Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T23:31:31.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing and predicting environmental response in Lolium perenne

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

C. J. A. Samuel ,
J. Hill ,
E. L. Breese  and
Alison Davies
C. J. A. Samuel
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
J. Hill
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
E. L. Breese
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
Alison Davies
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Recently developed regressional techniques suggest that some of the problems posed by genotype-environment interactions may be solved. These techniques have been applied, therefore, to data from an extensive trial involving perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) varieties grown under various treatments at several locations throughout Great Britain. Analysis reveals that the relative performance of the varieties depends mainly upon whether they are grown as spaced plants or swards. Even though the genotype-environment interactions are large, much of their effects could be reduced to an essentially linear scale. These results are considered in the light of the known characteristics of the varieties concerned, whilst the wider implications are also discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , August 1970 , pp. 1 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

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

Breese, E. L. (1969). The measurement and significance of genotype-environment interactions in grasses. Heredity, Lond. 24, 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucio-Alanis, L. (1966). Environmental and genotype-environmental components of variability. I. Inbred lines. Heredity, Lond. 21, 387–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucio-Alanis, L. & Hill, J. (1966). Environmental and genotype-environmental components of variability. II. Heterozygotes. Heredity, Lond. 21, 399–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, A. H. (1961). Differential survival of cultivars of Lolium, Dactylis and Phleum. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 16, 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J. P. (1969). Potential forage production. Occ. Symp. No. 5, Br. Grassld Soc. 5–13.Google Scholar
Eberhart, S. A. & Russell, W. A. (1966). Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci. 6, 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlay, K. W. & Wilkinson, G. N. (1963). The analysis of adaptation in a plant-breeding programme. Aust. J. agric. Res. 14, 742–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J. & Perkins, Jean M. (1969). The environmental induction of heritable changes in Nicotiana rustica. Effects of genotype-environment interactions. Genetics 61, 661–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawes, D. A. (1968). Phenotypic stability of cereal species. Rep. Welsh Pl. Breed. Stn. for 1967, 102–104.Google Scholar
Lazenby, A. & Rogers, H. H. (1962). Selection criteria in grass breeding. I. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 59, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, K. (1960). Statistical Analysis in Biology, 4th edn. p. 118. Methuen.Google Scholar
Perkins, Jean M. & Jinks, J. L. (1968). Environmental and genotype-environmental components of variability. III. Multiple lines and crosses. Heredity 23, 339–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuel, C. J. A. (1970). Genetic structure and competitive ability in populations of higher plants. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Wales.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. T. (1936). Investigations on the improvement of hill grazings. II. The introduction and maintenance of nutritious and palatable species and strains. Bull. Welsh Pl. Breed. Stn, Series H, No. 14, 4–57.Google Scholar
Yates, F. & Cochran, W. G. (1938). The analysis of groups of experiments. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 28, 556–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar