, Volume 122, Issue 3, pp 463–475

A comparison of formal and participatory breeding approaches using selection theory

  • G.N. Atlin
  • M. Cooper
  • Å Bjørnstad


Progress from plant breeding has been slow in some marginal environments. Conventional or formal plant breeding (FPB) programs conducted by international agricultural research centres or national programs in developing countries have been criticized for ignoring indigenous germplasm, failing to breed for conditions facing poor farmers, and emphasizing selection for broad versus local adaptation. A suite of techniques, referred to as participatory plant breeding (PPB) and including farmer-participatory or farmer-led selection, on-farm evaluation, and use of local landraces, has been advocated in response to this critique. PPB programs are diverse in scope and approach, but often rely heavily on farmer visual evaluation or phenotypic mass selection to select for simply-inherited traits, with limited replicated yield testing in multiple-environment trials (MET), one of the main tools of FPB. Prediction equations derived from selection theory can be used to examine the conditions under which idealized versions of FPB and PPB may be expected to achieve genetic progress for traits such as yield. The effectiveness of any selection environment is determined by both the genetic correlation between genotype performance in it and the target environment (rG) and the heritability of genotypic differences in the selection environment (Hs). r is a measure of the accuracy with which performance of genotypes in the selection environment predicts performance in the target environment; Hs is a measure of the precision with which performance differences among genotypes can be measured in the selection environment. We compare FPB and PPB with respect to these determinants of selection response, using examples from self-pollinated species. Particular areas examined include: (i) selection for broad versus specific adaptation; (ii) on-station versus on-farm selection; and (iii) selection under high-yield versus low-yield conditions. In general, PPB systems attempt to maximize gains through the use of on-farm evaluation and the skills of farmer-selectors to maximize rG. FPB exploits METs to maximize Hs. PPB is most likely to develop cultivars that out-perform the products of FPB when it is applied in low-yield cropping systems, because it is in such situations that rG between high-yield breeding nurseries and low-yield target environments is likely to be low or negative. To make continued gains, and to compete with internationally-supported FPB programs, PPB systems will need to counter the obscuring effects of uncontrollable within-field, site-to-site, and year-to-year heterogeneity. Simple and robust designs for on-farm METs are needed for this purpose.

genotype-environment interaction heritability marginal environments multiple-environment trials on-farm evaluation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Atlin, G.N. & K.B. McRae, 1994. Resource allocation in Maritime cereal cultivar trials. Can J Plant Sci 74: 501–505.Google Scholar
  2. Atlin, G.N. & K.J. Frey, 1989. Breeding crop varieties for low-input agriculture. Am J Alt Agric 4: 53–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atlin, G.N. & K.J. Frey, 1990. Selecting oat lines for yield in lowproductivity environments. Crop Sci 30: 556–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atlin, G.N., R.J. Baker, K.B. McRae & X. Lu, 2000. The effect of subdividing a target region on selection response. Crop Sci 40: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bänziger, M., F.J. Betrán & H.R. Lafitte, 1997. Efficiency of highnitrogen selection environments for improving maize for lownitrogen target environments. Crop Sci 37: 1103–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bänziger, M. & M. Cooper, 2001. Breeding for low-input conditions and consequences for participatory plant breeding-examples from maize and wheat. Euphytica, in press.Google Scholar
  7. Berg, T., 1996. Community Seed Bank Project in Tigray, Ethiopia. Report from a review mission October-November 1995. As, Norway: NORAGRIC, Centre for International Environment and Development Studies. Mimeo, 24 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Braun, H.-J., W.H. Pfeiffer & W.G. Pollmer, 1992. Environments for selecting widely adapted spring wheat. Crop Sci 32: 1420–1427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Byerlee, D. & T. Husain, 1993. Agricultural research strategies for favored and marginal area: the experience of farming systems research in Pakistan. Expl Agric 29: 155–171.Google Scholar
  10. Carlone, M.R. & W.A. Russell, 1987. Response to plant densities and nitrogen levels of four maize cultivars from different eras of breeding. Crop Sci 27: 465–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castleberry, R.M., C.W. Crum & C.F. Krull, 1984. Genetic yield improvement of U.S. Maize cultivars under varying fertility and climatic conditions. Crop Sci 24: 33–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ceccarelli, S., S. Grando & J. Hamblin, 1992. Relationship between barley grain yield measured in low-and high-yielding environments. Euphytica 94: 49–58.Google Scholar
  13. Ceccarelli, S., S. Grando & R.H. Booth, 1996. International breeding programmes and resource-poor farmers: crop improvement in difficult environments. In P. Eyzaguirre & M. Iwanaga (Eds.), Participatory Plant Breeding, pp. 99–116. Proc workshop on Participatory Plant Bbreeding, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 26–29 July 1995. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  14. Ceccarrelfi, S., S. Grando & Alfredo Impiglia, 1998. Choice of selection strategy in breeding barley for stress environments. Euphytica 103: 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper, M. & B. Somrith, 1997. Implications of genotype-byenviromnent interactions for yield adaptation of rainfed lowland rice: Influence of flowering date on yield variation. In: S. Fukai, M. Cooper & J. Salisbury (Eds.), Breeding Strategies for Rainfed Lowland Rice in Drought-prone Environments, pp. 104–114. Proc Int Workshop held at Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand, 5–8 November 1996. ACIAR Proceedings No. 77.Google Scholar
  16. Cooper, M., P.S. Brennan & J.A. Sheppard, 1996. A strategy for yield improvement of wheat which accommodates large genotype by environment interactions. In: M. Cooper & G.L. Hammer (Eds.), Plant Adaptation and Crop Improvement, pp. 487–511, CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
  17. Cooper, M., S. Fukai & L.J. Wade, 1999a. How can breeding contribute to more productive and sustainable rained lowland rice systems? Field Crops Res 64: 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cooper, M., S. Rajatasereekul, S. Immark, S. Fukai & J. Basnayake, 1999b. Rainfed lowland rice breeding strategies for northeast Thailand. I. Genotypic variation and genotype x environment interactions for grain yield. Field Crops Res 64: 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cullis, B.R., F.M. Thomson, J.A. Fisher, A.R. Gilmour & R. Thompson, 1996. The analysis of the NSW wheat variety database. II. Variance component estimation. Theor Appl Genet 92: 28–39.Google Scholar
  20. Falconer, D.S., 1989. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 3rd ed. Longman, London.Google Scholar
  21. Fukai, S. & M. Cooper, 1999. Plant breeding strategies for rainfed lowland rice in northeast Thailand. In: T. Horie, S. Geng, T. Amano, T. Inamura & T. Shiraiwa (Eds.), Proc Int Symp World Food Security and Crop Prod Techn for Tomorrow, 8–9 October, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 153–156.Google Scholar
  22. Hallauer, A.R. & T.S. Colvin, 1985. Corn hybrids response to four methods of tillage. Agron J 77: 547–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holland, J., A. Bjørnstad, M. Gullord, D.M. Wesenberg & T. Buras, 2000. Recurrent selection in oat for adaptation to diverse environments. Euphytica, in press.Google Scholar
  24. Joshi, A. & J.R. Witcombe, 1996. Farmer participatory crop improvement. II. Participatory varietal selection, a case study in India. Expl Agric 32: 461–477.Google Scholar
  25. Kornegay, J., J.A. Beltran & J. Ashby, 1996. Fanner selections within segregating populations of common bean in Colombia. In: P. Eyzaguirre & M. Iwanaga (Eds.), Participatory Plant Breeding, pp. 151–159. Proc Workshop on Participatory Plant Breeding, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 26–29 July 1995. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  26. Lafitte, H.R. & G.O. Edmeades, 1994. Improvement for tolerance to low soil nitrogen in tropical maize I. Selection criteria. Field Crops Res 39: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maurya, D.M., A. Bottrall & J. Farrington, 1988. Improved livelihoods, genetic diversity, and farmer participation: a strategy for rice breeding in rainfed areas of India. Expl Agric 24: 211–320.Google Scholar
  28. Nesbitt, H.J. & C. Phaloeun, 1997. Rice-based fanning systems. In: H.J. Nesbitt (Ed.), Rice Production in Cambodia, pp. 31–37. Manila (Philippines): International Rice Research Institute.Google Scholar
  29. Pederson, D.G. & A.J. Rathjen, 1981. Choosing trial sites to maximize selection response for grain yield in spring wheat. Aust J Agric Res 32: 411–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peterson & Pfeiffer, 1989. International winter wheat evaluation: relationships among test sites based on cultivar performance. Crop Sci 29: 276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Podlich, D.W., M. Cooper & K.E. Basford, 1999. Computer simulation of a selection strategy to accommo4ate genotypeenvironment interactions in a wheat recurrent selection programme. Plant Breed 118: 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sthapit, B.R., K.D. Joshi & J.R. Witcombe, 1996. Farmer participatory crop improvement. In: Participatory Plant Breeding, A Case Study for Rice in Nepal. Expl Agric 32: 479–496.Google Scholar
  33. Talbot, M., 1984. Yield variability of crop varieties in the UK. J Agric Sci (Camb.) 102: 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tollenaar, M., A. Aguilera & S.N. Nissanka, 1997. Grain yield is reduced more by weed interference in an old than in a new maize hybrid. Agron J 89: 239–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ud-Din, N., B.F. Carver & A.C. Clutter, 1992. Genetic analysis and selection for wheat yield in drought-stressed and irrigated environments. Euphytica 62: 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wade, L.J., S. Fukai, B.K. Samson, A. Ali & M.A. Mazid, 1999. Rainfed lowland rice: Physical environment and cultivar requirements. Field Crops Res 64: 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Witcombe, J.R., A. Joshi, K.D. Joshi & B.R. Sthaphit, 1996. Farmer participatory crop improvement. I. Varietal seletion and breeding methods and their impact on biodiversity. Expl Agric 32: 445–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • G.N. Atlin
    • 1
  • M. Cooper
    • 2
  • Å Bjørnstad
    • 3
  1. 1.International Rice Research InstituteMetro ManilaPhilippines
  2. 2.Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.JohnstonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Horticulture and Crop SciencesAgricultural University of NorwayNorway

Personalised recommendations