PLoS ONE
Public Library of Science
image
Overcoming collinearity in path analysis of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] grain oil content
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0233290 , Volume: 15 , Issue: 5 , Pages: 0-0
Article Type: research-article, Article History
Abstract

Path analysis allows understanding the direct and indirect effects among traits. Multicollinearity in correlation matrices may cause a bias in path analysis estimates. This study aimed to: a) understand the correlation among soybean traits and estimate their direct and indirect effects on gain oil content; b) verify the efficiency of ridge path analysis and trait culling to overcome colinearity. Three different matrices with different levels of collinearity were obtained by trait culling. Ridge path analysis was performed on matrices with strong collinearity; otherwise, a traditional path analysis was performed. The same analyses were run on a simulated dataset. Trait culling was applied to matrix R originating the matrices R1 and R2. Path analysis for matrices R1 and R2 presented a high determination coefficient (0.856 and 0.832, respectively) and low effect of the residual variable (0.379 and 0.410 respectively). Ridge path analysis presented low determination coefficient (0.657) and no direct effects greater than the effects of the residual variable (0.585). Trait culling was more effective to overcome collinearity. Mass of grains, number of nodes, and number of pods are promising for indirect selection for oil content.

Keywords

Introduction

Soybean has been very important to Brazilian agribusiness. The oleaginous crop comprises approximately 20% oil by weight [1] and this product has been used in several applications, especially as kitchen oil and biodiesel. The crop is an important source of oil and ranks first in oil production in the world scenario [2] and the global demand for soybean oil is arising [3].

Quantitative traits, such as soybean oil, protein content, and grain yield are quantitative traits [4, 5], and are therefore controlled by a large number of genes, undergo a strong environmental influence, and usually show low heritabilities. Thus, the indirect selection is recommended to achieve genetic gains [6]. The viability of indirect selection is commonly investigated by correlations studies [7]. However, [8] emphasize that correlations among traits are purely a measure of association and do not investigate the cause-and-effect relationships and according to [9] the association between two traits can be influenced by a third trait or a group of them. [10] proposed path coefficient analysis, which is a multiple regression expanded and allows unfolding the correlation coefficients of direct and indirect effects on a basic variable [11]. Path Analysis was first used in plants by [12] and it was later used in other crops.

The estimation of the path analysis coefficients can be adversely affected by the multicollinearity effects among traits. Multicollinearity occurs when the observation of the independent variables, or their combinations, are correlated [11, 14]. When two variables are highly correlated it becomes hard to individually estimate the relations of each explanatory variable no the main variable because they contribute colletively to explain linear relations [14]. [13] advise performing the multicollinearity diagnostic on the correlation matrix of explanatory variables, since in presence of multicollinearity the variances associated to the path coefficients estimators may become too large and leads to unreliable estimates [14, 15]. In presence of multicollinearity, [12] recommend using ridge regression, which can obtain the solution to the vector parameters, even with significant multicollinearity, by the sum of small constant values (k) in the diagonal of the correlation matrix, as proposed by [16, 17]; or by excluding variables highly associated as presented by [18].

Many studies regarding path analysis on soybean that aimed to study the effects of traits on grain yield are available in the literature. [15, 1924]. These studies show that it is usual to find high correlations among traits and, consequently, multicollinearity. Thus, methods to overcome multicollinearity must be studied, since most of these papers were not concerned to compare different methods for overcome collinearity.

Furthermore, despite of the large number of scientific papers about path analysis in soybean, no papers concerned grain oil content is found. Thus, the current study aimed to: a) understand the correlation among soybean traits as well as estimate its direct and indirect effects on oil content; b) verify the efficiency of ridge path analysis and trait culling to overcome colinearity problems.

Material and methods

Experimental conduction

The experiment was installed in 2016, February 22, in the Soybean Genetic Breeding Program’s greenhouse of the Plant Science Department of the University Federal of Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais.

The experimental design was a randomized block with 5 replicates. Since the pots filled all tables of the greenhouse, we arranged the treatments in blocks in order to account possible environmental gradient. The treatments consisted of 34 F1 soybean populations originated from a partial diallel and 15 commercial presented in S1 Appendix according to National Cultivar Registration [25]. Those cultivars used as genitors comprised between 5.5 and 9.0 [26]. The data of commercial cultivars were the ones used for statistical analysis. The plots consisted of two pots containing two plants of the same treatment (genotype). Sowing was performed in a substrate composed of three parts soil, two parts sand, and one part of organic substrate. The greenhouse was adapted using lamps in order to adjust the photoperiod and provide an appropriate environmental since the photoperiod is critical as the flowering inductor in soybean [27].

The experiment was carried in accordance with the recommendations of [28]. Twelve vegetative, productive, and grain quality traits were evaluated in each plant as they reached the appropriate phenological stage, according to [29] as described in Table 1.

table-wrap
Table 1
Code, description and assessment methodology of traits evaluated in soybean plants.
CODE DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
DF Days to Flowering from emergency stage (VE stage) until beginning bloom (R1 stage)
HF Height of plants on Flowering from the base until the last apical meristem at R1 stage
DM Days to Maturity measured from the VE stage until full maturity (R8 stage)
HD Hypocotyl Diameter measured 2 centimeters below the cotyledon node at R8 stage
HM Height of plants on Maturity measured from the base to the last apical meristem at R8 stage
NP Number of Pods per plant number of pods per plant measured at R8 stage
NN Number of Nodes per plant number of nodes in the main stem per plant measured at R8 stage
NB Number of Branches per plant number of lateral branches per plant measured at R8 stage
NG Number of Grains per plant measured at R8 stage
MG Mass of Grains per plant corrected to 13% of humidity
OC Oil content of grains measured in percentage of soybean intact grains at R8 stage and corrected to 13% of humidity
PC Portein content of grains

Genetic-statistical analysis

The genetic parameters were estimated and the genetic values predicted by analyzing only the genitors’ information. The statistical analyses were performed with the genetics and statistics software SELEGEN-REML/BLUP as described by [30, 31], using the following statistical model:

alternatives
y = X r + Z g + e , w h e r e :
Where y is an (gr) x 1 vector of response variable, being g and r the number of genotypes and replicates, respectively; r is an (r) x 1 vector of unknown fixed effects fixed effects of replicates; g is an (g) x 1 vector of random effects of genetic values; and e is an (gr) x vector of random effects of error. X (g x r) and Z (r x g) are the incidence matrix.

The significance of the random effect was obtained by the likelihood ratio test by the analysis of deviance as recommended by 30. The analysis of deviance is derived from the difference between the deviance of the complete model and reduced model missing the effect which must be tested using chi-squared test with one degree of freedom [30, 32].

After obtaining the genetic values, we estimated the correlations between the traits. Then, a multicollinearity diagnosis in the original correlation matrix (matrix R) composed of 11 explanatory traits was performed. The multicollinearity diagnosis was performed considering the condition number as stated by, therefore, the matrices were classified as with weak, moderate, or strong collinearity for condition numbers lower than 100, between 100 and 1000, and greater than 1000, respectively [32].

Two procedures were used to address the problems caused by collinearity. Firstly, the path analysis through the ridge regression onto matrix R (Fig 1) as proposed by [16, 17] and secondly, traditional path analysis after eliminating traits which showed high correlation with another (trait culling). For the path analysis with trait culling, two new correlation matrices were obtained: R1 and R2 by the elimination of different traits in each matrix, and the traditional path analysis were run as shown in the diagrams (Figs 2 and 3, respectively). The traits eliminated were chosen considering its correlation with other traits kept in the matrix and how often they are evaluated in soybean breeding programs, for example: HF and HM are highly correlated (0.92) and HF is less frequently measured in soybean breeding. Herewith, the reduction of collinearity was expected.

Path analysis diagram for matrices R and Rs’s.
Fig 1
Oil content was considered the main trait and DF—days to flowering; HF—height of plants on flowering; DM—days to maturity; HD—hypocotyl diameter; HM—height of plants on maturity; NP—number of pods per plant; NN—number of nodes in the main stem per plant; NB—number of branches per plant; NG—number of grains per plant; MG—mass of grains per plant; PC—protein content in grains; OC—oil content in grains and ERV–effect of residual variable, the explanatory variables.Path analysis diagram for matrices R and Rs’s.
Path analysis diagram for matrices R1 and R1s’.
Fig 2
Oil content was considered the main trait and DM—days to maturity; HD—hypocotyl diameter; HM—height of plants on maturity; NP—number of pods per plant; NN—number of nodes in the main stem per plant; NG—number of grains per plant; MG—mass of grains per plant; PC—protein content in grains; OC—oil content in grains and ERV–effect of residual variable the explanatory variables.Path analysis diagram for matrices R1 and R1s’.
Path analysis diagram for matrices R2 and R2s’s.
Fig 3
Oil content was considered the main trait DM—days to maturity; HD—hypocotyl diameter; HM—height of plants on maturity; NN—number of nodes in the main stem per plant; NG—number of grains per plant; MG—mass of grains per plant; PC—protein content in grains; OC—oil content in grains and ERV–effect of residual variable the explanatory variables.Path analysis diagram for matrices R2 and R2s’s.

To establish the constant value K, the direct effects were plotted in a graph as a function of the values of K. The minimum value of K that provided stable estimates was chosen to run the analysis, as recommended by [12].

Simulation of a new dataset and validation of the path analysis procedures

To validate the results obtained with the experimental data, one hundred of new populations composed of 100 individuals were simulated using the means and covariance matrix of the original dataset in order to keep biological sense in the variables. The large number of simulated populations of few individuals avoids the reproduction of results obtained with original dataset.

Then, one correlation matrix was estimated for each population. After obtained the correlation matrices for each population the same procedures of path analysis were adopted to the simulated dataset. The same set of variables and procedures performed for R, R1 and R2 were also performed respectively for simulated matrices Rs’s, R1s’s and R2s’s.

The best linear unbiased predictions (BLUPs) of the genotypes and variance components were estimated using the software SELEGEN-REML/BLUP [31]; and the correlation coefficients, path analysis, and multicollinearity diagnosis were performed for real data using the software GENES [33] and for simulated data using R software 3.5.3 [34].

Results

Significant genetic variability was found for all vegetative, reproductive and grain quality traits. The lowest and the greater heritability (h²) estimate were found for OC (0.368) and DF (0.992) respectively (Table 2). Grain quality traits (OC and PC) and MG showed lower heritability estimated than most of traits. Accuracy (râa) values varied from 0.854 for OC to 0.992 for DF. The experimental coefficients of variation (CVe%) varied from 2.81 for PC to 20.3 for NS. Genotypic coefficient of variation (CVg%) ranged from 32.1 for HF to 3.00 for PC and CVg% values were greater than CVe% for all traits. The relative coefficient of variation, which is the ratio between the CVg% and CVe% ranged from 20.3 for HF and 2.81 for NP.

table-wrap
Table 2
Genetic and environmental parameters estimated for days to flowering (DF), height of plants on flowering (HF), days to maturity (DM), hypocotyl diameter (HD), height of plants on maturity (HM), number of pods per plant (NP), number of nodes in the main stem per plant (NN), number of branches per plant (NB), number of grains per plant (NG), mass of grains per plant (MG), oil content in grains (OC), and protein content in grains (PC) evaluated in 15 soybean genotypes.
Parameters DF HF DM HD HM NP NN NB NG MG OC PC
σ²g 34.3 * 201 * 90.2 * 0.333 * 174 * 52.5 * 1.84 * 0.486 * 151 * 2.85 * 0.667 * 1.38 *
σ²e 2.81 24.4 28.5 0.228 71.9 10.6 0.544 0.832 65.4 1.79 1.24 1.21
σ²f 37.1 224 119 0.561 246 63.2 2.39 1.32 217 4.64 1.91 2.58
h2g 0.924 0.891 0.76 0.593 0.708 0.832 0.772 0.368 0.698 0.613 0.35 0.532
râa 0.992 0.988 0.97 0.938 0.961 0.98 0.972 0.863 0.959 0.942 0.854 0.922
CVg% 14.09 32.1 8.07 11.5 19.5 23.9 11.206 15.5 18.4 14.8 4.28 3
CVe% 4.03 11.2 4.53 9.54 12.5 10.8 6.091 20.3 12.1 11.7 5.84 2.81
CVr 3.49 2.86 1.78 1.21 1.56 2.22 1.84 0.764 1.52 1.26 0.733 1.07
PEV 0.552 4.76 5.36 0.04 13.3 2.04 0.103 0.124 12 0.319 0.181 0.206
SEP 0.743 2.18 2.31 0.2 3.64 1.43 0.321 0.352 3.47 0.565 0.425 0.453
Mean 41.5 44.1 118 5.01 67.8 30.3 12.1 4.49 66.8 11.4 19.1 39.1

Genotypic values prediction for each genotype is presented in Table 3 and correlation coefficients estimated between genetic values are presented in Table 4. The correlation coefficients indicates that MG is high influenced by DF, DM, NN, and NP. Besides this, MG was more correlated to NP (0,79). With the respect to the oil content, NS showed the greater correlation with OC (0.75). The oil content was also strongly correlated with the yield components NN (0.64), NP (0.65), NG (0.67) and also with MG (0.67). High and significant correlations were found for number of pods (NP) and NN (0.88), and for NN and DM (0.86). Regarding the traits of grain quality, a high and negative correlation were found for PC × NS (-0.56), PC × NG (-0.53), and PC × OC (-0.60). The means of the correlation coefficients from the 100 simulated populations showed to be very similar to those estimated from the original dataset as also shown in Table 4.

table-wrap
Table 3
Genotypic values (u + g) of the genotypes evaluated for days to flowering (DF), height of plants on flowering (HF), days to maturity (DM), hypocotyl diameter (HD), height of plants on maturity (HM), number of nodes in the main stem per plant (NN), number of pods per plant (NP), number of branches per plant (NB), number of grains per plant (NG), mass of grains per plant (MG), oil content in grains (OC), and protein content in grains (PC) evaluated in 15 soybean genotypes.
Variety Traits
DF HF DM HD HM NN NP NB NG MG OC PC
u + g
BMX Apolo RR 36.0 21.4 106.0 4.5 45.4 20.9 10.1 3.5 54.2 9.0 17.9 41.2
DM 5958 IPRO 34.4 28.2 106.2 4.0 51.2 23.4 10.9 4.4 54.1 9.1 19.4 38.4
NA 5909 RR 35.2 42.7 107.4 4.6 72.4 26.1 10.5 4.9 60.0 10.7 18.8 38.6
TMG 7062 IPRO 36.7 35.6 103.5 4.7 59.5 22.1 10.9 4.1 53.0 10.9 18.9 38.8
DM 6563 IPRO 36.7 30.6 114.1 4.8 61.2 26.6 11.9 3.7 64.5 10.9 19.0 38.0
BMX Potência RR 37.1 29.7 111.3 4.7 59.9 24.0 11.3 4.2 58.6 9.7 18.3 39.6
BMX Desafio RR 34.3 30.8 117.3 5.6 62.7 23.8 11.7 3.9 58.2 10.8 18.1 40.2
M 7739 IPRO 45.4 50.5 119.4 5.5 66.5 33.1 12.3 5.0 76.4 12.5 19.5 37.6
P98Y30 RR 44.8 56.7 123.3 5.0 79.9 37.1 13.6 5.5 80.1 12.9 20.6 38.8
M8349 IPRO 45.4 46.0 124.3 5.1 63.7 35.5 12.6 5.0 82.6 13.9 19.8 37.8
TMG 132 RR 47.4 52.0 128.8 4.8 70.4 36.5 13.3 5.1 80.3 11.2 19.1 38.8
M 9056 RR 51.2 65.1 127.3 5.8 94.1 42.6 15.0 5.0 88.4 13.4 19.5 38.2
M 8221 RR 46.2 50.7 119.7 5.8 69.2 40.8 12.5 4.5 66.8 12.3 19.0 40.3
P98N71 45.8 57.1 131.2 4.9 76.3 31.1 13.1 4.5 61.0 10.9 19.3 39.8
Conquista 46.3 64.0 125.7 5.5 84.6 31.0 12.1 4.1 63.6 13.4 19.3 40.1
table-wrap
Table 4
Estimates of genotypic correlation between the traits DF, HF, DM, HD, HM, NP, NN, NB, NG, MG, OC and PC for fifteen soybean genotypes from the original data set below the diagonal and for the simulated populations above the diagonal, including the standard deviation bellow.
Traits DF HF DM HD HM NP NN NB NG MG OC PC
DF 1 0.9 0.86 0.61 0.75 0.91 0.86 0.61 0.81 0.78 0.59 -0.19
0.02 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.1
HF 0.9** 1 0.82 0.6 0.92 0.83 0.8 0.65 0.68 0.8 0.65 -0.2
0.03 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.1
DM 0.86** 0.82** 1 0.59 0.72 0.79 0.86 0.51 0.71 0.69 0.51 -0.1
0.07 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.11
HD 0.62* 0.61* 0.59* 1 0.62 0.63 0.58 0.22 0.5 0.73 0.14 0.06
0.06 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.1
HM 0.75** 0.92** 0.73** 0.63* 1 0.73 0.79 0.56 0.62 0.73 0.53 -0.19
0.04 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.1
NP 0.91** 0.83** 0.78** 0.65** 0.73** 1 0.88 0.72 0.87 0.78 0.65 -0.29
0.03 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.09
NN 0.86** 0.80** 0.86** 0.59* 0.79** 0.88** 1 0.64 0.85 0.7 0.64 -0.33
0.06 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.09
NB 0.62* 0.66* 0.51* 0.24 0.58* 0.72** 0.65** 1 0.77 0.56 0.76 -0.57
0.04 0.06 0.04 0.07
NG 0.81** 0.68* 0.72** 0.52* 0.62* 0.87** 0.85** 0.77** 1 0.77 0.66 -0.54
0.04 0.06 0.07
MG 0.78** 0.81** 0.69** 0.73** 0.73** 0.79** 0.70** 0.57** 0.77** 1 0.67 -0.36
0.06 0.09
OC 0.60* 0.66* 0.51 0.16 0.54* 0.65** 0.64** 0.75** 0.67** 0.67** 1 -0.6
0.06
PC -0.19 -0.2 -0.09 0.05 -0.19 -0.28 -0.33 -0.56* -0.53* -0.36 -0.60* 1

Multicollinearity diagnosis analysis showed severe multicollinearity for matrix R; moderate, but very close to the limit to be weak for matrix R1 (not contemplating the traits DF, HF and NB); and weak for matrix R2 (not contemplating the traits DF, HF, NN and NB) (Table 5).

table-wrap
Table 5
Eigenvalues, condition number (CN) and its standard deviations between parenthesis of the correlation matrices R, R1, R2, Rs, R1s and R2s between explanatory variables.
Rank Eigenvalues
R R1 R2 Rs R1s R2s
1 7.67 5.13 4.72 7.65(0.28) 5.46(0.21) 4.61(0.20)
2 1.40 1.36 1.11 1.44(0.16) 1.19(0.11) 1.19(0.11)
3 0.590 0.550 0.388 0.618(0.09) 0.534(0.09) 0.523(0.09)
4 0.454 0.338 0.336 0.444(0.06) 0.336(0.05) 0.317(0.05)
5 0.314 0.282 0.240 0.302(0.05) 0.203(0.03) 0.185(0.03)
6 0.226 0.183 0.128 0.215(0.03) 0.150(0.03) 0.121(0.02)
7 0.147 0.111 0.077 0.139(0.02) 0.075(0.01) 0.050(0.01)
8 0.104 0.048 0.096(0.01) 0.047(0.01)
9 0.058 0.054(0.01)
10 0.037 0.033(0.01)
11 0.004 0.003(0.00)
CN 2081 105 86.5 2337(559.91) 119(22.53) 95.3(18.22)
Multicollinearity level Severe Moderate Weak Severe Moderate Weak

There was no direct or indirect effect higher than the residual effect (0.585) and the determination coefficient was not satisfactory (0.657) for matrix R (Table 6). For the R1 matrix, path analysis showed high determination coefficient (0.856) and the effect of the residual variable was outdone by direct effects of traits on OC (Table 7). The traits DM, HD, HM, and NG presented direct effects with sign opposite to the correlation coefficient in analysis of the matrix R1. A weak association of DM and HM with OC was observed. On the other hand, NP, NN, and MG were noticed to be highly associated with OC by the direct effects 0.427, 0.632 and 0.967.

table-wrap
Table 6
Estimates of direct and indirect effects for: DF, HF, DM, HD, HM, NP, NN, NB, NG, MG and PC on OC evaluated in 15 soybean genotypes onto the matrix R.
Explanatory variables
Effect DF HF DM HD HM NP NN NB NG MG PC
Direct on OC 0.035 0.141 0.019 -0.207 0.020 0.086 0.105 0.196 0.022 0.216 -0.205
Indirect via DF - 0.032 0.031 0.022 0.027 0.032 0.031 0.022 0.029 0.028 -0.007
Indirect via HF 0.127 - 0.115 0.086 0.131 0.117 0.113 0.094 0.096 0.114 -0.029
Indirect via DM 0.017 0.016 - 0.011 0.014 0.015 0.016 0.010 0.014 0.013 -0.002
Indirect via HD -0.128 -0.126 -0.122 - -0.129 -0.134 -0.121 -0.049 -0.106 -0.151 -0.010
Indirect via HM 0.015 0.018 0.014 0.012 - 0.014 0.016 0.011 0.012 0.014 -0.004
Indirect via NP 0.079 0.071 0.068 0.056 0.063 - 0.076 0.063 0.075 0.068 -0.024
Indirect via NN 0.090 0.084 0.090 0.061 0.083 0.092 - 0.068 0.089 0.073 -0.034
Indirect via NB 0.121 0.130 0.101 0.046 0.113 0.142 0.126 - 0.151 0.111 -0.109
Indirect via NG 0.018 0.015 0.016 0.012 0.014 0.019 0.019 0.017 - 0.017 -0.012
Indirect via MG 0.169 0.174 0.148 0.158 0.158 0.170 0.152 0.122 0.167 - -0.077
Indirect via PC 0.039 0.041 0.018 -0.010 0.040 0.057 0.067 0.114 0.108 0.073 -
Total 0.60 0.66 0.51 0.16 0.54 0.65 0.64 0.76 0.67 0.67 -0.60
0.657
K 0.445
ERV 0.585
table-wrap
Table 7
Estimates of direct and indirect effects for: DM, HD, HM, NP, NN, NG, MG and PC on OC evaluated in 15 soybean genotypes onto the matrix R1.
Explanatory variables††
Effect DM HD HM NP NN NG MG PC
Direct on OC -0.126 -0.758 -0.110 0.427 0.632 -0.556 0.967 -0.223
Indirect via DM - -0.075 -0.092 -0.099 -0.109 -0.091 -0.087 0.011
Indirect via HD -0.449 - -0.474 -0.491 -0.445 -0.391 -0.556 -0.037
Indirect via HM -0.080 -0.069 - -0.081 -0.087 -0.069 -0.081 0.021
Indirect via NP 0.333 0.276 0.312 - 0.374 0.371 0.335 -0.119
Indirect via NN 0.543 0.371 0.500 0.554 - 0.536 0.443 -0.207
Indirect via NG -0.398 -0.286 -0.347 -0.483 -0.472 - -0.429 0.294
Indirect via MG 0.663 0.709 0.709 0.760 0.679 0.747 - -0.344
Indirect via PC 0.020 -0.011 0.043 0.062 0.073 0.118 0.079 -
Total 0.51 0.16 0.54 0.65 0.64 0.67 0.67 -0.60
0.856
ERV 0.379

Strong direct effects of NN (0.804) and MG (1.05) on OC were found (Table 8). The ERV (0.410) and R² (0.832) found for path analysis on matrix R2 fitted better than the analysis of the matrix R, but not as well as the analysis of the matrix R1. Analysis of the matrix R2 revealed results very similar to those of matrix R1.

table-wrap
Table 8
Estimates of direct and indirect effects for: DM, HD, HM, NN, NG, MG, PC on OC evaluated in 15 soybean genotypes onto the matrix R2.
Explanatory variables††
Effect DM HD HM NN NG MG PC
Direct on OC -0.158 -0.744 -0.095 0.804 -0.347 1.05 -0.148
Indirect via DM - -0.094 -0.115 -0.136 -0.113 -0.018 0.014
Indirect via HD -0.440 - -0.466 -0.437 -0.384 -0.546 -0.036
Indirect via HM -0.069 -0.059 - -0.075 -0.059 -0.070 0.018
Indirect via NN 0.690 0.472 0.636 - 0.682 0.564 -0.260
Indirect via NG -0.249 -0.179 -0.217 -0.295 - -0.268 0.184
Indirect via MG 0.718 0.768 0.768 0.735 0.809 - -0.372
Indirect via PC 0.013 -0.007 0.029 0.048 0.079 0.054 -
Total 0.51 0.16 0.54 0.64 0.67 0.67 -0.60
0.832
ERV 0.410

The path analyses on Rs’s matrices revealed a lower average k-value (0.334) and a higher determination coefficient (0.701) as presented in Table 9. The same promising traits (NP, NN and MG) for indirect selection in matrices R1 were also appointed by path analysis on R1 s’s matrices whose average estimates are shown in Table 9. The average condition number estimated for simulated populations were slightly greater than those estimated for the original dataset.

table-wrap
Table 9
Mean direct effects and standard deviation between parentheses for explanatory traits, k-value (K), effect of residual variable (ERV) and R-squared (R²) of the path analysis for the simulated populations.
DF HF DM HD HM NP NN NB NG MG PC K ERV
Rs’s 0.011 0.169 0.016 -0.265 -0.013 0.099 0.140 0.211 -0.024 0.283 -0.203 0.334 0.544 0.701
(0.04) (0.05) (0.04) (0.09) (0.07) (0.04) (0.07) (0.04) (0.08) (0.1) (0.04) (0.14) (0.05) (0.04)
R1s’s - - -0.124 -0.772 -0.106 0.416 0.631 - -0.552 0.969 -0.214 - 0.363 0.866
- - (0.10) (0.10) (0.07) (0.11) (0.16) - (0.12) (0.11) (0.07) - (0.04) (0.03)
R2s’s - - -0.146 -0.762 -0.091 - 0.803 - -0.357 1.048 -0.143 - 0.394 0.844
- - (0.10) (0.10) (0.08) - (0.16) - (0.12) (0.11) (0.07) - (0.04) (0.03)

Discussion

Genetic control and variance components

The genetic variability noticed between soybean cultivars shows that they can be used as genitor in breeding programs. The variability between genitors is fundamental to generate segregating populations that provide genetic gains [7].

Low heritability and accuracy were expected for mass of grains and quality traits, since they are controlled by a larger number of genes and are more affected by environmental factors [5, 6]. The values of accuracy found in this research are considered high according to [35]. These results indicate good experimental quality; thus, the data set and data analysis can be used in trustworthy inferences by researchers.

According a classification proposed by [36] the residual coefficients of variation (CVe%) were classified as low which indicates good experimental quality. The greatest value of CVe% was found for number of branches. According to [37] soybean plants have the ability to adjust the number of branches to compensate for the distance from other plants and intercept the maximum amount of light. The authors named this phenotypic plasticity. Despite equal spacing between pots, randomizing the treatments inside the blocks induced different levels of competition to the same genotype in different blocks. This effect was accounted for the environmental effects, therefore, decreases the coefficient of variance.

According to [38] an statistic usually employed on genetic evaluations is the ratio between the genetic coefficient of variation and the experimental coefficient of variation which is called relative coefficient of variation (CVr) and is related to experimental accuracy. Estimates of relative CVr higher than 1 indicate more accurate and precise inferences about the rank of the genotypes, which was found for 10 traits with the exception of NB and OC.

Genetic correlation among traits and multicollinearity diagnosis

The traits days to flowering, days to maturing, number of nodes and number of pods were found strongly correlated to mass of grains. These results corroborate with results for genetic correlation found by [39].

The strong correlation between oil content and grain yield found is reinforced by [40]. The high correlation of number of nodes and number of pods with grains yield are reported in the literature as well as found in this research [24, 39]. This is due to the grains yield comes from pods which are developed in axillary buds located on plant stems or branches originated from the nodes. Besides this, the high correlation between number of nodes and days to maturing shows that late maturing genotypes tend to present higher grain yield per plant. These results agree with those of [15].

A strong and negative correlation between oil and protein content were also found by [3, 41, 42] in molecular markers studies. [43] suggested that both traits are controlled by the same gene or group of genes, which were later reported as a major QTL in the crhomossome 20 by [44].

The elimination of traits that are strongly correlated and have biological interpretations such as DF and DM or HF and HM was shown to be effective to overcome multicollinearity. Thus, matrix R1 or R2 each contains just one of these traits from these pairs. This discussion is supported by the results of simulated data presented in Table 4 that showed very similar results for 100 populations. However the matrices comprised of the same set of variables presented the same level of collinearity problems.

Path analysis results and comparison among procedures

The poor adjustment of the ridge path analysis onto R and Rs’s matrices and the greater effects of the residual variable in comparison with the direct effects, leads us to affirm that the estimates are not reliable (Tables 6 and 8). [15] obtained direct effect estimates higher than 1 for two traits in a traditional path analysis on a correlation matrix with strong collinearity problems for soybean. The authors also ran a ridge analysis, which gave estimates between 0 and 1, and these two traits did not show relevant direct effects. The K value used by the authors was of 0.05, whereas the K value needed to overcome collinearity in our original and simulated dataset were much greater. [12] affirm that high K values lead to higher bias in the regression and may provide results without biological mean.

High values for effects of residual variable (ERV) may be found when the number of explanatory variables is not enough to explain variation of the main trait. However, the estimates for matrix R1 showed that even after reducing the number of explanatory variables, it was possible to explain a large part of the total variance. This result was also observed by [14] when they found greater regression adjustment after trait culling of the explanatory variables. [10] affirm that the exclusion of variables allows estimating path coefficients with biological meaning, what is an advantage of trait culling.

A weak association of HM with OC was observed by the low direct and indirect effects, although HM showed significant correlation with OC. Likewise, a high correlation between PC and OC and weak direct effect was noticed. These results proves that the correlation coefficient does not necessarily give the best idea of association between variables and researches need to be careful at choose traits for indirect selection based just on correlation coefficient. On the other hand, NP, NN and MG are recommended to be used in indirect selection for OC, since the magnitude of direct effects were close to the correlation, which is the sum of direct and indirect effects involving each trait. In addition, these traits are easier, cheaper, and quicker to measure than laboratory procedures to measure OC. Besides this, NP and NN may be evaluated before complete maturation, which allows earlier selection, and MG is routinely evaluated in soybean experiments. In order to achieve genetic gains on OC we also recommend the use of a selection index including the traits that showed high direct effects on OC.

The direct effect of MG on OC from path analysis on R2 matrix was 1.05, although estimates greater than 1 were not expected, once the matrix R2 showed weak collinearity problems. The path analysis on R2s’s matrices also presented means direct effects of MG on OC higher than 1. The strong and positive direct effects of NN and MG on OC showed in R1 analysis were confirmed by path analysis on R2 and R2s’s matrices and encourage researches to use them for indirect selection. The same discussion mentioned above regarding PC in matrix R1 can be applied to matrix R2.

Although the matrix R1 showed moderate to strong problems with collinearity according to [45], the path analysis onto this set of variables was the most suitable for this study, since it provided the greatest determination coefficient of the regression, the lowest effect of the residual variable, and all effects were estimated inside the parameter space, which ranges from -1 to 1 for direct, indirect and residual variable effects. These results corroborate with those found by [14] when the authors tested three methods of path analysis (traditional, ridge path analysis and trait culling) and concluded that the trait culling provided a fit statistics more accurate. The discussions about the quality of the path analysis onto R1 matrix were validated by path analysis onto R1s’s matrices according to the great regression adjustment (0.844) and the high effect of the residual variable. Furthermore, the choice of the R1 matrix allows considering one more variable in the study (NP).

The ridge path analysis was not an appropriated approach for overcome the collinearity problem, since a low R² (0.657) and high ERV (0.585) were found. Besides of this, no direct effects greater than ERV were found for analysis onto matrices R and Rs’s (Tables 6 and 8). Path analysis after trait culling for matrices R1 and R2 showed to be the best strategy for overcome collinearity problem since it presented a well-fit of the regression denoted by the values of R² (0.856 and, 0.832 respectively) and direct effects greater than the ERV (0.379 and 0.410, respectively). The results found onto simulated matrices supported these findings (Table 9). In addition, trait culling is a simple technique and allows to the researcher exclude the variable that contributes more to the collinearity considering its biological relationship with the main trait.

Conclusions

There is a strong relation of causation of mass of grains per plant, number of nodes, and number of pods with the oil content in grains and they could be used for indirect selection. Trait culling was more suitable and simpler strategy than ridge path analysis to overcome collinearity problems.

Eliminate one between two similar traits biologically was efficient to reduce condition number and, consequently, overcome multicollinearity.

Acknowledgements

To students and servers of Federal University of Viçosa who contributed to field and laboratory evaluations.

References

Lazzarotto JJ , Hirakuri MH . Evolução e perspectivas de desempenho econômico associadas com a produção de soja nos contextos mundial e brasileiro. Londrina Embrapa Soja. 2010;319: 46.

Yu J , Zhang Z , Wei J , Ling Y , Xu W , Su Z . SFGD: a comprehensive platform for mining functional information from soybean transcriptome data and its use in identifying acyl-lipid metabolism pathways. BMC Genomics. 2014;15: 271 doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-271

Liang H , Yu Y , Wang S , Lian Y , Wang T , Wei Y , et al QTL Mapping of Isoflavone, Oil and Protein Contents in Soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.). Agric Sci China. Elsevier; 2010;9: 11081116. doi: 10.1016/S1671-2927(09)60197-8

Lee SH , Bailey MA , Mian MAR , Shipe ER , Ashley DA , Parrott WA , et al Identification of quantitative trait loci for plant height, lodging, and maturity in a soybean population segregating for growth habit. Theor Appl Genet. Springer-Verlag; 1996;92: 516523. doi: 10.1007/BF00224553

da Rodrigues JIS , de Miranda FD , Ferreira A , Borges LL , d S Ferreira MF , Good-God PI V , et al Mapeamento de QTL para conteúdos de proteína e óleo em soja. Pesqui Agropecu Bras. 2010;45: 472480. doi: 10.1590/S0100-204X2010000500006

Falconer DS , Mackay TFC . Introduction to quantitative genetics. London: Longman Malaysia; 1996.

Cruz CD , Regazzi AJ , Carneiro PCS . Modelos biómetricos aplicados ao melhoramento genético. 4th ed Viçosa: Editora UFV; 2012.

Vencovsky R , Barriga P . Genética biométrica no fitomelhoramento. São Paulo: Sociedade Brasileira de Genética; 1992.

Toebe M , Cargnelutti Filho A . Multicollinearity in path analysis of maize (Zea mays L.). J Cereal Sci. Academic Press; 2013;57: 453462. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2013.01.014

10 

Wright S . Wright_Correlation and Causation.pdf. J Agric Res. 1921;20: 557585. doi: 10.2307/3966855

11 

Cruz CD , Carneiro PCS , Regazzi AJ . Modelos Biométricos Aplicados Ao Melhoramento Genético. 3rd ed Viçosa: Editora UFV; 2014.

12 

Dewey DR , Lu KH . A Correlation and Path-Coefficient Analysis of Components of Crested Wheatgrass Seed Production1. Agron J. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy; 1959;51: 515518. doi: 10.2134/agronj1959.00021962005100090002x

13 

Toebe M , Cargnelutti Filho A . Multivariate nonnormality and multicollinearity in path analysis in corn. Pesqui Agropecu Bras. Embrapa Informação Tecnológica; 2013;48: 466477. doi: 10.1590/S0100-204X2013000500002

14 

Olivoto T , de Souza VQ , Nardino M , Carvalho IR , Ferrari M , de Pelegrin AJ , et al Multicollinearity in Path Analysis: A Simple Method to Reduce Its Effects. Agron J. Madison, WI: The American Society of Agronomy, Inc.; 2017;109: 131142. doi: 10.2134/agronj2016.04.0196

15 

Bizeti HS , Portela De Carvalho CG , Pinto De Souza JR , Destro D . Path analysis under multicollinearity in soybean. Brazilian Arch Biol Technol. Tecpar; 2004;47: 669676. doi: 10.1590/S1516-89132004000500001

16 

Hoerl AE , Kennard RW . Ridge Regression: Biased Estimation for Nonorthogonal Problems. Technometrics. Taylor & Francis; 1970;12: 5567. doi: 10.1080/00401706.1970.10488634

17 

Hoerl AE , Kennard RW . Ridge Regression: Applications to Nonorthogonal Problems. Technometrics. Taylor & Francis; 1970;12: 6982. doi: 10.1080/00401706.1970.10488635

18 

Carvalho SP de. Métodos alternativos de estimação de coeficientes de trilha e índices de seleção, sob multicolínearidade [Internet]. UFV. 1995. http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/11048

19 

Arshad M , Ali N , Ghafoor A . Character correlation and path coefficient in soybean Glycine Max (L.) Merril. Pak J Bot. 2006;38: 121130.

20 

Board JE , Kang MS , Harville BG . Path Analyses Identify Indirect Selection Criteria for Yield of Late-Planted Soybean. Crop Sci. Madison, WI: Crop Science Society of America; 1997;37: 879884. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700030030x

21 

Malik MFA , Ashraf M , Qureshi AS , Ghafoor A . Assessment of genetic variability, correlation and path analyses for yield and its components in soybean. Pakistan J Bot. 2007;39: 405413.

22 

Nogueira APO , Sediyama T , de Sousa LB , Hamawaki OT , Cruz CD , Pereira DG , et al Path Analysis and Correlations Among Traits in Soybean Grown in Two Dates Sowing. Biosci J. Federal University of Uberlandia; 2013;28: 877888.

23 

Pandey JP , Torrie JH . Path Coefficient Analysis of Seed Yield Components in Soybeans (Glycine max (L.) Merr.)1. Crop Sci. Madison, WI: Crop Science Society of America; 1973;13: 505507. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1973.0011183X001300050004x

24 

Teodoro PE , Ribeiro LP , Corrêa CC , Luz Júnior RAA , Zanucio A dos S , Capristo DP , et al Path analysis in soybean genotypes as function of growth habit. Biosci J. 2015;31: 794799. doi: 10.14393/BJ-v31n1a2015-26094

25 

MAPA. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. In: Registro Nacional de Cultivares—RNC2 [Internet]. 2019 [cited 27 Apr 2018]. http://sistemas.agricultura.gov.br/snpc/cultivarweb/cultivares_registradas.php

26 

Alliprandini LF , Abatti C , Bertagnolli PF , Cavassim JE , Gabe HL , Kurek A , et al Understanding soybean maturity groups in brazil: Environment, cultivar classifi cation, and stability. Crop Sci. Crop Science Society of America; 2009;49: 801808. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2008.07.0390

27 

de S Câmara GM . Soja: Tecnologia de produção In: de S Câmara GM , editor. Soja: Tecnologias da produção. Piracicaba: ESALQ; 1998 pp. 256277.

28 

T , Silva FL , Borém A . Soja: do plantio à colheita. 1st ed Viçosa: Editora UFV; 2015.

29 

Fehr W , Caviness C . Stages of soybean development. Spec Rep. 1977.

30 

de Resende MDV . Matemática e estatística na análise de experimentos e no melhoramento genético [Internet]. Embrapa Florestas, Colombo. Colombo: Embrapa Floresta; 2007 p. 561.

31 

de Resende MDV . Software Selegen-REML / BLUP : a useful tool for plant breeding. Crop Breed Appl Biotechnol. 2016;16: 330339. doi: 10.1590/1984-70332016v16n4a49.

32 

de Resende MDV , e Silva FF , Azevedo CF . Estatística Matemática, Biométrica e Computacional: Modelos Mistos, Multivariados, Categóricos e Generalizados (REML/BLUP), Inferência Bayesiana, Regressão Aleatória, Seleção Genômica, QTL-GWAS, Estatística Espacial e Temporal, Competição, Sobrevivência. 1st ed Viçosa: Suprema; 2014.

33 

Cruz CD . Genes Software-extended and integrated with the R, Matlab and Selegen. Acta Sci Agron. 2016;38: 547552.

34 

R Core Team . R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2019 https://www.r-project.org/

35 

de Resende MDV . Genética biométrica e estatística no melhoramento de plantas perenes. Embrapa Informação Tecnológica, Brasília. 1st ed Brasília, DF: Embrapa Informação Tecnológica; 2002.

36 

Pimentel-Gomes F , Garcia CH . Estatística aplicada a experimentos agronômicos e florestais: exposição com exemplos e orientações pra uso de aplicativos. Piracicaba: Fealq; 2002.

37 

Bradshaw A. D. (1965). Evolutionary Significance of Phenotypic Plasticity in Plants. Advances in Genetics, 13(C), 115155. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2660(08)60048-6

38 

de Resende MDV , Duarte JB . Precisão e controle de qualidade em epxerimentos de avaliação de cultivares. Pesqui Agropecuária Trop. 2007;37: 182194.

39 

Machikowa T , Laosuwan P . Path coefficient analysis for yield of early maturing soybean. Songklanakarin J Sci Technol. 2011;33: 365368.

40 

Wilcox JR , Guodong Z . Relationships between Seed Yield and Seed Protein in Determinate and Indeterminate Soybean Populations. Crop Sci. Madison, WI: Crop Science Society of America; 1997;37: 361364. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700020009x

41 

Hwang E-Y , Song Q , Jia G , Specht JE , Hyten DL , Costa J , et al A genome-wide association study of seed protein and oil content in soybean. BMC Genomics. BioMed Central; 2014;15: 1 doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-1

42 

Chaudhary J , Patil GB , Sonah H , Deshmukh RK , Vuong TD , Valliyodan B , et al Expanding Omics Resources for Improvement of Soybean Seed Composition Traits. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6: 1021 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.01021

43 

Diers BW , Keim P , Fehr WR , Shoemaker RC . RFLP analysis of soybean seed protein and oil content. Theor Appl Genet. 1992;83: 608612. doi: 10.1007/BF00226905

44 

Lestari P , Van K , Lee J , Kang YJ , Lee S-H . Gene divergence of homeologous regions associated with a major seed protein content QTL in soybean. Front Plant Sci. Frontiers Media S.A.; 2013;4: 176 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00176

45 

Montgomey DC , Peck EA . Introduction to linear regression analysis. New York: J. Wiley; 1981.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
https://www.researchpad.co/tools/openurl?pubtype=article&doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0233290&title=Overcoming collinearity in path analysis of soybean [<i>Glycine max</i> (L.) Merr.] grain oil content&author=Murilo Viotto Del Conte,Pedro Crescêncio Souza Carneiro,Marcos Deon Vilela de Resende,Felipe Lopes da Silva,Luiz Alexandre Peternelli,Paulo Eduardo Teodoro,&keyword=&subject=Research Article,Biology and Life Sciences,Agriculture,Crop Science,Crops,Soybean,Biology and Life Sciences,Organisms,Eukaryota,Plants,Flowering Plants,Biology and Life Sciences,Agriculture,Agronomy,Plant Products,Vegetable Oils,Biology and Life Sciences,Agriculture,Crop Science,Plant Products,Vegetable Oils,Biology and Life Sciences,Biochemistry,Lipids,Oils,Biology and Life Sciences,Evolutionary Biology,Population Genetics,Genetic Polymorphism,Biology and Life Sciences,Genetics,Population Genetics,Genetic Polymorphism,Biology and Life Sciences,Population Biology,Population Genetics,Genetic Polymorphism,Biology and Life Sciences,Genetics,Plant Genetics,Biology and Life Sciences,Plant Science,Plant Genetics,Biology and Life Sciences,Genetics,Heredity,Biology and Life Sciences,Agriculture,Crop Science,Crops,