4.5 Article

Experimental designs for evaluation of genetic variability and selection of ancient grapevine varieties: a simulation study

Journal

HEREDITY
Volume 104, Issue 6, Pages 552-562

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2009.153

Keywords

grapevine; genetic variability; genetic selection; experimental design; simulation

Funding

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia, Portugal

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Classical methodologies for grapevine selection used in the vine-growing world are generally based on comparisons among a small number of clones. This does not take advantage of the entire genetic variability within ancient varieties, and therefore limits selection challenges. Using the general principles of plant breeding and of quantitative genetics, we propose new breeding strategies, focussed on conservation and quantification of genetic variability by performing a cycle of mass genotypic selection prior to clonal selection. To exploit a sufficiently large amount of genetic variability, initial selection trials must be generally very large. The use of experimental designs adequate for those field trials has been intensively recommended for numerous species. However, their use in initial trials of grapevines has not been studied. With the aim of identifying the most suitable experimental designs for quantification of genetic variability and selection of ancient varieties, a study was carried out to assess through simulation the comparative efficiency of various experimental designs (randomized complete block design, a design and row-column (RC) design). The results indicated a greater efficiency for a and RC designs, enabling more precise estimates of genotypic variance, greater precision in the prediction of genetic gain and consequently greater efficiency in genotypic mass selection. Heredity (2010) 104, 552-562; doi: 10.1038/hdy.2009.153; published online 11 November 2009

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available