592 views

Uploaded by sabavani

AMMI analysis for estimating stability in rice genotypes under coastal saline situation. 2009. Published in Advances in Biological Sciences.

- A few Basics about QTL Mapping
- Business Statistics II:
- Statistics I
- Ejercicios Estadistica Inferencial II
- Oregon Bennis Organisational Wellness Survey_2012 Executive Summary
- 747-3042-1-PB
- Big Data on B-Schools
- NCB20203 (1)
- EFFECTS OF JOB STRESS ON WORK FAMILY CONFLICT AND DEVIANT BEHAVIOR. a RESEARCH PROJECT OF CAL CENTERS
- (IP)Modul 2 Marketing
- 9-07 Factorial Planning Process
- Lab4 Orthogonal Contrasts and Multiple Comparisons
- ANOVA (QUALITY MANAGEMENT)
- Clubs Days Booths
- List of Tables
- Cobb-Douglas (5 Files Merged)
- ANOVA 2-way
- Regression Final Final
- regresie multipla 9
- Book1 Main

You are on page 1of 5

ISSN 1992-0067

© IDOSI Publications, 2009

Yield Performances in Rice Genotypes under Coastal Saline Environments

Annamalai University, Chidambaram-608 002, Tamil Nadu, India

Abstract: Plant Breeders evaluate their germplasm in multi-environment to study the performance and

adaptation for specific or general environment. The objective of the present investigation was to analyse the

pattern of Genotype x Environment (G x E) interaction for grain yield of 46 genotypes by Additive Main effects

and Multiplicative Interaction (AMMI) model using the data generated from three saline stress environments

of east coastal region of Tamil Nadu, India. The results showed highly significant genotypic and G x E

interaction. The G x E interaction influenced the relative ranking of the genotypes across saline stress

environment condition. Among the genotypes tested, G45, G26, G27, G35 and G34 showed low interaction effect

with score nearest to zero with above average yield. While two genotypes, G36 and G19 exhibited high positive

interaction effect, gave the highest mean grain yield and is better suited to favourable environment. Similarly,

AMMI characterized the environments and identified E2 as a favourable environment for the better expression

of the trait studied.

(G x E) interaction. To estimate the level of interaction of

Rice is considered moderately sensitive to salinity. genotypes to environments and to eliminate as much as

Higher population growth rate and the conversion of possible the unexplainable and extraneous variability

some highly productive rice cultivation lands for contained in the data, several statistically techniques

industrial and residential purposes, has pushed rice have been developed to describe G x E and measure the

cultivation to less productive area such as saline, stability of genotypes. For further detailed study on

drought and flood prone areas. However, cultivars current statistics used to test and measure genotype

adaptable to these abiotic stress areas were originated or stability are given by Lin et al. [3] , Piepho [4 ] and Laxmi

selected for these situations were agronomically poor and Gupta [5].

(traditional cultivars). Salt tolerance cultivars such as Since, G x E interaction is naturally multivariate, the

pokkali, cheriviruppu, nona bokra and SR26B are tall, Additive Main effects and Multiplicative Interaction

photosensitive, have poor grain quality and are low (AMMI) offers on appropriate first statistical analysis of

yielding [1]. After green revolution, several breeding yield trials that may have a G x E interaction [6]. The

programs were adapted to develop saline tolerant objectives of this study were to assess the extent of G x E

genotypes at IRRI [2] and other rice growing countries. interaction and to select the stable genotypes of rice in

The venture to develop high yielding genotype with very saline stressed environment over season.

good tolerance on par to traditional cultivars is still in

progress. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The developed cultivars should adapt to a wide range

of target environments, is the eventual goal of plant Forty six rice genotypes (Table 1) from different parts

breeders. Hence, pattern of response of genotypes is India were evaluated at Plant Breeding Research Farm,

studied by the plant breeders by testing genotypes in Faculty of Agriculture, Annamalai University, Annamalai

Annamalai University, Chidambaram-608 002, Tamil Nadu, India

43

Advan. Biol. Res., 3 (1-2): 43-47, 2009

Table 1: Grain yield (kg/plot) of 46 rice genotypes grown in three environments and the first IPCA scores for the G x E interaction effect as derived from

AMMI analysis

Genotype Genotype code E1 E2 E3 Genotype mean IPCA 1

NDR 9730015 G1 1.78 2.50 1.83 2.04 -0.051

NDRK 50001 G2 2.33 3.20 2.77 2.77 0.202

NDRK 50002 G3 2.10 2.70 1.88 2.23 -0.240

NDRK 50004 G4 4.23 4.79 4.31 4.44 -0.070

NDRK 50005 G5 2.76 3.71 3.07 3.18 0.147

NDRK 50007 G6 1.34 2.14 1.63 1.70 0.102

CSAR 520 G7 5.19 6.12 5.55 5.62 0.175

CSAR 518 G8 3.48 4.37 3.62 3.82 0.033

TR 2003-25 G9 4.27 4.77 4.40 4.48 -0.055

TR 2003-82 G10 1.60 2.07 1.58 1.75 -0.152

TR 2003-3 G11 5.20 5.68 5.20 5.36 -0.136

Bio 5-1 G12 4.46 5.06 4.49 4.67 -0.090

BM 5 G13 2.01 2.71 2.36 2.36 0.122

GGV-SAT-05-1 G14 2.21 2.85 2.44 2.50 0.035

RP 4679-3-2-38-1-1 G15 4.49 4.99 4.28 4.59 -0.251

CR 2069-16-1 G16 3.95 4.50 4.37 4.27 0.129

CR 2094-155-4 G17 4.22 4.56 3.90 4.23 -0.351

CR 2071-245-3 G18 5.40 6.38 5.86 5.88 0.241

CR 2092-88-1 G19 5.81 6.64 6.09 6.18 0.108

RP 4658-IR 52707-20-7-1-3-5-P1-4 G20 1.76 2.42 2.06 2.08 0.084

RP 4659-IR 59418-20-2-1-5-7-P5-1 G21 1.39 1.93 1.32 1.55 -0.157

MTU 2716 G22 5.54 6.33 5.79 5.89 0.077

MTU 1061 G23 3.58 4.34 3.87 3.93 0.096

CN 1266-19-16 G24 3.50 4.22 3.63 3.78 -0.003

CN 1266-26-177 G25 3.94 4.64 3.92 4.17 -0.096

CN 1266-9-6 G26 6.00 6.77 6.15 6.31 0.016

CN 1266-3-4 G27 4.88 5.43 5.04 5.12 -0.022

CN 1912 G28 3.70 4.41 4.18 4.09 0.194

CN 1914 G29 3.80 4.25 3.61 3.89 -0.247

CN 1913 G30 3.73 4.02 3.45 3.73 -0.336

CSR 13 G31 7.24 7.71 7.20 7.38 -0.164

CSR 27 G32 2.92 3.58 3.09 3.20 0.003

CST 7-1 G33 5.64 6.46 5.87 5.99 0.071

Jaya G34 5.56 6.24 5.74 5.85 0.011

Pant Kalanamak 3131 G35 5.49 6.17 5.65 5.77 0.001

Pant Dhan 102 G36 6.03 6.95 6.41 6.46 0.176

RP 4677-6-16-1-1-2-B G37 4.44 5.04 4.58 4.69 -0.030

RP 46768-5-1-7-1-2-3 G38 4.49 5.22 4.67 4.80 0.024

MAUB 13 G39 1.60 2.39 1.68 1.89 -0.021

RP 4347-TSH-48-6-2-2-3-B G40 5.59 6.33 5.67 5.87 -0.030

RP 4339-MSC-55-1-4-2-3-8-B G41 4.18 5.13 4.44 4.58 0.115

RP 4676-23-6-1-2-5-B G42 4.66 5.52 5.03 5.07 0.162

RP 4343-4-2-2-1-3-1-B G43 4.40 5.13 4.67 4.73 0.078

RP 4677-16-6-1-1-2-1-2 G44 3.40 3.97 3.32 3.57 -0.163

RP 4343-18-2-1-1-1-1-B G45 4.06 4.84 4.22 4.37 0.023

TRY 1 G46 4.07 5.05 4.53 4.55 0.241

Environment mean 3.97 4.66 4.12 4.25

IPCA 1 -0.777 0.201 0.576

Nagar, located at East coastal region of Tamil Nadu, India whole plot was used to determine the yield potential of

with soil pH of 8 to 8.5 and EC of 2.51 to 2.8 dSmG1. The each genotype.

crop was evaluated in three seasons viz., E1 (Kharif, 2006),

E2 (Kharif, 2007) and E3 (Rabi, 2007). For all the trials, Statistical Analysis: AMMI is a unified approach that

the design used was RCBD with three replications. fits the additive main effects of genotypes and

The plot had 10 sq.m with spacing of 20 cm between environments by the usual analysis of variance and

rows and 20 cm between plants. Management practices then describes the non-additive parts by principal

were uniformly adapted to all seasons as per the component analysis fitted to the AMMI model according

recommendation for rice in the irrigated condition. The to the following equation.

44

Advan. Biol. Res., 3 (1-2): 43-47, 2009

Yge = µ + "g + $e + E 8n ãgn *en + 2ge + 0ger Table 2: AMMI analysis of variance for grain yield of 46 rice genotypes

Source df SS MS F

Where, Yge is the yield of genotype g in environment e, Treatments 137 905.60 6.61 216.78**

Genotypes 45 865.30 19.23 630.56**

µ is the grand mean yield, "g is the genotype mean

Environments 2 36.50 18.24 5.43**

deviation, $e is the environment mean deviation, 8n is the

Interactions 90 3.90 0.04 1.42*

eigen value of the nth principal component, ãgn and *en are IPCA 1 46 2.90 0.06 2.04**

the genotype and environment scores for the nth principal Residuals 44 1.00 0.02 0.77

component; 2ge is the residual and 0ger is the random error Error 270 8.20 0.03

[6 , 7]. Total 413 934.00 2.26

The additive part of the AMMI model (µ, "g, $e) is *P<0.05 and **P<0.01

estimated from an analysis of variance and the

multiplicative part (8n, ã gn and * )en from a principal 25.64% with 51% and 49% of the degrees of freedom

component analysis. The interaction between any respectively for G x E interaction. The first principal

genotype and environment can be estimated by component factor has a high contribution to the

multiplying the score for the interaction principal interaction sum of squares while the residual is small.

component axis (IPCA) of a genotype (8n 0.5 x ãgn) by an This indicates that one fundamental factor affects G x E

environment IPCA score (8n0.5 x *en) [8]. Furthermore, interaction; this could be either genotypic or

Gauch and Zobel [9] proposed an approach to estimate environmental in nature [11].

the relevant portion of G x E for the trait studied to avoid The errors from uncontrolled variation were

spurious interpretation of statistical results. Partitioning calculated using the methods described by Gauch and

the errors from uncontrolled variation (noise) out of the Zobel [9]. The interaction of the grain yield contained

total G x E sum of squares (SS) is important because most 69% noise and 30.77% real structure, with the relevant

of the noise appears in the interaction. Noise SS, real (target) variation being 95.68% of the treatment sum of

structure SS and target relevant variation percentage were squares. Treatment sum of squares variation explained

calculated as described by Gauch and Zobel [9]. The above target percentages that would be attributed to

target percentage of the relevant variation explained by noise. The first IPCA component explained 95.87% of

IPCA in the AMMI analysis should equal SS (relevant the treatment sum of squares (2.9 + 865.3) / 905.6) which

variation) / SS (treatment). was very close to the target percentage sum of squares

explained (95.68%).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Data presented in Table 1 show that the mean yield

for 46 genotypes evaluated in three environments, plus

Bartlett’s test indicated homogenous error variance the genotype and environment means and first IPCA

for the trait yield in each of three environments and scores. The grain yield ranged from 1.32 kg/plot to

allowed to proceed further for pooled analysis across 7.71 kg/plot with an average of 4.25 kg/plot. The AMMI

environment. ANOVA across environments detected 1 estimated yield for any genotype in any location/season

significant variation among genotypes and for the G x E may be calculated from the biplot, as described by

for the trait grain yield (Data not shown). The analysis of Zobel et al. [6]. The biplot (Fig. 1) captured 99% of the

variance of AMMI (Table 2) showed that the mean sum of treatment sum of squares. Genotypes with IPCA 1 scores

squares due to treatments, genotypes, environments and near zero had little interaction across environments, while

genotype x environment interaction were significant, the genotypes with large IPCA 1 scores, either positive or

indicating broad range of diversity existed among negative direction were highly interactive. Similarly,

genotypes [10]. Significance of the environments locations/seasons with IPCA 1 scores near zero had

indicated distinctness of intrinsic factors in different little interaction across genotypes and low discrimination

environment. The significance exhibited by G x E among genotypes. Genotype and location combinations

interaction indicated that each of the genotype interacted with IPCA 1 scores of the same sign produced positive

differentially in various environment tested. The specific interaction effects, whereas combinations of

multiplicative variance of the treatment sum of squares opposite sign had negative specific interactions [12-14].

due to G x E interaction was partitioned into IPCA 1 and In Fig. 1 for any genotype-environment combination,

residual variation. About 74.3% of the interaction sum of the main effect equals the genotype mean plus the

squares was explained by IPCA 1 and residual explained environment mean minus the grand mean and the

45

Advan. Biol. Res., 3 (1-2): 43-47, 2009

0.6 E3

0.4

G4 6 G18

0.2 G2 G28 E2 G7 G36

G6 G5 G4 2

G13 G16 G41

G2 0 G2 3 G43 G2 2 G33G19

G14 G8 G45 G38 G3 5 G3 4 G2 6

0.0 G3 9 G3 2 G2 4 G2 7

G9 G4 G37

IPCA 1

G1 G4 0

G2 1 G25 G12 G11

G10 G4 4 G3 1

-0.2

G3 G3 5 G15

G3 0 G17

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8 E1

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4 .0 4.5 5.0 5 .5 6.0 6.5 7.0

MEA N

Fig. 1: AMMI – 1 biplot for grain yield of rice, showing both main and interaction effects for both genotypes and

environments

interaction is the genotype IPCA score times the mean and high IPCA score. Similar signs of IPCA 1 score

environment ICPA score [15]. For example, G5 grown in for both genotype and environment imply positive

environment E2 had a main effect of 3.18 + 4.66 - 4.25 = interaction and thus it attributes to higher yield of

3.59 kg/plot and an interaction effect of (0.147) x (0.201) = genotype at that particular environment [13 , 17]. For

0.029 kg/plot. Therefore, the AMMI model gives a grain instance, the E2 is the most favourable for the genotypes,

yield estimation of 3.59 kg/plot. This fits well the observed G46, G41, G43, G42, G7, G22, G18, G33, G19 and G36. The

value of 3.71 kg/plot. favourable response environment E2 might have been

From the Fig. 1, it is clear that, genotypes G17, G25 due to evenly distribution of rainfall, this probably

and G16 differ only in interaction effect and not in main reduced the salt toxicity by leaching.

effect, while G39, G32, G24, G45, G27, G35, G34 and G26 The AMMI analysis appeared as a more useful

showed little G x E interaction on IPCA 1 and grouped methodology in quantifying G x E and have greater insight

together along the abscissa, although they differ into the magnitude and nature of G x E interaction. This

dramatically in main effect. The difference exhibited by model is effective in characterizing genotypes and

genotypes over interaction and main effect might have environments as well as interactive and discriminative

been due to the factor salinity stress. The genotypes, pattern of genotypes and environments respectively.

which had IPCA score nearest to zero, are G24, G26, G27,

G32 G34, G35, G39 and G45, the most stable across REFERENCES

environment studied. Among the above mentioned stable

genotypes, G45, G26, G27, G35 and G34 exhibited above- 1. Gregorio, G.B., D. Senadhira, R.D. Mendoza,

average grain yield and indicated that these genotypes N.L. Manigbas, J.P. Roxas and C.Q. Guerta, 2002.

were well adaptable to saline environment condition. Progress in breeding for salinity tolerance and

The biplot 1 (Fig. 1) indicated that, environments associated abiotic stresses in rice. Field Crops Res.,

were scattered without any grouping among them. This 76: 91-101.

indicated that, the test site also showed year to year 2. Gregorio, G.B., D. Senadhira and R.D. Mendoza, 1997.

variation in mean grain yield and were evenly distributed Screening rice for salinity tolerance. IRRI Discussion

in all four quadrants indicating the importance of seasonal Paper Series No. 22, International Rice Research

climatic variation. This clearly suggested that, two or Institute, Manila, Philippines.

more seasons of testing are better than a single year [16]. 3. Lin, C.S., M.R. Bains and L.P. Lefkovitvh, 1986.

Among the three environments, E1 and E3 differed in Stability analysis: Where do we stand? Crop Sci.,

interaction but not main effect. 26: 894-900.

The genotype G36, followed by G19, could be 4. Piepho, H.P., 1999. Stability analysis using the SAS

identified to the favourable environments with high system. Agron. J., 91: 154-160.

46

Advan. Biol. Res., 3 (1-2): 43-47, 2009

5. Laxmi, R.R. and R. Gupta, 2000. Different approaches 12. Crossa, J., 1990. Statistical analysis of multilocation

for stability measures in relation to genotype- trials. Adv. Agron., 44: 55-85.

environment interaction. Crop Res., 20(1): 118-125. 13. Crossa, J., P.N. Fox, W.H. Pfeiffer, S. Rajaram and

6. Zobel, R.W., M.J. Wright and H.G. Gauch, 1988. H.G. Gauch, 1991. AMMI adjustment for statistical

Statistical analysis of yield trials. Agron. J., analysis of an international wheat yield trial.

80: 338-393. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 81: 27-37.

7. Guach, H.G., 1988. Model selection and validation for 14. Asenjo, C.A., R. Bezus and H.A. Acciaresi, 2003.

yield trials with interaction. Biometrics, 88: 705-715. genotype-environment interactions in rice (Oryza

8. Van Oosterom, E.J., D. Kleijn, S. Ceccarelli and sativa L.) in temperate region using the joint

M.M. Nachit, 1993. Genotype-environment regression analysis and AMMI methods. Cereal Res.

interactions of barley in the Mediterranean region. Communi., 31 (1-2): 97-104.

Crop Sci., 33: 669-74. 15. Gauch, H.G., 1992. Statistical analysis of regional

9. Gauch, J.H.G. and R.W. Zobel, 1997. Identifying yield trials: AMMI analysis of factorial designs.

mega-environments and targeting genotypes. Crop Elsevier Science publishers, Netherlands.

Sci., 37: 311- 326. 16. Debelo, D. S. Gelalcha, B. Yaie, B. Girma, B. Mamo

10. Vijayakumar, C.H.M., M.I. Ahmed, B.C. Viraktamath, and D. Masresha, 2004. Grain yield stability of bread

R. Balakrishnan and M.S. Ramesha, 2001. Genotype wheat genotypes in favorable and stressed

x environment interaction effects on yield of rice environments. In 12th Regional Wheat Workshop for

hybrids in India. Indian Journal of Genetics and Eastern, Central and Southern Africa, pp: 76-85.

Plant Breeding, 61(2): 101-106. 17. Nimbalkar, C.A., A.P. Baviskar and P.A. Navale,

11. Anandan, A. and R. Eswaran, 2006. Genotype by 2004. Genotype × environment interaction effect

environment interactions of rice (Oryza sativa L.) on seed yield of French bean. Indian J. Agril.

hybrids in the east coast saline region of Tamil Sci., 74 (7): 366-369.

Nadu. In the Proceedings of 2nd International Rice

Congress, pp: 226.

47

- A few Basics about QTL MappingUploaded byVivay Salazar
- Business Statistics II:Uploaded byashishmanish
- Statistics IUploaded byJannethBlue
- Ejercicios Estadistica Inferencial IIUploaded byJav Alfonso
- Oregon Bennis Organisational Wellness Survey_2012 Executive SummaryUploaded byFelicia Ho
- 747-3042-1-PBUploaded byAddin Nugroho
- Big Data on B-SchoolsUploaded byProf Dr Chowdari Prasad
- NCB20203 (1)Uploaded bysyafiqah umran
- EFFECTS OF JOB STRESS ON WORK FAMILY CONFLICT AND DEVIANT BEHAVIOR. a RESEARCH PROJECT OF CAL CENTERSUploaded byMuhammad Asadullah Shah Pirzada
- (IP)Modul 2 MarketingUploaded byMahfuzh
- 9-07 Factorial Planning ProcessUploaded byDorababu Adapa
- Lab4 Orthogonal Contrasts and Multiple ComparisonsUploaded byjorbeloco
- ANOVA (QUALITY MANAGEMENT)Uploaded byyttan1116
- Clubs Days BoothsUploaded byjltai
- List of TablesUploaded byEd Casas
- Cobb-Douglas (5 Files Merged)Uploaded byMădălina Mişcodan
- ANOVA 2-wayUploaded byWiween Mihad
- Regression Final FinalUploaded bymodestavon
- regresie multipla 9Uploaded byAdriana Mihaela
- Book1 MainUploaded byRadHika GaNdotra
- hChap8Uploaded byneeraj_kamboj2193
- artigo_borrachaUploaded byRebson Bernardo de Souza
- LIC GRIEVANCEUploaded byLAKSHMANAN MP
- Paper 2 Ingenieria (2)Uploaded byDavid Cando
- bhbjvghfhUploaded byDini Ardhana Reswari
- General Linear Models (GLM)Uploaded byscjofyWFawlroa2r06YFVabfbaj
- How to Read the Output From Simple Linear Regression AnalysesUploaded bySachithaDeSilva
- Appendix C1 Optimization Method for Determination of Solubility Parameters 2014 Cleaning With SolventsUploaded byMenee Love U Too
- CARACTERIZACIÓN DEL MODO DE VIDA, SALUD Y DIETA DE LAS POBLACIONES DE LOS CEMENTERIOS CASERONES–TARAPACÁ 40 Y CÁÑAMO 3 (PERÍODO FORMATIVO, REGIÓN DE TARAPACÁ)Uploaded byMaría José Herrera Soto
- sdarticle[5]Uploaded bySamina Nazir

- Isha KriyaUploaded byVijay Cr
- Indian Journal of Horticulture, In vitro Pollen germination studies in BrinjalUploaded bysabavani
- Flash Flood Variety Article IJPGR 2010Uploaded bysabavani
- ti (Mindfulness of Breathing)Uploaded bysimion
- Saving Hollis HawthorneUploaded bysabavani
- Hollis Hawthorne-Bike dancer recoveringUploaded bysabavani
- Awakening Zen Landscape ArtUploaded bysabavani
- sadhguru2Uploaded bysabavani
- Effect of Homobrassinolide on Growth, Physiology and Biochemical Aspects of SesameUploaded bysabavani
- sadhguru1Uploaded bysabavani
- Pigeon Pea AUploaded bysabavani
- The Count of Monte CristoUploaded byJoelM
- Terminator gene - PRIZE WINNING SHORT STORYUploaded bysabavani
- The Prophet- Khalil GibranUploaded bysabavani
- The Art of War by Sun TzuUploaded byO543249511
- Genetic variability and correlation for yield and grain quality characters in rice.Uploaded bysabavani
- Japanese Flower HaikuUploaded bysabavani
- AMMI Cereal Res CommnUploaded bysabavani
- Genetic diversity of rice (Oryza sativa L.) grown in saline lowlands of south India 2010Uploaded bysabavani
- Pal Saba Diallel 2009Uploaded bysabavani

- Environmetal Law- Paper.docxUploaded byjanine nenaria
- DEPRESI 20Uploaded byKenny Ken
- formato del articulo.docxUploaded byMerly Torres
- are you right-brained or left-brained clc 15Uploaded byapi-372225824
- Glyphosate Based Herbicides Are Toxic and Endocrine Disruptors 2009 ToxicolUploaded byMarcelosarling
- Some Basic Information About the Chemical Properties of Hydrogen PeroxideUploaded bymeimeiliu
- CHAPTER I 05.25.2012Uploaded byMichaelister Ordoñez Monteron
- Spermatogenesis and OogenesisUploaded byClaude Peña
- Heinemann Chemistry 2 EnhancedUploaded byNikita Leanne Fernandes
- Pre FormulationUploaded byCm Mouli
- Health Effects and Exposure Guidelines OverviewUploaded bybarokgs119079
- 183314441Uploaded byDhruva Vishal
- AOAC 972.44 Microbiological MethodUploaded bySandra Patricia Vargas
- Relationships Between Glucose Excursion and the ActivationUploaded bymannkindfan
- InTech-Fungus as an Exacerbating Factor of Atopic Dermatitis and Control of Fungi for the Remission of the DiseaseUploaded byarcherx
- AAS2.pdfUploaded byBartholomeus Lavelim
- Tese de Simone Dos Santos SilvaUploaded byHeriberto Oliveira
- ZooTycoon2_Manual_English.pdfUploaded byBhuvanesh Krishnan
- Pathology Volume i 2012 2013Uploaded bysadfafgdsg
- Superoxide Dis Muta SeUploaded bysia_cara
- Alok Ranjan - Environmental GeographyUploaded bySiddram
- De Los Ríos-Escalante Et Al. 2013Uploaded byCata Verdugo
- EmbryologyUploaded bySper Bacena
- test 2Uploaded byChristina Patr
- Judul Tugas Studi mandiriUploaded byHasan Assya Idah
- Grove Body Part ChartUploaded byGroveCanada:Joseph & Sari Grove
- Embryonic Period KmmUploaded byIbrahim Foondun
- Sonochemical Synthesis and Characterization of Nanometer-size Transition Metal Oxides Form Metal AcetatesUploaded byYu Shu Hearn
- 10 γδ T cell effector functions_ a blend of innate programming and acquired plasticityUploaded byWan-Hsin Liu
- Synthesis and characterization of mesoporous zirconia nanocomposi.pdfUploaded byJoel Brown