02.01.2015 Views

RA 00110.pdf - OAR@ICRISAT

RA 00110.pdf - OAR@ICRISAT

RA 00110.pdf - OAR@ICRISAT

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Table 4a. Prediction equations, advantages, and disadvantages for intrapopulation improvement using mass selection.<br />

Prediction equation:<br />

Mass Selection 1<br />

for selection<br />

after pollination.<br />

or<br />

Mass Selection 2<br />

for selection prior<br />

to pollination.<br />

Time per cycle -1 year<br />

Advantages<br />

Disadvantages<br />

1.<br />

2.<br />

3.<br />

4.<br />

1.<br />

2.<br />

3.<br />

4.<br />

Can maintain large Ne.<br />

Selection intensity can be high so that the selection differential can be large.<br />

No yield trial plots, inexpensive.<br />

Simple to conduct.<br />

If heritability of selected trait is very low, progress may be difficult.<br />

Requires isolated plots.<br />

Cannot apply usual types of selection indices.<br />

High population densities may not work well.<br />

= variance among half-sib families =1/4<br />

= variance among full-sib families = 1 / 2 +<br />

1/4<br />

= plot-to-plot environmental variance or family x<br />

replication interaction<br />

= plant-to-plant environmental variance<br />

r = number of replications<br />

n = number of plants per plot<br />

= genetic variance among S 1 or S 2 lines<br />

= total genetic variance at S, or S 2 level<br />

of inbreeding<br />

The advantages and disadvantages of each method<br />

are outlined in Table 4.<br />

Interpopulation Improvement<br />

In interpopulation improvement the breeding objective<br />

is to improve the performance of the population<br />

cross. Any of the population improvement schemes<br />

may also improve intrapopulation (variety) crosses,<br />

but it is logical that if the interpopulation cross is to<br />

be improved, selection should be based on cross<br />

performance because it is then a direct rather than an<br />

indirect response to selection. Following that line of<br />

reasoning, Reciprocal Recurrent Selection was suggested<br />

by Comstock et al. (1949). Their idea was to<br />

use cross-bred, half-sib families (as described for<br />

half-sib 1 in Table 4b with the other population used<br />

as the tester and vice versa).<br />

Reciprocal Half-Sib Selection ( R H S )<br />

Individual plants from population A are self-pollinated<br />

and also crossed to several plants from population<br />

B. The crossed seed is bulked to form one<br />

entry for testing. Population B individuals are also<br />

selfed and crossed to several plants from population<br />

A. Thus, two sets of half-sib families are produced. If<br />

100 entries are to be tested from each population a<br />

total of 200 are grown. If 20 is judged to be a reasonable<br />

effective population size (N e ), then a 20% selection<br />

intensity will result in the selection of 20 from<br />

100 in each variety.<br />

Reciprocal Full-Sib Selection ( R F S )<br />

A more recent interpopulation scheme used for a<br />

number of years at Nebraska in maize is reciprocal<br />

full-sib selection. As populations of maize have been<br />

112

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!