Selection among genotypes in final stage sugarcane trials: effects of time of year
A. R. Rattey A E F , P. A. Jackson B , D. M. Hogarth C and T. A. McRae DA BSES Limited, PO Box 117, Ayr, Qld 4817, Australia.
B CSIRO Plant Industry, Davies Laboratory, PMB, PO Aitkenvale, Qld 4814, Australia.
C BSES Limited, PO Box 86, Indooroopilly, Qld 4068, Australia.
D Southern Tree Breeding Association, PO Box 1811, Mount Gambier, SA 5290, Australia.
E School of Land and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia.
F Corresponding author. Present address: CSIRO Plant Industry, Level 1, Building 73, Clunies Ross St, Acton, ACT 2601, Australia. Email: Allan.Rattey@csiro.au
Crop and Pasture Science 60(12) 1165-1174 https://doi.org/10.1071/CP09136
Submitted: 7 May 2009 Accepted: 14 August 2009 Published: 23 November 2009
Abstract
Low levels of commercial cane sugar (CCS) reduce relative economic value (REV) in sugarcane. In the Australian sugarcane industry, CCS is lower early (June) compared with the completion (November) of the harvest period. Performance of sugarcane genotypes in 2 Central region series and 1 Burdekin region series of final stage selection trials was examined to determine if independent selection programs are required to select elite genotypes for 2 target periods: (a) early (before July), and (b) mature (from July on). Across series, CCS (16.83 v. 12.02% fresh cane weight) and REV (AU$3937/ha v. $3123/ha) were significantly higher in the mature than in the early period, while genotypic variance for CCS (0.76 v. 0.33), and broad-sense heritability for CCS (0.96 v. 0.86) and REV (0.79 v. 0.69), were higher in the early than in the mature period. Genetic correlations between sample times less than 3 months apart were usually ≥0.9 for CCS, but generally declined to ≤0.6 for times greater than 3 months apart. Consequently, genotype × period (early compared with mature) interaction effects on CCS affected selection decisions, especially in the Central region, and genetic improvements for CCS would be expected via specific targeting of early and mature periods. However, genotype × period interaction effects were not important for cane yield or REV, such that selection for specific adaptation to early or mature periods would not improve gains in REV across the entire harvest period. Some final stage selection trials should be harvested early in the harvest period, when heritability and genotypic variance are highest, to capture high early CCS genotypes with acceptable cane yield for recycling in breeding activities. This protocol should enhance genetic gain for early CCS and simultaneously increase REV early in the harvesting period of the Australian sugar industry.
Additional keywords: heritability, early CCS, relative economic value, indirect selection.
Acknowledgments
We thank Ian Faulkner, Jeff Blackburn, Mark Hetherington, and Collins Kimbeng for their excellent assistance with aspects of these experiments, and numerous field staff who assisted during data collection. We also thank Scott Chapman, Jo Stringer, and Jacquie Mitchell for assistance with data analysis and presentation. The support of farmers in providing land for on-farm trials is very much appreciated. This research was jointly funded by BSES Ltd and the Sugarcane Research and Development Corporation of Australia.
Akaike H
(1974) New look at statistical-model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control AC19, 716–723.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Atlin GN,
Baker RJ,
McRae KB, Lu X
(2000) Selection response in subdivided target regions. Crop Science 40, 7–13.
Chandler KJ
(2003) Confidor® in ratoons for control of greyback grub damage. Proceedings of Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists [CD-ROM] 25, 12.
Chapman LS, Leverington KC
(1976) Optimizing harvest schedules in the Mackay area. Proceedings of the Queensland Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 43, 33–38.
Cooper M,
Woodruff DR,
Eisemann RL,
Brennan PS, Delacy IH
(1995) A selection strategy to accommodate genotype-by-environment interaction for grain yield of wheat: managed-environments for selection among genotypes. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 90, 492–502.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cox MC,
Hogarth DM, Hansen PB
(1994) Breeding and selection for high early season sugar content in sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids) improvement program. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 45, 1569–1575.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cox MC,
Hogarth DM, Mullins RT
(1990) Clonal evaluation of early sugar content. Proceedings of Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 12, 251–255.
Cox MC,
Ridge DR, Hussey B
(1998) Optimum time of harvest for high early-CCS sugar varieties. Proceedings of Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 20, 218–223.
DiBella LP,
Stringer JK,
Wood AW,
Royle AR, Holzberger GP
(2008) What impact does time of harvest have on sugarcane crops in the Herbert River District? Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 30, 337–348.
Falconer DS
(1952) The problem of environment and selection. American Naturalist 86, 293–298.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gilbert RA,
Shine JM,
Miller JD,
Rice RW, Rainbolt CR
(2006) The effect of genotype, environment and time of harvest on sugarcane yields in Florida, USA. Field Crops Research 95, 156–170.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gilmour AR,
Cullis BR, Verbyla AP
(1997) Accounting for natural and extraneous variation in the analysis of field experiments. Journal of Agricultural Biological & Environmental Statistics 2, 269–293.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gilmour AR,
Thompson R, Cullis BR
(1995) Average information REML: an efficient algorithm for variance parameter estimation in linear mixed models. Biometrics 51, 1440–1450.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hogarth DM
(1971) Quantitative inheritance studies in sugarcane. II. Correlations and predicted responses to selection. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 22, 103–109.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jackson PA,
Bonnett G,
Chudleigh P,
Hogarth DM, Wood AW
(2000) The relative importance of cane yield and traits affecting CCS in sugarcane varieties. Proceedings of Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 22, 23–29.
Jackson PA, Hogarth DM
(1992) Genotype × environment interactions in sugarcane. I. Patterns of response across sites and crop-years in North Queensland. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 43, 1447–1459.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jackson PA, McRae TA
(1998) Gains from selection of broad and specifically adapted sugarcane families. Field Crops Research 59, 151–162.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jackson PA, McRae TA
(2001) Selection of sugarcane clones in small plots: effects of plot size and selection criteria. Crop Science 41, 315–322.
Jackson PA, Morgan TE
(2003) Early stage selection for commercial cane sugar (CCS) in sugarcane clones: effects of time of sampling and irrigation. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 54, 389–396.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kimbeng CA,
Rattey AR, Hetherington M
(2002) Interpretation and implications of genotype by environment interactions in advanced stage sugarcane selection trials in Central Queensland. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 53, 1035–1045.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lingerfelt CW,
Ellis TO, Arceneaux G
(1965) Varietal relationships in available sugar content as affected by period of harvest. Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 12, 474–479.
Park SE,
Robertson M, Inman-Bamber NG
(2005) Decline in the growth of a sugarcane crop with age under high input conditions. Field Crops Research 92, 305–320.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rattey AR, Kimbeng C
(2001) Genotype by environment interactions and resource allocation in final stage selection trials in the Burdekin district. Proceedings of Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 23, 136–141.
Robertson LN,
Kettle CG, Bakker P
(1997) Field evaluation of Metarhizium anisopliae for control of greyback canegrub (Dermolepida albohirtum) in north Queensland sugarcane. Proceedings of Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 19, 111–117.
Robertson MJ,
Muchow RC,
Wood AW, Campbell JA
(1996) Accumulation of reducing sugars by sugarcane: Effects of crop age, nitrogen supply and cultivar. Field Crops Research 49, 39–50.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shannon E,
McDougall A,
Kelsey K, Hussey B
(1996) Watercheck—A co-ordinated extension program for improving irrigation efficiency on Australian cane farms. Proceedings of Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 18, 113–118.
Taminoto T
(1964) The press method of cane analysis. The Hawaiian Planters’ Record 57, 133–150.
Wei X,
Jackson P,
Stringer J, Cox M
(2008) Relative economic genetic value (rEGV)—an improved selection index to replace net merit grade (NMG) in the Australian sugarcane variety improvement program. Proceedings of Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 30, 174–181.
