agronomy
Article
Selection of High Yield and Stable Maize Hybrids in
Mega-Environments of Java Island, Indonesia
Noladhi Wicaksana 1 , Haris Maulana 1 , Yuyun Yuwariah 1 , Ade Ismail 1 , Yasmin Anissa Robles Ruswandi 2
and Dedi Ruswandi 1, *
Citation: Wicaksana, N.; Maulana,
H.; Yuwariah, Y.; Ismail, A.;
Ruswandi, Y.A.R.; Ruswandi, D.
Selection of High Yield and Stable
Maize Hybrids in Mega-
Environments of Java Island,
Indonesia. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
agronomy12122923
Academic Editor: J. Stephen
C Smith
Received: 23 October 2022
Accepted: 22 November 2022
Published: 23 November 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12122923
1 Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 45363, Indonesia
2 Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 45363, Indonesia
* Correspondence: d.ruswandi@unpad.ac.id; Tel.: +62-815-7313-4640
Abstract: Determination of grain yields of stable and high-yielding maize hybrids in a wide envi-
ronment requires high accuracy. Many stability measurement methods have been used in multi-
environment experiments. However, the relationships among the different methods are still difficult
to understand. The objectives of this study were to 1. Identify the effect of growing season and
location (Environments = E), hybrids (Genotypes = G), and their interactions (GEIs) on grain yields;
2. Select high-yielding and stable maize hybrids in a wide range of environments; 3. Determine the
relationship between each stability estimation; and 4. Determine the mega-environment of maize
hybrid and identify the best locations for testing. Field experiments were conducted at ten locations
in Java Island, Indonesia, for two growing seasons using a randomized completed block design with
three replications. The experimental results showed that the main effects of the growing season,
location, hybrid, and GEIs, significantly affected maize hybrid yields. Stability estimations of TOP,
S(3) , S(6) , NP(2) , NP(3) , KR, NP(4) , CVi , and bi , belong to the concept of dynamic stability that can be
used to select maize hybrids in favorable environments, while other estimations were classified as
in the static stability. Three maize hybrids were successfully selected, with high and stable yields
based on numerical and visual stability estimations, namely SC2, SC7, and SC9. The three hybrids
can be used as candidates for sustainable maize development programs. The dry season, the rainy
season, and the combination of two growing seasons produced three mega-environments. GJRS
and KARS were the most discriminative environments. Both environments can be used as favorable
environments for selecting the ideal maize hybrid.
Keywords: discriminativeness; maize hybrid; mega-environment; stability
1. Introduction
Maize is an important carbohydrate source. It also contains other important nutrients
for the human body, such as protein and minerals [1,2]. This commodity, is among the most
important staple foods after rice and wheat. Nowadays, the demand for maize is high, but
the existing production is still unable to fulfill these demands. Several factors limit maize
production, i.e., varieties; environmental conditions including cropping system, location,
season, and infection due to insects and pathogens; and interaction between genotype and
environment [3,4]. Due to the importance of maize and the limitations in their production,
the development of maize hybrids possessing high-yield and adaptability to environmental
changes is required.
Evaluation of maize hybrids in various locations and growing seasons are required to
select high-yield and stable varieties. Thus, it can determine the mega-environment, which
can effectively select a representative location for an efficient selection. However, selection
under these various environments, is very complex due to genotype and environmental
interactions (GEIs) [5–7]. The emergence of GEIs in multi-environmental experiments is due
to unpredictable macro- and micro-environmental influences such as temperature, rainfall,
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923 2 of 18

and humidity [8]. According to Karuniawan et al. (2021) [9] and Ruswandi et al. (2022) [10],
differences in the growing environment gave different responses for each genotype tested.
There are various estimation methods to determine the GEIs and to identify stable
genotypes, including parametric, non-parametric, and graphical estimation. The paramet-
ric estimations include linear regression [11], Wricke ecovalence [12], Shukla variance [13],
the mean-variance component (θi ) [14], the GE variance component (θ(i) ) [15], Hanson’s
genotype stability measure (Di) [16], and coefficient of variation (CVi) [17]. In addition,
the non-parametric estimations are the following: thennarasu measurement (NP(i) ) [18],
Stability nonparametric (S(i) ) models [19,20], Kang rank [21], and TOP-rank [22]. Thus, the
graphical estimation of stability includes AMMI [23,24] and GGE biplot [25]. However,
the selection of stable and high-yielding genotypes based on a single stability estimation
was described as less accurate [1,26,27]. Compared to single stability estimation, combined
stability estimation was considerably more effective and accurate in selecting stable and
high-yielding genotypes. This combined stability method for the selection of stable varieties
in different environments or specific varieties in specific environments is advantageous
because they are: (i) suitable for data with statistical assumptions such as interaction effects
and normal distribution of errors since it is estimated by parametric method, (ii) simple
since estimation based on the performance of ranks of data and no assumptions are needed
for homogeneity of variances and distribution of model residuals and, (iii) fit to determine
the pattern of genotypic responses across environments visually and could determine
mega-environment for high yield and adaptive genotype by the GGE biplot [28,29]. Some
researchers have successfully selected stable and high-yielding genotypes in a wide environ-
ment with combined stability estimations, including barley [28,30], chickpeas [31], durum
wheat [32], grass bean [26], maize [33], peanut [34], sweet corn [1], sweet potato [9,27],
black soybean [35], and wheat [36]. The objectives of this study were to 1. Identify the
effect of growing season and location (Environments = E), hybrids (Genotypes = G)), and
their interactions (GEIs) on grain yield; 2. Select high-yielding and stable maize hybrids in
various environments; 3. Determine the relationship between each stability measurement;
and 4. Determine the mega-environment of maize hybrid and identify the best locations
for testing.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Materials
The study used nine maize hybrids from The Plant Breeding Laboratory, Faculty of
Agriculture, Universitas Padjadjaran (UNPAD). These hybrids had broad genetic back-
grounds (Table 1) [37].

Table 1. The maize hybrid materials used in the experiment.

Parental Line Pedigree

Code Hybrid
Female Male
SC1 Pxy Hybrid commercial of Pioneer
SC2 NKxx Hybrid commercial of Monsanto
SC3 Bisi x Hybrid commercial of Bisi
SC4 PA 1011 × 1016 Female is a downy mildew resistant line; male is a high nutrition line
SC5 PB 1014 × 1018 Female is a downy mildew resistant line and male is a high protein line
SC6 PC 1019 × 1020 Both parents are high nutrition lines
SC7 PE 1007 × 1008 Female is a high yield line; and male is a high nutrition line
SC8 PF 1006 × 1007 Female is a high nutrition line; and male is a high yield line
SC9 PG 1008 × 1009 Female is a high nutrition line; male is a downy mildew resistant line
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923 3 of 18

2.2. Field Experiments and Data Collection

Field experiments were conducted at ten locations in Java Island, Indonesia, for two
growing seasons (Table 2, Figure 1). The experiment used a randomized completed block
design which was repeated three times. Each hybrid was planted on a plot measuring
3 × 5 m, with a spacing of 0.75 × 0.2 m. The data was gathered at harvest, 93 days after
planting following the standard Descriptor for Maize [38]. Sowing and harvesting were
done manually. The number of plants harvested in each plot was 100. The yield of each
hybrid in each experimental plot was converted in ton.ha−1 .

Table 2. Location, cropping seasons, altitude, type of agroclimate, mean yield and average yield for
stability experiments in Java.

Average
Location Cropping Altitude Type of Mean Yield
Location 2-Seasons Yield
Code Season (m asl) Agroclimate (t.ha−1)
(t.ha−1)
Jatinangor,
JTDS Sumedang, Dry 784 AII2. Wet; yearly rainy 8.31
West Java of >2500 mm;
dry month per year 3–7; 9.68
Jatinangor, wet month 5–9;
JTRS Sumedang, Rainy 784 crop index 2 11.06
West Java
Arjasari,
ASDS Bandung, Dry 991 AII2. Wet; 5.64
West Java yearly rainy of >2500 mm;
dry month per year 3–7; 6.40
Arjasari, wet month 5–9;
ASRS Bandung, Rainy 991 crop index 2 7.16
West Java
Lembang,
LBDS Bandung, Dry 1250 BIII3. Wet; 5.46
West Java yearly rainy of 1500–2500 mm;
dry month per year < 3; 7.76
Lembang, wet month 3–4;
LBRS Bandung, Rainy 1250 crop index 2 10.06
West Java
Karanganom,
KADS Klaten, Dry 166 BII2 Moderate; 7.64
Central Java yearly rainy of 1500–2500 mm;
dry month per year 3–7; 8.61
Karanganom, wet month 5–9;
KARS Klaten, Rainy 166 crop index 2 9.58
Central Java
Jogonalan,
JKDS Klaten, Dry 168 BII3. moderate; 8.95
Central Java yearly rainy of 1500–2500 mm;
dry month per year 3–7; 8.78
Jogonalan, wet month 3–4;
JKRS Klaten, Rainy 168 crop index 2 8.60
Central Java
Banyudono,
BBDS Boyolali, Dry 170 AII2. wet; 9.46
Central Java yearly rainy of >2500 mm;
dry month per year 3–7; 8.49
Banyudono, wet month 5–9;
BBRS Boyolali, Rainy 170 crop index 2 7.53
Central Java
Paiton,
PPDS Probolinggo, Dry 13 CI3. Dry; 8.04
East Java yearly rainy of <1500 mm;
dry month per year >7; 7.99
Paiton, Wet month 3–4 month;
PPRS Probolinggo, Rainy 13 crop index 1 7.94
East Java
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923 4 of 18

Table 2. Cont.

Average
Location Cropping Altitude Type of Mean Yield
Location 2-Seasons Yield
Code Season (m asl) Agroclimate (t.ha−1)
(t.ha−1)
Gumukmas,
GJDS Jember, Dry 10 CII3. Dry; 9.81
East Java yearly rainy of <1500 mm;
dry month per year 3–7; 8.61
Gumukmas, wet mont 3–4 bulan;
GJRS Jember, Rainy 10 crop index 2 7.41
East Java
Ngronggot,
NNDS Nganjuk, Dry 52 BII3. moderate; 7.47
East Java yearly rainy of 1500–2500 mm;
dry month per year 3–7; 9.61
Ngronggot, wet month 3–4;
NNRS Nganjuk, Rainy 52 crop index 2 11.75
East Java
Ngadiluwih,
NKDS Kediri, Dry 79 BII2 moderate; 9.53
East Java yearly rainy of 1500–2500 mm;
dry month per year 3–7; 9.26
Ngadiluwih, wet month 5–9;
NKRS2022, 12, x FOR
Agronomy Kediri, Rainy
PEER REVIEW 79 crop index 2 8.99 4 of 19
East Java

Figure 1. Map of research locations on the Java island, Indonesia.

Figure 1. Map of research locations on the Java island, Indonesia.

2.3. Data Analysis

Combined analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to estimate the GEIs. The statis-
tical equation was as follows:
Yopqr = μ + Go + Ep + GEop + Rq(p) + Br(q) + εopqr (1)
where Yopqr is the value of line o in plot r, and the value in location p of each replication q;
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923 5 of 18

2.3. Data Analysis

Combined analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to estimate the GEIs. The statistical
equation was as follows:

Yopqr = µ + Go + Ep + GEop + Rq(p) + Br(q) + εopqr (1)

where Yopqr is the value of line o in plot r, and the value in location p of each replication q;
µ is the grand mean; Go is the effect of line o; Ep is the effect of the environment p; GEop is
the effect of genotype by environment interactions on line o and environment p; Rq(p) is the
effect of replicate q on location p; Br(q) is the effect of replication q on plot r; and εopqr is
the error effects from line o in plot r and repeat q of location p, respectively. The combined
ANOVA was calculated using the R program.
Yield stability was estimated based on parametric and non-parametric measurements.
Details of the stability measurements are presented in Table 3. The stability of grain yields
based on parametric and non-parametric measurements was analyzed using the online
software STABILITYSOFT [39].
The graphical stability of grain yields and determination of discriminative environ-
ment and mega-environment was analyzed by GGE biplot with the following equation [25]:
t
Y mn − µm = βn + ∑k=1 λo αmo γno + ε mn (2)

where Y mn ; µm ; βn ; k; λo ; αmo and γno ; εmn are the performance in location ‘n’ from line ‘m’;
overall average grain yield; the influence of location ‘n’; the number of primer components;
the singular value from primer component ‘o’; the value of line ‘m’ and location ‘n’ for
primer component ‘o’; and the error of the line ‘m’ in location ‘n,’ respectively.

Table 3. Formula of parametric and non-parametric stability measurements.

Parametric Stability Measurements

Formula Source
∑i ( xij − X i. − X .j + X ... )( X .j − X ... )
bi − 1 = 2
∑ j ( X .j − X ... )
    2  Eberhart and Russel [11]
2 = 1 2
Sdi N −2 ∑ X ij − X i. − X .j + X ... − (bi − 2) ∑ j X .j + X ...
i
q  2
p
θi = 2( p−1)(q−1) ∑ xij − X i. + X .j + 2( p−SSGE
2)(q−1) Plaisted and Peterson [14]
j −1
q  2
−p
θ(i) = ( p−1)( p−2)(q−1) ∑ xij − X i. − X .j + X .. + ( p−SSGE
2)(q−1) Plaisted [15]
j −1
2
W2i = ∑ ( Xij − X i. − X .j + X .. ) Wricke and Weber [12]
Wi2
σi2 = ( p−2)(q−1) W2i − ( p−1)(∑p−2)(q−1)
p Shukla [13]

CVi = SDl x 100 Francis and Kannenberg [17]

X
" #2
Di = ∑ Zij2 Hanson [16]
j
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923 6 of 18

Table 3. Cont.

Parametric Stability Measurements

Formula Source
Non-parametric stability measurements
n
(1) ∑ j0= j+1 rij −rij0
Si = 2 ∑nj −1 [ N (n−1)]
n 2
(2) ∑ j=1 (rij −ri. )
Si = ( N −1)
2
Huehn; Nassar and Huehn [19,20]
n
(3) ∑ j=1 (rij −ri. )
Si = ri
n
(6) ∑ j=1 |rij −ri. |
Si = ri.
n
∑ j=1 rij∗ − Mdi∗
NP(1) = N
h i
n
∑ j=1 rij∗ − Mdi∗ /M
di
NP(2) = N
s 
2
Thennarasu [18]

∑ r ∗ −r ∗
ij i.

NP(3) = ri.
N

h i
2x ∑nj=−11 ∑nj0 = j+1 rij∗ −ri.∗ /ri.
NP(6) = N (N−1)

KR = RGY + Rσ2 i Kang [21]

The computation of the TOP-rank is based on scoring of genotypes as ‘Top’,
‘Mid’ or ‘Low’ within each environment. The genotypes that are frequently Fox [22]
occurred in the ‘Top’ third are considered to be stable.
where, Xij : grain yield total in of the ith hybrid in jth environment, X i. : average of the grain yield total from ith
hybrid at all (sixteen) environments, X .j : mean of the grain yield in the jth environment, X ... : average of the grain
yield total, p and q: numbers of environments and hybrids; SDl : standard deviation of GEIs. rij : stability rank
of the ith hybrid in the jth environment; ri. : average rank if ith hybrid in all environments; and N: number of
environment. rij∗ : stability rank of the ith hybrid in the jth environment (adjusted data); Mdi
∗ : adjusted data (median

rank); Mdi : unajusted data (median rank’s of the same parameters). RGY: rank of grain yield; Rσ2 i = Rank of
Shukla stability measurement.

The R program was used to visualize the distribution pattern of the hybrids and
environments tested in the dry season, rainy season, and the average of both. Spearman
rank correlation and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) were used to estimate the
relationship between stability measurements and classify them into clear groups. The SPSS
19th software was used to analyze correlation and PCA [40].
The combined stability analysis includes parametric and non-parametric stability
measurements. The stability of maize hybrids based on ranks of parametric and non-
parametric stability estimation was combined by using Hierarchical Clustering Analysis
(HCA). The SPSS 19th software was used to estimate HCA [40,41].
The sustainability index (SI) was estimated by the following formula used by [42]:

(Y − σn)
 
SI = × 100 (3)
YM

where Y is the mean performance of a maize hybrid, σn is the standard deviation, and YM
is the best performance of a maize hybrid in any environment. The SI values were classified
arbitrarily into five groups, i.e., very low (up to 20%), low (21% to 40%), moderate (41% to
60%), high (61% to 80%), and very high (above 80%) [43]. SI was calculated using Microsoft
Excel 2013.
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923 7 of 18

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Genotype by Environment Interactions of Maize Hybrids Yield
The combined analysis of variance (ANOVA) for maize hybrids evaluated in ten
locations during two growing seasons in Java island was presented in Table 4. There
was a very significant variation (p < 0.01) in yields among hybrids (genotypes), environ-
ment (season, location, season × location), and their interactions (Genotype × season,
Genotype × Location, and Genotype × season × Location) (Table 4). The highest dif-
ference was shown by the interaction effect of growing season and location (L × S) of
40.13%, whereas the main effect of genotype (hybrid) accounted for 14.59%, the location
was 12.55%, and their interaction (GEIs) was 12.69%. This result confirmed that the hybrid
was a significant factor in environmental interactions in this experiment. The significant
variation of the main effects (genotypes and environment) and their interactions indicated
differences in the hybrid performance under a broad environment for maize production on
Java Island. It was presented in Table 2 that the range of average yield in 20 environments
was from 5.46 t.ha−1 (LBDS) to 11.75 t.ha−1 (NNRS) (Table 2). The average data for two
growing seasons recorded the highest average yield at Jatinangor, Sumedang, West Java
(9.68 t.ha−1) and the lowest at Arjasari, Bandung, West Java (6.40 t.ha−1) (Table 2).
In some locations, the average yield was higher in the dry than in the rainy season
(Gumukmas, Ngadiluwih, Jogonalan) (Table 2). This is because the land used during the
dry season in the three locations is ex-paddy land; therefore, the condition of the land is
still wet in the dry season. Alibu et al. [44] reported that wet and humid land conditions in
the dry season showed excellent maize yields. Therefore, maize planting on wetlands or
ex-paddy during the dry season is preferable.
The effect of GEIs frequently occurred for maize yields in multi-environmental ex-
periments [1]. The difference in yield performance of maize hybrids was probably due to
differences in genetic background and various environmental conditions. The hybrids used
resulted from directed crosses between two parental lines with a far genetic background [37].
Thus, the environmental factors, i.e., locations, seasons, and cultivation systems, affected
yield performances [10,45]. The percentage of environmental influence, which is high on
maize yields, indicated that the environment for maize production in Java Island is very
broad. Variances in environmental conditions for maize production can lead to differences
in yield and yield quality of maize hybrid [10,33,46,47]. The response of maize hybrids to
the various environments indicates the importance of GEIs.
The GEIs effect has a great impact on the plant selection process. The emergence of the
effect of GEIs in multi-environment experiments makes the selection process complicated
and less efficient [7,27,48,49]. Breeders need to allocate more resources, time, and money
to evaluate a set of potential superior genotypes. In addition, more locations need to be
surveyed to establish the multi-locations field of evaluation. Determination of the mega-
environment, establishing a representative location, and applying stability methods for
testing and analysis are required to effectively select high-yielding and stable genotypes in
a wide range of environments.

3.2. Selection of High-Yielding and Stable Maize Hybrids in a Wide Environment Using Combined
Stability Analysis
Stability analysis of maize yields using parametric measurements for every maize
hybrid in twenty environments (ten locations and two planting seasons) were presented
in Table 5. According to Eberhart and Russell [11], the stability of each maize hybrid was
determined by its regression coefficient (bi) and deviation of variance (S2 di). An estimation
of bi = 1 and a low estimate of S2 di indicates a very stable hybrid. The SC2, SC6, SC7, and
SC9 hybrids had bi values that were not significantly different from one (1), where the SC6
hybrid produced yields lower than the overall average, while SC2, SC7, and SC9 hybrids
were higher than the overall average. Estimation of S2 di indicated SC5, SC8, SC6, and SC9
as maize hybrids possessing the lowest values. Based on the linear regression estimation,
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923 8 of 18

hybrids with values of bi = 1 and S2 di = 0 were the most stable, so SC6 and SC9 were the
most stable maize hybrids based on this measurement.

Table 4. Combined ANOVA for yield in ten locations for two cropping seasons in Java Island.

Df SS MS F Value Pr (>F) Total Variation Explained (%)

Genotype (G) 8 142.65 17.83 37.10 0.00 ** 7.54
Location (E) 9 462.04 51.34 106.81 0.00 ** 24.43
Season (S) 1 130.52 130.52 271.57 0.00 ** 6.90
Replication 2 1.69 0.85 1.76 0.17 0.09
G×E 72 195.98 2.72 5.66 0.00 ** 10.36
G×S 8 34.42 4.30 8.95 0.00 ** 1.82
E×S 9 719.60 79.96 166.36 0.00 ** 38.04
Replication/E 18 22.50 1.25 2.60 0.00 ** 1.19
Replication/S 2 1.03 0.51 1.07 0.35 0.05
G × E × S (GEIs) 72 175.36 2.44 5.07 0.00 ** 9.27
Replication/E × S 18 5.67 0.32 0.66 0.85 0.30
Residuals 320 153.80 0.48
CV (%) 8.14
** p < 0.01; Df = Degree freedom; SS = Sum of square; MS = Mean of square; Pr = Probability.

Average grain yields for the hybrids tested in 20 environments ranged from 5.46 t.ha−1
to 11.75 t.ha−1 , with SC2 and SC9 maize hybrids having the highest average yields and
SC5 and SC6 the lowest (Table 2). Based on the stability ranking of Wi 2 , σ2 i , CVi, and θ(i)
estimation, SC8 was determined as the most stable maize hybrid, followed by SC5 and SC6.
Of the three selected hybrids, only SC8 had above-average yields. The stability estimation
of S2 di selected SC5 as the most stable, followed by SC8 and SC6. Stability estimation of Di
also revealed SC5 as the most stable maize hybrid, followed by SC8 and SC9. The maize
hybrid of SC3 was the highest yield performance hybrid in all test environments. Stability
measurement of bi and θi selected SC2 as the most stable maize hybrid, followed by SC6
and SC7 for bi and SC1 and SC3 for θi , where the SC2 maize hybrid had an above-average
overall performance.
Non-parametric stability estimation is presented in Table 6. It was shown that each hybrid
had different potential in terms of stability. In non-parametric measurements, SC2 hybrids
were designated as the most stable hybrid by stability measurements of S(3) , S(6) , NP(2) , NP(4) ,
and TOP. The SC5 hybrid was indicated as the most stable by S(1) and S(2) measurements. The
SC8 hybrid was indicated as the most stable by NP(1) and KR measurements. The SC9 hybrid
was revealed as the most stable maize hybrid by stability measurements of NP(3) and KR. This
maize hybrid also has above-average yield performance.

Table 5. Stability estimation for yield of maize based on parametric measurements.

Genotype Y Wi2 σ2 i S2 di bi CVi θ(i) θi Di

SC1 8.35 18.24 1.11 2.17 1.25 26.22 0.87 1.05 7.99
SC2 9.73 32.71 2.09 4.67 1.01 21.34 0.75 1.48 9.02
SC3 8.43 17.28 1.04 2.42 0.92 20.74 0.88 1.02 8.10
SC4 8.56 16.71 1.00 2.36 0.94 20.62 0.88 1.01 8.06
SC5 7.86 8.43 0.44 1.13 1.10 23.92 0.95 0.76 7.51
SC6 7.90 11.03 0.62 1.57 0.96 21.73 0.93 0.84 7.71
SC7 8.68 11.96 0.68 1.69 0.95 19.63 0.92 0.87 7.78
SC8 8.48 8.36 0.44 1.16 0.93 19.18 0.95 0.76 7.53
SC9 8.69 11.40 0.64 1.61 0.94 19.47 0.93 0.85 7.69
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923 9 of 18

Table 5. Cont.

Genotype Y Wi2 σ2 i S2 di bi CVi θ(i) θi Di

Genotype Y Wi 2 σ2 S2 di bi CVi θ(i) θi Di
i

SC1 7 8 8 6 9 9 8 2 6
SC2 1 9 9 9 1 6 9 1 9
SC3 6 7 7 8 7 5 7 3 8
SC4 4 6 6 7 5 4 6 4 7
SC5 9 2 2 1 8 8 2 8 1
SC6 8 3 3 3 2 7 3 7 4
SC7 3 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 5
SC8 5 1 1 2 6 1 1 9 2
SC9 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 6 3
Y = Grain yield; Genotype code see Table 1.

Table 6. Stability estimation for yield of maize based on non-parametric measurements.

Genotype S(1) S(2) S(3) S(6) NP(1) NP(2) NP(3) NP(4) KR TOP
SC1 2.84 5.92 25.87 9.43 2.00 0.50 0.53 0.65 15 5.00
SC2 2.47 6.13 15.86 5.47 2.80 0.32 0.42 0.34 10 14.00
SC3 3.26 7.80 31.53 10.04 2.50 0.46 0.62 0.69 13 6.00
SC4 2.84 5.96 21.77 7.77 2.30 0.47 0.51 0.55 10 6.00
SC5 2.04 3.17 18.24 9.27 1.85 0.67 0.68 0.62 11 1.00
SC6 2.74 5.83 30.78 11.78 2.20 0.83 0.73 0.76 11 5.00
SC7 2.56 5.00 17.27 6.91 2.30 0.33 0.46 0.47 8 10.00
SC8 2.55 4.93 17.86 6.86 1.75 0.37 0.44 0.49 6 6.00
SC9 2.80 6.01 20.04 7.23 2.00 0.33 0.41 0.49 6 7.00
Rank’s S(1) S(2) S(3) S(6) NP(1) NP(2) NP(3) NP(4) KR TOP SR AR SD
SC1 7 5 7 7 3 7 6 7 9 7 128 6.74 1.80
SC2 2 8 1 1 9 1 2 1 4 1 84 4.42 3.60
SC3 9 9 9 8 8 5 7 8 8 4 133 7.00 1.65
SC4 8 6 6 5 6 6 5 5 4 4 104 5.47 1.14
SC5 1 1 4 6 2 8 8 6 6 9 92 4.84 3.08
SC6 5 4 8 9 5 9 9 9 6 7 111 5.84 2.39
SC7 4 3 2 3 6 2 4 2 3 2 70 3.68 1.26
SC8 3 2 3 2 1 4 3 3 1 4 54 2.84 2.03
SC9 6 7 5 4 3 2 1 4 1 3 69 3.63 1.60
SR = sum of rank; AR = average of rank; SD = standard deviation; genotype code see Table 1.

According to Ahmadi et al. (2015) [26], the selection of stable genotypes with one
stability measurement was considered less effective and accurate. Similar results were
also revealed by several researchers who used various stability measurements to select
stable and high-yielding genotypes, including barley [28], maize [33], sweet potatoes [7,9],
turmeric [50], and soybeans [35,51]. Every stability estimation generally selected a different
hybrid as a stable genotype. However, several stability estimations selected similar hybrids
as stable hybrids. These stability estimation included CVi , θi , S(1) , S(3) , S(6) , NP(3) , and NP(4)
which determined SC3 as a stable hybrid. In addition, stability measurements had the same
output in terms of ranking the stability of all maize hybrids, namely Wi2 , σ2 i , and θ(i) . In
this case, measurements with the same stability ranks can select stable genotypes [28].
Applying combined stability by the use of parametric and non-parametric stability
estimation can increase the accuracy of the maize hybrid selections. The application
could help select high-yield performance and stability of potential genotypes in a wide
environment based on a single measurement [7,26]. Some researchers use the average sum
rank (AR) to determine the stability of the tested genotypes, wherein the genotype with the
smallest AR value was determined as the most stable genotype [9,26–28]. In this study, SC9
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923 10 of 18

was identified as a hybrid with the smallest AR, followed by maize hybrids of SC9, SC7,
and SC2. These three hybrids also had high average yields.
The stability of maize hybrids based on ranks of parametric and non-parametric stabil-
ity estimation was combined using the Hierarchical Clustering Analysis (HCA) (Figure 2).
Based on this HCA, maize hybrids were divided into three main clusters, namely: 1. stable
low yield cluster consisting of SC5 and SC6 maize hybrids; 2. unstable medium yield cluster
consisting of SC1, SC3, and SC4 maize hybrids; 3. stable high yield cluster consisted of SC2,
SC7, SC8, and SC9 maize hybrids. The first group was not recommended since they have a
Agronomy 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19
low yield. The second group can be used as hybrids with medium yield performance in
specific environments. Ruswandi et al. (2020) [1] mentioned that maize hybrids with high-
yield performance in a specific environment could be superior hybrids in this particular
environments
area. A way to is by utilizing
increase the potential of these
the income/economics genotypes.
of maize farmersAccording to environments
in certain Maulana et al.
is(2020)
by utilizing
[7], highthe potential of
agricultural these genotypes.
product yields will According
impact the to Maulana et economy.
community’s al. (2020) The
[7],
high
thirdagricultural product
group of maize yieldswas
hybrids will considered
impact the community’s
the most ideal economy. The third
group because ofgroup of
its yield
maize hybridsand
performance waswide
considered the most
adaptability idealThus,
[26,51]. groupthebecause of its yield
third group performance
was identified and
as more
wide
stableadaptability [26,51].
with high yield Thus, the in
performance third group
a wide was identified
environment based asonmore stable with
parametric andhigh
non-
yield performance
parametric in ameasurements.
stability wide environment based
Similar on parametric
studies revealedandthatnon-parametric stability
combined stability by
measurements. Similar studies
measuring parametric revealed that stability
and non-parametric combined stability
could by measuring
successfully parametric
determine stable
and
andnon-parametric
high-yielding stability
genotypescouldinsuccessfully determine stable
various commercial cropsand and high-yielding genotypes
a wide environment
in various commercial crops and a wide environment [27,28,30,31,34,35].
[27,28,30,31,34,35]. This current study found that the combined stability analysis can This current study
be
found that the combined stability analysis can be effectively used to select high-yielding
effectively used to select high-yielding and stable maize hybrids in various crop environ- and
stable
mentsmaize hybridson
and seasons in various crop environments and seasons on Java island.
Java island.

Figure2.2.Maize
Figure Maizehybrids
hybridswere
weregrouped
grouped based
based onon parametric
parametric andand non-parametric
non-parametric stability
stability ranks
ranks at
at ten
ten locations for two growing seasons.
locations for two growing seasons.

3.3.The
3.3. TheRelationship
Relationshipbetween
betweenParametric
Parametricand
andNon-Parametric
Non-ParametricStability
StabilityMeasurements
Measurements
Todetermine
To determinethe therelationship
relationshipbetween
betweenthethedifferent
differentstability
stabilitymeasures
measuresand andcombine
combine
them into
them into clear groups,
groups, Principal
PrincipalComponent
ComponentAnalysis
Analysis (PCA)
(PCA) was
was used. TheThe
used. firstfirst
fourfour PCs
PCs
withwith eigenvalues
eigenvalues >1 resulted
>1 resulted in a cumulative
in a cumulative value of value
96.37% of 96.37%
of the total of the total variation
variation between
between
parametric parametric and non-parametric
and non-parametric measurements
measurements (Table (Table7). The7).first
Thetwo firstcomponents
two components were
were
used used to visualize
to visualize the PCA the biplot
PCA biplot
becausebecause
they had theythe had the highest
highest variabilityvariability
values values (PC1 =
(PC1
45.51%= 45.51%
and PC2 and=PC236.02%) = 36.02%) and eigenvalues
and eigenvalues of 8.65 of 8.65
and and 6.84,6.84, respectively,
respectively, as asshown shown in
in Figure3.3.Parametric
Figure Parametricand andnon-parametric
non-parametricmeasurements
measurements were were classified into four four main main
(1) ,(1)S(2)(2) 2 2 2 , θ , and σ22 ; the second
groups,
groups,namely:
namely:the thefirst
firstgroup
groupconsisted
consistedofof
NPNP , S, D,Di , iW
,Wi i,2,SSd (i) and σ iᵢ; the second
di i, θ₍ᵢ₎,
group
groupconsisted
consisted S(1)S;(1)the
ofof third
; the group
third consisted
group of yields
consisted (Y) with
of yields withS(3)
(Y)TOP, , S(6)S, (3)
TOP, NP , S(2)(6),, NP
NP(3)(2),,
KR, (4)
NP NP
(3), KR,, CV
NPi , and
(4), CVbi,i and
measurements; and theand
bi measurements; fourth the group
fourthconsisted
group consisted of θi measurement.
of θᵢ measure-
ment.

Table 7. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on the stability measurements in maize grain yields.

PC PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4

Eigenvalue 8.65 6.84 1.74 1.09
Variance (%) 45.51 36.02 9.13 5.71
Cumulative (%) 45.51 81.53 90.66 96.37
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923 11 of 18

Table 7. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on the stability measurements in maize grain yields.

PC PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4

Eigenvalue 8.65 6.84 1.74 1.09
Variance (%) 45.51 36.02 9.13 5.71
Cumulative (%)
Agronomy 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 45.51 81.53 90.66 96.37 11 of 19
PC = Principal Component.

Figure3.3.Classification
Figure Classificationof
ofstability
stabilitymeasurements
measurementsbased
basedon
onPCA.
PCA.

Basedon
Based onthetheSpearman
Spearmanrank rank correlation
correlation coefficient,coefficient,the theaverage
averageyield yieldwas was positively
positively
andsignificantly
and significantlycorrelatedcorrelatedwith with S(3)
S(3), S, (6) NP(2)(2),,NP
S(6), ,NP NP(3) (3) NP(4)
, NP (4),, KR, bii, TOP, TOP, and andCV CVi i(p (p<< 0.05)
0.05)
(Table8).
(Table 8). Other positive
positiveand andsignificant
significantcorrelations correlationswere were S(1)S(1)
against
against S(2),SS(2)(3),, S(3) , S(3) ,NP
(3), and
and(4);

S(2)(4)
NP ; S(2) against
against NP(1), Wi NP2(1) ᵢ, s22dᵢ,
, σ,2Wi , σ2θ₍ᵢ₎, 2 di, θDi;, and
i , s and (i) S against
(3)
Di; S(3) Sagainst(6), NP(2),(6)
S NP (3), (2)
, NP NP (4), KR,
, NP (3) , NPand(4) TOP;
, KR,
S against
and(6)
TOP; S NPagainst
(6) (2), NP NP (3) , NP , ,NP
(2)(4) KR, CV
(3) , NP i, and
(4) TOP;
, KR, CV NP (1)
i , and against
TOP; W NP 2 (1) 2 ᵢ, and s dᵢ,
i , σ against 2
Wiθ₍ᵢ₎,
2 , σand
2 Di;
i , and
sNP
2 di,(2)θagainst
(i) , and NP
Di; (3), NP
NP (2) (4), KR,
against CV
NP i, (3)
and , NP TOP; NP
(4) , KR, (3) against NP(4), KR,
CV i , and TOP; NP (3)CV i, and NP
against TOP; (4) ,NPKR,(4)

against
CV KR, CVi, and
i , and TOP; NP
TOP; KR
(4) against KR,against
CVi , and CVTOP; i, and KRTOP; against Wi against
2
CVi , andσ TOP;
2 ᵢ, s dᵢ,Wθ₍ᵢ₎,
2 2 and Di; 2σ2ᵢ
i against σ i ,
sagainst
2 di, θ ,sand
(i)
2dᵢ, θ₍ᵢ₎, and Di; s2dᵢsagainst
Di; σ2 i against 2 di, θ ,θ₍ᵢ₎, and Di; 2 bi and CVi against TOP; and θ₍ᵢ₎ against
(i) and Di; s di against θ(i) , and Di; bi and CVi against
Di; while θ₍ᵢ₎ was negatively and significantly
TOP; and θ(i) against Di; while θ(i) was negatively and significantly correlated with θᵢ. correlated with θi .
Graphical visualization based on PCA biplots was used to understand the relationship
Table 8. Correlation
between the measurement of Spearman’s and therankstability
on parametric concept and (Figure
non-parametric3). PCA measurements
biplots were ontaken
maize
hybrid yields in Java Island, Indonesia.
from the highest values of the first two PCs (Table 7). Based on PCA analysis, all stability
(1) , S(2) , D , W 2 ,
Y S⁽1⁾ S⁽2⁾ S⁽3measures
⁾ S⁽⁶⁾ NP⁽ were 1⁾ classified
NP⁽2⁾ NP⁽into four groups.
3⁾ NP⁽⁴⁾ 𝘒R Wᵢ The2 first
σ2ᵢ group s2dᵢ consisted
bᵢ CVi of NPθ₍ᵢ₎ θᵢ i Dii
2 2 (1)
S di , θ(i) , and σ i ; the second group consisted of S ; the third group consisted of yields (Y)
S⁽ ⁾
1 0.00
S⁽2⁾ −0.50 0.60 with TOP, S(3) , S(6) , NP(2) , NP(3) , KR, NP(4) , CVi , and bi measurements; and the fourth group
consisted of θi measurement. The first two and the fourth groups represent the concept
S⁽3⁾ 0.57 0.77 0.30
of static stability, so they can be used to select hybrids in less favorable environments [52].
S⁽⁶⁾ 0.77 0.52 0.05 0.92
The third group showed that the measures were positively and significantly correlated
NP⁽1⁾ −0.47 0.31 0.73 0.02 −0.04
based on Spearman’s rank correlation to maize hybrid yields, providing a measure of
NP⁽2⁾ 0.93 0.15 −0.40 0.66dynamic0.83 −0.38 stability. They can be used to recommend ideal maize hybrids under favorable
NP⁽3⁾ 0.90 0.13 −0.28 0.63 0.85 −0.07 conditions
environmental 0.90 [27,28].
NP⁽⁴⁾ 0.80 0.50 0.03 0.93 0.98 −0.13 0.85 0.83
𝘒R 0.65 0.33 0.17 0.633.4. 0.75
Mega-Environment
0.20 0.63 0.76 of Maize 0.73Hybrid and Identification of the Best Locations
Wᵢ2 −0.40 0.40 0.75 0.07 −0.03 GGE 0.76 biplot−0.33 analysis −0.17 for −0.10
dry, rainy,0.43and combined seasons are presented in Figures 4–6,
σ2ᵢ −0.40 0.40 0.75 0.07 −0.03 0.76Based
respectively. −0.33on −0.17
the GGE −0.10biplot 0.43 of1.00 the dry season (Figure 4), 60.92% of the total
s2dᵢ −0.53 0.48 0.85 0.07variation
−0.12 for 0.87grain−0.44 yield was −0.17
−0.25 explained 0.25by 0.93 PC1 (40.19%)
0.93 and PC2 (20.73%). The ‘which won
bᵢ 0.60 0.25 −0.23 0.40where/what’
0.38 −0.51pattern 0.46 showed 0.35 0.43 five sectors
0.47 −0.10 for ten locations
−0.10 −0.23with different winning (vertex)
CVi 0.60 −0.05 −0.03 0.33 0.57 0.08 0.61 0.67 0.53 0.88 0.35 0.35 0.08BBDS,
hybrids. The vertex hybrids were SC2 in KADS, LBDS, 0.30NKDS, PPDS, and GJDS;
θ₍ᵢ₎ −0.40 0.40 0.75 SC3 hybrid in NNDS and ASDS;
0.07 −0.03 0.76 −0.33 −0.17 −0.10 0.43 1.00 1.00 0.93 −0.10 SC8 hybrid in JKDS and JTDS, while 0.35 other vertex hybrids,
θᵢ 0.40 −0.40 −0.75 namely SC1 and SC5 did not have locations
−0.07 0.03 −0.76 0.33 0.17 0.10 −0.43 −1.00 −1.00 −0.93 0.10 −0.35 −1.00 that fall in the sector.
Di −0.43 0.47 0.80 0.12 −0.03 0.90 −0.33 −0.12 −0.08 0.34 0.92 0.92 0.98 −0.27 0.17 0.92 −0.92
TOP 0.96 0.03 −0.49 0.57 0.73 −0.57 0.95 0.81 0.78 0.60 −0.40 −0.40 −0.55 0.66 0.60 −0.40 0.40 −0.48
Numbers in bold have a significant correlation (p < 0.05); Y = Grain yield.
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923 12 of 18

Table 8. Correlation of Spearman’s rank on parametric and non-parametric measurements on maize

hybrid yields in Java Island, Indonesia.

Y S(1) S(2) S(3) S(6) NP(1) NP(2) NP(3) NP(4) KR Wi2 σ2 i s2 di bi CVi θ(i) θi Di
S(1) 0.00
S(2) −0.50 0.60
S(3) 0.57 0.77 0.30
S(6) 0.77 0.52 0.05 0.92
NP(1) −0.47 0.31 0.73 0.02 −0.04
NP(2) 0.93 0.15 −0.40 0.66 0.83 −0.38
NP(3) 0.90 0.13 −0.28 0.63 0.85 −0.07 0.90
NP(4) 0.80 0.50 0.03 0.93 0.98 −0.13 0.85 0.83
KR 0.65 0.33 0.17 0.63 0.75 0.20 0.63 0.76 0.73
Wi2 −0.40 0.40 0.75 0.07 −0.03 0.76 −0.33 −0.17 −0.10 0.43
σ2 i −0.40 0.40 0.75 0.07 −0.03 0.76 −0.33 −0.17 −0.10 0.43 1.00
s2 di −0.53 0.48 0.85 0.07 −0.12 0.87 −0.44 −0.25 −0.17 0.25 0.93 0.93
bi 0.60 0.25 −0.23 0.40 0.38 −0.51 0.46 0.35 0.43 0.47 −0.10 −0.10 −0.23
CVi 0.60 −0.05 −0.03 0.33 0.57 0.08 0.61 0.67 0.53 0.88 0.35 0.35 0.08 0.30
θ(i) −0.40 0.40 0.75 0.07 −0.03 0.76 −0.33 −0.17 −0.10 0.43 1.00 1.00 0.93 −0.10 0.35
θi 0.40 −0.40 −0.75 −0.07 0.03 −0.76 0.33 0.17 0.10 −0.43 −1.00 −1.00 −0.93 0.10 −0.35 −1.00
Di −0.43 0.47 0.80 0.12 −0.03 0.90 −0.33 −0.12 −0.08 0.34 0.92 0.92 0.98 −0.27 0.17 0.92 −0.92
TOP 0.96 0.03 −0.49 0.57 0.73 −0.57 0.95 0.81 0.78 0.60 −0.40 −0.40 −0.55 0.66 0.60 −0.40 0.40 −0.48
Numbers in bold have a significant correlation (p < 0.05); Y = Grain yield.

For the rainy season, with two PCs accounting for 63.30% of the total variation for grain
yield (PC1 = 43.18% and PC2 = 20.12%), the GGE biplot revealed three mega-environments
(Figure 5). The first mega-environment consisted of NNRS, PPRS, GJRS, KARS, ASRS,
JKRS, and BBRS, with the winning hybrid SC2. The second mega-environment includes
LBRS and NKRS, with SC7 as the winning hybrid. The third mega-environment includes
JTRS, with the SC4 and SC8 as the winning hybrids. SC6 is the vertex hybrid in the sector
without an environment.
For the combined data in dry and rainy seasons, GGE biplots of ten locations in two
growing seasons revealed that the first two PCs accounted for 54.14% of the total variation
(PC1 = 37.61% and PC = 16.53%) (Figure 6). Based on the biplot, there were five sectors
with different winning hybrids (vertex). The vertex hybrids were SC1, SC7, SC2, and SC4.
Figure 6 represents the three mega-environments. The first mega-environment consisted
of JTDS and JTRS with the winning hybrid SC4. The second mega environment included
BBRS, JKRS, GJRS, KARS, PPRS, NNRS, ASDS, NNDS, GJDS, NKDS, JKDS, KADS, LBDS,
PPDS, and BBDS, with SC2 as the winning hybrid. The third mega-environment included
ASRS, LBRS, and NKRS, with the SC1 and SC7 as the winning hybrids. SC5 and SC6 were
vertex hybrids in the sector without environment, indicating that their yield performance
was poor in all test environments in this study.
According to the ‘ranking environment’ pattern of the GGE biplot presented in Figure 7,
the GJRS and KARS environments were ideal for testing because they were at the ideal point
(small arrow). These two locations were ideal for selecting superior hybrids because they
had high discriminating power and representation. The JTRS environment was farthest
from the ideal point and close to the center of the biplot axis. This location provides little
information about the maize hybrids tested, so they are unsuitable for testing. Other
environments were close to the ideal point but were outside the first circle, so it was useful
for selecting hybrids in specific environments.
The GGE biplot can provide an overview of the differences between hybrids and
environmental characteristics tested in multi-environment experiments. One advantage of
the biplot that showed the distribution pattern of hybrids and environments was “which
won where/what biplot” [53]. One of the characteristics of this biplot was the presence
of polygons that indicate the location of the hybrid being tested. Hybrids at the top of
the polygon (vertex) have the highest yields in the environment in that sector. Another
important feature of this pattern was the grouping of environments, which suggested the
possibility of different mega-environments [1,29,54]. In this current study, it was shown
that within each growing season, the sites fall into different groups, and the pattern of
site grouping varied throughout the seasons. The first two PCs explained 54.14–63.30% of
the total variability due to the effects of hybrid (G), environment (location and growing
 a measure of dynamic stability. They can be used to recommend ideal maize hybrids un-
der favorable environmental conditions [27,28].

3.4. Mega-Environment of Maize Hybrid and Identification of the Best Locations

GGE biplot analysis for dry, rainy, and combined seasons are presented in Figures
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923 13 of 18
4–6, respectively. Based on the GGE biplot of the dry season (Figure 4), 60.92% of the total
variation for grain yield was explained by PC1 (40.19%) and PC2 (20.73%). The ‘which
won where/what’ pattern showed five sectors for ten locations with different winning
season),
(vertex)and their The
hybrids. interactions (Figures
vertex hybrids 4–6).
were The
SC2 inGGE
KADS,biplot depicted
LBDS, BBDS,the distribution
NKDS, PPDS, and of
hybrids and environments in each season, and the average of the two seasons showed
GJDS; SC3 hybrid in NNDS and ASDS; SC8 hybrid in JKDS and JTDS, while other vertex two
and three namely
hybrids, mega-environments.
SC1 and SC5 did not have locations that fall in the sector.

Figure
Figure4.4. Mega-environment
4.Mega-environment
Mega-environment and vertex hybrids based on dry
dry season data. See
See1Tables 11 and 22 for
Figure andand vertex
vertex hybrids
hybrids basedbased onseason
on dry season data.
data. See Tables Tables
and 2 for and for
legends.
legends.
legends.

Figure 5. Mega-environment and vertex hybrids based on rainy season data. See Tables 1 and 2
for legends.

In the main mega-environment, SC2 was at the peak of the vertex in both dry, rainy,
and combined seasons. Meanwhile, mega-environment (single) showed the difference
between vertex hybrids. SC9 hybrids were always close to the center of the axis in each
growing season and the combined one. This showed that SC9 tends to be stable in various
environmental conditions; in other words, it has a small GEIs response. The two strategies
for evaluating mega-environmental data (analysis of each growing season and its combina-
tion) showed that there was more than one mega-environment for maize breeding programs
in various regions of Java island (Indonesia) and divided them into certain sub-regions.
However, based on the combined data during two growing seasons, it was found that
three mega-environments with different winning hybrids indicated the presence of maize
hybrids specific to the mega-environment and the presence of substantial GEIs. The ideal
hybrid is the hybrid with high yield and stability in multi-environment testing [27,28,33].
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923 14 of 18

The hybrid SC2, followed by SC1, SC4, SC7, and SC9, were identified as ideal hybrids
compared to others. This was confirmed by numerical measurements (parametric and
non-parametric), where HCA separated SC2, SC7, and SC9 in the stable and high-yield
groups (Figure 1). Based on these results, both measurement steps (numerical and graphi-
Agronomy 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19
cal) produced the same pattern in selecting stable and high-yielding maize hybrids. This
finding is similar to previous studies, which reported that stability measurements based on
parametric, non-parametric, and GGE biplots resulted in the similar result for selection of
Figure 5. Mega-environment and vertex hybrids based on rainy season data. See Tables 1 and 2 for
stable and high-yielding genotypes, including sweet potato [27,54] and safflower [55].
legends.

Figure6.6.Mega-environment
Figure
Agronomy 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Mega-environmentand
andvertex
vertexhybrids
hybridsbased
basedon
onthe
theaveraged
averaged2-growing
2-growingseason
seasondata.
data. See
14 ofSee
19
Tables 1 and 2 for legends.
Tables 1 and 2 for legends.

For the rainy season, with two PCs accounting for 63.30% of the total variation for
grain yield (PC1 = 43.18% and PC2 = 20.12%), the GGE biplot revealed three mega-envi-
ronments (Figure 5). The first mega-environment consisted of NNRS, PPRS, GJRS, KARS,
ASRS, JKRS, and BBRS, with the winning hybrid SC2. The second mega-environment in-
cludes LBRS and NKRS, with SC7 as the winning hybrid. The third mega-environment
includes JTRS, with the SC4 and SC8 as the winning hybrids. SC6 is the vertex hybrid in
the sector without an environment.
For the combined data in dry and rainy seasons, GGE biplots of ten locations in two
growing seasons revealed that the first two PCs accounted for 54.14% of the total variation
(PC1 = 37.61% and PC = 16.53%) (Figure 6). Based on the biplot, there were five sectors
with different winning hybrids (vertex). The vertex hybrids were SC1, SC7, SC2, and SC4.
Figure 6 represents the three mega-environments. The first mega-environment consisted
of JTDS and JTRS with the winning hybrid SC4. The second mega environment included
BBRS, JKRS, GJRS, KARS, PPRS, NNRS, ASDS, NNDS, GJDS, NKDS, JKDS, KADS, LBDS,
PPDS, and BBDS, with SC2 as the winning hybrid. The third mega-environment included
ASRS, LBRS, and NKRS, with the SC1 and SC7 as the winning hybrids. SC5 and SC6 were
vertex hybrids in the sector without environment, indicating that their yield performance
Figure7.7. The
was poorThe
Figure ‘Discriminatingand
in‘Discriminating andrepresentativeness’
all test environments representativeness’view
in this study. viewofofthe the
2020 environments
environments using
using GGEGGE bip-
biplot.
lot. See Table 2 for legends.
According
See Table to the ‘ranking environment’ pattern of the GGE biplot presented in Fig-
2 for legends.
ure 7, the GJRS and KARS environments were ideal for testing because they were at the
The GGE biplot can provide an overview of the differences between hybrids and en-
idealInpoint
multi-environment
(small arrow). evaluation, discriminative
These two locations and representative
were ideal locations
for selecting superior were
hybrids
vironmental
very important. characteristics
The ideal tested in
environmentpowermulti-environment
(location) experiments. One advantage of
because they had high discriminating andshould differentiate
representation. The the
JTRShybrids being
environment
the biplotand
evaluated thatthe
showed the distribution
representation of and pattern of hybrids
all environments and
[53,56].of
Intheenvironments
this current was “which
study,
was farthest from the ideal point close to the center biplot axis. Thisthe GGE
location
won where/what
biplot revealed that biplot”
the [53]. One ofofthe
environments GJRScharacteristics
and KARS of this
were the biplot was the presence
discriminative location(s)of
provides little information about the maize hybrids tested, so they are unsuitable for test-
polygons
and that indicate the location of the hybrid being tested. Hybrids at the top of the
ing.were
Otheratenvironments
the ideal point were(small
closearrow) of testing
to the ideal pointlocation(s) for multi-environment
but were outside the first circle, so
polygon (vertex)
evaluation in Javahave the(Figure
Island highest7). yields in the to
Contrary environment
that result, in thethat sector.
JTRS was Another im-
the farthest
it was useful for selecting hybrids in specific environments.
portant feature of this pattern was the grouping of environments, which suggested the
possibility of different mega-environments [1,29,54]. In this current study, it was shown
that within each growing season, the sites fall into different groups, and the pattern of site
grouping varied throughout the seasons. The first two PCs explained 54.14–63.30% of the
total variability due to the effects of hybrid (G), environment (location and growing sea-
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923 15 of 18

location from the ideal point and close to the center point of the biplot axis. This location
provided small information about the maize hybrids tested; therefore, it was not suitable
for multi-environment evaluation on Java island. Overall, the maize hybrids trial in mega-
environments selected the five best genotypes (stable and high-yielding); were SC1, SC2,
SC4, SC7, and SC9. In addition, both the dry season, the rainy season, and the combination
of the two seasons produce three mega-environments. The GGE biplot has also succeeded
in determining two representative environments for testing that can be used for large-scale
development in the future, namely GJRS and KARS.

3.5. Stability Maize Hybrids Based on Sustainability Index (SI)

The Sustainability Index (SI) evaluation is presented in Table 9. Some researchers
revealed that estimates of high SI indicate stability levels in certain genotype(s) [33,43,57].
In this current study, SI was divided into five groups: very low, low, medium, high, and
very high [33,43]. Estimating SI for grain yield in maize ranged from 49.51% (moderate) to
60.77% (high). The small range of SI was due to the genetic background of the planting
materials originating from the selected hybrid.

Table 9. Estimation for sustainability Index (SI) on maize hybrids in 10 locations during two
growing seasons.

Hybrid Code Y σn YM SI (%)

SC1 8.35 2.13 12.56 49.51 Moderate
SC2 9.73 2.02 13.16 58.54 Moderate
SC3 8.43 1.70 11.06 60.77 High
SC4 8.56 1.72 12.90 53.01 Moderate
SC5 7.86 1.83 12.08 49.86 Moderate
SC6 7.90 1.67 11.00 56.57 Moderate
SC7 8.68 1.66 12.08 58.14 Moderate
SC8 8.48 1.59 11.73 58.78 Moderate
SC9 8.69 1.65 12.27 57.43 Moderate

The moderate SI was shown by hybrid SC1 (49.51%), SC2 (58.54%), SC4 (53.01%), SC5
(49.86%), SC6 (56.57%), SC7 (58.14%), SC8 (58.78%), and SC9 (57.43%). Only the maize
hybrid of SC3 showed high SI (60.77%). The maize hybrid of SC3 showed a high average
yield at 8.43 ton.ha−1 with high SI of 60.77%, indicating the highest performance and
stability of this hybrid (Table 8). On the contrary to this result, maize hybrids of SC5 and
SC6 showed medium SI at 49.86% and 56.57%, respectively, with a low yield at 7.86 tons per
ha and 7.90 tons per ha. This result of SI for the two low-yield maize hybrids indicated the
stability of grain yield. This result is similar to the previous combined analysis, as presented
in Figure 2, wherein these two maize hybrids were grouped into a stable low-yield hybrid.
The other maize hybrid showing high yield and SI nearly high were maize hybrids of SC2,
SC7, SC8, and SC9. Generally, maize hybrids with moderate to high SI and performed yield
above average can be categorized as ideal genotypes. Ruswandi et al. (2022) [33] reported
a similar strategy to select high-yield maize hybrids by using SI.
Information of selected maize hybrids based on different stability analyses was sum-
marized in Table 10. Based on this Table, three maize hybrids were selected, namely maize
hybrids of SC2, SC7, and SC9. These three maize hybrids have high yields and are sta-
ble in different Java island environments, so that they can be recommended for maize
development programs in Indonesia.
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923 16 of 18

Table 10. Comparison of maize genotypes selection results based on each measurement.

Stability Measurements Selected Genotypes Percentage (%)

Combined analysis SC2, SC7, SC8, SC9 44.44
GGE Biplot SC1, SC2, SC4, SC7, SC9 55.56
SI SC2, SC3, SC7, SC8, SC9 55.56
Slice of all measurements SC2, SC7, SC9 33.33

4. Conclusions
The results of the analysis showed that the main effects of the growing season, location,
hybrid (G), and their interactions had a significant influence (p < 0.01) on the variation of
maize hybrid yields in Java Island, Indonesia. Stability measurements NP(1) , Wi2 , S2 di,
θ(i) , σ2 i , S(1) , S(2) , and Di were included in the concept of static stability, while TOP, S(3) ,
S(6) , NP(2) , NP(3) , KR, NP(4) , CVi , and bi measurements were included in the concept of
dynamic stability. SC2, SC7, and SC9 were identified as the most stable and high-yielding
yields, so they can be recommended for maize development programs in Indonesia. The
dry season, the rainy season, and the combination of the two seasons produce three mega-
environments. GJRS and KARS were the most representative environments with high
discriminatory power, so they can be used as favorable environments for selecting the ideal
maize hybrid.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.R. and Y.Y.; methodology, D.R.; software, N.W. and
H.M.; validation, D.R., Y.Y., Y.A.R.R. and A.I.; formal analysis, N.W. and H.M.; investigation, N.W.
and H.M.; resources, D.R.; data curation, N.W., H.M. and A.I.; writing—original draft preparation,
N.W., D.R., Y.A.R.R. and H.M.; writing—review and editing, Y.Y. and A.I.; visualization, H.M. and
D.R.; supervision, D.R. and Y.Y.; project administration, D.R.; funding acquisition, D.R. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Universitas Padjadjaran (UNPAD), a multiyear scheme of the
Competency Research Grant (Contract number: 1427/UN6.3.1/LT/2020) and Academic Leadership
Grant (contract number: 1959/UN6.3.1/PT.00/2021) to Dedi Ruswandi, and The APC was funded by
Universitas Padjadjaran (UNPAD).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data used to support the findings of this study are included within
the article.
Acknowledgments: Great appreciation is also given to the field assistance team from UNPAD (Vias,
Jajang, Ali and Raffi) during the multilocation yield trials and the Universitas Padjadjaran for the
post-doctoral grant with the number 2990/UN6.3.1/TU.00/2022.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Ruswandi, D.; Yuwariah, Y.; Ariyanti, M.; Syafii, M.; Nuarini, A. Stability and adaptability of yield among earliness sweet corn
hybrids in West Java, Indonesia. Int. J. Agron. 2020, 2020, 4341906. [CrossRef]
2. Indriani, N.P.; Yuwariah, Y.; Ruswandi, D. The genotype and crop age effect on nutritive value of corn forage. Indian J. Agric. Res.
2021, 5555, 374–378. [CrossRef]
3. Changizi, M.; Choukan, R.; Heravan, E.M.; Bihamta, M.R.; Darvish, F. Evaluation of genotype × environment interaction and
stability of corn hybrids and relationship among univariate parametric methods. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2014, 94, 1255–1267. [CrossRef]
4. Ruswandi, D.; Supriatna, J.; Rostini, N.; Suryadi, E. Assessment of sweetcorn hybrids under sweetcorn/chilli pepper intercropping
in West Java, Indonesia. J. Agron. 2016, 15, 94–103. [CrossRef]
5. Mortazavian, S.M.M.; Azizi-Nia, S. Nonparametric stability analysis in multi-environment trial of canola. Turkish. J. Field Crop
2014, 19, 108–117. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923 17 of 18

6. Balalić, I.; Zorić, M.; Miklič, V.; Dušanić, N.; Terzić, S.; Radić, V. Non-parametric stability analysis of sunflower oil yield trials.
Helia 2011, 34, 67–78. [CrossRef]
7. Maulana, H.; Dewayani, S.; Solihin, M.A.; Arifin, M.; Amien, S.; Karuniawan, A. Yield stability dataset of new orange fleshed
sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L. (lam)) genotypes in West Java, Indonesia. Data Br. 2020, 32, 106297. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Abo-Hegazy, S.R.E.; Selim, T.; Ashrie, A.A.M. Genotype × environment interaction and stability analysis for yield and its
components in lentil. J. Plant. Breed. Crop Sci. 2013, 5, 85–90. [CrossRef]
9. Karuniawan, A.; Maulana, H.; Ustari, D.; Dewayani, S.; Solihin, E.; Solihin, M.A.; Amien, S.; Arifin, M. Yield stability analysis of
orange—Fleshed sweet potato in Indonesia using AMMI and GGE biplot. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06881. [CrossRef]
10. Ruswandi, D.; Azizah, E.; Maulana, H.; Ariyanti, M.; Nuraini, A. Selection of high—Yield maize hybrid under different cropping
systems based on stability and adaptability parameters. Open Agric. 2022, 7, 161–170. [CrossRef]
11. Eberhart, S.A.; Russell, W.A. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci. 1966, 6, 36–40. [CrossRef]
12. Wricke, G.; Weber, W.E. Erweiterte Analyse von Wechselwirkungen in Versuchsserien. In Biometrie—Heute und Morgen; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1980; pp. 87–95.
13. Shukla, G.K. Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype-environmental components of variability. Heredity 1972, 29, 237–245.
[CrossRef]
14. Plaisted, R.L.; Peterson, L.C. A technique for evaluating the ability of selection to yield consistently in different locations or
seasons. Am. Potato. J. 1959, 36, 381–385. [CrossRef]
15. Plaisted, R.L. A shorter method for evaluating the ability of selections to yield consistently over locations. Am. Potato J. 1960,
37, 166–172. [CrossRef]
16. Hanson, W.D. Genotypic stability. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1970, 40, 226–231. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Francis, T.R.; Kannenberg, L.W. Yield stability studies in short-season maize: I. A descriptive method for grouping genotypes.
Can. J. Plant. Sci. 1978, 5, 1029–1034. [CrossRef]
18. Thennarasu, K. On Certain Non-Parametric Procedures for Studying Genotype-Environment Interactions and Yield Stability.
Ph.D Thesis, PJ School, IARI, New Delhi, India, 1995.
19. Nassar, R.; Huhn, M. Studies on Estimation of Phenotypic Stability: Tests of Significance for Nonparametric Measures of
Phenotypic Stability. Biometrics 1987, 43, 45–53. [CrossRef]
20. Huehn, M. Nonparametric measures of phenotypic stability. Part 1, Theory. Euphytica 1990, 47, 189–194. [CrossRef]
21. Kang, M.S. A rank-sum method for selecting high-yielding, stable corn genotypes. Cereal. Res. Commun. 1988, 16, 113–115.
22. Fox, P.N.; Skovmand, B.; Thompson, B.K.; Braun, H.J.; Cormier, R. Yield and adaptation of hexaploid spring triticale *. Euphytica
1990, 47, 57–64. [CrossRef]
23. Gauch, H.G. A Simple Protocol for AMMI Analysis of Yield Trials. Crop Sci. 2013, 53, 1860–1869. [CrossRef]
24. Bocianowski, J.; Wielkopolan, B.; Jakubowska, M. AMMI Analysis of the Effects of Different Insecticidal Treatments against
Agrotis spp. on the Technological Yield from Sugar Beet. Agriculture 2022, 12, 157. [CrossRef]
25. Yan, W.; Rajcan, I. Biplot analysis of test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Crop Sci. 2002, 42, 11–20. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
26. Ahmadi, J.; Vaezi, B.; Shaabani, A.; Khademi, K.; Ourang, S.F. Non-parametric measures for yield stability in grass pea
(Lathyrus sativus L.) advanced lines in semi warm regions. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2015, 17, 1825–1838.
27. Maulana, H.; Nafi’ah, H.H.; Solihin, E.; Ruswandi, D.; Arifin, M.; Amien, S.; Karuniawan, A. Combined stability analysis to select
stable and high yielding sweet potato genotypes in multi-environmental trials in West Java, Indonesia. Agric. Nat. Resour. 2022,
56, 761–772. [CrossRef]
28. Vaezi, B.; Pour-Aboughadareh, A.; Mohammadi, R.; Mehraban, A.; Pour-Hossein, T.; Koohkan, E.; Gasemi, S.; Moradkhani, H.;
Siddique, K.H.M. Integrating different stability models to investigate genotype × environment interactions and identify stable
and high-yielding barley genotypes. Euphytica 2019, 215, 63. [CrossRef]
29. Yan, W. Mega-environment analysis and test location evaluation based on unbalanced multiyear data. Crop Sci. 2015, 55, 113–122.
[CrossRef]
30. Khalili, M.; Pour-aboughadareh, A. Parametric and non-parametric measures for evaluation yield stability and adaptability in
barley doubled haploid lines. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2016, 18, 789–803.
31. Farshadfar, E.; Sabaghpour, S.H.; Zali, H. Comparison of parametric and non-parametric stability statistics for selecting stable
chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes under diverse environments. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2012, 6, 514–524.
32. Kiliç, H.; Akçura, M.; Aktaş, H. Assessment of parametric and non-parametric methods for selecting stable and adapted durum
wheat genotypes in multi-environments. Not. Bot. Horti. Agrobot. Cluj.-Napoca 2010, 38, 271–279. [CrossRef]
33. Ruswandi, D.; Syafii, M.; Wicaksana, N.; Maulana, H.; Ariyanti, M.; Indriani, N.P.; Suryadi, E.; Supriatna, J. Evaluation of
High-yielding Maize Hybrids Based on Combined Stability Analysis, Sustainability Index, and GGE Biplot. Biomed. Res. Int.
2022, 2022, 3963850. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Ajay, B.C.; Bera, S.K.; Singh, A.L.; Kumar, N.; Gangadhar, K.; Kona, P. Evaluation of genotype × environment interaction and
yield stability analysis in peanut under phosphorus stress condition using stability parameters of AMMI model. Agric. Res. 2020,
9, 477–486. [CrossRef]
35. Wijaya, A.A.; Maulana, H.; Susanto, G.W.A.; Sumardi, D.; Suseno, A.; Ruswandi, D.; Karuniawan, A. Grain yield stability of black
soybean lines across three agroecosystems in West Java, Indonesia. Open. Agric. 2022, 7, 749–763. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2022, 12, 2923 18 of 18

36. Abate, F.; Mekbib, F.; Dessalegn, Y. Association of Different Parametric and Non parametric Stability Models in Durum Wheat
(Triticum turgidum Desf.) Genotypes. Int. J. Plant. Soil. Sci. 2015, 7, 192–201. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Ruswandi, D.; Waluyo, B.; Makkulawu, A.T.; Azizah, E.; Yuwariah, Y.; Rostini, N. Simple sequence repeats analysis of new
Indonesian maize inbred. Asian. J. Crop Sci. 2017, 9, 141–148. [CrossRef]
38. IBPGR. Descriptores for Maize. Int. Maize. Wheat. Improv. Cent. 1991. Available online: https://www.bioversityinternational.org/e-
library/publications/detail/descriptors-for-maizedescriptores-para-maizdescripteurs-pour-le-mais/ (accessed on 25 July 2021).
39. Pour-aboughadareh, A.; Yousefian, M.; Moradkhani, H.; Poczai, P.; Siddique, K.H.M. STABILITYSOFT: A new online program to
calculate parametric and non-parametric stability statistics for crop traits. Apllications Plant. Sci. 2019, 7, e01211. [CrossRef]
40. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 19.0; IBM Corp: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
41. Yim, O.; Ramdeen, K.T. Hierarchical Cluster Analysis: Comparison of Three Linkage Measures and Application to Psychological
Data. Quant. Methods Psychol. 2015, 11, 8–21. [CrossRef]
42. Tuteja, O.P. Comparative studies on stability parameters and sustainability index for selecting stable genotypes in upland cotton
(Gossypium hirsutum L.). Indian J. Genet. Plant. Breed 2006, 66, 221–224.
43. Atta, B.M.; Shah, T.M.; Abbas, G.; Haq, M.A. Genotype × environment interaction for seed yield in kabuli chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes developed through mutation breeding. Pakistan J. Bot. 2009, 41, 1883–1890.
44. Alibu, S.; Neuhoff, D.; Senthilkumar, K.; Becker, M.; Kopke, U. Potential of cultivating dry season maize along a hydrological
gradient of an inland valley in Uganda. Agronomy 2019, 9, 606. [CrossRef]
45. Bocianowski, J.; Prazak, R. Genotype by year interaction for selected quantitative traits in hybrid lines of Triticum aestivum L. with
Aegilops kotschyi Boiss. and Ae. variabilis Eig. using the additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model. Euphytica
2022, 218, 11. [CrossRef]
46. Katsenios, N.; Sparangis, P.; Chanioti, S.; Giannoglou, M.; Leonidakis, D.; Christopoulos, M.V.; Katsaros, G.; Efthimiadou, A.
Genotype × environment interaction of yield and grain quality traits of maize hybrids in Greece. Agronomy 2021, 11, 357.
[CrossRef]
47. Adnan, A.A.; Diels, J.; Jibrin, J.M.; Kamara, A.Y.; Shaibu, A.S.; Craufurd, P.; Menkir, A. CERES-Maize model for simulating
genotype-by-environment interaction of maize and its stability in the dry and wet savannas of Nigeria. Field Crop Res. 2020,
253, 107826. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Kendal, E.; Şener, O. Examination of genotype × environment interactions by GGE biplot analysis in spring durum wheat.
Indian J. Genet. Plant. Breed 2015, 75, 341–348. [CrossRef]
49. Andrade, M.I.; Naico, A.; Ricardo, J.; Eyzaguirre, R.; Makunde, G.S.; Ortiz, R.; Gruneberg, W.J. Genotype × environment
interaction and selection for drought adaptation in sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas [L.] Lam.) in Mozambique. Euphytica 2016,
209, 261–280. [CrossRef]
50. Aulia, R.; Maulana, H.; Filio, Y.L.; Shafira, N.A.; Anindita, P.A.; Suganda, T.; Concibido, V.; Karuniawan, A. Assessment of
rhizome yield of local Indonesian turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) during two growing seasons. Biodiversitas 2022, 23, 2534–2543.
[CrossRef]
51. Goksoy, A.T.; Sincik, M.; Erdogmus, M.; Ergin, M.; Aytac, S. The parametric and non-parametric stability analyses for interpreting
genotype by environment interaction of some soybean genotypes. Turkish J. Field Crop 2019, 24, 28–38. [CrossRef]
52. Mohammadi, R.; Amri, A. Comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods for selecting stable and adapted durum wheat
genotypes in variable environments. Euphytica 2008, 159, 419–432. [CrossRef]
53. Yan, W.; Mitchell-Fetch, J.; Beattie, A.; Nilsen, K.T.; Pageau, D.; DeHaan, B.; Hayes, M.; Mountain, N.; Cummiskey, A.;
MacEachern, D. Oat mega-environments in Canada. Crop Sci. 2021, 61, 1141–1153. [CrossRef]
54. Karuniawan, A.; Maulana, H.; Anindita, P.A.; Yoel, A.; Ustari, D.; Suganda, T.; Concibido, V. Storage root yield and sweetness
level selection for new honey sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas [L.] Lam). Open. Agric. 2021, 6, 329–345. [CrossRef]
55. Jamshidmoghaddam, M.; Pourdad, S.S. Genotype × environment interactions for seed yield in rainfed winter safflower
(Carthamus tinctorius L.) multi-environment trials in Iran. Euphytica 2013, 190, 357–369. [CrossRef]
56. González-Barrios, P.; Díaz-García, L.; Gutiérrez, L. Mega-environmental design: Using genotype × environment interaction to
optimize resources for cultivar testing. Crop Sci. 2019, 59, 1899–1915. [CrossRef]
57. Bose, L.K.; Jambhulkar, N.N.; Pande, K.; Singh, O.N. Use of AMMI and other stability statistics in the simultaneous selection of
rice genotypes for yield and stability under direct-seeded conditions. Chill. J. Agric. Res. 2014, 74, 3–9. [CrossRef]