Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 316–326 | Cite as

Over Locations and Years Performance of Material Selected in One Location Under High Inputs at Low Plant Density from a Spring Rye Population

  • I. N. XyniasEmail author
  • D. G. Roupakias


Three spring rye mixtures, produced after honeycomb selection at low plant density for four years in one high input location (Thessaloniki) and their original population were evaluated under different water stress conditions in a randomized complete block design, in two locations for two years. Soil type (fertility, soil water holding capacity) and water precipitation, especially during anthesis, were different in each location and year. The initial evaluation of the three mixtures in Thessaloniki (1995), where selection was applied, revealed that selection for yield at low plant density was effective. The performance of the mixtures, however, was different when the plants were evaluated in a second location, in the same year where no response to selection was observed. During the second year of evaluation, the water precipitation was different in Thessaloniki where there was no rain at all in May, the most crucial month for rye flowering in Hellas. This lack of rainfall affected negatively the behaviour of the mixtures. Thus, the original rye population characterized by a broader variability out yielded two of the mixtures in Thessaloniki, whereas no differences were recorded in the second location. The over years and locations performance also revealed no differences. This indicates that selection at low plant density and high selection pressure in one high input-location had as a result either the development of rye populations with narrow adaptability or that honeycomb selection was not effective in this case.


response to selection spring rye inbreeding depression 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Batzios, D.P., Roupakias, D.G., Kechagia, U., Galanopoulou-Sendouca, S. 2001. Comparative efficiency of honeycomb and conventional pedigree methods of selection for yield and fiber quality in cotton (Gossypium spp). Euphytica 122:203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blum, A., Pnuel, Y. 1990. Physiological attributes associated with drought resistance of wheat cultivars in a Mediterranean environment. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 41:799–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bos, I., van Boxtel, J.H.J. 1990. A comparison of several procedures for mass selection in winter rye. I. The relative quality of the procedures. Euphytica 48:9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bussemakers, A., Bos, I. 1999. The effect of interplant distance on the effectiveness of honeycomb selection in spring rye. III. Accumulated results of five selection cycles. Euphytica 105:229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ceccarelli, S. 1989. Wide adaptation: How wide? Euphytica 40:197–205.Google Scholar
  6. Ceccarelli, S., Nachit, M.M., Ferrara, G.O., Mekni, M.S., Tahir, M.J., Van Leur, J., Srivastava, J.P. 1987. Breeding strategies for improving cereal yield and stability under drought. In: Srivastava, J.P., Porceddu, E., Acevedo, E., Varma, S. (eds), Drought Tolerance in Winter Cereals. John Wiley and Sons, Somerset, NJ, pp. 101–114.Google Scholar
  7. Fasoulas, A.C. 1973. A New Approach to Breeding Superior Yielding Varieties. Pub. No 3. Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
  8. Fasoulas, A.C. 1988. The Honeycomb Methodology of Plant Breeding. Published by A. C. Fasoulas. Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
  9. Fasoulas, A.C. 1993. Principles of Crop Breeding. Published by A. C. Fasoulas. Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
  10. Fasoulas, A.C., Fasoula, V.A. 1995. Honeycomb selection designs. In: Janick, J. (ed.), Plant Breeding Reviews. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA, 13:87–139.Google Scholar
  11. Fehr, W.R. 1987. Principles of Cultivar Development. Vol. I. Theory and Techniques. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Gill, J.S., Verma, M.M., Gumber, R.K. 1995. Comparative efficiency of four selection methods for deriving high-yielding lines in mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek]. Theor. Appl. Genet. 90:554–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gulli, M., Maestri, E., Malatrasi, M., Marmiroli, N. 1997. Molecular tools for isolation and characterization of drought responsive genes in cereals In: Jevtic, S., Pekic, S. (eds), Proceedings: Drought and Plant Production. ARI “Serbia”, Belgrade, pp. 61–70.Google Scholar
  14. Haussmann, B.I.G., Obilana, A.B., Ayiecho, P.O., Blum, A., Schipprack, W., Geiger, H.H. 2000. Yield and yield stability of four population types of grain sorghum in a semi-arid area of Kenya. Crop Sci. 40:319–329.Google Scholar
  15. Kulkarni, R.N. 1991. Three cycles of honeycomb selection for herb yield in davana (Artemisia pallens Wall.). Euphytica 52:99–102.Google Scholar
  16. Kyriakou, D.T., Fasoulas, A.C. 1985. Effects of competition and selection pressure on yield response in winter rye (Secale cereale L.). Euphytica 34:883–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lungu, D.M., Kaltsikes, P.J., Larter, E.N. 1987. Honeycomb selection for yield in early generations of spring wheat. Euphytica 35:831–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McIntosh, M.S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Crop Sci. 75:153–155.Google Scholar
  19. Ntanos, D.A., Roupakias, D.G. 2001. Comparative efficiency of two breeding methods for yield and quality in rice. Crop Sci. 41:345–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Onenanyoli, A.H.A., Fasoulas, A.C. 1989. Yield response to honeycomb selection in maize. Euphytica 40:43–48.Google Scholar
  21. Quisenberry, J.E., Roark, B., Fryear, D.W., Kohel, R.J. 1980. Effectiveness of selection in upland cotton in stress environments. Crop Sci. 20:450–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pfeiffer, W.H, Braun, H.J. 1989. Yield stability in bread wheat. In: Anderson, J.R., Hazell, P.B.R. (eds), Variability of Grain Yields. Implications for Agricultural Research and Policy in Developing Countries. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA, pp. 157–174.Google Scholar
  23. Romagosa, I., Fox, P.N. 1994. Genotype × Environment interaction and adaptation. In: Hayward, M.D., Bosemark, N.O., Romagosa, I. (eds), Plant Breeding: Principles and Prospects. Chapman & Hall, London, UK, pp. 373–390.Google Scholar
  24. Roupakias, D.G., Zesopoulou, A., Kazolea, S., Daskalitses, G., Mavromatis, A., Lazaridou, T. 1997. Effectiveness of early generation selection under two plant densities in faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Euphytica 93:63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Simmonds, N.W. 1981. Principles of Crop Improvement. Longman, London and New York.Google Scholar
  26. Steel, R.G., Torrie, J.H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Tokaltidis, I.S., Xynias, I.N., Tsialtas, J.T., Papadopoulos, I.I. 2006. Single-plant selection at ultra-low density to improve stability of a bread wheat cultivar. Crop Sci. 46:90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Whitehead, W.F., Allen, F.L. 1990. High vs. low stress yield test environments for selecting superior soybean lines. Crop Sci. 30:912–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Xynias, I.N., Roupakias, D.G. 1996. Effectiveness of honeycomb selection in successive generations in rye (S. cereale L.). Vortr. Pflanzenzuchtung 35:82–83.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2013

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NAGREF-Cereal InstituteThermi, ThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Lab. of Genetics and Plant BreedingAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations