Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai - Cucurbit Breeding ...

Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai - Cucurbit Breeding ... Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai - Cucurbit Breeding ...

cuke.hort.ncsu.edu
from cuke.hort.ncsu.edu More from this publisher
14.07.2013 Views

[ ] ! 2 ( P) = ! 2 ( F2 ) ! 2 ( E) = ! 2 ( Pa ) + ! 2 ( Pb ) + 2 " ! 2 ( F1 ) ! 2 ( G) = ! 2 ( PH ) " ! 2 ( E) ! 2 A ( ) = 2 " ! 2 ( F2 ) 4 [ ] # ! 2 ( BC P 1 a ) + ! 2 [ ( BC P 1 a ) ] Negative estimates for genetic variances are possible with the experimental design adopted. Negative estimates should be considered equal to zero (Robinson et al., 1955), but should be reported "in order to contribute to the accumulation of knowledge, which may, in the future, be properly interpreted" (Dudley and Moll, 1969). We considered negative estimates equal to zero for the calculation of the mean estimates over families or locations. When a negative estimate was derived from another negative value (narrow-sense heritability and gain from selection, calculated from additive variance), it was considered close to zero and omitted. The number of effective factors was estimated using the following methods (Lande, 1981; Mather and Jinks, 1982; Wright, 1968): Lande's method I: Lande's method II: Lande's method III: Mather's method: Wright's method: 8 " # 2 $ % & ( ) ! F 2 [ ] 2 µ ( P ) ! µ ( P ) b a 2 # ( P ) + # a 2 ( P ) + 2 " # b 2 [ ( F ) 1 ] ' ( 4 ) [ µ ( P ) ! µ ( P ) b a ] 2 ( F ) ( BC P ) + # 2 1 a 2 { ( BC P ) 1 a } [ ] ! # 2 [ ] 8 " 2 " # 2 [ ( ) ] 2 µ ( P ) ! µ P b a 8 " # 2 ( BC P ) + # 1 a 2 ( BC P ) ! # 1 a 2 2 # ( P ) + # a { [ ( F ) 1 ] } ! 2 [ ( P ) b ] 2 [ ( ) ] 2 µ ( P ) ! µ P b a 2 2 " # 2 [ ( F ) 2 ] ! # 2 ( BC P ) + # 1 a 2 [ ( ) ] 2 [ ( BC P ) 1 a ] µ ( P ) ! µ P " 1.5 ! 2 " b a µ F ( ) ! µ ( P ) 1 a µ ( P ) ! µ ( P ) b a " 1 ! µ F / ) # ( ) ! µ P 1 a 0 + $ % 1 * µ ( P ) ! µ P b a 8 " 5 2 2 5 ( P ) + 5 a ( F ) ! 2 2 ( P ) + 2 " 5 b 2 / [ ( F ) 1 ] 2 0 4 1 3 4 ( ) ( ) & , 2 ' ( . 3 -4 107

The possible gain from selection per cycle was predicted as h n 2 ! " 2 ( P) multiplied by the selection differential in standard deviation units k for selection intensities of 5%, 10%, or 20% (Hallauer and Miranda, 1988). The statistical analysis was performed using the SAS-STAT statistical package (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). Results and Discussion In our study, resistance to gummy stem blight in watermelon was not inherited as a single gene, as previously described by Norton in PI 189225 (Table 1). The expected segregation ratios for the inheritance of the db gene were not observed in the F 2 and backcross generations, when PI 189225 was crossed with the susceptible 'NH Midget'. Similar results were obtained in greenhouse and field tests for the other three families tested, involving PI 482283 and PI 526233 as resistant parents. The lack of fit to the single gene hypothesis suggests that gummy stem blight resistance in watermelon could be inherited as a quantitative trait locus (QTL). Most likely, multiple QTLs could be involved in the complete expression of resistance. Nevertheless, the distribution of our F 2 data was strongly skewed towards susceptibility (Fig. 1) and far from the expected bell-shaped (normal) distribution for quantitative traits. This distribution pattern would suggest the presence either of a single gene or a QTL with high environmental variation, or of QTLs regulating the expression level of a major gene. A similar distribution was recorded in all four families, with the exception of the field test of the family PI 526233 × 'Allsweet'. Higher variability in the field than in the greenhouse tests and low correlation among tests is commonly found when screening for resistance to gummy stem blight (Gusmini and Wehner, 2002) and may be caused by differences in microclimate in the field. In our analysis, the variances of the six generations tested were generally consistent across families. Larger differences in variance estimates among families and within generation were found in the field test, compared to the greenhouse test (Table 2). Genetic variance was larger than environmental variance in three of the four crosses (Table 3). The larger environmental variance in the cross PI 482283 × 'Calhoun Gray' was determined solely by the field test. A large genetic component was found also for this cross in the greenhouse 108

[ ]<br />

! 2 ( P)<br />

= ! 2 ( F2 ) ! 2 ( E)<br />

= ! 2 ( Pa ) + ! 2 ( Pb ) + 2 " ! 2 ( F1 )<br />

! 2 ( G)<br />

= ! 2 ( PH ) " ! 2 ( E)<br />

! 2 A<br />

( ) = 2 " ! 2 ( F2 )<br />

4<br />

[ ] # ! 2 ( BC P 1 a ) + ! 2 [ ( BC P 1 a ) ]<br />

Negative estimates for genetic variances are possible with the experimental design adopted. Negative<br />

estimates should be considered equal to zero (Robinson et al., 1955), but should be reported "in order to<br />

contribute to the accumulation of knowledge, which may, in the future, be properly interpreted" (Dudley and<br />

Moll, 1969). We considered negative estimates equal to zero for the calculation of the mean estimates over<br />

families or locations. When a negative estimate was derived from another negative value (narrow-sense<br />

heritability and gain from selection, calculated from additive variance), it was considered close to zero and<br />

omitted.<br />

The number of effective factors was estimated using the following methods (Lande, 1981; Mather and<br />

Jinks, 1982; Wright, 1968):<br />

Lande's method I:<br />

Lande's method II:<br />

Lande's method III:<br />

Mather's method:<br />

Wright's method:<br />

8 " # 2 $<br />

%<br />

&<br />

( ) !<br />

F 2<br />

[ ] 2<br />

µ ( P ) ! µ ( P )<br />

b<br />

a<br />

2<br />

# ( P ) + # a<br />

2 ( P ) + 2 " # b<br />

2 [ ( F ) 1 ] '<br />

(<br />

4<br />

)<br />

[ µ ( P ) ! µ ( P )<br />

b<br />

a ] 2<br />

( F ) ( BC P ) + # 2<br />

1 a<br />

2<br />

{ ( BC P ) 1 a }<br />

[ ] ! # 2 [ ]<br />

8 " 2 " # 2<br />

[ ( ) ] 2<br />

µ ( P ) ! µ P b<br />

a<br />

8 " # 2 ( BC P ) + # 1 a<br />

2 ( BC P ) ! # 1 a<br />

2<br />

2<br />

# ( P ) + # a<br />

{ [ ( F ) 1 ] } ! 2 [ ( P ) b ]<br />

2<br />

[ ( ) ] 2<br />

µ ( P ) ! µ P b<br />

a<br />

2<br />

2 " # 2 [ ( F ) 2 ] ! # 2 ( BC P ) + # 1 a<br />

2<br />

[ ( ) ] 2<br />

[ ( BC P ) 1 a ]<br />

µ ( P ) ! µ P " 1.5 ! 2 " b<br />

a<br />

µ F ( ) ! µ ( P )<br />

1<br />

a<br />

µ ( P ) ! µ ( P ) b<br />

a<br />

" 1 ! µ F / )<br />

# ( ) ! µ P 1<br />

a<br />

0 +<br />

$<br />

%<br />

1 *<br />

µ ( P ) ! µ P b<br />

a<br />

8 " 5 2<br />

2<br />

5 ( P ) + 5 a ( F ) ! 2<br />

2 ( P ) + 2 " 5 b<br />

2<br />

/<br />

[ ( F ) 1 ] 2<br />

0<br />

4<br />

1<br />

3<br />

4<br />

( )<br />

( )<br />

& , 2<br />

'<br />

( . 3<br />

-4<br />

107

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!