Abstract
(Co)variance matrices for the assumed model, and thus the specification of the dispersion parameters, should take into account both the negative competition and the positive spatial correlations. In this context, we applied several approaches to identify and quantify the genetic and environmental competition effects and/or environmental heterogeneity in three Douglas-fir genetic trials from the British Columbia tree improvement program in total height and diameter at breast height at ages 12 and 35. Then, we applied an individual-tree mixed model to account jointly for competition effects and environmental heterogeneity (competition + spatial mixed model, CSM). We also compared the resulting estimates of all dispersion parameters and breeding values (BVs) with corresponding estimates from three simpler mixed models. Our analysis revealed that strong spatial environmental variation (predominantly at large-scale) covered the effects of competition in the three Douglas-fir progeny trials. While diameter at breast height at age 35 revealed strong competition effects at both genetic and environmental levels, these effects were not as strong for total height. In general, with strong competition genetic effects, the CSM gave a better fit than the simpler models. Ignoring competition effects and environmental heterogeneity resulted in lower additive genetic variances and higher residual variances than those estimated from the CSM. Ignoring competition effects leads to overestimating environmental heterogeneity, while ignoring the environmental heterogeneity leads to underestimating competition effects. Spearman correlations between BVs predicted from the simplest model and total BVs from the CSM were moderate to high. The implications of all these findings for the genetic improvement of coastal Douglas-fir in British Columbia are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bijma P, Muir WM, Van Arendonk JAM (2007) Multilevel selection 1: quantitative genetics of inheritance and response to selection. Genetics 175:277–288
Boyden S, Binkley D, Stape JL (2008) Competition among Eucalyptus trees depends on genetic variation and resource supply. Ecology 89: 2850–2859
Brotherstone S, White IMS, Sykes R, Thompson R, Connolly T, Lee S, Woolliams J (2011) Competition effects in a young Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis, Bong. Carr) clonal trial. Silvae Genet. 60:149–155
Brownie C, Gumpertz ML (1997) Validity of spatial analyses for large field trials. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 2:1–23
Cappa EP, Cantet RJC (2007) Bayesian estimation of a surface to account for a spatial trend using penalized splines in an individual-tree mixed model. Can J For Res 37:2677–2688
Cappa EP, Cantet RJC (2008) Direct and competition additive effects in tree breeding: Bayesian estimation from an individual tree mixed model. Silvae Genet. 57:45–56
Cappa EP, Muñoz F, Sanchez L, Cantet RJC (2015a) A novel individual-tree mixed model with competition effects and environmental heterogeneity: a Bayesian approach. Tree Genet Genomes 11:120–135
Cappa EP, Yanchuk AD, Cartwright CV (2015b) Estimation of genetic parameters using spatial analysis in Tsuga heterophylla full-sibling family trials in British Columbia. Silvae Genet. 64:59–73
Costa e Silva J, Kerr RJ (2013) Accounting for competition in genetic analysis, with particular emphasis on forest genetic trials. Tree Genet Genomes 9:1–17
Costa e Silva J, Potts BM, Bijma P, Kerr RJ, Pilbeam DJ (2013) Genetic control of interactions among individuals: contrasting outcomes of indirect genetic effects arising from neighbour disease infection and competition in a forest tree. New Phytol 197:631–641
Durban M, Currie I, Kempton R (2001) Adjusting for fertility and competition in variety trials. J Agric Sci (Camb) 136:129–140
Dutkowski GW, CostaeSilva J, Gilmour AR, Lopez GA (2002) Spatial analysis methods for forest genetic trials. Can J For Res 32:2201–2214
Dutkowski GW, Costa e Silva J, Gilmour AR, Wellendorf H, Aguiar A (2006) Spatial analysis enhances modeling of a wide variety of traits in forest genetic trials. Can J For Res 36:1851–1870
Eilers PHC, Marx BD (2003) Multivariate calibration with temperature interaction using two-dimensional penalized signal regression. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 66:159–174
Fu YB, Yanchuk AD, Namkoong G (1999) Spatial patterns of tree height variations in a series of Douglas-fir progeny trials: implications for genetic testing. Can J For Res 29:714–723
Geweke J (1992) Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to calculating posterior moments. In: Bernardo JM, Berger JO, Dawid AP, Smith AFM (eds) Bayesian statistics 4. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Gilmour AR, Cullis BR, Verbyla AP (1997) Accounting for natural and extraneous variation in the analysis of field experiments. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 2:269–293
Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2006) ASReml user guide release 2.0 VSN International Ltd., Hemel Hempstead, HP1 1ES, UK. p 267.
Gould PJ, Bradley St. Clair J, Anderson PD (2011) Performance of full-sib families of Douglas-fir in pure-family and mixed-family deployments. For Ecol Manag 262:1417–1425
Green PJ, Silverman BW (1994) Nonparametric regression and generalized linear model. Chapman & Hall, London
Griffing B (1967) Selection in reference to biological groups. I. Individual and group selection applied to populations of unordered groups. Aust J Biol Sci 20:127–139
Griffing B (1968a) Selection in reference to biological groups. II. Consequences of selection in groups of one size when evaluated in groups of a different size. Aust J Biol Sci 21:1163–1170
Griffing B (1968b) Selection in reference to biological groups. III. Generalized results of individual and group selection in terms of parent-offspring covariances. Aust J Biol Sci 21:1171–1178
Hannrup B, Wilhelmsson L, Danell Ö (1998) Time trends for genetic parameters of wood density and growth traits in Pinus sylvestris L. Silvae Genetic 47:214–219
Hinson K, Hanson WD (1962) Competition studies in soybeans. Crop Sci 2:117–123
Hunt CH, Smith AB, Jordan DR, Cullis BR (2013) Predicting additive and non-additive genetic effects from trials where traits are affected by interplot competition. J Agric Biol and Envir S 18:53–63
Kempton RA (1982) Adjustment for competition between varieties in plant breeding trials. J Agric Sci Cambridge 98:599–611
Kusnandar, D (2001) The identification and interpretation of genetic variation in forestry plantation. PhD Thesis, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia
Magnussen S (1989) Effects and adjustments of competition bias in progeny trials with single-tree plots. For Sci 35:532–547
Magnussen S (1990) Application and comparison of spatial models in analysing tree-genetics field trials. Can J For Res 20:536–546
Magnussen S (1994) A method to adjust simultaneously for statial microsite and competition effects. Can J For Res 24:985–995
Muir WM (2005) Incorporation of competitive effects in forest tree or animal breeding programs. Genetics 170:1247–1259
Pojar J, Klinka K, Meidinger DV (1987) Biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification in British Columbia. For Ecol Manag 22:119–154
Resende MDV, Stringer J, Cullis B, Thompson R (2005) Joint modelling of competition and spatial variability in forest field trials. Rev Mat Estat 23:7–22
Sakai KI, Mukaide H, Tomita K (1968) Intraspecific competition in forest trees. Silvae Genet. 17(1):1–5
Silverman B (1986) Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and Hall, London
Smith BJ (2003) Bayesian Output Analysis Program (BOA) version 1.0 user’s manual. Available from http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/boa/
Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Van der Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 64:583–639
St. Clair JB, Adams WT (1991) Relative family performance and variance structure of open-pollinated Douglas-fir seedlings grown in three competitive environments. Theor Appl Genet 81:541–550
Stoehr M, Bird K, Nigh G, Woods J, Yanchuk A (2010) Realized genetic gains in coastal Douglas-fir in British Columbia: implications for growth and yield projections. Silvae Genet. 59(5):223–233
Stringer JK, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2011) Joint modeling of spatial variability and within-row interplot competition to increase the efficiency of plant improvement. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 16:269–281
Thomson AJ, El-Kassaby YA (1988) Trend surface analysis of a Douglas-fir provenace-progeny transfer test. Can J For Res 18:515–520
von Euler F, Baradat P, Lemoine B (1992) Effects of plantation density and spacing on competitive interactions among half-sib families of maritime pine. Can J For Res 22:482–489
White TW, Adams WT, Neale DB (2007) Forest genetics. CAB International, Wallingford
Xie C-Y, Yanchuk AD (2003) Breeding values of parental trees, genetic worth of seed orchard seedlots, and yields of improved stocks in British Columbia. W J App For 18:88–100
Yanchuk AD (1996) General and specific combining ability from disconnected partial diallels of coastal Douglas-fir. Silvae Genet 45(1):37–45
Ye TZ, Jayawickrama KJS (2008) Efficiency of using spatial analysis in first-generation coastal Douglas-fir progeny tests in the US Pacific Northwest. Tree Genet Genomes 4:677–692
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Data Archiving Statement
We followed the standard Tree Genetics and Genomes policy. Supplementary information of the three Douglas-fir trials, family numbers, and pedigree data including identity information of trees, fathers, and mothers is available in the Zenodo repository, http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.159552. In addition, phenotypic data of the three Douglas-fir trials will be available upon request.
Additional information
Communicated by J. Beaulieu
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 1230 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cappa, E.P., Stoehr, M.U., Xie, CY. et al. Identification and joint modeling of competition effects and environmental heterogeneity in three Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii) trials. Tree Genetics & Genomes 12, 102 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-016-1061-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-016-1061-4