Phenotypic selection can be better than selection for breeding value

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 13, Issue 1-4, 1998, Pages 7-11

  Andersson, E W ^a   Spanos, K A ^b   Mullin, T J ^c   Lindgren, D ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Greece)

^c Genesis Forest Science Canada Inc   (Canada)

Author keywords

Additive variance; Combined heritability; Gain; Genetic diversity; Index selection; Phenotypic selection; Selection proportion; Status number; Stochastic simulation

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER MODEL; PLANT BREEDING; SYSTEM ANALYSIS;

EID: 0031930127     PISSN: 02827581     EISSN: 16511891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02827589809382956     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Askew, G. R., and Burrows, P. P., 1983. Minimum coancestry selection I. A Pinus taeda population and its simulation. Silvae Genet., 32:125–131.
2. Baker, R. J., 1986. Selection Indices in Plant Breeding, 218Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press.
3. Ballou, J. D., and Lacy, R. C., 1995. “ Identifying genetically important individuals for management of genetic variation in pedigreed populations ”. In Population Management for Survival and Recovery, Edited by:Ballou, J. D., Gilpin, M., and Foose, T. J., 76–111. New York:Columbia Univ. Press. ISBN 02–311–01767.
4. Cockerham, C. C., 1967. Group inbreeding and coancestry. Genetics, 56:89–104.
5. Cockerham, C. C., 1969. Variance in gene frequencies. Evolution, 23:72–84.
6. Cotterill, P. P., 1986. Genetic gains from alternative breeding strategies including simple low cost options. Silvae Genet., 35:212–223.
7. Crow, J. F., and Kimura, M., 1970. Population Genetics Theory, 591New York:Harper & Row.
8. Falconer, D. S., 1981. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics., 2nd edn, 340New York:Longman, Scientific and Technical, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0–582–44195–1.
9. Ledig, F. T., 1992. Human impacts on genetic diversity in forest ecosystems. Oikos, 63:87–108.
10. Lindgren, D., and Wei, R.-P., Progeny Testing and Breeding Strategies. Proceedings of the Nordic Group for Tree Breeding, Edinburgh, Oct 6–10, 1993. Gain versus effective number, Edited by:Lee, S. J., pp. 164–177. Edinburgh:Forestry Authority.
11. Lindgren, D., Jefferson, P., and Gea, L., 1996. Loss of genetic diversity monitored by status number. Silvae Genet., 45:52–59.
12. Mullin, T. J., and Park, Y. S., 1995a. Stochastic simulation of forest tree breeding populations:A users’ guide to Pop-sim v2.0, 34Fredericton, NB:Canadian Forest Service—Maritimes. Information, Rep. M-X-195E
13. Mullin, T. J., and Park, Y. S., 1995b. Stochastic simulation of population management strategies for tree breeding:a new decision support tool for personal computers. Silvae Genet., 44:132–141.
14. Namkoong, G., 1976. A multiple index selection strategy. Silvae Genet., 25:199–201.
15. Namkoong, G., Challenging tree breeding theory. Proceedings of the IUFRO Joint Meeting of Working Parties on Genetics about Breeding Strategies including Multiclonal Varieties, Sensenstein. Sept.6–101982. pp. 155–161.
16. Wei, R.-P., 1995. Predicting genetic diversity and optimizing selection in breeding programs, 59Umeå:Swed. Univ. of Agri. Sciences, Dept. of For. Genetics and Plant Physiol. ISBN 91–576–4990–1.
17. Wei, R.-P., and Lindgren, D., 1991. Selection effects on diversity and gain. Silva Fennica, 25:229–234.
18. Wei, R.-P., and Lindgren, D., 1993. Phenotypic selection was more efficient than combined index selection when applied on full sibs of lodgepole and Scots pine, 289–292. Swed. Univ. of Agri. Sciences, Dept. For. Genetics and Plant Physiol. Report 11
19. Wei, R.-P., and Lindgren, D., 1995. Effective family number following selection with restrictions. Biometrics, 52:525–535.