Spatial analysis enhances modelling of a wide variety of traits in forest genetic trials

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 36, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 1851-1870

  Dutkowski, Gregory W ^a   Costa E Silva, João ^b   Gilmour, Arthur R ^c   Wellendorf, Hubert ^d   Aguiar, Alexandre ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

^b INSTITUTO SUPERIOR DE AGRONOMIA   (Portugal)

^c NSW DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^e Estacao Florestal Nacional   (Portugal)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CORRELATION METHODS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; FORESTRY; PLANTS (BOTANY);

AUTOCORRELATION; BIMODAL LIKELIHOOD SURFACES; SPATIAL ANALYSIS;

GENETIC ENGINEERING;

AUTOCORRELATION; BIMODAL ASSOCIATION; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); GENETIC ANALYSIS; SPATIAL ANALYSIS;

CORRELATION; ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING; FORESTRY; GENETIC ENGINEERING; PLANTS; PROGENY;

EID: 33748939056     PISSN: 00455067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/X06-059     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Anekonda, T.S., and Libby, W.J. 1996. Effectiveness of nearest-neighbor data adjustment in a clonal test of Redwood. Silvae Genet. 45(1): 46-51.
2. Azais, J.M., Monod, H., and Bailey, R.A. 1998. The influence of design on validity and efficiency of neighbour methods. Biometrics, 54(4): 1374-1387.
3. Baird, D., and Mead, R. 1991. The empirical effciency and validity of two neighbour models. Biometrics, 47: 1473-1487.
4. Besag, J., and Kempton, R. 1986. Statistical analysis of field experiments using neighbouring plots. Biometrics, 42: 231-251.
5. Braysher, B.D., Dear, B.S., Boschma, S., Cullis, B.R., and Sandral, G.A. 2001. Improving the efficiency of pasture breeding programs through the use of spatial analysis. In Proceedings of Tenth Australian Agronomy Conference, 29 January - 1 February, Hobart, Australia. Australian Society of Agronomy. Available from http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2001/6/a/braysher.htm#P2_89 [accessed 13 January 2004].
6. Brownie, C., and Gumpertz, M.L. 1997. Validity of spatial analyses for large field trials. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 2(1): 1-23.
7. Clarke, F.R., and Baker, R.J. 1996. Spatial analysis improves comparison of seed lot comparisons. Crop Sci. 36(5): 1180-1184.
8. Correll, R.L., and Cellier, K.M. 1987. Effects of plot size, block size and buffer rows on the precision of forestry trials. Aust. For. Res. 17: 11-18.
9. Costa e Silva, J., Dutkowski, G.W., and Gilmour, A.R. 2001. Analysis of early tree height in forest genetic trials is enhanced by including a spatially correlated residual. Can. J. For. Res. 31: 1887-1893.
10. Cullis, B.R., and Gleeson, A.C. 1991. Spatial analysis of field experiments - an extension to two dimensions. Biometrics, 47: 1449-1460.
11. Cullis, B.R., Lill, W.J., J.A., Fisher, J.A., Read, B.J., and Gleeson, A.C. 1989. A new procedure for the analysis of early generation variety trials. Appl. Stat. 38(2): 361-375.
12. Cullis, B.R., Gogel, B., Verbyla, A., and Thompson, R. 1998. Spatial analysis of multi-environment early generation variety trials. Biometrics, 54(1): 1-18.
13. de Souza, E.A., Geraldi, I.O., Ramalho, M.A.P., and Bertolucci, F.d.L.G. 2003. Experimental alternatives for evaluation of progenies and clones in eucalyptus breeding programs. Rev. Árvore, 27(4): 427-434.
14. Diggle, P., Heagerty, P., Liang, K.-Y., and Zeger, S.L. 1994. Analysis of longitudinal data. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
15. Durban, M., Currie, I.D., and Kempton, R.A. 2001. Adjusting for fertility and competition in variety trials. J. Agric. Sci. 136(2): 129-140.
16. Dutkowski, G.W. 1995. Genetic variation in drought susceptibility of Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus in plantations in Western Australia. In Proceedings of Eucalypt Plantations: Improving Fibre Yield and Quality, 19-24 February, Hobart, Tasmania. Edited by B.M. Potts, N.M.G. Borralho, J.B. Reid, R.N. Cromer, W.N. Tibbits, and C.A. Raymond. CRC for Temperate Hardwood Forestry, Hobart, Tasmania. pp. 199-203.
17. Dutkowski, G.W., Costa e Silva, J., Gilmour, A.R., and Lopez, G.A. 2002. Spatial analysis methods for forest genetic trials. Can. J. For. Res. 32: 2201-2214.
18. Fagroud, M., and Van Meirvenne, M. 2002. Accounting for soil spatial autocorrelation in the design of experimental trials. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66(4): 1134-1142.
19. Fox, J.C., Ades, P.K., and Bi, H. 2001. Stochastic structure and individual-tree growth models. For. Ecol. Manage. 154: 261-276.
20. Fu, Y. 2003. On implementation of incomplete block designs in forest genetic field trials. For. Genet. 10(1): 23-33.
21. Fu, Y.B., Yanchuk, A.D., and Namkoong, G. 1999. Spatial patterns of tree height variations in a series of Douglas-fir progeny trials: implications for genetic testing. Can. J. For. Res. 29: 714-723.
22. Gilmour, A.R., Cullis, B.R., and Verbyla, A.P. 1997. Accounting for natural and extraneous variation in the analysis of field experiments. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 2(3): 269-293.
23. Gilmour, A.R., Cullis, B.R., Welham, S.J., and Thompson, R. 1999. ASREML. NSW Agriculture Technical Report, Orange, New South Wales.
24. Grondona, M.O., Crossa, J., Fox, P.N., and Pfeiffer, W.H. 1996. Analysis of variety yield trials using two-dimensional separable ARIMA processes. Biometrics, 52: 763-770.
25. Hamann, A., Kosky, M.P., and Namkoong, G. 2001. Improving precision of breeding values by removing spatially autocorrelated variation in forestry field experiments. Silvae Genet. 51(5/6): 210-215.
26. Henderson, C.R. 1976. A simple method for computing the inverse of a numerator relationship matrix used in the prediction of breeding values. Biometrics, 32: 69-83.
27. Henderson, C.R. 1984. Applications of linear models in animal breeding. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont.
28. Huhn, M., and Langner, W. 1995. Investigations on the correlation pattern in even-aged stands of larch. II. Dynamic description of phenotypic correlations between neighbouring observations. Silvae Genet. 44(5-6): 325-338.
29. Ipinza, R., and Gutiérrez, B. 1999. Progeny and provenance tests in Chile. Evaluation by spatial analysis (ASREML) in Nothofagus alpina,a case study. [Ensayos de progenie y procedencias en Chile. Análysis espacial (ASREML) en Nothofagus alpina, un estudio de caso.] In Proceedings of Long-term Observations and Research in Forestry, 23-27 February, Turrialba, Costa Rica. Edited by C. Kleinn and M. Köhl. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Ensenanza. pp. 187-203.
30. Joyce, D., Ford, R., and Fu, Y.B. 2002. Spatial patterns of tree height variations in a black spruce farm-field progeny test and neighbors-adjusted estimations of genetic parameters. Silvae Genet. 51(1): 13-18.
31. Kempton, R.A., Seraphin, J.C., and Sword, A.M. 1994. Statistical analysis of two-dimensional variation in variety yield trials. J. Agric. Sci. 111: 339-346.
32. Kusnandar, D., and Galwey, N. 2000. A proposed method for estimation of genetic parameters on forest trees without raising progeny: critical evaluation and refinement. Silvae Genet. 49(1): 15-21.
33. Libby, W.J., and Cockerham, C.C. 1980. Random non-contiguous plots in interlocking field layouts. Silvae Genet. 29(5-6): 183-190.
34. Loo-Dinkins, J.A., and Tauer, C.G. 1987. Statistical efficiency of six progeny test field designs on three loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) site types. Can. J. For. Res. 17: 1066-1070.
35. Magnussen, S. 1990. Application and comparison of spatial models in analyzing tree-genetics field trials. Can. J. For. Res. 20: 536-546.
36. Magnussen, S. 1994. A method to adjust simultaneously for spatial microsite and competition effects. Can. J. For. Res. 24: 985-995.
37. Mora-Garces, A., and Ramirez, G. 2000. Practical consideration on the spatial analysis of forest field trials. [Consideraciones prácticas sobre el análisis estadístico espacial de experimentos forestales de campos.] Rev. For. Venez. 44(2): 21-28.
38. Mrode, R.A. 1998. Linear models for the prediction of breeding values. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
39. Nelder, J.A. 1965. The analysis of randomised experiments with orthogonal block structure. II Block structure and the null analysis of variance. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A, 283(1393): 147-162.
40. Nguyen, N., and Williams, E.R. 1993. An algorithm for constructing optimal resolvable row-column designs. Aust. J. Stat. 35(3): 363-370.
41. Papadakis, J.S. 1937. Méthode statistique pour des expériences sur champ. Institute de Amélioration des Plantes à Salonique Bull. 23.
42. Patterson, H.D., and Williams, E.R. 1976. A new class of resolvable incomplete block designs. Biometrika, 63: 83-92.
43. Pederick, L.A., Hopmans, P., Flinn, D.W., and Abbott, I.D. 1984. Variation in genetic response to suspected copper deficiency in Pinus radiata. Aust. For. Res. 14: 75-84.
44. Qiao, C., Basford, K., DeLacy, I., and Cooper, M. 2003. Advantage of single-trial models for response to selection in wheat breeding multi-environment trials. Theor. Appl. Genet. 106(1): 1541-1559.
45. Reed, D.D., and Burkhart, H.E. 1985. Spatial autocorrelation of individual tree characteristics in loblolly pine stands. For. Sci. 31: 575-587.
46. Resende, M.D.V., Stringer, J., Cullis, B., and Thompson, R. 2004. Joint modelling of competition and spatial variability in forest field trials. In Proceedings of Eucalyptus in a Changing World, 11-15 October, Aveiro, Portugal. Edited by N.M.G. Borralho, J.S. Pereira, C. Marques, J. Coutinho, M. Madeira, and M. Tomé. RAIZ, Instituto Inverstigação da Floresta e Papel, Aveiro, Portugal. pp. 330-332.
47. Saenz-Romero, C., Nordheim, E.V., Guries, R.P., and Crump, P.M. 2001. A case study of provenance/progeny testing using trend analysis with correlated errors and SAS PROC MIXED. Silvae Genet. 50(3-4): 127-135.
48. Singh, M., Malhotra, R.S., Ceccarelli, S., Sarker, A., Grando, S., and Erskine, W. 2003. Spatial variability models to improve dryland field trials. Exp. Agric. 39(2): 151-160.
49. Smith, K.F., and Casler, M.D. 2004. Spatial analysis of forage grass trials across locations, years, and harvests. Crop Sci. 44(1): 56-62.
50. Stram, D.O., and Lee, J.W. 1994. Variance components testing in the longitudinal mixed effects model. Biometrics, 50(4): 1171-1177.
51. Stringer, J.K., and Cullis, B.R. 2002a. Application of spatial analysis techniques to adjust for fertility trends and identify interplot competition in early stage sugarcane selection trials. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 53(8): 911-918.
52. Stringer, J.K., and Cullis, B. 2002b. Joint modelling of spatial variability and inter-plot competition. In Proceedings of 12th Australasian Plant Breeding Conference - Plant Breeding for the 3rd Millennium, Perth, Australia. Edited by J.A. McComb. The Australasian Plant Breeding Association Inc., Perth, Australia. pp. 614-619.
53. Tamura, R.N., Nelson, L.A., and Naderman, G.C. 1988. An investigation of the validity and usefuleness of trend surface analysis for field plot data. Agron. J. 80: 712-718.
54. Williams, E.R., John, J.A., and Whitaker, D. 2006. Construction of resolvable spatial row-column designs. Biometrics, 62: 103-108.
55. Yang, R., Ye, T., Blade, S., and Bandara, M. 2004. Efficiency of spatial analyses of field pea variety trials. Crop Sci. 44(1): 49-55.