Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:52:04.551Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A further examination of the relative efficiency of three methods of selection for genetic gains under less-restricted conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

S. S. Y. Young
S. S. Y. Young
Affiliation:
Division of Animal Genetics, C.S.I.R.O., McMaster Laboratory, Glebe, Sydney, N.S.W.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The relative efficiency of three methods of selection (index, independent culling levels and tandem) is compared in terms of genetic gains in economic units. The comparison covers cases where variances, heritabilities and economic weights are unequal, while the case of two correlated characters is also examined. Various factors may influence the relative efficiency, including selection intensity, the number of traits under selection, the relative importance of those traits (in terms of a factor λ, which is the product of economic weight, heritability and phenotypic standard deviation), and the correlations between them.

The conclusions are:

(i) In all circumstances the index is never less efficient than independent culling levels, though in some cases it is no more efficient. Independent culling is, in turn, never less, but in some cases no more efficient than tandem selection.

(ii) The superiority of the index over other methods increases with an increasing number of traits under selection, but decreases with increasing differences in relative importance, its superiority being at a maximum when the traits are of equal importance. The superiority of the index over independent culling levels decreases with increasing selection intensity, but its superiority over tandem selection is independent of intensity.

(iii) The superiority of independent culling over tandem selection increases with increasing selection intensity or an increasing number of traits under selection, but decreases with increasing differences in relative importance.

(iv) The relative efficiency of the index over other methods is much affected by the phenotypic correlation between traits when the traits are of equal importance, the relative efficiency of the index being higher when the phenotypic correlation is low or negative. The effect of genetic correlation is only apparent when the traits are of unequal importance and its influence on relative efficiency changes with changes in other parameters.

(v) The relative efficiency of selection methods may be changed by their use for special purposes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , February 1961 , pp. 106 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

References

REFERENCES

Dunlop, A. A. & Young, S. S. Y. (1960). Selection of Merino sheep: An analysis of the relative economic weights applicable to some wool traits. Emp. J. exp. Agric. 28 (in press).Google Scholar
Hazel, L. N. (1943). The genetic basis for constructing selection indexes. Genetics, 28, 476–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hazel, L. N. & Lush, J. L. (1942). The efficiency of three methods of selection. J. Hered. 33, 393–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morley, F. H. W. (1950). Ph.D. Thesis. Iowa State College.Google Scholar
Morley, F. H. W. (1955). Selection for economic characters in Australian Merino sheep. V. Further estimates of phenotypic and genetic parameters. Aust. J. agric. Res. 6, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rendel, J. M. (1954). The use of regressions to increase heritability. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 7, 368–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, Fairfield H. (1936). A discriminant function for plant selection. Ann. Eugen., Lond., 7, 240–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, S. S. Y. & Weiler, H. (1960). Selection for two correlated traits by independent culling levels. J. Genet. (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar