4.6 Article

Variation and stability analysis of growth traits of poplar clones in the seedling stage in northeast China

Journal

JOURNAL OF FORESTRY RESEARCH
Volume 34, Issue 4, Pages 1107-1116

Publisher

NORTHEAST FORESTRY UNIV
DOI: 10.1007/s11676-022-01529-7

Keywords

Populus; Genetic variation; Genotypexenvironment interaction; AMMI model; GGE biplot

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the growth traits of 43 one-year-old poplar clones at different sites in northeast China and found significant differences in height and base diameter among sites and clones. Genetic variation was the main source of variation, and the effects of genotype and environment differed. The results provide important information for forest regeneration in northeast China.
Plant phenotypes are influenced by genetic and environmental factors. In this study, the growth traits of 43 one-year-old poplar clones grown at different sites in northeast China (Dongling State-owned Forest Protection Center, DL; Baicheng State-owned forest farm, BC; and Cuohai Forest farm, CH) were evaluated and analyzed across clones and sites. Results show significant differences in height and base diameter among sites and clones. Phenotypic and genetic variation coefficients ranged from 49.59% (BC) to 58.39% (DL) and from 49.33% (BC) to 58.06% (DL), respectively. Additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) analysis showed that the effects of genotype, environment, and genotype xenvironment interaction were significantly different. Genetic variation was the main source of variation, accounting for 48.6%. AMMI biplot showed that clone 30 had high and stable yields at the three sites. From an evaluation of multiple traits and GGE biplot that clone 2, clone 30 and clone 25 had higher yield than the other clones at DL, CH and BC, respectively. These clones will provide material for forest regeneration in northeast China.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available