IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v14y2024i9p1591-d1477047.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Genotype by Environment Interaction (GEI) Effect for Potato Tuber Yield and Their Quality Traits in Organic Multi-Environment Domains in Poland

Author

Listed:
  • Beata Ewa Tatarowska

    (Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute—National Research Institute in Radzików, Młochów Division, Department of Potato Genetics and Parental Lines, Platanowa Str. 19, 05-831 Młochów, Poland)

  • Jarosław Plich

    (Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute—National Research Institute in Radzików, Młochów Division, Department of Potato Genetics and Parental Lines, Platanowa Str. 19, 05-831 Młochów, Poland)

  • Dorota Milczarek

    (Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute—National Research Institute in Radzików, Młochów Division, Department of Potato Genetics and Parental Lines, Platanowa Str. 19, 05-831 Młochów, Poland)

  • Dominika Boguszewska-Mańkowska

    (Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute—National Research Institute in Radzików, Jadwisin Division, Department of Potato Agronomy, Szaniawskiego Str. 15, 05-140 Serock, Poland)

  • Krystyna Zarzyńska

    (Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute—National Research Institute in Radzików, Jadwisin Division, Department of Potato Agronomy, Szaniawskiego Str. 15, 05-140 Serock, Poland)

Abstract

Potatoes ( Solanum tuberosum L.) are an important plant crop, whose yield may vary significantly depending on pedo-climatic conditions and genotype. Therefore, the analysis of the genotype × environment interaction (GEI) is mandatory for the setup of high-yielding and stable potato genotypes. This research evaluated the tuber yield (t ha −1 ) and yield characteristic of nine potato cultivars over 3 years and 4 organic farms in Poland by additive main effects and multiplicative interactions (AMMIs) and genotype plus genotype environment interaction (GGE) biplot analyses. The results of these analyses indicated significant differentiation of tuber yield among genotypes in individual environments. It was found that the environment (E, where E = L (localization) × Y (year)), genotype (G) and GEI, but not replication, significantly affected tuber yield. The AMMI analysis showed that the environment factor explained the most considerable part of tuber yield variations (52.3%), while the GEI and G factors explained a much lower part of the variations. The AMMI and GGE analyses identified five cvs.: Twister (46.4 t ha −1 ), Alouette (35.8 t ha −1 ), Kokra (34.8 t ha −1 ), Levante (33.1 t ha −1 ), and Gardena (30.4 t ha −1 ), as leading cultivars in the studied organic farms due to their high productivity coupled with yield stability. The statistical measure Kang ( YS i ) showed that these cvs. can be considered as adaptable to a wide range of organic environments. In the case of morphological traits of tubers (tuber shape and depth of tuber eyes), the most important factor influencing both these traits was genotype (G). Influence of other factors, like localization (L), year (Y), and all interactions (double and triple), were much less significant or insignificant. In case of taste and non-darkening of tuber flesh, the main effects which significantly affected the values of these traits were genotype (G) and localization (L). We observed that cooking type can vary depending on the year (Y) and the localization (L).

Suggested Citation

  • Beata Ewa Tatarowska & Jarosław Plich & Dorota Milczarek & Dominika Boguszewska-Mańkowska & Krystyna Zarzyńska, 2024. "Genotype by Environment Interaction (GEI) Effect for Potato Tuber Yield and Their Quality Traits in Organic Multi-Environment Domains in Poland," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-13, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:9:p:1591-:d:1477047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/9/1591/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/9/1591/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krystyna Zarzyńska & Cezary Trawczyński & Milena Pietraszko, 2023. "Environmental and Agronomical Factors Limiting Differences in Potato Yielding between Organic and Conventional Production System," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Verena Seufert & Navin Ramankutty & Jonathan A. Foley, 2012. "Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture," Nature, Nature, vol. 485(7397), pages 229-232, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Movedi, Ermes & Valiante, Daniele & Colosio, Alessandro & Corengia, Luca & Cossa, Stefano & Confalonieri, Roberto, 2022. "A new approach for modeling crop-weed interaction targeting management support in operational contexts: A case study on the rice weeds barnyardgrass and red rice," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 463(C).
    3. Wang, Linlin & Li, Qiang & Coulter, Jeffrey A. & Xie, Junhong & Luo, Zhuzhu & Zhang, Renzhi & Deng, Xiping & Li, Linglin, 2020. "Winter wheat yield and water use efficiency response to organic fertilization in northern China: A meta-analysis," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    4. Lucia Mancini, 2013. "Conventional, Organic and Polycultural Farming Practices: Material Intensity of Italian Crops and Foodstuffs," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-23, December.
    5. Daniel P. Roberts & Autar K. Mattoo, 2018. "Sustainable Agriculture—Enhancing Environmental Benefits, Food Nutritional Quality and Building Crop Resilience to Abiotic and Biotic Stresses," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    6. Atanu Mukherjee & Emmanuel C. Omondi & Paul R. Hepperly & Rita Seidel & Wade P. Heller, 2020. "Impacts of Organic and Conventional Management on the Nutritional Level of Vegetables," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-25, October.
    7. Seck, Abdoulaye & Thiam, Djiby Racine, 2022. "Understanding consumer attitudes to and valuation of organic food in Sub-Saharan Africa: A double-bound contingent method applied in Dakar, Senegal," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(1), March.
    8. Schindele, Stephan & Trommsdorff, Maximilian & Schlaak, Albert & Obergfell, Tabea & Bopp, Georg & Reise, Christian & Braun, Christian & Weselek, Axel & Bauerle, Andrea & Högy, Petra & Goetzberger, Ado, 2020. "Implementation of agrophotovoltaics: Techno-economic analysis of the price-performance ratio and its policy implications," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    9. Sadowski, Arkadiusz & Wojcieszak-Zbierska, Monika Małgorzata & Zmyślona, Jagoda, 2024. "Agricultural production in the least developed countries and its impact on emission of greenhouse gases – An energy approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    10. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Lusk, Jayson & Magnier, Alexandre, 2018. "The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 38-50.
    11. Janet MacFall & Joanna Lelekacs & Todd LeVasseur & Steve Moore & Jennifer Walker, 2015. "Toward resilient food systems through increased agricultural diversity and local sourcing in the Carolinas," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(4), pages 608-622, December.
    12. Nesar Ahmed & Shirley Thompson & Giovanni M. Turchini, 2020. "Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and food security: insights from organic agriculture," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(6), pages 1253-1267, December.
    13. SIngh Verma, Juhee & Sharma, Pritee, 2019. "Potential of Organic Farming to Mitigate Climate Change and Increase Small Farmers’ Welfare," MPRA Paper 99994, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Felizitas Winkhart & Thomas Mösl & Harald Schmid & Kurt-Jürgen Hülsbergen, 2022. "Effects of Organic Maize Cropping Systems on Nitrogen Balances and Nitrous Oxide Emissions," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-30, June.
    15. Delate, Kathleen & Cambardella, Cynthia & Chase, Craig & Turnbull, Robert, 2015. "A Review of Long-Term Organic Comparison Trials in the U.S," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 4(3 Special).
    16. Kalle Margus & Viacheslav Eremeev & Evelin Loit & Eve Runno-Paurson & Erkki Mäeorg & Anne Luik & Liina Talgre, 2022. "Impact of Farming System on Potato Yield and Tuber Quality in Northern Baltic Sea Climate Conditions," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12, April.
    17. Malard, Julien J & Adamowski, Jan Franklin & Rojas Díaz, Marcela & Nassar, Jessica Bou & Anandaraja, Nallusamy & Tuy, Héctor & Arévalo-Rodriguez, Luís Andrés & Melgar-Quiñonez, Hugo Ramiro, 2020. "Agroecological food web modelling to evaluate and design organic and conventional agricultural systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 421(C).
    18. de la Cruz, Vera Ysabel V. & Tantriani, & Cheng, Weiguo & Tawaraya, Keitaro, 2023. "Yield gap between organic and conventional farming systems across climate types and sub-types: A meta-analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    19. Bang, Rasmus & Hansen, Bjørn Gunnar & Guajardo, Mario & Sommerseth, Jon Kristian & Flaten, Ola & Asheim, Leif Jarle, 2024. "Conventional or organic cattle farming? Trade-offs between crop yield, livestock capacity, organic premiums, and government payments," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    20. Maurer, Rainer, 2023. "Comparing the effect of different agricultural land-use systems on biodiversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:9:p:1591-:d:1477047. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.