Advertisement

Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 74, Issue 3, pp 339–345 | Cite as

Optimum prediction of three-way crosses from single crosses in forage maize (Zea mays L.)

  • A. E. Melchinger
  • H. H. Geiger
  • G. Seitz
  • G. A. Schmidt
Article

Summary

Three-way cross means were predicted with formulae involving linear functions of general (GCA) and specific combining ability (SCA) effects estimated from single-cross factorials between genetically divergent populations. Data from an experiment with 66 single-cross and 66 three-way cross forage maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids was used for comparing the prediction formulae. The genotypic correlation (r) between observed and predicted three-way crosses increased with increasing χ, the weighting factor of SCA effects, for plant height and ear dry matter (DM) content. It displayed slightly convex curves for total and stover DM yield, ear percentage, and metabolizable energy content of stover. For Jenkins' method B, r was considerably less than 1.0 for all traits, indicating the presence of epistasis. The square root of heritability (hĜ) of the predicted means decreased with increasing χ, the reduction being small with a greater number of test environments. Using the product r·hĜ as a criterion of efficiency, none of the prediction methods was consistently superior and the differences among them were rather small (< 7.5%) for all traits, irrespective of the number of test environments. We recommend evaluating the GCA of a greater number of lines from each parent population in testcrosses with a small number of elite lines from the opposite population. All possible three-way or double crosses between both sets of lines should be predicted by Jenkins's method C. This procedure allows one to select with a higher intensity among the predicted hybrids and thus should increase the genetic gain.

Key words

Epistasis Genotype x environment inter-actions Forage maize breeding 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cockerham CC (1967) Prediction of double crosses from single crosses. Züchter 37:160–169Google Scholar
  2. Falconer DS (1981) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman Press, London New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Geiger HH, Melchinger AE, Schmidt GA (1985) Analysis of factorial crosses between flint and dent maize inbred lines for forage performance and quality traits. Proc 13th Congr Maize and Sorghum Section of EUCARPIA. Pudoc Press, Wageningen, pp 147–154Google Scholar
  4. Geiger HH, Melchinger AE, Seitz G, Schmidt GA (1986) Methods of predicting three-way crosses from single crosses between flint and dent inbred lines in forage maize (Zea mays L.). Proc 6th Meeting EUCARPIA Sect Biomet Plant Breed. Birmingham, pp 31–45Google Scholar
  5. Hallauer AR, Miranda JB (1981) Quantitative genetics in maize breeding. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IowaGoogle Scholar
  6. Harville DA (1977) Maximum likelihood approaches to variance component estimation and to related problems. J Am Stat Assoc 72:320–338Google Scholar
  7. Henderson CR (1963) Selection index and expected genetic advance. In: Statistical genetics and plant breeding. NAC-NRC Publ 982, pp 141–163Google Scholar
  8. Henderson CR (1975) Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics 31:423–447Google Scholar
  9. Henderson CR (1977) Prediction of future records. Proc Int Conf Quantitative Genet. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IowaGoogle Scholar
  10. Kackar RN, Harville DA (1981) Unbiasedness of two-stage estimation and prediction procedures for mixed linear models. Commun Stat Theor Meth A 10:1249–1261Google Scholar
  11. Jenkins MT (1934) Methods of estimating the performance of double crosses in corn. J Am Soc Agron 26:199–204Google Scholar
  12. Melchinger AE (1984) Analysis of incomplete factorial mating designs. Proc 5th Meeting EUCARPIA Sect Biomet Plant Breed. Stuttgart-Hohenheim, pp 131–150Google Scholar
  13. Mode CJ, Robinson HF (1959) Pleiotropism and the genetic variance and covariance. Biometrics 15:518–537Google Scholar
  14. Otsuka Y, Eberhart SA, Russell WA (1972) Comparisons of prediction formulas for maize hybrids. Crop Sci 12:325–330Google Scholar
  15. Schmidt GA (1986) Analyse faktorieller Kreuzungen zwischen Flint- und Dentinzuchtlinien bezüglich Leistungs- und Qualitätsmerkmalen bei Silomais. Dissertation Universität Hohenheim (FRG)Google Scholar
  16. Wricke G, Weber WE (1986) Quantitative genetics and selection in plant breeding. Walter de Gruyter Press, Berlin New York, p 267Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. E. Melchinger
    • 1
  • H. H. Geiger
    • 1
  • G. Seitz
    • 1
  • G. A. Schmidt
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Pflanzenzüchtung, Saatgutforschung und PopulationsgenetikUniversität HohenheimStuttgart 70Federal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations