Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 3, 2026

Imaging and Analysis for Quantifying Maize (Zea mays) Abiotic Stress Phenotypes
Published on: March 28, 2025
Genomic-Enabled Prediction in Maize Using Kernel Models with Genotype × Environment Interaction
Massaine Bandeira E Sousa1, Jaime Cuevas2, Evellyn Giselly de Oliveira Couto1
1Department of Genetics, Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, 13418-900 Brazil.
Abstract:
Multi-environment trials are routinely conducted in plant breeding to select candidates for the next selection cycle. In this study, we compare the prediction accuracy of four developed genomic-enabled prediction models: (1) single-environment, main genotypic effect model (SM); (2) multi-environment, main genotypic effects model (MM); (3) multi-environment, single variance G×E deviation model (MDs); and (4) multi-environment, environment-specific variance G×E deviation model (MDe). Each of these four models were fitted using two kernel methods: a linear kernel Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Predictor, GBLUP (GB), and a nonlinear kernel Gaussian kernel (GK). The eight model-method combinations were applied to two extensive Brazilian maize data sets (HEL and USP data sets), having different numbers of maize hybrids evaluated in different environments for grain yield (GY), plant height (PH), and ear height (EH). Results show that the MDe and the MDs models fitted with the Gaussian kernel (MDe-GK, and MDs-GK) had the highest prediction accuracy. For GY in the HEL data set, the increase in prediction accuracy of SM-GK over SM-GB ranged from 9 to 32%. For the MM, MDs, and MDe models, the increase in prediction accuracy of GK over GB ranged from 9 to 49%. For GY in the USP data set, the increase in prediction accuracy of SM-GK over SM-GB ranged from 0 to 7%. For the MM, MDs, and MDe models, the increase in prediction accuracy of GK over GB ranged from 34 to 70%. For traits PH and EH, gains in prediction accuracy of models with GK compared to models with GB were smaller than those achieved in GY. Also, these gains in prediction accuracy decreased when a more difficult prediction problem was studied.
More Related Videos
15:30A Telemetric, Gravimetric Platform for Real-Time Physiological Phenotyping of Plant–Environment Interactions
Published on: August 5, 2020
05:55High-throughput, Microscale Protocol for the Analysis of Processing Parameters and Nutritional Qualities in Maize Zea mays L.
Published on: June 16, 2018
Related Concept Videos
Background and Environment Affect Phenotype
An example of how genetic background affects phenotype can be seen in horses. The Extension gene in horses is responsible for their coat color. A wild-type gene (EE) produces black pigment in the coat, while a mutant gene (ee) produces red pigment. A...
Gene-Environment Interactions
Genome-wide Association Studies-GWAS
GWAS does not require the identification of the target gene involved in...
Epistasis Analysis
Multiple Allele Traits
Monohybrid Crosses