Advertisement

Breeding Methods in Cross-Pollinated Species

  • Ulrich K. Posselt
Chapter
Part of the Handbook of Plant Breeding book series (HBPB, volume 5)

Abstract

In the introduction an overview of the reproduction and mating systems is presented. The major part of the chapter is dedicated to the breeding of population varieties (OPVs and Synthetics). This section is structured into the three phases of operational breeding. In the first step the creation of the base population including ways to broaden the genetic basis is described. The second part covers the various types of phenotypic and genotypic selection procedures for intrapopulation improvement. The pro and cons of half-sib, full-sib and S1-family selection systems are discussed, and compared for their merits in recurrent selection. In the third part of this section the creation of OPVs and Synthetics is described. The theory and prediction of Synthetic varieties is explained and working examples given. In section three hybrid breeding is dealt with. The concept of heterosis and the identifica-tion of heterotic patternis is briefly described. Several variants like cms- or SI- based, or semi-hybrids are dealt with.

A special section deals with the breeding of autotetraploids with respect to inbreeding, selection, Synthetics and hybrid breeding.

In the final section the application of molecular and biotechnological tools with respect to breeding methodology is reviewed.

Keywords

Double Haploid General Combine Ability Perennial Ryegrass Inbreeding Depression Recurrent Selection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to Prof. Dr. H.H. Geiger for critical reading of this chapter and his valuable comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Aastveit, A.H. and Aastveit, K. 1990. Theory and application of open-pollination and polycross in forage grass breeding. Theor. Appl. Genet. 79:618–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allard, R.W. 1960. Principles of plant breeding. Wiley NY, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Baenziger, P.S., Russel, W.K., Graef, G.L. and Campbell, B.T. 2006. Improving Lives: 50 years of crop breeding, genetics, and cytology. Crop Sci. 46:2230–2244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, H.C. 1988. Breeding synthetic varieties of crop plants. Plant Genet. Breed. Rev. 1:31–54.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, H.C. 1993. Pflanzenzüchtung. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
  6. Bernardo, R. 2002. Breeding for quantitative traits in plants. Stemma press, Woodburry MN.Google Scholar
  7. Bernardo, R. and Yu, J. 2007. Prospects of genome-wide selection for quantitative traits in maize. Crop Sci. 47:1082–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bertling, U. 1993. Intraspecific competition in chance-hybrids of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.). PhD Thesis, Göttingen (in German).Google Scholar
  9. Bingham, E.T. 1980. Maximizing heterozygosity in autotetraploids. In: W.H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: biological relevance. Plenum, NY, USA, pp. 471–489.Google Scholar
  10. Bolaric, S., Barth, S., Melchinger, A.E. and Posselt, U.K. 2005. Molecular genetic diversity within and among German ecotypes in comparison to European perennial ryegrass cultivars. Plant Breed. 124:257–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boller, B., Schubiger, F.X. and Tanner, P. 2001. Larus a new tetraploid redclover cultivar of the persistent ‘Mattenklee’ type (in German, original title: Larus, eine neue tetraploide Mattenkleesorte). Agrarforschung 8:258–263.Google Scholar
  12. Breese, E.L. 1969. The measurement and significance of genotype-environment interactions in grasses. Heredity 24:27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Breese, E.L. and Hayward, M.D. 1972. The genetic basis of present breeding methods in forage crops. Euphytica 21:324–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brummer, E.C. 1999. Capturing heterosis in forage crop cultivar development. Crop Sci. 39:943–954.Google Scholar
  15. Burton, G.W. 1948. The performance of various mixtures of hybrid and parent inbred pearl millet, Pennisetum glaucum L. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 40:908–915.Google Scholar
  16. Burton, G.W. 1974. Recurrent restricted phenotypic selection increases forage yields of Pensacola bahiagrass. Crop Sci. 14:831–835.Google Scholar
  17. Busbice, T.H. 1969. In: Breeding in synthetic varieties. Crop Sci. 9:601–604.Google Scholar
  18. Busbice, T.H. 1970. Predicting yield of synthetic varieties. Crop Sci. 10:265–269.Google Scholar
  19. Casler, M.D., Pedersen, J.F., Eizenga, G.C. and Stratton, S.D. 1996. Germplasm and cultivar development. In: L.E. Moser, D.R. Buxton, and M.D. Casler (eds.) Cool season forage grasses. Agron Monogr 34, ASA, CSSA and SSSA, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Casler, M.D. and Brummer, E.C. 2008. Theoretical expected genetic gains for among-and-within-family selection methods in perennial forage crops. Crop Sci. 48:890–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Charles, A.H. 1966. Variation in grass and clover populations in response to agronomic selection pressure. Proc. 10th Int. Grassl. Congr. 626–629.Google Scholar
  22. Charmet, G. and Debote, B. 1995. Breeding value of base populations derived from ‘contiguous’ clusters in perennial ryegrass. Plant Breed. 114:235–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Charmet, G. and Grand-Ravel, C. 1991. Expected response to selection in Synthetic populations of perennial ryegrass. Plant Breed. 107:148–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Christie, B.R. 1970. Performance of hybrids in orchardgrass. Can. J. Plant Sci. 53:783–789.Google Scholar
  25. Christie, B.R. and Krakar, P.J. 1980. Performance of advanced generation hybrids of orchardgrass. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:479–483.Google Scholar
  26. Cooper, M., Smith, O.S., Graham, G., Arthur, L., Feng, L. and Podlich, D.W. 2004. Genomics, genetics, and plant breeding: a private sector perspective. Crop Sci. 44:1907–1913.Google Scholar
  27. Cornish, M.A., Hayward, M.D. and Lawrence, M.J. 1979. Self-incompatibility in ryegrass. I. Genetic control in diploid Lolium perenne L. Heredity 43:95–106.Google Scholar
  28. Crow, J.F. and Kimura, M. 1970. An Introduction to population genetics theory. Harper and Row NY, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Dudley, J.W., Busbice, T.H. and Levings, C.S. 1969. Estimates of genetic variances in ‘Cherokee’ alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Crop Sci. 9:228–231.Google Scholar
  30. Easton, H.S. 1976. Etude comparative d’effets genetiques chez des plantes diploides et tetraploides isogeniques de Festuca pratensis. These Fac. Sci. Orsay.Google Scholar
  31. Eickmeyer, F. 1994. Development of molecular markers and investigation of SI-hybrids in Lolium spp. Ph D thesis, Hannover (in German).Google Scholar
  32. England, F.J.W. 1974. The use of incompatibility for the production of F1 hybrids in forage grasses. Heredity 32:183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. England, F. 1977. Response to family selection based on replicated trials. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 88:127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Evans, L.T. 1964. Reproduction. In: C. Barnard (ed.) Grasses and grasslands. MacMillan, London, UK.Google Scholar
  35. Falcinelli, M. 1991. Backcross breeding to increase seed retention in cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata L.). Euphytica 56:133–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Falconer, D.S. 1989. Introduction to quantitative genetics (3rd ed.). Longman, UK.Google Scholar
  37. Falconer, D.S. and Mackay, T.F.C. 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman, Essex, England.Google Scholar
  38. Fehr, W.R. 1987. Principles of cultivar development. Macmillan, NY.Google Scholar
  39. Foster, C.A. 1971. Interpopulational and intervarietal hybridisation in Lolium perenne breeding, heterosis under noncompetitive conditions. J. Agric. Sci. 76:107–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Foster, C.A. 1973. Interpopulational and intervarietal F1-hybrids in Lolium perenne: performance in field sward conditions. J. Agric. Sci. 78:463–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Frandsen, H.N. 1940. Some breeding experiments with timothy. Imp. Bur. Joint Publ. 3:80–92.Google Scholar
  42. Frandsen, K.J., Honne, B.I. and Julen, G. 1978. Studies on the topcross method I. General introduction and results of diallel crosses with meadow fescue clones (Festuca pratensis). Acta Agric. Scand. 28:237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Frey, K.J. 1983. Plant population management and breeding. In: D.R. Wood (ed.) Crop breeding. ASA and CSSA, Madison WI, USA.Google Scholar
  44. Frisch, M. and Melchinger, A.E. 2001. Marker assisted backcrossing for simultaneous introgression of two genes. Crop Sci. 41:1716–1725.Google Scholar
  45. Fryxell, P.A. 1957. Mode of reproduction of higher plants. Bot. Rev. 23:135–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gallais, A. 1974. Selection among synthetics. TAG 44:24–30.Google Scholar
  47. Gallais, A. 1975. Prevision de la vigueur et sélection des parents d’une variété synthetique. (Prediction of the performance and selection of parents of a synthetic) Ann. Amelior. Plantes. 25:51–64.Google Scholar
  48. Gallais, A. 1976. Development and application of prediction formulae for synthetics. Ann. Amelior. Plantes. 26:623–628.Google Scholar
  49. Gallais, A. 1977. Amelioration des populations, methodes de selection et creation de variete. Ann. Amelior. Plantes. 27:281–329.Google Scholar
  50. Gallais, A. 1981. Quantitative genetics and breeding theory of autopolyploids. In: A. Gallais (ed.) Quantitative genetics and breeding methods. INRA, Versaille France, pp. 189–216.Google Scholar
  51. Gallais, A. 1990. Theorie de la selection en amelioration des plantes. Masson, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  52. Gallais, A. 2003. Quantitative genetics and breeding methods in autopolyploid plants. INRA, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  53. Gallais, A. and Bannerot, H. 1992. Amelioration des especes vegetales cultivees. INRA, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  54. Gardner, C.O. 1961. An evaluation of effects of mass selection and seed irradiation with thermal neutrons on yield of corn. Crop Sci. 1:241–245.Google Scholar
  55. Gaue, I., Luesink, W., Wolters, L., Dolstra, O. and Frauen, M. 2003. Performance of F1-hybrids in Lolium perenne under different nitrogen regimes. Vortr Pflanzenzüchtg 59:116–120.Google Scholar
  56. Geiger, H.H. 1982. Breeding methods in diploid rye (Secale cereale L.). In: Tag.-Ber., Akad. Landw.-Wiss. DDR, Berlin 198:305–332.Google Scholar
  57. Geiger, H.H. and Miedaner, T. 2009. Rye (Secale cereale L.). In: M.J. Carena (ed.) Cereals. Handbook of plant breeding (Vol. 3) Springer, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  58. Gilmore, E.C. 1969. Effect of inbreeding of parental lines on predicted yields of synthetics. Crop Sci. 9:102–104.Google Scholar
  59. Gordillo, G.A. and Geiger, H.H. 2008. Alternative recurrent selection strategies using doubled haploid lines in hybrid maize breeding. Crop Sci. 48:911–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Grundler, T. 1984. Effects of number of components and generations on uniformity and genetic stability of synthetic varieties of forage grasses. Proc. 12th Eucarpia Fodder Crops Sect Meet, Sept 17–20, Freising, Germany, pp. 230–236.Google Scholar
  61. Hallauer, A.R. and Miranda, J.B. 1981. Quantitative genetics in maize breeding. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
  62. Hanson, A.A. 1972. Breeding of grasses. In: V.B. Youngner and C.M. McKell (eds.) The biology and utilization of grasses. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  63. Humphreys, M.W. and Thomas, H. 1993. Improved drought resistance in introgression lines from Lolium multiflorum x Festuca arundinacea hybrids. Plant Breed. 111:155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Johnston, D.T. and MacAneney, D.M.P. 1994. Breeding for improved dry matter digestibility in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea). In: Proceedings 19th fodder crops section meeting, Brugge, Belgium, 5–8 Oct 1994, pp. 213–219.Google Scholar
  65. Kidwell, K.K., Bingham, E.T., Woodfield, D.R. and Osborn, T.C. 1994. Molecular marker diversity and yield of isogenic 2× and 4× single crosses of alfalfa. Crop Sci. 34:784–788.Google Scholar
  66. Kidwell, K.K., Hartweck, L.M., Yandell, B.S., Crump, P.M., Brummer, J.E., Moutray, J. and Osborn, T.C. 1999. Forage yields of alfalfa populations derived from parents selected on the basis of molecular marker diversity. Crop Sci. 39:223–227.Google Scholar
  67. Kobabe, G. 1983. Heterosis and hybrid seed production in fodder grass. In: R. Frankel, (ed.) Monographs on theoretical and applied genetics (Vol. 6). Heterosis, Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  68. Kölliker, R., Boller, B. and Widmer, F. 2005. Marker assisted polycross breeding to increase diversity and yield in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) Euphytica 146:55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lamkey, K.R. and Edwards, J.W. 1999. Quantitative genetics of heterosis. In: The genetics and exploitation of heterosis in crops. ASA-CSSA-SSSA.Google Scholar
  70. Lübberstedt, T. 2005. Objectives and benefits of molecular breeding in forage species. In: M.O. Humphreys (ed.) Molecular breeding for the genetic improvement of forage crops and turf. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, NL, pp. 19–30.Google Scholar
  71. Lundquistm, A. 1956. Self-incompatibility in rye. I. Genetic control in the diploid. Hereditas 42:293–348.Google Scholar
  72. Lush, J.L. 1945. Animal breeding plans. Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar
  73. Mansat, P., Picard, J. and Berthau, F. 1966. Value of selection on diploid level before tetraploidization. Proc Xth Int Grassl Congr, Helsinki, Sect 3, 16:671–676.Google Scholar
  74. Matzk, F., Oertel, C., Altenhofer, P. and Schubert, I. 1997. Manipulation of reproductive systems in Poaceae to increase the efficiency in crop breeding and production. Trends Agron. 1:19–34.Google Scholar
  75. Melchinger, A.E. 1999. Genetic diversity and heterosis. In: The genetics and exploitation of heterosis in crops. ASA-CSSA-SSSA.Google Scholar
  76. Melchinger, A.E. and Gumber, R.K. 1998. Overview of heterosis and heterotic groups in agronomic crops. In: Concepts and breeding of heterosis in crop plants. CSSA Special Publication no. 25.Google Scholar
  77. Moll, R.H., Lonnquist, J.H., Fortuno, J.V. and Johnson, E.C. 1965. The relationship of heterosis and genetic divergence in maize. Genetics 52:139–144.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Morgan, J.P. 1988. Polycross designs with complete neighbor balance. Euphytica 39:59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Myhre, A. and Rognli, O.A. 1990. Non-random mating in polycrosses of Festuca pratensis in different environments. Proc 16th Eucarpia Fodder Crops Sect Meet, Nov 18–22, Wageningen, NL, pp. 195–196.Google Scholar
  80. Nguyen, H.T. and Sleper, D.A. 1983. Theory and application of half-sib matings in forage grass breeding. Theor. Appl. Genet. 64:187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Oertel, C. and Matzk, F. 1999. Introgression of crown rust resistance from Festuca spp. into Lolium multiflorum. Plant Breed. 118:491–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Peter-Schmid, M.K.I., Boller, B. and Kölliker, R. 2008. Habitat and management affect genetic structure of Festuca pratensis but not Lolium multiflorum ecotype populations. Plant Breed. 127:510–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Poehlman, J.M. 1979. Breeding field crops (2nd ed.). AVI, Westport, CT.Google Scholar
  84. Posselt, U.K. 1982. The degree of self-fertility in Lolium perenne populations. In: Proceedings of 11th Fodder Crops Section Meeting, Sept. 1982, Aberystwyth, UK, pp. 13–16.Google Scholar
  85. Posselt, U.K. 1984a. Application of the concept of gva for synthetic prediction. Proc 12th Eucarpia Fodder Crops Sect Meet, Sept 17–20, Freising, Germany, pp. 164–174.Google Scholar
  86. Posselt, U.K. 1984b. Hybrid breeding in Lolium perenne L. In: Vorträge Pflanzenzüchtung 5: 87–100 (in German).Google Scholar
  87. Posselt, U.K. 1989a. Comparison of progeny-testing methods in Lolium perenne L. I. Polycross vs. Topcross progenies using cms-tester lines. Plant Breed. 103:149–152.Google Scholar
  88. Posselt, U.K. 1989b. Comparison of progeny-testing methods in Lolium perenne L. II. S1 per se vs. testcross progenies. Plant Breed. 103:177–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Posselt, U.K. 1993. Hybrid production in Lolium perenne based on incompatibility. Euphytica 71:29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Posselt, U.K. 2000. Constraints in the selection of parents for synthetic cultivars. In: Proceedings of 23rd fodder crops and amenity grasses section meeting of Eucarpia, Oct 2000, Azores, Portugal, pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
  91. Posselt, U.K. 2003a. Recombination and progeny testing in recurrent selection. Vortr Pflanzenzüchtg 59:110–115.Google Scholar
  92. Posselt, U.K. 2003b. Heterosis in grasses. Czech J. Genet. Plant. Breed. 39:48–53.Google Scholar
  93. Posselt, U.K. 2005. Genetic diversity and heterosis in perennial ryegrass. In: M.O. Humphreys (ed.) Molecular breeding for the genetic improvement of forage crops and turf. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, NL, p. 272.Google Scholar
  94. Ravel, C., Charmet, G., Balfourier, F., Debote, B., Vezine, J.C. and Astier, C. 1995. Comparison of predicted and observed response to selection in two breeding populations of perennial ryegrass. Plant Breed. 114:262–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Real, D., Gordon, I.L. and Hodgson, J. 2000. Genetic advance estimated for red clover (Trifolium pratense) grown under spaced plant and sward conditions. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 135: 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Reheul, D. 1987. The optimal number of components in synthetic varieties of grasses. Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent. 52:65–72.Google Scholar
  97. Reheul, D., Baert, J., Ghesquiere, A., Waters, B., Humphreys, M., Van Wijk, A.J.P., Scheller, H. and Röβl, L. 2003. Progress in breeding perennial fodder grasses. 2. Differences between syn-1 and syn-2 varieties of Lolium perenne L. Czech J. Genet. Plant Breed. 39:57–63.Google Scholar
  98. Rotili, P. and Zannone, L. 1974. General and specific combining ability in lucerne at different levels of inbreeding and performance of second generation synthetics measured in competitive conditions. Euphytica 23:569–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Röber, F.K., Gordillo, G.A. and Geiger, H.H. 2005. In vivo haploid induction in maize - performance of new inducers and significance of doubled haploid lines in hybrid breeding. Maydica 50:275–284.Google Scholar
  100. Ruge, B., Linz, A., Gaue, I., Baudis, H., Leckband, G. and Wehling, P. 2003. Molecular characterization of cytoplasmic male sterility in Lolium perenne. Vortr. Pflanzenzüchtg. 59:121–127.Google Scholar
  101. Schipprack, W. 1993. Estimation of population parameters and optimization of alternative procedures of recurrent selection in pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.)R.Br.) Ph D Thesis. University of Hohenheim.Google Scholar
  102. Simon, U. 1994. ‘Alko’ the first seed-shattering resistant cultivar of meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis L. Acta Hort (ISHS) 355:143–146.Google Scholar
  103. Simonsen, O. 1976. Genetic variation in diploid and autotetraploid populations of Lolium perenne L. Hereditas 84:133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Simonsen, O. 1977. Genetic variation in diploid and autotetraploid populations of Festuca pratensis. Hereditas 85:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Singh, R.K., Geiger, H.H., Diener, C. and Morgenstern, K. 1984. Effect of number of parents and synthetic generation on the performance of self incompatible and self fertile rye populations. Crop Sci. 24:306–309.Google Scholar
  106. Skøt, L., Humphreys, J., Armstead, I.P., Humphreys, M.O., Gallagher, J.A. and Thomas, I.D. 2005. Approaches for associating molecular polymorphisms with phenotypic traits based on linkage disequilibrium in natural populations of Lolium perenne. In: M.O. Humphreys (ed.) Molecular breeding for the genetic improvement of forage crops and turf. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, NL, p. 157.Google Scholar
  107. Sleper, D.A. and Poehlman, J.M. 2006. Breeding field crops (5th ed.). Blackwell, Ames, Iowa, USA.Google Scholar
  108. Smith, K.F., Forster, J.W., Dobrowolski, M.P., Cogan, N.O.I., Bannan, N.R., van Zijll de, J.E., Emmerling, M. and Spangenberg, G.C. 2005. Application of molecular technologies in forage plant breeding. In: M.O. Humphreys (ed.) Molecular breeding for the genetic improvement of forage crops and turf. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, NL, pp. 63–72.Google Scholar
  109. Schnell, F.W. 1982. A synoptic study of the methods and categories of plant breeding. Z. Pflanzenzüchtg. 89:1–18.Google Scholar
  110. Thomas, H. and Humphreys, M.O. 1991. Progress and potential of interspecific hybrids of Lolium and Festuca. J. Agric. Sci. (Cambridge) 117:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Thorogood, D. 1996. Varietal colour of Lolium perenne L. turfgrass and its interaction with environmental conditions. Plant Varieties and Seed 9:15–20.Google Scholar
  112. Tysdal, H.M., Kiesselbach, T.A. and Westover, H.L. 1942. Alfalfa breeding. Coll. Agric. Univ. Nebraska Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 124:1–46.Google Scholar
  113. Utz, H.F. and Oettler, G. 1978. Performance of inbred lines and their top crosses in perennial ryegrass. Z. Pflanzenzüchtung. 80:223–229.Google Scholar
  114. Vencovsky, R. and Godoi, C.R.M. 1976. Immediate response and probability of fixation of favorable alleles in some selection schemes. Proc Int Biom Conf, Boston, MA, pp. 292–297.Google Scholar
  115. Vincourt, P. 1981. Experimental study of synthetic varieties in advanced generations. In: A. Gallais (ed.) Quantitative genetics and breeding methods. INRA, Versaille, France, pp. 159–167.Google Scholar
  116. Vogel, K.P. and Pedersen, J.F. 1993. Breeding systems for cross-pollinated perennial grasses. Plant Breed. Rev. 11:251–273.Google Scholar
  117. Wellensiek, S.J. 1947. Rational methods in breeding cross-fertilizers. Medelingen Landbouwhogeschool 48:227–262.Google Scholar
  118. Wilkins, P.W. 1985. Breeding for dry matter yield in perennial ryegrass by wide hybridisation and recurrent selection. Proc 13th Eucarpia Fodder Crops Sect Meet, Svalöv, Sweden, Sept 16–19, pp. 25–30.Google Scholar
  119. Wilkins, P.W. 1991. Breeding perennial ryegrass for agriculture. Euphytica 52:201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Wilkins, P.W. and Thorogood, D. 1992. Breakdown of self-incompatibility in perennial ryegrass at high temperature and its uses in breeding. Euphytica 64:65–69.Google Scholar
  121. Wricke, G. and Weber, W.E. 1986. Quantitative genetics and selection in plant breeding. W de Gruyter, Berlin, NY.Google Scholar
  122. Wright, C.E. 1962. A systematic polycross design (Vol. 11, Part 1). Res and Exp Rec Min Agric, North Ireland.Google Scholar
  123. Wright, C.E. 1965. Field plans for a systematically designed polycross (Vol 14, Part 1). Rec of Agric Research, Min Agric, North Ireland.Google Scholar
  124. Wright, A.J. 1974. A genetic theory of general varietal ability for diploid crops. Theor. Appl. Gen. 45:163–169.Google Scholar
  125. Wright, A.J. 1980. The expected efficiencies of half-sib, testcross and S1 progeny testing methods in single population improvement. Heredity 45:361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Wright, A.J. 1981. The quantitative genetics of diploid synthetic varieties. In: A Gallais (ed.) Quantitative genetics and breeding methods. INRA, Versaille, France, pp. 137–157.Google Scholar
  127. Wright, S. 1922. The effects of inbreeding and crossbreeding on guinea pigs. US Dept. Agric. Bull. 1121.Google Scholar
  128. Yadav, R.S., Roderick, H.W., Lovatt, J.A., Skot, L. and Wilkins, P.W. 2003. Marker assisted breeding to enhance forage quality in ryegrass varieties. Aspects of Appl. Biol. 70:183–186.Google Scholar
  129. Yamada, T., Guo, Y.D. and Mizukami, Y. 2005. Introgression breeding for improvement of winter hardiness in Lolium/Festuca complex using andogenesis. In: M.O. Humphreys (ed.) Molecular breeding for the genetic improvement of forage crops and turf. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, NL, p. 115.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Plant Breeding InstituteUniversity of HohenheimStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations