Advertisement

Characterization of Varieties for Performance Related Aspects

Chapter
Part of the Developments in Plant Breeding book series (DIPB, volume 9)

Abstract

Crop physiological knowledge as embedded in computer simulation models of crop growth and development provides a theoretical framework that can be used to analyze information from multi-environment trials (METs). Their use could thus help overcome some of the difficulties associated with conventional approaches to the analyses of MET data. Here, the ‘Cropsim’ model was used to analyze the results from a multi-year study with a historic set of Cimmyt wheat cultivars. The results show that a model in which early development is split into three phases with different photoperiod sensitivity characteristics for each phase accounted well for the differences in anthesis date among recent cultivars, but not for differences among the older materials. The analysis also showed that apparent radiation use efficiency and grain set varied among years and cultivars, and that differences could not be resolved into a number of environmentally invariant characteristics. The current model thus does not incorporate all characteristics that are important for adaptation and high productivity in particular regions. The results show, however, that even now, there are opportunities to use computer simulation of crop growth to help analyze data and so impact on current crop improvement strategies.

Keywords

Crop Modelling Genotype x Environment Interaction Performance Breeding Data Analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aggarwal, P.K., M.J. Kropf, R.B. Matthews and C.G. McLaren. 1996. Using simulation models to design new plant types and to analyze genotype by environment interactions in rice. In Plant adaptation and crop improvement. M. Cooper and G.L. Hammer (Eds.), CAB International, Wallingford, UK. pp. 403–418.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, J.C. and T.B. Daynard. 1976. Effect of photoperiod on development and number of spikelets of a temperate and some low latitude wheats. Ann. Appl. Biol. 83: 93102.Google Scholar
  3. Angus, J.F., D.H. Mackenzie, R. Morton and C.A. Schafer. 1981. Phasic development in field crops. II. Thermal and photoperiodic responses of spring wheat. Fld. Crops Res. 4: 269–283.Google Scholar
  4. Cooper, M., D.W. Podlich, N.M. Jensen, S.C. Chapman and G.L. Hammer. 2000. Modelling plant breeding programs. Trends in AgronomyGoogle Scholar
  5. Davidson, J.L., K.R. Christian, D.B. Jones and P.M. Bremmer. 1985. Responses of wheat to vernalization and photoperiod. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 36: 347–359.Google Scholar
  6. Hobbs, P.R., K.D. Sayre and J.I. Ortiz-Monesterio. 1998. Increasing wheat yields sustainability through agronomic means. NRG Paper 98–01. Mexico, D.F., Mexico.Google Scholar
  7. Hunt, L.A. 1993. Designing improved plant types. In ‘System Approaches in Agriculture’, Kluwer, Netherlands, pp. 27–33.Google Scholar
  8. Hunt, L.A. 2000. Use of simulation models for crop improvement. Proc. Intnl. Workshop on Physiological Bases of Maize Improvement. Buenos Aires, Argentina (in press).Google Scholar
  9. Hunt, L.A., S. Pararajasingham, J.W. Jones, G. Hoogenboom, D.T. Imamura and R.M. Ogoshi. 1993. GENCALC: Software to facilitate the use of crop models for analyzing field experiments. Agron. J. 85: 1090–1094.Google Scholar
  10. Hunt, L.A. and S. Pararajasingham. 1995. Cropsim - Wheat: A model describing the growth and development of wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 75: 619–632.Google Scholar
  11. Jackson, P., M. Robertson, M. Cooper and G.L. Hammer. 1996. The role of physiological understanding in plant breeding; from a breeding perspective Field Crops Res. 49: 11–37.Google Scholar
  12. Porter, P.R. and M. Gawith. 1999. Temperatures and the growth and development of wheat. European J. Agron. 20: 23–36.Google Scholar
  13. Reynolds, N.P., M. vanGinkel and J.M. Ribaut. 2000. Avenues for genetic modification of radiation use efficiency in wheat. J. Exp. Bot. (in press).Google Scholar
  14. Sayre, K.D. and O.H. Moreno Ramos. 1997. Applications of raised-bed planting systems to wheat. Wheat Special Report No. 31. Mexico, D.F., CIMMYT.Google Scholar
  15. Sayre, K.D., S. Rajaram and R.A. Fischer. 1997. Yield potential progress in short bread wheats in Northwest Mexico. Crop Sci. 37: 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shorter, R., R.J. Lawn and G.L. Hammer. 1991. Improving genotypic adaptation in crops - a role for breeders, physiologists and modellers. Exp. Agric. 27: 155–175.Google Scholar
  17. Slafer, G.A. and H.M. Rawson. 1996. Response to photoperiod change with phenophase and temperature during wheat development. Fld. Crop Res. 46: 1–13.Google Scholar
  18. Worland, A.J., A. Bonier, V. Korzun, W.M. Li, S. Petrovic and E.J. Sayers. 1998. The influence of photoperiod genes on the adaptability of European winter wheats. Euphytica 100: 385–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yan, W. and L.A. Hunt. 1998. Genotype by environment interaction and crop yield. Pl. Breed Rev. 16: 135–178.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant AgricultureUniversity of GuelphCanada
  2. 2.International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT)Mexico

Personalised recommendations