4.5 Article

Heterotic Patterns of IITA and CIMMYT Early-Maturing Yellow Maize Inbreds under Contrasting Environments

期刊

AGRONOMY JOURNAL
卷 108, 期 4, 页码 1321-1336

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.2134/agronj2015.0425

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa (DTMA) Project
  2. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Drought and low soil nitrogen (low-N) constitute major constraints to maize (Zea mays L.) production in West Africa (WA). The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and International Center for Maize and Wheat Improvement (CIMMYT) have developed drought and low-N tolerant inbreds for Africa. Combinations between selected IITA and CIMMYT inbreds could produce outstanding hybrids. Diallel crosses of 12 IITA and five CIMMYT early yellow inbreds plus four checks were evaluated under drought, low-N and optimal conditions at four locations in Nigeria for 2 yr. The objectives were to examine the combining ability of the inbreds for grain yield and other traits, classify the lines into heterotic groups, identify best testers under the contrasting environments, assess genotype x environment interactions and evaluate the yield performance and stability of single-cross hybrids. Grouping of the inbred lines was done with heterotic group's specific combining ability (SCA) and general combining ability (GCA) (HSGCA), single nucleotide polymorphism based genetic distance (SNP-GD) and GCA effects of multiple traits (HGCAMT) methods. The GCA mean squares for all traits were greater than SCA mean squares in all environments. The inbreds were classified into four heterotic groups each across environments by HSGCA and SNP-GD while HGCAMT method placed them into three groups. HGCAMT was the most efficient followed by HSGCA and then SNP-GD method. The HGCAMT identified inbreds ENT 17, ENT 15, and ENT 8 as best testers for heterotic Groups 1, 2, and 3. Hybrids TZEI 17 x ENT 15, and TZEI 149 x ENT 15 were outstanding across environments.

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

4.5
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