HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Tanner, A. H. Articles by Smith, O. S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Tanner, A. H. Articles by Smith, O. S. Agricola Articles by Tanner, A. H. Articles by Smith, O. S.

Comparison of Half-Sib and S₁ Recurrent Selection in the Krug Yellow Dent Maize Populations¹

Eight cycles of half-sib family [BSK(HI)] and St progeny [BSK(S)I recurrent selection have been completed in cv. Krug Hi I Syn.3 (BSK), a strain of the open-pollinated maize (Zea mays L.) cv. Krug Yellow Dent. Experiments were conducted to evaluate and compare the changes in grain yield, grain moisture, and lodging in BSK(S), BSK(HI), and in crosses with testers used in the BSK(HI) program. The genetic gains per cycle for grain yield in the populations per se for Cycles 0 to 4, adjusted for the effects of finite population size, were significantly larger for BSK(S) than for the BSK(HI). Cycles 4 to 8, genetic gains (adjusted for drift) in BSK(S) were lower (not significantly) and higher for BSK(HI), compared with their respective rates in Cycles 0 to 4. This resulted in a nonsignificant difference between methods for Cycles 4 to 8. In the populations selfed and in crosses with testers used in the BSK(HI) program (averaged over three testers), genetic gains paralleled gains in the populations per se, except for Cycles 4 to 8 in BSK(HI). The effects of finite population size (genetic drift) were significant for grain yield for both methods and confounded the observed response to selection, especially in Cycles 4 to 8. The effects of drift were larger in BSK(S). Genetic gains, adjusted for drift, were smaller than predicted gains for both methods.

Key Words: Zea mays L. • Selection response • Genetic drift • Inbreeding • Breeding methods

² Former graduate assistant (now, corn breeder with CIBA Geigy Semences, La Grangette, 32220 Lombez, France) and former research geneticist, USDAoARS (now with Pioneer Hi-Bred Int., Dep. of Data Management, Johnston, IA 50131) Iowa Agric. and Home Economics Exp. Stn., Ames, IA 5001.

Received for publication May 22, 1986.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. R. Hallauer History, Contribution, and Future of Quantitative Genetics in Plant Breeding: Lessons From Maize Crop Sci., December 18, 2007; 47(Supplement_3): S-4 - S-19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. S. Baenziger, W. K. Russell, G. L. Graef, and B. T. Campbell Improving Lives: 50 Years of Crop Breeding, Genetics, and Cytology (C-1) Crop Sci., September 8, 2006; 46(5): 2230 - 2244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. W. Edwards and K. R. Lamkey Dominance and Genetic Drift: Predicted Effects of Population Subdivision in a Maize Population Crop Sci., November 1, 2003; 43(6): 2006 - 2017. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]