Abstract
Second cycle breeding, utilizing backcross and F 2 generations, has become the predominant type of line development program in the U.S. maize ( Zea mays L.) industry. Epistasis and linkage have been identified as possible limits to progress from selection in F 2 and backcross populations. Objectives of this study were to determine the importance of epistasis in an elite maize hybrid and to determine the appropriate generation for initiation of inbred line development. Six generations of progeny were developed from B73 and B84: the two parental generations, Pl (B73) and P2 (B84); the F 2 generation [(B73 × B84) F 2 ]; the BCP 1 generation [(B73 × B84) × B73]; the BCP 2 generation [(B73 × B84) × B84]; and the F 2 ‐Syn 8 generation (the F 2 generation random mated for eight generations). Testcross progeny were produced by crossing random S 9 plants from each of the six generations onto the inbred tester Mo17. One‐hundred progeny of F 2 × Mo17 and F 2 ‐Syn 8 × Mo17 and 50 progeny of BCP 1 × Mo17 and BCP 2 × Mo17, as well as the parental testcrosses, were harvested. The experiment was evaluated at four locations in 1990 and three locations in 1991. Epistatic effects were significant for grain yield and grain moisture, and accounted for 21 and 18% of the variation among generation means, respectively. The genetic variance and heritability for grain yield ranked F 2 ‐Syn 8 > F 2 > BCP 1 > BCP 2 , but differences among generations were not significant. The predicted gains for each generation ranked in agreement with the heritability. Under low selection intensities (a = 20%), the predicted mean (usefulness) ranked the generations BCP2 2 > F 2 >> F 2 ‐Syn 8 > BCPI. Under high selection intensity (a = 1%), usefulness ranked the generations F 2 > F 2 ‐Syn 8 > BCP 2 > BCP 1 . The choice between F 2 and backcrosses as source populations is primarily a function of selection intensity. Our results suggest little to no advantage of random mating the F 2 before initiating selection and inbreeding.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Epistasis significantly affected grain yield and accounted for 21 of generation-mean variation.
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Epistatic effects were significant for grain yield and grain moisture, and accounted for 21 and 18% of the variation among generation means, respectively”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Epistasis significantly affected grain moisture and accounted for 18% of generation-mean variation.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Epistatic effects were significant for grain yield and grain moisture, and accounted for 21 and 18% of the variation among generation means, respectively”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
genetic variance for grain yield ranked F2-Syn8 > F2 > BCP1 > BCP2 without significant differences.
- Outcome
- genetic variancee0
- Direction
- rankede0
- Qualifier
- differences among generations were not significante0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The genetic variance and heritability for grain yield ranked F 2 ‐Syn 8 > F 2 > BCP 1 > BCP 2 , but differences among generations were not significant”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
heritability for grain yield ranked F2-Syn8 > F2 > BCP1 > BCP2 without significant differences.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The genetic variance and heritability for grain yield ranked F 2 ‐Syn 8 > F 2 > BCP 1 > BCP 2 , but differences among generations were not significant”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Predicted gains ranked in agreement with heritability.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The predicted gains for each generation ranked in agreement with the heritability”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At low selection intensity, predicted mean (usefulness) followed the reported generation ranking.
- Outcome
- predicted mean (usefulness)e0
- Direction
- rankede0
- Qualifier
- Under low selection intensities (a = 20%)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under low selection intensities (a = 20%), the predicted mean (usefulness) ranked the generations BCP2 2 > F 2 >> F 2 ‐Syn 8 > BCPI”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At high selection intensity, usefulness followed the reported generation ranking.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under high selection intensity (a = 1%), usefulness ranked the generations F 2 > F 2 ‐Syn 8 > BCP 2 > BCP 1”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Selection intensity primarily determines the choice between F2 and backcross source populations.
- Outcome
- choice between F 2 and backcrosses as source populationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The choice between F 2 and backcrosses as source populations is primarily a function of selection intensity”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Random mating F2 before selection and inbreeding offers little to no advantage.
- Outcome
- little to no advantage of random mating the F 2 before initiating selection and inbreedinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Our results suggest little to no advantage of random mating the F 2 before initiating selection and inbreeding”
t0“Maize”