Method for evaluation with indicators of the breeding progress introduced by plant cultivars
Franciszek Rudnicki
biuro.dziekana.wrib@pbs.edu.plKatedra Podstaw Produkcji Roślinnej i Doświadczalnictwa, Uniwersytet Technologiczno — Przyrodniczy w Bydgoszczy (Poland)
Abstract
The paper contains a proposal for a new method of evaluation of breeding progress delivered by each individual cultivar. The assessment consists of progress indicators, based on data from many years of experiments. Following indicators are calculated: PHO — breeding progress delivered by individual cultivar in terms of the trait; UPHO — useful breeding progress delivered by cultivar in terms of the trait; UTO — useful durability of the cultivar; WOC — usefulness of cultivar. It is assumed that the cultivar delivers breeding progress if its given trait, during the first 4 years of the research, is higher (more beneficial) than the best of the older cultivar among the tested cultivars, in the same years. Cultivar delivers useful breeding progress of trait if, in the first 4 years of the research, its value is better than the average value of the trait for the older cultivars, in the same years. Cultivar is usefully durable if, in the years of its use (research), it is better with regard to a given trait than the average value of the trait of all cultivars (older and newer), in the comparable period. UTO indicator also allows to estimate the number of years of the cultivar durability. Index of usefulness of cultivar (WOC) is calculated as the average of the indicators PHO, UPHO and UTO. Indicators can be calculated for each trait, if its values are measurable and this trait has farming importance. Indicators calculated for the different traits of the crop are comparable if the data come from the same experiments and years.
Keywords:
breeding progress, cultivar, evaluation indicators, methodReferences
Arseniuk E., Krzymuski J., Martyniak J., Oleksiak T. 2003. Historia hodowli i nasiennictwa na ziemiach polskich. Wyd. ProDruk, Poznań.
Google Scholar
Duczmal K. W. 2003. Wykorzystanie postępu odmianowego w krajowym rolnictwie. Post. Nauk Rol. 6: 105 — 113.
Google Scholar
Feyerherm A. M., Paulsen G. M., Sebaugh J. L. 1984. Contribution of genetic improvement to recent wheat field increases in the USA. Agronomy J. 76: 985 — 990.
Google Scholar
Kaczyński L. 2011. Pszenica ozima. Ocena postępu hodowlanego dokonanego w Polsce w XX wieku. Część 1. Wiad. Odmianozn., z. 87, COBORU Słupia Wielka.
Google Scholar
Kamasa J. 1986. Postęp odmianowy ziemniaka w Polsce. Wiad. Odmianozn., z. 18, COBORU Słupia Wielka.
Google Scholar
Krzymuski J. 1989. Potencjalna i rzeczywista efektywność postępu biologicznego w produkcji zbóż w Polsce. Biul. IHAR, 171–172: 29 — 38.
Google Scholar
Krzymuski J. 1991 a. Postęp odmianowy w produkcji zbóż w Polsce. Cz. I - VI. Biul. IHAR 177: 3 — 8.
Google Scholar
Krzymuski J. 1991 b. Postęp w hodowli odmian i jego wykorzystanie w produkcji. Cz. I. Zboża, okopowe, oleiste. Biul. IHAR 180: 65 — 73.
Google Scholar
Krzymuski J., Laudański Z. 1996. Ilościowe wskaźniki postępu genetycznego pszenicy ozimej i żyta. Biul. IHAR 200: 47 — 52.
Google Scholar
Krzymuski J., Laudański Z., Oleksiak T. 1993. Metody oceny postępu genetycznego. Zesz. Nauk. AR Wrocław, 223: 49 — 56.
Google Scholar
Mackay I., Horwell A., Garner J., White J., Mckee J., Philpott H. 2011. Reanalyses of the historical series of UK variety trials to quantify the contributions of genetic and environmental factors to trends and variability in yield over time. Theor. Appl. Gen. 122 (1): 225 — 238.
Google Scholar
Malepszy S. 2004. Rola postępu biologicznego w produkcji roślinnej. Post. Nauk Rol. 3: 53 — 63.
Google Scholar
Mańkowski D. 2009. Postęp biologiczny w hodowli, nasiennictwie i produkcji ziemniaka w Polsce. Cz. I. Przegląd ilościowych metod oceny postępu hodowlanego i odmianowego. Biul. IHAR 251:153 — 173.
Google Scholar
Oleksiak T. 2002. Efekty hodowli pszenicy ozimej. I. Zmiany potencjału plonowania odmian. Biul. IHAR 223/224: 67 — 75.
Google Scholar
Oleksiak T., Mańkowski D. R., Laudański Z. 2004. Metoda oceny postępu hodowlanego w warunkach produkcyjnych. Colloquium Biometr. 34 a: 109 — 121.
Google Scholar
Rudnicki F. 2014 a. Postęp hodowlany pszenżyta ozimego w latach 1982–2012. I. Plon i niektóre cechy ziarna. Biul. IHAR 273: 17 — 33.
Google Scholar
Rudnicki F. 2014 b. Postęp hodowlany pszenżyta ozimego w latach 1982–2012. II. Odporność na czynniki biotyczne i abiotyczne. Biul. IHAR 273: 35 — 53.
Google Scholar
Runowski H. 1997. Postęp biologiczny w rolnictwie. Wyd. SGGW, Warszawa.
Google Scholar
Silvey V. 1986. The contribution of new varieties to cereal yields in England and Wales between 1947 and 1983. J. Natn. Inst. Agric. Bot. 17: 155 — 168.
Google Scholar
Szymczyk R. 1973. Ruch odmianowy i próba oceny postępu w hodowli jęczmienia jarego w Polsce w latach 1956–1971. Biul. Oceny Odmian 4:113 — 123.
Google Scholar
Szymczyk R. 2004. Efektywność hodowli roślin i jej znaczenie dla produkcji rolniczej. Wiad. Odmianozn., z. 79, COBORU Słupia Wielka.
Google Scholar
Szymczyk R. 2006. Odmianoznawstwo i ocena odmian. PWRiL, Poznań.
Google Scholar
Trethowan R. M., van Ginkel M., Rajaram S. 2002. Progress in breeding wheat for field and adaptation In global drought affected environments. Crop Sci. 42: 1441 — 1446.
Google Scholar
Ustun A., Allen F. L., English B. C. 2001. Genetic progress in soybean of the U.S. Midsouth. Crop Sci. 41: 993 — 998.
Google Scholar
Authors
Franciszek Rudnickibiuro.dziekana.wrib@pbs.edu.pl
Katedra Podstaw Produkcji Roślinnej i Doświadczalnictwa, Uniwersytet Technologiczno — Przyrodniczy w Bydgoszczy Poland
Statistics
Abstract views: 82PDF downloads: 77
License
Copyright (c) 2014 Franciszek Rudnicko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Upon submitting the article, the Authors grant the Publisher a non-exclusive and free license to use the article for an indefinite period of time throughout the world in the following fields of use:
- Production and reproduction of copies of the article using a specific technique, including printing and digital technology.
- Placing on the market, lending or renting the original or copies of the article.
- Public performance, exhibition, display, reproduction, broadcasting and re-broadcasting, as well as making the article publicly available in such a way that everyone can access it at a place and time of their choice.
- Including the article in a collective work.
- Uploading an article in electronic form to electronic platforms or otherwise introducing an article in electronic form to the Internet or other network.
- Dissemination of the article in electronic form on the Internet or other network, in collective work as well as independently.
- Making the article available in an electronic version in such a way that everyone can access it at a place and time of their choice, in particular via the Internet.
Authors by sending a request for publication:
- They consent to the publication of the article in the journal,
- They agree to give the publication a DOI (Digital Object Identifier),
- They undertake to comply with the publishing house's code of ethics in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), (http://ihar.edu.pl/biblioteka_i_wydawnictwa.php),
- They consent to the articles being made available in electronic form under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, in open access,
- They agree to send article metadata to commercial and non-commercial journal indexing databases.
Most read articles by the same author(s)
- Franciszek Rudnicki, Breeding progress of winter triticale in years 1982–2012. I. Yield and some of grain characteristics , Bulletin of Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute: No. 273 (2014): Regular issue
- Franciszek Rudnicki, Breeding progress of winter triticale in years 1982–2012. II. Resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses , Bulletin of Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute: No. 273 (2014): Regular issue
