2018
DOI: 10.21475/ajcs.18.12.05.pne1004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of agronomic performance and prediction of genetic gains through selection indices in silage corn

Abstract: During the dry season, the production of pastures is decreased, making farmers necessary to use corn silage as roughage source. Maize is increasingly recommended as the most important silage crop due to their qualitative and quantitative traits on top of the great acceptance for most animals. This work aimed to evaluate, through selection indices, the agronomic performance and prediction of genetic gains in corn hybrids for silage production. Eight topcross hybrids and seven controls were assessed in randomize… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
12
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
2
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The classical index of Smith (1936) and Hazel (1943) showed a high-predicted genetic gain for CEYIELD, when weighted by weights 1, CVg, CVg/CVe, and h², with mean values of 19.20, 22.24, 21.22, and 21.28% respectively, which stood out as the greater predicted gains than the those of other indexes ( Table 2). Results of the present study corroborate those by Rangel et al (2011), Freitas et al (2013), Entringer et al (2016), and Crevelari et al (2018), who indicated positive genetic gains for traits of maize crop yield when using the index of Smith (1936) and Hazel (1943).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…The classical index of Smith (1936) and Hazel (1943) showed a high-predicted genetic gain for CEYIELD, when weighted by weights 1, CVg, CVg/CVe, and h², with mean values of 19.20, 22.24, 21.22, and 21.28% respectively, which stood out as the greater predicted gains than the those of other indexes ( Table 2). Results of the present study corroborate those by Rangel et al (2011), Freitas et al (2013), Entringer et al (2016), and Crevelari et al (2018), who indicated positive genetic gains for traits of maize crop yield when using the index of Smith (1936) and Hazel (1943).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…To assist the breeders' decision on the rootstocks with better overall performance, the rank sum index (Mulamba and Mock 1978) and the multiplicative index (Elston 1963;Garcia and Souza Junior 1999) were applied to the dataset of traits presenting significant differences between the evaluated rootstocks. Selection indices are frequently used in crop breeding programs, especially at initial stages, because several traits can be evaluated at once in a simple procedure to select superior genotypes (Crevelari et al 2018). Most evaluated variables presented CV% lower than 20% (Table 1), which is commonly reported in similar studies and adequate for using the proposed indices (Costa et al 2020;Crevelari et al 2018;Schinor et al 2013).…”
Section: Ribeiro Et Almentioning
confidence: 68%
“…Selection indices are frequently used in crop breeding programs, especially at initial stages, because several traits can be evaluated at once in a simple procedure to select superior genotypes (Crevelari et al 2018). Most evaluated variables presented CV% lower than 20% (Table 1), which is commonly reported in similar studies and adequate for using the proposed indices (Costa et al 2020;Crevelari et al 2018;Schinor et al 2013). There was a positive correlation between the rank sum (I MM ) and the multiplicative (I e ) indices (r = 0.77**), indicating high degree of accordance and, consequently, a more reliable selection of the superior rootstocks.…”
Section: Ribeiro Et Almentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The topcross hybrids were developed on an isolated field of the Experimental Station of Ilha Barra do Pomba-RJ. The topcross hybrids were selected based on the fresh matter yield, after four years of testing (Crevelari et al 2017, Crevelari et al 2018).…”
Section: Breeding Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%