Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Thomas Odong

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Note. Max: maximum; Min: minimum; LSD: least significant difference at 5%; °C: Degrees celcius; mm: millimeters. Table 1. Mean temperature and rainfall per season in three locations

Table 1 Note. Max: maximum; Min: minimum; LSD: least significant difference at 5%; °C: Degrees celcius; mm: millimeters. Table 1. Mean temperature and rainfall per season in three locations

Related Figures (8)

Note. df: degree of freedom; *** significant at P < 0.001; ** significant at P < 0.01; * significant at P < 0.05; CV: coefficient of variation. Table 2. Mean squares for different traits of cassava genotypes across three locations for two seasons
Note. df: degree of freedom; *** significant at P < 0.001; ** significant at P < 0.01; * significant at P < 0.05; CV: coefficient of variation. Table 2. Mean squares for different traits of cassava genotypes across three locations for two seasons
Figure 1. Means of A: nymph count, B: whitefly count, C: leaf damage, D: sooty mold, E: tannins, F: flavonoids, G: total phenolic content and H: antioxidative capacity, recorded on genotypes in three locations across two seasons
Figure 1. Means of A: nymph count, B: whitefly count, C: leaf damage, D: sooty mold, E: tannins, F: flavonoids, G: total phenolic content and H: antioxidative capacity, recorded on genotypes in three locations across two seasons
Note. LSD: least significant difference at 5%. Table 3. Mean nymph count, whitefly count, leaf damage, sooty mold, tannin, flavonoid, total phenolic content and antioxidative capacity of genotypes for two seasons across locations
Note. LSD: least significant difference at 5%. Table 3. Mean nymph count, whitefly count, leaf damage, sooty mold, tannin, flavonoid, total phenolic content and antioxidative capacity of genotypes for two seasons across locations
Note. * significant at P < 0.05; ** significant at P < 0.01; *** significant at P < 0.001; SOV: Sources of variation, df: degree of freedom, NC: Nymph count; Exp: Explained percentage sum of squares; WC: Whitefly count; LD: leaf damage; SM: sooty mold; T: Tannin; F: Flavonoid; TPC: Total Phenolic Content; AC: Antioxidative capacity; GEI: Genotype < Environment Interactions. Table 4. AMMI analysis of variance for nymph count, whitefly count, damage, sooty mold, tannin, flavonoid, total phenolic content and antioxidative capacity of cassava genotypes, Uganda
Note. * significant at P < 0.05; ** significant at P < 0.01; *** significant at P < 0.001; SOV: Sources of variation, df: degree of freedom, NC: Nymph count; Exp: Explained percentage sum of squares; WC: Whitefly count; LD: leaf damage; SM: sooty mold; T: Tannin; F: Flavonoid; TPC: Total Phenolic Content; AC: Antioxidative capacity; GEI: Genotype < Environment Interactions. Table 4. AMMI analysis of variance for nymph count, whitefly count, damage, sooty mold, tannin, flavonoid, total phenolic content and antioxidative capacity of cassava genotypes, Uganda
Table 5. First four genotype selections based on ASV of antioxidative capacity in each environment
Table 5. First four genotype selections based on ASV of antioxidative capacity in each environment
Figure 2. AMMI biplot for antioxidative capacity of 15 genotypes in 18 environments using genotype by environment score and 3. The first principal component (IPCA 1) and the second (IPCA 2) accounted for 88.88% and 6.679% respectively. AMMI biplot analysis for antioxidative capacity of the 15 genotypes tested at three locations in the present investigation showed locations as indicated biplot display (Figure by the that the relative variability due to genotypes was more than the variability due to distribution as well position occupied by the 15 genotypes and 18 environments on 2). CS1-144 and UG 120191 had high antioxidative capacity as they were at a longer distance from the midpoint with the environment. however, the distance from the axis indicated the genotypes were very interactive The angles between the genotype and environment vectors determine the nature of the interaction as it is positive for acute angles, negligible for right angles, and negative for obtuse angles. At the same time, the angle formed 120251 was more sta ble as by the vectors of two environments provided an estimate of their correlation. UG it was closer to the midpoint axis and close to all environments. Namulonge was more stable for antioxidative capacity as it was closer to the midpoint on the right axis. Further, Kasese (KA) and Kamuli (KM) were environments yielding high antioxidative capacity. Kasese and Namulonge (NM) showed similar environmental characteristics compared to Kamuli.
Figure 2. AMMI biplot for antioxidative capacity of 15 genotypes in 18 environments using genotype by environment score and 3. The first principal component (IPCA 1) and the second (IPCA 2) accounted for 88.88% and 6.679% respectively. AMMI biplot analysis for antioxidative capacity of the 15 genotypes tested at three locations in the present investigation showed locations as indicated biplot display (Figure by the that the relative variability due to genotypes was more than the variability due to distribution as well position occupied by the 15 genotypes and 18 environments on 2). CS1-144 and UG 120191 had high antioxidative capacity as they were at a longer distance from the midpoint with the environment. however, the distance from the axis indicated the genotypes were very interactive The angles between the genotype and environment vectors determine the nature of the interaction as it is positive for acute angles, negligible for right angles, and negative for obtuse angles. At the same time, the angle formed 120251 was more sta ble as by the vectors of two environments provided an estimate of their correlation. UG it was closer to the midpoint axis and close to all environments. Namulonge was more stable for antioxidative capacity as it was closer to the midpoint on the right axis. Further, Kasese (KA) and Kamuli (KM) were environments yielding high antioxidative capacity. Kasese and Namulonge (NM) showed similar environmental characteristics compared to Kamuli.
Table 6. Correlation coefficients of traits across seasons and locations
Table 6. Correlation coefficients of traits across seasons and locations
Note. Significance of regression model at P < 0.001 from 0. Correlation coefficient variance explained around the mean = 0.548; *** Significant at P < 0.001; ** Significant at P< 0.01; * Significant at P< 0.05. Table 7. Multiple regression analyses estimates for tannin, antioxidative capacity, flavonoid, phenolics and environmental factors among genotypes
Note. Significance of regression model at P < 0.001 from 0. Correlation coefficient variance explained around the mean = 0.548; *** Significant at P < 0.001; ** Significant at P< 0.01; * Significant at P< 0.05. Table 7. Multiple regression analyses estimates for tannin, antioxidative capacity, flavonoid, phenolics and environmental factors among genotypes
Related topics:
Biology
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved