Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T04:32:03.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic variation and correlation among yield and quality traits in cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2007

A. JAFARI  and
H. NASERI
A. JAFARI*
Affiliation:
Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands, Tehran, Iran
H. NASERI
Affiliation:
Islamic Azad University, Brojerd, Iran
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The objective of the present research was to study the genetic variability for total dry matter (DM) yield, tiller number, heading date and three quality traits, namely content of digestible dry matter (DDM), water-soluble carbohydrate (WSC) and crude protein (CP), in cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata L.). Twenty-five parents were randomly chosen from a genetically broad-based population, and their respective half-sib (HS) families were generated. Clonally-propagated parents and their HS family seeds were grown as individual plants using a randomized complete block design with two replications in Alborz Research Center, Karaj, Iran, during 2002–04. The results of combined analyses over 2 years showed significant variances between clonal parents for all traits except CP. In the HS generation, between-family variances were only significant for tiller number, heading date and WSC. Clone×year (S2GY) and family×year (S2FY) interactions were significant for all traits except for WSC in HS families. The estimates of broad-sense heritability (h2b) were moderate to high for all traits (h2b=0·37–0·69), except CP. Narrow-sense heritability (h2n) estimates from analyses of progenies and from regression of HS progenies on parents (h2op) were moderate, relatively the same values as h2b for heading date, tiller number and WSC, which suggested that additive genetic variance was the main component controlling these traits. For DM yield and DDM, h2n and h2op estimates were low, whereas h2b estimates were moderate, which suggested that both additive and non-additive gene effects played an important role in the genetic regulation of these traits. Genetic correlations among CP with both WSC and DDM were generally negative, whereas WSC was positively correlated with DDM and tiller number. The genetic correlation among DM yield with DDM was weak and inconsistent and, in general, negative. DM yield had negative and positive correlation with heading date and tiller number, respectively. It was concluded that there was significant variation and moderate heritability for most traits in the cocksfoot populations evaluated to improve yield and quality traits. Selection for high WSC is a means to improve quality in general. The data also indicate that response to combined selection for both DDM and DM yield should be possible. Selection for DDM alone could result in reduction in yield.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 145 , Issue 6 , December 2007 , pp. 599 - 610
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

REFERENCES

Annicchiarico, P. & Romani, M. (2005). Genetic variation, heritability and genetic correlation for forage quality and yield traits of Mediterranean tall fescue germplasm. Plant Breeding 124, 99–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, W. A. (1984). Manual of Quantitative Genetics, 4th edn. Pullman, WA: Academic Enterprises.Google Scholar
Beerepoot, L. J. & Agnew, R. E. (1997). Breeding for improved herbage quality in perennial ryegrass. In Seeds of Progress (Ed. Weddell, J. R.), pp. 135–145. Occasional Symposium of the British Grassland Society, Vol. 31Google Scholar
Beerepoot, L. J., Bouter, W. & Dijkstra, J. A. (1994). Breeding for improved digestibility in perennial ryegrass. In Breeding for Quality: Proceeding of the 19th EUCARPIA Fodder Crops Section Meeting, Brugge, Belgium, 5–8 October 1994 (Eds Reheul, D. & Ghesquière, A.), pp. 237–245. Wageningen, The Netherlands: EUCARPIA.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E. & Reynolds, C. K. (1994). Forage quality, feeding value and animal performance. In Grassland and Society: Proceedings of the 15th EUCARPIA General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, 6–9 June 1994 (Eds Mannetje, L.'t & Frame, J.), pp. 48–60. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Pers.Google Scholar
Breese, E. L. & Davies, W. E. (1970). Selection for factors affecting nutritive value. In Jubilee Report of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station 1919–1969, pp. 33–35. Aberystwyth, Wales, UK: Welsh Plant Breeding Station.Google Scholar
Brown, R. H. & Blaser, R. E. (1970). Soil moisture and temperature effects on growth and soluble carbohydrates of orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.). Crop Science 10, 213–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, D. R. & Casler, M. D. (1993). Environmental and genetic effects on cell wall composition and digestibility. In Forage Cell Wall Structure and Digestibility (Eds Jung, H. G., Buxton, D. R., Hatfield, R. D. & Ralph, J.), pp. 685–714. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Carlier, L. (1994). Breeding forage quality, feeding value and animal performance. In Breeding for Quality: Proceeding of the 19th EUCARPIA Fodder Crops Section Meeting, Brugge, Belgium, 5–8 October 1994 (Eds Reheul, D. & Ghesquière, A.), pp. 25–27. Wageningen, The Netherlands: EUCARPIA.Google Scholar
Casler, M. D. (1998). Genetic variation within eight populations of perennial forage grasses. Plant Breeding 117, 243–249.Google Scholar
Christie, R. B. & Mowat, D. N. (1968). Variability in in vitro digestibility among clones of brome grass and orchard grass. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 48, 67–73.Google Scholar
Clements, R. J. (1973). Breeding for improved nutritive value of Phalaris tuberosa herbage: an evaluation of alternative sources of genetic variation. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 24, 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, V., do Valle Ribeiro, M. & Crowley, J. G. (1977). Potential of grass and legume cultivars under Irish conditions. In Proceedings of the International Meeting on Animal Production from Temperate Grassland, Dublin, June 1977 (Ed. Gilsenan, B.), pp. 23–28.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. P. (1962). Selection for nutritive value. In Report of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station for 1961, pp. 145–156.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. P. (1973). Genetic variation in herbage constituents. In Chemistry and Biochemistry of Herbage, Vol. 2 (Eds Butler, G. W. & Bailey, R. W.), pp. 379–417. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. (1969). Techniques for research in quantitative animal genetics. In Techniques and Procedures in Animal Production Research (Ed. Chapman, A. B.), pp. 36–79. New York: American Society of Animal Science.Google Scholar
Ehlke, N. J. & Casler, M. D. (1985). Anatomical characteristics of smooth bromegrass clones selected for in vitro dry matter digestibility. Crop Science 25, 513–517.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. & Mackay, T. F. C. (1996). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 4th edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Frandsen, K. J. (1986). Variability and inheritance of digestibility in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis), and cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata L.). II. F1 and F2 progeny. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 36, 241–263.Google Scholar
Grusea, A. & Oprea, G. (1994). Variation and inheritance of quality of Dactylis glomerata varieties which were obtained by different breeding methods. In Breeding for Quality: Proceeding of the 19th EUCARPIA Fodder Crops Section Meeting, Brugge, Belgium, 5–8 October 1994 (Eds Reheul, D. & Ghesquière, A.), pp. 145–149. Wageningen, The Netherlands: EUCARPIA.Google Scholar
Hacker, J. B. (1982). Selecting and breeding better quality grasses. In Nutritional Limits to Animal Production from Pasture Proceedings of an International Symposium, Queensland, August 1981, Australia (Ed. Hacker, J. B.), pp. 305–326. Farnham, Surrey, UK: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Hill, R. R. & Leath, K. T. (1975). Genotypic and phenotypic correlations for reaction of five foliar pathogens in alfalfa. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 45, 254–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humphreys, M. O. (1989 a). Water soluble carbohydrates in perennial ryegrass breeding. II. Cultivar and hybrid progeny performance in cut plot. Grass and Forage Science 44, 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, M. O. (1989 b). Water-soluble carbohydrates in perennial ryegrass breeding. III. Relationships with herbage production, digestibility and crude protein content. Grass and Forage Science 44, 423–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, M. O. (1989 c). Assessment of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) for breeding. II. Components of winter hardiness. Heredity 41, 99–106.Google Scholar
Jafari, A. (1998). Genetic analysis of yield and quality in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.). Ph.D. thesis, Department of Crop Science, Horticulture and Forestry, University College Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Jafari, A., Connolly, V. & Walsh, E. J. (2003 a). Genetic analysis of yield and quality in full sib families of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) under two cutting managements. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 42, 275–292.Google Scholar
Jafari, A., Connolly, V., Frolich, A. & Walsh, E. J. (2003 b). A note on estimation of quality parameters in perennial ryegrass by near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 42, 293–299.Google Scholar
Kanapeckas, J., Tarakanovas, P. & Lemežienë, N. (2005). Variability, heritability and correlations of genetic resources in meadow fescue. Biologija 3, 10–14.Google Scholar
Lamb, J. F. S., Vogel, K. P. & Reece, P. E. (1984). Genotype and genotype×environment interaction effects on forage yield and quality of crested wheatgrass. Crop Science 24, 559–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marais, J. P., Goodenough, D. C. W., De Figueiredo, M. & Hopkins, C. (2003). The development of a Lolium mutiflorum cultivar with low moisture content and an increased readily digestible energy to protein ratio. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 54, 101–106.Google Scholar
Martiniello, P. (1998). Influence of agronomic factors on the relationship between forage production and seed yield in perennial forage grasses and legumes in a Mediterranean environment. Agronomie 18, 591–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marum, P., Hovin, A. W., Marten, G. C. & Shenk, J. S. (1979). Genetic variability for cell wall constituents and associated quality traits in reed canarygrass. Crop Science 19, 355–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marum, P., Rognli, O. A., Aastveit, A. H. & Aastveit, K. (1994). Improved digestibility and protein content as breeding problems in Norwegian timothy (Phleum pratense L.) and cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata L.). In Breeding for Quality: Proceeding of the 19th EUCARPIA Fodder Crops Section Meeting, Brugge, Belgium, 5–8 October 1994 (Eds Reheul, D. & Ghesquière, A.), pp. 137–141. Wageningen, The Netherlands: EUCARPIA.Google Scholar
Nguyen, H. T. & Sleper, D. A. (1983). Genetic variability of seed yield and reproductive characters in tall fescue. Crop Science 23, 621–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niaky, S. (1995). Land Grass Cover of Iran (in Persian). Ahwaz, Iran: Chamran University Press.Google Scholar
Pavetti, D. I. T., Sleper, D. A., Roberts, C. A. & Krause, G. F. (1994). Genetic variation and relationship of quality traits between herbage and seed of tall fescue. Crop Science 34, 427–431.Google Scholar
Quesenberry, K. H., Sleper, D. A. & Cornell, J. A. (1978). Heritability and correlation of IVDMD, maturity and plant height in Rhodes grass. Crop Science 18, 847–849.Google Scholar
Radojevic, I., Simpson, R. J., St. John, J. A. & Humphreys, M. O. (1994). Chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of lines of Lolium perenne selected for high concentrations of water soluble carbohydrate. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 45, 901–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, I. M., Karn, J. F. & Dara, S. T. (1996). Heritabilities of nutritive quality factors and interrelationships with yield in tetraploid crested wheatgrass. Crop Science 36, 1488–1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rechinger, K. H. (1970). Flora Iranica. No. 70. Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt.Google Scholar
Sanada, Y., Takai, T. & Yamada, T. (2004). Genetic variation in water-soluble carbohydrate concentration in diverse cultivars of Dactylis glomerata L. during vegetative growth. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 55, 1183–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shenk, J. S. & Westerhaus, M. O. (1982). Selection for yield and quality in orchardgrass. Crop Science 22, 422–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sleper, D. A., Drolsom, P. N. & Jorgensen, N. A. (1973). Breeding for improved dry matter digestibility in smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss.). Crop Science 13, 556–558.Google Scholar
Smith, K. F., Reed, K. F. M. & Foot, J. Z. (1997). An assessment of relative importance of specific traits for the genetic improvement of nutritive value in dairy pasture. Grass and Forage Science 52, 167–175.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1980). Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach, 2nd edn. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
Vogel, K. P., Haskins, F. A. & Gorz, H. J. (1980). Parent-progeny regression in indiangrass: inflation of heritability estimates by environmental covariances. Crop Science 20, 580–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, J. L. & Corbett, J. L. (1989). Criteria for breeding forages of improved feeding value: results of a Delphi survey. Grass and Forage Science 44, 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, R. J. K. & Evans, E. M. (1974). Digestibility and Voluntary Intake of Be-6393 Cocksfoot. Report of Welsh Plant Breeding Station for 1973, pp. 43–44. Aberystwyth, UK: Welsh Plant Breeding Station.Google Scholar