Tree Genetics & Genomes

, 11:120 | Cite as

A novel individual-tree mixed model to account for competition and environmental heterogeneity: a Bayesian approach

  • Eduardo Pablo CappaEmail author
  • Facundo Muñoz
  • Leopoldo Sanchez
  • Rodolfo J. C. Cantet
Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Breeding


Negative correlation caused by competition among individuals and positive spatial correlation due to environmental heterogeneity may lead to biases in estimating genetic parameters and predicting breeding values (BVs) from forest genetic trials. Former models dealing with competition and environmental heterogeneity did not account for the additive relationships among trees or for the full spatial covariance. This paper extends an individual-tree mixed model with direct additive genetic, genetic, and environmental competition effects, by incorporating a two-dimensional smoothing surface to account for complex patterns of environmental heterogeneity (competition + spatial model (CSM)). We illustrate the proposed model using simulated and real data from a loblolly pine progeny trial. The CSM was compared with three reduced individual-tree mixed models using a real dataset, while simulations comprised only CSM versus true-parameters comparisons. Dispersion parameters were estimated using Bayesian techniques via Gibbs sampling. Simulation results showed that the CSM yielded posterior mean estimates of variance components with slight or negligible biases in the studied scenarios, except for the permanent environment variance. The worst performance of the simulated CSM was under a scenario with weak competition effects and small-scale environmental heterogeneity. When analyzing real data, the CSM yielded a lower value of the deviance information criterion than the reduced models. Moreover, although correlations between predicted BVs calculated from CSM and from a standard model with block effects and direct genetic effects only were high, the ranking among the top 5 % ranked individuals showed differences which indicated that the two models will have quite different genotype selections for the next cycle of breeding.


Individual-tree mixed model Genetic and environmental competition effects Environmental heterogeneity Two-dimensional smoothing surface Gibbs sampling 



This research was supported by grants of Agencia Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (FONCyT PICT 00321) of Argentina, under the Programa de Modernización Tecnológica III, Contrato de Préstamo BID 1728/OC-AR. The authors would like to thank to Forestry Research and Experimentation Centre (CIEF, Buenos Aires, Argentina) for kindly providing the P. taeda L. dataset used in this study. FM and LS received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development, and demonstration under grant agreement no. 284181 (“Trees4Future”).

Data archiving statement

We followed standard Tree Genetics and Genomes policy. Simulated dataset used in this manuscript is available in the Zenodo repository, Supplementary information of the P. taeda L. trial and family numbers is also available in the Zenodo repository, In addition, diameter at breast height of the P. taeda L. dataset will be available upon request.

Supplementary material

11295_2015_917_MOESM1_ESM.docx (35 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 35 kb)
11295_2015_917_MOESM2_ESM.docx (88 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 87 kb)
11295_2015_917_MOESM3_ESM.docx (2.2 mb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 2282 kb)
11295_2015_917_MOESM4_ESM.docx (174 kb)
ESM 4 (DOCX 174 kb)


  1. Besag J, Kempton R (1986) Statistical analysis of field experiments using neighbouring plots. Biometrics 42:231–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bijma P (2013) The quantitative genetics of indirect genetic effects: a selective review of modelling issues. Heredity. doi: 10.1038/hdy.2013.15 Google Scholar
  3. Bijma P, Muir WM, Van Arendonk JAM (2007) Multilevel selection 1: quantitative genetics of inheritance and response to selection. Genetics 175:277–288PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brotherstone S, White IMS, Sykes R, Thompson R, Connolly T, Lee S, Woolliams J (2011) Competition effects in a young sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis, Bong. Carr) clonal trial. Silvae Genet 60:149–155Google Scholar
  5. Cappa EP, Cantet RJC (2007) Bayesian estimation of a surface to account for a spatial trend using penalized splines in an individual-tree mixed model. Can J For Res 37:2677–2688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cappa EP, Cantet RJC (2008) Direct and competition additive effects in tree breeding: Bayesian estimation from an individual tree mixed model. Silvae Genet 57:45–56Google Scholar
  7. Cappa EP, Lstiburek M, Yanchuk AD, El-Kassaby YA (2011) Two-dimensional penalized splines via Gibbs sampling to account for spatial variability in forest genetic trials with small amount of information available. Silvae Genet 60:25–35Google Scholar
  8. Costa e Silva J, Kerr RJ (2013) Accounting for competition in genetic analysis, with particular emphasis on forest genetic trials. Tree Gene Genomes 9:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costa e Silva J, Dutkowski GW, Gilmour AR (2001) Analysis of early tree height in forest genetic trials is enhanced by including a spatially correlated residual. Can J For Res 31:1887–1893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costa e Silva J, Potts BM, Bijma P, Kerr RJ, Pilbeam DJ (2013) Genetic control of interactions among individuals: contrasting outcomes of indirect genetic effects arising from neighbour disease infection and competition in a forest tree. New Phytol 197:631–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. De Boor C (1993) B(asic)-spline basics. Fundamental developments of computer-aided geometric modeling. L. Piegl, ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. Durban M, Currie I, Kempton R (2001) Adjusting for fertility and competition in variety trials. J Agric Sci (Camb) 136:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dutkowski GW, Costa e Silva J, Gilmour AR, Wellendorf H, Aguiar A (2006) Spatial analysis enhances modeling of a wide variety of traits in forest genetic trials. Can J For Res 36:1851–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eilers PHC, Marx BD (2003) Multivariate calibration with temperature interaction using two-dimensional penalized signal regression. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 66:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ericsson T (1997) Enhanced heritabilities and best linear unbiased predictors through appropriate blocking of progeny trials. Can J For Res 27:2097–2101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Federer WT (1998) Recovery of interblock, intergradient, and intervarietal information in incomplete block and lattice rectangle designed experiments. Biometrics 54:471–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Finley AO, Banerjee S, Waldmann P, Ericsson T (2009) Hierarchical spatial modeling of additive and dominance genetic variance for large spatial trial datasets. Biometrics 65:441–451PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Geweke J (1992) Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to calculating posterior moments. In: Bernardo JM, Berger JO, Dawid AP, Smith AFM (eds) Bayesian statistics 4. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2006) ASReml user guide release 2.0 VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, HP1 1ES, UK. p 267Google Scholar
  21. Green PJ, Silverman BW (1994) Nonparametric regression and generalized linear model. Chapman & Hall, London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gustafson P, Greenland S (2006) The performance of random coefficient regression in accounting for residual confounding. Biometrics 62:760–768CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hannrup B, Wilhelmsson L, Danell Ö (1998) Time trends for genetic parameters of wood density and growth traits in Pinus sylvestris L. Silvae Gene 47:214–219Google Scholar
  24. Harville DA (1997) Matrix algebra from a statistician’s perspective. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Henderson CR (1984) Applications of linear models in animal breeding. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  26. Hinson K, Hanson WD (1962) Competition studies in soybeans. Crop Sci 2:117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hobert JP, Casella G (1996) The effects of improper priors on Gibbs sampling in hierarchical linear models. J Am Statist 91:1461–1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hunt CH, Smith AB, Jordan DR, Cullis BR (2013) Predicting additive and non-additive genetic effects from trials where traits are affected by interplot competition. J Agric Biol and Envir S 18:53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kass RE, Carlin BP, Gelman A, Neal RM (1998) Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice: a roundtable discussion. Am Stat 52:93–100Google Scholar
  30. Kusnandar D (2001) The identification and interpretation of genetic variation in forestry plantation. PhD Thesis, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.Google Scholar
  31. Magnussen S (1989) Effects and adjustments of competition bias in progeny trials with single-tree plots. For Sci 35:532–547Google Scholar
  32. Magnussen S (1990) Application and comparison of spatial models in analysing tree-genetics field trials. Can J For Res 20:536–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Magnussen S (1994) A method to adjust simultaneously for spatial microsite and competition effects. Can J For Res 24:985–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marx BD, Eilers PH (2005) Multidimensional penalized signal regression. Technometrics 47:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Muir WM (2005) Incorporation of competitive effects in forest tree or animal breeding programs. Genetics 170:1247–1259Google Scholar
  36. Muñoz F, Sanchez L (2014) breedR: statistical methods for forest genetic resources analysts. R package version 0.7-16.
  37. Paciorek CJ (2010) The importance of scale for spatial-confounding bias and precision of spatial regression estimators. Stat Sci 25:107–125PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Pearce SC (1957) Experimenting with organisms as blocks. Biometrika 44:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Radtke PJ, Westfall JA, Burkhart HE (2003) Conditioning a distance-dependent competition index to indicate the onset of intertree competition. For Ecol Manag 175:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Accessed 4 May 2015
  41. Resende MDV, Stringer J, Cullis B, Thompson R (2005) Joint modelling of competition and spatial variability in forest field trials. Rev Mat Estat 23:7–22Google Scholar
  42. Robert CP, Casella GC (1999) Monte Carlo statistical methods. Springer-Verlag, New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shaman P, Stine RA (1988) The bias of autoregressive coefficient estimators. J Am Stat Assoc 83:842–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith BJ (2003) Bayesian Output Analysis Program (BOA) version 1.0 user’s manual. Available from
  45. Sorensen D, Gianola D (2002) Likelihood, Bayesian, and MCMC methods in quantitative genetics. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Van der Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit (with discussion). J R Stat Soc Ser B 64:583–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stanger TK, Galloway GM, Retief ECL (2011) Final results from a trial to test the effect of plot size on Eucalyptus hybrid clonal ranking in coastal Zululand, South Africa. South Forests 73:131–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stringer JK, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2005) Joint modelling of spatial variability and interplot competition to improve the efficiency of plant improvement. In Proceedings of the: Thredbo Statistical Meeting. Canberra, 6–11 February 2005. Australian National University/Australasian Region of the International Biometric Society v. 1, p.41.Google Scholar
  49. Stringer JK, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2011) Joint modeling of spatial variability and within-row interplot competition to increase the efficiency of plant improvement. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 16:269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thomson AJ, El-Kassaby YA (1988) Trend surface analysis of a Douglas-fir provenace-progeny transfer test. Can J For Res 18:515–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Verbyla AP, Cullis BR, Kenward MG, Welham SJ (1999) The analysis of designed experiments and longitudinal data by using smoothing splines (with discussion). Appl Stat 48:69–311Google Scholar
  52. Ye TZ, Jayawickrama KJS (2008) Efficiency of using spatial analysis in first-generation coastal Douglas-fir progeny tests in the US Pacific Northwest. Tree Gene Genomes 4:677–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zas R (2006) Iterative kriging for removing spatial autocorrelation in analysis of forest genetic trials. Tree Gene Genomes 2:177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eduardo Pablo Cappa
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
    Email author
  • Facundo Muñoz
    • 3
  • Leopoldo Sanchez
    • 3
  • Rodolfo J. C. Cantet
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Instituto de Recursos BiológicosHurlinghamArgentina
  2. 2.Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)Buenos AiresArgentina
  3. 3.Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) Orléans, Unité Amélioration, Génétique et Physiologie ForestièresCedex 02France
  4. 4.Departamento de Producción Animal, Facultad de AgronomíaUniversidad de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  5. 5.Bosques Cultivados, Instituto de Recursos Biológicos, Centro de Investigación en Recursos NaturalesInstituto Nacional de Tecnología AgropecuariaHurlinghamArgentina

Personalised recommendations