Advertisement

Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 113, Issue 8, pp 1505–1513 | Cite as

A comparison of experimental designs for selection in breeding trials with nested treatment structure

  • H. P. PiephoEmail author
  • E. R. Williams
Original Paper

Abstract

Plant breeders frequently evaluate large numbers of entries in field trials for selection. Generally, the tested entries are related by pedigree. The simplest case is a nested treatment structure, where entries fall into groups or families such that entries within groups are more closely related than between groups. We found that some plant breeders prefer to plant close relatives next to each other in the field. This contrasts with common experimental designs such as the α-design, where entries are fully randomized. A third design option is to randomize in such a way that entries of the same group are separated as much as possible. The present paper compares these design options by simulation. Another important consideration is the type of model used for analysis. Most of the common experimental designs were optimized assuming that the model used for analysis has fixed treatment effects. With many entries that are related by pedigree, analysis based on a model with random treatment effects becomes a competitive alternative. In simulations, we therefore study the properties of best linear unbiased predictions (BLUP) of genetic effects based on a nested treatment structure under these design options for a range of genetic parameters. It is concluded that BLUP provides efficient estimates of genetic effects and that resolvable incomplete block designs such as the α-design with restricted or unrestricted randomization can be recommended.

Keywords

Best Linear Unbiased Prediction Good Linear Unbiased Prediction Well Linear Unbiased Estimation True Treatment Effect Restricted Randomization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The first author was supported within the breeding and informatics (BRAIN) project of the genome analysis of the plant biological system (GABI) initiative (www.brain.de). We thank all breeders of GABI-BRAIN who have provided data and information on their field trial designs. Three referees are thanked for exceptionally constructive and detailed comments.

References

  1. Bueno JSD, Gilmour SG (2003) Planning incomplete block experiments when treatments are genetically related. Biometrics 59:375–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cervantes-Martinez CT, Frey KJ, White PJ, Wesenberg DM, Holland JB (2001) Selection for greater β-glucan content in oat grain. Crop Sci 41:1085–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. 4th edn. Prentice Hall, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  4. Gilmour AR, Cullis BR, Verbyla AP (1997) Accounting for natural and extraneous variation in the analysis of field experiments. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 2:269–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinder RD (1996) SAS System for Mixed Models. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  6. Lush JL (1947) Family merit and individual merit as bases for selection. Am. Nat. 81:241–261 and 362–379Google Scholar
  7. Panter DM, Allen FL (1995) Using best linear unbiased predictions to enhance breeding for yield in soybean. 2. Selection of superior crosses from a limited number of yield trials. Crop Sci 35:405–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Patterson HD, Williams ER (1976) A new class of resolvable incomplete block designs. Biometrika 63:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Patterson HD, Thompson (1971) Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58:545–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Persson BT, Andersson B (2004) Accuracy of single- and multi-trait REML evaluation of data including non-random missing records. Silvae Genetica 53:135–139Google Scholar
  11. Piepho HP, Büchse A, Emrich K (2003) A hitchhiker’s guide to the mixed model analysis of randomized experiments. J Agron Crop Sci 189:310–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Piepho HP, Möhring J (2006) Selection in cultivar trials—is it ignorable? Crop Sci 146:193–202Google Scholar
  13. Qiao CG, Basford KE, DeLacy IH, Cooper M (2000) Evaluation of experimental designs and spatial analyses in wheat breeding trials. Theor Appl Genet 100:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Soh AC, Gan HH, Wong G, Hor TY, Tan CC (2003) Estimates of within family genetic variability for clonal selection in oil palm. Euphytica 133:147–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Whitaker D, Williams ER, John JA (2006) CycDesigN: a package for computer generation of experimental designs. http://www.cycdesign.co.nz
  16. Williams ER, John JA (1999) Construction of resolvable designs with nested treatment structure. Biom J 41:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Williams ER, Matheson AC, Harwood CE (2002) Experimental design and analysis for tree improvement, 2nd edn. CSIRO, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  18. Wu J, Jenkins JN, McCarty JC, Wu D (2006) Variance component estimation using the additive, dominance, and additive x additive model when genotypes vary across environments. Crop Sci 46:174–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yang RC (2002) Likelihood-based analysis of genotype-environment interactions. Crop Sci 42:1434–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fachgebiet Bioinformatik, Institut für Pflanzenbau und GrünlandUniversität HohenheimStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Statistical Consulting Unit, The Graduate School, c/- MSI John Dedman BuildingThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations