Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Performance Evaluation and Stability Analysis of Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.) Varieties in Siltie and Guraghe Zones, Ethiopia

Mukerem E. S., Shimelis M. A., Muhamed S. E.


The experiment was conducted with ten faba bean Varieties for two consecutive years (2015–2016) comprising six environments in order to determine the effect of genotype x environment interaction and to identify and select high yielding, stable and best performing faba bean varieties with better adaptability. The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design with three replications. The combined analysis of variance of grain yield showed a highly significant differences (P<0.001) for environments, genotypes and genotype by environment interactions. Mean yield performance across varieties ranged from 1899.83 kg/ha (Walki) to 2797.79 kg/ha (TUMSA) varieties. The lowest and highest mean yield measured at Mirab azernet-2015 (2204.38 kg/ha) and Alicho wuriro-2016 (2556.03 kg/ha), respectively. Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) analysis revealed that the genotype by environments partitioned in two significant PCAs at P ≤ 0.001 for PCA1 and at P ≤ 0.05 for PCA2 cumulatively contributing for 92.8% interaction values indicating that most the information could be generated from the two axes. AMMI stability value, yield stability index and GGE biplot analysis identified that TUMSA, and Moti varieties are high yielder and stable varieties across the tested environment and Gabelcho specifically best performed at Gumer-2015 and Gumer-2016 locations Therefore, TUMSA and Moti varieties were recommended for all tested environments and similar agro-ecology areas. In addition to Gebelcho variety also recommended for Gumer location. 


Faba bean, Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction (AMMI), AMMI stability value, Yield stability index, Principal component axes GGE biplot

Full Text:



Abebe T, Birhane T, Nega Y, Workineh A. The prevalence and importance of faba bean diseases with special consideration to the newly emerging faba bean gall in Tigray, Ethiopia. Discourse J Agric Food Sci. 2014; 2(2): 33–38.

Tekalign A, Derera J, Sibiya J, Fikre A. Participatory assessment of production threats, farmers’ desired traits and selection criteria of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) varieties: opportunities for faba bean breeding in Ethiopia. Indian J Agric Res. 2016; 50(4).

Akibode CS. Trends in the production, trade, and consumption of food-legume crops in sub-Saharan Africa, 2011. (No. 1097-2016-88694).

Emiola IA, Gous RM. Nutritional evaluation of dehulled faba bean (Vicia faba cv. Fiord) in feeds for weaner pigs. S Afr J Anim Sci. 2011; 41(2): 79–86.

Ronner E, Giller KE. Background information on agronomy, farming systems and ongoing projects on grain legumes in Tanzania. N2Africa Milestones. Accessed, 2013, 17, 09–13.

Singh AK, Bharati RC, Ch N, Pedpati A. An assessment of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) current status and future prospect. Afr J Agric Res. 2013; 8(50): 6634–6641.

Gurmu F, Lire E, Asfaw A, Alemayehu F, Rezene Y, Ambachew D. GGE-biplot analysis of grain yield of faba bean genotypes in southern Ethiopia. Electron J Plant Breed. 2012; 3(3): 898–907.

CSA (Central Statistical Agency). Statistical Bulletin Agricultural Sample Survey 2019/20. Report on Area and Production of Major Crops (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season). Addis Abeba, Ethiopia, 2021.

Maalouf F, Hu J, O'Sullivan DM, Zong X, Hamwieh A, Kumar S, Baum M. Breeding and genomics status in faba bean (Vicia faba). Plant Breed. 2019; 138(4): 465–473.

Sharifi P, Aminpanah H, Erfani R, Mohaddesi A, Abbasian A. Evaluation of genotype× environment interaction in rice based on AMMI model in Iran. Rice Sci. 2017; 24(3): 173–180.

Crossa J, Gauch Jr HG, Zobel RW. Additive main effects and multiplicative interaction analysis of two international maize cultivar trials. Crop Sci. 1990; 30(3): 493–500.

Ersullo J. Genotype x Environment interaction for grain yield of some field pea genotypes in central and north eastern zones of South Region. Ethiopia. GJPBCS. 2016; 2354–2292.

KAYA Y, Palta C, Taner S. Additive main effects and multiplicative interactions analysis of yield performances in bread wheat genotypes across environments. Turk J Agric For. 2002; 26(5): 275–279.

Nassir AL, Ariyo OJ. Genotype x environment interaction and yield-stability analyses of rice grown in tropical inland swamp. Not Bot Horti Agrobot Cluj-Napoca. 2011; 39(1): 220–225.

Romagosa I, Fox PN. Genotype× environment interaction and adaptation. In Plant breeding, 1993. 373–390. Springer, Dordrecht.

Odewale JO, Ataga CD, Agho C, Odiowaya G, Okoye MN, Okolo EC. Genotype evaluation of coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) and mega environment investigation based on additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) analysis. Res J Agric Env Manage. 2013; 2(1): 001–010.

Zobel RW, Wright MJ, Gauch Jr, HG. Statistical analysis of a yield trial. Agron J. 1988; 80(3): 388–393.

Purchase JL, Hatting H, Van Deventer CS. Genotype× environment interaction of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in South Africa: II. Stability analysis of yield performance. S Afr J Plant Soil. 2000; 17(3): 101–107.

Mohammadi R, Abdulahi A, Haghparast R, Armion M. Interpreting genotype× environment interactions for durum wheat grain yields using nonparametric methods. Euphytica. 2007; 157(1): 239–251.

Mahmodi N, Yaghotipoor A, Farshadfar E. AMMI stability value and simultaneous estimation of yield and yield stability in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Aust J Crop Sci. 2011; 5(13): 1837–1844.

Zobel RW, Gauch HG. AMMI analysis of yield trails. Genotype by Environment Interaction. CRC Pub., Boca Raton, Florida, 1996, 88–122.

Yan W, Rajcan I. Biplot analysis of test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Crop Sci. 2002; 42(1): 11–20.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2022 Research & Reviews: Journal of Botany