Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:09:04.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The genetic control of maturity and seed characters in sunflower crosses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. J. Holtom ,
H. S. Pooni ,
C. J. Rawlinson ,
B. W. Barnes ,
T. Hussain  and
D. F. Marshall
M. J. Holtom
Affiliation:
Plant Genetics Group, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
H. S. Pooni
Affiliation:
Plant Genetics Group, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
C. J. Rawlinson
Affiliation:
Plant Genetics Group, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
B. W. Barnes
Affiliation:
Plant Genetics Group, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
T. Hussain
Affiliation:
Plant Genetics Group, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
D. F. Marshall
Affiliation:
Plant Genetics Group, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Data from the F1, F2 and F3 generations derived from four F1 hybrids of sunflower were analysed to determine the genetical control of eleven agronomically important traits namely, flowering time (FT), final height (FH), seed set (SS), fresh seed weight (FSW), dry seed weight (DSW), 25-seed weight (SSW), head diameter (HD), head angle (HA), neck width (NW), Botrylis infection (BI) and percentage oil content (PO), with the objective of assessing their potential for producing superior recombinant lines. Comparisons of means revealed significant differences between the F: generations of crosses for all the characters except FT. Model fitting indicated that these differences were attributed either to variation in the magnitude of the dominance component [h], or the projected mean of the Finfin; generation, m. Further, all the variation in the generation means was accounted for by the m and [h] parameters and epistasis was shown to be non-existent for almost all the traits. Analysis of the second degree statistics revealed the presence of additive genetic effects and most of the characters showed moderate heritability except for HD, which was highly heritable. All the crosses were predicted to produce significant numbers of transgressive segregants and consequently were expected to yield superior inbred lines and second cycle hybrids either to be released as varieties as such or to be utilized in future breeding work. The overall differences between the crosses, however, were not highly pronounced and therefore it was not possible to identify a cross which would yield markedly superior recombinant lines and F1 crosses compared to the others.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 125 , Issue 1 , August 1995 , pp. 69 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agricultural and Food Research Council (1987). Alternative Crops for Arable Land. Agricultural and Food Research Council Annual Report for 1986–87, pp. 27–37.Google Scholar
Church, V. J. & Rawlinson, C. J. (1991). Sunflower-a potential crop for the U.K. Helia 14, 117–122.Google Scholar
Fick, G. N. (1975). Heritability of oil content in sunflowers. Crop Science 15, 77–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. & Yates, F. (1963). Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Holtom, M. J. (1992). The polygenic inheritance of agronomic characters in the sunflower (Helianthus annuus). PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Hurt, E. F. (1946). Sunflower for Food, Fodder and Fertility, 2nd Edn.London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Jinks, J. L. & Pooni, H. S. (1980). Comparing predictions of mean performance and environmental sensitivity of recombinant inbred lines based upon F3 and triple test cross families. Heredity 45, 305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jinks, J. L. & Pooni, H. S. (1984). Comparison of inbred lines produced by single seed descent and pedigree inbreeding. Heredity 53, 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leclercq, P. (1969). Une stérilité mâle cytoplasmique chez le tournesol. Annales de l'Amelioration des Plantes 19, 99–106.Google Scholar
Leclercq, P. (1970). Sunflower hybrids using male sterility. In Proceedings of the 4th International Sunflower Conference, Memphis, Tennessee, USA, pp. 123–126.Google Scholar
Mather, K. & Jinks, J. L. (1982). Biometrical Genetics: The Study of Continuous Variation, 3rd Edn.London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ŝkorić, D. (1992). Achievements and future directions of sunflower breeding. Field Crops Research 30, 231–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1980). Statistical Methods, 7th Edn.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar