Brief description of results on genomic selection of CIMMYT maize in Africa (Yoseph Beyene et al.) Several populations each with 200 F2 x tester individuals.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Association Mapping as a Breeding Strategy
Advertisements

Planning rice breeding programs for impact
PBG 650 Advanced Plant Breeding
Breeding and Genetics Tools Dr. Brent Hulke Research Geneticist.
Whole genome association mapping of beta-glucan content ir barley Ieva Mežaka, Nils Rostoks Advances in Plant Biotechnology in Baltic Sea region1.
Pedigree Charts Quiz 7B. Pedigree Charts Besides showing possible gene pairings, a pedigree chart gives the probability of each pairing. It shows how.
Update on the NSA SNP project Dr. Venkatramana Pedagaraju – Molecular Breeding and Genomics Technology Manager Dr. Brent Hulke -- Research Geneticist.
Achievements - Products Sweet Sorghum Hybrids Biomass yield and Brix rate in sandy soil at Delhi, Ontario.
Mohammad Abd Elgawad Emam Assistant Lecturer, Agronomy Department,Faculty Of Agriculture.
Background  Energy Sorghum Development ◉ high biomass yield ◉ Structural carbohydrates ◉ Non-structural carbohydrates ◉ drought tolerance ◉ established.
Field Program – Yield Trials Approx yield trial plots in NC –Five NC locations (Sandhills, Plymouth, Lewiston, Caswell, Clayton) –Decent yields this.
Mating Programs Including Genomic Relationships and Dominance Effects
Mating Programs Including Genomic Relationships and Dominance Effects Chuanyu Sun 1, Paul M. VanRaden 2, Jeff R. O'Connell 3 1 National Association of.
GENOMIC MAPPING FOR DROUGHT TOLERANCE IN SORGHUM Introduction Drought is a major abiotic factor limiting crop production. Sorghum is one of the most drought.
Chuanyu Sun Paul VanRaden National Association of Animal breeders, USA Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA Increasing long term response by selecting.
The Community of Practices “Concept applied to rice production in the Mekong Region: Quick conversion of popular rice varieties with emphasis on drought,
Did Recurrent Selection For Yield Affect Iowa Stiff Stalk Synthetic Maize Population Grain Fill Characteristics? Steve Eichenberger Steve Eichenberger.
Breeding for Yield PLS 664 Spring Issues How do we build yield potential into a cross? How do we select for yield in the generations prior to yield.
Development of Salt Tolerance in Rice Through Marker Assisted Selection Tin Tin Myint, and Thida Department of Agricultural Research (DAR), Yezin, Nay.
Introduction of Plant Biotechnology
BREEDING AND BIOTECHNOLOGY. Breeding? Application of genetics principles for improvement Application of genetics principles for improvement “Accelerated”
Dr. Scott Sebastian, Research Fellow, Pioneer Hi-Bred International Plant Breeding Seminar at University of California Davis Accelerated Yield.
Fig. S1 The non-metric multi-dimensional scaling of 24 double haploid (DH) lines (colored in grey) in the background of 225 DH lines (colored in blue)
QTL Associated with Maize Kernel Traits among Illinois High Oil × B73 Backcross-Derived Lines By J.J. Wassom, J.C. Wong, and T.R. Rocheford University.
Gene Bank Biodiversity for Wheat Prebreeding
April 2010 (1) Prediction of Breed Composition & Multibreed Genomic Evaluations K. M. Olson and P. M. VanRaden.
INVESTIGATING CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE SYSTEMS IN ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE TO MITIGATE FUTURE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE By Christian Thierfelder and Patrick.
Use of breeding populations to detect and use QTL Jean-Luc Jannink Iowa State University 2006 American Oat Workers Conference Fargo, ND24 July 2006.
ILRI-CIMMYT perspective on How can Genomics help improve fodder quality in maize? Raman Babu, Vinayan MT, Zaidi PH and M Blummel.
Crop ImprovementPLS 386 September 9, 2005 Outline of topics: (pp in text) I. Conventional plant breeding II. Methods of breeding III. Breeding.
Heterosis for Biomass Yield in Photoperiod-Sensitive Hybrid Sorghums Daniel Packer and William L. Rooney, Soil & Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, Mailstop.
Cornhusker Hybrids “Success Starts with the Seed”.
Association Mapping in European Winter Wheat
Patience, Pride, and Prejudice Some Experience with Maize Germplasm Tom Hoegemeyer.
Advancing the production of maize haploids in vivo RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Manifestation of the main inducers’ marker, R1-nj, has been improved in PHI lines.
Genomes to Fields 2014 Workshop G × E ANALYSIS Diego Jarquin Chicago, IL December 10.
DEVELOPMENT OF EXTRA-EARLY, EARLY, AND INTERMEDIATE MATURING DROUGHT TOLERANT MAIZE VARIETIES IN GHANA K. Obeng-Antwi, PhD Maize Improvement-CSIR CRI.
Introduction to Data Management Arllet M. Portugal Integrated Breeding Platform Breeding Management System Intensive Workshop on Data Management Jan. 26,
The Community of Practices ‘‘ Concept Applied to Rice Production in the Mekong Region: Quick Conversion of Popular Rice Varieties with Emphasis on Drought,
Moukoumbi, Y. D1. , R. Yunus2, N. Yao3, M. Gedil1, L. Omoigui1 and O
Evaluation of early drought tolerant maize genotypes under low nitrogen conditions Nyasha E. Goredema1, Ms Nakai Goredema2, Ezekia Svotwa1, Gabriel Soropa1,
PHENOTYPING FOR ADAPTATION TO DROUGHT AND LOW-PHOSPHORUS SOILS IN COWPEA (VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.) Nouhoun Belko1, Ousmane Boukar1, Christian.
Complex Genomic Trait Predictions to Accelerate Plant Breeding Programs Kelci Miclaus1, Luciano da Costa e Silva1 , and Lauro Jose Moreira Guimaraes2.
Increasing Genetic Gains in Wheat through Physiological Genetics and Breeding Sivakumar Sukumaran1, Matthew Reynolds1, Jose Crossa1, Marta Lopes2, Diego.
Pedigree Charts How to work Dominant and Recessive Genetic Problems with a Pedigree Chart.
JESSE POLAND Kansas State University
Integration of Maize Lethal Necrosis Disease Management in Crop/Livestock Intensification to Enhance Productivity of Smallholder Agricultural Production.
Yield Test Results and Recommendation
W. Wen, T. Guo, V.H. Chavez T., J. Yan, S. Taba CIMMYT
Precision agriculture for SAT; Near future or unrealistic effort?
The Importance of “Genomes to Fields”
Investigating Inheritance
The effect of using sequence data instead of a lower density SNP chip on a GWAS EAAP 2017; Tallinn, Estonia Sanne van den Berg, Roel Veerkamp, Fred van.
S. Naderi1, R. R. Mota1, S. Vanderick1, N. Gengler1
ANNUAL REPORT Richard Pratt Dept. of Horticulture and Crop Science
Growth Stress Response (Agronomical Stress Response)
What are BLUP? and why they are useful?
CIMMYT Stephen Mugo Maize Breeder / CIMMYT Regional Rep (CRR) for Africa Presentation made to the Pan African Demand-Led Plant.
2014 GEM Midwest Trial Results & New Releases
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Predictions of Breed Composition Using Holsteins, Jersey, and Brown Swiss Genotypes K. M. Olson and P. M. VanRaden.
Promoting the Adoption of Improved Technologies
ID: 154 Mirza Mofazzal Islam, PhD Chief Scientific Officer and Head
Jode Edwards, USDA ARS Dustin Mclean, University of Guleph
BTG 461 Bioresources Mgt What is plant breeding?
Development of First Kabuli Type Chickpea Mutant Variety in Bangladesh
Flowering-time QTL in crosses of Lz-0 with Ler and Col.
Frequency distribution of total leaf number for an F2 population derived from a cross of Van-0 with Ler, grown in long days. Frequency distribution of.
Mapping of srt1 by BSA-seq.
Presentation transcript:

Brief description of results on genomic selection of CIMMYT maize in Africa (Yoseph Beyene et al.) Several populations each with 200 F2 x tester individuals genotyped with 200 SNPs and evaluated in DROUGHT and OPTIMUM environments. C0 200 F2 x tester individuals genotyped with 200 SNPs and evaluated in DROUGHT and OPTIMUM environments. Phenotypic selection of the best plants to form C1 Cross the C1, genotyped them, and make predictions to form the C2 plants. Cross the C2, genotyped them, and make predictions to form the C3 plants. Evaluated all cycles of selection together with checks, parents, pedigree, etc. in a field experiment.

Table 1. Mean grain yield performance (Mg ha-1) at cycle 0 (C0), cycle 1 (C1), cycle 2 (C2), cycle 3 (C3), F1, pedigree-selected lines and commercial checks for the eight bi-parental populations evaluated in four managed drought stress environments, and average grain yield gains per selection cycle including and excluding C0. Entries Across eight populations Three DTMA populations Five WEMA populations GY (Mg ha-1) AD (days) PH (cm) C0 2.286 63.910 179.900 2.410 63.670 189.160 2.212 64.060 174.300 C1 2.420 64.080 181.900 2.319 63.940 188.320 2.482 64.160 178.100 C2 2.438 64.410 184.600 2.378 64.830 193.340 2.474 179.400 C3 2.593 64.100 182.200 2.613 64.720 193.220 2.581 63.730 175.600 Pedigree 2.417 64.400 181.700 - F1 2.394 63.930 Parents 2.361 64.000 178.400 2.186 64.130 183.030 2.431 63.950 176.600 Checks 2.180 64.310 180.100 2.191 181.030 2.169 64.700 179.300 LSD0.05 0.219 0.700 5.260 0.342 1.130 6.900 0.257 0.850 6.320 Average gain per cycle (C0, C1, C2, C3) 0.094 0.090 0.960 0.069 0.404 1.720 0.110 -0.105 0.520 Average gain per cycle (C1, C2, C3) 0.086 0.010 0.150 0.151 0.390 2.450 0.050 -0.215 -1.250

Table 1. Mean performance for grain yield (Mg ha-1), anthesis date (days), and plant height (cm) at cycle 0 (C0), cycle 1 (C1), cycle 2 (C2), cycle 3 (C3), hybrid (F1), and pedigree-selected lines for all eight bi-parental populations evaluated in four managed drought stress environments, and average grain yield, anthesis days and plant height per selection cycle including and excluding C0.   CML440/CML504 CML441 /CML444 CML444/Malawi 6x1008 6x1016 6x1017 6x1020 6x1028 ------------------------------------------------------Grain yield (Mg/ha)------------------------------------------------- Cycle0 2.171 2.517 2.540 2.283 2.261 2.532 2.141 1.844 Cycle1 2.592 2.237 2.129 2.697 2.583 2.384 2.317 2.429 Cycle2 2.185 2.333 2.562 2.471 2.573 2.965 2.263 2.098 Cycle3 2.622 2.387 2.883 2.754 2.918 2.375 2.734 2.127 F1 - 2.28 2.957 2.120 2.436 2.177 Parents 2.133 2.248 2.181 2.635 2.464 2.446 2.4 2.214 Pedigree 2.47 2.423 2.456 2.327 2.413 LSD0.05 0.832 0.831 0.536 0.631 0.516 0.392 0.498 0.430 Average gain per cycle (C0, C1, C2, C3) 0.095 -0.040 0.146 0.119 0.192 0.011 0.173 0.052 Average gain per cycle (C1, C2, C3) 0.015 0.048 0.377 0.029 0.168 -0.005 0.208 -0.150

About 2.5 cycles of genomic selection in 1 year with an average increase of 0.069 Mg ha-1 per cycle under DROUGHT. This means about 0.173 Mg ha-1 of gains per year.

About 2.5 cycles of genomic selection in 1 year with an average increase of 0.0495 Mg ha-1 per cycle under DROUGHT. This means about 0.124 Mg ha-1 of gains per year.

RESULT ON RAPID CYCLING SELECTION BASED ON MARKERS ON OTHER BIPARENTAL POPULATIONS

Across 10 biparental populations – OPTIMUM ENVIRONMENTS Grain Yield 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 Group Cycle3 Cycle2 Cycle1 Cycle0 F1 Parents Pedigree Checks

Three cycles of marker only selection in 1.5 years Across 10 biparental populations – OPTIMUM ENVIRONMENTS Gran yield (ton. ha-1)= 6.6577 +0.1837Cycle Grain Yield (ton ha-1) 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 Cycle Cycle0 Cycle1 Cycle2 Cycle3 Three cycles of marker only selection in 1.5 years Overall genetic gain is 1.7- 3.5 times higher than from conventional breeding reported in sub-Saharan Africa.

Across 10 biparental populations – DROUGHT ENVIRONMENTS Grain yieldY 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 Group Cycle3 Cycle2 Cycle1 Cycle0 F1 Parents Pedigree Checks

Three cycles of marker only selection in 1.5 years Across 10 biparental populations – DROUGHT ENVIRONMENTS Grain Yield (ton. ha-1) = 2.5025 +0.0455Cycle Grain Yield (ton. ha-1) 2.0 2.5 3.0 Cycle Cycle0 Cycle1 Cycle2 Cycle3 Three cycles of marker only selection in 1.5 years Overall genetic gain is 1.7- 3.5 times higher than from conventional breeding reported in sub-Saharan Africa.

Performance of hybrids developed through marker selection vs conventional breeding   Pop 5 - Managed Drought  GY (t/ha) % P % C C3S2 2.8 24.0 40.4 2.7 18.9 36.3 2.6 18.7 36.2 18.5 36.0 16.4 34.4 Mean Pedigree 2.2 Mean of checks 1.7 LSD 0.7 CV 17.8 Heritability 0.4 No of Locations 1 Pop 5 - Optimum 7.0 15.2 31.4 6.9 14.0 30.4 13.0 29.6 6.6 9.8 27.0 9.6 26.9 6.0 4.8 1.0 8.1 0.6 4   Pop 7 - Managed drought  GY (t/ha) % P % C C3S2 4.1 30.6 43.7 3.7 22.9 37.5 3.5 19.2 34.4 17.9 33.4 17.6 33.2 Mean Pedigree 2.8 Mean of checks 2.3 LSD 1.0 CV 17.3 Heritability 0.2 No of Locations 2 Pop 7- Optimum % P 6.4 8.9 12.1 8.8 12.0 6.3 7.2 10.5 6.2 6.1 9.4 5.9 9.2 5.8 5.6 0.9 7.6 0.6 4

HYBRIDS DERIVED FROM MARKER TESTED IN DROUGHT ENVIRONMENTS SELECTION TESTED IN DROUGHT ENVIRONMENTS

Means of Hybrids, from C3, Parents, F6, Cross, and Check from two biparental populations evaluated in 3-4 DROUGHT and 3-4 OPTIMUM populations MANAGEMENT Group BLUE GY BLUE GY Drought C3 4.008 Optimal 7.997 3.891 7.909 3.801 7.713 3.722 7.669 3.622 7.608 3.556 7.576 3.551 7.550 3.545 3.541 7.541 3.502 7.468 Parent 3.255 7.123 2.466 5.699 Cross 2.688 6.542 F6 3.525 7.325 2.761 7.219 2.781 6.505 2.645 6.885 2.022 6.566 Check 3.567 5.685 2.852 6.359 3.162 6.700 1.656 4.033 2.124 6.016 MANAGEMENT Group BLUE GY BLUE GY Drought C3 3.196 Optimum 7.089 3.119 7.059 2.614 7.037 2.490 6.932 2.415 6.867 2.375 6.840 2.371 6.825 2.365 6.797 2.359 6.795 2.353 6.767 Parent 2.267 6.383 1.963 6.183 Cross 2.307 5.913 F6 2.057 6.187 2.049 7.215 2.730 6.072 2.206 6.415 1.930 6.686 Check 1.871 5.038 2.291 5.827 1.246 6.533 1.376 2.929 2.036 5.347

Grain Yield Mg ha-1 Entry

Grain Yield Mg ha-1 Entry

Fig. 1i Grain Yield Mg ha-1 Entry

Fig. 1j Grain Yield Mg ha-1 Entry

HYBRIDS DERIVED FROM MARKER TESTED IN OPTIMUM ENVIRONMENTS SELECTION TESTED IN OPTIMUM ENVIRONMENTS

CONCLUSIONS RAPID CYCLING OF GENOMIC SELECTION IN MAIZE BIPARENTAL BREEDING POPULATIONS WORK!

http://genomics.cimmyt.org Thanks!! j.crossa@cgiar.org