, Volume 193, Issue 3, pp 391–408 | Cite as

Selection of families and parents of sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) through mixed models by joint analysis of two harvests

  • Hugo Zeni Neto
  • Edelclaiton Daros
  • João Carlos Bespalhok Filho
  • Carlos Alberto Scapim
  • Maria Celeste Gonçalves Vidigal
  • Pedro Soares Vidigal Filho


At present, the sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) breeding programs from around the world have practiced early family selection, because in the early stages of breeding the evaluated characteristics have shown low heritability. This study aimed to select through restricted maximum likelihood/best linear unbiased prediction also known “mixed models” the best families among the 78 that comprise the RB05 sugarcane series, stage T1, of Programa de Melhoramento Genético da Cana-de-açúcar of the Rede Interuniversitária para o Desenvolvimento do Setor Sucroalcoleiro, Brazil. The experiments, conducted during 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 in Paranavaí, PR were implemented using an incomplete-block design with five replicates of each family. Each plot was composed of two planting rows of 5 m, spaced from each other by 1.40 m and spacing between plants was of 0.50 m, containing ten seedlings for planting row, resulting in a total of 20 individuals per replicate of each family. The characteristics evaluated were Brix (°Brix), ton of stalk per hectare (TCH) and ton of °Brix per hectare (TBH). The joint analysis obtained from these three traits in both harvests favored the selection of 35–41 families. The analysis also favored the selection of the best parents. The top five families for Brix were: F41M60, F02M77, F41M82, F61M38 and F62M35; to TCH were F66M30, F35M06, F78M45, F70M30 and F57M46 and for TBH the five elites families were F66M30, F35M06, F78M45, F70M30 and F01M39. The five best sugarcane parents for Brix were RB835486, SP91-1049, SP80-3280, RB72454 and RB925211; to TCH were IAC87-3396, RB941531, RB855511, RB915141 and RB957689, and for TBH the elite were IAC87-3396, RB855511, RB957689, RB941531 and RB855563. As each harvest season had different order of the best families, the joint analysis proved to be a primordial tool for plant breeders.


Accuracy REML/BLUP joint analysis Selection index 



The National Council of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) and the Foundation of the University Federal of Paraná for the Advancement of Science, Technology and Culture (FUNPAR) for financial support. The University Federal of Paraná (UFPR) and University State of Maringá (UEM). Pós-Graduate Program in Genetics and Plant Breeding (PGM). And to everyone who participated indirectly in this work.

Supplementary material

10681_2013_947_MOESM1_ESM.doc (140 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 140 kb)


  1. Atkin FC, Dieters MJ, Stringer JK (2009) Impact of depth of pedigree and inclusion of historical data on the estimation of additive variance and breeding values in a sugarcane breeding program. Theor Appl Genet 119:555–565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker RJ (1986) Selection indices in plant breeding. CRC Press, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbosa MHP, Resende MDV, Peternelli LA, Bressiani JA, Silveira LCI, Silva FL, Figueiredo ICR (2004) Use of REML/BLUP for the selection of sugarcane families specialized in biomass production. Crop Breeding Appl Biotechnol 4:218–226Google Scholar
  4. Barbosa MHP, Resende MDV, Silveira LCI, Peternelli LA (2005a) Estratégias de melhoramento genético da cana-de-açúcar em universidades. In: IX Simpósio de atualização em genética e melhoramento de plantas—Seleção recorrente no melhoramento de plantas. UFLA, Lavras, 1:43–58Google Scholar
  5. Barbosa MHP, Resende MDV, Bressiani JA, Silveira LCI, Peternelli LA (2005b) Selection of sugarcane families and parents by REML/BLUP. Crop Breeding Appl Biotechnol 5:443–450Google Scholar
  6. Bastos IT, Barbosa MHP, Cruz CD, Burnquist WL, Bressiani JA, Silva FL (2003) Análise dialélica em clones de cana-de-açúcar. Bragantia 62:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bos I, Caligari P (2007) Selection methods in plant breeding, 2nd edn. Springer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  8. Bressiani JA, Burnquist WL, Fuzatto SR, Bonato AL, Geraldi IO (2002) Combining ability in eight selected clones of sugarcane (Saccharum spp). Crop Breeding Appl Biotechnol 2:411–416Google Scholar
  9. Bressiani JA, Vencovsky R, Silva JAG (2003) Repeatability within and between selection stages in a sugarcane breeding program. J Am Soc Sugarcane Technol 23:40–46Google Scholar
  10. Calija V, Higgins AJ, Jackson PA, Bielig LM, Coomans D (2001) An operations research approach to the problem of sugarcane selection. Ann Oper Res 108(1):123–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CONAB—Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (2011) Acompanhamento de safra brasileira: cana-de-açúcar, Primeiro Levantamento, maio/2011—Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. Conab, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  12. Cox M, Hogarth M, Smith G (2000) Cane breeding and improvement. In: Hogarth M, Allsopp P (eds) Manual of cane growing. PK Editorial Service, Brisbane, pp 91–108Google Scholar
  13. Daniels J, Roach BT (1987) Taxonomy and evolution in sugarcane. In: Heinz DJ (ed) Sugarcane improvement through breeding. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 7–84Google Scholar
  14. Dillewijn CV (1952) Botany of sugarcane. The Chronic Botanic, WalthamGoogle Scholar
  15. FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2011) Available in Accessed 04 July 2011
  16. Hazel LN (1943) The genetic basis for constructing selection indexes. Genetics 28(6):476–490PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Jackson PA (2005) Breeding for improved sugar content in sugarcane. Field Crops Res 92(2–3):277–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kimbeng CA, Cox MC (2003) Early generation selection of sugarcane families and clones in Australia: a review. J Am Soc Sugarcane Technol 23(1):20–39Google Scholar
  19. Kimbeng CA, McRae TA, Stringer JK (2000) Gains from family and visual selection in sugarcane, particularly for heavily lodged crops in the Burdekin region. Proc Aust Soc Sugarcane Technol 22:163–169Google Scholar
  20. Kimbeng CA, McRae TA, Cox MC, Stringer JK (2001) Optimizing early generation selection in sugarcane breeding. Proceedings XXIV International Society Sugarcane Technologists, Brisbane, p 448–493Google Scholar
  21. Longo VA, Matsuoka S (1984) Manual de caracterização: morfologia e condução de experimentos. PiracicabaGoogle Scholar
  22. Mariotti JA, Cuenya MI, Salas MBG (1999) Análisis de componentes familiares e intra-familiares em progênies de combinaciones biparentales de cana de azucar (Saccharum spp.). Revista Industrial y Agrícola de Tucumán 76:52–57Google Scholar
  23. McCullagh P, Nelder J (1989) Generalized linear models, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. McRae TA, Erquiaga DL, Jensen LF, Rattey AR, Stringer JK (1998) BSES sugarcane breeding program in the Burdekin. In: Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugarcane Technologists, Brisbane, ISSCT. p 196–203Google Scholar
  25. Meyer K (1991) Estimating variances and covariances for multivariate animal models by restricted maximum likelihood. Genetics Sel Evol 23(1):67–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oliveira RA, Daros E, Bespalhok Filho JC, Zambon JLC, Ido OT, Weber H, Resende MDV, Zeni Neto H (2008) Seleção de famílias de cana-de-açúcar via modelos mistos. Scientia Agraria 9(3):269–274Google Scholar
  27. Ortiz R, Caballero A (1989) Effectiveness of early sugarcane selection procedures in Cuba. Proc Int Soc Sugarcane Technol 20:932–937Google Scholar
  28. Resende MDV (2002) Genética biométrica e estatística no melhoramento de plantas perenes. Embrapa Informação Tecnológica, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  29. Resende MDV (2007a) Software SELEGEN-REML/BLUP : sistema estatístico e seleção genética computadorizada via modelos lineares mistos. Embrapa Florestas, ColomboGoogle Scholar
  30. Resende MDV (2007b) Matemática e estatística na análise de experimentos e no melhoramento genético. Embrapa Florestas, ColomboGoogle Scholar
  31. Resende MDV, Barbosa MHP (2006) Selection via simulated individual BLUP based on family genotypic effects in sugarcane. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 41(3):421–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shen Y, Hoerl AE, McConnell W (1992) An incomplete design in the analytic hierarchy process. Math Comput Model 16(5):121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Silva CM, Vidigal MCG, Vidigal Filho PS, Scapim CA, Daros E, Silvério L (2005) Genetic diversity among sugarcane clones (Saccharum spp.). Acta Sci-Agron 27(2):315–319Google Scholar
  34. Simmonds NW (1996) Family selection in plant breeding. Euphytica 90(2):201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith HF (1936) A discriminant function for plant selection. Ann Eugen 7(3):240–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stringer JK, Cox MC, Atkin FC, Wei X, Hogarth DM (2011) Family selection improves the efficiency and effectiveness of selecting original seedlings and parents. Sugar Tech 13(1):36–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wells WC, Kofoid KD (1986) Selection indices to improve an intermating population of spring wheat. Crop Sci 26(6):1104–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugo Zeni Neto
    • 1
  • Edelclaiton Daros
    • 2
  • João Carlos Bespalhok Filho
    • 2
  • Carlos Alberto Scapim
    • 3
  • Maria Celeste Gonçalves Vidigal
    • 3
  • Pedro Soares Vidigal Filho
    • 3
  1. 1.PMGCA/UFPR/RIDESAParanavaíBrazil
  2. 2.Division of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Fitotecnia and FitossanitarismoUniversity Federal of ParanáCuritibaBrazil
  3. 3.Department of AgronomyUniversity State of MaringáMaringáBrazil

Personalised recommendations