New Forests

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 439–448 | Cite as

Linking changes to breeding objectives and genetic evaluation to genetic gain in New Zealand

Article

Abstract

This article uses the breeder’s equation, which predicts genetic gain in breeding programs, to frame a general discussion on breeding objectives, new phenotypic techniques for selection criteria and statistical models as applied to short rotation species. Short-rotation breeding programs are increasingly working on wood quality traits; however, we keep on treating them as if they were growth traits. Understanding tree-level patterns of variation can lead to alternative strategies for evaluation, analysis and inclusion in breeding objectives; which I describe in a pilot application in Pinus radiata in New Zealand. Finally I discuss the relationship between the breeder’s equation and formulations of linear mixed models, using genotype by environment interaction as example, to show the interplay between genetic evaluation and breeding strategies. There is tension between increasing complexity (and the implicitly promised flexibility), information recovery (as more parameters are poorly estimated) and computational demands. The latter can be tackled through much more computer power (a never-ending endeavor), exploiting features of the problem or moving back to a lower complexity level.

Keywords

Early screening Genetic evaluation Genotype by environment interaction Wood properties 

Referencess

  1. Apiolaza LA (2009) Very early selection for wood quality: screening for early winners. Ann For Sci 66(6):601. doi:10.1051/forest/2009047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apiolaza LA (2012) Basic density of radiata pine in New Zealand: genetic and environmental factors. Tree Genet Genomes 8:87–96. doi:10.1007/s11295-011-0423-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apiolaza LA, Alzamora RM (2013) Building deployment portfolios for genotypes under performance instability. Silva Fennica 47(1):901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Apiolaza LA, Garrick DJ (2001a) Analysis of longitudinal data from progeny tests: some multivariate approaches. For Sci 47:129–140Google Scholar
  5. Apiolaza LA, Garrick DJ (2001b) Breeding objectives for three silvicultural regimes of radiata pine. Can J For Res 31:654–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Apiolaza LA, Chauhan S, Walker JCF (2011a) Genetic control of very early compression and opposite wood in Pinus radiata and its implications for selection. Tree Genet Genomes 7(3):563–571. doi:10.1007/s11295-010-0356-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Apiolaza LA, Butterfield B, Chauhan S, Walker JCF (2011b) Characterization of mechanically perturbed young stems: can it be used for wood quality screening? Ann For Sci 68(2):407–414. doi:10.1007/s13595-011-0028-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blair HT, Pollak EJ (1984) Comparison of an animal model and an equivalent reduced animal model for computational efficiency using mixed model methodology. J Anim Sci 58:1090–1096Google Scholar
  9. Borralho NMG (1995) Prediction of breeding values using tree model BLUP. Cooperative Research Centre for Temperate Hardwood Forestry, HobartGoogle Scholar
  10. Borralho NMG, Cotterill PP, Kanowski PJ (1993) Breeding objectives for pulp production of Eucalyptus globulus under different industrial cost structures. Can J For Res 23:648–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chambers PGS, Borralho NMG (1999) A simple model to examine the impact of changes in wood traits on the costs of thermomechanical pulping and high brightness newsprint production with radiata pine. Can J For Res 29:1615–1626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chauhan SS, Walker JCF (2006) Variations in acoustic velocity and density with age, and their relationship in radiata pine. For Ecol Manage 229:388–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chauhan SS, Sharma M, Thomas J, Apiolaza LA, Collings DA, Walker JCF (2013) Methods for the very early selection of Pinus radiata D Don. for solid wood products. Ann For Sci. doi:10.1007/s13595-013-0270-3 Google Scholar
  14. Costa e Silva J, Potts BM, Dutkowski GW (2006) Genotype by environment interaction for growth of Eucalyptus globulus in Australia. Tree Genet Genomes 2:61–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cown DJ (1992) Corewood (juvenile wood) in Pinus radiata—should we be concerned? NZ J For Sci 22:87–95Google Scholar
  16. Evison DC and Apiolaza LA (2013). Applications of economics to a radiata pine tree breeding programme. In: 3rd International Congress on Planted Forests, 21st May, Estoril, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  17. Falconer DS (1952) The problem of environment and selection. Am Nat 86:293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaunt D (1998) If you are not winning, change the rules. Wood Process Newslett Sawmill 23:3–4Google Scholar
  19. Gilmour AR, Cullis BR, Welham SJ, Thompson R (2002) ASReml reference manual. New South Wales Agriculture, OrangeGoogle Scholar
  20. Hardner CM, Dieters M, Dale G, DeLacy I, Basford KE (2010) Patterns of genotype-by-environment interaction in diameter at breast height at age 3 for eucalypt hybrid clones grown for reafforestation of lands affected by salinity. Tree Genet Genomes 6:833–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ivković M, Wu HX, McRae TA, Powell MB (2006) Developing breeding objectives for radiata pine structural wood production. I. Bioeconomic model and economic weights. Can J For Res 36:2920–2931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jefferson PA and Cullis BR (2012). Prediction of breeding values maximizing data from trials over 76 sites. In: Proceedings of tree breeding, genomics and evolutionary biology: new synergies to tackle the impact of climate change in the 21st century. Helsinki, Finland, 16–17 October p 48Google Scholar
  23. Kelly AM, Smith AB, Eccleston JA, Cullis BR (2007) The accuracy of varietal selection using factor analytic models for multi-environment plant breeding trials. Crop Sci 47:1063–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McDonald TM (2009) Making sense of genotype x environment interaction of Pinus radiata in New Zealand. Master of Forestry Science Thesis, University of CanterburyGoogle Scholar
  25. Quaas RL, Pollak EJ (1980) Mixed model methodology for farm and ranch beef cattle testing programs. J Anim Sci 51:1277–1287Google Scholar
  26. Raymond CA (2011) Genotype by environment interactions for Pinus radiata in New South Wales, Australia. Tree Genet Genomes 7:819–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith A, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2001) Analyzing variety by environment data using multiplicative mixed models and adjustments for spatial field trend. Biometrics 57:1138–1147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith AB, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2005) The analysis of crop cultivar breeding and evaluation trials: An overview of current mixed model approaches. J Agric Sci 143: 449–462. doi: 10.1017/s0021859605005587 Google Scholar
  29. Thompson R, Cullis B, Smith A, Gilmour A (2003) A sparse implementation of the average information algorithm for factor analytic and reduced rank variance models. Aust N Z J Stat 45:445–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Vleck LD, Pollak EJ, Oltenacu EAB (1987) Genetics for the Animal Sciences. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York. 391ppGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Wyk LJ (1990). An overview of value added strategies. In: Proceedings of the Forest Industry Engineering Association (FIEA) Conference, Technologies Towards 2000, Rotorua, New Zealand, 31 MayGoogle Scholar
  32. Vergara R, White TL, Huber DA, Shiver BD, Rockwood DL (2004) Estimated realized gains for first-generation slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. elliottii) tree improvement in the southeastern United States. Can J For Res 34:2587–2600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. White TL (1987) A conceptual framework for tree improvement programs. New For 4:325–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. White TL, Hodge GR (1989). Predicting breeding values with applications in forest tree improvement. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Forestry Sciences 33. 369 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ForestryUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations