4.4 Article

Segregation distortion for agronomic traits in doubled haploid lines of barley

Journal

PLANT BREEDING
Volume 124, Issue 6, Pages 546-550

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0523.2005.01159.x

Keywords

Hordeum vulgare; anther culture; doubled haploid lines; gametic selection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Four barley doubled haploid populations were produced by anther culture from the reciprocal crosses between two six-row barley cultivars, 'Plaisant' and 'Orria'; the doubled haploid lines (DHLs) derived from each cross were subsequently assigned to weak or vigorous populations according to the weak or vigorous nature of the originating embryos. Well-formed embryos at day 25 on the induction medium were considered vigorous, whereas embryos maturing later were considered weak. The classification of vigorous and weak was closely associated with the ratio of green to albino plantlets regenerated. A random set of 25 DHLs from each of the four populations were selected for field testing in a replicated trial. Furthermore, a second set consisting of a total of 454 unreplicated DHLs from the four populations were also field assessed for grain yield. Distortion during in vitro culture may impede regeneration of a random array of microspores from a given cross, and may bias genetic estimates of specific trait/marker association in genetic studies. However, no significant differences were detected in this study among the four populations for days to heading, height, grain yield and thousand-kernel-weight when measured on the replicated trial of 100 DHLs, nor for grain yield in the second collection of 454 entries. This suggests that the likelihood of producing improved agronomic pure lines is independent of the direction of crossing and, more importantly, independent of the time when embryos matured in the induction media, at least for these particular six-row cultivars and for the anther culture method used.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available