2013
DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2012.06.0370
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Genotypic Variation for Morphological Traits in a White Clover Mapping Population Evaluated Across Two Environments and Three Years

Abstract: Phenotypic measurements of plants growing in swards are often confounded by a combination of environmental variation and experimental error. Genetic analysis allows plant scientists to decipher genomic regulation control of key traits, informing breeding strategies and enabling marker‐aided breeding. Our research objective was to estimate genotypic variation for a range of key aboveground morphological traits in a white clover (Trifolium repens L.) F1 mapping population evaluated over 3 yr across two contrasti… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These data were combined with existing MP2 SSR data and a parental consensus linkage map was estimated (Griffiths et al ., ) and visualised using MapChart 2.2 (Voorrips, ). Vby and Vrl were scored in a T. repens population (MP3) comprised of F 1 full‐sib progeny derived from a hand‐pollinated reciprocal pair‐cross of a genotype each of cv ‘Grasslands Kopu II’ ( Vrl, Vby ) and cv ‘Grasslands Crusader’ as described (Jahufer et al ., ). The population ( n = 92) was screened with SSRs to generate a parental consensus linkage map using JoinMap ® 3.0 (Van Ooijen & Voorrips, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…These data were combined with existing MP2 SSR data and a parental consensus linkage map was estimated (Griffiths et al ., ) and visualised using MapChart 2.2 (Voorrips, ). Vby and Vrl were scored in a T. repens population (MP3) comprised of F 1 full‐sib progeny derived from a hand‐pollinated reciprocal pair‐cross of a genotype each of cv ‘Grasslands Kopu II’ ( Vrl, Vby ) and cv ‘Grasslands Crusader’ as described (Jahufer et al ., ). The population ( n = 92) was screened with SSRs to generate a parental consensus linkage map using JoinMap ® 3.0 (Van Ooijen & Voorrips, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…There is extensive variation for yield potential in diverse and elite white clover populations (Aasmo Finne et al, 2000a;Jahufer et al, 2013), even within full-sib progenies. As an indirect measure of yield potential, leaf size is a useful, readily measured trait (Caradus and Chapman, 1998), with recent research demonstrating the ability to automate estimation of clover yield using a combination of digital imaging and point analysis (Chen et al, 2010).…”
Section: White Clovermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yield responses of white clover genotypes or populations may largely interact with cropping environments (Jahufer et al, 2013). They can also be inconsistent across contrasting conditions of plant density, type of grass companion and exploitation regime (Table 4), with important implications on breeding strategies.…”
Section: White Clovermentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Generally, forage yield per se has low heritability; therefore, its improvement can be achieved by selection for other traits that individually or synergistically determine forage yield (Naeem et al, 2006; Vasiljevic´ et al, 2006; Hussain et al, 2015). In comparison with forage yield, components such as plant height, leaf area, single plant dry biomass, internodal length, number of leaflets stem −1 , stem diameter, stem number, and stem density affect total forage yield (Naeem et al, 2006; Ranjbar, 2008; Kapoor et al, 2011; Jahufer et al, 2013; Hussain et al, 2015). The percentage of emergence and seedling vigor can contribute to better stand establishment, seedling competitiveness in the sward, and result in a higher forage yield (DeHaan et al, 2001; Fraser et al, 2004; Taylor, 2008; Leger and Baughman, 2015; Rauf et al, 2015).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%