ABSTRACT. Go back
Preliminary comparisons of early generation individual selection efficiency of a local wheat landrace under different experimental field designs

Vasileios Greveniotis1*, Evangelia Sioki2, and Constantinos G. Ipsilandis3

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) landraces are traditional adapted varieties developed and used by farmers but not usually improved by breeders. The objective of our study was to compare the efficiency of three different methods (arrangements) of homogeneity blocks to produce high-yield progenies during the breeding procedure of a local bread wheat landrace. This original genetic material underwent a mass selection scheme in F2 individual plants in three different experimental designs to reduce soil heterogeneity (honeycomb, gridding, double rows); selection was based on individual plant grain weight. In F3 lines, bulk density was the selection criterion in a specific arrangement that divided the experimental field into three plots for 12 subplots to reduce soil heterogeneity. The F4 lines were evaluated in randomized complete block trials for 2 yr based on grain yield, 1000-kernel weight, and bulk density. Progenies from the three different experimental designs were compared. The gridding method seemed more efficient for evaluating sister lines because it maximized yields, provided a greater number of promising lines, and F3/F4 correlations were high and significant. Wheat plants did not perform well under the double row system (mean bulk density 756 g L-1). Heritability was high for all studied traits (0.93) and bulk density was a reliable criterion for selecting promising genetic materials (90.1% genotype contribution in variability) and revealed differences between methods. The local landrace was unstable and exhibited specific adaptability to the cultivated environment. Selected lines (from the most efficient method) improved yield performance by 11% on the average compared with the original population.

Key words: Evaluation, gridding, heterogeneity, honeycomb, Triticum aestivum.

1Technological Educational Institute of Thessaly, Department of Agricultural Technology, School of Agricultural Technology, Food Technology and Nutrition, Larissa 41110, Greece. *Corresponding author (vgreveni@mail.com, vgreveni@teilar.gr).
2Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Department of Agricultural Economics, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece.
3Regional Administration of Central Macedonia, Department of Agriculture, Thessaloniki 54622, Greece.

Go back