Advertisement

Euphytica

, Volume 77, Issue 3, pp 205–219 | Cite as

Specific adaptation and breeding for marginal conditions

  • Salvatore Ceccarelli
Article

Summary

Breeding has been very successful in generating cultivars that in favorable environments, and together with large use of fertilizer and chemical control of weeds, pest and diseases, have increased agricultural production several fold. Today the environmental impact of high input agriculture in more favorable environments causes growing concern. By contrast, the impact of breeding in marginal environments has been elusive. The paper discusses evidence showing that the use of breeding principles developed for, and successfully applied, in favorable environments may be the main reason for the lack of breeding progress in marginal environments. Very little breeding work has actually been done in marginal environments, although the theory of correlated responses to selection indicates that selection conducted in good environments or in well-managed experiment stations is not expected to be very efficient when genotype by environment interactions of a cross-over type exist. The assumptions that heritability is higher under good conditions and that there is a carry-over effect of high yield potential are not supported by experimental evidence. If the target environment is below the cross-over point, selection has to be conducted for specific adaptation to that environment. The concept of wide adaptation has more a geographical than an environmental meaning, and it reduces genetic diversity and increases genetic vulnerability. Eventually the issue of genetic heterogeneity versus genetic uniformity is discussed in relation to specific adaptation to marginal environments.

Key words

Hordeum vulgare barley genotype by environment interaction landraces low-input agriculture specific adaptation sustainability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, F.L., R.E. Comstock & D.C. Rasmusson, 1978. Optimal Environments for Yield Testing. Crop Science 18: 747–751.Google Scholar
  2. Arboleda-Rivera, F. & W.A. Compton, 1974. Differential response of Maize (Zea mays L.) to Mass Selection in Diverse Selection Environments. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 44: 77–81.Google Scholar
  3. Atlin, G.N. & K.J. Frey, 1989. Predicting the relative effectiveness of direct versus indirect selection for oat yield in three types of stress environments. Euphytica 44: 137–142.Google Scholar
  4. Atlin, G.N. & K.J. Frey, 1990. Selecting oat lines for yield in low-productivity environments. Crop Science 30: 556–561.Google Scholar
  5. Austin, R.B., 1989. Maximizing crop production in water limited environments. In: F.W.G. Baker (Ed.) Drought resistance in cereals, pp. 13–25. ICSU Press by CAB International.Google Scholar
  6. Austin, R.B., M.A. Ford & C.L. Morgan, 1989. Genetic improvement in the yield of winter wheat, a further evaluation. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 112: 295–301.Google Scholar
  7. Blum, A., 1988. Plant breeding for stress environments. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  8. Boyer, J.S., 1982. Plant Productivity and Environment. Science 218: 443–448.Google Scholar
  9. Bramel-Cox, P.J., T. Barker, F. Zavala-Garcia & J.D. Eastin, 1991. Selection and testing environments for improved performance under reduced-input conditions. In: D.A. Sleeper, T.C. Barker & P.J. Bramel-Cox (Eds) Plant breeding and sustainable agriculture, Considerations for Objectives and Methods, pp. 29–56. CSSA Special Publication no. 18.Google Scholar
  10. Breese, E.L., 1969. The measurement and significance of genotype-environment interactions in grasses. Heredity 24: 27–44.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, A.D.H., 1978. Isozymes, plant population genetic structure, and genetic conservation. Theor. Appl. Gen. 52: 145–157.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, A.D.H., 1979. Enzyme polymorphism in plant populations. Theor. Pop. Biol. 15: 1–42.Google Scholar
  13. Byerlee, D. & T. Husain, 1993. Agricultural Research Strategies for Favoured and Marginal Areas, The Experience of Farming System Research in Pakistan. Experimental Agriculture 29: 155–171.Google Scholar
  14. Ceccarelli, S., 1984. Utilization of landraces andH. spontaneum in barley breeding for dry areas. Rachis 3 (2): 8–11.Google Scholar
  15. Ceccarelli, S., 1989. Wide adaptation. How wide? Euphytica 40: 197–205.Google Scholar
  16. Ceccarelli, S., S. Grando & J.A.G. van Leur, 1987. Genetic diversity in barley landraces from Syria and Jordan. Euphytica 36: 389–405.Google Scholar
  17. Ceccarelli, S., E. Acevedo & S. Grando, 1991. Breeding for yield stability in unpredictable environments, single traits, interaction between traits, and architecture of genotypes. Euphytica 56: 169–185.Google Scholar
  18. Ceccarelli, S. & S. Grando, 1991a. Selection environment and environmental sensitivity in barley. Euphytica 57: 157–167.Google Scholar
  19. Ceccarelli, S. & S. Grando, 1991b. Environment of selection and type of germplasm in barley breeding for stress conditions. Euphytica 57: 207–219.Google Scholar
  20. Ceccarelli, S., S. Grando & J. Hamblin, 1992. Relationships between barley grain yield measured in low and high yielding environments. Euphytica 64: 49–58.Google Scholar
  21. Coffman, W.R. & M.E. Smith, 1991. Role of Public, Industry, and International Research Center Breeding Programs in Developing Germplasm for Sustainable Agriculture. In: D.A. Sleeper, T.C. Barker & P.J. Bramel-Cox (Eds) Plant breeding and sustainable agriculture, Considerations for Objectives and Methods, pp. 1–9. CSSA Special Publication no. 18.Google Scholar
  22. Cox, T.S., J.P. Shroyer, B.H. Liu, R.G. Sears & T.J. Martin, 1988. Genetic improvement in agronomic traits of hard red winter wheat cultivars from 1919 to 1987. Crop Science 28: 756–760.Google Scholar
  23. Crossa, J., B. Westcott & C. Gonzales, 1989. The yield stability of CIMMYT's maize germplasm. Euphytica 40: 245–251.Google Scholar
  24. Falconer, D.S., 1981. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 2nd Ed. Longmann Group Ltd., London.Google Scholar
  25. Falconer, D.S., 1990. Selection in different environments, effects on environmental sensitivity (reaction norm) and on mean performance. Genetic Research Cambridge 56: 57–70.Google Scholar
  26. Finlay, K.W. & G.N. Wilkinson, 1963. The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 14: 742–754.Google Scholar
  27. Francis, T.R. & L.W. Kannenberg, 1978. Yield stability studies in short-season maize. I. A descriptive method for grouping genotypes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 58: 1029–1034.Google Scholar
  28. Frey, K.J., 1964. Adaptation Reaction of Oat Strains Selected Under Stress and Non-Stress Environmental Conditions. Crop Science 4: 55–58.Google Scholar
  29. Grando, S. & R.J. McGee, 1990. Utilization of barley landraces in a breeding program. In: Biotic Stresses of Barley in Arid and Semi-Arid Environments. Montana State University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Grisley, W., 1993. Seed for Bean Production in Sub-Saharan Africa, Issues, Problems, and Possible Solutions. Agricultural Systems 43: 19–33.Google Scholar
  31. Hamblin, J., 1992. Can resource capture principles assist plant breeders or are they too theoretical? 52nd Nottingham Easter School (in press).Google Scholar
  32. Hildebrand, P.E., 1984. Modified stability analysis of farmer managed, on-farm trials. Agron. J. 76: 271–274.Google Scholar
  33. Hildebrand, P.E., 1990. Modified stability analysis and on-farm research to breed specific adaptability for ecological diversity. In: M.S. Kang (Ed.). Genotype-by-Environment Interaction and Plant Breeding, pp. 169–180. Dept. of Agron., Louisiana Agric. Expt. Stn., Baton Rouge, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  34. Jinks, J.L. & V. Connolly, 1973. Selection for specific and general response to environmental differences. Heredity 30: 33–40.Google Scholar
  35. Jinks, J.L. & V. Connolly, 1975. Determination of the environmental sensitivity of selection lines by the selection environment. Heredity 34: 401–406.Google Scholar
  36. Jinks, J.L. & H.S. Pooni, 1982. Determination of the environmental sensitivity of selection lines ofNicotiana rustica by the selection environment. Heredity 49: 291–294.Google Scholar
  37. Johnson, G.R. & K.J. Frey, 1967. Heritabilities of Quantitative Attributes of Oats (Avena sp.) at Varying Levels of Environmental Stress. Crop Science 7: 43–46.Google Scholar
  38. Lawn, R.J., 1988. Breeding for improved plant performance in drought-prone environments. In: F.R. Bidinger & C. Johansen (Eds) Drought research priorities for the dryland tropics, pp. 213–219. ICRISAT, Patancheru, AP 502324, India.Google Scholar
  39. Loffler, C.M., M.T. Salaberry & J.C. Maggio, 1986. Stability and Genetic Improvement of Maize Yield in Argentina. Euphytica 35: 449–458.Google Scholar
  40. Osmanzai, M., S. Rajaram & E.B. Knapp, 1987. Breeding for moisture-stress areas. In: J.P. Srivastava, E. Porceddu, E. Acevedo & S. Varma (Eds) Drought Tolerance in Winter Cereals, pp. 151–161. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Patel, J.D., E. Reinbergs, D.E. Mather, T.M. Choo & J.D. Sterling, 1987. Natural Selection in a Double-Haploid Mixture and a Composite Cross of Barley. Crop Science 27: 474–479.Google Scholar
  42. Pederson, D.G. & A.J. Rathjen, 1981. Choosing trial sites to maximize selection response for grain yield in spring wheat. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 32: 411–424.Google Scholar
  43. Pfeiffer, W.H., 1988. Drought Tolerance in Bread Wheat — Analysis of Yield Improvement over the Years in CIMMYT Germplasm. In: A.R. Klatt (Ed.) Wheat production constraints in tropical environments, pp. 274–284 CIMMYT, Mexico DF, Mexico.Google Scholar
  44. Rajaram, S., B. Skovmand & B.C. Curtis, 1984. Philosophy and methodology of an international wheat breeding program. In: J.P. Gustafson (Ed.) Gene manipulation in plant improvement, pp. 33–60.Google Scholar
  45. Rosielle, A.A. & J. Hamblin, 1981. Theoretical aspects of Selection for Yield in Stress and Non-Stress Environments. Crop Science 21: 943–946.Google Scholar
  46. Roy, N.M. & B.R. Murty, 1970. A selection procedure in wheat for stress environments. Euphytica 19: 509–521.Google Scholar
  47. Russel, W.A., 1984. Agronomic performance of maize cultivars representing different eras of breeding. Maydica 29: 375–390.Google Scholar
  48. Schulze, E.D., 1988. Adaptation mechanisms of non cultivated aridzone plants, useful lesson for agriculture? In: F.R. Bidinger & C. Johansen (Eds) Drought research priorities for the dryland tropics, pp. 159–177. ICRISAT, Patencheru, AP 502324, India.Google Scholar
  49. Selmani, A. & C.E. Wassom, 1993. Daytime chlorophyll fluorescence measurement in field grown maize and its genetic variability under well-watered and water-stressed conditions. Field Crops Research 31: 173–184.Google Scholar
  50. Shannon, M.C. & L.E. Francois, 1978. Salt Tolerance of Three Muskmelon Cultivars. J. Amer. Soc. Hort Sci. 103: 127–130.Google Scholar
  51. Simmonds, N.W., 1981. Genotype (G), environment (E) and GE components of crop yields. Expl. Agric. 17: 355–362.Google Scholar
  52. Simmonds, N.W., 1983. Plant Breeding, The state of the art. In: T. Kosuge, C.P. Meredith & A. Hollaender (Eds) Genetic engineering of plants. An Agricultural Perspective, pp. 5–25. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  53. Simmonds, N.W., 1984. Decentralized selection. Sugar Cane 6: 8–10.Google Scholar
  54. Simmonds, N.W., 1991. Selection for local adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Theor. Appl. Genet. 82: 363–367.Google Scholar
  55. Simmonds, N.W. & M. Talbot, 1992. Analysis of on-farm rice yield data from India. Expl. Agric. 28: 325–329.Google Scholar
  56. Singh, M. & S. Ceccarelli, 1994. Estimation of heritability using varietal trials data from incomplete blocks. Theoretical and Applied Genetics (in press).Google Scholar
  57. Smith, M.E., W.R. Coffman & T.C. Barker, 1990. Environmental effects on selection under high and low input conditions. In: M.S. Kang (Ed.) Genotype-by-Environment interaction and plant Breeding, pp. 261–272. Dept. of Agron., Louisiana Agric. Expt. Stn., Baton Rouge, U.S.A..Google Scholar
  58. Stroup, W.W., P.E. Hildebrand & C.A. Francis, 1993. Farmer participation for more effective research in sustainable agriculture. In: Technologies for sustainable agriculture in the tropics, Am. Soc. Agron. Spec. Publ. (in press).Google Scholar
  59. Ud-Din, N., B.F. Carrer & A.C. Clutter, 1992. Genetic analysis and selection for wheat yield in drought-stressed and irrigated environments. Euphytica 62: 89–96.Google Scholar
  60. Van Leur, J.A.G., S. Ceccarelli & S. Grando, 1989. Diversity for disease resistance in barley landraces from Syria and Jordan. Plant Breeding 103 (4): 324–335.Google Scholar
  61. Virk, D.S. & B.K. Mangat, 1991. Detection of cross over genotype by environment interactions in pearl millet. Euphytica 52: 193–199.Google Scholar
  62. Weltzien, E., 1988. Evaluation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) landraces populations originating from different growing regions in the Near East. Plant Breeding 101: 95–106.Google Scholar
  63. Weltzien, E. & G. Fischbeck, 1990. Performance and Variability of Local Barley Landraces in Near-Eastern environments. Plant Breeding 104: 58–67.Google Scholar
  64. Wilkes, G., 1989. Germplasm preservation, objectives and needs. In: L. Knutson & A.K. Stoner (Eds) Biotic diversity and germplasm preservation, global imperatives, pp. 13–41. Kluwer Academic Publishers, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  65. Wolfe, M.S., 1991. Barley diseases: maintaining the value of our varieties. Barley Genetics VI: 1055–1067.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salvatore Ceccarelli
    • 1
  1. 1.The International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)AleppoSyria

Personalised recommendations