4.7 Article

Predictions of heading date in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) using QTL-based parameters of an ecophysiological model

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 65, 期 20, 页码 5849-5865

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/eru328

关键词

Association genetics; ecophysiological model; gene-based modelling; heading date; phenology; wheat

资金

  1. EU [FP7-KBBE-2011-5]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prediction of wheat phenology facilitates the selection of cultivars with specific adaptations to a particular environment. However, while QTL analysis for heading date can identify major genes controlling phenology, the results are limited to the environments and genotypes tested. Moreover, while ecophysiological models allow accurate predictions in new environments, they may require substantial phenotypic data to parameterize each genotype. Also, the model parameters are rarely related to all underlying genes, and all the possible allelic combinations that could be obtained by breeding cannot be tested with models. In this study, a QTL-based model is proposed to predict heading date in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Two parameters of an ecophysiological model (V-sat and P-base, representing genotype vernalization requirements and photoperiod sensitivity, respectively) were optimized for 210 genotypes grown in 10 contrasting location x sowing date combinations. Multiple linear regression models predicting V-sat and P-base with 11 and 12 associated genetic markers accounted for 71 and 68% of the variance of these parameters, respectively. QTL-based V-sat and P-base estimates were able to predict heading date of an independent validation data set (88 genotypes in six location x sowing date combinations) with a root mean square error of prediction of 5 to 8.6 days, explaining 48 to 63% of the variation for heading date. The QTL-based model proposed in this study may be used for agronomic purposes and to assist breeders in suggesting locally adapted ideotypes for wheat phenology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据