Agroecological Determinants of Yield Performance in Mid-Early Potato Varieties: Evidence from Multi-Location Trials in Poland
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Geographical Location and Climatic Conditions
2.1.1. Experimental Variety Evaluation Station in Przecław
2.1.2. Experimental Variety Testing Station in Słupia
2.1.3. Experimental Variety Testing Station in Uhnin
2.1.4. Experimental Variety Testing Station in Węgrzce
2.2. Detailed Field Experiment Conditions
2.2.1. Soil Location and Characteristics
2.2.2. Crop Rotation, Schedule, and Crop Parameters
2.2.3. Plant-Protection Strategies
2.3. Variety Characteristics
Varieties | Color of Skin | Color of the Flesh | Shape of the Tubers | Depth of the Tuber Eyes at 9° Scale | Taste 9° Scale | Consumer Type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Irmina | yellow | light yellow | round oval | 7.5 | 6.5 | B-BC |
Jurek | yellow | yellow | round oval | 7.0 | 7.0 | B-BC |
Laskara | yellow | light yellow | round oval | 7.0 | 6.5 | B-BC |
Mazur | yellow | light yellow | oval | 6.5 | 6.5 | AB |
Otolia | yellow | yellow | oval | 8.0 | 7.0 | BC |
Satina | yellow | yellow | round oval | 7.5 | 7.5 | B |
Tajfun | yellow | yellow | oval | 7.0 | 7.0 | B-BC |
2.4. Determining Yield Structure and Quality
2.5. Determination of Starch Content, Dry Matter, and Yield
2.6. Soil Conditions
2.6.1. Soil Types
- −
- The presence of a diagnostic cambic horizon (Bw), resulting from weathering and browning processes;
- −
- Formation from river sediments, which may influence the variability of their properties.
- −
- Humus (A): The surface layer containing organic matter;
- −
- Brownification level (Bw): The level of browning with structural changes.
- -
- High calcium content, resulting in an alkaline or neutral pH and good nutrient availability for plants;
- -
- Profile A-Bw-C, with
- A (humus): a surface layer rich in organic matter;
- Bw (transition to the bedrock): cambic horizon, formed as a result of browning, with visible fragments of parent rock;
- C (parent rock): unaltered or slightly altered carbonate rock.
- −
- Cavity level (Level A): the surface humus layer from which clay is washed out;
- −
- Washing-out level (Level E): a light-colored eluvial horizon from which clay, iron, and aluminum have been washed out;
- −
- Immersion level (Level Bt/Argic): an illuvial horizon, with a more intense color and higher density, where washed-in clay accumulates;
- −
- Parent rock (Level C): unaltered or slightly altered parent rock. Haplic Luvisols are typical soils with a well-developed clay movement process, which often makes them fertile agricultural soils [WRB 2022].
- −
- High content of base cations (e.g., Ca, Mg, K, Na) and high base saturation (>50%);
- −
- Fertility and alkaline/neutral pH, favorable for plant growth.
- −
- Humus (A): Dark, organic-rich surface layer;
- −
- Brownification level (Bw): cambic horizon, brown, with visible changes in structure;
- −
- Parent rock (C): the parent rock from which the soil was formed [15].
2.6.2. Physico-Chemical Properties of Soil
2.7. Meteorological Conditions
2.8. Statistics Calculations
3. Results
3.1. Total and Marketable Tuber Yield
3.2. Yield Structure
3.3. Starch Content and Yield
3.4. Dry-Matter Content and Yield
3.5. Influence of Genotypic and Environmental Factors
3.6. Descriptive Statistics of Yield Characteristics
3.7. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Yield and Potato-Quality Characteristics
3.7.1. Strong Positive Correlations with Total and Marketable Yield
3.7.2. Correlations of Nutrient Content with Yield and Among Themselves
3.7.3. Correlations with Yield Structure
3.7.4. Other Significant Correlations
3.8. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Yield and Potato-Quality Characteristics with Soils Parameters
4. Discussion
4.1. Stability and Variability of Potato-Yield and -Quality Traits in the Face of Genotypic–Environmental Interactions
- ○
- Resource Use Efficiency (RUE): Mechanism: Genotypes differ in their efficiency in uptake and utilization of available environmental resources, such as water, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. This efficiency may vary depending on the availability of these resources in the soil at a given location. In our study a variety that utilizes nitrogen efficiently may yield better in soils deficient in this element, while another more demanding variety requires higher nutrient availability to reach its full potential;
- ○
- Physiological Interactions of Genes and the Environment: Mechanism: These interactions manifest at the level of plant physiological processes, such as photosynthesis, transpiration, and assimilate accumulation in tubers. The environment can influence the expression of genes responsible for these processes, and the genotype, in turn, determines how the plant responds to these environmental signals. In our research, optimal light and temperature conditions in one year can activate genes responsible for intense photosynthesis in one variety, leading to high yields, while another variety may not show such a strong response;
- ○
- Confirmation of the G × E (G × L, G × Y) interaction in our study clearly indicates that variety selection should be closely matched to specific location conditions and expected annual conditions. This is fundamental for maximizing yield and tuber quality, as well as for improving the stability of potato production in a variable environment [2,9].
Understanding Variety Performance: The Role of Genotype–Environment Interaction
4.2. Analysis of Pearson Correlation Coefficients—Interrelationships Between Potato-Yield and -Quality Traits
4.2.1. Strong Positive Correlations—Synergy and Breeding Efficiency
4.2.2. Weak or Absent Correlations—Breeding Challenges
4.2.3. Correlations Within Quality Traits—Physiological Basis
- Limited resources: A plant has a limited number of resources (carbon absorbed through photosynthesis, water, and nutrients absorbed from the soil) available for growth and development. These resources must be distributed among various “sinks”—vegetative growth (leaves, stems, roots), reproductive structures (flowers, seeds), and storage organs (tubers in potatoes) [9,31]. Yield-Dilution Trade-Off: When a potato plant is bred or maintained to achieve exceptionally high tuber biomass (yield), this means that a larger total volume of storage tissue is produced. However, the plant’s ability to synthesize and transport specific compounds, such as starch, or to accumulate minerals may not be proportional to the increase in biomass;
- Rapid Growth: High-yielding varieties often achieve high biomass due to rapid growth and efficient water uptake. This rapid biomass accumulation can “dilute” the concentration of certain nutrients and quality components into a larger volume of tissue. Metabolic Bottlenecks: Biochemical pathways responsible for starch synthesis or the transport of specific minerals (e.g., phosphorus, potassium, trace elements) to the tuber may not reach their maximum capacity. Even if the plant produces raw biomass, the enzymes or transporters involved in the synthesis or loading of these specific compounds may not be able to keep up with the rate of biomass accumulation. This leads to lower concentrations per unit of fresh or dry weight [9].
- Genetic Basics: Pleiotropy and Linkage Pleiotropy: This occurs when a single gene influences multiple, seemingly unrelated traits. It is possible that genes contributing to high yield (e.g., genes promoting rapid cell division or large cell size) also have a pleiotropic effect that inadvertently reduces the concentration of certain quality components. Linkage Disequilibrium: Even if the genes for yield and quality are distinct, they may be located very close to each other on the chromosome. This “linkage” makes it difficult for breeders to separate desirable high-yielding alleles from undesirable low-quality alleles through conventional crossbreeding. When selecting for high yield, breeders may inadvertently transfer alleles that lead to lower concentrations of quality traits. Breaking these linkages often requires extensive breeding efforts and large populations;
- Environmental Interactions: Nutrient Availability and Growth-Conditions Nutrient Availability: Although innate physiological and genetic mechanisms are fundamental, environmental factors can exacerbate or mitigate nutrient dilution. If soil nutrient resources are insufficient to meet the needs of a fast-growing, high-yielding crop, the dilution effect will be more pronounced. Growth Conditions: Factors such as water availability and temperature can influence the rate of biomass accumulation compared to the rate of nutrient uptake and assimilation, further influencing final concentrations. Consistency with Other Studies: “Yield-Quality Trade-Off” This phenomenon is not unique to potatoes and is a well-documented “yield-quality trade-off” in many crop species. Numerous studies confirm this inverse relationship, making it a key challenge in crop improvement. Potato Research: Aliche et al. [29]: Studies on genetically modified or conventionally bred potatoes often demonstrate the difficulty of simultaneously increasing yield and the content of specific nutrients (e.g., iron, zinc, and even starch) without compromise [46,47,48]. They discuss that while increasing total tuber biomass can increase the total amount of nutrients harvested, their concentration in the tuber may decrease. Nitrogen Fertilization and Quality Studies: Many studies examine the effects of nitrogen fertilization on potato yield and quality. While moderate nitrogen application can increase both, excessive nitrogen application can lead to higher yields (biomass) but lower dry-matter and starch content due to increased vegetative growth.
4.2.4. The Impact of Yield Structure on Yield Value—Commercial Aspects
4.3. Limitations of Research
4.4. Practical Agronomic Recommendations: A Decision Matrix for Variety Selection
- -
- Define your production goals—e.g., high marketable yield, high starch content, resistance to water stress or disease;
- -
- Determine growing conditions—soil (fertility, pH, nutrient content), irrigation availability, site type, and potential constraints (e.g., diseases, shorter growing season);
- -
- Find the criteria in the table that best suit your situation—the matrix will indicate which varieties (or variety types) are best suited to your conditions and priorities;
- -
- Use the table as a preliminary filter—select a few varieties that meet the most key criteria and only then compare them in terms of seed availability, costs, and local farmers’ experience. In other words, the table does not provide one universal answer but makes it easier to match the variety to the farm, considering both environmental conditions and market and technological expectations.
5. Conclusions and Prospects for Further Research
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
AMMI | Additive Main Effects and Multiplicative Interaction |
BBCH | Biologische Bundesanstalt, Bundessortenamt und Chemische Industrie |
COBORU | Research Centre for Cultivar Testing |
MET | Multi-Environment Trials |
PN | Polish Standard |
ESCT | Experimental Station for Cultivar Testing |
WRB | World Reference Base for Soil Resources. |
References
- Bitew, M.W.; Bogale, A.T.; Tegegne, E.M.; Fentie, M.E.; Mebratie, B.G.; Emrie, G.A.; Wasie, T.A.; Kolech, S.A.; Mekonen, D.A.; Abereha, A.M.; et al. Yield performance and Stability of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Genotypes Derived from Crossing for Variety Development in Ethiopia. Am. J. Potato Res. 2024, 101, 450–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sawicka, B. Studies on the Variability of Selected Traits and Degeneration of Various Potato Varieties in the Biała Podlaska Region; Habilitation thesis; Series 141; Agricultural Academy Publishing House: Lublin, Poland, 1991; ss. 76, PL; ISSN 0860-4355. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Pszczółkowski, P.; Sawicka, B.; Jariene, E.; Kiełtyka-Dadasiewicz, A. Phenotypic yield and its structure variability of moderately late and late potato cultivars. Agron. Sci. 2020, 75, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tadege, M.B.; Utta, H.Z.; Aga, A.A. Association of statistical methods used to explore genotype × environment interaction (GEI) and varietal stability. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2014, 29, 2231–2237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scavo, A.; Mauromicale, G.; Ierna, A. Dissecting the Genotype × Environment Interaction for Potato Tuber Yield and Components. Agronomy 2023, 13, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassanpanah, D.; Azimi, J. Yield Stability Analysis of Potato Cultivars in Spring Cultivation and after Barley Harvest Cultivation. Am. Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2010, 9, 140–144. [Google Scholar]
- Gastelo, M.; Perez, W.; Quispe, K.; Pozo, V. Phenotypic Stability and Correlation for Late Blight Resistance in Advanced Potato Clones Under Field and Controlled Conditions. Am. J. Potato Res. 2022, 99, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shakshi; Srivastava, R.P.; Yadav, S.; Singh, M.K. Integrating Genomics and Phenomics in Agricultural Breeding: A Comprehensive Review. Asian Res. J. Agric. 2024, 17, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sawicka, B.; Michałek, W.; Pszczółkowski, P. The relationship of potato tubers chemical composition with selected physiological indicators. Zemdirb. Agric. 2015, 102, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woś, A. The Polish Climate; PWN: Warsaw, Poland, 1999; pp. 79–224. ISBN 978-83-01-12780-0. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Skowera, B. Changes of hydrothermal conditions in the Polish area (1971−2010). Fragm. Agron. 2014, 31, 74–87. [Google Scholar]
- Kondracki, J. Regional Geography of Poland; State Scientific Publishing House: Warsaw, Poland, 2002. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Chełmnicki, W. Sources of the Kraków-Wieluń and Miechów Uplands; IGIGP UJ: Kraków, Poland, 2001. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Lenartowicz, T.Z. Methodology of Examining the Economic Value of Varieties; COBORU Publishing House: Słupia Wielka, Poland, 2020; p. 41. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. In International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps, 4th ed.; International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS): Vienna, Austria, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Mocek, A. Soil Science; State Scientific Publisher: Warsaw, Poland, 2015; p. 571. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Kabała, C.; Świtoniak, M.; Charzyński, P. Correlation between the Polish Soil Classification (2011) and international soil classification system World Reference Base for Soil Resources (2015). Soil Sci. Annu. 2016, 67, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duer, I.; Fotyma, M.; Madej, A. Code of Good Agricultural Practice; Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development: Warsaw, Poland, 2004; p. 93. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Strażyński, P. (Ed.) Recommendations for the Protection of Agricultural Plants; Volume I. Oilseeds, Roots, Legumes, and Herbs; IOR-PIB: Poznań, Poland, 2017; ISBN 978-83-64655-55-5. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Piecuch, K.; Lenartowicz, T. Descriptive List of Agricultural Cultivars; COBORU Publishing House: Słupia Wielka, Poland, 2023; p. 39. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Bleinholder, H.L.; Weber, E.; Buhr, L.; Feller, C.; Hess, M.; Wicke, H.; Meier, U.; Van Den Boom, T.; Lancashire, P.; Buhr, D.L.; et al. Compendium of Stage Identification Keys for Mono-and Dicotyledonous Plants, BBCH Monograph, 2nd ed.; Meier, U., Ed.; Federal Center for Agricultural and Forest Biological Research: Braunschweig, Germany, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Baryłko-Pikielna, N.; Matuszewska, I. Sensory Food Research. Basics—Methods—Applications, 2nd ed.; Scientific Publishers PTTZ: Krakow, Poland, 2014; p. 375. ISBN 978-83-935421-3-0. [Google Scholar]
- Polish Standard PN-R-04031:1997. Agrochemical Soil Analyses—Sampling; Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Polish Standard PN-ISO 10390:1997P; Soil Quality—Determination of pH. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1997.
- Polish Standard PN-R-04023:1996P; Chemical and Agricultural Analysis of Soil. Determination of Available Phosphorus Content in Mineral Soils. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1996.
- Polish Standard PN-R-04022:1996 +Az1: 2002P; Chemical and Agricultural Analysis of Soil. Determination of Available Potassium Content in Mineral Soils. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2002.
- Polish Standard PN-R-04020 1994 + Az1:2004; Chemical and Agricultural Analysis of Soil. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2004.
- IBM Statistics SPSS 28. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/SSLVMB_28.0.0/pdf/pl/IBM_SPSS_Statistics_Core_System_User_Guide.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2025).
- Aliche, E.B.; Oortwijn, M.; Theeuwen, T.P.J.M.; Bachem, C.W.B.; van Eck, H.J.; Visser, R.G.F.; van der Linden, C.G. Genetic mapping of tuber size distribution and marketable tuber yield under drought stress in potatoes. Euphytica 2019, 215, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leonel, M.; do Carmo, E.L.; Fernandes, A.M.; Soratto, R.P.; Ebúrneo, J.A.M.; Garcia, E.L.; Dos Santos, T.P.R. Chemical composition of potato tubers: The effect of cultivars and growth conditions. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 2372–2378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, M.M.; Naznin, S.; Naznin, A.; Uddin, M.N.; Amin, M.N.; Rahman, M.M.; Tipu, M.M.H.; Alsuhaibani, A.M.; Gaber, A.; Ahmed, S. Dry Matter, Starch Content, Reducing Sugar, Color and Crispiness Are Key Parameters of Potatoes Required for Chip Processing. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bodor, K.; Tamási, B.; Len, A.; Keresztesi, Á.; Szép, R.; Bodor, Z. Investigation of the properties of different potato varieties and analysis of the starch structure. Appl. Food Res. 2025, 5, 100998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tatarowska, B.E.; Plich, J.; Milczarek, D.; Boguszewska-Mańkowska, D.; Zarzyńska, K. Genotype by Environment Interaction (GEI) Effect for Potato Tuber Yield and Their Quality Traits in Organic Multi-Environment Domains in Poland. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanász, A.; Zsombik, L.; Magyar-Tábori, K.; Mendler-Drienyovszki, N. Effect of Drought and Seed Tuber Size on Agronomical Traits of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) under In Vivo Conditions. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meise, P.; Seddig, S.; Uptmoor, R.; Ordon, F.; Schum, A. Assessment of Yield and Yield Components of Starch Potato Cultivars (Solanum tuberosum L.) Under Nitrogen Deficiency and Drought Stress Conditions. Potato Res. 2019, 62, 193–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kołodziejczyk, M. Phenotypic variation of yielding of medium-early cultivars of table potato. Bull. Inst. Plant Breed. Acclim. 2021, 294, 27–33. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pszczółkowski, P.; Sawicka, B. Phenotypic variability of the yield and structure of mid-early potato cultivars. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2017, 16, 147–161. [Google Scholar]
- Slater, A.T.; Cogan, N.O.I.; Rodoni, B.C.; Daetwyler, H.D.; Hayes, B.J.; Caruana, B.; Badenhorst, P.E.; Spangenberg, G.C.; Forster, J.W. Breeding Differently—The Digital Revolution: High-Throughput Phenotyping and Genotyping. Potato Res. 2017, 60, 337–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, B.; Yuan, J.; Liang, L.; Zhang, F.; Wang, Y. Genotype × environment interactions for potato yield and quality traits: Identification of ideotypes adapted to different ecological regions of northwest China. BMC Plant Biol. 2025, 25, 737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, W.; Feng, H.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, J.; Doonan, J.H.; Batchelor, W.D.; Xiong, L.; Yan, J. Crop Phenomics and High-Throughput Phenotyping: Past Decades, Current Challenges, and Future Perspectives. Mol. Plant 2020, 13, 187–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seid, E.; Tessema, L. Evaluation of tuber quality, yield and yield-related traits of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) genotypes in Holetta, central Ethiopia. CABI Agric. Biosci. 2024, 5, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, P.; Wang, J.; Guo, X.; Yang, W.; Zhao, C. High-throughput phenotyping: Breaking through the bottleneck in future crop breeding. Crop. J. 2021, 9, 633–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Starck, Z. Plant physiology: Yesterday, today and what will bring tomorrow? Kosmos. Probl. Biol. Sci. 2014, 6, 569–589. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Puła, J.; Skrzypek, E.; Łabza, T.; Durert, F. Chlorophyll fluorescence as one of the potato yield indicators. Scientific Conference Materials: Edible potatoes for food pro-cessing—Agrotechnical and storage factors determining quality. Radzików 1999, 23–25.02, 110–122. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Rahman, M.H.; Islam, M.J.; Mumu, U.H.; Ryu, B.-R.; Lim, J.-D.; Azad, M.O.K.; Cheong, E.J.; Lim, Y.-S. Growth and yield of potato tubers (Solanum tuberosum L.) under variable LED light spectrum in controlled greenhouse conditions. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tong, C.; Ma, Z.; Chen, H.; Gao, H. Toward an understanding of potato starch structure, function, biosynthesis, and applications. Food Front. 2023, 4, 980–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monneveux, P.; Rekika, D.; Acevedo, E.; Merah, O. Effect of drought on leaf gas exchange, carbon isotope discrimination, transpiration efficiency and productivity in field grown durum wheat genotypes. Plant Sci. 2006, 170, 867–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haase, N.U. Estimation of dry matter and starch concentration in potatoes by determination of under-water weight and near infrared spectroscopy. Potato Res. 2003, 46, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pęksa, A.; Tajner-Czopek, A.; Gryszkin, A.; Miedzianka, J.; Rytel, E.; Wolny, S. Assessment of the Content of Glycoalkaloids in Potato Snacks Made from Colored Potatoes, Resulting from the Action of Organic Acids and Thermal Processing. Foods 2024, 13, 1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brestic, M.; Zivcak, M.; Kalaji, M.H.; Carpentier, R.; Allakverdiev, S.I. Photosystem II thermostability in situ: Environmentally induced acclimation and genotype specific reactions in Triticum aestivum L. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2012, 57, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barbaś, P.; Skiba, D.; Pszczółkowski, P.; Sawicka, B. Mechanisms of Plant Natural Immunity and the Role of Selected Oxylipins as Molecular Mediators in Plant Protection. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uzair, A.; Sharma, L. A review of Best Management Practices for potato crop using Precision Agricultural Technologies. Smart Agric. Tech. 2023, 4, 100220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- An, L.; Fang, H.; Zhang, X.; Tang, J.; Gong, J.; Yi, Y.; Tang, M. Genome-Wide Identification and Characterization of the CDPK Family of Genes and Their Response to High-Calcium Stress in Yinshania henryi. Genes 2025, 16, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Locality | Years | Macronutrients [mg·100 g−1 soil] | pH [in KCL] | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
P | K | Mg | |||
Przecław | 2021 | 31.8 | 19.5 | 16.1 | 6.7 |
2022 | 19.5 | 15.0 | 5.5 | 6.5 | |
2023 | 33.1 | 22.9 | 15.8 | 7.2 | |
Słupia | 2021 | 37.0 | 16.1 | 4.9 | 5.9 |
2022 | 29.5 | 22.1 | 6.8 | 6.2 | |
2023 | 32.0 | 27.0 | 7.4 | 6.2 | |
Uhnin | 2021 | 15.9 | 12.8 | 8.1 | 6.3 |
2022 | 21.2 | 14.1 | 2.6 | 5.7 | |
2023 | 14.6 | 13.1 | 4.9 | 5.7 | |
Węgrzce | 2021 | 28.3 | 28.0 | 12.1 | 6.1 |
2022 | 21.7 | 36.0 | 13.4 | 6.3 | |
2023 | 19.0 | 27.0 | 9.8 | 6.3 | |
Mean | 25.3 | 21.1 | 9.0 | 6.3 |
Locality | Varieties | Total Yield | Commercial Yield | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Years | Mean | Years | Mean | ||||||
2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | ||||
Przecław | Irmina | 55.74 a * | 39.51 a | 44.78 a | 46.68 a | 43.14 a | 35.12 a | 40.75 a | 39.67 a |
Jurek | 60.22 a | 40.25 a | 49.85 a | 50.11 a | 44.51 a | 31.96 a | 48.91 a | 41.79 a | |
Laskara | 48.40 a | 40.09 a | 44.20 a | 44.23 a | 32.04 a | 31.99 a | 41.46 a | 35.16 a | |
Mazur | 46.47 a | 31.47 a | 51.96 aa | 43.30 a | 37.64 a | 28.76 a | 50.93 a | 39.11 a | |
Otolia | 51.43 a | 37.82 a | 47.25 a | 45.50 a | 44.95 a | 36.38 a | 45.64 a | 42.32 a | |
Satina | 33.63 a | 35.38 a | 43.68 a | 37.56 b | 28.92 a | 27.84 a | 42.15 a | 32.97 a | |
Tajfun | 46.96 a | 32.62 a | 48.42 aa | 42.67 a | 36.02 a | 28.24 a | 47.01 a | 37.09 a | |
Mean | 48.98 a | 36.73 b | 47.16 a | 44.29 c | 38.17 a | 31.47 b | 45.26 a | 38.30 d | |
Uhnin | Irmina | 51.35 a | 50.72 a | 38.27 a | 46.78 a | 49.19 a | 49.87 a | 33.09 a | 44.05 a |
Jurek | 52.37 a | 56.91 a | 46.31 a | 51.86 a | 50.12 a | 72.72 a | 45.28 a | 56.04 a | |
Laskara | 52.24 a | 54.92 a | 43.64 a | 50.27 a | 50.72 a | 57.72 a | 42.39 a | 50.28 a | |
Mazur | 43.36 a | 51.65 a | 45.47 a | 46.83 a | 42.71 a | 44.39 a | 43.91 a | 43.67 a | |
Otolia | 45.94 a | 50.43 a | 35.57 a | 43.98 a | 45.12 a | 44.63 a | 34.41 a | 41.39 a | |
Satina | 41.23 a | 46.85 a | 37.93 a | 42.00 a | 40.07 a | 36.00 a | 35.56 a | 37.21 b | |
Tajfun | 51.26 a | 49.08 a | 41.35 a | 47.23 a | 50.13 a | 30.92 a | 40.16 a | 40.40 a | |
Mean | 48.25 a | 51.51 a | 41.22 b | 46.99 bc | 46.87 a | 48.04 a | 39.26 a | 44.72 c | |
Słupia | Irmina | 42.2 a | 72.34 a | 52.93 a | 55.82 a | 39.08 a | 49.22 a | 51.44 a | 46.58 a |
Jurek | 59.71 a | 85.33 a | 67.60 a | 70.88 a | 57.68 a | 59.43 a | 63.41 a | 60.17 a | |
Laskara | 60.02 a | 82.18 a | 58.84 a | 67.01 a | 57.50 a | 53.72 a | 58.02 a | 56.41 a | |
Mazur | 55.42 a | 70.59 a | 59.73 a | 61.91 a | 54.53 a | 47.30 a | 58.89 a | 53.57 a | |
Otolia | 60.93 a | 70.73 a | 54.13 a | 61.93 a | 60.93 a | 53.08 a | 53.26 a | 55.76 a | |
Satina | 43.63 a | 70.73 a | 54.60 a | 56.32 a | 43.63 a | 46.21 a | 53.07 a | 47.64 a | |
Tajfun | 54.2 a | 63.22 a | 72.77 a | 63.40 a | 52.57 a | 40.83 a | 68.98 a | 54.13 a | |
Mean | 53.73 b | 73.59 a | 60.09 b | 62.47 a | 52.27 a | 49.97 a | 58.15 a | 53.47 b | |
Węgrzce | Irmina | 71.76 a | 54.44 a | 51.61 a | 59.27 a | 67.46 a | 52.91 a | 46.34 a | 55.57 b |
Jurek | 77.76 a | 64.36 a | 67.48 a | 69.87 a | 74.96 a | 62.92 a | 61.94 a | 66.61 a | |
Laskara | 68.17 a | 60.66 a | 60.90 a | 63.24 a | 64.49 a | 57.24 a | 57.18 a | 59.64 a | |
Mazur | 58.27 a | 50.47 a | 67.57 a | 58.77 a | 53.09 a | 48.74 a | 65.13 a | 55.65 b | |
Otolia | 83.28 a | 54.15 a | 55.76 a | 64.40 a | 81.36 a | 53.36 a | 54.36 a | 63.03 a | |
Satina | 47.09 a | 39.85 a | 45.75 a | 44.23 b | 43.42 a | 37.91 a | 44.60 a | 41.98 b | |
Tajfun | 67.77 a | 51.97 a | 66.91 a | 62.22 a | 62.96 a | 49.15 a | 62.70 a | 58.27 a | |
Mean | 67.73 a | 53.7 b | 59.43 a | 60.29 a | 63.96 a | 51.75 b | 56.04 a | 57.25 a | |
Mean | Irmina | 55.26 a | 54.25 a | 46.90 b | 52.14 b | 49.72 a | 46.78 a | 42.91 a | 46.47 bc |
Jurek | 62.52 a | 61.71 a | 57.81 a | 60.68 a | 56.82 a | 56.76 a | 54.89 a | 56.15 a | |
Laskara | 57.21 a | 59.46 a | 51.90 a | 56.19 a | 51.19 a | 50.17 a | 49.76 a | 50.37 b | |
Mazur | 50.88 a | 51.05 a | 56.18 a | 52.70 b | 46.99 a | 42.30 a | 54.72 a | 48.00 bc | |
Otolia | 60.40 a | 53.28 a | 48.18 b | 53.95 b | 58.09 a | 46.86 b | 46.92 b | 50.62 b | |
Satina | 41.40 a | 48.20 a | 45.49 a | 45.03 c | 39.01 a | 36.99 a | 43.85 a | 39.95 c | |
Tajfun | 55.05 a | 49.22 a | 57.36 b | 53.88 b | 50.42 a | 37.29 b | 54.71 a | 47.47 bc | |
Mean | 54.67 a | 53.88 a | 51.98 b | 53.51 | 50.32 a | 45.31 b | 49.68 a | 48.43 | |
LSDp0.05 | LSDp0.05 | ||||||||
Locations (L)—3.3; Varieties (V)—5.7; L × V—22.8. Years (Y)—2.4; Y × L—9.8; Y × V—17.1; Y × L × V—91.2 | Locations (L)—3.0; Varieties (V)—5.2. L × V—21.0; Years (Y)—2.3; Y × L—9.0; Y × V—15.8; Y × L × V—68.4. |
Experimental Factors | Tuber Fractions in mm Diameter | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
<35 | 36–50 | 51–60 | >60 | ||
Locality | Przecław | 4.8 a * | 16.5 b | 31.3 b | 38.9 b |
Uhnin | 1.6 de | 52.2 a | 35.2 a | 8.2 cd | |
Słupia | 2.1 c | 16.8 b | 32.4 b | 48.8 a | |
Węgrzce | 3.5 b | 14.7 c | 28.7 c | 51.5 a | |
LSDp0.05 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 1.8 | 3.1 | |
Varieties | Irmina | 4.4 a | 27.1 b | 33.7 ab | 31.6 bc |
Jurek | 3.1 c | 27.2 b | 30.4 b | 35.7 b | |
Laskara | 3.5 b | 27.8 b | 34.5 a | 30.1 bc | |
Mazur | 2.2 d | 16.5 d | 30.8 b | 48.2 a | |
Otolia | 1.2 e | 21.8 c | 28.4 c | 47.0 a | |
Satina | 2.3 c | 21.8 c | 30.4 b | 39.7 b | |
Tajfun | 4.1 a | 33.1 a | 35.0 a | 25.7 c | |
LSDp0.05 | 0.4 | 1.6 | 3.1 | 5.5 | |
Years | 2021 | 3.4 a | 29.9 a | 35.5 a | 26.3 b |
2022 | 2.7 c | 19.4 cd | 32.7 b | 42.0 a | |
2023 | 2.9 b | 25.8 b | 27.5 c | 42.2 a | |
LSDp0.05 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 2.4 | |
Mean | 3.0 | 25.1 | 31.9 | 36.9 |
Locality | Variety | Starch Content (%) | Yield of Starch (t ha−1) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Years | Mean | Years | Mean | ||||||
2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | ||||
Przecław | Irmina | 10.2 a * | 13.7 a | 9.2 a | 11.0 a | 5.69 a | 5.41 a | 4.12 a | 5.07 a |
Jurek | 9.1 a | 14.8 a | 10.1 a | 11.3 a | 5.48 a | 5.96 a | 5.04 a | 5.49 a | |
Laskara | 11.6 a | 16.8 a | 11.7 a | 13.4 a | 5.61 a | 6.74 a | 5.17 a | 5.84 a | |
Mazur | 13.4 a | 16.7 a | 12.0 a | 14.0 a | 6.23 a | 5.26 a | 6.24 a | 5.91 a | |
Otolia | 12.3 a | 15.5 a | 11.3 a | 13.0 a | 6.33 a | 5.86 a | 5.34 a | 5.84 a | |
Satina | 10.2 a | 13.0 a | 9.5 a | 10.9 a | 3.76 a | 4.60 a | 4.15 a | 3.84 b | |
Tajfun | 13.9 a | 16.5 a | 12.1 a | 14.2 a | 6.53 a | 5.38 a | 5.86 a | 5.92 a | |
Mean | 11.5 b | 15.3 a | 10.8 bc | 12.6 c | 5.52 a | 5.60 a | 5.13 a | 5.42 d | |
Uhnin | Irmina | 14.2 a | 13.2 a | 13.6 a | 13.7 a | 7.29 a | 6.70 a | 5.21 a | 6.4 ab |
Jurek | 13.4 a | 13.5 a | 15.4 a | 14.1 a | 7.02 a | 7.68 a | 7.14 a | 7.28 a | |
Laskara | 15.7 a | 15.5 a | 16.0 a | 15.7 a | 8.21 a | 8.51 a | 6.95 a | 7.89 a | |
Mazur | 14.5 a | 14.5 a | 15.4 a | 14.8 a | 6.29 a | 7.49 a | 7.00 a | 6.93 a | |
Otolia | 14.3 a | 14.1 a | 14.0 a | 14.1 a | 6.57 a | 7.12 a | 4.97 a | 6.22 a | |
Satina | 12.8 a | 12.7 a | 13.7 a | 13.1 a | 5.28 a | 5.95 a | 5.20 a | 5.48 ab | |
Tajfun | 15.9 a | 15.6 a | 14.6 a | 15.4 a | 8.15 a | 7.66 a | 6.02 a | 7.28 a | |
Mean | 14.4 a | 14.2 a | 14.7 a | 14.4 a | 6.97 a | 7.30 a | 6.07 b | 6.78 c | |
Słupia | Irmina | 11.7 a | 11.8 a | 12.2 a | 11.9 ab | 4.94 a | 8.54 a | 6.46 a | 6.65 ab |
Jurek | 12.7 a | 14.0 a | 13.1 a | 13.3 a | 7.58 a | 11.95 a | 8.86 a | 9.46 a | |
Laskara | 15.7 a | 16.8 a | 15.5 a | 16.0 a | 9.42 a | 13.81 a | 9.12 a | 10.78 a | |
Mazur | 15.2 a | 14.5 a | 16.1 a | 15.3 a | 8.42 a | 10.24 a | 9.62 a | 9.43 a | |
Otolia | 14.9 a | 14.4 a | 14.5 a | 14.6 a | 9.08 a | 10.19 a | 7.85 a | 9.04 a | |
Satina | 10.3 a | 12.5 a | 13.9 a | 12.2 ab | 4.49 a | 8.84 a | 7.59 a | 6.97 b | |
Tajfun | 18.0 a | 15.4 a | 17.4 a | 16.9 a | 9.76 a | 9.74 a | 12.66 a | 10.72 a | |
Mean | 14.1 a | 14.2 a | 14.7 a | 14.3 a | 7.67 b | 10.47 a | 8.88 b | 9.01 a | |
Węgrzce | Irmina | 11.6 a | 13.2 a | 11.3 a | 12.0 ab | 8.33 a | 7.19 a | 5.83 a | 7.12 ab |
Jurek | 10.8 a | 14.3 a | 12.6 a | 12.6 ab | 8.40 a | 9.20 a | 8.50 a | 8.70 a | |
Laskara | 12.7 a | 15.6 a | 15.4 a | 14.6 a | 8.66 a | 9.46 a | 9.38 a | 9.17 a | |
Mazur | 11.8 a | 15.8 a | 15.7 a | 14.4 a | 6.88 a | 7.97 a | 10.61 a | 8.49 a | |
Otolia | 13.7 a | 13.4 a | 13.7 a | 13.6 a | 11.41 a | 7.26 a | 7.64 a | 8.77 a | |
Satina | 8.9 a | 13.0 a | 11.9 a | 11.3 a | 4.19 a | 5.18 a | 5.44 a | 4.94 b | |
Tajfun | 14.8 a | 15.9 a | 16.8 a | 15.8 a | 10.03 a | 8.26 a | 11.24 a | 9.84 a | |
Mean | 12.0 b | 14.5 a | 13.9 a | 13.5 b | 8.27 a | 7.79 a | 8.38 a | 8.15 b | |
Mean | Irmina | 11.9 a | 13.0 a | 11.6 a | 12.2 cd | 6.56 a | 6.96 a | 5.41 a | 6.31 c |
Jurek | 11.5 a | 14.2 a | 12.8 a | 12.8 c | 7.12 a | 8.70 a | 7.39 a | 7.73 b | |
Laskara | 13.9 a | 16.2 a | 14.7 a | 14.9 a | 7.98 a | 9.63 a | 7.66 a | 8.42 a | |
Mazur | 13.7 a | 15.4 a | 14.8 a | 14.6 b | 6.96 a | 7.74 a | 8.37 a | 7.69 b | |
Otolia | 13.8 a | 14.4 a | 13.4 a | 13.8 bc | 8.35 a | 7.61 a | 6.45 a | 7.47 b | |
Satina | 10.6 a | 12.8 a | 12.3 a | 11.9 d | 4.43 a | 6.14 a | 5.60 a | 5.39 d | |
Tajfun | 15.7 a | 15.9 a | 15.2 a | 15.6 a | 8.62 a | 7.76 a | 8.95 a | 8.44 a | |
Mean | 13.0 bc | 14.5 a | 13.5 b | 13.7 | 7.11 b | 7.79 a | 7.12 b | 7.34 | |
LSDp0.05 | LSDp0.05 | ||||||||
Locations (L)—0.8; Varieties (V)—1.4; L × V—5.8; Years (Y)—0.6. Y × L—2.5; Y × V—4.3; Y × L × V—17.2. | Locations (L)—0.45; Varieties (V)—0.78. L × V—3.13; Years (Y)—0.34; Y × L—1.34 Y × V—2.35; Y × L × V—9.40. |
Locality | Variety | Content of Dry Matter (%) | Yield of Dry Matter (t ha−1) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Years | Mean | Years | Mean | ||||||
2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | ||||
Przecław | Irmina | 15.7 a * | 18.1 a | 16.0 a | 16.6 ab | 8.75 a | 7.17 a | 7.16 a | 7.70 a |
Jurek | 16.9 a | 19.6 a | 16.5 a | 17.7 a | 10.18 a | 7.89 ab | 8.23 a | 8.76 a | |
Laskara | 18.0 a | 22.3 a | 17.2 a | 19.2 a | 8.71 a | 8.92 a | 7.60 a | 8.41 a | |
Mazur | 17.7 a | 22.1 a | 17.9 a | 19.3 a | 8.25 a | 6.96 a | 9.30 a | 8.17 a | |
Otolia | 16.3 a | 20.5 a | 17.4 a | 18.1 a | 8.38 a | 7.76 a | 8.22 a | 8.12 a | |
Satina | 16.7 a | 17.2 a | 16.6 a | 16.8 ab | 5.62 a | 6.09 a | 7.25 a | 6.32 a | |
Tajfun | 18.4 a | 21.9 a | 19.0 a | 19.8 a | 8.65 a | 7.13 a | 9.20 a | 8.32 a | |
Mean | 17.1 a | 20.2 a | 17.2 a | 18.2 ab | 8.36 a | 7.42 a | 8.14 a | 7.97 d | |
Uhnin | Irmina | 19.1 a | 17.5 a | 18.0 a | 18.2 a | 9.81 a | 8.87 a | 6.89 a | 8.52 a |
Jurek | 18.0 a | 17.9 a | 20.4 a | 18.9 a | 9.64 a | 10.18 a | 9.45 aa | 9.75 a | |
Laskara | 20.8 a | 20.5 a | 21.2 a | 20.8 a | 10.86 a | 11.27 a | 9.25 a | 10.46 a | |
Mazur | 19.2 a | 19.6 a | 20.4 a | 19.7 a | 8.33 a | 10.12 a | 9.27 a | 9.24 a | |
Otolia | 18.9 a | 18.7 a | 18.5 a | 18.7 a | 8.70 a | 9.42 a | 6.60 a | 8.24 a | |
Satina | 17.4 a | 17.2 a | 18.1 a | 17.6 a | 7.17 a | 8.06 a | 6.88 a | 7.37 a | |
Tajfun | 21.1 a | 20.7 a | 19.3 a | 20.4 a | 10.80 a | 10.14 a | 8.00 a | 9.64 a | |
Mean | 19.3 a | 18.9 a | 19.4 a | 19.2 a | 9.33 a | 9.72 a | 8.05 a | 9.03 c | |
Słupia | Irmina | 15.9 a | 16.0 a | 16.2 a | 16.0 c | 6.71 a | 11.57 a | 8.55 a | 8.95 b |
Jurek | 17.3 a | 18.5 a | 17.7 a | 17.8 b | 10.33 a | 15.82 a | 11.97 a | 12.71 a | |
Laskara | 20.8 a | 22.3 a | 20.5 a | 21.2 a | 12.48 a | 18.29 a | 12.08 a | 14.28 a | |
Mazur | 20.1 a | 19.4 a | 21.3 a | 20.3 a | 11.16 a | 13.69 a | 12.74 a | 12.53 a | |
Otolia | 19.7 a | 19.1 a | 19.2 a | 19.3 b | 12.02 a | 13.49 a | 10.40 a | 11.97 a | |
Satina | 16.9 a | 17.3 a | 18.4 a | 17.5 b | 7.37 a | 12.24 a | 10.05 a | 9.89 b | |
Tajfun | 23.8 a | 22.2 a | 23.0 a | 23.0 a | 12.92 a | 14.03 a | 16.77 aa | 14.58 a | |
Mean | 19.2 a | 19.3 a | 19.5 a | 19.3 a | 10.43 b | 14.16 a | 11.79 b | 12.13 a | |
Węgrzce | Irmina | 16.5 a | 17.5 a | 16.0 a | 16.7 b | 11.84 a | 9.52 a | 8.26 a | 9.87 ab |
Jurek | 17.1 a | 18.9 a | 17.5 a | 17.8 a | 13.30 a | 12.19 a | 11.81 a | 12.43 a | |
Laskara | 19.0 a | 20.7 a | 20.4 a | 20.0 a | 12.95 a | 12.53 a | 12.42 a | 12.64 a | |
Mazur | 18.9 a | 20.9 a | 20.8 a | 20.2 a | 11.01 a | 10.56 a | 14.05 a | 11.88 a | |
Otolia | 18.1 a | 17.7 a | 18.1 a | 18.0 a | 15.11 a | 9.61 a | 10.12 a | 11.61 a | |
Satina | 16.8 a | 17.2 a | 16.7 a | 16.9 b | 7.91 a | 6.86 a | 7.64 a | 7.47 b | |
Tajfun | 19.9 a | 21.1 a | 22.3 a | 21.1 a | 13.49 a | 10.94 a | 14.8 a9 | 13.11 a | |
Mean | 18.0 a | 19.1 a | 18.8 a | 18.7 a | 12.23 a | 10.32 b | 11.31 a | 11.29 b | |
Mean | Irmina | 16.8 a | 17.3 a | 16.5 a | 16.9 c | 9.28 a | 9.28 a | 7.72 a | 8.76 d |
Jurek | 17.4 b | 18.7 a | 18.0 a | 18.1 bc | 10.86 c | 11.52 b | 10.36 ab | 10.91 a | |
Laskara | 19.6 a | 21.4 a | 19.8 a | 20.3 a | 11.2 a5 | 12.75 a | 10.34 ab | 11.45 a | |
Mazur | 19.0 a | 20.5 a | 20.1 a | 19.9 b | 9.69 ab | 10.34 a | 11.34 a | 10.45 b | |
Otolia | 18.3 a | 19.0 a | 18.3 ab | 18.5 bc | 11.05 a | 10.07 a | 8.83 b | 9.99 bc | |
Satina | 17.0 a | 17.2 a | 17.5 a | 17.2 c | 7.02 a | 8.31 a | 7.96 a | 7.76 e | |
Tajfun | 20.8 a | 21.4 a | 20.9 a | 21.1 a | 11.46 a | 10.56 ab | 12.21 a | 11.41 a | |
Mean | 18.4 b | 19.4 a | 18.7 ab | 18.8 | 10.09 a | 10.41 a | 9.82 b | 10.11 | |
LSDp0.05 Locations (L)—1.1; Varieties (V)—2.0; L × V—8.0. Years (y)—0.9; Y × L—3.4; Y × V—6.0, Y × L × V—24.0. | LSDp0.05 Locations—0.62; Varieties (V)—1.08; L × V—4.31; Years (Y)—0.46; Y × L—1.85; Y × V—3.24; Y × L × V—13.40 |
Trait | Significance of Influence | Proportion of Components in Total Phenotypic Variation (%) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Varieties | Years | Varieties × Years | Varieties | Years | Varieties × Years | |
Yield of tubers (t⋅ha−1) | * | ** | ** | 4.1 | 68.2 | 25.9 |
Commercial yield (t⋅ha−1) | * | ** | ** | 5.6 | 67.1 | 25.3 |
Weight ratio of tubers in diameter < 4 cm | * | ** | ** | 4.8 | 36.5 | 58.9 |
Weight ratio of tubers in diameter 4–5 cm | * | ** | ** | 3.1 | 54.7 | 61.8 |
Weight ratio of tubers in diameter 5–6 cm | ns * | ** | ** | 1.7 | 57.6 | 29.5 |
Weight ratio of tubers in diameter > 6 cm | ** | ** | ** | 6.9 | 61.3 | 31.7 |
Dry-matter content (%) | ** | ** | ** | 37.4 | 28.9 | 32.1 |
Starch content (%) | ** | ** | ** | 49.8 | 26.7 | 16.4 |
Dry-matter yield (t⋅ha−1) | ** | ** | ** | 10.4 | 47.7 | 37.3 |
Starch yield (t⋅ha−1) | ** | ** | ** | 18.6 | 45.2 | 35.2 |
Specification | y | x1 | x2 | x3 | x4 | x5 | x6 | x7 | x8 | x9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | 53.51 | 48.43 | 13.69 | 7.35 | 18.84 | 10.11 | 2.99 | 25.06 | 31.88 | 36.85 |
Median | 51.81 | 48.02 | 13.80 | 7.13 | 18.54 | 9.62 | 2.30 | 17.65 | 32.35 | 38.70 |
Standard deviation | 12.06 | 11.40 | 2.06 | 2.09 | 1.92 | 2.62 | 2.51 | 19.55 | 9.38 | 23.57 |
Kurtosis | −0.05 | −0.02 | −0.37 | 0.26 | −0.60 | 0.25 | 1.79 | 0.40 | −0.72 | −1.36 |
Skewness | 0.55 | 0.37 | −0.35 | 0.66 | 0.43 | 0.72 | 1.44 | 1.21 | −0.16 | −0.06 |
Range | 53.86 | 53.52 | 9.10 | 10.05 | 8.14 | 12.67 | 10.60 | 78.10 | 38.10 | 78.70 |
Minimum | 31.47 | 27.84 | 8.90 | 3.76 | 15.70 | 5.62 | 0.00 | 3.80 | 11.50 | 0.00 |
Maximum | 85.33 | 81.36 | 18.00 | 13.81 | 23.84 | 18.29 | 10.60 | 81.90 | 49.60 | 78.70 |
Coefficient of varieties (%) | 22.53 | 23.53 | 15.03 | 28.39 | 10.18 | 25.89 | 84.06 | 78.01 | 29.41 | 63.97 |
Specification | y | x1 | x2 | x3 | x4 | x5 | x6 | x7 | x8 | x9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
y | 1.00 | |||||||||
x1 | 0.82 ** | 1.00 | ||||||||
x2 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 1.00 | |||||||
x3 | 0.85 ** | 0.71 ** | 0.59 ** | 1.00 | ||||||
x4 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.91 ** | 0.55 ** | 1.00 | |||||
x5 | 0.91 ** | 0.75 ** | 0.43 ** | 0.97 ** | 0.48 ** | 1.00 | ||||
x6 | −0.22 * | −0.26 * | −0.08 | −0.23 * | −0.05 | −0.22 * | 1.00 | |||
x7 | −0.33 ** | −0.21 * | 0.15 | −0.20 * | 0.11 | −0.26 * | −0.08 | 1.00 | ||
x8 | −0.09 | −0.04 | 0.16 | 0.00 | 0.20 * | −0.01 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 1.00 | |
x9 | 0.41 ** | 0.33 ** | −0.12 | 0.29 ** | −0.11 | 0.32 ** | −0.20 * | −0.86 ** | −0.55 ** | 1.00 |
Specification | y | x1 | x2 | x3 | x4 | x5 | x6 | x7 | x8 | x9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
y | 1.00 | |||||||||
x1 | 0.82 ** | 1.00 | ||||||||
x2 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 1.00 | |||||||
x3 | 0.85 ** | 0.71 ** | 0.59 ** | 1.00 | ||||||
x4 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.91 ** | 0.55 ** | 1.00 | |||||
x5 | 0.91 ** | 0.75 ** | 0.43 ** | 0.97 ** | 0.48 ** | 1.00 | ||||
x6 | 0.20 * | 0.15 | −0.13 | 0.11 | −0.12 | 0.15 | 1.00 | |||
x7 | −0.18 * | −0.21 * | 0.11 | −0.13 | 0.11 | −0.14 | 0.30 * | 1.00 | ||
x8 | 0.53 ** | 0.24 * | 0.08 | 0.47 ** | 0.06 | 0.49 ** | 0.26 * | 0.24 * | 1.00 | |
x9 | 0.28 * | 0.06 | −0.14 | 0.17 | −0.13 | 0.21 * | 0.73 ** | 0.32 ** | 0.58 ** | 1.00 |
Production Goal | Growing Conditions (Soil/Climate) | Recommended Variety Traits | Example (Based on Our Study) |
---|---|---|---|
Fresh Market (high yield) | Fertile soil, wet year | High total yield, good disease resistance (e.g., late blight) | Varieties known for high yields and good resistance |
Fresh Market (high yield) | Light soil, dry year | High marketable yield, drought tolerance, optimal tuber size distribution | Varieties with proven drought tolerance |
Processing (high quality) | Fertile soil, wet year | High dry-matter (>20%) and starch content, optimal tuber shape and size | ‘Laskara’, ‘Tajfun’ |
Processing (high quality) | Light soil, dry year | High dry-matter and starch content, drought tolerance | Varieties that maintain quality under stress conditions |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pszczółkowski, P.; Sawicka, B.; Niazi, P.; Barbaś, P.; Krochmal-Marczak, B. Agroecological Determinants of Yield Performance in Mid-Early Potato Varieties: Evidence from Multi-Location Trials in Poland. Land 2025, 14, 1777. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091777
Pszczółkowski P, Sawicka B, Niazi P, Barbaś P, Krochmal-Marczak B. Agroecological Determinants of Yield Performance in Mid-Early Potato Varieties: Evidence from Multi-Location Trials in Poland. Land. 2025; 14(9):1777. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091777
Chicago/Turabian StylePszczółkowski, Piotr, Barbara Sawicka, Parwiz Niazi, Piotr Barbaś, and Barbara Krochmal-Marczak. 2025. "Agroecological Determinants of Yield Performance in Mid-Early Potato Varieties: Evidence from Multi-Location Trials in Poland" Land 14, no. 9: 1777. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091777
APA StylePszczółkowski, P., Sawicka, B., Niazi, P., Barbaś, P., & Krochmal-Marczak, B. (2025). Agroecological Determinants of Yield Performance in Mid-Early Potato Varieties: Evidence from Multi-Location Trials in Poland. Land, 14(9), 1777. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091777