Advertisement

Euphytica

, 214:37 | Cite as

Relationship of parental genetic distance with agronomic performance, specific combining ability, and predicted breeding values of raspberry families

  • Aurelio Hernández-Bautista
  • Ricardo Lobato-Ortiz
  • J. Jesús García-Zavala
  • Mario Rocandio-Rodríguez
  • José Apolinar Mejía-Contreras
  • José Luis Chávez-Servia
  • José Armando García-Velazquez
Article

Abstract

Previous findings in some crops suggest that parental distance is correlated with heterosis and agronomic performance. However, this pattern is not always evident in the progeny. The present study aimed to assess the relationship of parental distance with the agronomic performance of raspberry families and three estimators based on non-environmental effects: specific combining ability, general combining ability, and best linear unbiased prediction. A total of 35 genotypes, including eight open-pollinated raspberry cultivars and their 28 F1 hybrids, were scored for vegetative and fruit traits. The relationship between estimators and parental distance ranged from 0.02 to 0.66. The estimators based on purely additive effects were superior to the per se performance of raspberry crosses. Additionally, it was observed that the specific combining ability—as an estimator associated with the parental genetic relatedness—performed poorly, and low correlation coefficients were observed for most of the traits. It was found that the degree of association for the estimators increased when narrow-sense heritability was high. It is concluded that the estimators based on only additive effects show a better association with parental relatedness, and therefore parental distance was an effective parameter in identifying crosses with high yield and large fruit size.

Keywords

Additive effect Best linear unbiased prediction General combining ability Hybrid performance Parental genetic relatedness Rubus idaeus 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author would like to acknowledge support from CONACYT for funding this research through a doctoral scholarship. We also thank the Colegio de Postgraduados-Montecillos campus for the technical support. Finally, we thank to anonymous reviewers for theirs comments and the time invested by the Associated Editor handling the manuscript. These comments improved the quality of this paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10681_2018_2122_MOESM1_ESM.docx (30 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 30 kb)

References

  1. Acquaah G (2007) Principles of plant genetics and breeding. Malden Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernardo R (1992) Relationship between single-cross performance and molecular marker heterozygosity. Theor Appl Genet 83:628–634CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Betran FJ, Ribaut JM, Beck D, Gonzales de Leon D (2003) Genetic diversity, specific combining ability and heterosis in tropical maize under stress and nonstress environments. Crop Sci 43:797–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ceballos H, López-Lavalle LB, Calle F, Morante N, Ovalle TM, Hershey C (2016) Genetic distance and specific combining ability in cassava. Euphytica 210:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cox TS, Murphy JP (1990) The effect of parental divergence on F2 heterosis in winter wheat crosses. Theor Appl Genet 79:169–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Development Core Team R (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  7. Dossett M, Lee J, Finn CE (2008) Inheritance of phenological, vegetative, and fruit chemistry traits in black raspberry. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 133:408–417Google Scholar
  8. Fotirić-Akšić MF, Radović A, Milivojević J, Nikolić M, Nikolić D (2011) Genetic parameters of yield components and pomologic properties in raspberry seedlings. Genetika 43:667–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Geleta LF, Labuschagne MT, Viljoen CD (2004) Relationship between heterosis and genetic distance based on morphological traits and AFLP markers in pepper. Plant Breed 123:467–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Godshalk EB, Lee M, Lamkey KR (1990) Relationship of restriction fragment length polymorphisms to single-cross hybrid performance of maize. Theor Appl Genet 80:273–280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Griffing B (1956) Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing systems. Aust J Biol Scie 9:463–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hall HK, Sobey T (2013) Climatic requirements. In: Funt RC, Hall HK (eds) Raspberries. CABI Publisher, Oxford, pp 33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hallauer AR, Carena MJ, Filho JBM (2010) Testers and combining ability. In: Carena MJ, Hallauer AR, Miranda-Filho JB (eds) Quantitative genetics in maize breeding. Handbook of plant breeding, vol 6. Springer, New York, pp 383–423Google Scholar
  14. Harbut RH, Sullivan JA, Proctor JT, Swartz HJ (2009) Early generation performance of Fragaria species hybrids in crosses with cultivated strawberry. Can J Plant Sci 89:1117–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henderson CR (1950) Estimation of genetic parameters. Ann Math Stat 21:309–310Google Scholar
  16. Ibrahim AA, Mohammad AB, Haseeb AK, Ahmad HAF, Ali AAH, Ali HB, Mohammad AS, Mohammad S (2010) A brief review of molecular techniques to assess plant diversity. Int J Mol Sci 11:2079–2096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaczmarska E, Gawroński J, Jabłońska-Ryś E, Zalewska-Korona M, Radzki W, Sławińska A (2016) Hybrid performance and heterosis in strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duchesne), regarding acidity, soluble solids and dry matter content in fruits. Plant Breed 135:232–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lanza LLB, de Souza CL, Jr Ottoboni LMM, Vieira MLC, de Souza AP (1997) Genetic distance of inbred lines and prediction of maize single-cross performance using RAPD markers. Theor Appl Genet 94:1023–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee M, Godshalk EB, Lamkey KR, Woodman WW (1989) Association of restriction length polymorphism among maize inbreds with agronomic performance of their crosses. Crop Sci 29:1067–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin JM, Talbert LE, Lanning SP, Blake NK (1995) Hybrid performance in wheat as related to parental diversity. Crop Sci 35:104–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miranda-Filho JB (1985) Breeding methodologies for tropical maize. In: Brandolini A, Salamini F (eds) Breeding strategies for maize production improvement in the tropics. FAO, Rome, pp 169–185Google Scholar
  22. Molina GJ (1992) Introducción a la genética de poblaciones y cuantitativa (Algunas implicaciones en genotecnia). AGT, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  23. Monforte JA, Iban E, Silvia A, Perez A (2005) Inheritance mode of fruit traits in melon: heterosis for fruit shape and its correlation with genetic distance. Euphytica 144:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Munhoz REF, Prioli AJ, Amara-Júnior AT, Scapim CA, Simon GA (2009) Genetic distances between popcorn populations based on molecular markers and correlations with heterosis estimates made by diallel analysis of hybrids. Genet Mol Res 8:951–962CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Piepho HP, Möhring J, Melchinger AE, Büchse A (2007) BLUP for phenotypic selection in plant breeding and variety testing. Euphytica 161:209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  27. Riday H, Brummer EC, Campbell TA, Luth D, Cazcarro PM (2003) Comparisons of genetic and morphological distance with heterosis between Medicago sativa subsp. sativa and subsp. falcata. Euphytica 131:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rohlf FJ (2008) NTSYSpc: numerical taxonomy system. Release 2.20. Exeter Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Santos JPR, Pereira HD, Von Pinho RG, Pires LPM, Camargos RB, Balestre M (2015) Genome-wide prediction of maize single-cross performance, considering non-additive genetic effects. Genet Mol Res 14:18471–18484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. SAS Institute (2012) SAS system for windows. Release 9.3. SAS Institute Inc, CaryGoogle Scholar
  31. Shahnejate-bushehri AA, Torabi S, Omidi M, Ghannadha MR (2005) Comparison of genetic and morphological distance with heterosis with RAPD Markers in hybrids of Barley. Int J Agr Biol 7:592–595Google Scholar
  32. SIAP (2013) Agrifood and fisheries information service. www.siap.gob.mx. Accessed 25 July 2017
  33. Singh N, Majumder S, Singh S, Vikram P (2016) Genetic diversity in Indian rice germplasm set using phenotypic andgenotypic variables simultaneously. Indian J Genet 76:246–254Google Scholar
  34. Sneath PHA, Sokal RR (1963) Principles of numerical taxonomy. H. Freeman & Company, San Francisco and LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Solomon KF, Zeppa A, Mulugeta SD (2012) Combining ability, genetic diversity and heterosis in relation to F1 performance of tropically adapted shrunken (sh2) sweet corn lines. Plant Breed 131:430–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stephens MJ, Alspach PA, Beatson RA, Winefield C, Buck EJ (2012a) Genetic parameters and breeding for yield in red raspberry. J Am Soc Hort Sci 137:229–235Google Scholar
  37. Stephens MJ, Alspach PA, Beatson RA, Winefield C, Buck EJ (2012b) Genetic parameters and development of a selection index for breeding red raspberries for processing. J Am Soc Hort Sci 137:236–242Google Scholar
  38. Weber C (2013) Cultivar development and selection. In: Funt RC, Hall HK (eds) Raspberries. CABI Publisher, Oxford, pp 55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Xiao J, Li J, Yuan L, McCouch SR, Tanksley SD (1996) Genetic diversity and its relationship to hybrid performance and heterosis in rice as revealed by PCR based markers. Theor Appl Genet 92:637–643CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang Y, Kang MS (2003) DIALLEL-SAS: a program for Griffing’s diallel methods. In: Kang MS (ed) Handbook of formulas and software for plant geneticists and breeders. Food Products Press, New York, pp 1–19Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aurelio Hernández-Bautista
    • 1
  • Ricardo Lobato-Ortiz
    • 1
  • J. Jesús García-Zavala
    • 1
  • Mario Rocandio-Rodríguez
    • 2
  • José Apolinar Mejía-Contreras
    • 1
  • José Luis Chávez-Servia
    • 3
  • José Armando García-Velazquez
    • 1
  1. 1.Postgrado de Recursos Genéticos y Productividad-Genética, Colegio de Postgraduados-Campus MontecilloTexcocoMexico
  2. 2.Instituto de Ecología Aplicada, Universidad Autónoma de TamaulipasMéxicoMexico
  3. 3.Centro Interdisiplinario de Investigación para el desarrollo Integral Regional- Unidad Oaxaca, Instituto Politecnico NacionalSanta Cruz XoxocotlánMexico

Personalised recommendations