A comparison of formal and participatory breeding approaches using selection theory
A comparison of formal and participatory breeding approaches using selection theory
复制标题
DOI：
10.1023/a:1017557307800
复制
发表时间：
2001-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Bjornstad, Å
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Atlin, GN;Cooper, M;Bjornstad, Å
在一些边缘环境中，植物育种进展缓慢。由国际农业研究中心或发展中国家的国家项目开展的常规或正式植物育种(FPB)项目受到批评，原因是忽视本土种质，未能根据贫困农民面临的条件进行育种，强调广泛而不是当地适应的选择。作为对这一批评的回应，人们倡导了一套被称为参与式植物育种(PPB)的技术，包括农民参与或农民主导的选择、农场评估和使用当地地方品种。PPB计划的范围和方法多种多样，但往往严重依赖农民的视觉评估或表型群选来选择简单遗传性状，在多环境试验(MET)中进行有限的重复产量测试，而MET是FPB的主要工具之一。从选择理论推导出的预测方程可以用来检验理想版本的fpb和ppb在什么条件下可能实现产量等性状的遗传进步。任何选择环境的有效性既取决于该环境中的基因表现与目标环境之间的遗传相关性(r(G))，也取决于选择环境中的基因差异的遗传力(H，)。R(G)是衡量基因在选择环境中的表现预测目标环境中表现的精确度；H是衡量在选择环境中可以衡量不同基因之间的表现差异的精确度。我们使用来自自花授粉物种的例子，就这些选择反应的决定因素比较了FPB和PPB。审查的具体领域包括：(1)广泛适应与具体适应的选择；(2)站内选择与农场选择；以及(3)高产与低产条件下的选择。总体而言，PPB系统试图通过使用农场评估和农民选择者的技能最大化r(G)来最大化收益。Fpb利用大都会队最大限度地利用H-S。在低产种植系统中，ppb最有可能培育出表现优于fpb产品的品种，因为正是在这种情况下，高产育苗苗圃和低产目标环境之间的r(G)可能是低或负的。为了继续取得进展，并与国际上支持的FPB项目竞争，PPB系统将需要对抗不可控的现场内、站点到站点和年际异质性的模糊影响。为实现这一目的，需要简单而坚固的农场大都会运输车设计。
Progress from plant breeding has been slow in some marginal environments. Conventional or formal plant breeding (FPB) programs conducted by international agricultural research centres or national programs in developing countries have been criticized for ignoring indigenous germplasm, failing to breed for conditions facing poor farmers, and emphasizing selection for broad versus local adaptation. A suite of techniques, referred to as participatory plant breeding (PPB) and including farmer-participatory or farmer-led selection, on-farm evaluation, and use of local landraces, has been advocated in response to this critique. PPB programs are diverse in scope and approach, but often rely heavily on farmer visual evaluation or phenotypic mass selection to select for simply-inherited traits, with limited replicated yield testing in multiple-environment trials (MET), one of the main tools of FPB. Prediction equations derived from selection theory can be used to examine the conditions under which idealized versions of FPB and PPB may be expected to achieve genetic progress for traits such as yield. The effectiveness of any selection environment is determined by both the genetic correlation between genotype performance in it and the target environment (r(G)) and the heritability of genotypic differences in the selection environment (H,). r(G) is a measure of the accuracy with which performance of genotypes in the selection environment predicts performance in the target environment; H is a measure of the precision with which performance differences among genotypes can be measured in the selection environment. We compare FPB and PPB with respect to these determinants of selection response, using examples from self-pollinated species. Particular areas examined include: (i) selection for broad versus specific adaptation; (ii) on-station versus on-farm selection; and (iii) selection under high-yield versus low-yield conditions. In general., PPB systems attempt to maximize gains through the use of on-farm evaluation and the skills of farmer-selectors to maximize r(G). FPB exploits METs to maximize H-s. PPB is most likely to develop cultivars that out-perform the products of FPB when it is applied in low-yield cropping systems, because it is in such situations that r(G) between high-yield breeding nurseries and low-yield target environments is likely to be low or negative. To make continued gains, and to compete with internationally-supported FPB programs, PPB systems will need to counter the obscuring effects of uncontrollable within-field, site-to-site, and year-to-year heterogeneity. Simple and robust designs for on-farm METs are needed for this purpose.