2016
DOI: 10.1590/1984-70332016v16n2a19
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of recurrent selection on the variability of the UENF-14 popcorn population

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
22
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
6
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Heritability estimates for popcorn were 0.81, 0.91 and 0.84, and for field corn were 0.90, 0.88, and 0.82 for Year 1, Year 2, and combined, respectively. These values are congruent with previous reports that popping expansion is consistent across environments and has moderate to high heritability, ranging from 0.68 to 0.90 (Robbins and Ashman, 1984; Pereira and do Amaral Júnior, 2001; Freitas Júnior et al, 2009; Ribeiro et al, 2016). Genotypic variance for popping expansion estimated within each subgroup was much smaller than when estimated for the complete set of lines (Table 1), indicating that much of the genetic variation for popping expansion occurs between popcorn and field corn lines, with less variation within each group.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Heritability estimates for popcorn were 0.81, 0.91 and 0.84, and for field corn were 0.90, 0.88, and 0.82 for Year 1, Year 2, and combined, respectively. These values are congruent with previous reports that popping expansion is consistent across environments and has moderate to high heritability, ranging from 0.68 to 0.90 (Robbins and Ashman, 1984; Pereira and do Amaral Júnior, 2001; Freitas Júnior et al, 2009; Ribeiro et al, 2016). Genotypic variance for popping expansion estimated within each subgroup was much smaller than when estimated for the complete set of lines (Table 1), indicating that much of the genetic variation for popping expansion occurs between popcorn and field corn lines, with less variation within each group.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Additive variance predominated in all crosses with little contribution of dominance to the genetic variance (Tables 4 and 5), which is expected for PE (Scapim et al, 2006;da Silva et al, 2010). Broad and narrow-sense heritabilities ranged from moderate to high estimations (Table 6) and similar to previous studies (Pereira and Amaral Júnior, 2001;Freitas Júnior et al, 2009;Ribeiro et al, 2016). These results also highlight the importance of additive effect on PE.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…These results indicate that even with the use of different progeny strategies (full-sibs, S 1 and halfsibs), there was an increase in allele frequencies for the traits of interest, with greater adaptability to counties in the north and northwest of the State of Rio de Janeiro. This progress has been described by Ribeiro et al (2016) and Guimarães et al (2018b). While the first authors investigated cumulative gains in GY and PE based on phenotypic responses in the same study population over seven cycles (C0-C6), the latter authors used microsatellite molecular markers (EST-SSRs), inferring an increase in favourable alleles over nine selection cycles (C0-C8), which may be related to the main traits of interest.…”
Section: Genetic Progress In the Selection Cycles Of Population Uenf-14mentioning
confidence: 99%