Recurrent Selection and Participatory Plant Breeding for Improvement of Two Organic Open-Pollinated Sweet Corn (Zea mays L.) Populations
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Experimental Section
2.1. Breeding History
2.2. Experimental Methods
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Evaluation of Populations and Cycles of Selection
Entry | Plant Height | Ear Height | Ear Leaf Width | Stand Count | Days to Silking † | Ear Length | Kernel Rows | Marketable Ears |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(cm) | (cm) | (cm) | (%) | (GDD) | (cm) | (average) | (average) | |
Early: C0 | 162.2 | 48.3 | 8.5 | 77.1 | 589.2 | 19.2 | 15.1 | 11.0 |
Early: C1 | 153.9 | 51.6 | 8.5 | 75.8 | 580.1 | 19.3 | 14.7 | 11.1 |
Early: C2 | 148.9 | 43.7 | 8.7 | 69.8 | 577.6 | 18.6 | 15.2 | 10.8 |
Early: C3 | 141.6 | 42.4 | 8.1 | 76.0 | 561.7 | 18.6 | 15.6 | 10.7 |
Early: C4 | 138.9 | 42.0 | 8.4 | 80.6 | 565.4 | 18.6 | 15.5 | 11.4 |
Late: C0 | 166.2 | 52.3 | 8.7 | 78.1 | 605.4 | 19.1 | 15.2 | 11.0 |
Late: C1 | 164.5 | 53.3 | 8.7 | 73.5 | 618.8 | 19.2 | 14.8 | 10.3 |
Late: C2 | 166.2 | 49.7 | 8.7 | 75.4 | 617.4 | 19.4 | 15.1 | 12.0 |
Late: C3 | 164.6 | 54.3 | 9.1 | 79.4 | 619.2 | 19.8 | 15.4 | 11.6 |
Late: C4 | 173.9 | 58.6 | 9.0 | 72.9 | 632.4 | 19.9 | 16.5 | 11.4 |
CV % | 6.9 | 15.2 | 6.1 | 15.8 | 1.7 | 6.4 | 7.2 | 18.1 |
F ratio | 18.2 ** | 8.6 ** | 4.9 ** | 1.1 ns | 75.8 ** | 2.9 * | 3.4 ** | 1.0 ns |
LSD (0.05) | 7.7 | 5.3 | 0.4 | 8.4 ns | 8.1 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.4 ns |
Orthogonal contrast of overall means between the early and late populations | ||||||||
Early Pop. | 149.1 | 45.6 | 8.4 | 75.9 | 574.8 | 18.8 | 15.2 | 11.0 |
Late Pop. | 167.1 | 53.7 | 8.8 | 75.9 | 618.6 | 19.5 | 15.4 | 11.2 |
F ratio | 107.9 ** | 45.5 ** | 26.1 ** | 0.0 ns | 577.6 ** | 10.0 ** | 0.8 ns | 0.6 ns |
Entry | Husk Appearance | Husk Protection | Tip Fill | Ear Shape | Row Configuration | Flavor † | Tender-ness † |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Early: C0 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 3.2 | 3.6 | 2.8 | 3.3 |
Early: C1 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 3.8 | 3.5 | 3.3 | 3.6 |
Early: C2 | 2.8 | 2.6 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 3.6 |
Early: C3 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 3.6 |
Early: C4 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.6 |
Late: C0 | 3.3 | 3.9 | 2.9 | 3.4 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 3.4 |
Late: C1 | 3.1 | 3.7 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 3.6 |
Late: C2 | 2.5 | 4.1 | 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.6 |
Late: C3 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 3.9 |
Late: C4 | 3.2 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 3.8 |
CV % | 37.5 | 30.1 | 28.4 | 24.5 | 28.7 | 31.9 | 19.7 |
F ratio | 1.0 ns | 5.4 ** | 4.3 ** | 2.0 * | 2.0 * | 2.3 * | 0.7 ns |
LSD (0.05) | 0.8 ns | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.6 ns |
Orthogonal contrast of overall means between the early and late populations | |||||||
Early Pop. | 3.0 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 3.5 |
Late Pop. | 3.1 | 3.8 | 3.5 | 3.7 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 3.7 |
F ratio | 0.2 ns | 36.1 ** | 25.7 ** | 7.1 ** | 7.4 ** | 9.7 ** | 1.1 ns |
Early Population | Plant Height | Ear Height | Emergence | Days to Silking † | Ear Length | Kernel Rows | Husk Protection | Flavor † |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(cm) | (cm) | (%) | (GDD) | (cm) | (average) | (rating) | (rating) | |
Intercept | 147.8 | 45.7 | 72.5 | 573.0 | 18.8 | 15.1 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
Linear coefficient | −5.9 ** | −2.2 ** | - | −6.6 ** | −0.2 * | 0.2 * | −0.2 * | 0.2 * |
Quadratic coefficient | - | - | 1.7 * | - | - | - | - | - |
R2 | 0.99 | 0.68 | 0.76 | 0.89 | 0.73 | 0.89 | 0.99 | 0.70 |
Late Population | Plant Height | Ear Height | Ear Leaf Width | Days to Silking † | Row Configuration | Kernel Rows | Tip Fill | Tenderness † |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(cm) | (cm) | (cm) | (GDD) | (rating) | (average) | (rating) | (rating) | |
Intercept | 164.4 | 51.5 | 8.8 | 618.0 | 3.2 | 14.9 | 3.6 | 3.7 |
Linear coefficient | 1.5 * | 1.4 * | 0.1 * | 5.4 ** | - | 0.3 ** | 0.2 ** | 0.1 * |
Quadratic coefficient | 1.3 * | - | - | - | -0.1 * | 0.2 ** | - | - |
R2 | 0.80 | 0.81 | 0.58 | 0.81 | 0.95 | 0.99 | 0.84 | 0.83 |
3.2. Discussion
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Murphy, K.M.; Campbell, K.G.; Lyon, S.R.; Jones, S.S. Evidence of varietal adaptation to organic farming systems. Field Crops Res. 2007, 102, 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, S.P.; Teran, H.; Munoz-Perea, C.G.; Lema, M.; Dennis, M.; Hayes, R.; Parrott, R.; Mulberry, K.; Fullmer, D.; Smith, J. Dry bean landrace and cultivar performance in stressed and nonstressed organic and conventional production systems. Crop Sci. 2009, 49, 1859–1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reid, T.A.; Yang, R.; Salmon, D.F.; Navabi, A.; Spaner, D. Realized gains from selection for spring wheat grain yield are different in conventional and organically managed systems. Euphytica 2010, 177, 253–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, S.P.; Teran, H.; Lema, M.; Hayes, R. Selection for Dry Bean Yield On-Station Versus On-Farm Conventional and Organic Production Systems. Crop Sci. 2011, 51, 621–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamran, A.; Kubota, H.; Yang, R.; Randhawa, H.; Spaner, D. Relative performance of Canadian spring wheat cultivars under organic and conventional field conditions. Euphytica 2014, 196, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sooby, J.; Landeck, J.; Lipson, M. 2007 National Organic Research Agenda: Outcomes from the Scientific Congress on Organic Agricultura Research (SCOAR); Organic Farming Research Foundation: Santa Cruz, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Dillon, M.; Hubbard, K. State of Organic Seed Report; Organic Seed Alliance: Port Townsend, WA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Atlin, G.N.; Cooper, M.; Bjørnstad, A. A comparison of formal and participatory breeding approaches using selection theory. Euphytica 2001, 122, 463–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murphy, K.M.; Lammer, D.; Lyon, S.R.; Carter, B.; Jones, S.S. Breeding for organic and low-input farming systems: An evolutionary–participatory breeding method for inbred cereal grains. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2005, 20, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horneburg, B.; Myers, J.R. Tomato: Breeding for Improved Disease Resistance in Fresh Market and Home Garden Varieties. In Organic Crop Breeding; van Bueren, E.T.L., Myers, J.R., Eds.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2012; pp. 239–249. [Google Scholar]
- Chiffoleau, Y.; Desclaux, D. Participatory plant breeding: The best way to breed for sustainable agriculture? Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2006, 4, 119–130. [Google Scholar]
- Mendum, R.; Glenna, L.L. Socioeconomic Obstacles to Establishing a Participatory Plant Breeding Program for Organic Growers in the United States. Sustainability 2010, 2, 73–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawson, J.C.; Rivière, P.; Berthellot, J.; Mercier, F.; de Kochko, P.; Galic, N.; Pin, S.; Serpolay, E.; Thomas, M.; Giuliano, S.; et al. Collaborative Plant Breeding for Organic Agricultural Systems in Developed Countries. Sustainability 2011, 3, 1206–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myers, J.R.; McKenzie, L.; Voorrips, R.E. Brassicas: Breeding Cole Crops for Organic Agriculture. In Organic Crop Breeding; van Bueren, E.T.L., Myers, J.R., Eds.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2012; pp. 251–262. [Google Scholar]
- Witcombe, J.R.; Joshi, A.; Joshi, K.D.; Sthapit, B.R. Farmer participatory crop improvement. 1. Varietal selection and breeding methods and their impact on biodiversity. Exp. Agric. 1996, 32, 445–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawson, J.C.; Murphy, K.M.; Jones, S.S. Decentralized selection and participatory approaches in plant breeding for low-input systems. Euphytica 2008, 160, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sthapit, B.R.; Joshi, K.D.; Witcombe, J.R. Farmer participatory crop improvement. III. Participatory plant breeding, a case study for rice in Nepal. Exp. Agric. 1996, 32, 479–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceccarelli, S.; Grando, S.; Tutwiler, R.; Baha, J.; Martini, A.M.; Salahieh, H.; Goodchild, A.; Michael, M. A methodological study on participatory barley breeding I. Selection phase. Euphytica 2000, 111, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceccarelli, S.; Grando, S.; Singh, M.; Michael, M.; Shikho, A.; Al Issa, M.; Al Saleh, A.; Kaleonjy, G.; Al Ghanem, S.M.; Al Hasan, A.L.; et al. A methodological study on participatory barley breeding II. Response to selection. Euphytica 2003, 133, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Virk, D.S.; Singh, D.N.; Prasad, S.C.; Gangwar, J.S.; Witcombe, J.R. Collaborative and consultative participatory plant breeding of rice for the rainfed uplands of eastern India. Euphytica 2003, 132, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, M.E.; Castillo, F.G.; Gómez, F. Participatory plant breeding with maize in Mexico and Honduras. Euphytica 2001, 122, 551–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witcombe, J.R.; Joshi, A.; Goyal, S.N. Participatory plant breeding in maize: A case study from Gujarat, India. Euphytica 2003, 130, 413–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vom Brocke, K.; Trouche, G.; Weltzien, E.; Barro-Kondombo, C.; Gozé, E.; Chantereau, J. Participatory variety development for sorghum in Burkina Faso: Farmers’ selection and farmers’ criteria. Field Crops Res. 2010, 119, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fehr, W.R. Principles of Cultivar Development; Macmillan Publishing Company: New York , NY, USA; London, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Li, J.; van Bueren, E.T.L.; Huang, K.; Qin, L.; Song, Y. The potential of participatory hybrid breeding. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2013, 11, 234–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duvick, D.N. Selection methods Part 3: Hybrid breeding. In Plant Breeding and Farmer Participation; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009; pp. 229–253. [Google Scholar]
- Mazourek, M.; Moriarty, G.; Glos, M.; Fink, M.; Kreitinger, M.; Henderson, E.; Palmer, G.; Ammie, C.; Danya, L.R.; Deborah, K.; et al. “Peacework”: A cucumber mosaic virus-resistant early red bell pepper for organic systems. Hortscience 2009, 44, 1464–1467. [Google Scholar]
- Diver, S.; Kuepper, G.; Sullivan, P.; Adam, K. Sweet Corn: Organic Production; ATTRA: National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service: Butte, MT, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Tracy, W.F. Sweet corn. In Specialty Corns; Hallauer, A.R., Ed.; CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000; pp. 155–199. [Google Scholar]
- Local Season|Willy Street Co-op. Available online: http://www.willystreet.coop/reader-editions/2012/08/local-season (accessed on 29 June 2014).
- Ulloa, S.M.; Datta, A.; Malidza, G.; Leskovsek, R.; Knezevic, S.Z. Timing and propane dose of broadcast flaming to control weed population influenced yield of sweet maize (Zea mays L. var. rugosa). Field Crops Res. 2010, 118, 282–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, H.J.; Colquhoun, J.B.; Bussan, A.J. The Feasibility of Organic Nutrient Management in Large-scale Sweet Corn Production for Processing. Horttechnology 2012, 22, 25–36. [Google Scholar]
- Hopkins, C.G. Improvement in the Chemical Composition of the Corn Kernel. Ill. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 1899, 55, 205–240. [Google Scholar]
- Falconer, D.S.; Mackay, T.F.C. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 4th ed.; Longman: Essex, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Gonzales, J.W.; Rhodes, A.M.; Dickinson, D.B. Carbohydrate and Enzymic Characterization of a High Sucrose Sugary Inbred Line of Sweet Corn. Plant Physiol. 1976, 58, 28–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tracy, W.F. History, breeding, and genetics of supersweet corn. In Plant Breeding Reviews; Janick, J., Ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1997; Volume 14, pp. 189–236. [Google Scholar]
- Dicke, F.F.; Jenkins, M.T. Susceptibility of Certain Strains of Field Corn in Hybrid Combinations to Damage by Corn Earworms; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1945.
- Zystro, J.P.; de Leon, N.; Tracy, W.F. Analysis of Traits Related to Weed Competitiveness in Sweet Corn (Zea mays L.). Sustainability 2012, 4, 543–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allard, R.W. Principles of Plant Breeding; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1960. [Google Scholar]
- Machado, A.T.; Fernandes, M.S. Participatory maize breeding for low nitrogen tolerance. Euphytica 2001, 122, 567–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Virk, D.S.; Chakraborty, M.; Ghosh, J.; Prasad, S.C.; Witcombe, J.R. Increasing client orientation of maize breeding using farmer participation in eastern India. Exp. Agric. 2005, 41, 413–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreira, P.M.; Pego, S.E.; Vaz Patto, C.; Hallauer, A.R. Comparison of selection methods on “Pigarro,” a Portuguese improved maize population with fasciation expression. Euphytica 2008, 16, 481–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Shelton, A.C.; Tracy, W.F. Recurrent Selection and Participatory Plant Breeding for Improvement of Two Organic Open-Pollinated Sweet Corn (Zea mays L.) Populations. Sustainability 2015, 7, 5139-5152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7055139
Shelton AC, Tracy WF. Recurrent Selection and Participatory Plant Breeding for Improvement of Two Organic Open-Pollinated Sweet Corn (Zea mays L.) Populations. Sustainability. 2015; 7(5):5139-5152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7055139
Chicago/Turabian StyleShelton, Adrienne C., and William F. Tracy. 2015. "Recurrent Selection and Participatory Plant Breeding for Improvement of Two Organic Open-Pollinated Sweet Corn (Zea mays L.) Populations" Sustainability 7, no. 5: 5139-5152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7055139