4.7 Article

Effect of clonal testing on the efficiency of genomic evaluation in forest tree breeding

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-06952-8

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Norway Grants
  2. project EXTEMIT-K: Building up an excellent scientific team and its spatiotechnical background focused on mitigation of the impact of climatic changes to forests from the level of a gene to the level of a landscape at the FFWS CULS Prague - OP RDE [CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/15_003/0000433]
  3. Technology Agency of the Czech Republic within the KAPPA Programme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the accuracies of breeding values and response to selection using traditional pedigree and genomic-based evaluation methods in forest tree breeding. The results showed that clonal replication in progeny testing improved selection accuracy, but the use of genomic information did not significantly enhance genetic gains.
Through stochastic simulations, accuracies of breeding values and response to selection were assessed under traditional pedigree-(BLUP) and genomic-based evaluation methods (GBLUP) in forest tree breeding. The latter provides a methodological foundation for genomic selection. We evaluated the impact of clonal replication in progeny testing on the response to selection realized in seed orchards under variable marker density and target effective population sizes. We found that clonal replication in progeny trials boosted selection accuracy, thus providing additional genetic gains under BLUP. While a similar trend was observed for GBLUP, however, the added gains did not surpass those under BLUP. Therefore, breeding programs deploying extensive progeny testing with clonal propagation might not benefit from the deployment of genomic information. These findings could be helpful in the context of operational breeding programs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available