Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 123–133 | Cite as

Improving Pedigree Selection in Applied Breeding of Barley Populations

  • V. GreveniotisEmail author
  • S. Zotis
  • E. Sioki
  • C. G. Ipsilandis


The objectives of this study were (a) to compare the effectiveness of the two methods of pedigree selection in barley: the ear-to-row classical pedigree method and the honeycomb method and (b) the evaluation of the selection criteria of the honeycomb methodology. Five F12 lines developed by classical pedigree method were used as checks in order to compare seven lines developed by honeycomb methodology. Five honeycomb pedigree lines were selected by PYI basic selection criterion of honeycomb methodology and two more (rejected by PYI) were selected by YC, a new criterion proposed for improving selection of high yielding plants in honeycomb design. Also, the original local population from which all these lines were derived and two commercial barley cultivars were used as the basic checks. All genotypes selected by classical and honeycomb pedigree method out yielded the original local population. Many of them reached or out yielded the commercial cultivars used as checks and thus both classical and honeycomb pedigree methods were able to promote some homozygous genotypes in order to be used as new cultivars. Yield performance of progeny lines selected by classical pedigree method was better than honeycomb’s. Only when YC was used as selection criterion honeycomb pedigree lines showed high yielding performance. Comparing PYI and YC selection criteria, it seems that the second is better for promoting high yielding and stable lines for next generations to be used as future new cultivars. Grain yield and bulk density are safer traits than 1000-kernel weight, for efficient selection that ensures high and stable yields.


local population honeycomb selection effectiveness pedigree 



Non-replicated Honeycomb design


Replicated Honeycomb design with 21 entries (families)


Randomized Complete Block design


Plant yield index: \({(x/{\bar x_r})^2}\);


Coefficient of Homeostasis: \(CH = {(\bar x/s)^2}\)


new Yielding Coefficient, (YC) i.e. PYI multiplied by individual plant yield


line evaluation prognostic equation: \(s - PE = {(x/{\bar x_r})^2} \cdot {(\bar x/s)^2}\), where x is the single-plant yield, \({\bar x_r}\) is the average yield of the surrounding plants within a moving ring of a chosen size, \(\bar x\) and s are the progeny line mean and standard deviation


Coefficient of Variation


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

42976_2019_4701123_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (306 kb)
Improving Pedigree Selection in Applied Breeding of Barley Populations


  1. Agorastos, A.G., Goulas, C.K. 2005. Line selection for exploiting durum wheat (T. turgidum L. var. durum) local landraces in modern variety development program. Euphytica 146:117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allard, R.W. 1960. Principles of Plant Breeding. John Wiley & Sons, New York. pp. 1–485.Google Scholar
  3. Backes, G., Orabi, J., Wolday. A., Yahyaoui, A., Jahoor, A. 2009. High genetic diversity revealed in barley (Hordeum vulgare) collected from small-scale farmer’s fields in Eritrea. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 56:85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellucci, E., Bitocchi, E., Rau, D., Nanni, L., Ferradini, N., Giardini, A., Rodriguez, M., Attene, G., Papa, R. 2013. Population structure of barley landrace populations and gene-flow with modern varieties. PloS One 8:e83891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ceccarelli, S., Acevedo, E., Grando, S. 1991. Breeding fro yield stability in unpredictable environments: single traits, interaction between traits, and architecture of genotypes. Euphytica 56:169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fasoula, V.A. 2006. A novel equation paves the way for an everlasting revolution with cultivars characterized by high and stable crop yield and quality. Proceedings of the 11th Congress of the Hellenic Society for the Genetic Improvement of Plants. Orestiada. pp. 7–14.Google Scholar
  7. Fasoula, V.A. 2013. Prognostic Breeding: A new paradigm for crop improvement. Plant Breed. Rev. 37:297–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fasoula, V.A., Fasoula, D.A. 2000. Honeycomb breeding: Principles and applications. Plant Breed. Rev. 18:177–250.Google Scholar
  9. Fasoulas, A.C. 1988. The Honeycomb Methodology of Plant Breeding. A. Altidjis Publ., Thessaloniki. pp. 1–168.Google Scholar
  10. Fasoulas, A.C. 1993. Principles of crop breeding. A.C. Fasoulas, P.O. Box 19555, Thessaloniki, Greece. pp. 1–128.Google Scholar
  11. Greveniotis, V., Fasoula, V.A., Papadopoulos, I.I., Sinapidou, E., Tokatlidis, I.S. 2012. The development of highly-performing open-pollinated maize lines via single-plant selection in the absence of competition. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 6(10):1448–1454.Google Scholar
  12. Guillen-Portal, F.R., Russell, W.K., Eskridge, K.M., Baltensperger, D.D., Nelson, L.A., D’Croz-Mason, N.E., Johnson, B.E. 2004. Selection environments for maize in the U.S. Western High Plains. Crop Sci. 44:1519–1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamza, S., Ben Hamida, W., Rebai, A., Harrabi, M. 2004. SSR based genetic diversity assessment among Tunisian winter barley and relationship with morphological traits. Euphytica 135:107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horsley, R.D., Franckowiak, J.D., Schwarz, P.B. 2009. Barley breeding. In: Carena, M.J. (ed.) Cereals: Handbook of Plant Breeding, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin. pp. 227–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hou, Y.-C., Yan, Z.-H., Wei, Y.-M., Zheng, Y.-L. 2005. Genetic diversity in barley from west China based on RAPD and ISSR analysis. Barley Genet. Newsl. 35:9–22.Google Scholar
  16. Iliadis, G.C., Roupakias, D.G., Goulas, C.K. 2003. Effectiveness of honeycomb selection for yield superiority at three interplant distances: a field simulation study using chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) inbred lines. Euphytica 133(3):299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ipsilandis, C.G., Koutsika-Sotiriou, M. 2000. The combining ability of recombinant S-lines developed from an F2 maize population. J. Agric. Sci. Cambridge. 134(2):191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson, H.W., Robinson, H.F., Comstock, R.I. 1955. Estimates of genetic and environmental variability in soybeans. Agron. J. 47:314–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Joseph, O.D., Oduwaye, O.A., Olakojo, S.A., Ojo, D.K. 2015. Genetic variability, repeatability, traits relationships and path coefficient analysis in low nitrogen donor white inbred lines of maize (Zea mays L). Maydica 60.3–M 25.Google Scholar
  20. Kotzamanidis, S.T., Lithourgidis, A.S., Roupakias, D.G. 2009. Short communication. Plant density effect on the individual plant to plant yield variability expressed as coefficient of variation in barley. Span. J. Agric. Res. 7(3):607–610.Google Scholar
  21. Koutsika-Sotiriou, M., Tsivelikas, A.L., Gogas, Ch., Mylonas, I.G., Avdikos, I. Traka-Mavrona, E. 2013. Breeding methodology meets sustainable agriculture. Int. J. Plant Breed. Genet. 7:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McIntosh, M.S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:53–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moghaddam, M., Ehdaie, B., Waines, J.G. 1997. Genetic variation and interrelationships of agronomic characters in landraces of bread wheat from southeastern Iran. Euphytica 95:361–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Samphantharak, K., Tanapong, O. 2003. Screening methods for high yield corn inbreds in honeycomb design and performances of their hybrid combinations. Kasetsart J. Nat. Sci. 37:1–4.Google Scholar
  25. Steel, R.G.D., Torrie, Η. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. Biometrical Approach, second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Stratilakis, S.N., Goulas, C.K. 2003. Yield performance at three nitrogen rates of a set of honeycomb vs. traditional pedigree selected bread wheat varieties. Eur. J. Agron. 19:65–76.Google Scholar
  27. Tapsell, C.R., Thomas, W.T.B. 1983. Cross predictions studies on spring barley. 2. Estimation of genetic and environmental control of yield and its component characters. Theor. Appl. Genet. 64:353–358.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Vollmann, J., Winkler, J., Fritz, C.N., Grausgruber, H., Ruckenbauer, P. 2000. Spatial field variation in soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.) performance trial affect agronomic characters and seed composition. Eur. J. Agron. 12:13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weltzien, E. 1988. Evaluation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) landrace populations originating from different growing regions in the Near East. Plant Breed. 101:95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Whan, B.R., Knight, R., Rathjen, A.J. 1982. Response to selection for grain yield and harvest index in F2, F3 and F4 derived lines of two wheat crosses. Euphytica 31:139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zeven, A.C. 1998. Landraces: A review of definitions and classifications. Euphytica 104:127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Greveniotis
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • S. Zotis
    • 2
  • E. Sioki
    • 3
  • C. G. Ipsilandis
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural DevelopmentDemocritus University of ThraceOrestiadaGreece
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural Technologists, School of Agricultural Technology, Food Technology and NutritionTechnological Educational Institution of Western MacedoniaFlorinaGreece
  3. 3.Hellenic Agricultural Organization-’’Demeter’’National Center For Quality Control, Classification & Standardization of CottonKarditsaGreece
  4. 4.Department of AgricultureRegional Administration of Central MacedoniaThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations