Advertisement

Selection Indices and Use of Secondary Traits

Chapter
  • 371 Downloads

Abstract

Yield is controlled by many genes, and it is highly influenced by the environment along with often high genotype × environment interaction (GEI), resulting in low heritability estimates. Secondary traits are under the control of fewer genes, have lower GEI, and are characterized by higher heritability estimates. Therefore, traits that show consistent genotypic and phenotypic relationships with yield may be more effective as selection criteria than direct selection for grain yield alone. Breeders commonly use three methods to select for several traits, including tandem selection, independent culling, and index selection. In tandem selection, individual traits are improved successively. In independent culling, individuals must surpass a certain minimum value for each trait to be selected. The plants that are outstanding in certain traits may not be selected if they do not meet the minimum standards for other traits, whereas individuals that are relatively mediocre in some traits are selected as long as they meet the cutoff value in the others. In index selection, each trait is weighted by a score, and the individual scores are summed to give a total score, which is referred to as the index value (I) for the genotype. This is an attempt to correct the weaknesses in tandem selection and independent culling methods. For example, selection for maize grain yield under severe drought stress or low-N has often been considered inefficient because the estimates of heritability of grain yield has been observed to decline with reduced yield levels characteristic of stressed environments. Under these conditions, secondary traits may increase selection efficiency provided they have adaptive value, relatively high heritability, significant genetic correlation with grain yield, and are easy to measure. Based on this, base indices for selecting for Strigaresistance, drought, low-N, and multiple stress tolerance have been developed by IITA and CIMMYT scientists for selecting for tolerance to the individual stresses and/or multiple stress tolerance. Ensuring that greater response to selection is achieved using secondary traits in combination with grain yield in a selection index rather than the primary trait per se is an important strategy in the enhancement of early and extra-early maize in SSA.

Keywords

Secondary Traits Extra-early Maize Independent Culling Tandem Selection Emerged Striga Plants 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Akanvou, L., E.V. Doku, and J. Kling. 1997. Estimates of genetic variances and interrelationships of traits associated with Striga resistance in maize. African Crop Science Journal 5: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akinwale, R.O., M.A.B. Fakorede, B. Badu-Apraku, and A. Oluwaranti. 2014. Assessing the usefulness of GGE Biplot as a statistical tool for Plant Breeders and Agronomists. Cereal Research Communications 42 (3): 534–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alabi, S.O., J.G. Kling, S.G. Ado, E.O. Uyovbisere, S.O. Ajala, F.A. Showemimo, et al. 2001. Progress in breeding for low nitrogen stress in maize in the northern Guinea savanna. In Proceeding of a Regional Maize Workshop on Maize Revolution in West and Central Africa, eds. B. BaduApraku, M.A.B. Fakorede, M. Ouedraogo, R.J. Carsky, and A. Menkir, 151–164, 14–18 May, 2001. WECAMAN/IITA, IITA-Cotonou, Benin Republic.Google Scholar
  4. Allard, R.W., and A.D. Bradshaw. 1964. Implications of genotype-environmental interactions in applied plant breeding. Crop Science 4: 503–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atlin, G.N., and K.J. Frey. 1989. Predicting the relative effectiveness of direct versus indirect selection for yield in three types of stress environments. Euphytica 44: 137–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Badu-Apraku, B. 2006. Estimates of genetic variances in Striga resistant extra-early maturing maize populations. Journal of New Seeds 8: 23–43.Google Scholar
  7. Badu-Apraku, B. 2007. Genetic variances and correlations in an early tropical white maize population after three cycles of recurrent selection for Striga resistance. Maydica 52: 205–217.Google Scholar
  8. Badu-Apraku, B., and R.O. Akinwale. 2011. Cultivar evaluation and trait analysis of tropical early maturing maize under Striga-infested and Striga-free environments. Field Crops Research 121: 186–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Badu-Apraku, B., and A.F. Lum. 2007. Agronomic performance of Striga resistant early-maturing maize varieties and inbred lines in the savannas of West and Central Africa. Crop Science 47: 737–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Badu-Apraku, B., A.O. Diallo, J.M. Fajemisin, and M.A.B. Fakorede. 1997. Progress in breeding for drought tolerance in tropical early maturing maize for the semi-arid zone of west and central Africa. In Developing Drought and low N-Tolerant Maize, eds. G.O. Edmeades, M. Bänziger, H.R. Mickelson, and C.B. Pena-Valdivia. Proceeding of Symposium, 25–29 March 1996. CIMMYT, EL Batan, Mexico. Mexico D.F., CIMMYT.Google Scholar
  11. Badu-Apraku, B., M.A.B. Fakorede, A. Menkir, A.Y. Kamara, and A. Adam. 2004a. Effects of drought-screening methodology on genetic variances and covariances in Pool 16 DT maize population. Journal of Agricultural Science 142: 445–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Badu-Apraku, B., M.A.B. Fakorede, A. Menkir, A.Y. Kamara, L. Akanvou, and Y. Chabi. 2004b. Response of early maturing maize to multiple stresses in the Guinea savanna of west and central Africa. Journal of Genetics and Breeding 58: 119–130.Google Scholar
  13. Badu-Apraku, B., A. Menkir, and A.F. Lum. 2005. Assessment of genetic diversity in extra-early Striga resistant tropical inbred lines using multivariate analyses of agronomic data. Journal of Genetics and Breeding 59: 67–80.Google Scholar
  14. Badu-Apraku, B., A. Menkir, M.A.B. Fakorede, A.F. Lum, and K. Obeng-Antwi. 2006. Multivariate analyses of the genetic diversity of forty-seven Striga resistant tropical early maturing maize inbred lines. Maydica 51: 551–559.Google Scholar
  15. Badu-Apraku, B., A. Menkir, and A.F. Lum. 2007. Genetic variability for grain yield and components in an early tropical yellow maize population under Striga hermonthica infestation. Crop Improvement 20: 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Badu-Apraku, B., A.F. Lum, M.A.B. Fakorede, A. Menkir, Y. Chabi, C. The, M. Abdulai, S. Jacob, and S. Agbaje. 2008. Performance of early maize cultivars derived from recurrent selection for grain yield and Striga resistance. Crop Science 48: 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Badu-Apraku, B., M.A.B. Fakorede, A.F. Lum, and R. Akinwale. 2009. Improvement of yield and other traits of extra-early maize under stress and nonstress environments. Agronomy Journal 101: 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Badu-Apraku, B., A. Menkir, S.O. Ajala, R.O. Akinwale, M. Oyekunle, and K. Obeng-Antwi. 2010. Performance of tropical early-maturing maize cultivars in multiple stress environments. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 90: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Badu-Apraku, B., R.O. Akinwale, S.O. Ajala, A. Menkir, M.A.B. Fakorede, and M. Oyekunle. 2011a. Relationships among traits of tropical early maize cultivars in contrasting environments. Agronomy Journal 103: 717–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Badu-Apraku, B., A.F. Lum, R.O. Akinwale, and M. Oyekunle. 2011b. Biplot analysis of diallel crosses of early maturing tropical yellow maize inbreds in stress and nonstress environments. Crop Science 51: 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Badu-Apraku, B., R.O. Akinwale, S.O. Ajala, A. Menkir, M.A.B. Fakorede, and M. Oyekunle. 2011c. Relationships among traits of tropical early maize cultivars in contrasting environments. Agronomy Journal 103: 717–729.Google Scholar
  22. Badu-Apraku, B., R.O. Akinwale, J. Franco, and M. Oyekunle. 2012a. Assessment of reliability of secondary traits in selecting for improved grain yield in drought and low-nitrogen environments. Crop Science 52: 2050–2062.Google Scholar
  23. Badu-Apraku, B., R. Akinwale, and M. Oyekunle. 2014. Efficiency of secondary traits in selecting for improved grain yield in extra-early maize under Striga-infested and Striga-free environments. Plant Breeding, 1–8, ISSN 0179–9541,  10.1111/pbr.12163.
  24. Badu-Apraku, B., C.G. Yallou, K. Obeng-Antwi, H. Alidu, A.O. Talabi, B. Annor, M. Oyekunle, I.C. Akaogu, and M. Aderounmu. 2016. Yield gains in Extra-early maize cultivars of three breeding eras under multiple environments. Agronomy Journal 109: 418–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bänziger, M., and H. R. Lafitte. 1997. Breeding for N -stressed environments: How useful are N-stressed selection environments and secondary traits? pp. 401–404. In Developing drought and low N tolerant maize. Proceeding of Symposium, eds. G.O. Edmeades, M. Banziger, H.R. Mickelson, and C.B. Pefia Valdivia. 25–29 March 1996. CUNNTT, El Batan, Mexico, DF.Google Scholar
  26. Bänziger, M., G.O. Edmeades, and H.R. Lafitte. 1999. Selection for drought tolerance increases maize yields across a range of nitrogen levels. Crop Science 39: 1035–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Bänziger, M., G.O. Edmeades, D. Beck, and M. Bellon. 2000. Breeding for drought and nitrogen stress tolerance in maize: From theory to practice. Mexico, DF: CIMMYT.Google Scholar
  28. Bolanos, J., and G.O. Edmeades. 1993. Eight cycles of selection for drought tolerance in lowland tropical maize. II. Responses in reproductive behavior. Field Crops Research 31: 253–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ———. 1996. The importance of the anthesis-silking interval in breeding for drought tolerance in tropical maize. Field Crops Research 48: 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Brancourt-Hulmel, M., E. Heumez, and P. Pluchard. 2005. Indirect versus direct selection of winter wheat for low input or high input levels. Crop Science 45: 1427–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Brun, E.L., and J.W. Dudley. 1989. Nitrogen response in the USA and Argentina of corn populations with different proportions of flint and dent germplasm. Crop Science 29: 565–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Carlone, M.R., and W.A. Russell. 1987. Response to plant densities and nitrogen levels for four maize cultivars from different eras of breeding. Crop Science 27: 465–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Castleberry, R.M., C.W. Crum, and C.F. Krull. 1984. Genetic yield improvement of U.S. Maize cultivars under varying fertility and climatic conditions. Crop Science 24: 33–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Chapman, S.C., and G.O. Edmeades. 1999. Selection improves drought tolerance in tropical maize population: Direct and correlated responses among secondary traits. Crop Science 39: 1315–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Comstock, R.E., and R.H. Moll. 1963. Genotype x Environment Interactions. Symp. Statistical Genetics and Plant Breeding. National Academy Science National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 164–196.Google Scholar
  36. DeVries, J. 2000. The inheritance of Striga reactions in maize. pp. 73–84. In Breeding for Striga resistance in cereals, eds. Haussmann, et al. Proceeding of Workshop. IITA, Ibadan. Margraf Verlag, Weikersheim.Google Scholar
  37. Duplessis, D., and F.J. Dijkhuis. 1967. The influence of time lag between pollen shedding and silking on the yield of maize. South African Journal of Science 10: 667–674.Google Scholar
  38. Duvick, D.N. 1984. Genetic contributions to yield gains of U.S. hybrid maize. 1930 to 1980. pp. 1–47. In Genetic contributions to yield gains of five major crop plants, ed. W.R. Fehr. CSSA Spec. Publ. 7. ASA and CSSA. Madison.Google Scholar
  39. Ebdon, J.S., and H.G. Gauch. 2002. Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction analysis of national turfgrass performance trials: II. Cultivar recommendations. Crop Science 42: 497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Edmeades, G.O., J. Bolaños, M. Bänziger, J.-M. Ribaut, J.W. White, M.P. Reynolds, and R. Lafitte. 1998. Improving crop yields under water deficits in the tropics. pp. 437–451. In Crop productivity and sustainability: Shaping the future, eds. V.L. Chopra, et al. Proceeding of 2nd Intl. Crop Sci. Congr., New Delhi, 10–17 Nov. 1996. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH.Google Scholar
  41. Epinat-Le Signor, C., S. Dousse, J. Lorgeou, J.-B. Denis, R. Bonhomme, P. Carolo, and A. Charcosset. 2001. Interpretation of genotype × environment interaction for early maize hybrids over 12 years. Crop Science 41: 663–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fakorede, M.A.B. 1979. Interrelationships among grain yield and agronomic traits in a synthetic population of maize. Maydica 24: 181–192.Google Scholar
  43. Fakorede, M.A.B., and M.O. Adeyemo. 1986. Genotype x environment components of variance for three types of maize varieties in the rainforest zone of south-west of Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Agronomy 2: 43–46.Google Scholar
  44. Falconer, D.S. 1960. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 1st ed. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
  45. Gardner, C.O. 1961. An evaluation of effects of mass selection and seed irradiation with thermal neutrons on yields of corn. Crop Science 1: 241–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gethi, J.G., and M.E. Smith. 2004. Genetic responses of single crosses of maize to Striga hermonthica (Del.) Benth. and Striga asiatica (L.) Kuntze. Crop Science 44: 2068–2077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hall, A.J., F. Vilella, N. Trapani, and C. Chimenti. 1982. The effects of water stress and genotype on the dynamics of pollen shedding and silking in maize. Field Crops Research 5: 349–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Haussmann, B.I.G., D.E. Hess, H.G. Welz, and H.H. Geiger. 2000. Improved methodologies for breeding Striga resistant sorghums. Field Crops Research 66: 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kamprath, E.J., R.H. Moll, and N. Rodriquez. 1982. Effects of N fertilization and recurrent selection on performance of hybrid populations of corn. Agronomy Journal 74: 955–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kang, M.S. 1998. Using genotype by environment interaction for crop cultivar development. Advances in Agronomy 62: 199–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kim, S.K. 1994. Genetics of maize tolerance of Striga hermonthica. Crop Science 34: 900–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kim, S.K., and V.O. Adetimirin. 1995. Overview of tolerance and resistance maize hybrids to Striga hermonthica and Striga asiatica. pp. 255–262. In D.C. Jewell, S.R. Waddington, J.K.Google Scholar
  53. Lafitte, H.R., and M. Bänziger. 1997. Maize population improvement for low soil N: selection gains and identification of secondary traits. pp. 485–489. In Developing drought and low-N tolerant maize, eds. G.O Edmeades, M. Banziger, H.R. Mickelson, C.B. Pena-Valdivia. Proceeding of Symposium, 25–29 March 1996. CUNNTT, El Batan, Mexico, DF.Google Scholar
  54. Lafitte, H.R., and G.O. Edmeades. 1994. Improvement for tolerance to low soil nitrogen in tropical maize. I. Selection criteria. Field Crops Research 39: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. ———. 1995. Stress tolerance in tropical maize is linked to constitutive changes in ear growth characteristics. Crop Science 35: 820–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lee, S.J., W. Yan, K.A. Joung, and M.C. Ill. 2003. Effects of year, site, genotype, and their interaction on the concentration of various isoflavones in soybean. Field Crops Research 81: 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lonnquist, J.H. 1967. Mass selection for prolificacy in maize. Züchter 37: 185–188.Google Scholar
  58. Magari, R., and M.S. Kang. 1993. Genotype selection via a new yield-stability statistic in maize yield trials. Euphytica 70: 105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Menkir, A., and A.O. Akintunde. 2001. Evaluation of the performance of maize hybrids, improved open-pollinated and farmers’ local varieties under well watered and drought stress conditions. Maydica 46: 227–238.Google Scholar
  60. Menkir, A., and J.G. Kling. 2007. Response to recurrent selection for resistance to Striga hermonthica (Del.) Benth in a tropical maize population. Crop Science 47: 674–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Menkir, A., B. Badu-Apraku, C. Thé, and A. Adepoju. 2003. Evaluation of heterotic patterns of IITA lowland white maize inbred lines. Maydica 48: 161–170.Google Scholar
  62. Meseka, S.A., A. Menkir, and A.S. Ibrahim. 2006. Genetic analysis of drought tolerance in maize inbred lines: preliminary results. p. 515. In Demand-driven technologies for sustainable maize production in West and Central Africa, eds. B. Badu-Apraku, M.A.B. Fakorede, A.F. Lum, A. Menkir, and M. Ouedraogo. Proceeding of Fifth biennial regional maize workshop, IITA-Cotonou, Benin, 3–6 May 2005. WECAMAN/IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
  63. MIP. 1996. Maize Improvement Program archival report, 1989–1992. Part 1: Maize Population Improvement. CID, IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
  64. Morris, C.F., K.G. Campbell, and G.E. King. 2004. Characterization of the end-use quality of soft wheat cultivars from the eastern and western US germplasm ‘pools’. Plant Genetic Resources 2: 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Muruli, B.I., and G.M. Paulsen. 1981. Improvement of nitrogen use efficiency and its relationship to other traits in maize. Maydica 26: 63–73.Google Scholar
  66. Ober, E.S., M.L. Bloa, C.J.A. Clark, A. Royal, K.W. Jaggard, and J.D. Pidgeon. 2005. Evaluation of physiological traits as indirect selection criteria for drought tolerance in sugar beet. Field Crops Research 91: 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Oyekunle, M., and B. Badu-Apraku. 2013. Genetic analysis of grain yield and other traits of early-maturing maize inbreds under drought and well-watered conditions. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 200 (2): 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Talabi, A.O., B. Badu-Apraku, and M.A.B. Fakorede. 2017. Genetic variances and relationship among traits of an early maturing maize population under drought stress and low nitrogen environments. Crop Science 57: 681–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wright, S. 1921. Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research 20: 557–585.Google Scholar
  70. Yallou, C.G., A. Menkir, V.O. Adetimirin, and J.G. Kling. 2009. Combining ability of maize inbred lines containing genes from Zea diploperennis for resistance to Striga hermonthica in maize. Euphytica 115: 149–158.Google Scholar
  71. Yan, W., and J. Frégeau-Reid. 2008. Breeding line selection based on multiple traits. Crop Science 48: 417–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yan, W., and M.S. Kang. 2003. GGE Biplot analysis: A graphical tool for breeders, geneticists, and agronomists. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  73. Yan, W., and I. Rajcan. 2002. Biplot evaluation of test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Crop Science 42: 11–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Yan, W., L.A. Hunt, Q. Sheng, and Z. Szlavnics. 2000. Cultivar evaluation and mega-environment investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop Science 40: 597–605.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Institute of Tropical AgricultureIbadanNigeria
  2. 2.Obafemi Awolowo UniversityIle-IfeNigeria

Personalised recommendations