4.7 Article

The phenotype and the components of phenotypic variance of crop traits

Journal

FIELD CROPS RESEARCH
Volume 154, Issue -, Pages 255-259

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2013.10.001

Keywords

Phenotype; Genomics; Plasticity; Development; Breeding; Adaptation; QTL; Yield; Stress

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Field Crops Research focuses on both experimental and modelling research at the field, farm and landscape level on temperate and tropical crops and cropping systems, with a focus on crop ecology and physiology, agronomy, plant genetics and breeding. Emphasis is on species more relevant to ensuring global food security and on their performance in the field. An increasing number of manuscripts dealing with genetics and breeding also deal with trait phenotype and individual components contributing to the total phenotypic variance. Some of these either fail to deliver new scientific insight, have experimental deficiencies or use inappropriate tools for analysis. A lack of explicit theoretical frameworks is common. The aims of this article are to identify research gaps and new scientific developments, highlight common experimental and analytical deficiencies, and outline editorial criteria addressing this specific area, where the journal would favour: (1) rigorous account and interpretation of the components of phenotypic variance, (2) closing the gap between phenotypic and genotypic characterisation of crop traits, (3) developing and applying advanced approaches for quantitative environmental characterisation; (4) linking with appropriate theories to improve genetic, agronomic, physiological and ecological interpretations of the phenotype and its drivers, and (5) methods for efficient screening of plant populations and segregating progenies for yield potential and stress adaptation, with an emphasis on biological mechanisms. (C) 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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