.64 18.81 15.79 15.90 17.69 12.89 8.38 16.26 14.29 19.74 19.35 12.60 15.52 15.26 11.69 16.75 15.74 21.31 11.67 4.83 4.30 3.99 4.58 3.29 2.00 4.04 3.63 5.03 4.83 3.22 3.92 3.85 2.83 4.29 3.56 5.83 2.92 12.08 9.16 6.24 6.93 5.64 1.90 6.24 3.95 8.93 5.92 7.25 6.59 6.02 6.71 6.99 5.42 7.95 5.30 58.33 58.33 33.33 25.00 33.33 0.00 25.00 8.33 41.67 16.67 41.67 41.67 25.00 50.00 33.33 25.00 41.67 41.67 G!7 <110 * at Oi au oia o: V «« V «11 OH ao * ail C17 oje 91 V 04 ail 01»01 • aii at 0« OS S" ait ou at 419 04 01 cu 014 02 «• ai« V t" sir 01 G. V « <"• «to <34 « «5* at 01» * oti® Figure 1: Plot of the mean yield versus Huehn's (1979) nonparametric stability statistics (A) s^, (B) S^ , (C) s^ (D) sP, (E) S(5) and (F) s<6). Figure 1A represents plot portrayed by mean yield values and s,(1) nonparametric stability statistic. This figure is divided by grand mean yield and average s,(1) values into four sections. Therefore studied lentil genotypes are classified as Group I, with stable low yield characteristics; Group II, with high yield stable genotypes; Group III, with unstable low yield properties; Group IV, with unstable high yielding genotypes (Table 6). Among these groups, only Group II is acceptable for recommending as the most favorable genotypes which are consist on G3, G4, G5, G7, G11, G13, G15, G16 and G18 (Table 6). According to Figure 1A, genotypes G2, G3, G4, G5, G7, G11, G12, G13, G15, G16 and G18 were identified as the most stable genotypes regarding both mean yield and S(2) nonparametric stability statistic. Table 6: Grouping of 18 lentil genotypes based on mean yield and nonparametric stability statistics Group I Group II Group III Group IV sf) G6, G7 Remained genotypes G10, G17 G1, G2, G9, G12, G14 sf G6, G8 Remained genotypes G10, G17 G1, G9, G14 s« G6, G8, G10 Remained genotypes G17 G1, G2, G9 S(4) G6 G5, G11, G14, G18 G8, G10, G17 Remained genotypes S(5) G6, G8 G5, G11, G14, G16, G18 G10, G17 Remained genotypes s^ G6, G8, G10 Remained genotypes G17 G1, G2, G9, G11 NP,(1) G6, G8 Remained genotypes G10, G17 G1, G2, G9 NP (2) G6, G8, G10, G17 Remained genotypes — G1, G2 Np3) G6, G8, G10, G17 Remained genotypes — G1, G2, G9, G14 np(4) G6, G8, G10 G3, G5, G13, G16, G18 G17 Remained genotypes G6, G8 G5, G11, G14, G18 G10, G17 Remained genotypes ^'my G6, G8, G10, G17 — — Remained genotypes RS G5, G12, G13, G18 G2, G11, G14 — G1, G9, G12 NSM G17 Remained genotypes G6, G8, G10 G3, G4, G7, G13, G16 Group I, Stable and low yield; Unstable and high yield Group II, Stable and high yield; Group III, Unstable and low yield; Group IV, According to S( ) and S( ) nonparametric statistics, genotypes G6, G8 and G18 were the most stable genotypes while based on S^ and S i(5) nonparametric statistics, genotypes G6, G14 and G18 were the most stable genotypes (Table 5). Kang and Pham (1991) found that the S(3) and S(6) nonparametric statistics would be useful tools for selecting simultaneously for yield and yield stability while Ebadi-Segherloo et al. (2008) pointed out that the S(4) and S(5) nonparametric statistics were similar to the Si(1) and Si(2) statistics, and explore GE interaction with the biological concept of stability. Figure 1C showed that all genotypes expect G1, G2, G6, G8, G9, G10 and G17 were the most favorable genotypes based on s,(3) and mean yield. According to Fig. 1D, genotypes G5, G11, G14 and G18 and according to Fig. 1E, genotypes G5, G11, G14, G16 and G18 were identified as the favorable genotypes with high mean yield and stability. Also, Figure 1F indicated that all genotypes expect G1, G2, G6, G8, G9, G10, G11 and G17 were the most favorable genotypes based on S(6) and mean yield. Finally, according to the most of the nonparametric stability statistics of Huehn (1979), genotypes G5, G6 and G18 were the most stable genotypes while based on the related figures and considering mean yield, genotypes G5, G11, G14, G15, G16 and G18 were the most favorable genotypes. It seems that using graphic presentation of the nonparametric statistics of Huehn (1979) which usually reflect static concept of stability could aid in detecting the most favorable genotypes with high mean yield and stability. Thus, genotypes G11 and G14 following to genotypes G5, G15 and G14 are recommended as the most favorable genotypes. The nonparametric statistic NPi(1) showed that genotypes G8, G11, G16 and G18 were the most stable genotypes while based on the nonparametric statistic NPi (2), genotypes G6, G8, G16 and G18 were the most stable genotypes (Table 5). Many lentil genotypes (except G1, G2, G6, G8, G9, G10 and G17) were grouped in Group II and the most favorable genotypes considering NPi(1) and mean yield (Figure 2A). Relatively, similar results were observed in Fig. 2B which identified the most favorable genotypes based on NPt (2) and mean yield. According to the nonparametric statistic NPi(3), genotypes G5, G6 and G8 were identified the most stable genotypes while the nonparametric statistic NPt (4) indicated genotypes G6, G8 and G18 as the most stable genotypes (Table 5). Regarding mean yield and NPt (3) (Figure 2C), all genotypes except G1, G2, G6, G8, G9, G10, G14 and G17 were as the most favorable genotypes while considering NPi(4) and mean yield (Figure 2D), genotypes G3, G5, G13, G16 and G18 were detected as the most favorable genotypes. 01 G2 017 <« G8 G8 OH 013G3G25 C11 G4 «07 Qi 4 *G1ft 1250 F.ltin YHU G1 GU GS 09 017 G10 * GB 06 03 019 G11 ♦ * G12 G7 * G17 Q1 G9 02 - * * 010 GS 06 Off 1150 Main Ti»: Figure. 2: Plot of the mean yield versus Thennarasu's (1995) nonparametric stability statistics (A) NP^, NPt (2), (C) NPt (3) and (D) NPt (4) (B) According to