4.5 Article

Genetic Yield Gains In CIMMYT's International Elite Spring Wheat Yield Trials By Modeling The Genotype x Environment Interaction

期刊

CROP SCIENCE
卷 57, 期 2, 页码 789-801

出版社

CROP SCIENCE SOC AMER
DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2016.06.0553

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPPGD1389]
  2. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPPGD1389] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We calculated the annual genetic gains for grain yield (GY) of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) achieved over 8 yr of international Elite Spring Wheat Yield Trials (ESWYT), from 2006-2007 (27th ESWYT) to 2014-2015 (34th ESWYT). In total, 426 locations were classified within three main megaenvironments (MEs): ME1 (optimally irrigated environments), ME4 (drought-stressed environments), and ME5 (heat-stressed environments). By fitting a factor analytical structure for modeling the genotype x environment (G x E) interaction, we measured GY gains relative to the widely grown cultivar Attila (GYA) and to the local checks (GYLC). Genetic gains for GYA and GYLC across locations were 1.67 and 0.53% (90.1 and 28.7 kg ha(-1) yr(-1)), respectively. In ME1, genetic gains were 1.63 and 0.72% (102.7 and 46.65 kg ha(-1) yr(-1)) for GYA and GYLC, respectively. In ME4, genetic gains were 2.7 and 0.41% (88 and 15.45 kg ha(-1) yr(-1)) for GYA and GYLC, respectively. In ME5, genetic gains were 0.31 and 1.0% (11.28 and 36.6 kg ha(-1) yr(-1)) for GYA and GYLC, respectively. The high GYA in ME1 and ME4 can be partially attributed to yellow rust races that affect Attila. When G x E interactions were not modeled, genetic gains were lower. Analyses showed that CIMMYT's location at Ciudad Obregon, Mexico, is highly correlated with locations in other countries in ME1. Lines that were top performers in more than one ME and more than one country were identified. CIMMYT's breeding program continues to deliver improved and widely adapted germplasm for target 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