BioEnergy Research

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 80–90

Quantitative Genetics of Traits Indicative of Biomass Production and Heterosis in 34 Full-sib F1Salix eriocephala Families

  • Kimberly D. Cameron
  • Ingrid S. Phillips
  • Richard F. Kopp
  • Timothy A. Volk
  • Charles A. Maynard
  • Lawrence P. Abrahamson
  • Lawrence B. Smart
Article

Abstract

This project examined the heritability of traits that affect biomass production of Salix eriocephala, a shrub willow native to North America and an essential species in the breeding of bioenergy crop varieties. Using an incomplete factorial design, seven females and eight males were crossed to produce 34 full-sib F1 families. Five to 12 entries per family were planted in four-plant plots in a randomized complete block design on two sites. Melampsora rust incidence was scored in the fall of the first growing season (prior to coppice). Height of the tallest stem, cross-sectional stem area per stool, and number of stems per stool were recorded in the winter after the first growing season post-coppice. Plants were harvested 3 years post-coppice and biomass yield was determined. A large percentage of the total variance was additive for all of the traits studied and heritability estimates were low to moderate, suggesting that phenotypic expression of these traits is predictable and can be improved through breeding. Based on yield 3 years after coppice, 29 of the 34 families displayed midparent heterosis, ranging from 1–115%, for the composite trait—biomass yield, strongly indicating that offspring often perform better than their parents in this population. This study will assist in selecting parents which may produce superior progeny in the breeding program.

Keywords

General combining ability Heritability Stem growth Willow Yield 

References

  1. 1.
    Aravanopoulos FA, Zsuffa L (1998) Heterozygosity and biomass production in Salix eriocephala. Heredity 81:396–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ballard BD, Stehman SV, Briggs RD, Volk TA, Abrahamson LP, White EH (2000) Aboveground biomass equation development for five Salix clones and one Populus clone. Report to US DOE, Syracuse, NY, 21 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker WA (1984) Manual of quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Academic Enterprises, Pullman, WAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cotterill PP (1987) On estimating heritability according to practical applications. Silvae Genet 36:46–48Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dawson WM, McCracken AR (1998) Clonal selection in willow (Salix) grown as short rotation coppice for energy production. Ann Appl Biol 132S:56–57Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Pearson Education Limited, Essex EnglandGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fehr WJ (1991) Principles of cultivar development, Volume I: Theory and technique. Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gullberg U, Ryttman H (1993) Genetics of field resistance to Melampsora in Salix viminalis. Eur J Forest Path 23:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hsiang T, Chastagner GA, Dunlap JM, Stettler RF (1993) Genetic variation and productivity of Populus trichocarpa and its hybrids. VI. Field susceptibility of seedlings to Melampsora occidentalis leaf rust. Can J Forest Res 23:436–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kopp RF (2000) Genetic improvement of Salix using traditional breeding and AFLP® fingerprinting. Environmental and Forest Biology. State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, 175 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kopp RF, Smart LB, Maynard CA, Isebrands JG, Tuskan GA, Abrahamson LP (2001) The development of improved willow clones for eastern North America. Forest Chron 77:287–292Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kopp RF, Smart LB, Maynard CA, Tuskan GA, Abrahamson LP (2002) Predicting within-family variability in juvenile height growth of Salix based upon similarity among parental AFLP® fingerprints. Theor Appl Genet 105:106–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Larsson S (1998) Genetic improvement of willow for short-rotation coppice. Biomass Bioenerg 15:23–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lin J (2006) Molecular analysis and assessment of the genetic diversity of native and naturalized shrub willows. Environmental & Forest Biology. State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, 174 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin JZ, Zsuffa L (1993a) Quantitative genetic parameters for seven characteristics in a clonal test of Salix eriocephala. I. Clonal variation, clone   environment interactions, heritabilities, and genetic gains. Silvae Genet 42:41–46Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lin JZ, Zsuffa L (1993b) Quantitative genetic parameters for seven characters in a clonal test of Salix eriocephala II. Genetic and environmental correlations and efficiency of indirect selection. Silvae Genet 42:126–131Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lindegaard KN, Barker JHA (1997) Breeding willows for biomass. Aspects Appl Biol 49:155–162Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marron N, Ceulemans R (2006) Genetic variation of leaf traits related to productivity in a Populus deltoides x Populus nigra family. Can J Forest Res 36:390–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCracken AR, Dawson WM, Carlisle D (2005) Short-rotation coppice willow mixtures and rust disease development. In: Pei MH, McCracken AR (eds) Rust diseases of Willow and Poplar. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA, pp 185–194Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pei MH, Hunter T, Ruiz C (1999) Occurrence of Melampsora rusts in biomass willow plantations for renewable energy in the United Kingdom. Biomass Bioenerg 17:153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pei MH, Lindegaard KN, Hunter T, Ruiz C (2001) Preliminary studies of inheritance of rust resistance in biomass. Aspects Appl Biol Biomass Energy Crops II 65:281–288Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pei MH, Ruiz C, Bayon C, Hunter T (2004) Rust resistance in Salix to Melampsora larici-epitea. Plant Pathol 53:770–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow AF, Graham RL, Stokes BJ, Erbach DC (2005) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. US DOE and USDA, Oak Ridge, TN, p 59Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rai B (1979) Heterosis breeding. Agro-Biological Publications, Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rönnberg-Wästljung AC (2001) Genetic structure of growth and phenological traits in Salix viminalis. Can J Forest Res 31:276–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rönnberg-Wästljung AC, Gullberg U (1999) Genetics of breeding characters with possible effects on biomass production in Salix viminalis (L.). Theor Appl Genet 98:531–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rönnberg-Wästljung AC, Gullberg U, Nilsson C (1994) Genetic parameters of growth characteristics in Salix viminalis grown in Sweden. Can J Forest Res 24:1960–1969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rönnberg-Wästljung AC, Thorsen J (1988) Inter- and intraspecific variation and genotype x site interaction in Salix alba L., S. dasyclados Wimm. and S. viminalis L. Scand J Forest Res. 3:449–463Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    SAS Institute I (2003) SAS. 9.1 edn. SAS Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smart LB, Volk TA, Lin J, Kopp RF, Phillips IS, Cameron KD, White EH, Abrahamson LP (2005) Genetic improvement of shrub willow (Salix spp.) crops for bioenergy and environmental applications in the United States. Unasylva 221:51–55Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tharakan PJ (1999) Clonal performance evaluation and production physiology of willow and poplar bioenergy crops. Forest and Natural Resources Management. SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, 196 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tharakan PJ, Volk TA, Nowak CA, Abrahamson LP (2005) Morphological traits of 30 willow clones and their relationship to biomass production. Can J Forest Res 35:421–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Verwijst T (1990) Clonal differences in the structure of a mixed stand of Salix viminalis in response to Melampsora and frost. Can J Forest Res 20:602–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Verwijst T (2001) Willows: an underestimated resource for environment and society. Forest Chron 77:281–285Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Volk TA, Abrahamson LP, Nowak CA, Smart LB, Tharakan PJ, White EH (2006) The development of short-rotation willow in the northeastern United States for bioenergy and bioproducts, agroforestry and phytoremediation. Biomass Bioenerg 30:715–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang J, Van der Kamp BJ (1992) Resistance, tolerance, and yield of western black cottonwood infected by Melampsora rust. Can J Forest Res 22:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kimberly D. Cameron
    • 1
  • Ingrid S. Phillips
    • 1
  • Richard F. Kopp
    • 1
    • 4
  • Timothy A. Volk
    • 2
  • Charles A. Maynard
    • 2
  • Lawrence P. Abrahamson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lawrence B. Smart
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental and Forest BiologyState University of New York College of Environmental Science and ForestrySyracuseUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest and Natural Resources ManagementState University of New York College of Environmental Science and ForestrySyracuseUSA
  3. 3.Department of Molecular Biology and GeneticsCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  4. 4.Syracuse Research CorporationNorth SyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations