Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T07:45:04.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of tomato source breeding material through mating designs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2007

M. S. KOUTSIKA-SOTIRIOU ,
E. A. TRAKA-MAVRONA  and
G. L. EVGENIDIS
M. S. KOUTSIKA-SOTIRIOU
Affiliation:
Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Faculty of Agriculture, Laboratory of Genetics and Plant Breeding, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece
E. A. TRAKA-MAVRONA*
Affiliation:
National Agricultural Research Foundation (NAGREF), Agricultural Research Centre of Northern Greece, Department of Vegetable Crops, 570 01 Thermi, Thessaloniki, PO Box 60458, Greece
G. L. EVGENIDIS
Affiliation:
National Agricultural Research Foundation (NAGREF), Cereals Institute, Maize Department, 570 01 Thermi, Thessaloniki, PO Box 60411, Greece
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: traka@nagref.gr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Cultivated tomato has a narrow germplasm base because of several population bottlenecks in the form of founder events, as well as natural and artificial selections that occurred during domestication and evolution of modern cultivars. The F2 of commercial single-cross hybrids, as well as locally well-adapted varieties, provide germplasm for developing recombinant lines and exploiting genetic variability, respectively. The present study aims to discriminate the breeding value of tomato source material, i.e. commercial hybrids or well-adapted varieties, by (i) estimating tolerance to inbreeding of hybrids or estimating heterosis of diallel hybrids between varieties, (ii) determining undesirable traits and (iii) determining general combining ability (GCA) and specific combining ability (SCA) effects from diallel crosses between hybrids and between varieties. Two hybrids and four varieties were assessed. One hybrid showed 0·03 inbreeding vigour, which was not combined with undesirable traits in the F2 generation. However, negative GCA and positive SCA values did not support the hybrid as source material, provided that hybrids with low inbreeding depression, positive GCA and negative SCA correspond to an F2 capable of developing recombinant lines. The assessment of the varieties showed positive GCA and 0·34 heterosis in one variety, indicating agreement between yield and GCA, and that high-yielding varieties may produce high-yielding hybrids. In conclusion, the proposed mating design, taking into account the tolerance to inbreeding for hybrids and the heritability of general worth for both resources, provides a mechanism for ensuring continued improvement in plant performance through plant selection programmes.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 146 , Issue 3 , June 2008 , pp. 301 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

REFERENCES

Burdick, A. B. (1954). Genetics of heterosis for earliness in the tomato. Genetics 39, 488–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ceccarelli, S. & Grando, S. (1996). Drought as a challenge for the plant breeder. Plant Growth Regulation 20, 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christakis, P. A. & Fasoulas, A. C. (2001). The recovery of recombinant inbreds outyielding the hybrid in tomato. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 137, 179–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christakis, P. A. & Fasoulas, A. C. (2002). The effects of the genotype by environmental interaction on the fixation of heterosis in tomato. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 139, 55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currence, T. M., Larson, R. E. & Virta, A. A. (1944). A comparison of six tomato varieties as parents of F1 lines resulting from the fifteen possible crosses. Proceedings of the American Society for Horticultural Science 45, 349–352.Google Scholar
Duvick, D. N. (1996). Plant breeding, an evolutionary concept. Crop Science 36, 539–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evgenidis, G., Fotiadis, N., Georgiadis, S., Ligos, E., Mellidis, B. & Sfakianakis, J. (2001). Analysis of diallel crosses among CIMMYT's subtropical-temperate and adapted to the U.S. Corn Belt maize populations. Maydica 46, 47–52.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1989). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Fasoula, V. A. & Fasoula, D. A. (2000). Honeycomb breeding: principles and applications. Plant Breeding Reviews 18, 177–250.Google Scholar
Fasoula, V. A. & Fasoula, D. A. (2002). Principles underlying genetic improvement for high and stable crop yield potential. Field Crops Research 75, 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasoula, V. A. & Fasoula, D. A. (2003). Partitioning crop yield into genetic components. In Handbook of Formulas and Software for Plant Geneticists and Breeders (Ed. Kang, M. S.), pp. 321–327. New York: The Haworth Press.Google Scholar
Fasoulas, A. C. (1988). The Honeycomb Methodology of Plant Breeding. Thessaloniki, Greece: A.C. Fasoulas.Google Scholar
Fountain, M. O. & Hallauer, A. R. (1996). Genetic variation within maize breeding populations. Crop Science 36, 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, M. M. & Brown, W. L. (1988). Races of corn. In Corn and Corn Improvement (Eds Sprague, G. F. & Dudley, J. W.), pp. 33–79. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffing, B. (1956). Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing system. Australian Journal of Biological Science 9, 463–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffing, B. (1990). Use of a controlled-nutrient experiment to test heterosis hypotheses. Genetics 126, 753–767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hallauer, A. R. & Miranda Filho, J. B. (1995). Quantitative Genetics in Maize Breeding, 2nd edn. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Janick, J. (1999). Exploitation of heterosis: uniformity and stability. In The Genetics and Exploitation of Heterosis in Crops (Eds Coors, J. G. & Pandey, S.), pp. 319–333. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA.Google Scholar
Jenkins, M. T. (1978). Maize breeding during the development and early years of hybrid maize. In Maize Breeding and Genetics (Ed. Walden, D. B.), pp. 13–28. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Jones, J. B. (1999). Tomato Plant Culture: In the Field, Greenhouse, and Home Garden. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Kalloo, G. (1993). Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Miller.). In Genetic Improvement of Vegetable Crops (Eds Kalloo, G. & Bergh, B. O.), pp. 645–668. Oxford: Pergamon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koutsika-Sotiriou, M. (1999). Hybrid seed production in maize. In Heterosis and Hybrid Seed Production in Agronomic Crops (Ed. Basra, A. S.), pp. 25–64. New York: The Haworth Press.Google Scholar
Koutsika-Sotiriou, M. S. & Karagounis, Ch. A. (2005). Assessment of maize hybrids. Maydica 50, 63–70.Google Scholar
Lu, H. & Bernardo, R. (2001). Molecular marker diversity among current and historical maize inbreds. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 103, 613–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meghji, M. R., Dudley, J. W., Lambert, R. Z. & Sprague, G. F. (1984). Inbreeding depression, inbred and hybrid grain yields and other traits of maize genotypes representing three eras. Crop Science 24, 545–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miranda Filho, J. B. (1999). Inbreeding and heterosis. In The Genetics and Exploitation of Heterosis in Crops (Eds Coors, J. G. & Pandey, S.), pp. 69–80. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA.Google Scholar
Ragot, M., Sisco, P. H., Hoisington, D. A. & Stuber, C. W. (1995). Molecular-marker-mediated characterization of favourable exotic alleles at quantitative trait loci in maize. Crop Science 35, 1306–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rick, C. M. (1949). Rates of natural cross pollination of tomatoes in various localities in California as measured by the fruits and seeds set on male-sterile plants. Proceedings of the American Society for Horticultural Science 54, 237–252.Google Scholar
Scott, J. W. & Angell, F. F. (1998). Tomato. In Hybrid Cultivar Development (Eds Banga, S. S. & Banga, S. K.), pp. 451–475. New Delhi: Narosa Publ. House.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sfakianakis, J., Fotiadis, N., Evgenidis, G. & Katranis, N. (1996). Genetic analysis of maize variety diallel crosses and related populations. Maydica 41, 113–117.Google Scholar
Simmonds, N. W. (1979). Principles of Crop Improvement. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Taller, J. M. & Bernardo, R. (2004). Diverse adapted populations for improving northern maize inbreds. Crop Science 44, 1444–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tigchelaar, E. C., McGlasson, W. B. & Buescher, R. W. (1978). Genetic regulation of tomato fruit ripening. HortScience 13, 508–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M. & Wu, J. (1999). Yield improvement in temperate maize is attributable to greater stress tolerance. Crop Science 39, 1597–1604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troyer, A. F. (1996). Breeding widely adapted, popular maize hybrids. Euphytica 92, 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UPOV (2001). Guidelines for the conduct of tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability of tomato (Lycopersicon lycopersicum (L.) Karsten ex Farw.). TG/44/10. Geneva, Switzerland: International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.Google Scholar
Wehner, T. C. (1999). Heterosis in vegetable crops. In The Genetics and Exploitation of Heterosis in Crops (Eds Coors, J. G. & Pandey, S.), pp. 387–397. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA.Google Scholar