Genotype × environment interactions in sugarcane between China and Australia
Xuekuan Chen A , Phillip Jackson B F , Wankuan Shen C , Haihua Deng C , Yuanhong Fan A , Qiwei Li C , Fengduo Hu D , Xianming Wei E and Jiayong Liu AA Yunnan Sugarcane Research Institute, Yunnan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 363 Eastern Linquan Road, Kaiyuan 661600, Yunnan Province, P.R. China.
B CSIRO Plant Industry, Australian Tropical Science Innovation Precinct, James Cook University, Private Mail Bag Aitkenvale, Qld 4814, Australia.
C Guangdong Key Lab of Sugarcane Improvement and Biorefinery, Guangzhou Sugarcane Industry Research Institute, 10 Shi Liu Guang Road, Chi Gang, Guangzhou, 510316, Guangdong Province, P. R. China.
D Burdekin Sugar Experiment Station, BSES Limited, PO Box 117, Ayr, Qld 4807, Australia.
E Mackay Sugar Experiment Station, BSES Limited, Peak Downs Highway, Te Kowai, PMB 57, Mackay Mail Centre, Qld 4741, Australia.
F Corresponding author. Email: Phillip.Jackson@csiro.au
Crop and Pasture Science 63(5) 459-466 https://doi.org/10.1071/CP12113
Submitted: 4 April 2012 Accepted: 26 June 2012 Published: 13 August 2012
Abstract
Sugarcane improvement has traditionally been conducted by nationally focussed breeding programs, with some exchange of elite cultivars among some programs. It has been generally assumed by breeders that genotype × country interactions are large, and therefore selection trial data in one country may be of limited relevance to another. However, no studies quantifying clone × country interactions have been reported to our knowledge. In research reported here, a common set of mostly unselected sugarcane genotypes was evaluated in commercial production environments in Australia and China. Consistent with past studies, genotype × site interaction was an important source of variation within each country. Overall a moderate to high genetic correlation existed between production environments in China and Australia for cane yield and sugar content (0.77 for both traits). This suggests that despite difference in environmental conditions and crop management in production environments between countries, that selection trials in China have some relevance for selecting clones for Australian environments and vice versa. It also supports the hypothesis that regular exchange of selected germplasm from effective breeding programs between countries will have mutual benefits.
Additional keywords: breeding, genetic correlations, germplasm exchange, selection.
References
BSES (1984) ‘Laboratory manual for Australian sugar mills. Volume 1. Principles and practices.’ (BSES Limited: Indooroopilly, Qld)Butler D, Cullis BR, Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ (2009) ‘Mixed models for S language environments, ASReml-R reference manual.’ (NSW DPI and QLD DPI&F)
Chapman SC, Jackson PA, Rattey A (2004) Genotype by environment interactions across the Australian sugarcane industry. In ‘Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists’. (Ed. RC Bruce) (Australian Society of Sugarcane Technologists: Mackay).
Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) ‘Introduction to quantitative genetics.’ 4th edn. (Longman: Edinburgh Gate)
Hogarth DM, Mullins RT (1989) Changes in the BSES plant improvement program. Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 18, 956–961.
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.
| Genotype × environment interactions in sugarcane. I. Patterns of response across sites and crop-years in North Queensland.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jackson P, Chapman S, Rattey A, Wei X, Cox M (2007) Genotype × region interactions, and implications for sugarcane breeding programs. Sugar Cane International 25, 3–7.
Machado GR (2001) ‘Sugarcane variety notes.’ 7th Revision. (Campus ‘Luis de Queiroz’ University: Sao Paolo, Brazil)
Mirzawan PDN, Cooper M, DeLacy IH, Hogarth DM (1994) Retrospective analysis of the relationships among test environments of the southern Queensland sugarcane breeding programme. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 88, 707–716.
| Retrospective analysis of the relationships among test environments of the southern Queensland sugarcane breeding programme.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Piperidis G, Cox MC, Thompson N, Croft BJ (2008) The role of foreign varieties in the Australian sugar industry. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 30, 155–161.
Ramburan S, Zhou M, Labuschangne M (2011) Interpretation of genotype × environment interactions of sugarcane: identifying significant environmental factors. Field Crops Research 124, 392–399.
| Interpretation of genotype × environment interactions of sugarcane: identifying significant environmental factors.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rattey AR, Kimbeng CA (2001) Genotype by environment interactions and resource allocation in final stage selection trials in the Burdekin district. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 23, 136–141.
Tai PYP, Rice ER, Chew V, Miller JD (1982) Phenotypic stability analysis of sugarcane cultivar performance tests. Crop Science 22, 1179–1184.
| Phenotypic stability analysis of sugarcane cultivar performance tests.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wang L-P, Jackson PA, Lu X, Fan Y-H, Foreman JW, Chen X-K, Deng H-H, Fu C, Ma L, Aitken KS (2008) Evaluation of sugarcane × S. spontaneum progeny for biomass composition and yield components. Crop Science 48, 951–961.
| Evaluation of sugarcane × S. spontaneum progeny for biomass composition and yield components.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
