Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 81, Issue 6, pp 825–832 | Cite as

Expected utility maximization and selection of stable plant cultivars

  • K. M. Eskridge
  • B. E. Johnson
Originals

Summary

In most plant breeding programs, selection of the best commercially suitable cultivars for a target group of environments is based on information obtained from evaluation trials cultivated in a sample of environments. Information on the performance of cultivars collected in a sample of environments can only be approximate and, consequently, selection of the best cultivar involves choosing among cultivars that respond uncertainly in many environments. The agronomic and/or economic value of a cultivar across environments may be considered the general or overall utility of the cultivar. Data from a sample of environments therefore provides only an estimate of any cultivar's overall utility, with the overall goal of selection among all cultivars being the maximization of the expected utility. Within this frame-work, expected utility maximization, an approach to decision making that has been well developed in the disciplines of economics and statistics, can assist the plant breeder in making such decisions. This research was initiated (1) to determine how expected utility maximization might be used to develop indices that are useful for selecting broadly adapted plant cultivars, and (2) to determine how the breeder's preferences might affect choice of the best cultivar. The data used in this research were from USDA Regional Soybean Tests. The results indicated that expected utility maximization, which explicitly incorporates into the selection rule the plant breeder's preferences regarding stability, can be a useful aid in the selection of stable plant cultivars.

Key words

Selection Utility functions Plant breeding Genotype × environment interaction Yield stability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allaire FR, Thraen CS (1985) Prospects for genetic improvement in the economic efficiency of dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 68:3110–3123Google Scholar
  2. Anderson JR, Dillon JL, Hardaker JB (1977) Agricultural deci- sion analysis. Iowa State University Press, Ames/IAGoogle Scholar
  3. Barah BC, Binswanger HP, Rana BS, Rao NGP (1981) The use of risk aversion in plant breeding: concept and application. Euphytica 30:451–458Google Scholar
  4. Binswanger HP (1980) Attitudes toward risk: theoretical implications of an experiment in rural India. Econ J 91:867–891Google Scholar
  5. Bunn DW (1984) Applied decision analysis. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Dillon JL, Scandizzo PL (1978) Risk attitudes of subsistence farmers in northeast Brazil: a sampling approach. Am J Agric Econ 60:425–435Google Scholar
  7. Eberhart SA, Russell WA (1966) Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci 6:36–40Google Scholar
  8. Eskridge KM (1990) Selection of stable cultivars using a safety first rule. Crop Sci 30:369–374Google Scholar
  9. Finlay KW, Wilkinson GW (1963) The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding program. Aust J Agric Res 14:742–754Google Scholar
  10. Freund RJ (1955) Introduction of risk into a programming model. Econometrica 24:253–263Google Scholar
  11. Gauch HG (1988) Model selection and validation for yield trials with interaction. Biometrics 44:705–716Google Scholar
  12. Gianola D, Fernando RL (1986) Bayesian methods in animal breeding theory. J Anim Sci 63:217–244Google Scholar
  13. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1982) The psychology of preferences. Sci Am 246:160–173Google Scholar
  14. Lin W, Dean GW, Moore CV (1974) An empirical test of utility versus profit maximization in agricultural production. Am J Agric Econ 56:497–508Google Scholar
  15. Lin CS, Binns MR, Lefkovitch LP (1986) Stability analysis: Where do we stand? Crop Sci 26:894–899Google Scholar
  16. Moscardi ER, Janvry A de (1977) Attitudes toward risk among peasants: an econometric approach. Am J Agric Econ 59:710–716Google Scholar
  17. Neumann J von, Morgenstern O (1972) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton/ NJGoogle Scholar
  18. Newbery DMG, Stiglitz JE (1981) The theory of commodity price stabilization: a study in the economics of risk. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Schneeberger M, Freeman AE, Boehlje MD (1982) Application of portfolio and utility theories for dairy breeding. J Dairy Sci 65:404–9Google Scholar
  20. Schoemaker PJH (1982) The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence, and limitations. J Econ Lit 20:529–563Google Scholar
  21. Schutz WM, Bernard RL (1967) Genotype × environment interactions in the regional testing of soybean strains. Crop Sci 7:125–130Google Scholar
  22. Seyedsadr M, Cornelius PL (1989) Estimation of parameters of the shifted multiplicative model for a two-way table. Stat Dep Tech Rep 278, University of Kentucky, Lexington/KYGoogle Scholar
  23. Shukla GK (1972) Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype-environment components of variance. Heredity 29:237–245Google Scholar
  24. Smith HF (1936) A discriminant function for plant selection. Ann Eugenics 7:232–248Google Scholar
  25. Smith SP, Allaire FR (1985) Efficient selection rules to increase nonlinear merit: an application to mate selection. Genet Sel Evol 17:387–406Google Scholar
  26. Smith SP, Hammond K (1986) The ramification of portfolio and utility theories for dairy breeding programs. Proc 3rd World Congr Genet Appl Livestock Prod, August 1986, Lincoln NEGoogle Scholar
  27. Walker TS (1981) Risk and adoption of hybrid maize in El Salvador. Food Res Inst Stud 18:59–88Google Scholar
  28. Wiens TB (1976) Peasant risk aversion and allocative behavior: a quadratic programming experiment. Am J Agric Econ 58:629–635Google Scholar
  29. Williams JS (1962) The evaluation of a selection index. Biometrics 18:375–393Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. M. Eskridge
    • 1
  • B. E. Johnson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiometryUniversity of Nebraska — LincolnLincolnUSA
  2. 2.Department of AgronomyUniversity of Nebraska — LincolnLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations