Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T11:50:55.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heritabilities of growth curve parameters and age-specific expression of genetic variation under two different feeding regimes in Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Sabine G. Gebhardt-Henrich  and
Henry L. Marks
Sabine G. Gebhardt-Henrich*
Affiliation:
USDA, ARS, SEPRL, c/o UGA, 107 Livestock-Poultry Building, Athens, GA 30602–2772
Henry L. Marks
Affiliation:
USDA, ARS, SEPRL, c/o UGA, 107 Livestock-Poultry Building, Athens, GA 30602–2772
*
† Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

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.

This study investigated genetic variation in growth and final size in relationship to differences in heritabilities under good and poor feeding conditions. Heritabilities of growth and final size were estimated for several traits under ad libitum and restricted feeding conditions. A 30% feed restriction from hatching to 44 days of age in Japanese quail chicks decreased body weight and tarsus length at 44 days of age and the length of the third primary covert feather at 24 days of age relative to controls fed ad libitum. Wing length at 44 days of age was not significantly different for ad libitum fed and restricted quail. Genetic variances for body weight and tarsus length were very large throughout growth which resulted in heritability estimates close to one for these traits. The genetic correlations among feeding treatments were low, indicating that different genes were affecting growth under the two treatments. Growth was described by the components: asymptote, growth period, and shape of the growth curve following the modified Richards growth curve model (Brisbin et al. 1986). Tarsus length, which had high heritability of the parameter ‘growth period’ of the model, tended to display a higher heritability under the restriction than under ad libitum feeding. Body weight and feather length, which had either no heritable or low heritable ‘growth periods’ estimates, tended to be more heritable under ad libitum feeding. The shape parameter of the growth curve was not heritable for any trait, except tarsus length under restricted feeding.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , August 1993 , pp. 45 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

References

Atchley, W. R. (1984). Ontogeny, timing of development, and genetic variance-covariance structure. The American Naturalist 123 (4), 512–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atchley, W. R. & Rutledge, J. J. (1980). Genetic components of size and shape I. Dynamics of components of phenotypic variability and covariability during ontogeny in the laboratory rat. Evolution 34 (6), 1161–1173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beaumont, C. (1991). Comparisons of Henderson's Method I and Restricted Maximum Likelihood Estimation of genetic parameters of reproductive traits. Poultry Science 70, 1462–1468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bridges, W. C. Jr & Knapp, S. J. (1987). Probabilities of negative estimates of genetic variances. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 74, 269–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brisbin, L. I. Jr, White, G. C. & Bush, P. B. (1986). PCB intake and the growth of waterfowl: multivariate analyses based on a reparameterized Richards sigmoid model. Growth SO, 1–11.Google ScholarPubMed
Brisbin, I., McLeod, K. W. Lehr Jr & White, G. C. (1987). Sigmoid growth and the assessment of hormesis: a case for caution. Health Physics 52 (5), 553–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bulmer, M. G. (1985). The mathematical theory of quantitative genetics. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1952). The problem of environment and selection. The American Naturalist 86, 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1960). Selection of mice for growth on high and low planes of nutrition. Genetical Research 1,91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1981). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Second Edition. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1990). Selection in different environments: effects on environmental sensitivity (reaction norm) and on mean performance. Genetical Research 56, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnett, M. C. (1976). Some aspects of body size in tits. D.Phil, dissertation, Oxford University.Google Scholar
Garwood, V. A. & Diehl, K. C., Jr (1987). Body volume and density of live Coturnix quail and associated genetic relationships. Poultry Science 66, 1264–1271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gebhardt-Henrich, S. G. (1992). Heritability of growth curve parameters and heritability of final size: a simulation study. Growth, Development & Aging 56, 23–34.Google ScholarPubMed
Gebhardt-Henrich, S. G. & van Noordwijk, A. J. (1991). Nestling growth in the Great Tit. I. Heritability estimates under different environmental conditions. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 3, 341–362.Google Scholar
Harville, D. A. (1977). Maximum likelihood approaches to variance component estimation and to related problems. Journal of the American Statistics Association 72, 320–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, W. G. & Nicholas, F. W. (1974). Estimation of heritability by both regression of offspring on parent and intra-class correlation of sibs in one experiment. Biometrics 30, 447–468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isogai, I. (1971). Experimental studies on breeding to the body conformation in Japanese Quail, Coturnix coturnix japonica. Research Bulletin of the Faculty of Agriculture, Gifu University, Japan 30, 155–287.Google Scholar
Marks, H. L. & Lepore, P. D. (1968). Growth rate inheritance in Japanese Quail. 2. Early responses to selection under different nutritional environments. Poultry Science 47, 1540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, H., 1. (1978). Long term selection for four-week body weight in Japanese quail under different nutritional environments. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 52, 105–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, H. L. (1988). Body weight changes in Coturnix following long-term selection under different environ ments. Proceedings of the XIX. International Congress of Ornithology Ottawa 2, 1434–1443.Google Scholar
McCallum, D. A. & Dixon, P. D., Reducing bias in estimates of the Richards Growth function shape parameter. Growth, Development & Aging, (in press).Google Scholar
Nielsen, B. V. H. & Andersen, S. (1987). Selection for growth on normal and reduced protein diets in mice. I. Direct and correlated responses for growth. Genetical Research 50, 7–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Noordwijk, A. J., van Balen, J. H. & Scharloo, W. (1988). Heritability of body size in a natural population of the great tit (Parus major) and its relation to age and environmental conditions during growth. Genetical Research 51, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, Y. I., Hansen, C. T., Chung, C. S. & Chapman, A. B. (1966). Influence of feeding regime on the effects of selection for postweaning gain in the rat. Genetics 54, 625–632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, R. J. & Bhatti, M. A. (1982). Selection for feed efficiency in mice under ad libitum and restricted feeding terminated by fixed time or quantity of intake. Canadian Journal of Genetics and Cytology 24, 117–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parsons, P. A. (1987). Evolutionary rates under environmental stress. Evolutionary Biology 21, 311–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rising, J. D. & Somers, K. M. (1989). The measurement of overall body size in birds. The Auk 106, 666–674.Google Scholar
Robertson, F. W. (1964). The ecological genetics of growth in Drosophila. I. The role of canalization in the stability of growth relations. Genetical Research 5, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, H. A. (1980). Growth of nestling Ipswich Sparrows in relation to season, habitat, brood size, and parental age. The Auk 97, 721–732.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc (1988). SAS/STATTM User's Guide, Release 6.03 Edition. Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Sefton, A. E. & Siegel, P. B. (1974). Inheritance of body weight in Japanese Quail. Poultry Science 53, 1597–1603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaw, R. G. (1987). Maximum-likelihood approaches applied to quantitative genetics of natural populations. Evolution 41 (4), 812–826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorensen, P. (1977). Genotype-level of protein interaction for growth rate in broilers. British Poultry Science 18, 625–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, P. (1985). Influence of diet on response to selection for growth and efficiency. In Poultry Genetics and Breeding (ed. Hill, W. G., Manson, J. M., and Hewitt, D.), pp. 85–95. British Poultry Science Ltd. (Longman Group, Harlow).Google Scholar
White, G. C. & Lehr, Brisbin I. Jr (1980). Estimation and comparison of parameters in stochastic growth models for barn owls. Growth 44, 97–111.Google ScholarPubMed
Zach, R. (1988). Growth curve analysis: a critical reevaluation. The Auk 105, 208–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar