Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:15:30.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The analysis and prediction of some two factor interactions in grass breeding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. J. Wright
A. J. Wright
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A method of analysis of two factor experiments is given. This involves a development of the regression analysis used by Finlay & Wilkinson (1963) and others, and allows for the regression of interaction components onto both main effects. The usefulness of the single joint regression parameter for prediction is outlined.

The applicability of the analysis to three situations commonly found in grass breeding is illustrated by means of examples. It is concluded that the model may frequently describe variation due to genotype-environment interactions, and among diallel arrangements of binary mixtures of genotypes, but is likely to be of little utility for genetic diallel or other mating schemes unless the genes have a strongly correlated distribution among the parent plants.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 76 , Issue 2 , April 1971 , pp. 301 - 306
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Breese, E. L. (1969). The measurement and significance of genotype–environment interaction in grasses. Heredity, Lond. 24, 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucio Alanis, L. (1966). Environmental and genotype environmental components of variability. I. Inbred lines. Heredity, Lond. 21, 387–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucio Alanis, L. & Hill, J. (1966). Environmental and genotype–environmental components of variability. II. Heterozygotes. Heredity, Lond. 21, 399–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, A. (1965). Analysis of reciprocal differences in diallel crosses. Heredity, Lond. 20, 573–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
England, F. (1968). Competition in mixtures of herbage grasses. J. appl. Ecol. 5, 227–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlay, K. W. & Wilkinson, G. N. (1963). The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Auat. J. ogric. Bes. 14, 742–54.Google Scholar
Griffing, B. (1956). Conceptof general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing systems. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 9, 463–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, M. D. & Breese, E. L. (1968). The genetic organisation of natural populations of Lolium perenne. II. Productivity. Heredity, Lond. 23, 357–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquard, P. (1970). Study of the social relations between seven forage species at two trophic levels. Proc. 11th Int. Orossld Congr., Australia.Google Scholar
McGilchrist, C. A. (1965). Analysis of competition experiments. Biometrics 21, 975–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, J. M. & Jinks, J. L. (1968). Environmental and genotype–environmental components of variability. Heredity, Lond. 23, 525–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yates, F. & Cochran, W. G. (1938). The analysis of groups of experiments. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 28, 556–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar