Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The value of early-stage phenotyping for wheat breeding in the age of genomic selection

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Theoretical and Applied Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Key message

Genomic selection using data from an on-going breeding program can improve gain from selection, relative to phenotypic selection, by significantly increasing the number of lines that can be evaluated.

Abstract

The early stages of phenotyping involve few observations and can be quite inaccurate. Genomic selection (GS) could improve selection accuracy and alter resource allocation. Our objectives were (1) to compare the prediction accuracy of GS and phenotyping in stage-1 and stage-2 field evaluations and (2) to assess the value of stage-1 phenotyping for advancing lines to stage-2 testing. We built training populations from 1769 wheat breeding lines that were genotyped and phenotyped for yield, test weight, Fusarium head blight resistance, heading date, and height. The lines were in cohorts, and analyses were done by cohort. Phenotypes or GS estimated breeding values were used to determine the trait value of stage-1 lines, and these values were correlated with their phenotypes from stage-2 trials. This was repeated for stage-2 to stage-3 trials. The prediction accuracy of GS and phenotypes was similar to each other regardless of the amount (0, 50, 100%) of stage-1 data incorporated in the GS model. Ranking of stage-1 lines by GS predictions that used no stage-1 phenotypic data had marginally lower correspondence to stage-2 phenotypic rankings than rankings of stage-1 lines based on phenotypes. Stage-1 lines ranked high by GS had slightly inferior phenotypes in stage-2 trials than lines ranked high by phenotypes. Cost analysis indicated that replacing stage-1 phenotyping with GS would allow nearly three times more stage-1 candidates to be assessed and provide 0.84–2.23 times greater gain from selection. We conclude that GS can complement or replace phenotyping in early stages of phenotyping.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AST1:

Predictions and selections based on GEBVs using all stage-1 phenotypic data

FHB:

Fusarium head blight

FST1:

Predictions and selections based on GEBVs using ½ stage-1 phenotypic data-based selecting lines based on family relations

GEBV:

Genomic estimated breeding values

GS:

Genomic selection

NST1:

Predictions and selections based on GEBVs using no stage-1 phenotypic data

NST1-1K:

Same as NST1 except predictions made with a just 10% of the markers

PHEN:

Predictions and selections based on phenotypes

PS:

Phenotypic selection

RST1:

Predictions and selections based on GEBVs using ½ stage-1 phenotypic data based on random selection of lines

TP:

Training population

References

  • Abed A, Pérez-Rodríguez P, Crossa J, Belzile F (2018) When less can be better: how can we make genomic selection more cost-effective and accurate in barley? Theor Appl Genet 131(9):1873–1890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appels R, International Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium (IWGSC) et al (2018) Shifting the limits in wheat research and breeding using a fully annotated reference genome. Science 361:6403

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassi FM, Bentley AR, Charmet G, Ortiz R, Crossa J (2015) Breeding schemes for the implementation of genomic selection in wheat (Triticum spp.). Plant Sci 242:23–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker BM, Walker SC (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belamkar V, Guttieri MJ, Hussain W, Jarquín D, El-basyoni I, Poland J, Lorenz A, Baenziger PS (2018) Genomic selection in preliminary yield trials in a winter wheat breeding program. G3: Genes Genomes Genetics 8(8):2735–2747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernal-Vasquez A-M, Gordillo A, Schmidt M, Piepho H-P (2017) Genomic prediction in early selection stages using multi-year data in a hybrid rye breeding program. BMC Genet 18(1):51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckler E, Ilut D, Wang X, Kretzschmar T, Gore M, Mitchell S. (2016) rAmpSeq: Using repetitive sequences for robust genotyping. bioRxiv, 096628. https://doi.org/10.1101/096628

  • Burgueño J, de los Campos G, Weigel K, Crossa J (2012) Genomic prediction of breeding values when modeling genotype x environment interaction using pedigree and dense molecular markers. Crop Sci 52:707–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler D, Cullis B, Gilmour A, Gogel B (2009) ASReml-R reference manual. The State of Queensland, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Brisbane, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Covarrubias-Pazaran G (2016) Genome assisted prediction of quantitative traits using the R package sommer. PLoS ONE 11(6):e0156744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossa J, Burgueno J, Cornelius P, McLaren G, Trethowan R, Krishnamachari A (2006) Modeling genotype x environment interaction using additive genetic covariances of relatives for predicting breeding values of wheat genotypes. Crop Sci 46:1722–1733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endelman JB (2011) Ridge regression and other Kernels for genomic selection with R package rrBLUP. Plant Genome J 4(3):250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrick DJ, Taylor JF, Fernando RL (2009) Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses. Genet Sel Evol. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-41-55

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gaynor RC, Gorjanc G, Bentley A, Ober E, Howell P, Jackson R, MacKay I, Hickey J (2017) A two-part strategy for using genomic selection to develop inbred lines. Crop Sci 57(5):2372–2386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaubitz J, Casstevens T, Lu F, Harriman J, Elshire R, Sun Q, Buckler E (2014) TASSEL-GBS: a high capacity genotyping by sequencing analysis pipeline. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090346

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Goudet J, Jombart T (2015) hierfstat: estimation and tests of hierarchical F-statistics. R package version 0.04-22

  • Habier D, Fernando R, Dekkers JC (2007) The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values. Genetics 177(4):2389–2397

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hartl DL, Clark GC (1997) Principles of population genetics. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • He S, Schulthess A, Mirdita V, Zhao Y, Korzun V, Bothe B, Ebermeyer E, Reif J, Jiang Y (2016) Genomic selection in a commercial winter wheat population. Theor Appl Genetics 1293:641–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heffner EL, Lorenz AJ, Jannink J-L, Sorrells ME (2010) Plant breeding with genomic selection: gain per unit time and cost. Crop Sci 50:1681–1690. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2009.11.0662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heffner EL, Jannink J-L, Sorrells ME (2011a) Genomic selection accuracy using multifamily prediction models in a wheat breeding program. Plant Genome 4(1):65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heffner EL, Jannink J-L, Iwata H, Sorrells E, Sorrells ME (2011b) Genomic selection accuracy for grain quality traits in biparental wheat populations. Crop Sci 51:2597–2606. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2011.05.0253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffstetter A, Cabrera A, Huang M, Sneller C (2016) Optimizing training population data and validation of genomic selection for economic traits in soft winter wheat. G3: Genes Genomes Genetics 6(9):2919–2928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang M, Cabrera A, Hoffstetter A, Griffey C, Van Sanford D, Costa J, McKendry A, Sneller C (2016) Genomic selection for wheat traits and trait stability. Theor Appl Genetics 129(9):1697–1710

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huang M, Ward B, Griffey C, Van Sanford D, McKendry A, Brown-Guedira G, Tyagi P, Sneller C (2018) The accuracy of genomic prediction between environments and populations for soft wheat traits. Crop Sci 58(6):2274–2288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jannink J-L, Lorenz A, Iwata H (2010) Genomic selection in plant breeding: from theory to practice. Briefings Funct Genomics Proteom 9(2):166–177

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Longin C, Mi X, Würschum T (2015) Genomic selection in wheat: optimum allocation of test resources and comparison of breeding strategies for line and hybrid breeding. Theor Appl Genetics 128(7):1297–1306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Cruz M, Crossa J, Bonnett D, Dreisigacker S, Poland J, Jannink J-L, Singh RP, Autrique E, de los Campos G (2015) Increased prediction accuracy in wheat breeding trials using a marker × environment interaction genomic selection model. G3: Genes Genomes Genetics 5(4):569–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marulanda J, Mi X, Melchinger AE, Xu J-L, Würschum T, Longin C (2016) Optimum breeding strategies using genomic selection for hybrid breeding in wheat, maize, rye, barley, rice and triticale. Theor Appl Genetics 129(10):1901–1913

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meuwissen TH, Hayes B, Goddard ME (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157(4):1819–1829

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Michel S, Ametz C, Gungor H, Epure D, Grausgruber H, Löschenberger F, Buerstmayr H (2016) Genomic selection across multiple breeding cycles in applied bread wheat breeding. Theor Appl Genetics 129(6):1179–1189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel S, Ametz C, Gungor H, Akgöl B, Epure D, Grausgruber H, Löschenberger F, Buerstmayr H (2017) Genomic assisted selection for enhancing line breeding: merging genomic and phenotypic selection in winter wheat breeding programs with preliminary yield trials. Theor Appl Genetics 130(2):363–376

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nazarian A, Gezan S (2016) GenoMatrix: a software package for pedigree-based and genomic prediction analyses on complex traits. J Hered 107(4):372–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esw020Epub 2016 Mar 29

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ostersen T, Christensen OF, Henryon M, Neilson B, Su G, Madsen P (2011) Deregressed EBV as the response variable yield more reliable genomic predictions than traditional EBV in pure-bred pigs. Genet Sel Evol. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-43-38

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pembleton L, Inch C, Baillie R, Drayton M, Thakur P, Ogaji Y, Spangenberg G, Forster JW, Daetwyler HD, Cogan N (2018) Exploitation of data from breeding programs supports rapid implementation of genomic selection for key agronomic traits in perennial ryegrass. Theor Appl Genetics 131(9):1891–1902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philomi J, Montesinos-Lopez OA, Crossa J, Mondal S, Perez LG, Poland J, Huerta-Espino J, Crespo-Herrera L, Govindan V, Dreisigacker S, Shretha S, Perez-Rodriguez P, Espinosa FP, Singh RP (2019) Integrating genomic-enabled prediction and high-throughput phenotyping in breeding for climate-resilient bread wheat. Theor Appl Genet 132:177–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-018-3206-3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Piepho HP, Möhring J, Melchinger AE, Büchse A (2008) BLUP for phenotypic selection in plant breeding and variety testing. Euphytica 161(1–2):209–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poland J, Brown P, Sorrells M, Jannink J-L (2012) Development of high-density genetic maps for barley and wheat using a novel two-enzyme genotyping-by-sequencing approach. PLoS ONE 7(2):32253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2019) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

  • Rajsic P, Weersink A, Navabi A, Peter Pauls K (2016) Economics of genomic selection: the role of prediction accuracy and relative genotyping costs. Euphytica 210(2):259–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinaldo A, Bacanu S-A, Devlin B, Sonpar V, Wasserman L, Roeder K (2005) Characterization of multilocus linkage disequilibrium. Genetic Epidemiol 28(3):193–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Álvarez M, Boer M, van Eeuwijk FA, Eilers P (2018) Correcting for spatial heterogeneity in plant breeding experiments with P-splines. Spatial Stat 23:52–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutkoski J, Poland J, Mondal S, Autrique E, Pérez L, Crossa J, Reynolds M, Singh R (2016) Canopy temperature and vegetation indices from high-throughput phenotyping improve accuracy of pedigree and genomic selection for grain yield in wheat. G3: Genes Genomes Genetics 6(9):2799–2808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sallam AH, Smith KP (2016) Genomic selection performs similarly to phenotypic selection in barley. Crop Sci 56(6):2871–2881

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute (2017) Base SAS 9.4 procedures guide: Statistical procedures

  • Sneller C, Paul P, Guttieri MJ (2010) Characterization of resistance to Fusarium head blight in an eastern US soft red winter wheat population. Crop Sci 50(1):123–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song J, Carver B, Powers C, Yan L, Klapste L, El-Kassaby Y, Chen C (2017) Practical application of genomic selection in a double-haploid winter wheat breeding program. Mol Breed 37:117. https://doi.org/10.1007/x11032-017-0715-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sun J, Poland J, Mondal S, Crossa J, Juliana P, Singh R, Rutkoski J, Jannink J-L, Crespo-Herrera I, Velu G, Huerta-Espino H, Sorrells ME (2019) High-throughput phenotyping platforms enhance genomic selection for wheat grain yield across populations and cycles in early stage. Theor Appl Genetics 132(6):1705–1720

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tolhurst D, Mathews K, Smith A, Cullis B (2019) Genomic selection in multi-environment plant breeding trials using a factor analytic linear mixed model. J Anim Breed Genet 136:279–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velazco J, Rodríguez-Álvarez M, Boer M, Jordan D, Eilers P, Malosetti M, van Eeuwijk FA (2017) Modelling spatial trends in sorghum breeding field trials using a two-dimensional P-spline mixed model. Theor Appl Genetics 130(7):1375–1392

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38(6):1358–1370

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Cassi Sewell, Duc Hua, Brian Sugerman, and all the employees of the OSU winter wheat breeding program that assisted in collecting the data used in this analysis. Without them this work would not have been possible, and for this, we are truly grateful. We acknowledge funding from Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, National Institute for Food and Agriculture, and the US Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative.

Funding

The funding was provided by Ohio Small Grains Marketing Program, Agricultural Research Service (Grant No. 1234567).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio Agriculture Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, 1680 Madison Av, Wooster, OH, 44691, USA

    Daniel Borrenpohl, Mao Huang & Clay Sneller

  2. Department of Plant, Soil, and Microbial Science, Michigan State University, 1066 Bogue St, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Eric Olson

Authors
  1. Daniel Borrenpohl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mao Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eric Olson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Clay Sneller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DB executed the analyses and wrote the manuscript, MH assisted in the data analyses and editing the manuscript, EO executed the genotyping-by-sequencing, CS initiated the study, directed the project, performed some data analyses, and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clay Sneller.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Communicated by Jose Crossa.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Prediction accuracy by trait, stage, prediction method, and cohort

Appendix: Prediction accuracy by trait, stage, prediction method, and cohort

Trait

Cohort

Stages

Model

Prediction accuracy

Yield

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

PHEN

− 0.060

Yield

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

PHEN

0.098

Yield

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

PHEN

0.383

Yield

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

PHEN

0.027

Yield

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

PHEN

− 0.015

Yield

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

PHEN

0.413

Yield

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

PHEN

0.302

Yield

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

PHEN

0.210

Yield

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

PHEN

0.517

Yield

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

AST1

0.022

Yield

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

AST1

0.130

Yield

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

AST1

0.309

Yield

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

AST1

0.008

Yield

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

AST1

0.009

Yield

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

AST1

0.450

Yield

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

AST1

0.416

Yield

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

AST1

0.246

Yield

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

AST1

0.528

Yield

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

NST1

0.171

Yield

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

NST1

0.181

Yield

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

NST1

0.456

Yield

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

NST1

0.127

Yield

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

NST1

− 0.039

Yield

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

NST1

0.219

Yield

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

NST1

0.444

Yield

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

NST1

0.127

Yield

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

NST1

0.536

Yield

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

RST1

0.053

Yield

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

RST1

0.108

Yield

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

RST1

0.010

Yield

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

RST1

0.360

Yield

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

RST1

0.272

Yield

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

FST1

0.053

Yield

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

FST1

0.108

Yield

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

FST1

0.015

Yield

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

FST1

0.356

Yield

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

FST1

0.266

Yield

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

NST1-1K

0.267

Yield

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

NST1-1K

0.163

Yield

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

NST1-1K

0.429

Yield

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

NST1-1K

0.141

Yield

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

NST1-1K

0.026

Yield

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

NST1-1K

0.071

Yield

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

NST1-1K

0.296

Yield

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

NST1-1K

0.074

Yield

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

NST1-1K

0.490

Yield

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

NST1-0.5

0.147

Yield

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

NST1-0.5

0.039

Yield

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

NST1-0.5

0.418

Yield

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

NST1-0.5

0.104

Yield

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

NST1-0.5

− 0.077

Yield

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

NST1-0.5

0.190

Yield

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

NST1-0.5

0.339

Yield

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

NST1-0.5

0.088

Yield

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

NST1-0.5

0.542

Yield

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

NST1-1.5

0.126

Yield

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

NST1-1.5

0.112

Yield

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

NST1-1.5

0.416

Yield

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

NST1-1.5

0.126

Yield

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

NST1-1.5

− 0.058

Yield

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

NST1-1.5

0.225

Yield

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

NST1-1.5

0.419

Yield

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

NST1-1.5

0.088

Yield

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

NST1-1.5

0.529

Test Weight

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

PHEN

0.352

Test Weight

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

PHEN

0.477

Test Weight

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

PHEN

0.558

Test Weight

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

PHEN

− 0.170

Test Weight

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

AST1

0.141

Test Weight

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

AST1

0.316

Test Weight

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

AST1

0.583

Test Weight

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

AST1

− 0.178

Test Weight

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

NST1

0.157

Test Weight

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

NST1

0.338

Test Weight

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

NST1

0.469

Test Weight

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

NST1

− 0.145

Height

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

PHEN

0.572

Height

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

PHEN

0.285

Height

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

PHEN

0.395

Height

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

PHEN

 

Height

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

PHEN

0.472

Height

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

PHEN

0.520

Height

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

PHEN

0.488

Height

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

PHEN

0.376

Height

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

PHEN

0.646

Height

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

AST1

0.281

Height

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

AST1

0.312

Height

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

AST1

0.321

Height

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

AST1

 

Height

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

AST1

0.436

Height

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

AST1

0.494

Height

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

AST1

0.409

Height

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

AST1

0.283

Height

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

AST1

0.499

Height

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

NST1

0.057

Height

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

NST1

0.281

Height

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

NST1

0.353

Height

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

NST1

 

Height

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

NST1

0.288

Height

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

NST1

0.042

Height

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

NST1

0.492

Height

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

NST1

0.209

Height

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

NST1

0.439

Height

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

RST1

0.433

Height

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

RST1

0.350

Height

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

RST1

− 0.015

Height

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

RST1

0.353

Height

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

RST1

0.228

Height

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

FST1

0.433

Height

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

FST1

0.350

Height

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

FST1

− 0.015

Height

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

FST1

0.356

Height

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

FST1

0.225

Heading Date

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

PHEN

0.434

Heading Date

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

PHEN

0.686

Heading Date

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

PHEN

0.664

Heading Date

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

PHEN

0.588

Heading Date

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

PHEN

0.726

Heading Date

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

PHEN

0.607

Heading Date

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

PHEN

0.752

Heading Date

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

PHEN

0.619

Heading Date

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

PHEN

0.744

Heading Date

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

AST1

0.471

Heading Date

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

AST1

0.660

Heading Date

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

AST1

0.614

Heading Date

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

AST1

0.564

Heading Date

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

AST1

0.681

Heading Date

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

AST1

0.621

Heading Date

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

AST1

0.720

Heading Date

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

AST1

0.645

Heading Date

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

AST1

0.734

Heading Date

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

NST1

0.282

Heading Date

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

NST1

0.576

Heading Date

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

NST1

0.670

Heading Date

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

NST1

0.191

Heading Date

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

NST1

0.643

Heading Date

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

NST1

0.284

Heading Date

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

NST1

0.707

Heading Date

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

NST1

0.502

Heading Date

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

NST1

0.774

Heading Date

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

RST1

0.496

Heading Date

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

RST1

0.698

Heading Date

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

RST1

0.418

Heading Date

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

RST1

0.519

Heading Date

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

RST1

0.559

Heading Date

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

FST1

0.496

Heading Date

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

FST1

0.698

Heading Date

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

FST1

0.435

Heading Date

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

FST1

0.516

Heading Date

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

FST1

0.573

FHB Index

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

PHEN

0.155

FHB Index

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

PHEN

 

FHB Index

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

PHEN

0.402

FHB Index

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

PHEN

0.027

FHB Index

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

PHEN

0.543

FHB Index

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

PHEN

0.494

FHB Index

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

PHEN

0.454

FHB Index

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

PHEN

0.566

FHB Index

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

PHEN

0.556

FHB Index

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

AST1

0.280

FHB Index

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

AST1

 

FHB Index

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

AST1

0.343

FHB Index

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

AST1

0.066

FHB Index

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

AST1

0.408

FHB Index

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

AST1

0.536

FHB Index

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

AST1

0.448

FHB Index

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

AST1

0.588

FHB Index

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

AST1

0.604

FHB Index

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

NST1

0.271

FHB Index

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

NST1

 

FHB Index

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

NST1

0.197

FHB Index

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

NST1

0.280

FHB Index

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

NST1

0.444

FHB Index

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

NST1

0.282

FHB Index

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

NST1

0.512

FHB Index

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

NST1

0.356

FHB Index

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

NST1

0.530

FHB Index

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

RST1

0.230

FHB Index

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

RST1

0.382

FHB Index

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

RST1

0.065

FHB Index

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

RST1

0.463

FHB Index

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

RST1

0.525

FHB Index

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

FST1

0.230

FHB Index

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

FST1

0.382

FHB Index

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

FST1

0.065

FHB Index

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

FST1

0.444

FHB Index

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

FST1

0.534

FHB Index

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

1RPHEN

0.169

FHB Index

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

1RPHEN

0.473

FHB Index

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

1RPHEN

0.030

FHB Index

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

1RPHEN

0.401

FHB Index

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

1RPHEN

0.497

FHB Index

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

1RST1

0.276

FHB Index

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

1RST1

0.407

FHB Index

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

1RST1

0.052

FHB Index

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

1RST1

0.442

FHB Index

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

1RST1

0.555

FHB Index

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

NST1-1K

0.234

FHB Index

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

NST1-1K

0.237

FHB Index

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

NST1-1K

0.166

FHB Index

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

NST1-1K

0.232

FHB Index

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

NST1-1K

0.491

FHB Index

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

NST1-1K

0.285

FHB Index

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

NST1-1K

0.488

FHB Index

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

NST1-1K

0.262

FHB Index

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

NST1-1K

0.480

FHB Index

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

NST1-0.5

0.237

FHB Index

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

NST1-0.5

− 0.058

FHB Index

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

NST1-0.5

0.184

FHB Index

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

NST1-0.5

0.317

FHB Index

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

NST1-0.5

0.299

FHB Index

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

NST1-0.5

0.249

FHB Index

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

NST1-0.5

0.457

FHB Index

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

NST1-0.5

0.264

FHB Index

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

NST1-0.5

0.512

FHB Index

OH12

2013 Stage-1 to 2014 Stage-2

NST1-1.5

0.281

FHB Index

OH13

2014 Stage-1 to 2015 Stage-2

NST1-1.5

0.063

FHB Index

OH12

2014 Stage-2 to 2015 Stage-3

NST1-1.5

0.189

FHB Index

OH14

2015 Stage-1 to 2016 Stage-2

NST1-1.5

0.278

FHB Index

OH13

2015 Stage-2 to 2016 Stage-3

NST1-1.5

0.299

FHB Index

OH15

2016 Stage-1 to 2017 Stage-2

NST1-1.5

0.282

FHB Index

OH14

2016 Stage-2 to 2017 Stage-3

NST1-1.5

0.501

FHB Index

OH16

2017 Stage-1 to 2018 Stage-2

NST1-1.5

0.326

FHB Index

OH15

2017 Stage-2 to 2018 Stage-3

NST1-1.5

0.520

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borrenpohl, D., Huang, M., Olson, E. et al. The value of early-stage phenotyping for wheat breeding in the age of genomic selection. Theor Appl Genet 133, 2499–2520 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-020-03613-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-020-03613-0

Search

Navigation