A comparison of empirical BLUP with different considerations of residual error variance for genotype evaluation of multi-location trials
Abstract
Abstract
The empirical best linear unbiased prediction (eBLUP) is usually based on the assumption that the residual error variance (REV) is homogenous. This may be unrealistic, and therefore limits the accuracy of genotype evaluations for multi-location trials, where the REV often varies across locations. The objective of this contribution was to investigate the direct implications of the eBLUP with different considerations about REV based on the mixed model for evaluation of genotype simple effects (i.e. genotype effects at individual locations). A series of 14 multi-location trials from a rape-breeding program in the north of China were simultaneously analyzed from 2012 to 2014 using a randomized complete block design at each location. The results showed that the model with heterogeneous REV was more appropriate than the one with homogeneous REV in all of the trials according to model fitting statistics. Whether the REV differences across locations were accounted for in the analysis procedure influenced the variance estimate of related random effects and testing of the variance of genotype-location (G-L) interactions. Ignoring REV differences by use of the eBLUP could result not only in an inflation or deflation of statistical Type I error rates for pair-wise testing but also in an inaccurate ranking of genotype simple effects for these trials. Therefore, it is suggested that in application of the eBLUP for evaluation of genotype simple effects in multi-location trials, the heterogeneity of REV should be accounted for based on mixed model approaches with appropriate variance-covariance structure.
Downloads
References
Annicchiarico P, 2007. Wide-versus specific-adaptation strategy for lucerne breeding in northern Italy. Theor Appl Genet 114: 647-657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-006-0465-1
Annicchiarico P, Perenzin M, 1994. Adaptation patterns and definition of macro-environments for selection and recommendation of common wheat genotypes in Italy. Plant Breed 113: 197-205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.1994.tb00723.x
Annicchiarico P, Piano E, 2005. Use of artificial environments to reproduce and exploit genotype×location interaction for lucerne in northern Italy. Theor Appl Genet 110: 219-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-004-1811-9
Annicchiarico P, Pecetti L, Boggini G, Doust MA, 2000. Repeatability of large-scale germplasm evaluation results in durum wheat. Crop Sci 40: 1810-1814. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2000.4061810x
Annicchiarico P, Bellah F, Chiari T, 2005. Defining subregions and estimating benefits for a specific-adaptation strategy by breeding programs: a case study. Crop Sci 45: 1741-1749. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004.0524
Annicchiarico P, Bellah F, Chiari T, 2006. Repeatable genotype×location interaction and its exploitation by conventional and GIS-based cultivar recommendation for durum wheat in Algeria. Eur J Agron 24: 70-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2005.05.003
Atlin GN, Baker RJ, McRae KB, Lu X, 2000a. Selection response in subdivided target regions. Crop Sci 40: 7-13. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2000.4017
Atlin, GN, Lu X, McRae KB, 2000b. Genotype×region interaction for yield in two-row barley in Canada. Crop Sci 40: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2000.4011
Casanoves F, Macchiavelli R, Balzarini M, 2005. Error variation in multienvironment peanut trials: Within-trial spatial correlation and between-trial heterogeneity. Crop Sci 45: 1927-1933. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004.0547
Cochran WG, Cox GM, 1957. Experimental designs, 2nd ed. Wiley, NY.
Cornelius PL, Crossa J, Seyedsadr MS, 1994. Tests and estimators of multiplicative models for variety trials. Proc 1993 Kansas State Univ. Conf. on Applied Statistics in Agriculture. Manhatten, KS, USA. pp: 156-169.
Fai AHT, Cornelius PL, 1996. Approximate F-tests of multiple degree of freedom hypotheses in generalized least squares analyses of unbalanced split-plot experiments. J Sta Comput Sim 54: 363-378. https://doi.org/10.1080/00949659608811740
Forkman J, Piepho HP, 2013. Performance of empirical BLUP and Bayesian prediction in small randomized complete block experiments. J Agr Sci 151: 381-395. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859612000445
Giesbrecht FG, Burns JC, 1985. Two-stage analysis based on a mixed model: large-sample asymptotic theory and small-sample simulation results. Biometrics 41: 477-486. https://doi.org/10.2307/2530872
Harville D, 1976. Extension of the Gauss-Markov theorem to include the estimation of random effects. Ann Stat 4: 384-395. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176343414
Harville, D, 1977. Maximum likelihood approaches to variance component estimation and related problems. J Am Statist Assoc 72: 320-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1977.10480998
Henderson CR, 1975. Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics 31: 423-447. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529430
Hu XY, 2015. A comprehensive comparison between ANOVA and BLUP to valuate location-specific genotype effects for rape cultivar trials with random locations. Field Crops Res 179: 144-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.04.023
Hu XY, Yan SW, Shen KL, 2013. Heterogeneity of error variance and its influence on genotype comparison in multi-location trials. Field Crops Res 149: 322-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.05.011
Hu XY, Yan SW, Li SL, 2014. The influence of error variance variation on analysis of genotype stability in multi-environment trials. Field Crops Res 156: 84-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.11.001
Kackar AN, Harville DA, 1984. Approximation for standard errors of estimators of fixed and random effects in mixed linear models. J Am Stat Assoc 79: 853-861.
Kelly AM, Smith AB, Eccleston JA, Cullis BR, 2007. The accuracy of varietal selection using factor analytic models for multi-environment plant breeding trials. Crop Sci 47: 1063-1070. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.08.0540
Kenward MG, Roger JH, 1997. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53: 983-997. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533558
Kleinknecht K, Möhring J, Singh KP, Zaidi PH, Atlin GN, Piepho HP, 2013. Comparison of the performance of best linear unbiased estimation and best linear unbiased prediction of genotype effects from zoned Indian maize data. Crop Sci 53: 1384-1391. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2013.02.0073
Leiser WL, Rattunde HF, Piepho HP, Weltzien E, Diallo A, Melchinger AE, Parzies HK, Haussmann BIG, 2012. Selection strategy for sorghum targeting phosphorus limited environments in West Africa: Analysis of multi-environment experiments. Crop Sci 52: 2517-2527. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2012.02.0139
Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, 1996. SAS system for mixed models. SAS Inst, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, 2006. SAS system for mixed models, 2nd ed. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
Ma D, Stützel H, 2014. Prediction of winter wheat cultivar performance in Germany: at national, regional and location scale. Eur J Agron 52: 210-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.09.005
Marx DB, Stroup WW, 1993. Analysis of spatial variability using PROC MIXED. Proc of the 1993 Kansas State Univ Conf on Appl Stat in Agr. Kansas State Univ, Manhattan, KS, USA. https://doi.org/10.4148/2475-7772.1371
McLean RA, Saunders WL, Stroup WW, 1991. A unified approach to mixed linear models. Am Statist 45: 54-64.
Mrode R, 2005. Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding values, 2nd ed. CAB Int., Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851990002.0000
Oman SD, 1991. Multiplicative effects in mixed model analysis of variance. Biometrika 78: 729-739. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/78.4.729
Pauler DK, 1998. The Schwarz criterion and related methods for normal linear models. Biometrika 85: 13-27. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/85.1.13
Piepho HP, 1994. Best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) for regional yield trials: A comparison to additive main effects multiplicative interaction (AMMI) analysis. Theor Appl Genet 89: 647-654. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00222462
Piepho HP, 1995. Detecting and handing heteroscedasticity in yield trial data. Commun Statist Simul 24: 243-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610919508813240
Piepho HP, 1998. Empirical best linear unbiased prediction in cultivar trials using factor analytic variance-covariance structures. Theor Appl Genet 97: 195-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001220050885
Piepho HP, Möhring J, 2005. Best linear unbiased prediction of cultivar effects for subdivided target regions. Crop Sci 45: 1151-1159. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004.0398
Piepho HP, Denis JB, van Eeuwijk FA, 1998. Predicting cultivar differences using covariates. J Agr Biol Env Stat 3: 151-162. https://doi.org/10.2307/1400648
Piepho HP, Möhring J, Melchinger AE, Büchse A, 2008. BLUP for phenotypic selection in plant breeding and variety testing. Euphytica 161: 209-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-007-9449-8
Raman A, Ladha JK, Kumar V, Sharma S, Piepho HP, 2011. Stability analysis of farmer participatory trials for conservation agriculture using mixed models. Field Crops Res 121: 450-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2011.02.001
Robinson GK, 1991. That BLUP is a good thing: The estimation of random effects: Statist Sci 6: 15-51. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011926
SAS Inst., 2011. SAS/STA software: changes and enhancement through release 9.2. SAS Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
Satterthwaite FE, 1941. Synthesis of variance. Psychometrika 6: 309-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02288586
Searle SR, Casella G, McCulloch CE, 1992. Variance components. Wiley, NY. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316856
Shukla GK, 1972. Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype-environmental components of variability. Heredity 29: 237-245. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1972.87
Singh M, Tadesse W, Sarker A, Maalouf F, Imtiaz M, Capettini F, Nachit M, 2013. Capturing the heterogeneity of the error variances of a group of genotypes in crop cultivar trials. Crop Sci 53: 811-818. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2012.11.0637
Smith AB, Cullis BR, Gilmour AR, 2001. The analysis of crop variety evaluation data in Australia. Aus N Z J Stat 43: 129-245. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-842X.00163
Smith AB, Cullis BR, Thompson R, 2005. The analysis of crop cultivar breeding and evaluation trials: an overview of current mixed model approaches. J Agr Sci Cambridge 143: 449-462. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859605005587
Steel RGD, Torrie JH, 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics. A biometrical approach, 2nd ed. McGraw Hill, NY.
Weber WE, Westermann T, 1994. Prediction of yield for specific locations in German winter-wheat trials. Plant Breed 113: 99-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.1994.tb00711.x
Windhausen VS, Wagener S, Magorokosho C, Makumbi D, Vivek B, Piepho HP, Melchinger AE, Atlin GN, 2012. Strategies to subdivide a target population of environments: Results from the CIMMYT-led maize hybrid testing programs in Africa. Crop Sci 52: 2143-2152. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2012.02.0125
Wolfinger R, 1993. Covariance structure selection in general mixed models. Commun Stat-Simul C 22: 1079-1106. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610919308813143
Yan W, Rajcan I, 2003. Prediction of cultivar performance based on single- versus multiple-year tests in soybean. Crop Sci 43: 549-555. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2003.0549
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the printed and online versions of this Journal are the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.
All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a “Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (CC BY 4.0) License. You may read here the basic information and the legal text of the license. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 License must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the published by the Editor, is not allowed.
