Acikgoz, E., A. Ustun, I. Gul, E. Anlarsal, A.S. Tekeli, I. Nizam, R. Avc?oglu, H. Geren, S. Cakmakci, B. Aydinoglu, C. Yucel, M. Avci, Z. Acar, I. Ayan, A. Uzun, U. Bilgili1, M. Sincik and M. Yavuz, 2009. Genotype x environment interaction and stability analysis for dry matter and seed yield in field pea (Pisum Sativum L.). Spanish J. Agri. Res., 7(1): 96-106.
Annicchiarico, P., 2002. Genotype x environment interactions - challenges and opportunities for plant breeding and cultivar recommendations. FAO plant production and protection Paper-174, Rome, Italy.
Brink, M. and G. Belay, 2006. Plant resources of tropical Africa: Cereals and pulses. PROTA Foundation / Backhuys Publishers/ CTA.
Crop, S., 2009. Crop stat 7.2: Crop research informatics laboratory, International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines.
Crossa, J., P.N. Fox, W.H. Pfeiffer, S. Rajaram and J.H.G. Gauch, 1991. AMMI adjustment for statistical analysis of an international wheat yield trial. Theor. Appl. Genet., 81(1): 27-37.
DAFF, 2011. Garden peas (Pisum Sativum) production. Directorate of plant protection, department of agriculture, forestry and fisherise, Pritoria, South Africa.
Elzebroek, T. and K. Wind, 2008. Guide to cultivated plants. CAB International, Oxfordshire, UK.
Finlay, K.W. and G.N. Wilkinson, 1963. The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 14(6): 742–754.
Gauch, H., 2006. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE. Crop Sci., 46(4): 1488–1500.
Gauch, H.G., 1988. Model selection and validation for yield trials with interaction. Biometrics, 44(3): 705–715.
Gauch, H.G., 1993. Prediction, parsimony and noise: A model can be more accurate than a data used to build it because it amplifies hidden patterns and discards unwanted noise. American Scientist, 81(5): 468-478.
Gruneberg, W., K. Manrique, D. Zhang and M. Hermann, 2005. Genotype x environment interactions for a diverse set of sweet potato clones evaluated across varying ecographic conditions in Peru. Crop Sci., 45(6): 2160-2171.
Hartmann, H.T., A.M. Kofranek, V.E. Rubatzky and F. W.J., 1988. Plant science: Growth, development and utilization of cultivated plants. 2nd Edn., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Career and Technology.
Kandus, M., D. Almorza, R.B. Ronceros and J.C. Salerno, 2010. Statistical models for evaluating the genotype-environment interaction in maize (Zea Mays L.). ?YTON ISSN 0031 9457, 79: 39-46.
Kang, M.S., 1993. Simultaneous selection for yield and stability in crop performance trials: Consequences for growers. Agron. J., 85(3): 754-757.
Khan, T.N., R.J. French and D.C. Hardie, 1996. Breeding field peas for Western Australia: Progress and problems. Pisium Genetics, South Perth, Australia, 28: 5-12.
Malosetti, M., J. Ribaut and E.F.A. Van, 2013. The statistical analysis of multi-environment data: Modelling genotype-by-environment interaction and its genetic basis. Frontiers in Physiology, 4(44): 1-17.
Naroui Rad, M.R., M. Abdul Kadir, M.Y. Rafii, Z.E.J. Hawa, M.R. Naghavi and A. Farzaneh, 2013. Genotype x environment interaction by AMMI and GGE biplot analysis in three consecutive generations of wheat (Triticum Aestivum) under normal and drought stress conditions. Australian J. Crop Sci., 7(7): 956-961.
Purchase, J.L., H. Hatting and Van Deventer, C.S., 2000. Genotype x environment interaction of winter wheat (T.aestivum) in South Africa: Stability analysis of yield performance. S Afr. J. Plant Soil, 17(3): 101-107.
Schneider, K. and L. Anderson, 2010. Yield gap and productivity potential in Ethiopian agriculture: Staple grains & pulses. EPAR Brief, No. 98, University of Washington, USA, . pp: 24.
Solomon, A., N. Nigussie and Z. Habitam, 2008. Genotype-environment interaction and stability analysis for grain yield of Maize (Zea Mays) in Ethiopia. Asian J. Plant Sci., 7(2): 163-169.
Tolossa, T.T., G. Kenani, T. Sefera, M. Jarso and Y. Bekele, 2013. Genotype x environment interaction and performance stability for grain yield in field pea (Pisum Sativum) genotypes. Int. J. Plant Breed, 7(2): 116-123.
Yan, W., 2001. GGE biplot-A windows application for graphical analysis of multi-environment trial data and other types of two-way data. Agron. J., 93(5): 1111–1118.
Yan, W., 2002. Singular-value partitioning in biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data. Agron. J., 94(5): 990 -996.
Yan, W., M.S. Kang, B.M.S. Woods and P.L. Cornelius, 2007. Gge biplot vs. Ammi analysis of genotype-by-environment data. Crop Sci., 47(2): 643–655.
Yan, W. and I. Rajcan, 2002. Biplot analysis of test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Crop Sci., 42(1): 11-20.
Yan, W. and N.A. Tinker, 2006. Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data: Principles and applications. Can. J. Plant Sci., 86(3): 623–645.
Zali, H., E. Farshadfar, S.H. Sabaghpour and R. Karimizadeh, 2012. Evaluation of genotype × environment interaction in chickpea using measures of stability from AMMI model. Annals Biol. Res., 3(7): 3126-3136.
No any video found for this article.
Yayis Rezene , Agdew Bekele , Yasin Goa (2014). GGE and Ammi Biplot Analysis for Field PEA Yield Stability in Snnpr State, Ethiopia. International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Research, 1(1): 28-38. DOI:
The experiment was conducted for two consecutive years across four locations using 16 field pea genotypes. The objective of this paper is to determine the magnitude of genotype by environment interactionand performance stability of genotypes. Analysis of variance (ANOVA), regression of genotype on the environmental mean, AMMI analysis, ASV estimation and GGE biplot analysis were carried out following their respective procedures. Pooled analysis of variance for grain yield showed significance differences among genotypes, environments and G xE interaction. This implied genotypes differently responded to change in environments. Both ASV and AMMI biplot analysis showed the same result in identifying the widely adapted genotypes. Genotypes IG-51700 and SAR-FB-61 were the best adapted ones in this experiment for wide scale recommendation in field pea growing areas while Genotype FP-Milky was better adapted variety in the high potential areas, like Angecha, which is already under production. Based on the GGE biplot analysis, Angecha o4 environment is more discriminating environment than others for the superior genotype selection. Location-wise Waka provided little or no information about the genotypic differences, therefore, should not be considered as test environments for field pea yield trials. Angecha, Hosanna and Bule can be efficiently used for filed pea multi-environment yield trials provided that they are further confirmed by multi-year experimental data.
Farmer’s Decision To Practice Crop Rotation in Arsi Negelle, Ethiopia: What are the Determinants?
Ayenew, T., 2004. Environmental implications of changes in the levels of lakes in the Ethiopian rift since 1970. Regional Environmental Change, 4(4): 12–204.
CEFS (Center for Environmental Farming System), 2006. Crop rotations on organic farms. North Carolina A&T State University.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2012. Statistical report on population projected figures for the year 2012, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
David, J.S., K. Dawit and A. Dawit, 2011. Seed, fertilizer, and agricultural extension in Ethiopia, Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II. IPPRI.
Dinar, A.R. and R. Hassan, 2008. Climate change and agriculture in Africa. Impact assessment and adaptation strategies. London: Earthscan/centre for environmental economics and policy in Africa (CEEPA), ISBN 13:-978-1-84407-547-8: 189.
EU Directorate General for the Environment, F.O.T.E.E., IFOAM EU Group and PAN,, 2012. Crop rotation: Benefiting farmers. The Environment and the Economy.
Getachew, S.F. and R. Ranjan, 2012. Growing vulnerability: Population pressure, food insecurity and environmental degradation, central rift valley, Ethiopia. Journal of Biology and Enviromental Science, 2(3): 33-41.
Gujarati, D.N., 1995. Basic econometrics. 3rd Edn., New York: Mc Graw Hill, Inc.
Hosmer, D.W. and Lemeshew, 1989. Applied logistic regression. New York: A Wiley, Inter-Science Publication.
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute), 2010. Fertilizer and soil fertility potential in Ethiopia: Constraints and opportunities for enhancing the system. Working Paper.
Legesse, D., C.C. Vallet and F. Gasse, 2004. Analysis of hydrological response of a tropical terminal lake, Lake Abiyata (Main Ethiopian Rift Valley) to changes in climate and human activities. Hydrological Process, 18(3): 487–504.
Meshesha, D.T., A. Tsunekawa and M. Tsubo, 2010. Continuing land degradation: Cause–effect in Ethiopia's central rift valley. Land degradation and development, article first published online, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Tekalign, M., 2008. Opening address to the 9th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Soil Science April 17 2008.
Yirga, C. and R.M. Hassan, 2010. Social costs and incentives for optimal control of soil nutrient depletion in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems, 103(3): 153- 160.
No any video found for this article.
Musa H. Ahmed (2014). Farmer’s Decision To Practice Crop Rotation in Arsi Negelle, Ethiopia: What are the Determinants?. International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Research, 1(1): 19-27. DOI:
Though Ethiopia is an agrarian country, imbalance between the population growth and the agricultural production growth rate is one of the pronounced national problems that the country is facing. In addition, the agricultural sector in the country is characterized by inadequate resource endowment, traditional methods of cultivation and husbandary practices, limited access to land, credit and agricultural innovation. Crop rotation is one of the responses to enhance productivity and improve soil fertility. However, the adoption of this practice by smallholder farmers is limited. Therefore, the major concern of this study is to empirically examine factors influencing adoption of crop rotation by smallholder farmers in Arsi Negelle district of Ethiopia. In the process of the study both primary and secondary data were used. In this study, stratified sampling procedure was used to select 160 sample households from three kebeles (74 household who are practicing crop rotation and 86 non-adopters). The required data were collected using interview through structured questionnaire. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors influencing adoption of crop rotation and results of the regression analysis indicate that educational level of the household, farming experience and extension contact were the most important factors influencing decision of the farmer to practice crop rotation. Hence, emphasis should be given to improve the human capital through education and providing extension service to bring the non adopter into the board.
Agricultural Dualism, Wage Inequality and Development Policies
Chaudhuri, S. and S. Yabuuchi, 2007. Economic liberalisation and wage inequality in presence of labour market imperfection. International Review of Economics and Finance, 1: 592-603.
Chaudhuri, S. and S. Yabuuchi, 2008. Foreign capital and skilled-unskilled wage inequality in a developing economy with non-traded goods, Marjit, S., Yu, E. (Eds.), Contemporary and emerging issues in trade theory and policy. UK.: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Ethier, W.J., 1988. Modern international economics. 2nd Edn., New York. Lodon: WW Norton and Company.
Economic Survey, 1998-1999. Economic Survey (2005-2006). Available from www.indiabudget.nic.in [Accessed 11.6.13 at 10 p.m].
Feenstra, R.C. and G.H. Hanson, 1996. Foreign investment, outsourcing and relative wages, Feenstra, Grossman and Irwin (Eds) Political economy of trade policies: Essays in honour of J.N.Bhagawati., Cambridge: MIT Press.
Feenstra, R.C. and G.H. Hanson, 1997. Foreign direct investment and relative wages: Evidence from Mexico’s Maquiladoras, Journal of International Economics, 42(3/4): 371-393.
Feenstra, R.C. and G.H. Hanson, 2003. Global production sharing and rising inequality: A survey of trade and wages, Choi, E.K and Harrigan, J (Eds), Handbook of international trade. London: Basil Blackwell.
Food and Agricultural Organnisation, 2012. Agriculture, trade and food security issues and options in the WTO negotiation. Available from www.fao.org [Accessed 1.11.2012 at 9 P.M].
Food and Agricultural Organnisation, 2012. Monitoring access to food and household food security. FAO corporate document repository. Available from www.fao.org [Accessed 28.8.12 at 9.30 A.M].
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 1985. Fifth world food survey, rome. Available from www.fao.org [Accessed 30.11.12 at 10 A.M].
Hanson, G.H. and A. Harrison, 1999. Trade liberalisation and wage inequality in Mexico. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 52(2): 271-288.
Marjit, S., 2003. Economic development, trade and wages. German Economic Review, 4: 1-17.
Marjit, S., H. Beladi and S. Chakrabarty, 2004. Trade and wage inequality in developing countries. Economic Inquiry, 42(2): 295-303.
Marjit, S. and S. Kar, 2005. Emigration and wage inequality. Economic Letters, 88: 141-145.
Tendulkar, S., D.K. Sundaram and L.R. Jain, 1996. Macroeconomic policies and poverty in India, 1966-67 to 1993-94. Monograph, New Delhi.
Wood, A., 1997. Openness and wage inequality in developing countries: The Latin American challenge to East Asian conventional wisdom. World Bank Research Observer, 11(1): 33-57.
World Bank, 2008. World development report. Washington D.C: Agriculture for Development Published in the year 2007 by Oxford University Press for The World Bank.
No any video found for this article.
Ranjanendra Narayan Nag , Rakhi Banerjee (2014). Agricultural Dualism, Wage Inequality and Development Policies. International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Research, 1(1): 1-18. DOI:
The main purpose of this paper is to explore how globalization affects wage inequality and welfare in a small open economy characterized by agricultural dualism . By using a three- sector general equilibrium model we establish the possibility of a decline in welfare in the trail of different liberalization measures.In particular, we examine effects of agricultural trade liberalization and capital market liberalization. We demonstrate that implicatins of these liberalization measures for welfare and wage gap are critically sensitive to agricultural dualism, factor specificity and factor intensity ranking.