Back

Partitioning Genotypic and Environmental Variance of Fresh Root Yield in Provitamin A Cassava Genotypes Using Mixed Models

Badewa, O. D.; Parkes, E. Y.; Gana, A.; Tsado, E. K.; Tolorunse, K. D.; Iluebbey, P.; Akpotuzor, P.; Ayankami, T.

2025-11-18 plant biology
10.1101/2025.11.18.688222 bioRxiv
Show abstract

This study employed a multi-model statistical approach to evaluate the yield performance and environmental responsiveness of 42 provitamin A cassava genotypes across two contrasting cropping seasons. Four linear mixed models spanning BLUP-based random effects, fixed-effect genotype comparisons, genotype-by-environment interaction analysis, and variance partitioning were used to dissect phenotypic variation in fresh root yield. Months After Planting (MAP) emerged as the most influential factor, accounting for 19.82% of total variance, while genotypic effects were modest (H{superscript 2} = 4.4%) and seasonal effects reached statistical significance when accessions were treated as fixed. Residual variance dominated (70.98%), suggesting the influence of unmeasured factors such as soil properties, pest pressure, and microclimatic variation. Rainfall data revealed a stark contrast between seasons-127.38 mm in 2019/2020 versus 8.45 mm in 2020/2021 highlighting an environmental stress pattern that shaped genotype performance. Accessions IITA-TMS-IBA980581(WChk-White Check), IITA-TMS-IBA180017, and IITA-TMS-IBA180146 maintained high yields across both seasons, indicating broad adaptability, while IITA-TMS-IBA180182 and IITA-TMS-IBA180065 performed better under low-moisture conditions, suggesting drought responsiveness. These findings underscore the importance of integrating rainfall patterns and genotype-specific environmental sensitivity into cassava breeding pipelines. Future multilevel models incorporating locations and climatic data could enhance selection precision and support the development of resilient varieties for variable agroecologies.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.