Advertisement

Tree Genetics & Genomes

, 15:79 | Cite as

Alternative selection methods and explicit or implied economic-worth functions for different traits in tree breeding

  • Rowland D. BurdonEmail author
  • Jaroslav Klápště
Review
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Breeding

Abstract

Tree breeders must almost always address multiple traits. That entails choosing selection methods and weighing up known or assumed economic-worth functions for traits. Classically, selection methods include independent culling levels, sequential culling for traits within generations, culling for different traits in successive generations (tandem selection), and selection indices, but elements of individual methods can be used in combination. Adverse genetic correlations among economic traits create a need to know the comparative economic worth of gains in different traits and can severely constrain feasible breeding goals. A traditionally cited optimal method is the Smith-Hazel selection index (and more generalised variants) based on good genetic-parameter information and known, linear economic-worth functions. The theoretical optimality, however, depends on various assumptions which are often tacit and unrecognised, and violated. Optimally cost-efficient selection will also depend on evaluation costs and ages of expression for different traits and may need to go well beyond selection indices. More complex criteria of optimality may also arise, making true optimisation very challenging and often unachievable. Where the genetic gain is delivered as mixes of segregants produced by seed propagation, non-linearities of economic-worth functions may not be readily exploited. However, non-linearities that include intermediate optima for trait values, or optima that are conditional on values for other traits (namely restricted domains in ‘multi-dimensional space’), might be exploited much better in clonal forestry systems. With adverse genetic correlations and differences among environments in the expression of genetic variation in individual traits, optimal solutions may entail selection for specific environments or production systems, on a finer scale for deployment than in breeding populations. Genomic selection offers accelerated genetic gains, and may mitigate effects of adverse genetic correlations, but depends strongly on high-quality phenotypic information on the expression of different traits at different ages in specific environments. This technology and its potential combination with gene editing promise enhancements of multi-trait selection. Remote-sensing technologies can now yield huge volumes of field data and much expanded candidate populations, but in some trade-off with effective heritabilities of remote-sensed phenotypes.

Keywords

Selection methods Economic weights Tree breeding Selection indices Genetic parameters Optimisation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

RDB, as Scion Emeritus Scientist, had scientific office facilities and database access at Scion, and JK’s contribution was covered by Scion’s Strategic Science Investment Funding, contracted with Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. We thank Heidi Dungey, Elspeth MacRae, and anonymous reviewers for comments and some helpful suggestions, and Gancho Slavov for a very helpful review before resubmission.

References

  1. Adams TH, Pont D, Brownlie RK, Brack C, Farrier T (2011) So you want to use LIDAR? A guide to how to use LIDAR in forestry. N Z J For 55(4):19–23Google Scholar
  2. Ahlinder J, Mullin TJ, Yamashita M (2014) Using semidefinite programming to optimize unequal deployment of genotypes to a clonal seed orchard. Tree Genet Genomes 72:159–168Google Scholar
  3. Akdemir D, Beavis W, Fritsche-Neto R, Singh AK, Isídro-Sanchez J (2019) Multi-objective optimised genomic breeding strategies for sustainable food improvement. Heredity 122:672–683.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41437-018-0147-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bannister MH (1962) Some variations in the growth pattern of Pinus radiata in New Zealand. N Z J Sci 5:342–370Google Scholar
  5. Bannister MH, Vine MH (1981) An early progeny trial in Pinus radiata. 4. Wood density. N Z J For Sci 11:221–243Google Scholar
  6. Bartholomé J, Van Heerwaarden J, Isik F, Boury C, Vidal M, Plomion C, Bouffier L (2016) Performance of genomic prediction within and across generations in maritime pine. BMC Genomics 17:604.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-016-2879-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Battagin M, Gorjanc G, Faux A-M, Johnston SE, Hickey JM (2016) Effect of manipulating recombination rates on response to selection in livestock breeding programs. Genet Sel Evol 48:44.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-016-0221-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Beaulieu J, Doerksen TK, Clément S, Mackay J, Bousquet J (2014) Accuracy of genomic selection models in a large population of open-pollinated families in white spruce. Heredity 113(4):343–352Google Scholar
  9. Becker WA (1975) Manual of quantitative genetics. Washington State University Press, PullmanGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennett GL, Swiger IA (1980) Genetic variance and correlation after selection for two traits by index, independent culling levels and extreme selection. Genetics 94:763–775PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Berlin M, Jansson G, Lönnstedt L, Danell Ö, Ericsson T (2012) Development of economic forest tree breeding objectives: review of existing methodology and discussion of its application in Swedish conditions. Scan J For Res 27(7):681–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bijma P, Bastiaansen JWM (2014) Standard error of the genetic correlation: how much data do we need to estimate a purebred-crossbred genetic correlation? Genet Sel Evol 46(1):79CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Blows MW (2007) A tale of two matrices: multivariate approaches in evolutionary biology. J Evol Biol 20(1):1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01164.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Burdon RD (1979) Generalisation of multi-trait selection indices using information from several sites. N Z J For Sci 9:145–152Google Scholar
  15. Burdon RD (1989) Early selection in tree breeding: principles for applying index selection and inferring input parameters. Can J For Res 19:499–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burdon RD (1990) Implications of non-linear economic weights for breeding. Theor Appl Genet 79:65–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Burdon RD (2008) Branching habit in radiata pine – breeding goals revisited. N Z J For 52(4):20–23Google Scholar
  18. Burdon RD (2010) Wood properties and genetic improvement of radiata pine. N Z J For 55(2):22–27Google Scholar
  19. Burdon RD, Li Y (2019) Genotype-environment interaction involving site differences in expression of genetic variation along with genotypic rank changes: simulations of economic significance. Tree Genet Genomes 15:2–10.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-018-1308-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Burdon RD, Low CB (1992) Genetic survey of Pinus radiataa. 6. Wood properties: variation, heritabilities and interelationships with other traits. N Z J For Sci 22:228–245Google Scholar
  21. Burdon RD, Moore JR (2018) Adverse genetic correlations and impacts of silviculture involving wood properties: analysis of issues for radiata pine. Forests 9:308.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f9060308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Burdon RD, Bannister MH, Low CB (1992) Genetic survey of Pinus radiata. 5: between-trait and age-age genetic correlations for growth rate, morphology, and disease resistance. N Z J For Sci 22:211–227Google Scholar
  23. Burdon RD, Shelbourne CJA, Carson MJ (2008) Achievements in forest tree genetic improvement in Australia and New Zealand 10 Pinus radiata in New Zealand. Aust For 71(4):263–279Google Scholar
  24. Burdon RD, Libby WJ, Brown AG (2017) Domestication of radiata pine. Springer Nature. xxxv +485 pGoogle Scholar
  25. Carson MJ (1986) Advantages of clonal forestry for Pinus radiata – real or imagined? N Z J For Sci 16:403–415Google Scholar
  26. Carson SD (1989) Selecting Pinus radiata for resistance in Dothistroma needle blight. N Z J For Sci 19(1):3–21Google Scholar
  27. Carson MJ, Inglis CS (1988) Genotype and location effect on internode length of Pinus radiata in New Zealand. N Z J For Sci 18(3):267–279Google Scholar
  28. Cerón-Rojas JJ, Crossa J (2018) Linear selection methods in modern plant breeding. Springer Open 256Google Scholar
  29. Cotterill PP (1986) Pers comm to RDBGoogle Scholar
  30. Cotterill PP, Dean CA (1990) Successful tree breeding with index selection. CSIRO Publications, East MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  31. Dash J, Pont D, Brownlie R, Dunningham A, Watt M, Pearse G (2016) Remote sensing for precision forestry. N Z J For 60(4):15–24Google Scholar
  32. Dash JP, Moore JR, Lee JR, Klápště J, Dungey HS (2019) Stand density and genetic improvement has site-specific effects on the economic returns from (Pinus radiata) plantations. For Ecol Manag 446:80–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dickerson GE, Blunn CT, Chapman AB, Kottman RM, Krider JL, Kempthorne O, Whatley JA Jr, Baker ML, Lush JL, Winters LM (1954) Evaluation and selection in developing inbred lines of swine. University of Missouri, College of Agriculture, Res Bull 551. Columbia, MO, USAGoogle Scholar
  34. Dungey HS, Low CB, Lee J, Miller MA, Fleet K, Yanchuk AD (2012) Developing breeding and deployment option for Douglas-fir in New Zealand: breeding for future forest conditions. Silvae Genet 61(3):104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dungey HS, Dash JP, Pont D, Clinton PW, Watt MS, Telfer EJ (2018) Phenotyping whole forests will help track genetic performance. Trends Plant Sci 23(10):854–864CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Dutkowski GW, Costa e Silva J, Gilmour AR, Wellendorf H, Aguiar A (2006) Spatial analysis enhances modelling of a wide variety of traits in forest genetic trials. Can J For Res 36:1851–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dutkowski G, Ivković M, Gapare WJ, McRae TA (2016) Defining breeding and deployment regions for radiata pine in Southern Australia. New For 47:783–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. El-Kassaby YA, Cappa EP, Liewlaksaneeyanawin C, Klápštĕ J, Lstibůrek M (2011) Breeding without Breeding: is a complete pedigree necessary for efficient breeding? PLoS ONE 6(10):e25737.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025737 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Elshire RJ, Glaubitz JC, Sun Q, Poland JA, Kawamoto K, Buckler ES, Mitchell SE (2011) A robust, simple genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) approach for high diversity species. PLoS ONE 6(5):e19379.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019379 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Elston RC (1963) A weight-free index for the purpose of ranking or selection with respect to several traits at a time. Biometrics 19:85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Evison DC, Apiolaza LA (2014) Incorporating economic weights into radiata pine selection and breeding decisions. Can J For Res 14:135–140Google Scholar
  42. Falconer DS (1952) The problem of environment and selection. Am Nat 86:293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1986) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman, EssexGoogle Scholar
  44. Feller W (1968) Introduction to probability theory and its applications, vol I. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Fritsche S, Poovaiah C, MacRae E, Thorlby G (2018) A New Zealand perspective on the application and regulation of gene editing. Front Plant Sci 9:1323.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01323 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Funda T, Lstibůrek M, Lachout P, Klápštĕ J, El-Kassaby YA (2009) Optimization of combined genetic gain and diversity for collection and deployment of seed orchard crops. Tree Genet Genomes 5:583–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Funda T, Lstibůrek M, Klápštĕ J, El-Kassaby YA (2012) Optimization of genetic gain and diversity in seed orchard crops considering variation in seed germination. Scan J For Res 27(8):787–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Garrick DJ, Van Vleck LD (1987) Aspects of selection for performance in several environments with heterogeneous variances. J Anim Sci 65:409–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Garrick DJ, Taylor JF, Fernando RL (2009) Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analysis. Genet Sel Evol 41:55.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-41-55 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Gianola D (2018) Foreword. In: Cerón-Rojas and Crossa, pp vii–xGoogle Scholar
  52. Goddard ME (1998) Consensus and debate in the definition of breeding objectives. J Dairy Sci 81(suppl 2):6–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Godshalk EB, Timothy DH (1988) Factor and principal component analysis as alternatives to index selection. Theor Appl Genet 76(3):352–360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Graham N, Suontama M, Pleasants T, Li Y, Bader MK-F, Klápště J, Dungey H, Williams NM (2018) Assessing the genetic variation of tolerance to red needle cast in a Pinus radiata breeding population. Tree Genet Genomes 14:55Google Scholar
  55. Greaves BL, Borralho NMG, Raymond CA (1997) Assumptions underlying the use of economic weights – are they valid in breeding for eucalypt kraft pulp? For Genet 4(1):35–42Google Scholar
  56. Hannrup B, Wilhelmsson L, Danell Ö (1998) Time trends for genetic parameters of wood density and growth traits in Pinus silvestris L. Silvae Genet 47:214–219Google Scholar
  57. Hayes JF, Hill WG (1981) Modification of estimates of parameters in the construction of genetic selection indices (‘Bending’). Biometrics 37(3):483–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Henderson CR (1975) Best linear unbiased unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics 31(2):423–447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Hoerl AE, Kennard RW (1970) Ridge regression: biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics 12(1):55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Isik F, Bartholomé J, Farjat A, Chancerel E, Raffin A, Sanchez L, Plomion C, Bouffier L (2016) Genomic selection in maritime pine. Plant Sci 242:108–119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Ivković M, Wu HX, McRae TA, Powell MB (2006) Developing breeding objectives for radiata pine structural wood production. 1. Bioeconomic model and economic weights. Can J For Res 36:2920–2931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. James JW (1961) Selection in two environments. Heredity 16:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Jansson G, Danell Ȍ (1993) Needs and benefits of empirical power transformations for production and quality traits in forest tree breeding. Theor Appl Genet 87:487–497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Jayawickrama KJS, Carson MJ (2000) A breeding strategy for the New Zealand Radiata Pine Breeding Cooperative. Silvae Genet 49:82–90Google Scholar
  65. Jayawickrama KJS, Jefferson PA (1999) Stochastic simulation of genetic advancement of multiple traits using sequential culling. N Z J For Sci 29:25–43Google Scholar
  66. Jayawickrama KJS, Shelbourne CJA, Carson MJ (1997) New Zealand’s long internode breed of Pinus radiata. N Z J For Sci 27(2):126–141Google Scholar
  67. Kumar S, Cown DJ, Ivković M, Burdon RD (2010) Susceptibility to intra-ring checking in radiata pine: potential for genetic improvement. N Z J For Sci 40:61–70Google Scholar
  68. Lenz PRN, Beaulieu J, Mansfield SD, Clement S, Desponts M, Bousquet J (2017) Factors affecting the accuracy of genomic selection for growth and wood quality traits in an advanced-breeding population of black spruce (Picea mariana). BMC Genomics 18(1):335.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-017-3715-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Li Y, Suontama M, Burdon RD, Dungey HS (2017a) Genotype by environment interactions in forest tree breeding: review of methodology and perspectives on research and application. Tree Genet Genomes 13:60–18.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-017-1144-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Li Y, Dungey H, Yanchuk A, Apiolaza LA (2017b) Improvement of non-key traits in radiata pine breeding programme when long-term economic importance is uncertain. PLoS ONE 12(5):e0177806.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177806 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Lindgren D (1986) Short note: an approximate formula for selection intensity. Silvae Genet 35:249Google Scholar
  72. Magnussen S (1990) Selection index: economic weights for maximum simultaneous genetic gain. Theor Appl Genet 79:289–293CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Magnussen S (1991) Index selection with nonlinear profit function as a tool to achieve simultaneous genetic gain. Theor Appl Genet 82:305–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Mészáros G, Gorjanc G, Jenko J, Cleveland MA, Woolliams JA, Hickey JM (2014) Selection on recombination rate to increase genetic gain. In: Proceedings of the 10th world congress of genetics applied to livestock production: 17–22 August 2014, Vancouver, Canada. https://asas.confex.com/asas/WCGALP14/webprogram/Paper9565.html.
  75. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157(4):1819–1829PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Mrode RA (2014) Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding values. CABIGoogle Scholar
  77. Mullin T, Belotti P (2016) Using branch-and-bound algorithms to optimize selection of a fixed-size population under a relatedness constraint. Tree Genet Genomes 12:4–12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-015-0961-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Namkoong G (1970) Optimum allocation of selection intensity in two stages of truncation selection. Biometrics 26:465–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Namkoong G (1976) A multiple-index selection strategy. Silvae Genet 25:199–201Google Scholar
  80. Namkoong G (1979) Introduction to quantitative genetics in forestry (No. 1588). Forest Service. United States. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  81. Namkoong G, Kang HC, Brouard JS (1988) Tree breeding: principles and strategies. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Neves LG, Davis JM, Barbazuk WB, Kirst M (2013) Whole-exome targeted sequencing of the uncharacterized pine genome. Plant J 75(1):146–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Peil A, Kellerhals M, Höfer M, Flachowsky H (2011) Apple breeding – from the origin to genetic engineering. Fruit Veg Cereal Sci Biotechnol 5:118–138Google Scholar
  84. Pesek J, Baker RJ (1969) Desired improvement in relation to selection indices. Can J Plant Sci 49:803–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Philipson J, Banos G, Arnason T (1994) Present and future uses of selection index methodology in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 77(10):3252–3261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Pont D (2016) Assessment of individual trees using aerial laser scanning in New Zealand forests. PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  87. Pont D, Kimberley MO, Brownlie RK, Sabatia CO, Watt MS (2015) Calibrated tree counting on remotely sensed images of planted forests. Int J Remote Sens 36(15):3819–3836.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2015.1054048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ratcliffe B, Gamal El-Dien O, Klápště J, Porth I, Chen C, Jaquish B, El-Kassaby YA (2015) A comparison of genomic selection models across time in interior spruce (Picea engelmannii x glauca) using unordered SNP imputation methods. Heredity 115:547-555Google Scholar
  89. Resende MFR, Muñoz P, Resende MDV, Garrick DJ, Fernando RL, Davis JM, Jokela EJ, Martin TA, Peter GF, Kirst M (2012a) Accuracy of genomic selection methods in a standard data set of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Genetics 190(4):1503–1510Google Scholar
  90. Resende MFR, Munoz P, Acosta JJ, Peter GF, Davis JM, Grattapaglia D, Resende MD, Kirst M (2012b) Accelerating the domestication of trees using genomic selection: accuracy of prediction models across ages and environments. New Phytol 193(3):617–624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Šafus P, Přibyl J, Veselá Z, Vostrý L, Štípková M, Stádník L (2006) Selection indexes for bulls of beef cattle. Czech J Anim Sci 51(7):285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Saxton AM (1983) A comparison of exact and sequential methods in multi-stage index selection. Theor Appl Genet 66(1):23–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Smith HF (1936) A discriminant function of plant selection. Ann Eugenics 7:240–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Sohn SI, Goddard RE (1979) Influence of infection percent on improvement of fusiform rust resistance in slash pine. Silvae Genet 28:173–180Google Scholar
  95. Stejskal J, Lstibůrek M, Klápště J, Čepl J, El-Kassaby YA (2018) Effect of genomic prediction on response to selection in forest tree breeding. Tree Genet Genomes 14:74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Suontama M, Klápštĕ J, Telfer E, Graham N, Stovold T, Low C, McKinley R, Dungey H (2019) Efficiency of genomic selection across two Eucalyptus nitens seed orchards with different selection histories. Heredity 122(3):370–379Google Scholar
  97. Tambarusssi EV, Pereira FB, Müller da Silva PH, Lee D, Bush D (2018) Are tree breeders properly predicting genetic gain? A case study involving Corymbia species. Euphytica 214(8):150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Tan B, Grattapaglia D, Martins GS, Ferreira KZ, Sundberg B, Ingvarsson PK (2017) Evaluating the accuracy of genomic prediction of growth and wood traits in Eucalyptus species and their F1 hybrids. BMC Plat Biol 17(1):110.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-017-1059-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Telfer EJ, Stovold GT, Li Y, Silva-Junior OB, Grattapaglia DG, Dungey HS (2015) Parentage reconstruction in Eucalyptus nitens using SNP and microsatellite markers: a comparative analysis of marker data power and robustness. PLoS ONE 10(7):e0130601.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130601 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  100. Visscher PM (1998) On the sampling variance of intraclass correlations and genetic correlations. Genetics 149(3):1605–1614PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  101. Visscher PM, Medland SE, Ferreira MAR, Morley KI, Zhu G, Cornes BK, Montgomery GW, Martin NG (2006) Assumption-free estimation of heritability from genome-wide identity-by-descent sharing between full siblings. PLoS Genet 2(3):e41.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020041 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  102. Westell R, Quaas R, Van Vleck LD (1988) Genetic groups in an animal model. J Dairy Sci 71(5):1310–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. White TL, Hodge GR (1989) Predicting breeding values with applications in forest tree improvement. Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston/LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. White TL, Adams WT, Neale DB (2007) Forest Genetics. Academic Publishers CABI Publishing, WallingfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wright S (1922) Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. Am Nat 56(645):330–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Wright S (1932) The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. Proc Sixth Int Congr Genet 1:356–366Google Scholar
  107. Wu HX, Sanchez L (2011) Effect of selection methods on genetic correlations and gain in a two-trait selection scheme. Aust For 74(1):36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Yamashita M, Mullin TJ, Safarina S (2018) An efficient second-order cone programming approach for optimal selection in tree breeding. Optim Lett 12:1683–1697.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590-018-1229-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Yanchuk AD, Sanchez L (2011) Multivariate selection under adverse genetic correlations: impacts of population sizes and selection strategies on gains and coancestry in forest tree breeding. Tree Genet Genomes 7:1169–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Ye TZ, Jayawickrama KJS (2008) Efficiency of using spatial analysis in first-generation coastal Douglas-fir progeny test in the US Pacific Northwest. Tree Genet Genomes 4(4):677–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Zobel BJ, van Buijtenen JP (1989) Wood variation: its causes and control. Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Scion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd)RotoruaNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations