observed in <strong>the</strong> double cross unexpectedly exceeded <strong>the</strong> yield decline observed in some <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> single crosses. Also once again, <strong>the</strong> yield <strong>of</strong> an OPV planted as a check was alwayssuperior to advanced generations <strong>of</strong> hybrids. But a noteworthy new result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> secondtrial was <strong>the</strong> finding that yields do not necessarily continue to decline after <strong>the</strong> secondgeneration; in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> single cross H-34, yield actually increased in <strong>the</strong> F3 and F4generations (Figure 3).In ano<strong>the</strong>r on-station trial conducted in a tropical lowland region <strong>of</strong> Mexico, RamírezVallejo et al. (1986) evaluated <strong>the</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> seed recycling on <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> threedouble-cross hybrids (H-503, H-507, H-510). With all three hybrids, F1 plants yielded betterthan advanced-generation progeny and better than a check OPV, V-522 (Table 17). After fivecycles <strong>of</strong> inbreeding, <strong>the</strong> yield decline averaged 16%. Virtually <strong>the</strong> entire yield declineoccurred between <strong>the</strong> F1 and F2 generations; an equilibrium was reached in subsequentgenerations, as no statistically significant changes in yield were observed between <strong>the</strong> F2and F5/F6 generations. Ramírez Vallejo et al. (1986) emphasize, however, that no selectionpressure was applied during <strong>the</strong> trial, and <strong>the</strong>y speculate that had selection pressure beenapplied (e.g., to simulate farmers’ selection practices), <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> advanced-generationprogeny might well have outyielded <strong>the</strong> F2 plants.Yield (kg/ha)10,0009,0008,0007,0006,0005,0004,0003,0002,0001,0000, y, y, y, y, y, y,,,,,,-25%-5%,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,y ,, , y yCommercial seed (F1)Second-generation seed (F2)Third-generation seed (F3), y, y, y, y, y,,,,,,,,,,, y, y, y, y, yH-34 H-30 V-23(single cross) (double cross) (improved OPV)Figure 2. Effects <strong>of</strong> seed recycling on yields <strong>of</strong>two commercial maize hybrids, Mexico.Source: Espinosa Calderón et al. (1990)-42%Yield (kg/ha)12,000,, yy10,0008,0006,0004,000,,Second-generation seed (F2),,, yy,, yy,, yy,, yy,, yy,,,,,,, yy,,y,y,,y,,,,,,-51%Commercial seed (F1)+20%+10%-27%,,,,,,,,,,,,Third-generation seed (F3)Fourth-generation seed (F4),, yy,, yy ,,,, yy ,,, yy ,,,, yy, y, y, y, y2,000,, ,,,, ,,yy 0,,yH-34 , H-36 ,, ,, yyH-68 , , yH-33 V-23(single cross) (single cross) (single cross) (double cross) (improved OPV)Figure 3. Effects <strong>of</strong> seed recycling on yields <strong>of</strong> selectedmaize hybrids, Mexico.Source: Espinosa Calderón et al. (1993)-6%-29%Table 17. Yield decline in advanced generations <strong>of</strong> hybrids, Mexico41Generation <strong>of</strong> inbreedingF1 F1’ F2’ F3’ F4’ F5’H-503 4,194 3,577 3,213 2,586 3,097 3,160H-507 3,964 3,393 3,014 2,937 3,122 3,092H-510 4,239 3,473 2,781 3,302 2,710 3,216Mean 4,132 3,481 3,002 2,942 2,976 3,156Inbreeding depression (%) n.a. 16 27 29 28 24Source: Ramírez Vallejo et al. (1986).
As part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> same trial, Ramírez Vallejo et al. (1986) also tested <strong>the</strong> yields <strong>of</strong> double-crosshybrids formed by crossing advanced-generation plants (F1 to F5) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> single-cross hybridparents used to form <strong>the</strong> original double-cross hybrids. They found that many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>double-cross hybrids produced using progressively more inbred single-cross parentsyielded about <strong>the</strong> same as <strong>the</strong> check OPV and better than local varieties. They concludedthat this finding helps explain why farmers in lowland tropical Mexico are <strong>of</strong>ten observedrecycling <strong>the</strong>ir hybrids: by repeatedly recycling commercial hybrids and re-crossing <strong>the</strong>progeny, farmers in effect conduct <strong>the</strong>ir own breeding programs, and in many cases <strong>the</strong>superior genetic potential <strong>of</strong> commercial hybrids allows <strong>the</strong>m to produce new “homemade”hybrids that outyield local landraces.In <strong>the</strong> tropical lowlands <strong>of</strong> Guatemala, Pérez Rodas (1997) evaluated <strong>the</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> seedrecycling on nine hybrids (seven double crosses and two three-way crosses) and threeOPVs. As expected, F1 plants always significantly outperformed advanced-generationplants (Table 18, Figure 4). With all nine hybrids, <strong>the</strong> largest drop in yield was observedbetween <strong>the</strong> F1 and F2 generations; this initial yield decline observed between <strong>the</strong> F1 and F2generations ranged from 8% to 28%. Yield performance in subsequent generations varied.In cases in which <strong>the</strong>re had been a large yield decline between <strong>the</strong> F1 and F2 generations,<strong>the</strong> yield decline observed in <strong>the</strong> following generation was <strong>of</strong>ten negative – meaning F3plants outyielded F2 plants. But in cases in which <strong>the</strong>re had been a relatively small yielddecline between <strong>the</strong> F1 and F2 generations, yield usually continued to fall in <strong>the</strong> followinggeneration. In all cases, however, <strong>the</strong> yield change between <strong>the</strong> F2 and F3 generations wassmall – and <strong>of</strong>ten statistically insignificant. According to Pérez Rodas (1997), <strong>the</strong>se resultslend support to <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis that after a single generation <strong>of</strong> cross pollination, a geneticequilibrium is achieved and expressed as yield stability (assuming no fur<strong>the</strong>r addition <strong>of</strong>genetic material, no selection, and no mutation occur).Table 18.␣ Inbreeding␣ depression␣ in nine hybrids and three OPVs, GuatemalaYield (t/ha) Inbreeding depression (%)Type <strong>of</strong>material F1 F2 F3 F1 → F2 F2 → F3 F1 → F3HE-9103 DC 6,930 5,374 5,641 22 -5 19HE-9101 DC 6,918 5,364 5,518 22 -3 20HE-9122 DC 6,718 4,851 4,982 28 -3 26HB-85 DC 6,601 5,100 5,083 23 0 23HA-46 TWC 6,427 5,058 5,014 21 1 22HB-83 DC 6,411 5,560 5,240 13 6 18HE-9126 DC 6,359 5,494 5,270 14 4 17HE-9124 DC 6,348 5,154 5,153 19 0 19HA-28 TWC 5,710 5,227 4,974 8 5 13Hybrid mean — 6,491 5,242 5,208ICTA B1 OPV 5,775LM-7843 OPV 5,379LM-7442 OPV 5,656Source: Adapted from Pérez Rodas (1997).Note: DC = double-cross hybrid, TWC = three-way-cross hybrid, and OPV = open-pollinated variety.42
- Page 1 and 2: E C O N O M I C SWorking Paper 99-0
- Page 3 and 4: CIMMYT (www.cimmyt.mx or www.cimmyt
- Page 5 and 6: Executive SummaryThis paper summari
- Page 7 and 8: AcknowledgmentsAny report that is b
- Page 9 and 10: followed a very different path comp
- Page 11 and 12: Farmers’ Management of Maize Vari
- Page 13 and 14: In recent years, new evidence has e
- Page 15 and 16: state of Guanajuato and discusses t
- Page 17 and 18: Based on the results of a survey co
- Page 19 and 20: elied with greater frequency on the
- Page 21 and 22: hybrid seed. Initially, it was gene
- Page 23 and 24: In Veracruz State, Mexico, where mo
- Page 25 and 26: Recent work in the highlands of Mex
- Page 27 and 28: producers) tend to rely on family,
- Page 29 and 30: Unintentional seed mixingUnintentio
- Page 31 and 32: Table 11. Yield depression resultin
- Page 33 and 34: Genetic driftWhen farmers select ea
- Page 35 and 36: (a) Production of a single-cross hy
- Page 37 and 38: Breeding hybrid maize begins with t
- Page 39 and 40: According to this theory, genes tha
- Page 41 and 42: Wright’s finding, which is based
- Page 43 and 44: Similarly, the mean of F3 generatio
- Page 45 and 46: 2. Between the F1 and F2 generation
- Page 47: In a series of on-station trials co
- Page 51 and 52: Table 19. Inbreeding depression obs
- Page 53 and 54: to 41% for the single cross (Figure
- Page 55 and 56: DiscussionEvery time a farmer recyc
- Page 57 and 58: The finding that genetic change in
- Page 59 and 60: Brennan, J.P., and D. Byerlee. 1991
- Page 61 and 62: Murillo Navarrete, P. 1978. Estimac
- Page 63 and 64: AppendixGuidelines for Estimating t
- Page 65 and 66: exactly how different the plants wo
- Page 67 and 68: As a general rule, we propose that