Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 193–198 | Cite as

An empirical comparison of selection methods for the improvement of biomass

  • R. W. Fairfull
  • G. W. Friars
  • J. W. Wilton
Article
Received:

Summary

A single generation of upward truncation selection on families with 20% selected was carried out in each of five replicates using Tribolium castaneum as the test organism. The experiment involved eight lines: N — selected for offspring number; W — selected for pupal weight; B — selected for biomass; Q — quadratic index selected; L21 — linear index selected with relative economic weights of 2∶1 offspring number to pupal weight; L11 — linear index selected with relative economic weights of 1∶1 offspring number to pupal weight; L12 — linear index selected with relative economic weights of 1∶2 offspring number to pupal weight; C — an unselected control.

Biomass (weight of offspring per family), offspring number, and pupal weight were measured. No differences in response to selection were found among the linear index lines and the pupal weight line with regard to any trait analysed. Generally, response to selection in the linear index lines and pupal weight line was small for offspring number and high for pupal weight. Selection pressure on offspring number in these lines seemed to be dependent on the correlation between offspring number and pupal weight. As a result, response to selection for biomass was poor in the linear index and pupal weight selected lines. In the case of the linear indices, poor response to selection for biomass appeared to be due to the violation of the assumption of additivity of the traits included in the definition of aggregate genotype.

The responses in the quadratic index, biomass, and offspring number selected lines were equal with respect to selection for biomass. The response of the quadratic index selected line was less than the responses of the biomass and offspring number selected lines for offspring number, but the response in the quadratic index line was as large as that of any other line included in the experiment and greater than the biomass and offspring number selected lines where pupal weight was the criterion.

Highly significant amounts of variation were found for all traits indicating that more replicates are needed for precise evaluation of selection systems.

Key words

Selection Pupal Weight Biomass Tribolium 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. Bozivich, H.; Bancroft, T.A.; Hartley, H.O.: Power of analysis of variance test procedures for certain incompletely specified models. Ann. Mathem. Statistics 27, 1017–1043 (1956)Google Scholar
  2. Capparossa, B.; Van Vleck, L.D.: Some observations of the correlations among pupal weight, length, and width. Tribolium Inform. Bull. 11, 71–73 (1969)Google Scholar
  3. Cochran, W.G.; Cox, G.M.: Experimental Designs, 2nd Ed. New York, N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons 1957Google Scholar
  4. Doolittle, D.P.; Wilson, S.P.; Hubert, L.L.: A comparison of multiple trait selection methods in the mouse. J. Hered. 63, 366–372 (1972)Google Scholar
  5. Friars, G.W.; Nayak, B.N.; Jui, P.V.; Raktoe, B.L.: An investigation of genotype X environment interaction in relation to a selection experiment in Tribolium castaneum. Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 13, 144–154 (1971)Google Scholar
  6. Hardin, R.T.: Two-way selection for body weight in Tribolium castaneum on two levels of nutrition. Ph. D. Thesis, Purdue University 1962Google Scholar
  7. Hazel, L.N.: Genetic basis for constructing selection indexes. Genetics 28, 467–490 (1943)Google Scholar
  8. Hazel, L.N.; Lush, J.L.: The efficiency of three methods of selection. J. Hered. 33, 393–399 (1942)Google Scholar
  9. Hill, W.G.: Analysis of selection experiments. pp. 216–236. Proc. 22nd Annual National Breeders Roundtable, Kansas City 1973Google Scholar
  10. Hill, W.G.: Variability of response to selection in genetic experiments. Biometrics 30, 363–366 (1974)Google Scholar
  11. Jui, P.Y.: Selection on pupal weight with different degress of inbreeding in Tribolium castaneum. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Guelph 1972Google Scholar
  12. Scheinberg, E.; Bell, A.E.; Anderson, V.L.: Genetic gain in populations of Tribolium castaneum under uni-stage tandem selection and under restricted selection indices. Genetics 55, 69–90 (1967)Google Scholar
  13. Sen, G.K.; Robertson, A.: An experimental examination of methods for the simultaneous selection of two characters, using Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 50, 199–209 (1964)Google Scholar
  14. Smith, H.F.: A discriminant function for plant selection. Ann. Eugen. 7, 210–250 (1936)Google Scholar
  15. Steel, R.G.D.; Torrie, J.H.: Principles and Procedures of Statistics. New York, N.Y.: Mc-Graw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1960Google Scholar
  16. Wilton, J.W.; Evans, D.A.; Van Vleck, L.D.: Selection indices for quadratic models of total merit. Biometrics 24, 937–949 (1968)Google Scholar
  17. Young, S.S.Y.: A further examination of the relative efficiency of three methods of selection for genetic gains under less restricted conditions. Genet. Res. 2, 106–121 (1961)Google Scholar
  18. Young, S.S.Y.: Multistage selection for genetic gain. Heredity 19, 131–143 (1964)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. W. Fairfull
    • 1
  • G. W. Friars
    • 1
  • J. W. Wilton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal and Poultry ScienceUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations