15.03.2015 Views

REPORT - Search CIMMYT repository

REPORT - Search CIMMYT repository

REPORT - Search CIMMYT repository

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

obvious from these data: (1) apparently earto-row<br />

selection was slightly more effective<br />

than was stratified mass selection in both populations<br />

at. both plant population levels, and<br />

(2) for the Composite Chalqueno 61, either<br />

method of selection was more effective at the<br />

43,000 plant rate, than at the 63,000 planting<br />

rate.<br />

Although it is readily apparent that both<br />

of the methods of selection compared in this<br />

project were effective in increasing yield,<br />

earlier investigators ha'(e reported certain undesirable<br />

side effects when selection is based<br />

principally on the basis of yield. Data from<br />

this study, bearing on this question, are summarized<br />

in Table 16.<br />

These data indicate that, in addition to<br />

yield, the corns have been improved in respect<br />

to ear rots (the percentage of rotted ears decreased<br />

with either method in both populations).<br />

Also, improved were the characters<br />

tillers-with ears and ears-per-plant, both of<br />

which are, in part, another measure of yield.<br />

Both methods of selection, however, as<br />

practiced in these studies, resulted in an increase<br />

in days-to-flower, ear height and lodging.<br />

In most cases, the plant breeder would<br />

consider such changes as undesirable.<br />

As reported here last year, studies are underway<br />

to determine whether manipulation of<br />

the environment under which the selection is<br />

practiced could reduce the magnitude of these<br />

undersirable indirect responses.<br />

TABLE 16. Percen t changes in various characters in two populations as effected by stratified ma••<br />

selection and ear-to-row selection for yield.<br />

I<br />

..<br />

e c<br />

-u<br />

._ 0<br />

Method. ,..-<br />

Character In % of orlglna' population<br />

u<br />

Population of ¥<br />

Days to Tillers Ear Ears/ Rotten<br />

Selection 1 ~;X Yield<br />

Lodging<br />

0 ... Flower with ears Height Plant Ears<br />

Z 0<br />

Composite Chalque;;o 61 Mass 5 + 22.1 +6 + 3.6 + 12 + 14 + 13 - 4.7<br />

Ear-tOorow 4 + 24.5 +6 +2.9 + 13 +13 + 14 - 6.0<br />

Mexico Group 10 Mass 5 + 21.5 +6 + 9.7 + 6 + 2 + 24 - 4.1<br />

Ear·tOorow 4 + 22.2 +4 + 5.0 + 4 + 2 + 12 - 1.6<br />

Final cycle of selection compared to hybrid controls.<br />

TABLE 17. Yields of Dry Ear Corn and other agronomic traits comparing Stratified Ma•• Selection<br />

by weight (W) versus prolificacy (P) in Composite II Celaya and Puebla Group I. Three year average.<br />

(1967, 1968, 1969). 20 replications per year. EI Roque, Guanajuato, Mexico.<br />

Population Cycle Method<br />

Ylerd Ears/l00 Tillers/I00 % Ear Height Days to<br />

tons/ha Plants Planu Lodging ( meters) Flo_r<br />

Composite<br />

Ceraya II 0 6.1 96 21 12 2.03 81<br />

W 6.3 97 25 10 1.99 82<br />

P 6.4 97 18 9 2.03 82<br />

2 W 7.0 111 39 16 2.09 84<br />

P 6.9 108 34 13 2.10 84<br />

3 W 7.2 110 43 15 2.13 84<br />

P 7.3 118 48 16 2.14 85<br />

Puebla<br />

Gpo. I 0 6.2 98 26 48 2.28 87<br />

W 7.5 112 36 40 2.31 86<br />

P 7.1 111 40 38 2.22 86<br />

2 W 8.2 125 55 42 2.29 87<br />

P 7.8 115 39 39 2.28 87<br />

H·366<br />

Control 7.4 114 7 13 2.29 88<br />

29

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!