The effect of interplant distance on the effectiveness of honeycomb selection in spring rye. III. Accumulated results of five selection cycles

Euphytica

Volumn 105, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 229-237

  Bussemakers, A ^a   Bos, I ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Honeycomb selection; Intergenotypic competition; Interplant distance; Secale cereale L.; Single plant selection; Spring rye

Indexed keywords

AGRONOMY; COMPETITION; DENSITY; RYE;

EID: 0033006145     PISSN: 00142336     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1003418123013     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bos, I., 1983. Some remarks on honeycomb selection. Euphytica 32: 329-335.
2. Chebib, F.S., S.B. Helgason & P.J. Kaltsikes, 1973. Effect of variation in plant spacing, seed size and genotype on plant-to-plant variability in wheat. Z Pflanzenzüchtg 69: 301-322.
3. Fasoulas, A.C., 1973. A new approach to breeding superior yielding varieties. Publ 3. Dept of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Aristotelian Univ of Thessaloniki, pp. 42.
4. Fasoulas, A.C., 1981. Principles and methods of plant breeding. Publ 11. Dept of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Aristotelian Univ of Thessaloniki, pp. 147.
5. Fasoulas, A.C., 1988. The honeycomb methodology of plant breeding, Dept of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Aristotelian Univ of Thessaloniki, pp. 167.
6. Fasoulas, A.C. & A. Tsaftaris, 1975. An integrated approach to plant breeding and field experimentation. Publ 5. Dept of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Aristotelian Univ of Thessaloniki, pp. 37.
7. Hanson, P.R., G. Jenkins & B. Westcott, 1979. Early generation selection in a cross of spring barley. Z Pflanzenzüchtg 83: 64-80.
8. 2 plant yield on subsequent generations in wheat. Can J Plant Sci 52: 721-726.
9. Kyriakou, D.T. & A.C. Fasoulas, 1985. Effects of competition and selection pressure on yield response in winter rye (Secale cereale L.). Euphytica 34: 883-895.
10. Lungu, D.M., P.J. Kaltsikes & E.N. Larter, 1987. Honeycomb selection for yield in early generations of spring wheat. Euphytica 36: 831-839.
11. 2. In: K.W. Finlay (Ed), Proceedings of the Third International Wheat Genetics Symposium, Canberra, Australia, pp. 410-415.
12. Mitchell, J.W., R.J. Baker & D.R. Knott, 1982. Evaluation of honeycomb selection for single plant yield in durum wheat. Crop Sci 22: 840-843.
13. Niehaus, W.S., 1981. Effectiveness of harvest index and the honeycomb design in early generation yield evaluation in durum wheat. PhD Thesis, North Dakota State Univ.
14. Onenanyoli, A.H.A. & A.C. Fasoulas, 1989. Yield response to honeycomb selection in maize. Euphytica 40: 43-48.
15. Pasini, R.J. & I. Bos, 1990a. The effect of interplant distance on the effectiveness of honeycomb selection. I. Results of the first selection cycle. Euphytica 49: 121-130.
16. Pasini, R.J. & I. Bos, 1990b. The effect of interplant distance on the effectiveness of honeycomb selection. II. Results of the second selection cycle. Euphytica 50: 147-153.
17. Robertson, L.D. & K.J. Frey, 1987. Honeycomb design for selection among homozygous oat lines. Crop Sci 27: 1105-1108.
18. Snedecor, G.W. & W.G. Cochran, 1980. Statistical Methods. 7th Ed. Iowa State Univ Press, Iowa, pp. 507.
19. Spitters, C.J.T., 1979. Competition and its consequences for selection in barley breeding. Agric Res Rep 893, Wageningen, pp. 268.
20. Valentine, J., 1979. The effect of competition and method of sowing on the efficiency of single plant selection for grain yield, yield components and other characteristics in spring barley. Z Pflanzenzüchtg 83: 193-204.