Author
Listed:
- Lorena G Batista
- Robert Chris Gaynor
- Gabriel R A Margarido
- Tim Byrne
- Peter Amer
- Gregor Gorjanc
- John M Hickey
Abstract
In the context of genomic selection, we evaluated and compared breeding programs using either index selection or independent culling for recurrent selection of parents. We simulated a clonally propagated crop breeding program for 20 cycles using either independent culling or an economic index with two unfavourably correlated traits under selection. Cycle time from crossing to selection of parents was kept the same for both strategies. Both methods led to increasingly unfavourable genetic correlations between traits and, compared to independent culling, index selection led to larger changes in the genetic correlation between the two traits. When linkage disequilibrium was not considered, the two methods had similar losses of genetic diversity. Two independent culling approaches were evaluated, one using optimal culling levels and one using the same selection intensity for both traits. Optimal culling levels outperformed the same selection intensity even when traits had the same economic importance. Therefore, accurately estimating optimal culling levels is essential for maximizing gains when independent culling is performed. Once optimal culling levels are achieved, independent culling and index selection lead to comparable genetic gains.
Suggested Citation
Lorena G Batista & Robert Chris Gaynor & Gabriel R A Margarido & Tim Byrne & Peter Amer & Gregor Gorjanc & John M Hickey, 2021.
"Long-term comparison between index selection and optimal independent culling in plant breeding programs with genomic prediction,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-15, May.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0235554
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235554
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0235554. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.