1. bookVolume 55 (2006): Issue 1-6 (December 2006)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2509-8934
First Published
22 Feb 2016
Publication timeframe
1 time per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Comparison of Phenotype and Combined Index Selection at Optimal Breeding Population Size Considering Gain and Gene Diversity

Published Online: 19 Oct 2017
Volume & Issue: Volume 55 (2006) - Issue 1-6 (December 2006)
Page range: 13 - 19
Received: 01 Jul 2005
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2509-8934
First Published
22 Feb 2016
Publication timeframe
1 time per year
Languages
English
Abstract

A breeding program was simulated in this study. Two alternative ways of selecting the breeding population for the following generation was compared. Phenotypic selection, which means to select just on the individual performance, and combined index selection, which means selection on predicted breeding value for each individual obtained by weighting family average and individual phenotype, were compared. The plant number (testing resource) and gene diversity (status number, Ns) were kept constant, but the breeding population size was variable and chosen for maximizing gain for the particular breeding scenario. At low and medium heritability phenotypic selection was inferior to combined index selection. Only when heritability was high phenotypic selection was as efficient (generation 1) as or more efficient (generation 5) than combined index selection. This contrasts to earlier studies done under constant breeding population size, where selection methods appeared similar. The advantage in gain of combined index selection is usually at a larger breeding population size. At limited heritability and breeding population size the difference is considerable. When breeding population size was kept rather small (<100), and the heritability limited, combined index selection can result in slightly higher gain than phenotypic selection at the same gene diversity, but this was at the cost of a much larger breeding population. Phenotypic selection and combined index selection appears as rather similar for many cases in this simple model used in this study. Considering other advantages with phenotypic selection, it may often be regarded as a competitive alternative.

Keywords

ANDERSSON, E. W., K. A. SPANOS, T. J. MULLIN and D. LINDGREN (1998a): Phenotypic selection can be better than selection for breeding value. Scand. J. For. Res. 13: 7-11.10.1080/02827589809382956Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

ANDERSSON, E. W., K. A. SPANOS, T. J. MULLIN and D. LINDGREN (1998b): Phenotypic selection compared to restricted combined index selection for many generations. Silva Fennica 32(2): 111-120.10.14214/sf.689Search in Google Scholar

BURTON, G.W. (1974a): Recurrent restricted phenotypic selection increases forage yields of Pensacola bahiagrass. Crop Sci. 14: 831-835.10.2135/cropsci1974.0011183X001400060016xOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

BURTON, G.W. (1974b): Improved recurrent restricted phenotypic selection increases Bahiagrass forage yields. Crop Sci. 22: 1058-1061.10.2135/cropsci1982.0011183X002200050040xOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

COCKERHAM, C. C. (1967): Group inbreeding and coancestry. Genetics 56: 89-104.10.1093/genetics/56.1.8912114966035597Search in Google Scholar

COTTERILL, P. P. (1986): Gentic gains from alternative breeding strategies including simple low cost options. Silvae Genet. 35: 212-223.Search in Google Scholar

DANUSEVIČIUS, D. and D. LINDGREN (2005): Optimisation of breeding population size for long-term breeding. Scandinavian Journal Forest Research (20) 1: 18-25.10.1080/02827580410019517Search in Google Scholar

DEMPFLE, L. (1990): Problems in the use of the relationship matrix in animal breeding. In: Advances in statistical methods for genetic improvement of livestock. (ed. D. GIANOLA and K. HAMMOND). Pp. 454-473. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.10.1007/978-3-642-74487-7_20Search in Google Scholar

FALCONER, D. S. (1989): Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 3rd edition. Longman, Scientific and Technical.Search in Google Scholar

LINDGREN, D., L. D. GEA and P. A. JEFFERSON (1996): Loss of genetic diversity monitored by status number. Silvae Genetica 45: 52-59.Search in Google Scholar

LINDGREN, D. (2003): Low-input tree breeding strategies. In: Eucalyptus plantations-Research, Management and Development, R.-P. WEI and D. XU (eds), World scientific, Singapore, 146-149.10.1142/9789812704504_0013Search in Google Scholar

LSTIBŮREK M, 2005: Population response to positive assortative mating in forest tree breeding, PhD dissertation. North Carolina State University, Raleigh. USA.Search in Google Scholar

MULLIN, T. J. and Y. S. PARK (1995): Stochastic simulation of population management strategies for tree breeding: a new decision support tool for tree personal computers. Silvae Genet. 44: 132-141.Search in Google Scholar

ROSVALL, O. (1999): Enhancing gain from long-term forest tree breeding while conserving genetic diversity. Ph.D Thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Genetics and Plant Physiology, Umeå.Search in Google Scholar

WEI, R.-P. and D. LINDGREN (1991): Selection effects on diversity and gain. Silva Fennica 25(4): 229-234. Search in Google Scholar

WEI, R.-P. and D. LINDGREN (1993): Phenotypic selection was more efficient than combined index selection when applied on full sibs of lodgepole and Scots pine. Dept. of Forest Genetics and Plant Physiology, SUAS Report 11: 289-292.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo