Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T20:56:24.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of honeycomb selection for grain yield on a maize population

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. Sotiriou ,
M. Koutsika-Sotiriou  and
E. Gouli-Vavdinoudi
A. Sotiriou
Affiliation:
Institute of Testing Varieties of Cultivated Plants, Sindos, Greece
M. Koutsika-Sotiriou
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Aristotelian University, Thessaloniki, 54006, Greece
E. Gouli-Vavdinoudi
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Aristotelian University, Thessaloniki, 54006, Greece
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Starting with the F2 generation of a single-cross hybrid, a maize population was improved from cycle 0 (= F2) to cycle 4 by mass honeycomb selection and from cycle 5 to cycle 8 by pedigree honeycomb selection. Seven half-sib families were derived from cycle 8. The grain yield of these, their corresponding S1 lines, testcrosses with B73 and diallel crosses were studied. The results showed (i) that the seven half-sib families contained half the percentage of the load of deleterious genes present in the F2 generation, (ii) that four of them outyielded their corresponding single-cross hybrids, (iii) that they could constitute an open-pollinated variety, which could be used as a source population and (iv) that they revealed different patterns for general and specific combining ability. Honeycomb selection for grain yield was successful in favouring the existing additive genetic variation in the derived families.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 127 , Issue 2 , September 1996 , pp. 143 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Borojevic, S. (1990). Principles and Methods of Plant Breeding. Developments in Crop Science 17. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bos, I. (1983). Some remarks on honeycomb selection. Euphytica 32, 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duvick, D. N. (1981). Genetic diversity in corn improvement. In 36th Corn and Sorghum Research Conference Proceedings 35, 48–60.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1989). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 3rd edn. London: Longman Group.Google Scholar
Fasoulas, A. (1973). A new approach to breeding superior yielding varieties. Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, Greece, Publication 3.Google Scholar
Fasoulas, A. (1977). Field designs for genotypic evaluation and selection. Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, Greece, Publication 7.Google Scholar
Fasoulas, A. (1981). Principles and methods of plant breeding. Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, Greece, Publication 11.Google Scholar
Fasoulas, A. (1988). The Honeycomb Methodology of Plant Breeding. Thessaloniki, Greece: A. C. Fasoulas.Google Scholar
Gardner, C. O. (1961). An evaluation of effects of mass selection and seed irradiation with thermal neutrons on yield of corn. Crop Science 1, 241–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, C. O. (1978). Population improvement in maize. In Maize Breeding and Genetics (Ed. Walden, D. B.), pp. 207–228. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Goulas, C. K. & Lonnquist, J. H. (1976). Combined halfsib and S1 family selection in a maize composite population. Crop Science 16, 461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallauer, A. R. (1990). Methods used in developing maize inbreds. Maydica 35, 1–16.Google Scholar
Hallauer, A. R. & Miranda, J. B. (1981). Quantitative Genetics in Maize Breeding, 2nd edn. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, N. F. (1988). Plant Breeding Methodology. New York: Wiley-Interscience Publication.Google Scholar
Kearsey, M. J. & Pooni, H. S. (1992). The potential of inbred lines in the presence of heterosis. In Reproductive Biology and Plant Breeding (Eds Dattee, Y., Dumas, C. & Gallais, A.), pp. 371–386. London: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koutsika-Sotiriou, M., Bos, I. & Fasoulas, A. (1990). Hybrid reconstruction in maize. Euphytica 45, 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamkey, K. R. & Hallauer, A. R. (1984). Comparison of maize populations improved by recurrent selection. Maydica 19, 357–374.Google Scholar
Moll, R. H. & Hanson, W. D. (1984). Comparisons of effects of intrapopulation vs. interpopulation selection in maize. Crop Science 24, 1047–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onenanyoli, A. H. A. & Fasoulas, A. C. (1989). Yield response to honeycomb selection in maize. Euphytica 40, 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterniani, E. (1967). Selection among and within half-sib families in a Brazilian population of maize (Zea mays L.). Crop Science 7, 212–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, L. D. & Frey, K. J. (1987). Honeycomb design for selection among homozygous oat lines. Crop Science 27, 1105–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, O. A. & Hallauer, A. R. (1988). Effects of recurrent selection in corn populations. Crop Science 28, 796–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, O. S. (1984). Comparison of effects of reciprocal recurrent selection in the BSSS(R), BSCBI(R) and BS6 population. Maydica 24, 1–8.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods, 6th edn. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Webel, O. D. & Lonnquist, J. H. (1967). An evaluation of modified ear-to-row selection in a population of corn (Zea mays L.). Crop Science 7, 651–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar