Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-14T22:24:24.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diallel analysis of bolting in sugarbeet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

T. H. Jolliffe  and
A. E. Arthur
T. H. Jolliffe
Affiliation:
Hilleshog (United Kingdom) Limited, Sugar Beet Breeding Station, Brooke Lodge, Brooke, Norwich NR15 1JG, UK
A. E. Arthur
Affiliation:
The Cambridge Laboratory, The John Innes Centre, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UJ, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A half-diallel design, with parents, involving a random sample of nine partially inbred (S1) lines was used to examine the genetic control of bolting in a broad-based North-West European sugarbeet breeding population. The diallel was analysed using the Hayman (1954a) and Jinks & Hayman (1953) analyses. Additive genetic effects were shown to be highly important and significant dominance effects were found. A general trend for bolting resistance to be dominant was detected but there was also evidence that the control was ambidirectional. Furthermore, the dominance effects seemed only partially effective. Some indication of epistatic effects was found, although the possibility that this was spurious, caused by failures in the genetic assumptions required by the analyses, is discussed. The genetic control of bolting in the breeding population appeared complex.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 121 , Issue 3 , December 1993 , pp. 327 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Baker, R. J. (1978). Issues in diallel analysis. Crop Science 18, 533–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolelova, Z. A. & Tikhonova, V. G. (1986). Earliness and seed quality in monogerm sugar beet in relation to breeding for bolting resistance. Set skokhozyaistvennaya Biologiya 8, 86–89.Google Scholar
Bolelova, Z. A., Tikhonova, V. G. & Leshchenko, E. (1984). Genetical and physiological aspects of bolting in sugar beet plants. Sel'skokhozyaistvennaya Biologiya 10, 95–99.Google Scholar
British Sugar Beet Review. Peterborough: British Sugar Corporation.Google Scholar
Griffing, B. (1956 a). Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing systems. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 9, 463–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffing, B. (1956 b). A generalised treatment of the use of diallel crosses in quantitative inheritance. Heredity 10, 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, A. D. (1928). Bateson's experiments on bolting in sugar beet and mangolds. Journal of Genetics 20, 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallauer, A. R. & Miranda, J. B. (1981). Quantitative Genetics in Maize Breeding. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Hallden, C., Bryngellsson, T. & Bosemark, N. O. (1988). Two new types of cytoplasmic male sterility found in wild Beta beets. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 75, 561–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallden, C., Lind, C., Sall, T., Bosemark, N. O. & Bengtsson, B. O. (1990). Cytoplasmic male sterility in Beta is associated with structural rearrangements of the mitochondrial DNA and is not due to interspecific organelle transfer. Journal of Molecular Evolution 31, p365–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayman, B. I. (1954 a). The analysis of variance of diallel tables. Biometrics 10, 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayman, B. I. (1954 b). The theory and analysis of diallel crosses. Genetics 39, 789–809.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayman, B. I. (1957). Interaction, heterosis and diallel crosses. Genetics 42, 336–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayman, B. I. (1958). The theory and analysis of diallel crosses II. Genetics 43, 63–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hobbs, S. L. A. & Burnett, J. H. (1982). The genetic control of morphological and yield characters in Vicia faba L. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 62, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jinks, J. L. & Hayman, B. I. (1953). The analysis of diallel crosses. Maize Genetics Cooperation News Letter 27, 48–54.Google Scholar
Johnson, L. P. V. (1963). Applications of the diallel-cross techniques to plant breeding. In Statistical Genetics and Plant Breeding (Eds Hanson, W. D. & Robinson, H. F.), pp. 561–570. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council.Google Scholar
Jolliffe, T. H. (1990). Genetical studies in relation to breeding studies in sugar beet. PhD Thesis, University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
Le Cochec, F.Soreau, P. (1989). Mode d'action des gènes et hétérosis pour le caractère montée á graines dans le croisement de lignées fixées de betterave á sucre (Beta vulgaris L.). Agronomie 9, 585–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lexander, K. (1980). Present knowledge of sugar beet bolting mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 43rd Winter Congress of the International Institute of Sugar Beet Research, pp. 245–258. Brussels: Institut International de Recherches Betteravières.Google Scholar
Lexander, K. (1985). Beta vulgaris, beet crops (sugar, forage and vegetable). In CRC Handbook of Flowering II (Ed. Halevy, A. H.), pp. 24–32. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Lexander, K. (1987). Characters related to the vernalization requirement of sugar beet. In Manipulation of Flowering (Ed. Atherton, J. G.), pp. 147–158. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, T. M. & Hills, F. J. (1978). Agricultural Experimentation: Design and Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Mak, C. & Yap, T. C. (1980). Inheritance of seed protein content and other agronomic characters in long bean (Vigna sesquipedalis Fruw.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 56, 233–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mather, K.Jinks, J. L. (1977). Introduction to Biometrical Genetics. London and New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, K. & Jinks, J. L. (1982). Biometrical Genetics: The Study of Continuous Variation (3rd edn). London and New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morley Jones, R. (1965). Analysis of variance of the half diallel table. Heredity 20, 117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, F. V. (1952). Mendelian male sterility in sugar beets.In Proceedings of the 7th General Meeting (Eds Smith, P. B., Larke, G. R.Brown, R.), pp. 371–376. Fort Collins, Colorado: American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists.Google Scholar
Schnell, F. W. (1984). Modelling basic epistasis for quantitative genetic studies. In Proceedings of the 5th Meeting, Eucarpia, Section Biometrics in Plant Breeding (Eds Geiger, H. H.Ruckenbauer, P.), pp. 1–12. Stuttgart: Eucarpia.Google Scholar
Singh, O.Paroda, R. S. (1984). A comparison of different diallel analyses. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 67, 541–545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sokol, M. J.Baker, R. J. (1977). Evaluation of the assumptions required for the genetic interpretation of diallel experiments in self-pollinating crops. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 57, 1185–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar