Selection and Breeding for Extreme Genotypes

  • G. S. Foster


In general, tree breeders have not aggressively utilized all of the genetic variation available to them in forest tree populations. This reluctance has been due, in part, to technical limitations such as long generation intervals, strong inbreeding depression, lack of precise estimates of nonadditive variance, and difficulty in vegetative propagation. Research results over the last few decades present tree breeders with knowledge and techniques which together enable them to use more complex improvement plans to exploit the total genetic variation which is available.


Forest Tree Genetic Gain Assortative Mating Vegetative Propagation Seed Orchard 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allaire FR (1980) Mate selection by selection index theory. Theor Appl Genet 57:267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker RJ (1986) Selection indices in plant breeding. CRC, Boca Raton.Google Scholar
  3. Bentzer BG, Foster GS, Hellberg AR, Podzorski AC (1988) Genotype × environment interaction in Norway spruce involving three levels of genetic control: seed source, clone mixture, and clone. Can J For Res 18:1172–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentzer BG, Foster GS, Hellberg AR (1990) Impact of clone mixture composition on stability of seventh-year mean height in a series of Norway spruce clone tests. Can J For Res 20:757–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breese EL (1956) The genetical consequences of assortative mating. Heredity 10:323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Briggs FN, Knowles PF (1967) Introduction to plant breeding. Reinhold, New York Amsterdam London.Google Scholar
  7. Burdon RD (1971) Clonal repeatabilities and clone-site interactions in Pinus radiata. Silv Genet 20:33–39.Google Scholar
  8. Burdon RD (1986) Clonal forestry and breeding strategies — a perspective. In: Proc IUFRO Conf, Joint Meet Working parties on breeding theory, progeny testing, seed orchards, 13–17 Oct. North Carolina State Univ, Raleigh, pp 645-657.Google Scholar
  9. Burdon RD, Namkoong G (1983) Multiple populations and sublines. Silv Genet 32:221–222.Google Scholar
  10. Burdon RD, Shelbourne CJA (1974) The use of vegetative propagules for obtaining genetic information. N Z J For Sci 4:418–425.Google Scholar
  11. Cannell MGR (1978) Improving per hectare forest productivity. In: Hollis CA, Squillace AE (ed) Proc 5th North American forest biology Worksh, 13–15 March. Univ Florida, Gainesville, pp 120–148.Google Scholar
  12. Cannell MGR, Sheppard LJ, Cahalan CM (1988) C effects and second generation clone performance in Picea sitchensis and Pinus contorta. Silv Genet 37:15–19.Google Scholar
  13. Clutter JL, Fortson JC, Pienaar LV, Blister GH, Bailey RL (1983) Timber management: a quantitative approach. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Comstock RE, Robinson HF, Harvey PH (1949) A breeding procedure designed to make maximum use of both general and specific combining ability. Agron J 41:360–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cotterill P, Dean C, Cameron J, Brindbergs M (1988) Nucleus breeding: a new strategy for rapid improvement under clonal forestry. In: Proc IUFRO Meeting Breeding tropical trees, 28 Nov–2 Dec, Pattaya, Thailand, pp 39-51.Google Scholar
  16. Crow JF, Felsenstein J (1968) The effect of assortative mating on the genetic composition of a population. Eugenics 15:85–97.Google Scholar
  17. Dickerson, GE (1973) Inbreeding and heterosis in animals. In: Proc Animal breeding and genetics symp Hon Dr. Jay L. Lush, 29 July 1972, Blacksburg. Am Soc Animal Sci L; and Am Dairy Sci Assoc, pp 54-77.Google Scholar
  18. Falconer DS (1981) Quantitative genetics. Longman, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Foster GS (1986) Making clonal forestry pay: breeding and selection for extreme genotypes. In: Proc IUFRO Conf, Joint Meet working parties on breeding theory, progeny testing, seed orchards, 13–17 Oct 1986. North Carolina State Univ, Raleigh, pp 582–590.Google Scholar
  20. Foster GS (1989) Inter-genotypic competition in forest trees and its impact on realized gain from family selection. In: Proc 20th Southern forest tree improvement Conf, 27–29 June, Charleston. NTIS, Springfield, pp 21–35.Google Scholar
  21. Foster GS, anderson RL (1989) Indirect selection and clonal propagation of loblolly pine seedlings enhance resistance to fusiform rust. Can J For Res 19:534–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foster GS, Shaw DV (1987) A tree improvement program to develop clones of loblolly pine for reforestation. In: Proc 19th Southern forest tree improvement Conf, 16–18 June, College Stn, Texas. NTIS, Springfield, pp 17–21.Google Scholar
  23. Foster GS, Campbell RK, Adams WT (1985) Clonal selection prospects in western hemlock combining rooting traits with juvenile height growth. Can J For Res 15:488–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gansel CR (1971) Effects of several levels of inbreeding on growth and oleoresin yield in slash pine. In: Proc 11th Southern forest tree improvement Conf, 15–16 June, Atlanta. NTIS, Springfield, pp 173–177.Google Scholar
  25. Grant V (1963) The origin of adaptations. Columbia Univ Press, New York London.Google Scholar
  26. Greenwood MS (1984) Phase change in loblolly pine: shoot development as a function of age. Physiol Plant 61:518–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Griffin AR, Raymond CA, Lindgren D (1986) Effects of inbreeding on seed yield and height growth of Pinus radiata D. Don. In: Proc IUFRO Conf, Joint Meet working parties on breeding theory, progeny testing, seed orchards, 13–17 Oct. North Carolina State Univ, Raleigh, p 603.Google Scholar
  28. Hallauer AR, Eberhart SA (1970) Reciprocal full-sib selection. Crop Sci 10:315–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harper JL (1977) Population biology of plants. Academic Press, New York London.Google Scholar
  30. Hohenboken WD (1985) Genetic structure of populations 2. Matings among distantly related individuals. In: Chapman AB (ed) World animal science, A4. General and quantitative genetics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 214–251.Google Scholar
  31. Kuser JE, Knezick DR (1987) Pitch × loblolly hybrids after 10 years in New Jersey. N J Appl For 4:207–209.Google Scholar
  32. Lambeth CC (1983) Early testing—an overview with emphasis on loblolly pine. In: Proc 17th Southern forest tree improvement Conf, 6–9 June, Athens. NTIS, Springfield, pp 297–311.Google Scholar
  33. Lerner IM (1958) The genetic basis of selection. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Libby WJ (1973) Domestication strategies for forest trees. Can J For Res 3:265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Libby WJ (1982) What is a safe number of clones per plantation? In: Heybroek HM, Stephan BR, von Weissenberg K (eds) Resistance to diseases and pests in forest trees. PUDOC Wageningen, pp 342–360.Google Scholar
  36. Libby WJ (1987a) Testing for clonal forestry. Ann For 13:69–75.Google Scholar
  37. Libby WJ (1987b) Testing and deployment of genetically engineered trees. In: Bonga JM, Durzan DJ (ed) Cell and tissue culture in forestry, 2nd edn. Nijhoff/Junk, The Hague, pp 167–197.Google Scholar
  38. Libby WJ, Jund E (1962) Variance associated with cloning. Heredity 17:533–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mahalovich MF, Bridgwater FE (1989) Modeling elite populations and positive assortative mating in recurrent selection programs for general combining ability. In: Proc 20th Southern forest tree improvement Conf, 27–29 June, Charleston. NTIS, Springfield.Google Scholar
  40. Markovic J, Herpka I (1986) Plantations in short rotations. In: Poplars and willows in Yugoslavia. Poplar Res Inst, Novi Sad, pp 182-198.Google Scholar
  41. McKeand SE (1985) Expression of mature characteristics by tissue culture plantlets derived from embryos of loblolly pine. J Am Soc Horic Sci 110:619–623.Google Scholar
  42. McKeand SE, Foster GS, Bridgwater FE (1986) Breeding systems for pedigree-controlled production populations of loblolly pine. In: Proc Worksh Advanced generation breeding: current status and research needs, 6–7 June 1984, Baton Rouge. S Coop Ser Bull. 309. Louisiana State Univ, Baton Rouge, pp 53–61.Google Scholar
  43. Namkoong G (1976) A multiple-index selection strategy. Silv Genet 25:199–201.Google Scholar
  44. Nance WL (1983) Simulated growth and yield of single family versus multi-family loblolly pine plantations. In: Proc 2nd Biennial Southern silviculture research Conf, 4–5 Nov 1982, Atlanta. US For Serv, SE For Exp Stn Gen Tech Rep SE-24, pp 446-453.Google Scholar
  45. Nance TWL, McCutchan BG, Talbert CB, Buford MA, Foster GS, Sprinz P (1987) Experimental approaches for evaluating genetic effects on stand growth and yield. In: Proc Worksh Statistical considerations in genetic testing, 25–26 June 1986, Gainesville. S Coop Ser Bull 324. Univ Florida, Gainesville, pp 22–39.Google Scholar
  46. Progeny Testing of Forest Trees (1983) Proc Worksh Progeny testing, 15–16 June 1982, Auburn. S Coop Ser Bull 275. Univ Press, Auburn.Google Scholar
  47. Reeve ECR (1961) A note on non-random mating in progeny tests. Genet Res 2:195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Riemenschneider DE, Haissig BE, Sellmer J, Fillatti JJ (1988) Expression of an herbicide tolerance gene in young plants of a transgenic hybrid poplar clone. In: Ahuja MR (ed) Somatic cell genetics of woody plants. Kluwer, Dordrecht Boston London, pp 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Russell JH, Libby WJ (1986) Clonal testing efficiency: the trade-offs between clones tested and ramets per clone. Can J For Res 16:925–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shaw DV, Hood JV (1985) Maximizing gain per effort by using clonal replicates in genetic tests. Theor Appl Genet 71:392–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Skroppa T (1984) A critical evaluation of methods available to estimate the genotype × environment interaction. Stud For Suec 166:3–14.Google Scholar
  52. Sluder ER, Powers HR (1986) Further comparisons between infection of loblolly and slash pines by fusiform rust after artificial inoculation or planting. US For Serv, SE For Exp Stn Res Note SE-342, 3 pp.Google Scholar
  53. St. Clair JB, Kleinschmit J (1986) Genotype-environment interaction and stability in ten-year height growth of Norway spruce clones (Picea abies Karst.). Silv Genet 35:177–186.Google Scholar
  54. Stebbins GL (1950) Variation and evolution in plants. Columbia Univ Press, New York London.Google Scholar
  55. Sweet GB, Wells LG (1974) Comparison of the growth of vegetative propagules and seedlings of Pinus radiata. N Z J For Sci 4:399–409.Google Scholar
  56. Tauer CG (1975) Competition between selected black cottonwood genotypes. Silv Genet 24:44–49.Google Scholar
  57. Teissier du Cros E (1984) Breeding strategies with poplars in Europe. For Ecol Manag 8:23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Trenbath BR (1974) Biomass productivity of mixtures. Adv Agron 26:177–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Turner HN, Young SSY (1969) Quantitative genetics in sheep breeding. MacMillan Aust, South Melbourne.Google Scholar
  60. van Buijtenen JP, Lowe WJ (1979) The use of breeding groups in advanced generation breeding. In: Proc 15th southern forest tree improvement Conf, 19–21 June. Mississippi State Univ. NTIS, Springfield, pp 59–65.Google Scholar
  61. van Buijtenen JP, Namkoong G (1983) Mating designs. In: Progeny testing of forest trees. Proc Worksh Progeny testing, 15–16 June 1982, Auburn. S Coop Ser Bull 275. Univ Press, Auburn.Google Scholar
  62. Wilcox JR, Farmer RE (1968) Heritability and C effects in early root growth of eastern cottonwood cuttings. Heredity 23:239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wisniewski LA, McKeand SE, Brooks RE (1983) Growth of tissue culture plantlets of loblolly pine in a nursery and greenhouse. In: Proc 17th Southern forest tree improvement Conf, 6–9 June, Athens. NTIS, Springfield, pp 186–193.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. S. Foster
    • 1
  1. 1.USDA Forest Service, Plant and Soil Science DepartmentAlabama A&M UniversityNormalUSA

Personalised recommendations