4.7 Article

Comparison of Desired-Genetic-Gain Selection Indices in Late Generations as an Insight on Superior-Family Formation in Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy12081738

关键词

Triticum aestivum L.; selection index; narrow-sense heritability; observed genetic gain; crop breeding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wheat is a vital food source globally, and a selection index was used in this study to improve yields. Two cycles of selection were conducted, resulting in the identification of the best index for selecting promising wheat lines. Furthermore, six superior families were found during this process.
Wheat is one of the most important sources of food worldwide. A selection index helps in making selection decisions and permits the exploitation of information on correlated traits to improve yields. Two cycles of pedigree selection based on the desired-genetic-gain selection index were imposed to identify the best index to isolate promising lines. The base population was composed of 120 families of bread wheat in the F-6 generation. Eight combinations were constructed from six traits, i.e., days to heading (DH), number of spikes/plant (NS/P), grain yield/plant (GY/P), number of grains/spike (NG/S), mean spike weight (MSW) and mean grain weight (GW). The narrow-sense heritability of NS/P, NG/S, MSW and GW increased from cycle 1 to cycle 2, revealing an increase in the observed gain and homogeneity of the selected families for these traits from cycle to cycle. After the second cycle, the observed gain in GY/P ranged from 9.5 to 23.75% of the mid-parent. The best index for improving GY/P was index 2 (composed of GY/P, NS/P, NG/S, MSW and GW). The indices involving DH were inferior for improving GY/P. The desired-genetic-gain index was efficient in simultaneously improving several involved traits and was a good method to preserve genetic variability. Furthermore, six superior promising families were identified.

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