Advertisement

The Use of Selection Indices in Maize (Zea mays L.)

  • Mohammad Yousaf
Part of the Basic Life Sciences book series (BLSC, volume 8)

Abstract

Estimates of genetic variances for yield and its components—ear number, kernel rows, kernels per row, and kernel weight—and genetic covariances among them were computed for a synthetic population of maize, using 100 S5 lines randomly chosen out of a lot developed from the population with a minimum of selection. Selection indices for various combinations of yield and its components were then constructed using these estimates of phenotypic and genotypic variances and covariances, and the corresponding estimates of expected genetic advance for yield were compared with that for yield alone. An expected advance of 7% in yield was calculated by considering selection for yield itself. Selection for yield based on the index using all five characters was expected to be 13% more efficient than selection for yield alone. Selection based on the index using kernel rows and kernel weight was almost as efficient as selection for yield itself. However, when the expected genetic advance was computed for one location, this index was 8.3% more efficient. Selection based on any of the components considered alone was much less efficient than that based on yield itself. The actual gain realized for some of the indices involving yield and the various components considered alone was much less efficient than that based on yield itself. The actual gain realized for some of the indices involving yield and the various components compared favorably with the predicted genetic advance.

Keywords

Kernel Weight Selection Index Genetic Advance Maize Population Actual Gain 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cockerham, C. C. (1954). An extension of the concept of partitioning hereditary variance for analysis of covariance when epistasis is present. Genetics 39: 859–882.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Comstock, R. E. and Robinson, H. F. (1948). The components of genetic variance in populations. Biometrics 4: 254–266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Comstock, R. E. and Robinson, H. F. (1952). Estimation of average dominance of genes. Heterosis, pp. 494–516. Iowa State College Press, Ames, Ia.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gardner, C. O., Harvey, P. H., Comstock, R. E., and Robinson, H. F. (1953). Dominance of genes controlling quantitative characters in maize. Agron. J. 45: 186–191.Google Scholar
  6. Grafius, J. E. (1956). Components of yield in oats: A geometrical interpretation. Agron. J. 48: 419–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grafius, J. E. (1960). Does overdominance exist for yield in corn? Agron. J. 52: 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Homer, T. W. (1952). Non-allelic gene interactions and the interpretation of quantitative genetic data. Ph.D. dissertation. North Carolina State College Library.Google Scholar
  9. Homer, T. W., Comstock, R. E., and Robinson, H. F. (1955). Non-allelic gene interactions in the interpretation of quantitative genetic data. NC Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 118, 117 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, H. W., Robinson, H. F., and Comstock, R. E. (1955). Genotypic and phenotypic correlations in soybeans and their implications in selection. Agron. J. 47: 477–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kempthorne, O. (1957). An Introduction to Genetic Statistics, 545 pp. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Kuhn, W. E. and Stucker, R. E. (1973). Selection indices to improve yield and ears per plant in corn. In Agronomy Abstracts,American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  13. Manning, A. L. (1955). Response to selection for yield in cotton. Cold Spring Harbor. Symp. Quant. BioL 20: 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Miller, P. R., Williams, Jr., J. C., Robinson, H. F., and Comstock, R. E. (1958). Estimates of genotypic and environmental variances and covariances hi upland cotton and their implications in selection. Agron. J. 50: 126–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Robinson, H. F., Comstock, R. E., and Harvey, P. H. (1951). Genotypic and phenotypic correlations in corn and their implications in selection. Agron J. 43: 283–287.Google Scholar
  16. Robinson, H. F., Comstock, R. E. and Harvey, P. H. (1955). Genetic variances in open pollinated varieties of corn. Genetics 40: 46–60.Google Scholar
  17. Smith, H. F. (1936). A discriminant function for plant selection. Ann. Eug. 7: 240–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Subandi, Compton, W. A., and Empig, L. T. (1973). Comparison of the efficiencies of selection indices for three traits in two variety crosses of corn. Crop Sci. 13: 184–186.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Yousaf
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant Breeding and GeneticsUniversity of LyallpurLyallpurPakistan

Personalised recommendations