Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Genotype × Environment Interaction: A Prerequisite for Tomato Variety Development

Written By

Michael Kwabena Osei, Benjamin Annor, Joseph Adjebeng- Danquah, Agyemang Danquah, Eric Danquah, Essie Blay and Hans Adu-Dapaah

Submitted: July 19th, 2017Reviewed: February 27th, 2018Published: November 5th, 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.76011

Chapter metrics overview

2,264 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is the second most important vegetable crop in the world due to its high level of nutrition particularly in vitamins and antioxidants. It is grown in several ecologies of the world due to its adaptability and ease of cultivation. Besides field conditions, tomatoes are grown in controlled environments which range from hydroponics and simple high tunnel structures to highly automated screen houses in advanced countries. However, the yield and quality of the fruits are highly influenced by the environment. This results in unpredictable performances in different growing environments in terms of quality, a phenomenon known as genotype by environment (G × E) interaction which confounds selection efficiency. Various approaches are employed by plant breeders to evaluate and address the challenges posed by genotype by environment interaction. This chapter discusses various field and controlled environments for growing tomatoes and the effect of these environments on the performance of the crop. The various types of genotype × environment interactions and their effect of the tomato plant are discussed. Finally, efforts are made to suggest ways and methods of mitigating the confounding effects of genotype × environment interaction including statistical approaches.

Keywords

  • tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)
  • adaptability
  • field conditions
  • controlled environments
  • genotype × environment interaction

1. Introduction

The rise in population and the ensuing increase in the demand for agricultural produce are expected to be greater in Africa where production is not adequate. The need for increase in agricultural production cannot be overemphasized. This embodies challenges to forming systems, and must come mainly from increased yield per unit area, given the limited scope for extension of cultivated land worldwide. To meet this requirement, numerous crop improvement programs all over the world have been initiated. In every crop improvement program, promising genotypes are tested for their performance each year at a number of sites, representing the major growing area of the crop. This is to identify genotypes which possess the dual qualities of high-yield sustainability to adverse changes in environment condition. It is observed that a specified difference in environment may produce disparity outcome on genotype. This interplay of genetic and nongenetic effects causing differential relative performances of genotypes in different environments is called genotype × environment interaction (GEI). A genotype × environment interaction thus may perhaps be a change in the relative performance of a character of two or more genotypes measured in two or more environments. There have been early efforts made to classify genotype-environment interactions into four groups [1]. The first group, although was not an interaction, was later observed as a nonadditive relationships between genotype and environment [2].

Advertisement

2. Origin of genotype × environment interaction

There are two different conceptions of the origin of gene × environment interaction (GEI). The two concepts are referred to as biometric and developmental interaction [3] or statistical and common sense interaction [4]. Fisher introduced the biometric concept of GEI, whereas Lancelot Hogben introduced the developmental concept of GEI [3]. The biometric (statistical) concept of GEI has its origins in research programs that seek to measure the relative proportions of genetic and environmental contributions to phenotypic variation within populations. Biometric gene × environment interaction has particular importance in population genetics and behavioral genetics [3]. Developmental GEI is a concept more commonly used by developmental geneticists and developmental psychobiologists. The developmental interaction is not seen merely as a statistical phenomenon, but manifested in the causal interaction of genes and environments in producing an individual’s phenotype [5]. Most of the subsequent history of research on GEI has largely been based on the Fisher and Lancelot Hogben’s concepts [3].

Advertisement

3. Tomato genome and genetic variation

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicumL.) is the second most important vegetable crop in the world, and an important model plant for genetics and genomics studies, because of its relatively short reproductive cycle and small genome size. Moreover, the continued importance of tomato as a vegetable is reflected by the large volume of research on almost all aspects of the crop. Its genotype determines the characters expressed by the crop. The tomato genome has been translated by plant geneticists who discovered that the crop contains 31,760 genes after mapping its genetic makeup. The tomato’s genome is, however, closer to that of a potato. As a crop plant, tomato is one of the best-characterized plant systems. It has a relatively small genome of 0.95 pg or 950 Mb per haploid nucleus [6] and features such as diploidy, self-pollination, and a relatively short generation time make it amenable to genetic analysis. The tomato genome at the DNA level consists of approximately 78% single-copy sequences, as evaluated under high stringency hybridization conditions [7]. The remaining part of the tomato sequences is repetitive DNA of which four major classes have been characterized. Ribosomal DNA represents the most abundant repetitive DNA family and comprises approximately 3% of the tomato genome. Both 5S and 45S rRNA genes are tandemly repeated with 1000 and 2300 copies and map to single loci on chromosomes 1 and 2, respectively [8]. Tomato chromosomes can easily be identified by pachytene analysis. With the development of trisomics, monosomics, and translocations through chromosome engineering, tomato cytogenetic research has become one of the most advanced areas in the field of agriculture. Tomato crosses with its wild relatives with varying degrees of difficulty; thus, wild relatives can and have been used as sources of genes for crop improvement. Wild species are interesting resources of genetic variation for introgression breeding and comprise exclusive sources of many resistance genes for cultivated tomatoes [9]. Higher plant densities have increased yield in tomatoes and it is influenced by the genotype [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16].

Figure 1.

Interior and exterior features of high tunnels for controlled vegetable cultivation.

Advertisement

4. Tomato growth and environment

Tomato is grown under various environments ranging from field conditions such as gardens and under controlled environments. Growing tomatoes under field conditions is the cheapest option for most smallholder farmers due to the low resource requirements. Farmers rely on the rainfall pattern with supplementary watering particularly during the dry season. The crops cultivated this way are exposed to the diverse environmental conditions that may prevail in the area [17]. Intensive crop management such as pruning and staking is always difficult under these conditions. Due to harsh environmental conditions in most parts of the tropics, most tomato growers prefer to grow tomato under controlled environments. The main objective of such operations is to attain the full potential of the crop in terms of yield and nutrient content. Growing tomatoes under controlled environments facilitates improved management such as pruning and staking that could improve the yield of tomatoes. Studies have shown that high temperatures particularly in the tropics affect the quality and nutrient content particularly lycopene of field-grown tomatoes [18, 19]. However, growing tomatoes under controlled environments requires more resources that increase the cost of production and make it difficult for smallholder farmers to engage in it.

Advertisement

5. Field conditions

Tomato is mostly cultivated in moderate climates around the world but can thrive well in a wide range of climatic conditions. The vegetative and reproductive processes of the tomato are adversely affected by high temperature stress, resulting in a reduction in fruit quality and yield [20]. In temperate regions, the crop does well within daily average temperature range of 18°C and high of 25°C, while the warm season temperatures average low of 26°C and a high of 32°C. Significantly higher or lower temperatures can have negative effects on fruit set and quality. Studies have shown that temperatures above 32°C for more than 3 hours a day can induce abortion of flowers resulting in low fruit yield [21]. In Ghana and most parts of West Africa, it is cultivated in the open field under field conditions, or in controlled environments such as greenhouse. The productivity of the tomato crop depends on the yield potential of the genotype, the soil as well as agronomic and management practices that are carried out. Tomatoes can be produced on a wide range of soils varying from deep, medium textured sandy loam or loamy, fertile, well-drained soils [22]. The site for growing tomatoes should be carefully selected based on the topography, soil type, soil structure, and soil management and the cropping history of the land (fields previously cropped to solanaceous crops should be avoided). Tomato plants depend on the soil for adequate nutrient and water supply as well as anchorage for physical support. For this reason, land preparation should be adequately done to ensure proper plant establishment and to provide the best soil structure for root growth and development. Tomatoes require soils that are rich in nutrients but most soils in Sub-Saharan Africa are low in nutrients due to continuous intensive cultivation without adequate application of soil amendment measure [23, 24]. The potential of organic and inorganic fertilizers can provide the needed solution for intensive tomato cultivation, but this is limited due to scarcity, cost implications, and problems with high acidity associated with over application of such fertilizers [25]. The application of green manure can also provide a viable alternative for maintaining soil fertility but its use is limited among tomato farmers in Ghana [26].

5.1. Controlled environments

In most parts of the tropics, tomato production is weather dependent and highly seasonal. This had led to fluctuations in glut during peak harvest and scarcity during the unfavorable periods of the season. This scenario often affects the pricing and revenue of the growers as well as consumer satisfaction [27]. The use of controlled environment in tomato cultivation can address the challenges faced by tomato farmers to provide suitable environment for growing tomatoes during the off-season and meet consumer demands. Several controlled environments are used in tomatoes cultivation.

Advertisement

6. Screenhouse/greenhouse

Greenhouse tomato production utilizes techniques that are not used in the open field or other intensive cropping systems. In the greenhouse, water, carbon dioxide, artificial lighting, soilless growth medium such as hydroponics and heating systems are provided to simulate the growing conditions that occur in the open field [28]. Most greenhouses are used in association with drip irrigation systems that regulate and save the amount of water that will be required to produce the optimum yield. In some cases, only 25% of the water required in the open field is used to produce the same quantity in the greenhouse [29]. This is very useful in areas that are faced with extreme temperatures and water scarcity [28] and will be crucial in crop production especially with the imminent shortage of water that will be associated with climate change and variability. The use of greenhouse technology in tomato cultivation combines market-driven quality parameters with the production system that enhances the quality and quantity of the final product. Provision of the necessary intensive plant care is possible without the excessive use of chemical pest management. This is because better protection is achieved through the use of integrated pest management strategies that are more effective under controlled environments than in open field [30]. Cultivation of tomato under this system ensures that the high profit margins due to premium prices offered the good-quality products obtained because in addition to higher yield, the production is also free from dust, insect, disease, and pest [31]. Greenhouse-grown round and cluster tomatoes were found to contain higher levels of lycopene than field-grown tomatoes. However, the opposite was the case with cherry tomatoes which recorded lower levels of lycopene under greenhouse conditions compared with open-field cherry tomatoes. These reports suggested the presence of genotype by environment interaction effect [18]. Therefore, careful varietal selection should be done when utilizing the greenhouse technology in tomato cultivation. Besides careful varietal selection, energy consumption is also one area that needs to be considered critically when deciding the type of technology to be used for maximum profit [32].

6.1. High tunnel

Tomatoes are well adapted to the growing conditions within a high tunnel. A high tunnel often called hoophouseis a solar-heated, manually controlled vented structure cold frame that is covered with plastic (single or double layer) for cultivation of many horticultural crops with the purpose of lengthening the growing season. Though similar in appearance to some greenhouses, they lack some features of greenhouses such as electricity for temperature and humidity regulation, and thus require no electrical connections for ventilation and supplemental heat [33, 34, 35]. However, most high tunnels have roll-up sidewalls and detachable end walls for temperature and humidity management. High tunnels can significantly increase the average daily temperature and protect the crop from wind, rain, insects, and diseases. Crops are grown directly in the soil using raised beds or mulch [36, 37]. Since high tunnels exclude natural rainfall so water must be applied through irrigation. Drip irrigation significantly improves the marketable yield and overall quality and is the best form of irrigation for tomatoes grown under high tunnels. It ensures uniform application of water to help reduce fruit cracking and other physiological problems such as blossom end rot. In most intensive cultivation using the high tunnel technology, both water and nutrients are supplied to the crops during the growing season with drip irrigation [38]. When tomatoes are cultivated in high tunnels they can be trained to grow vertically by the use of trellis or staking (Figure 1).

6.2. Hydroponics

Hydroponic tomatoes are grown in a nutrient solution rather than soil. The plants are typically placed in a nonsoil material known as substrata that can support their roots and hold the nutrients. In some cases, hydroponic system utilizes absorbent substrata such as coconut fiber, perlite, rock wool, vermicompost, and their combinations [39, 40] together with a drip-irrigation system which supplies water at low tension and high frequency to create optimum environment for growth of the vegetable [41, 42]. By avoiding soil medium, the use of hydroponics enables the grower to prevent diseases and soil-borne pests, such as nematodes, that are difficult to control [43]. Tomato production under protected systems such as hydroponics allows cultivation in regions inappropriate for conventional agriculture by efficiently using natural resources particularly water and soil [44]. Hydroponic systems provide regulation of harvesting, avoiding crop rotation, better fruit quality, better crop handling, and better control over nutritional needs and environmental conditions. Growing tomatoes under hydroponic system allows the grower to raise them under a controlled environment with less chance of disease, faster growth, and greater fruit yield. This offers several advantages in terms of the quantity and quality of products obtained per unit land area over cultivation in soil [45]. However, hydroponic gardening is labor-intensive and requires skilled training for efficient water and nutrient management under large-scale production. It has been suggested that one of the major problems of using the hydroponics systems for tomato cultivation is its requirement for highly specialized technical support in order to properly replenish the nutrient solution in all the growing phases of the crop [43] (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Dutch bucket hydroponic system for cultivating tomatoes (https://www.google.com.gh/search?tbm = isch&sa = 1&q = hydroponics+tomatoes&oq = hydroponics+tomatoes&gs_l = psy-ab.3..0j0i5i30k1j0i24k1l6.202616.205468.0.206233.9.9.0.0.0.0.384.1735.2-5j1.6.0….0…1.1.64.Psy-ab..3.6.1732…0i67k1.0.HQe-PNKGI6I#imgrc = gjqgs0WVSaQvuM).

6.3. Irrigation

The tomato plant like most vegetable crops requires a lot of water for optimum growth and development. Moisture stress causes abortion of flowers and young fruits, and young fruit, sun scalding, and dry rot of fruit. Water is required at most critical stages of growth of the tomato plant particularly at transplanting, flowering, and fruit development. Adequate supply of water is very essential for attaining the full potential of tomato plants under cultivation [31, 32]. However, agricultural activities in most parts of the tropics are mostly rainfed resulting in short supply of water for farming activities during the dry season. Rainfall amounts are often erratic even during the main growing season resulting in poor crop performance especially in areas where tomatoes are grown in soils with low water holding capacity. The use of irrigation schemes provides the needed water required for crop production. This makes supplemental irrigation essential for commercial tomato production to sustain consistent yields of high-quality tomatoes during the off-season to meet demand of consumers. Studies have shown that irrigation increases annual tomato yields by an average of at least 60% over dryland production [32, 33]. The quality of tomatoes cultivated under irrigation has also been found to be better than nonirrigated fields [20].

Advertisement

7. Types of irrigation in tomato cultivation

7.1. Sprinkler irrigation

These systems include center pivot, linear move, traveling gun, permanent set, and portable aluminum pipe with sprinklers that supply the irrigation water in sprays to the crops. The idea is to mimic the natural rain drops. Sprinkler systems used in tomato production are normally adjusted to deliver at least an inch of water every 4 days. The system is also designed to supply the water in such a way that runoff is prevented [41]. The type of soil is also considered in adjusting the speed of the sprinkler irrigation system. Whereas faster speed (3 inches per hour) is preferred in sandy soils, slower speed is preferred in loamy soils (1 inch per hour). High level of application uniformity is essential every plant is covered to ensure uniform growth and development throughout the field [42].

7.2. Drip irrigation

Drip irrigation has become the standard practice for tomato production. Although it can be used with or without plastic mulch, its use is highly recommended with plastic mulch culture. One of the major advantages of drip irrigation is its water use efficiency. When used in conjunction with plastic mulch, the tubing can be installed at the same time the plastic mulch is laid. In drip irrigation system, water is delivered to each plant usually done with tubes and emitters that carry water from main lines to the base of each plant. In some cases, fertilizer is included in the irrigation water in a system appropriately called “fertigation” [41, 46]. The important thing to note is that water is supplied in such a way that the plants do not wilt. Studies have also shown significant yield increases with drip irrigation and plastic mulch when compared with sprinkler-irrigated tomatoes. The most dramatic yields have been attained by using drip irrigation and plastic mulch, and supplementing nutrients by injecting fertilizers into the drip system. This observation is due to judicious utilization of the water and nutrient resources that are supplied to each plant which is not the case with sprinkler irrigation system. The incidences of weeds also less of a problem, since only the rows are watered and the middles remain dry. Another advantage of drip irrigation is obtained when used in within a high tunnel which is equipped with the ability to inject water-soluble nutrients through the drip lines as the plant needs them.

Advertisement

8. Genotype × environment interaction

Multilocation trials are usually performed by researchers to evaluate new or improved genotypes across multiple environments (locations and years), before they are promoted for release and commercialization. This is systematic approach undertaken to increase yield stability of new crop varieties in stress-prone environments [47]. Data generated from such trials are important for (i) accurate estimation and prediction of yield based on limited experimental data; (ii) determining yield stability and the pattern of genotypes response across environments; and (iii) providing reliable guidance for selecting the best genotypes or agronomic treatments for planting in future years and at new areas [48]. However, the performances or ranking of the genotypes in such experiments are usually not the same in the different environments. This is because of interactions between the genotypes and the environments [49, 50]. This type of interaction is known as genotype × environment interaction (GEI), and may complicate the selection and recommendation of genotypes evaluated in diverse environments [51, 52]. The importance of GEI in genotype evaluation and breeding programs has been demonstrated in almost all major crops [53, 54, 55, 56, 57]. The GEI reduces the association between the phenotypic and genotypic values and leads to bias in the estimation of gene effects and combining ability for various characters that are sensitive to environmental fluctuations less reliable for selection [57].

Genotype × environment interactions can be classified into three broad types (Figure 3) (i) “no” GEI, (ii) non-crossover interaction, and (iii) crossover interaction [58]. The number of environments (E) and the number of genotypes (G) determine the number of GEI possible and that, the higher the number of environments and genotypes the greater the number of possible G × E interactions. Thus, with two genotypes and two environments, and with only a single criterion, at least four different types of interactions are possible. With 10 genotypes and 10 environments, 400 types of interactions are possible, which would undoubtedly make their implications and interpretation more difficult to comprehend [59, 60].

Figure 3.

Graphical representation of the “no” interaction, non-crossover interaction, and crossover interaction types of genotype-environment interactions (Source: [58]).

Advertisement

9. No G × E interaction

When there is no GEI, the effects of each of the risk factors are similar across the levels of the other risk factors. A “no” GEI occurs when one genotype (G1) constantly performs better than the other genotype (G2) by approximately the same amount across both environments. Figure 3A, B shows that G1 and G2 perform similarly in two environments, because their responses are parallel and stable. The variations in trait expression across a range of environments for the two genotypes are therefore additive. Moreover, the intergenotypic variance remains unchanged in the two environments and the direction of environmental modification of genotypes is the same. In Figure 3A, there is a main effect of G, and in Figure 3B, there is a main effect of environment [58].

Advertisement

10. Non-crossover G × E interaction

Figure 3C signifies a non-crossover type of GEI. Unlike in Figures 3A and 3B, the difference in performance is not similar across the environments. The G1 and G2 respond differently to the two environments but their ranks remain unchanged. The response of the two genotypes under different environments is therefore not additive, and the magnitude of intergenotypic difference increases. Moreover, the environmental modifications of the two genotypes are in the same direction [58].

11. Crossover G × E interaction

The different and inconsistent response of genotypes to diverse environments is regarded as crossover GEI, when the ranks of genotypes vary from one environment to another [1]. Crossover interaction suggests that no genotype is superior in multiple environments [61]. Figure 3D illustrates a crossover type of GEI where the direction of environmental modification of genotypes, G1 and G2 is opposite: the performance of G1 increases and that of G2 decreases. The genotypic ranks change between the two environments, but the magnitude of intergenotypic variance remains unchanged. Figure 3E is also a representative of a crossover interaction as the genotypes change ranks between the two environments. There is also a change in magnitude of intergenotypic variance. Moreover, the difference between genotypes G1 and G2 in environment E1 is smaller than that in E2, and the direction of environmental modification of the two genotypes is the same. The illustration in Figure 3F is a crossover interaction with the environmental modification in opposite direction [58].

12. Multilocation trial for tomato production

Multilocation trials are conducted to evaluate yield stability performance of genetic materials under varying environmental conditions [55]. The relative performance of genotypes for quantitative characteristics, such as yield and other characteristics, influences yield to vary from an environment to another. To develop a genotype with high yielding ability and consistent performance, high attention should be given to the importance of stable performance for the genotypes under different environments and their interactions. This enables the breeding of better crop varieties that have buffered and can give stable and consistent performance across different environments and seasons [59]. To attain this, feat genotypes are evaluated in multienvironment trials (METs) by testing their performance across environments and selecting the best genotypes in specific environments. The main objective is to eliminate genotype by environment interaction results from differences in the sensitivities of genotypes to the conditions in the target environment [62]. This leads to inconsistent performances of genotypes across environments and limits the efficiency of selection of superior genotypes [56].

13. Tools/methods for genotype × environment interaction analysis

Analysis of GEI is important to obtain information on the performance of genotypes in terms of adaptability and stability. Analysis of variance is performed across environments in order to identify the presence of GEI in multilocation trials. When the GEI variance is found to be significant, then one of the various methods for measuring the stability of genotypes can be used to identify the most stable genotype(s). Several statistical methods have been proposed for analysis and interpretation of GEI [63, 64, 65, 66]. The joint regression analysis [67, 68, 69] method has been widely used; nonetheless, several limitations of the method have been stated [70, 71]. For example, see [48]. The PCA method has the ability to overcome the limitations associated with the linear regression method by giving more than one statistic, that is, the scores on the principal component axes, to describe the response of a genotype. Another method which has been proposed for analysis of GEI is the cluster analysis which is a numerical classification technique that defines groups of clusters of individuals [48, 72]. Currently, the additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) model [64, 71] and genotype main effect plus genotype × environment interaction (GGE) biplot methodology [66] are the two most powerful statistical tools used by many researchers for the analysis of multilocational trial data. The AMMI model combines the analysis of variance for the genotype and environment main effects with principal component analysis of the genotype × environment interaction. It also provides a better prediction assessment and a valuable approach for understanding GEI and obtaining better yield estimates. The interaction is described in the form of a biplot display, where PCA scores are plotted against each other and provides visual inspection and interpretation of the GEI components. Integrating biplot display and genotypic stability statistics enable genotypes to be grouped based on similarity of performance across diverse environments. Similarly, the GGE biplot analysis enables visual (graphical) presentation of interaction estimate. This method also combines analysis of variance and PCA by partitioning together sums of squares of genotypes and sums of squares of GEI (which are relevant in genotype evaluation) using PCA method. The biplot technique is used for the presentation and estimation of genotypes in different environments [73]. The GGE biplot shows the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) which are obtained by decomposition of singular values of multilocation trials yield data. GGE biplot analysis enables the identification of the genotypes with the highest yields in different environments, comparison of their performances in different environments, identification of ideal genotype, as well as mega-environments (model of regional distribution or target environment) [74, 75].

Several researchers have compared the efficiency of AMMI and GGE biplot for analyzing GEI. According to Yan and others, the major disadvantage of the AMMI model is that it is insensitive to the most important part of the crossover GEI [75]. Moreover, the AMMI model does not offer any advantage to the breeder for genotypic and site evaluation when analyzing METs data because there is no clear biological separation between the two terms, genotype and GEI. However, the GGE biplot is a powerful statistical model that takes care of some of the disadvantages of AMMI. The method is an effective statistical tool for identifying the best performing cultivar in a given environment and the most suitable environment for each cultivar, comparison of any pair of cultivars in individual environments, the best cultivars for each environment and mega-environment differentiation, average yield and stability of the genotypes, and the discriminating ability and representativeness of the environments [75, 76, 77]. Gruneberg and others indicated that AMMI was highly effective for the analysis of MET [78]. Kandus and others also revealed that the AMMI model is the best model for describing the GEI [79]. Stojaković and others [80] and Mitrovic and others [81] found that both models provided similar results. However, contrary to these reports, [75, 82, 83] concluded in their comparison of both models that the GGE biplot was superior to the AMMI biplot in mega-environment analysis and genotype evaluation.

14. Prospects and problems of G × E

The phenomenon of genotype × environment interaction refers to the differential performance of genotypes in different environments that affect the efficiency of selection in a breeding program. G × E interaction arises due to the differences in the sensitivities of genotypes to the different environmental conditions. In order to mitigate the effect of G × E interaction, crops need to be tested in several environments to assess their specific and broad adaptation [53, 76]. Though tomatoes do well in both tropical and temperate climates, its performance can vary with respect to the environments [18]. Prior to the release of every crop variety, multilocation trials are conducted to ascertain crop performance in a wide range of environments for adaptability and stability in performance [47].

14.1. Causes of genotype × environment interaction

Living organisms are made up of genes whose expression are subject to modification by the environment; therefore, genotypic expression of a phenotype is environmentally dependent [84]. This is because genotypes exhibit different levels of phenotypic expression under different environmental conditions resulting in crossover performances [85]. Crossover performances by genotypes in different environments result from differential genotypic responses under varying environmental conditions [63, 86]. This results in genotype by environment interaction where one genotype gives its maximum performance in one environment by performing poorly in another environment. In G × E interaction, the magnitude of the observed genetic variation changes from one environment to another and tends to be larger in better environments than poorer environments [87].

14.2. Problems of genotype × environment interaction effect on selection

The objective of most plant breeders is to develop new varieties that will perform consistently well across multiple environments. However, significant G × E interaction has been reported for most quantitative traits in tomato particularly for fruit yield and quality traits such as lycopene, total soluble solids, vitamin C, etc. [19, 88]. A tomato variety with improved fruit quality in one environment may not necessarily perform the same in another location due to differential responses to the different environmental conditions prevailing in the different locations. Environmental factors such as soil, moisture, temperature, light intensity, humidity, rainfall, photoperiod, and agronomic practices play important role in the expression of the genes controlling the trait of interest. This results in different phenotypic expression among locations. Genotype × environment interaction effect complicates the selection of suitable varieties by breeders because elite varieties developed for one location may not perform the same in different locations. In some cases, the quality of fruits of tomatoes is significantly influenced by genotype by environment interaction. Such interactions confound the selection of the superior cultivars by altering their relative productiveness in different environments. For instance, see [89]. Other studies [90] also reported significant G × E interaction effect on total sugars among six tomato varieties grown under field and screenhouse conditions. This problem implies that tomato varieties that were developed and selected under field conditions may not perform to its full potential when farmers grow them under controlled environments. Therefore, the extent of G × E interactions effect for most traits of economic importance needs to be taken into account during the selection process in order to obtain crop varieties that will give consistent performance across environments and seasons.

14.3. Elimination of genotype × environment interaction

Breeding of crops involves different attributes of the genetic materials that are subject to variation in environmental conditions [91]. In some cases, direct selection is slow due to low heritability, polygenic control, epistasis, and significant G × E interaction on the trait of interest [92]. To mitigate the confounding effect of G × E interaction on selection efficiency, plant breeders have devised strategies to ensure progress in selection efficacy. For this reason, genotypes are tested in diverse environments to assess their adaptability and stability [85]. After this sound, analyses are carried out using the appropriate software to assess the extent of G × E interaction effect. Genotypes whose G × E effects are not significant are considered to be stable and therefore selected [62].

Stability analysis is performed to estimate the performance of genotypes as linear function of the level of productivity in each environment [93]. Eberhart and Russell suggested joint regression analysis to estimate the average performance of a genotype in different environments relative to the mean performance of all genotypes in the same environment [68]. The use of multiplicative models which include the additive main effect and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) model has also been used to assess the stability of other crops [94, 95]. The AMMI model allows fitting of the sum of several multiplicative terms rather than only one multiplicative term in dissecting the performance of genotypes in different environments [93]. Yan also suggested the use of the genotype and genotype × environment interaction (GGE) biplot to graphically visualize genotypic performance across several environments [96]. The use of these strategies will enable the breeder to make informed decisions in where to place which variety based on their adaptability for optimum performance.

15. Conclusion

The pounding prominence of tomato as a vegetable is reflected by large volume of research on almost all aspects of the crop. In every crop improvement program, promising genotypes are tested for their performance for some years at a number of sites, to identify genotypes which possess the dual qualities of high-yield sustainability to adverse changes in environment condition. This interplay refers to genotype by environment interaction. A genotype × environment interaction is a change in the relative performance of a character of two or more genotypes measured in two or more environments. Its origin is linked to two concepts: biometric and developmental interaction. Interactions may therefore involve changes in order for genotypes between environments and changes in the absolute and relative magnitude of the genetic, environmental, and phenotypic variances between environments. These can further be classified as no GEI, non-crossover interaction, and crossover interaction. Complex quantitative traits, such as yield, with multiple contributing traits are highly influenced by environment interaction effects. Tomato production, though weather dependent and highly seasonal, can be grown under both field and greenhouse conditions (controlled environment). Researchers perform multilocational trials to evaluate new or improved genotypes across multiple environments (locations and years), before they are promoted for release and commercialization. This organized approach helps increase yield stability of new crop varieties in stress-prone environments. To obtain information on the performance of the genotypes in terms of adaptability and stability, an analysis of the GEI is paramount. Even though several statistical methods have been proposed for analysis and interpretation of GEI, the joint regression analysis method has been widely used; nonetheless, it has numerous limitations. Many other researchers have also found AMMI and GGE biplot efficient for analyzing GEI. A major problem of GEI is that its effect thwarts the selection of suitable varieties by breeders because elite varieties developed for one location may not perform the same in different locations. In some cases, the quality of fruits of tomatoes is significantly influenced by genotype by environment interaction. Such interactions confuse the selection of the superior cultivars by altering their relative productiveness in different environments. Though tomatoes do well in both tropical and temperate climates, its performance can vary with respect to the environments.

References

  1. 1.Haldane JBS. The interaction of nature and nurture. Annals of Eugenics. 1946;13:197-202
  2. 2.McBride G. The environment and animal breeding problems. Animal Breeding Abstracts. 1958;26:349-358
  3. 3.Tabery J. Biometric and developmental gene-environment interactions: Looking back, moving forward. Development and Psychopathology. 2007;19:961-976. PMID: 17931428. DOI: 10.1017/s0954579407000478
  4. 4.Sesardic N. Making Sense of Heritability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 48
  5. 5.Tabery J, Griffiths PE. Historical and philosophical perspectives on behavioural genetics and developmental science. In: Hood KE, Halpern CT, Greenberg G, Lerner RM, editors. Handbook of Developmental Science, Behavior, and Genetics. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. pp. 41-60
  6. 6.Arumuganathan K, Earle ED. Nuclear DNA content of some important plant species. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter. 1991;9:210-220
  7. 7.Zamir D, Tanksley SD. Tomato genome is comparised mainly of fast evolving single copy sequences. Molecular and General Genetics. 1988;213:254-261
  8. 8.Vallejos CE, Tanksley SD, Bernatzky R. Localization in the tomato genome of DNA restriction fragments containing sequences coding for Rdna (45s), ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase and chlorophyll a/b binding protein. Genetics. 1986;112:93-105
  9. 9.Rick CM, Chetelat RT. Utilization of related wild species for tomato improvement. Acta Horticulturae. 1995;412:21-38
  10. 10.Fery RL, Janick J. Response of tomato to population pressure. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 1970;95:614-624
  11. 11.Wilcox GE. Influence of row spacing and plant density on single harvest tomato yields. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 1970;95:435-437
  12. 12.Zahara M. Influence of plant density of yield of processing tomatoes for mechanical harvest. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 1970;95:510-512
  13. 13.Navarro AA, Locascio SJ. Influence of population density, row arrangement and fertilizer rate on the single-harvest yield of fresh market tomatoes. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society. 1971;84:129-131
  14. 14.Zahara M, Timm H. Influence of plant density of growth, nutrient composition, yield and quality of mechanically harvested tomatoes. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 1973;98:513-516
  15. 15.Kays SJ, Nicklow CW, Simons DH. Ethylene in relation to the response of roots to physical impedance. Plant and Soil. 1974;40:565-571
  16. 16.Csizinszky AA. Response of tomatoes to fertilizer rates and within row plant spacing in two and four row production systems. State Hort Soc. 1980;72:145-150
  17. 17.Altieri MA, Funes-Monzote FR, Petersen P. Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: Contributions to food sovereignty. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2012;32:1-13
  18. 18.Kuti JO, Konuru HB. Effects of genotype and cultivation environment on lycopene content in red-ripe tomatoes. Journal of Science of Food Agriculture. 2005;85:2021-2026
  19. 19.Causse M, Saliba-Colombani V, Lesschaeve I, Buret M. Genetic analysis of organoleptic quality in fresh market tomato. 2. Mapping QTLs for sensory attributes. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2001;102:273-283
  20. 20.Alsadon AA, Wahb-allah MA, Khalil SO. In vitro evaluation of heat stress tolerance in some tomato cultivars. Journal of King Saud University. 2006;19(1):13-24
  21. 21.Rick CM. The tomato. Scientific American. 1978;239:66-76
  22. 22.Naika S, de Jeude JVL, de Goffau M, Hilmi M, van Dam B. Cultivation of Tomato: Production, Processing and Marketing. Agrodok 17. Wageningen: Agromisa Foundation and CTA; 2005. p. 92
  23. 23.Nandwa SM. Soil organic carbon (SOC) management for sustainable productivity of cropping and agro-forestry systems in Eastern and Southern Africa. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 2001;61(1–2):143-158
  24. 24.Kimani SK, Nandwa SM, Mugendi DN, et al. Principles of soil fertility management. In: Gichuru MP, Bationo A, Bekunda MA, et al., editors. Soil Fertility Management in Africa: A Regional Perspective. Nairobi: Academy Science Publishers; 2003
  25. 25.Okwu DE, Ukanwa NS. Nutritive value and phytochemical contents of flute pumpkin (Telfaria occidentalisHook) vegetable grown with different levels of Turkey droppings. In: Proceedings of the 8th African Crop Science Society Conference. Uganda; 2007. pp. 1759-1964
  26. 26.Ali M. Evaluation of green manure technology in tropical lowland rice systems. Field Crops Research. 1999;61(1):61-78
  27. 27.Dunsin O, Agbaje G, Aboyeji CM, Gbadamosi A. Comparison of growth, yield and fruit quality performance of tomatoes varieties under controlled environment condition of the southern Guinea savannah. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Science. 2016;16(10):1662-1665
  28. 28.Boulard T, Raeppel C, Brun R, Lecompte F, Hayer F, Carmassi G, Gaillard G. Environmental impact of greenhouse tomato production in France. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2011;31(4):757-777
  29. 29.Challa H, Bakker J. Potential production within the greenhouse environment. In: Enoch Z, Stanhill G, editors. Ecosystems of the World. The Greenhouse Ecosystem. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1998
  30. 30.Nicot P, Baille A. Integrated control ofBotrytis cinereaon greenhouse tomatoes. In: Morris C, editor. Aerial Plant Surface Microbiology. New York: Plenum Press; 1996. pp. 169-189
  31. 31.Aldrich RA, Bartok JW. Greenhouse Engineering. Ithaca: Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service, Cooperative Extension; 1989
  32. 32.Stanhill G. The energy cost of protected cropping: A comparison of six systems of tomato production. Journal of Agricultural and Engineering Research. 1980;25:145-154
  33. 33.Taber HG, Havlovic B, Howell NP. High tunnel tomato production. Iowa State Research Farm Progress Reports. Paper 693. 2007. Available from:http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/farms_reports/693
  34. 34.Janke RR, Altamimi ME, Khan M. The use of high tunnels to produce fruit and vegetable crops in North America. Agricultural Sciences. 2017;8:692-715
  35. 35.Lamont WJJ. High tunnel construction and production in a large metropolitan city. Acta Horticulturae. 2013;987:45-47
  36. 36.Jett LW. Production of tomatoes within a high tunnel. Small Farm Today. 2004;21:36-40
  37. 37.Everhart E, Hansen R, Lewis D, Naeve L, Taber H. Iowa high tunnel fruit and vegetable production manual. Iowa State University Extension Manual PM 2098. 2010
  38. 38.O’connell S, Rivard C, Peet MM, Harlow C, Louws F. High tunnel and field production of organic heirloom tomatoes: Yield, fruit quality, disease, and microclimate. Hortscience. 2012;47:1283-1290
  39. 39.Hernández-Santiago Q, Sánchez-Del Castillo F, Peña-Lomelí A, Montalvo-Hernández D. Substrates and frequencies of irrigation for tomato production in rows at different heights. Terrain. 2005;3(23):341-349
  40. 40.Márquez-Hernández C, Cano-Ríos P, Chew-Madinaveitia YI, Moreno-Reséndez A, Rodríguez-Dimas N. Sustratos en la producción orgánica de tomate cherry bajo invernadero. Rev. Chapingo. 2006;12:183-189
  41. 41.García CI, Briones SG. Sprinkler Irrigation Systems and Drip. 2nd ed. México, D.F.: Ed. Trillas; 2007. p. 277
  42. 42.Salas SMC, Urrestarazu GM. Management: Substrates, fertigation, climate and plant health. In: Urrestarazu GM, editor. Treaty of Soilless Crop. 3rd ed. Ed. Mundi-Prensa; 2004. pp. 159-537
  43. 43.Gualberto R, de Oliveira PSR, Resende FV. Long-life tomato cultivars growing under the hydroponic nutrient film technique. Scientia Agricola. 2002;59(4):803-806
  44. 44.Suazo-López F, Zepeda-Bautista R, Sánchez-Del Castillo F, Martínez-Hernández JJ, Virgen-Vargas J, Tijerina-Chávez L. Growth and yield of tomato (Solanum lycopersicumL.) as affected by hydroponics, greenhouse and irrigation regimes. Annual Research and Review in Biology. 2014;4(24):4246-4258
  45. 45.Urrestarazu GM. Bases and crop systems without soil. In: Alarcón VAL, editor. Treaty of Soilless Crop. Reus: Ed. Horticultura SL; 2004. pp. 23-41
  46. 46.Castellanos JZ, Borbón CM. Panorama of protected horticulture in Mexico. In: Castellanos JZ, editor. Handbook of Tomato Production in Greenhouse. Guanajuato, Mexico: Ed. Intagri SC. Celaya; 2009. pp. 1-18
  47. 47.Shakhatreh Y, Kafawin O, Ceccarelli S, Saoub H. Selection of Barley lines for drought tolerance in low-rainfall areas. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science. 2001;186:119-127
  48. 48.Crossa J. Statistical analysis of multi-location trails. Advances in Agronomy. 1990;44:55-85
  49. 49.Martin N. Gene-environment interaction and twin studies. In: Spector T, Snieder H, MacGregor A, editors. Advances in Twin and Sib-Pair Analysis. London: Greenwich Medical Media; 2000. pp. 43-150
  50. 50.Sorensen D. The genetics of environmental variation. In: Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock. Germany: Leipzig; 2010
  51. 51.Ebdon JS, Gauch HG. Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis of national turf grass performance trials: I. Interpretation of genotype × environment interaction. Crop Science. 2002;42:489-496
  52. 52.Gauch HG. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE. Crop Science. 2006;46:1488-1500
  53. 53.Najafian G, Kaffashi AK, Jafar-Nezhad A. Analysis of grain yield stability in hexaploid wheat genotypes grown in temperate regions of Iran using additive main effects and multiplicative interaction. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology. 2010;12:213-222
  54. 54.Zali H, Farshadfar E, Sabaghpour SH. Non-parametric analysis of phenotypic stability in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes in Iran. Crop Breeding Journal. 2011;1(1):89-100
  55. 55.Yan W, Rajcan I. Biplot analysis of the test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Crop Science. 2002;42:11-20
  56. 56.Ssemakula G, Dixon AGO. Genotype × environment interaction, stability and agronomic performance of carotenoid-rich cassava. Scientific Research and Essay. 2007;2(9):390-399
  57. 57.Farshadfar E, Farshadfar M, Sutka J. Combining ability analysis of drought tolerance in wheat over different water regimes. Acta Agronomica Hungarica Journal. 2000;48(4):353-361
  58. 58.Baye TM, Abebe T, Wilke RA. Genotype–environment interactions and their translational implications. Personalized Medicine. 2011;8(1):59-70. DOI: 10.2217/pme.10.75
  59. 59.Allard RW, Bradshaw AD. Implications of genotype–environmental interactions in applied plant breeding. Crop Science. 1964;4:503-508
  60. 60.Allard RW. Principles of Plant Breeding. Wiley-Blackwell, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 1999
  61. 61.Via S. The quantitative genetics of polyphagy in an insect herbivore. II. Genetic correlations in larval performance within and across host plants. Evolution. 1984;38:896-905
  62. 62.Falconer DS, Mackay TFC. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 4th ed. Harlow: Longman; 1996. p. 464
  63. 63.Crossa J, Cornelius PL. Sites regression and shifted multiplicative model clustering of cultivar trial sites under heterogeneity of error variances. Crop Science. 1997;37:406-415
  64. 64.Gauch HG, Zobel RW. Identifying mega-environments and targeting genotypes. Crop Science. 1997;37:311-326
  65. 65.Flores F, Moreno MT, Cubero JI. A comparison of univariate and multivariate methods to analyse G × E interaction. Field Crops Research. 1998;56:271-286
  66. 66.Yan W, Hunt LA, Sheng O, Szlavnics Z. Cultivar evaluation and mega-environment investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop Science. 2000;40:597-605
  67. 67.Finlay KW, Wilkinson GN. The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 1963;14:742-754
  68. 68.Eberhart SA, Russell WA. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Science. 1966;6:36-40
  69. 69.Perkins JM, Jinks JL. Environmental and genotype-environmental components of variability. III. Multiple lines and crosses. Heredity. 1968;23:339-356
  70. 70.Perkins JM. The principal component analysis of genotype-environmental interactions and physcial measures of the environment. Heredity. 1972;29:51-70
  71. 71.Zobel RW, Wright MJ, Gauch HG. Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agronomy Journal. 1988;80:388-393. DOI: 10.2134/agronj1988.00021962008000030002x
  72. 72.Westcott BA. Method of assessing the yield stability of crop genotypes. Journal of Agricultural Science. 1987;108:267-274
  73. 73.Gabriel KR. The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometrika. 1971;58:453-467
  74. 74.Yan W, Tinker NA. An integrated biplot analysis system for displaying, interpreting, and exploring genotype-by-environment interactions. Crop Science. 2005;45:1004-1016
  75. 75.Yan W, Kang MS, Ma B, Woods S, Cornelius PL. GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype-by-environment data. Crop Science. 2007;47:643-655
  76. 76.Yan W, Kang MS. GGE Biplot Analysis: A Graphical Tool for Breeders, Geneticists, and Agronomists. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2003. pp. 63-88
  77. 77.Yan W, Tinker NA. Biplot analysis of multi-environment trail data: Principles and applications. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 2006;86:623-645
  78. 78.Gruneberg WJ, Manrique K, Zhang D, Hermann M. Genotype × environment interactions for a diverse set of sweet potato clones evaluated across varying ecographic conditions in Peru. Crop Science. 2005;45:2160-2171
  79. 79.Kandus M, Almorza D, Boggio R, Salerno JC. Statistical models for evaluating the genotype-environment interaction in maize (Zea maysL.). International Journal of Experimental Botany. 2010;79:39-46
  80. 80.Stojaković M, Ivanović M, Jocković Đ, Bekavac G, Purar B, Nastasić A, Stanisavljević D, Mitrović B, Treskić S, Laišić R. NS maize hybrids in production regions of Serbia. Field and Vegetable Crops Research. 2010;47(1):93-102
  81. 81.Mitrovic B, Stanisavljevic D, Treski S, Stojakovic M, Ivanovic M, Bekavac G, Rajkovic M. Evaluation of experimental maize hybrids tested in multi-location trials using AMMI and GGE biplot analyses. Turkish Journal of Field Crops. 2012;17(1):35-40
  82. 82.Balestre M, Candido de Souza J, Garcia von Pinho R, Lunzzo de Oliveira R, Muro Valente Paes J. Yield stability and adaptability of maize hybrids based on GGE biplot analysis characteristics. Crop Breeding and Applied Biotechnology. 2009;9:219-228
  83. 83.Badu-Apraku B, Oyekunle M, Obeng-Antwi K, Osuman AS, Ado SG, Coulibay N, Yallou CG, Abdulai M, Boakyewaa GA, Didjeira A. Performance of extra-early maize cultivars based on GGE biplot and AMMI analysis. Journal of Agricultural Science. 2011;150(4):473-483. DOI: 10.1017/S0021859611000761
  84. 84.Kang MS. Using genotype by environment interaction for crop cultivar development. Advances in Agronomy. 1998;62:199-246
  85. 85.Haldavankar PC, Joshi GD, Bhave SG, Klandekar RG, Sawant SS. Stability of yield and yield attributing phenotypic characters in sweet potato. Journal of Root Crops. 2009;35(1):28-35
  86. 86.Mkumbira J, Mahungu NM, Gullberg U. Grouping locations for efficient cassava evaluation in Malawi. Experimental Agriculture. 2003;39:167-179
  87. 87.Przystalski M, Osman A, Thiemt EM, Rolland B, Ericson L, Osterga H, Levy L, Wolfe M, Büchse A, Piepho HP, Krajewski P. Comparing the performance of cereal varieties in organic and non-organic cropping systems in different European countries. Euphytica. 2008;163:417-433
  88. 88.Fulton TM, Bucheli P, Voirol E, Lopez J, Petiard V, Tanksley SD. Quantitative trait loci (QTL) affecting sugars, organic acids and other biochemical properties possibly contributing to flavor, identified in four advanced backcross populations of tomato. Euphytica. 2002;127:163-177
  89. 89.Rosello S, Adalid AM, Cebolla-Cornejo J, Nuez F. Evaluation of the genotype, environment and their interaction on carotenoid and ascorbic acid accumulation in tomato germplasm. Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture. 2011;91:1014-1021
  90. 90.Cebolla-Cornejo J, Rosello S, Valcarcel M, Serrano E, Beltran J, Nuez F. Evaluation of genotype and environment effects on taste and aroma flavor components of Spanish fresh tomato varieties. Journal of Agriculture Food Chemistry. 2011;59:2440-2450
  91. 91.Ntawuruhunga P, Dixon AGO. Quantitative variation and interrelationship between factors influencing cassava yield. Journal of Applied Biosciences. 2010;26:1594-1602
  92. 92.Piepho HPA. Mixture-model approach to mapping quantitative trait loci in barley on the basis of multiple environment data. Genetics. 2000;156:2043-2050
  93. 93.Bernardo R. Breeding for Quantitative Traits in Plants. Woodbury, MN: Stemma Press; 2010
  94. 94.Adjebeng-Danquah J, Manu-Aduening J, Gracen VE, Asante IK, Offei SK. AMMI stability analysis and estimation of genetic parameters for growth and yield components in cassava in the forest and Guinea savannah ecologies of Ghana. International Journal of Agronomy. 2017;2017:1-12
  95. 95.van Eeuwijk FA. Linear and bilinear models for the analysis of multi-environment trials: I. An inventory of models. Euphytica. 1995;84:1-7
  96. 96.Yan W. GGE biplot: A windows application for graphical analysis of multi-environment trial data and other types of two-way data. Agronomy Journal. 2001;93:1111-1118

Written By

Michael Kwabena Osei, Benjamin Annor, Joseph Adjebeng- Danquah, Agyemang Danquah, Eric Danquah, Essie Blay and Hans Adu-Dapaah

Submitted: July 19th, 2017Reviewed: February 27th, 2018Published: November 5th, 2018