Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T06:33:03.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genotype by Environment Interaction and International Breeding Programmes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

S. Ceccarelli ,
W. Erskine ,
J. Hamblin  and
S. Grando
S. Ceccarelli
Affiliation:
The International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), PO Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria
W. Erskine
Affiliation:
The International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), PO Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria
J. Hamblin
Affiliation:
The International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), PO Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria
S. Grando
Affiliation:
The International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), PO Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper addresses the issue of genotype by environment (G × E) interaction in relation to the distribution of germplasm from international to national breeding programmes. Theoretical aspects of G × E interaction and of the selection versus the test environment are reviewed. The importance of specific adaptation to maximize yield and yield stability under stress conditions is highlighted in barley and lentil. We conclude that repeated cycles of selection at a few sites have a high probability of reducing the frequency of genotypes specifically adapted to environmental and/or agronomic conditions not represented at those sites. Therefore a wider and earlier devolution of the selection work done by International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs) to plant breeders in national programmes will increase the chances of exploiting positive G × E interactions. It will also address the needs of small, resource-poor, subsistence farmers and reduce the danger of narrowing genetic diversity within crops and regions. This is an efficient way of making breeding programmes in less developed countries more self-reliant, which is a major objective of International Agricultural Research Centres.

Programas internacionales de reproducción

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , April 1994 , pp. 177 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Atlin, G. N. & Frey, K. J. (1989). Predicting the relative effectiveness of direct versus indirect selection for oat yield in three types of stress environments. Euphytica 44: 137–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlin, G. N. & Frey, K. J. (1990). Selecting oat lines for yield in low-productivity environments. Crop Science 30: 556–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, A. (1988). Plant Breeding for Stress Environments. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Bramel-Cox, P. J., Barker, T., Zavala-Garcia, F. & Eastin, J. D. (1991). Selection and testing environments for improved performance under reduced-input conditions. In Plant Breeding and Sustainable Agriculture: Considerations for Objectives and Methods, 29–56. CSSA Special Publication No. 18. Madison: Crop Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Ceccarelli, S. (1984). Utilization of landraces and H. spontaneum in barley breeding for dry areas. Rachis 3(2):8–11.Google Scholar
Ceccarelli, S. (1989). Wide adaptation. How wide? Euphytica 40: 197–205.Google Scholar
Ceccarelli, S. & Grando, S. (1991 a). Selection environment and environmental sensitivity in barley. Euphytica 57: 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceccarelli, S. & Grando, S. (1991 b). Environment of selection and type of germplasm in barley breeding for stress conditions. Euphytica 57: 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceccarelli, S., Acevedo, E. & Grando, S. (1991). Breeding for yield stability in unpredictable environments: single traits, interaction between traits, and architecture of genotypes. Euphytica 56: 169–185.Google Scholar
Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S. & Hamblin, J. (1992). Relationships between barley grain yield measured in low and high yielding environments. Euphytica 64: 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cubero, J. I. (1981). Origin, taxonomy and domestication. In Lentils, 15–38 (Eds. Webb, C. and Hawtin, G.). Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Erskine, W., Ellis, R. H., Summerfield, R. J., Roberts, E. H. & Hussain, A. (1990). Characterization of responses to temperature and photoperiod for time to flowering in a world lentil collection. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 80: 193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1981). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Second Edition. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Finlay, K. W. & Wilkinson, G. N. (1963). The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Australian journal of Agricultural Research 14: 742–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grando, S. & McGee, R. J. (1990). Utilization of barley landraces in a breeding program. In Biotic Stresses of Barley in Arid and Semi-Arid Environments. Big Sky, Montana.Google Scholar
Hamblin, J. (1992). Can resource capture principles assist plant breeders or are they too theoretical? 52nd Nottingham Easter School (in press).Google Scholar
Hamdi, A., Erskine, W. & Gates, P. (1992). Adaptation of lentil seed yield to varying moisture supply. Crop Science 34: 987–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hildebrand, P. E. (1984). Modified stability analysis of farmer managed, on-farm trials. Agronomy journal 76: 271–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hildebrand, P. E. (1990). Modified stability analysis and on-farm research to breed specific adaptability for ecological diversity. In Genotype-by-Environment Interaction and Plant Breeding, 169–180 (Ed. Kang, M. S.). Baton Rouge: Department of Agronomy, Lousiana Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar
ICARDA (1982). International Nursery Report No. 4. Food Legume Nurseries 1982–83. Aleppo, Syria: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas.Google Scholar
ICARDA (1983). International Nursery Report No. 5. Food Legume Nurseries 1983–84. Aleppo, Syria: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas.Google Scholar
ICARDA (1984). International Nursery Report No. 6. Food Legume Nurseries 1984–85 Aleppo, Syria: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas.Google Scholar
ICARDA (1993). Annual Report for 1992 (in press). Aleppo, Syria: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas.Google Scholar
Lawn, R. J. (1988). Breeding for improved plant performance in drought-prone environments. In Drought Research Priorities for the Dryland Tropics (Eds Bidinger, F. R. and Johansen, C.). Hyderabad, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.Google Scholar
Rosielle, A. A. & Hamblin, J. (1981). Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environments. Crop Science 21: 943–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakar, D., Durutan, N. & Meyveci, K. (1988). Factors which limit the productivity of cool season food legumes in Turkey. In World Crops: Cool Season Food Legumes, 137–146 (Ed. Summerfield, R. J.). The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silim, S. N., Saxena, M. C. & Erskine, W. (1993). Adaptation of lentil to the Mediterranean environment. I. Factors affecting yield under drought conditions. Experimental Agriculture 29: 9–19.Google Scholar
Simmonds, N. W. (1981). Genotype (G), environment (E) and GE components of crop yields. Experimental Agriculture 17: 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmonds, N. W. (1984). Decentralized selection. Sugar Cane 6: 8–10.Google Scholar
Simmonds, N. W. (1991). Selection for local adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 82: 363–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmonds, N. W. & Talbot, M. (1992). Analysis of on-farm rice yield data from India. Experimental Agriculture 28: 325–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. E., Coffman, W. R. & Barker, T. C. (1990). Environmental effects on selection under high and low input conditions. In Genotype-by-Environment Interaction and Plant Breeding, 261–272 (Ed. Kang, M. S.). Baton Rouge, USA: Department of Agronomy, Lousiana Agriculture Experimental Station.Google Scholar
Stroup, W. W., Hildebrand, P. E. & Francis, C. A. (1992). Farmer participation for more effective research in sustainable agriculture. In Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in the Tropics, American Society of Agronomy Special Publication (in press).Google Scholar
Summerfield, R. J., Roberts, E. H., Erskine, W. & Ellis, R. H. (1985). Effects of temperature and photoperiod on flowering in lentils (Lens culinaris Medic.). Annals of Botany 56: 659–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ud-Din, N., Carrer, B. F. & Clutter, A. C. (1992). Genetic analysis and selection for wheat yield in drought-stressed and irrigated environments. Euphytica 62: 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yau, S. K. (1991). Variance of relative yield as an agronomic type of stability measure. In Proceedings of the Eighth Meeting of the Eucarpia Section, Biometrics on Plant Breeding, 1–6 July 1991, Brno, Czechoslovakia, 6–8.Google Scholar