See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/367968779

Morphological characterization and evaluation of soybean genotypes under

rainfed ecosystem of Nepal

Article in Journal of Agriculture and Food Research · February 2023

DOI: 10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100526

CITATIONS READS

0 122

6 authors, including:

Madhav Prasad Pandey Krishna Hari Dhakal

60 PUBLICATIONS 502 CITATIONS

Agriculture and Forestry University
20 PUBLICATIONS 68 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Bishnu Kandel
Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science
46 PUBLICATIONS 193 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Evaluation and Characterization of Biofortified Spring Wheat Genotypes in Bara, Nepal View project

Variation of seed oil and fatty acid in different genotypes of Soybean View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bishnu Kandel on 03 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100526

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Agriculture and Food Research

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-agriculture-and-food-research

Morphological characterization and evaluation of soybean genotypes under

rainfed ecosystem of Nepal
Pratiksha Shrestha a, *, Madhav Prasad Pandey a, Krishna Hari Dhakal a, Surya Kant Ghimire a,
Surya Bahadur Thapa b, Bishnu Prasad Kandel c
a
Agriculture and Forestry University, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal
b
Collage of Natural Resource Management, Pakhribas, Dhankuta, Nepal
c
Purwanchal Agriculture Campus, Jhapa, Nepal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Morphological description of soybean genotypes useful in soybean improvement program. The objective of this
Soybean accession research was to identify genotypes with high grain yield and desirable agronomic traits as well as stability across
Stability analysis environments. A set of 25 soybean genotypes were used to evaluate under alpha lattice design with two repli­
AMMI model
cations at research farm of National Oilseed Research Program, Nawalpur, Sarlahi; National Grain Legumes
G x E interaction etc
Research Program Khajura, Banke, and Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science, Sundarbazar, Lamjung
during July to November of 2018. Result showed that soybean accessions exhibited morphological variation in
qualitative traits. The soybean landrace Kailali-3 had a significantly higher grain yield (1.7 ton ha-1). The result
of GGE biplots indicated Kavre, Kailali-3 and Lekali Bhatta as the most stable genotypes in all environments. CO
164 was the highest-yielding genotype with above mean average yield at all tested environments. On the other
hand, additive main-effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) Analysis revealed Chitwan-9 and Palpa white
as the most stable due to the low IPC1 scores and moderate mean yield.

1. Introduction Research on several aspects of legume crops, including soybean, is

Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill] is an important global legume
crop that grows in the tropical, subtropical and temperate climates.
Soybean seed is referred to the “protein hope” of the future, because of
its high nutritive value, containing about 42–45% protein [1,2]. Due to
its various uses it is rightly called as “Golden gift of nature to mankind”.
The average area under soybean in the world is 121.53 million ha, yield
was 2.76 ton ha-1 and production 334.89 million tons around the globe
[3]. The largest areas in the world were in the Americas, followed by
Asia, Europe and Africa. In Nepal, it is grown in 22507 ha with pro­
duction and productivity of 28335 ton and 1.25 ton ha-1 respectively
[4]. Soybean is becoming popular as a sole crop or on the rice bunds in
terai and inner terai of Nepal due to the high demand of the soya meal in
poultry industry. Soy meal alone accounts for over 60% of the world
output of vegetable and animal meals and occupies a prominent position
among protein feed stuffs used in the production of feed concentrates,
while soybean oil is the most important vegetable oil with various health
benefits [5].
conducted by the National Grain Legume Research Program (NGLRP),
Khajura, Banke. NGLRP has so far produced seven different soybean
cultivars. Since there aren’t many varieties suitable for general culti­
vation. Crop development initiatives must characterize and assess local
landraces in addition to other accessible germplasm. Numerous land­
races that can be exploited in breeding programs need to be defined.
Wide genetic diversity of Nepalese soybean germplasm has not been
utilized in breeding soybean in Nepal; the exploitation of local germ­
plasm, improvement in production practices for increased yields and
establishment of processing industries are needed. Varietal evaluation in
different location helps to identifies stable varieties. Different genotypes
perform differently on different environments so G x E interaction helps
to finds out specific adaptability and general adaptability of genotypes.
Present research was carried out to characterized the soybean genotypes
and evaluated in different locations and find out the stable and high
yielding soybean genotypes.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pratikshashrestha123@gmail.com (P. Shrestha).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100526
Received 20 August 2022; Received in revised form 21 January 2023; Accepted 31 January 2023
Available online 1 February 2023
2666-1543/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
P. Shrestha et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100526

2. Materials and methods Table 1

List of the soybean accessions used in experiment.
2.1. Research locations and climatic conditions S.N. Accession Name Accession type Source

1 200525 Rampur Landraces NARC

Three different environments (two rainfed terai i.e., NGLRP, Kha­ 2 Chitwan -9 landraces Chitwan
jura, Banke and National Oilseed Research Program (NORP), Nawalpur, 3 CO-163 Pipeline variety NARC
Sarlahi and one in midhill i.e., Institute of Agriculture and Animal Sci­ 4 CO-17 Pipeline variety NARC
ence (IAAS), Sundarbazar, Lamjung) during rainy season of 2018. 5 CO-164 Pipeline variety NARC
6 CO 2017 Pipeline variety NARC
Khajura is located (Latitude 28◦ 61’N and Longitude 81◦ 37’E) in the far 7 Coll 5 sivre Landraces NARC
western part of Nepal with altitude of 181 masl and dominated by sub- 8 Dadeldhura Kalo Landraces NARC
tropical climatically condition, also the hottest place of Nepal. More­ 9 G 757 Pipeline variety NARC
over, Lamjung is located (Latitude 28◦ 13’N and Longitude 84◦ 42’E) 10 G 4508 Pipeline variety NARC
11 G 757 Pipeline variety NARC
with 725 masl. Similarly, Nawalpur is located (Latitude 27◦ 4’N and
12 G 8514 Pipeline variety NARC
Longitude 84◦ 56’E) with 75 masl. Average maximum and minimum 13 G 1871 Pipeline variety NARC
temperature and precipitation of three different sites (Lamjung, 14 IARS-87-1 Promising line NARC
Nawalpur and Khajura) were presented in fig. (1). 15 Ipbsy Pipeline variety NARC
16 Kailali 3 Landraces Kailali
17 Kavre Landraces Kavre
18 Lekali Bhatta Landraces Baglung
2.2. Genetic materials 19 LS-17-16-16 Promising line NARC
20 Maili Bhatta Landraces Parbat, Beni
Eleven landraces were collected from different parts of Nepal, eight 21 Palpa White Landraces Palpa
22 Palpa Green Landraces Palpa
pipeline varieties and two promising lines from Nepal Agriculture
23 Pujaa Released variety NARC
Research Centre (NARC) and released variety Puja used as standard 24 Sindhuli Khairo Landracs Sindhuli
check for these experiments presented on Table (1). We used number to 25 V8 Pipeline variety NARC
the accessions for analyzed figures such as GG biplot and AMMI. a
Standard check.

2.3. Experimental details 2.4. Data collection and analysis

The research was laid out in alpha lattice design experiment where
total twenty-five treatments were replicated into two replications during
rainy season of 2018. The size of each plot is 4 m2 (2 m and 2 m) with
four rows in a plot. Plot consisting twenty plant population in one row
where the spacing of 50 cm and 10 cm were maintained for row to row
and plant to plant respectively. Two seeds per hill were sown at the
depth of 4–5 cm. The seed rate varies with seed size and season. It is 60
kg ha-1 in summer (rainy season planting). Number of plants maintained
in each plot of size of 2 × 2 m2 was 80. The applied dose of the fertilizer
was 20:40:20 kg NPK ha-1.
Morphological traits were characterized on the basis of descriptors of
International Board for Plant Genetic Resource (IBPGR) [6]. Data on
phenological traits, growth traits and yield and yield related traits were
collected. All collected data was recorded and analyzed using computer
software Microsoft excel (Excel, 2016), META-R (Multi Environment
Trail Analysis with R for Windows) Version 6.04 and statistical programs
MINITAB 17.

Fig. 1. Climatic details of research site during rainy season of 2018. Figure (a) represent Lamjung, (b) for Nawalpur and c for Khajura respectively.

2
P. Shrestha et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100526

2.5. G*E interaction and stability analysis
Stability was also assessed using the GGE biplot and AMMI from
software GEA-R (Genotype x Environment Analysis with R for
Windows) Version 4.1, which analyzes the stability of genotypes
associated with their mean yield. Two stability models, Additive Main
effects and Multipli-cative Interaction (AMMI) [7] and Site Regression
model (commonly known as GGE Biplot) [8] were used to visualize the
GEI patterns and to understand the interrelationships among various test
locations.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Morphological characterization based on qualitative traits
Soybean accession that used for this study showed a morphological
variation on qualitative traits was presented in Tables (2 and 3). Among
the tested genotypes, 16 soybean had purple hypocotyls colors and eight
had green hypocotyls color. Moreover, six genotypes had poor seedling
vigor, 10 were medium and nine had vigorous type of emergence. The
observed leaflets size was of three types: broad, narrow and intermedi­
ate type of which twelve were found to have broad leaves, six with in­
termediate and seven were found to have narrow leaves of which twelve
had ovate shape, seven had lanceolate type of shape and remaining six
had intermediate type of shape (neither ovate nor lanceolate). There was
also variation in pubescence density. The pubescence density observed
was normal for 11 genotypes, dense for five genotypes, semi-sparse for
five genotypes and sparse for four genotypes with twelve genotypes
having grey pubescence, six having light brown and seven having brown
pubescence color. Among the 25 genotypes, seventeen flowers found
were of purple colored and eight of them were white colored and all the
genotypes had pubescence on pod. Among the soybean genotypes the
hilum color observed were four, ten, four, four, and three for black,
brown, buff, grey and imperfect black respectively. None of the acces­
sions had strophiole at the hilum. Ten genotypes had determinate type of
growth habit, six had semi type and the remaining nine had indeter­
minate type of growth habit. Fourteen genotypes had erect type of
pubescence, ten had semi appressed type of pubescence and one had
appressed type of pubescence. Moreover, looking forward for the seed,
ten genotypes had yellowish white type of seed coat color, six genotypes
had yellow coat color, six genotypes had green coat color and two had
reddish brown type of coat color and only one genotype had black coat
color. Among genotypes studied, shiny, intermediate and dull seed coat
surface lusture were found in nine, twelve and fourteen genotypes
respectively. Variations in these traits were brought about by the genetic
makeup of various cowpea accession. According to Nkhoma et al. [9],
soybeans come in three different blossom color classifications. The
soybean has both determinate and indeterminate growth habits.
Semi-determinate kinds have stems that are indeterminate and abruptly
stop growing vegetatively after the flowering season. Determinate,
indeterminate, and semi-determinate types of growth habits were seen
in our investigation. Indeterminate cowpea varieties reportedly had
increased yield because of their delayed maturity and photosynthetic
efficiency, according to da Silva et al. [10] and Nkhoma et al. [9].ned
higher productivity due to their prolonged maturity and photosynthesis
efficiency.
3.2. Pooled analysis
3.2.1. Agro-morphological and yield attributes
There were highly significant differences among the soybean geno­
types in regards to flowering traits, growth traits and yield and yield
attributing traits shown in Table 4. Generally, all tested genotypes
exhibited highly significant differences among the studied characters
and across the tested environments which indicated differences in the
genetic makeup of the materials used. This finding is in agreement with
that of Nkhoma et al. [9] who also found that soybean genotypes
differed significantly for yield component traits. Similarly, Iqbal et al.
[11] revealed significant differences among different soybean genotypes
for all the traits studied. All tested characters performed differently
when tested at one site and another, and even when the results from all
sites were pooled, significant differences were noted in almost all traits,
implying that there were high GxE interactions. Table (5) showed high
yielding six landraces and advance lines. Kailali-3 was recorded as high

Table 2
Morphological characterization based on qualitative traits.
Genotypes Hypocotyl Leaflet Petiole Stem Leaflet shape Pubescence Pubescence Pubescence Pubescence
color size presence determination density color type

G1871 Purple Small Present Indeterminate Ovate Present Normal Grey Erect
V8 Purple Medium Present Determinate Ovate Present Dense Light brown Erect
IARS87-1 Green Medium Present Determinate Lanceolate Present Sparse Light brown Erect
LS-17-16-16 Purple Small Present Determinate Intermediate Present Normal Grey Semiappresed
CO 17 Purple Small Present Indeterminate Lanceolate Present Dense Light brown Apprised
Kailali-3 Purple Medium Present Indeterminate Lanceolate Present Sparse Brown Erect
G 8514 Purple Medium Present Indeterminate Ovate Present Normal Grey Erect
Sindhuli Purple Small Present Semi-determinate Intermediate Present Normal Light brown Semiappresed
Khairo
COLL 5 Sivre Green Medium Present Determinate Ovate Present Dense Brown Erect
CO 2017 Purple Medium Present Indeterminate Ovate Present Dense Grey Semiappresed
G 4508 Purple Small Present Determinate Lanceolate Present Normal Grey Erect
CO 164 Purple Small Present Semi-determinate Lanceolate Present Normal Grey Semiappresed
Lpbsy 178 Purple Medium Present Semi-determinate Intermediate Present Normal Grey Semiappresed
Kavre Purple Small Present semi-determinate Lanceolate Present Normal Brown Erect
CO 163 Green Medium Present Determinate Ovate Present Normal Brown Erect
Mailibhatta Purple Small Present Determinate Ovate Present Semisparse Light brown Semiappresed
LekaliBhatta Green Medium Present Determinate Ovate Present Sparse Grey Erect
Palpa green Purple Medium Present Determinate Ovate Present Normal Grey Erect
Chitwan-9 Green Medium Present Semi-determinate Ovate Present Semisparse Light brown Semiappresed
Dadeldhura Purple Medium Present Indeterminate Intermediate Present Sparse Brown Erect
Kalo
G-758 Purple Medium Present Indeterminate Ovate Present Normal Brown Erect
200525 Purple Medium Present Determinate Ovate Present Dense Brown Semiappresed
Rampur
Palpa white Green Small Present Semi-determinate Intermediate Present Semisparse Light brown Semiappresed
G 757 Green Medium Present Determinate Lanceolate Present Semisparse Grey Semiappresed
Puja Green Small Present Indeterminate Intermediate Present Dense Light brown Erect

3
P. Shrestha et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100526

Table 3
Morphological characterization based on qualitative traits.
Genotypes Flower Pod Pod Foliage Hilum colour Seed coat Seed coat Seed coat surface Strophioleat
colour colour pubescence colour colour pattern lusture hilum

G1871 Purple Green Present Dark green Black Yellowish Dark Shiny Absent
white
V8 Purple Brown Present Med green Brown Reddish Dark Dull Absent
brown
IARS87-1 White Grey Present Light green Black Yellow Dark Shiny Absent
LS-17-16-16 Purple Light Present Medium Grey Yellowish Light Intermediate Absent
brown green green
CO-17 Purple Grey Present Green Buff Yellowish Dark Dull Absent
green
Kailali-3 Purple Grey Present Medium Black Black Dark Dull Absent
green
G 8514 White Light Present Light green Brown Yellow Dark Shiny Absent
brown
Sindhuli Purple Grey Present Dark green Brown Reddish Light Dull Absent
Khairo brown
COLL 5 Sivre White Light Present Green Buff Yellow Dark Shiny Absent
brown
CO 2017 White Green Present Medium Grey Yellowish Light Intermediate Absent
green white
G 4508 Purple Light Present Light green Black Yellowish Darkest Shiny Absent
brown green
CO 164 Purple Light Present Light green Buff Yellowish Light Intermediate Absent
brown green
Lpbsy 178 White Brown Present Green Brown Whitish Dark Intermediate Absent
yellow
Kavre Purple Brown Present Green Brown Yellowish Light Intermediate Absent
white
CO 163 White Grey Present Light green Brown Yellowish Dark Shiny Absent
white
MailiBhatta White Light Present Green Brown Yellow Light Intermediate Absent
brown
LekaliBhatta Purple Light Present Dark green light brown Yellowish Light Intermediate Absent
brown white
Palpa green White Light Present Dark green Other Green Light Shiny Absent
brown
Chitwan-9 White Brown Present Light green Brown Yellowish Light Intermediate Absent
white
Dadeldhura White Light Present Dark green Brown Black Dark Intermediate Absent
Kalo brown
G 758 Purple Light Present Light green Imperfect Yellow Dark Intermediate Absent
brown black
200525 White Grey Present Light green Imperfect Yellowish Dark Shiny Absent
Rampur black white
Palpa white Purple Light Present Dark green Grey Yellowish Light Intermediate Absent
brown white
G 757 White Light Present Medium Brown Yellowish Dark Intermediate Absent
brown green white
Puja White Brown Present Dark green Imperfect Yellow Dark Shiny Absent
black

yielding landraces whereas G 1871 is high yielding promising line.
3.3. GGE biplots and AMMI biplot
Figure (2) shows that genotypes 6 and 5 were the most yielding.
Landrace Kavre [17] demonstrated the lowest yield and adapted to the
three test environments. In contrast, genotypes 2,21,15 and 25 were
stable genotypes as they were located almost near on the AEC abscissa.
Yang et al. [12] emphasizes that the greater the genotype projection in
the AEC ordinate axis, the greater the genotype instability, representing
a greater interaction with the environments. Puja was the least stable
genotypes with above average mean performance. Lekali Bhatta was
found to be least yielding but stable in all the environments, it may be
less desirable to the farmers. Stability alone is not meaningful if the
mean yield of the genotypes is not considered. Therefore, the desirable
genotype should combine stability with high mean yield [13]. If only the
mean yield is used, it would be difficult to identify the best genotypes in
terms of high yielding potential and stability. Genotypes 6(CO2017) and
5(CO164) were slightly projected from the center of concentric circles
than other causing unstable in all environments. These highly projected
genotypes were found to be the poorest and unstable [14,15]. Although
these accessions had high grain yield than the average mean yield. The
genotypes located near to ideal genotype were also highly productive
and stable [15–17]. The accessions 2(Chitwan 9) and 21(palpa white)
were found to be positively and moderately correlated with most
favorable.This makes the GGE biplot a powerful tool in identifying su­
perior genotypes.
In the which-won-where view of the GGE biplot (Fig. 3). The vertex
accessions were 5, 17, 20 and 6. Specifically, accession 5 i.e., CO 164
was the highest yielding cultivar environment 2 i.e., Lamjung and all
environments followed by genotype 6 i.e., CO 2017 which has high
performance in other two environments. Different winning genotypes in
different environments were also reported by Bhartiya et al. [18] and
Vaezi et al. [19]. The polygon vertices are markers for highly projected
genotypes indicating specific adaptability [20,21]. Genotypes 5, 9, 1,
and 6 have high adaptability than others. Similarly, genotypes 25,13,17,
23,20 were the poorest that lied in opposite side of the vectors of all
environments; not performed at all testing sites. On the other hand, the

4
P. Shrestha et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100526

Table 4
ANOVA and overall agronomical performance of twenty-five soybean genotypes in all environments.
Genotype DE DF NN MD PH RL RNN PPP SPP GY SW

200525 Rampur 5.73 49.03 9.58 99.96 58.69 9.91 4.69 72.47 2.22 1.264 8.97
Chitwan-9 5.45 51.72 9.89 97.89 56.22 10.53 2.23 87.37 2.48 1.491 9.21
CO 163 5.59 47.38 9.57 99.62 58.59 10.37 1.24 87.75 2.14 1.356 9.15
CO 17 6.72 51.26 10.64 102.04 66.37 9.91 1.65 96.13 2.28 1.685 8.95
CO 164 6.16 48.20 8.88 97.23 50.66 9.00 1.54 69.36 2.15 1.168 9.08
CO 2017 6.44 47.85 10.28 100.39 62.64 10.20 7.49 75.72 2.29 1.211 8.84
COLL 5 Sivre 6.44 51.61 10.18 99.20 60.77 10.72 6.09 100.84 2.29 1.699 9.21
Dadeldhurakalo 5.31 48.09 10.10 100.72 63.92 9.73 1.78 75.91 2.17 1.163 9.44
G 758 7.01 51.37 9.59 102.50 65.25 9.80 2.52 79.35 2.22 1.384 8.97
G 4508 5.59 50.55 10.97 102.31 61.09 10.63 3.46 88.41 2.29 1.401 9.00
G 757 5.87 52.90 11.85 102.95 63.86 11.16 1.52 92.15 2.28 1.591 9.05
G 8514 6.72 52.78 10.11 104.12 66.35 9.95 1.64 102.23 2.27 1.596 9.21
G1871 6.30 56.07 10.55 105.78 57.94 10.19 8.49 99.72 2.35 1.688 9.47
IARS87-1 6.16 49.03 9.08 101.00 50.92 9.04 1.90 78.13 2.47 1.254 9.47
Ipbsy 178 6.58 49.26 9.26 97.38 63.00 10.55 2.36 64.95 2.14 1.093 8.63
Kailali-3 6.30 51.96 12.30 105.17 66.55 11.77 2.72 88.72 2.47 1.741 8.76
Kavre 6.72 54.54 10.68 115.89 69.89 8.87 2.84 94.22 2.22 1.538 8.78
LekaliBhatta 5.73 51.26 7.92 102.81 58.22 10.58 3.03 57.36 2.14 0.831 8.32
LS-17-16-16 5.73 45.86 9.52 96.22 44.72 9.80 1.62 77.29 2.16 1.187 9.18
MailiBhatta 7.01 47.97 8.42 98.18 57.17 9.16 0.93 72.06 2.37 1.040 8.84
Palpa white 5.59 49.14 10.05 97.43 51.26 10.89 1.25 74.31 2.15 1.131 9.27
Palpa green 5.31 48.32 9.69 99.38 54.24 8.89 1.35 67.87 2.15 1.049 9.36
Puja 5.17 46.68 10.14 98.77 57.57 9.92 2.63 86.61 2.14 1.359 9.57
Sindhulikhairo 5.87 46.68 9.06 98.30 54.35 10.68 1.52 63.57 2.25 1.073 9.36
V8 7.01 47.50 9.53 98.91 54.58 8.59 7.34 89.80 2.31 1.320 9.40

Grand Mean 6.1 49.88 9.91 100.97 58.99 10.03 2.95 81.69 2.25 1.333 9.1
LSD 0.70 4.84 2.003 4.05 11.37 1.45 2.10 28.58 0.33 0.607 0.96
CV 10.58 3.66 19.01 2.115573 11.36 8.85 44.03 17.72 14.41 30.80 9.24
Nenvironments 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Genotype significance 0.000 0.0003 0.001 0.000 0.0003 0.0002 0 0.006 0.076 0.011 0.094
G*E(p value) 1 0.000 0.55 0.0003 0.000 0.0002 0.01 0.000 0.034 0.0001 0.004

Significance ns *** ns *** *** * ** ** *** * *** ***

**significant and ***highly significant, ns: non significant Env-environment, DE: days to emergence, DF: days to flowering, RNN-node number, RNN-node number at
stage, PH: plant height, NN: number of root nodules, MD: maturity days, RL: root length, PP: pod per plant, SPP: seed per pod, yield in ton ha-1 and SW:100 seed grain
weight.

AEC with the environment is the lowest in comparison to others. None of

Table 5
the environments are discriminating and representative as none of the
High yielding landraces (Pooled analysis).
environment lie in the AEC axis.
S.N. Landraces GY (ton ha-1) Advance lines GY (ton ha-1) There are four rays in fig. (5) which divide the biplot into four sec­
1 Kailali-3 1.72 G 1871 1.69 tors, and the test environments fall into three of them. The test envi­
2 Coll 5 sivre 1.69 CO 17 1.68 ronment 2 fell into sector 1 and the vertex genotype for this sector was 5,
3 Kavre 1.54 G 8514 1.60
suggesting that the most favorable genotype for this test environment 2.
4 Chitwan-9 1.49 G 757 1.59
5 Puja 1.35 G 4508 1.40 The test environment 3 fell into sector 2 and the vertex genotype for this
6 Dadeldhura Kalo 1.16 Puja 1.35 sector was accession 20. This genotype was better than the other ac­
LSD (0.05) 0.60 LSD (0.05) 0.60 cessions which fell into sector 2 (such as genotypes 8, 16, 22 and 25).
The test environments 1 fell into sector 4 and the vertex accession for
this sector was [6]. This genotype was better than other genotypes such
genotypes, which was located near the origin, was less responsive than
as 2, 12, 3 and 18 which fells into sector 3. Regarding this pattern, ge­
the corner (vertex) genotype. Hence, the genotypes 2 and 21 were
notypes 5, 6, and 20 were as the most favorable one, had specific
located apparently near the biplot origin showed moderately average
adaptability for these mega environments.
performance and these genotypes were less responsive to environments
than the vertex genotypes.
3.4. Additive main effects and multiplicative interactions (AMMI)
The biplot can also be used to understand the relationships among
test environments, their discriminative capacity and representativeness
The AMMI ANOVA (Table 6) revealed that the G, E main effects and
by considering the length of their vectors and angles between two
GEI were highly significant. The main effects of E and G accounted for
environment vectors. The length of the environment vectors from the
36.55% and 34.36% variation, respectively, and G x E interaction effects
biplot origin in fig. (4) is indicative of the discriminative capacity of the
represent 29.07% of the total variation for grain yield (Table 6). This
environment. Lamjung (environment 2) had the longest vector followed
means that the 25 accessions were not the same in performance and the
by Nawalpur (environment 3) and Khajura (environment 1), implying
three environments significantly differed from one another. Gurmu et al.
that the environment 2 (Lamjung) had the most discriminative ability
[23], Temesgen et al. [24] and Gurmu et al. [25] were reported that
among the all the test environments followed by environment 1 (Kha­
environment to be the highest contributor to the total variation. Two PC
jura). The highly informative but non-representative environments are
were found to be significant. The PC1explained 91.05% of the interac­
important in selecting genotypes that are specifically adapted and
tion sum of square in 25% of the interaction degree of freedom (DF).
culling unwanted genotypes, while representative environments are
Similarly, the second and third principal component axis explained a
useful in selecting widely adapted genotypes [22]. Here, environment 3
further 8.94% and 0% of the GEI sum of squares, respectively (Table 6).
(Nawalpur) was found to be more representative as the angle formed by
This implied that the interaction of soybean accessions within the three

5
P. Shrestha et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100526

Fig. 4. Discrimitiveness vs. representativeness GGE biplots for trait grain yield.

Fig. 2. Mean versus stability GGE biplots for grain yield for the set of 25
soybean genotypes.

Fig. 5. AMMI 1 biplot for grain yield of 25 genotypes of soybean and three
environments.

environments was predicted by the first two components of genotypes

and environments. Also, that the 25 genotypes were not the same in
performance and the three environments also significantly differed from
one another.

4. Conclusion

Results from this study indicate that, all landraces have potential
characters which can be used to improve soybean production in the
country. All tested morphological characters were highly significant
among the genotypes in the multi environment that directly or indirectly
lead to yield gain. For yield, Kailali-3 being the landrace had the highest
grain yield (1.7 ton ha-1) followed by CO 164 in all three environments
than Puja the check variety (1.35 ton ha-1). So Kailali -3 can be further
evaluated as a perspective variety.

Fig. 3. Which won where\what GGE biplots for grain yield for the set of 25
Funding
soybean genotype.

Not applicable.

6
P. Shrestha et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100526

Table 6
ANOVA for AMMI by Gollobs test.
DF SS Porcen Porcenac MS F Probf

ENV 2 27.78 36.56 36.55774 13.89 62.93 0

GEN 24 26.12 34.37 70.92557 1.08 4.93 0
ENV*GEN 48 22.09 29.07 100 0.46 2.08 0.01
PC1 25 20.12 91.05 91.0516 0.80 4.77 0
PC2 23 1.97 8.95 100 0.08 0.50 0.95
PC3 21 0 0 100 0 0 1
Residuals 75 16.55603 0 0 0.22075 NA NA

Note: DF-Days to flowering, SS-sum of square, Porcen-SS of GEI, Porcenac-cumulative% of Porcen, MS-mean sum, ENV-environment, GEN-genotypes, PC1, PC2&PC3-
principle component 1,2,3.

Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Declaration of competing interest
I hereby declare that there is no any conflict of interest of authors
involved in this manuscript. All the authors are totally agreeing to
publish this manuscript in this reputed journal.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
Authors were grateful to IAAS Lamjung, NGLRP and NORP family for
their support during entire research period.
References
[1] S.K. Sathe, E.K. Monaghan, H.H. Kshirsagar, M. Venkatachalam, Tree nuts:
composition, phytochemicals, and health effects, in: Chemical Composition of
Edible Nut Seeds and its Implications in Human Health, 2009, pp. 11–35.
[2] P.K. Sarkar, Md S. Haque, M.A. Karim, Effects of GA3 and IAA and their frequency
of application on morphology, yield contributing characters and yield of soybean,
J. Agron. 1 (2002) 119–122.
[3] T. Dragan, P. Vera, T. Mladen, V. Viliana, Đ. Vera, V. Ugrenović, S. Popović
A. Pašaga, XXII International Eco-Conference®2018 - X Eco-Conference® on Safe
Food, 26th - 28th September 2018, Novi Sad, Serbia at, 2018. Novi Sad, Serbia.
[4] MOAD, Statistical Information on Nepalese Agriculture (2075/76). Agri-Business
Promotion and Statistics Division, Agri Statistics Section, Ministry of Agricultural
Development, Government of Nepal, Singha Durbar, Kathmandu, 2018/19.
[5] T. Wang, Soybean Oil. Vegetable Oils in Food Technology: Composition, Properties
and Uses, 2011, p. 59.
[6] I.B.P.G.R. Disriptors for Soybean, International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
IBPGR Secretariat, Rome, Italy, 1984, pp. 19–38.
[7] H.G. Gauch Jr., R.W. Zobel, Identifying mega-environments and targeting
genotypes, Crop Sci. 37 (2) (1997) 311–326.
[8] W. Yan, M.S. Kang, GGE Biplot Analysis: A Graphical Tool for Breeders, Geneticists,
and Agronomists, CRC press, 2003.
[9] N. Nkhoma, H. Shimelis, M.D. Laing, et al., Assessing the genetic diversity of
cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] germplasm collections using phenotypic
traits and SNP markers, BMC Genet. 21 (2020) 110, https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12863-020-00914-7.
[10] M.A. da Silva, P.S. Lima, V.R. de Oliveira, R.P. de Sousa, P.I. Barbosa,
Intercropping maize and cowpea cultivars: I: green-grain yield, Rov Ciencia
Agronom 51 (1) (2022) 1–10.
[11] Z. Iqbal, M. Arshad, M. Ashraf, T. Mahmood, A. Waheed, Evaluation of soybean
[Glycine max (L.) Merrill] germplasm for some important morphological traits
using multivariate analysis, Pakistan J. Bot. 40 (6) (2008) 2323–2328.
[12] R. Yang, J. Crossa, P.L. Cornelius, J. Burgueno, Biplot analysis of GEI effect, Crop
Sci. 49 (2009) 1564–1576.
[13] M.D. Kaya, G. Okçu, M. Atak, Y. Cıkılı, Ö. Kolsarıcı, Seed treatments to overcome
salt and drought stress during germination in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.), Eur.
J. Agron. 24 (4) (2006) 291–295.
[14] G. Edmore, S.S. Peter, M.S. Caleb, GGE biplot sorghum genotype evaluation, Can.
J. Plant Sci. 95 (2015) 1205–1214.
[15] B.E.S. Massaine, J.D.S. Kaesel, D.M.R. Maurisrael, A.N.D.M.J. Jose, R.L.L. Laize,
GEI effect analysis in cowpea lines by GGE Biplot, Revista Caatinga 31 (1) (2018)
64–71.
[16] M.O. Olayiwola, P.A.S. Soremi, K.A. Okeleye, Evaluation of some cowpea [Vigna
unguiculata (L.) Walp.] genotypes for stability of performance over 4 years, Curr.
Res. Agric. Sci. 2 (1) (2015) 22–30.
[17] A. Ashraful, A.H. Farhad, C.D.B. Naresh, K.M. Paritosh, A. R, Mostofa H. Amir,
L. Mingju, AMMI and GGE biplots for wheat genotypes yield stability in
Bangladesh, Pakistan J. Bot. 49 (3) (2017) 1049–1056.
[18] A. Bhartiya, J.P. Aditya, V. Kumari, N. Kishore, J.P. Purwar, A. Agrawal, L. Kant,
GGE biplot & ammi analysis of yield stability in multi-environment trial of soybean
[Glycine max (L.) Merrill] genotypes under rainfed condition of north western
Himalayan hills, Indian J. Genet. Plant Breed. 27 (1) (2017) 227–238.
[19] B. Vaezi, A. Pour-Aboughadareh, R. Mohammadi, M. Armion, A. Mehraban,
T. Hossein-Pour, M, Dorii, GGE biplot and AMMI analysis of barley yield
performance in Iran, Cereal Res. Commun. 45 (3) (2017) 500–511.
[20] T. Melkamu, A. Sentayehu, E. Firdissa, GGE Biplot GEI, and yield stability analysis
of bread wheat genotypes in South East Ethiopia, World J. Agric. Sci. 11 (4) (2015)
183–190.
[21] S. Pavel, V. Nataliya, N. Aleksey, S. Olga, V. Olga, B. Olga, L. Yuriy , GGE biplot
analysis of GEI of spring barley varieties. Zemdirbyste Agriculture 102(4):431-436.
[22] S. Rakshit, K.N. Ganapathy, S.S. Gomashe, A. Rathore, R.B. Ghorade, K.M.N. umar,
.J.V. Patil, GGE biplot analysis to evaluate genotype, environment and their
interactions in sorghum multi-location data, Euphytica 185 (3) (2012) 465–479.
[23] F. Gurmu, H. Mohammed, G. Alemaw, Genotype x environment interactions and
stability of soybean for grain yield and nutrition quality, Afr. Crop Sci. J. 17 (2)
(2009).
[24] D. Temesgen, M. Maluk, E.K. James, P.P. Iannetta, F. Assefa, The functional
characterisation of soybean (Glycine max L.) rhizospheric bacteria indigenous to
Ethiopian soils, Afr. J. Agric. Res. 14 (33) (2019) 1659–1673.
[25] F. Gurmu, S. Hussein, M. Laing, Genotype-by-environment interaction and stability
of sweetpotato genotypes for root dry matter, β-carotene and fresh root yield, Open
Agriculture 2 (1) (2017) 473–485.

View publication stats