Diallel analysis of carbon isotope discrimination and its association with forage yield among nine historically recognized alfalfa germplasms.
Variation for A among and within cultivated and exotic accessions suggests that opportunities exist to improve [DELTA] in alfalfa. Ranges of 0.6 to 1.4 [per thousand] have been reported for [DELTA] among diverse accessions of M. sativa subsp. sativa and nothosubsp. varia (Martyn) Arcang. (Johnson and Tieszen, 1994; Ray et al., 1998). A range of 0.8 [per thousand] was detected for [DELTA] among 78 winterhardy North American cultivars (Johnson and Rumbaugh, 1995), and a range of 0.9 [per thousand] among half-sib families of an elite alfalfa breeding population (Ray et al., 1999a, 1999b). Evidence clearly indicates that [DELTA] should be amenable to manipulation by traditional alfalfa breeding techniques. Narrow-sense heritabilities for [DELTA] under both irrigated and water-stressed conditions were 0.56 (Ray et al., 1999a, 1999b), while broad sense heritabilities based on individual plants exceeded 0.80 in alfalfa (Johnson and Rumbaugh, 1995). Johnson and Rumbaugh (1995) reported significant GCA effects, but not specific combining ability (SCA), for [DELTA] in a diallel among 14 clones from the NC-83-1 germplasm (Kehr et al., 1975). The lack of significance for SCA in that study may reflect the fact that NC-83-1 traced to only winterhardy accessions that were randomly intermated for two cycles. Opportunities to detect SCA and/ or heterosis effects for [DELTA] may be greater in hybrids derived from distinct populations adapted to a wider range of climatic conditions.
The effectiveness of selecting for physiological traits to improve WUE will depend on their correlation with a crop's harvest index under field conditions. Negative correlations between shoot biomass and [DELTA] were reported in four cool-season grasses (Johnson and Bassett, 1991). Dry matter yield and [DELTA], however, were positively correlated among nine alfalfa germplasms and 30 elite half-sib families grown in nonstressed and water-stressed field environments (Ray et al., 1998, 1999a, 1999b). Evaluation of nine alfalfa germplasms under irrigation indicated that populations with low [DELTA] tended to have slower growth and development rates than germplasms with high [DELTA] (Ray et al., 1998). However, elite half-sib families differing in [DELTA] had similar maturation rates (Ray et al., 1999a, 1999b). Evidence also indicates that the ranking of alfalfa accessions for [DELTA] may vary throughout the growing season (Johnson and Rumbaugh, 1995).
Nine germplasm sources commonly referred to as African, Chilean, Flemish, Indian, Ladak, M. falcata, M. varia, Peruvian, and Turkistan have been recognized as primary initial contributors to contemporary North American alfalfa cultivars (Barnes et al., 1977). Diallel analysis among these nine germplasms previously detected high parent heterosis for forage yield, ranging from -33 to 23%, as well as significant GCA and SCA effects (Segovia-Lerma et al. (2005). Our objective for this study was to analyze forage samples collected across multiple harvests during the forage yield diallel analysis to determine the influence of additive and nonadditive gene action on [DELTA], changes in [DELTA] affiliated with previously observed yield responses, and the behavior of A across harvests.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Accessions representing each of nine alfalfa germplasm sources: African, Chilean, Flemish, Indian, Ladak, M. sativa subsp, falcata (hereafter referred to as M. falcata), M. sativa nothosp, varia (hereafter referred to as M. varia), Peruvian, and Turkistan (Barnes et al., 1977) were represented by 30 genotypes as described by Segovia-Lerma et al. (2005). The nine germplasms were intermated by hand (without emasculation) in a half-diallel mating design to produce 36 [F.sub.1] hybrid populations. The [F.sub.1] populations were generated by reciprocally crossing each plant within a germplasm to one other randomly selected plant from each of the other eight germplasms. Thus, 60 genotypes (30 from each population) contributed to each [F.sub.1] population. Parental populations were synthesized by randomly intercrossing all 30 genotypes within a given germplasm. An equal number of seed, within each reciprocal cross from each plant, was bulked to form balanced composite populations for each inter- and intracross population.
The 36 [F.sub.1] hybrid populations, the nine parents, and four check cultivars (Dona Ana, Wilson, Commercial 1, and Commercial 2) were planted during March 1996 using a randomized complete block design with three replications. Each population was planted in three-row plots, 1.5 m long, and seeded at a rate of 300 seed [plot.sup.-1]. Rows within plots were spaced 30 cm apart, and plots were spaced 60 cm apart. Control plots of the cultivar Dona Ana were established between the entry plots to minimize interplot interactions. Plots were sown on a Glendale sandy clay loam (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, calcareous, thermic Typic Torrifluvent, pH 8.0) at the Leyendecker Plant Science Research Center near Las Cruces, NM, USA. Before planting, plots were fertilized with 122 kg [ha.sup.-1] of phosphorous. No additional fertilizer was applied to the plots after establishment. Irrigation management followed that used by local commercial hay producers, where plots were flood irrigated with approximately 7 cm of water every 14 d from 15 April to 15 October during 1996 to 1998. No data were collected during the 1996 establishment year.
Carbon isotope discrimination and dry matter yield were determined on 30-d-old regrowth during the second week of May, June, and July in 1997 and 1998. Johnson and Rumbaugh (1995) reported that any alfalfa plant part could be sampled to determine [DELTA]. Consequently, [DELTA] was determined on 60 shoots (approximately 50 g DW) that were randomly sampled from each plot immediately before forage harvest and dried at 60[degrees]C for 48 h. The entire shoot sample was sequentially ground through a 1-mm screen with a shear mill (Model 4; Thomas-Wiley Corp., Philadelphia, PA) and an impact mill (Model SF; UDY Corp., Boulder, CO). Each sample was mixed extensively, and carbon isotopic composition values ([per thousand]) were determined using an isotope ratioing mass spectrometer (Biology Dep., Augustana College, Sioux Falls, SD) according to the procedures of Farquhar et al. (1989). Data were expressed as the ratio of [sup.13]C/[sup.12]C relative to the PeeDee belemnite standard and converted to A as described by Farquhar et al. (1989). Forage yield (kg [ha.sup.-1]) was determined by clipping and weighing foliage from each plot at a 5-cm height using a flail harvester. Forage yield data were adjusted to a dry matter basis by subsampling approximately 300 g of fresh forage from each plot and drying it at 60[degrees]C for 48 h.
Heterogeneity in soil texture resulted in spatial variation within replicates. The data were adjusted for field trend effects using nearest neighbor analysis via the "second-difference approach" (Besag and Kempton, 1986; Stroup et al., 1994), as provided by Agrobase Software (Agronomix Software, Inc., Portage la Prairie, NB, Canada). Adjusted A and biomass data were analyzed within and across years using Analysis III of Gardner and Eberhart (1966), as described by Murray et al. (2003). Analysis of variance across the 2 yr was initially conducted as a split-split-plot in time. Entries were considered as the whole-plot factor, the three harvest dates were the split plot, and years were the split-split plot. Significant entry x harvest interactions were detected for [DELTA]; therefore, additional analyses were conducted within each harvest, as a split-plot in time, where entries were the whole plot and years the split plot. To determine the performance of the experimental populations relative to the four checks, the data were first analyzed using a standard ANOVA that ignored the diallel arrangement. When considering the entry diallel arrangement, the check cultivars were excluded and entries were partitioned into parents/varieties and crosses. Crosses were partitioned into GCA and SCA according to Murray et al. (2003).
Diallel effect estimates and the difference of the estimates from zero were obtained by using PROC GLM (SAS Institute, 1989). The standard error of the diallel-effect estimates and their significance (i.e., different from zero) were obtained using a t statistic generated by PROC MIXED (SAS Institute, 1992). The effects of varieties (parents), average heterosis, GCA, and SCA were estimated based on contrasts between parent and cross means via ESTIMATE statements in GLM or MIXED. Each contrast (C) was constructed as a linear function of the plot observations:
C = [[SIGMA].sup.t.sub.j=1] [c.sub.j] [[bar.y].sub.j],
where c represents the contrast coefficients subject to [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] represents the sample mean of entries (parents or crosses), and t denotes the number of entries involved in the contrast. Simple linear regression models were used to determine the influence of GCA and parent effects per se (as independent variables) on hybrid performance (dependent variables) for and yield. Results from these regressions were reported as correlation coefficients.
Our initial goal for this diallel study was to monitor forage yield potential and heterosis among these populations under commercial management conditions (Segovia-Lerma et al., 2005). Thus, irrigation scheduling was managed to prevent severe moisture stress among the plots. Secondarily, we attempted to determine changes in A that accompanied hybrid yield response. The expense associated with determining [DELTA] precluded our ability to analyze samples from all harvests. Thus, we focused on the first three harvests of each year, which typically contribute about 60% of the total seasonal biomass in a seven-harvest system commonly practiced in southern New Mexico. Higher yields and forage quality also accompany the first two harvests (compared with later harvests), providing growers with the greatest economic returns. Environmental conditions during the three harvests of this study are summarized in Table 1. Temperatures were similar within each harvest across years. Most rainfall events were <2 mm in both years, indicating that most precipitation did not effectively contribute to soil moisture. The largest precipitation event in each year was 8 and 11 mm, which occurred on 6 June 1997 and 10 June 1998, respectively. Mild water-stress symptoms (e.g., slight wilting of the youngest terminal internodes) was observed late in the day during the 2 or 3 d before the June and July harvest in each year. Such responses are not uncommon at this time of day and year in southern New Mexico because high evapotranspiration and temperatures can facilitate acute but temporary moisture stress on a daily basis. Plots were able to recover full turgidity overnight.
Performance of entries for [DELTA] was similar across years within each of the three harvests (data not shown). However, analyses of variance and rank correlations for [DELTA] across years and harvests indicated that entries performed differently (P < 0.001) in the May harvest, as compared with the June and July harvests. Entries performed similarly in June and July. Significant differences were detected among parents and their crosses for [DELTA] in each harvest (Table 2). Average heterosis (varieties vs. crosses) was not significant for this trait in any harvest. Parents differentially transmitted genetic effects influencing [DELTA] to their progeny, as demonstrated by the significant GCA effect across all harvests. The SCA effect was significant in the May harvest only. Evaluation of the data according to Analysis II of Gardner and Eberhart (Murray et al., 2003) indicated that variation for parental/variety heterosis and midparent heterosis was not significant (data not shown). These results confirm that additive effects are of major importance in determining [DELTA]. The significance of interactions between main effects and years in Analysis III varied between harvests (Table 2). The higher residual mean square encountered in July reflected higher variances for A in M. falcata, Ladak, and M. varia, and their respective hybrids in 1998 (data not shown).
Values for [DELTA] from parents, their hybrids, and four check cultivars are presented in Table 3 based on the May harvest and the average of the June and July harvests. In these harvests, the check cultivar Wilson, previously developed for improved production under deficit levels of irrigation (Melton et al., 1989), possessed the highest [DELTA] value among the checks. The [DELTA] value for Wilson was also similar to that of the diallel hybrids possessing the highest [DELTA] in each harvest. The range for [DELTA] among the nine parents was greatest in the July harvest (1.4 [per thousand]), and was similar to that reported by Johnson and Tieszen (1994) among alfalfa accessions collected from geographically diverse regions. The range for A among the 36 hybrids was also greatest in July (0.8 [per thousand]) and similar to that reported among 78 winterhardy U.S. populations (Johnson and Rumbaugh, 1995).
Forage yield of parents, their hybrids, and four checks are presented in Table 4. Phenotypic associations indicated that higher-yielding populations tended to have higher [DELTA] (r = -0.45, not significant; r = 0.96, [alpha] = 0.01; and r = 0.96, [alpha] < 0.01 for parents; and r = 0.37, [alpha] = 0.05; r = 0.66, [alpha] = 0.01; and r = 0.74, [alpha] = 0.01 for hybrids in May, June, and July, respectively). A higher [DELTA] among higher-yielding entries is reasonable if increased yields reflect greater carbon fixation rates, and hence, greater stomatal conductance. Internal leaf carboxylation efficiency, working with conductance, may also be an important factor causing variation in [DELTA] among entries. It is noteworthy that [DELTA] for the two overall highest yielding hybrids in our study (African x Peruvian and Chilean x Peruvian) did not differ significantly from either those entries with highest [DELTA], or for those of several M. falcata hybrids.
Results of the regression analyses are summarized in Table 5 as the correlation coefficient between actual and predicted values for A and forage yield. Regression models based on parental GCA effects were superior in their predictive capacity for both hybrid traits compared with models based on variety (parental per se) effects. The [DELTA] of parents in May was not a good predictor for [DELTA] of their respective hybrids, indicating that progeny testing would be required during this harvest. In June and July, both GCA and per se effects for [DELTA] were useful predictors of hybrid [DELTA] and forage yield. Predicted hybrid forage yield based on parental per se A in May was negatively correlated with actual hybrid yield values. This association was positive in both the June and July harvests.
Variety effects for [DELTA] in Ladak, M. varia, and particularly those for M. falcata, became increasingly negative as the growing season progressed (Table 6). Variety effects for [DELTA] of populations containing primarily subspecies sativa germplasm increased across harvests, particularly those for Chilean, Indian, and Peruvian. Actual [DELTA] values for all hybrids and parents increased across harvests, with the exception of M. falcata, where [DELTA] decreased across harvests.
The greatest increase observed for GCA effects across harvests occurred in the nondormant populations African, Indian, and Peruvian. The magnitude of the decrease observed for GCA effects across harvests was similar for Ladak, M. falcata, and M. varia. In June and July, only those germplasms which contained significant M. falcata contribution demonstrated negative [DELTA] GCA. Populations possessing essentially subspecies sativa parentage possessed positive GCA effects during the same period.
Cumulative data from the current study, and those of Johnson and Rumbaugh (1995) and Ray et al. (1998) likely provide reasonable estimates for potential [DELTA] variability available among many U.S. cultivars. Our results suggest that fundamental differences in stomatal conductance may exist between subspecies sativa and subspecies falcata types. Given that most North American populations contain predominately subspecies sativa germplasm, with moderate contributions from M. varia and minor contributions from Ladak and M. falcata, it appears that modest opportunities exist to improve [DELTA]. Of the nine parents, M. falcata appeared to offer the greatest potential to reduce [DELTA] in arid southwestern production environments. However, yield penalties associated with the hybrids from this parent may limit its immediate usefulness. Plant breeders are not necessarily restricted to using M. falcata types if they wish to reduce [DELTA]. Johnson and Tieszen (1994) reported a range for A among accessions of subspecies sativa from the National Plant Germplasm System, that was as great as what we detected between subspecies sativa and subspecies falcata accessions.
The merit of expanding [DELTA] evaluation beyond North-American-based populations was emphasized by the positive association between [DELTA] and yield in the current study, and in previous research (Ray et al., 1998, 1999a, 1999b). We recognize, however, that these studies utilized relatively few germplasms. Thus, the reported relationships between these two traits may not be representative of M. sativa as a whole. For example, of 18 subspecies sativa accessions evaluated for [DELTA] by Johnson and Tieszen (1994), 14 were independently evaluated for the crop descriptor, "fall regrowth height," as provided by the Germplasm Resource Information Network of the National Plant Germplasm System (www. ars-grin.gov/npgs; verified 15 June 2004). With data provided by these two resources, we detected no association between [DELTA] and fall regrowth (r = 0.31; P > 0.28). If fall regrowth height provides a crude estimate of yield potential for a given environment (McKenzie et al., 1988), these results suggest that yield penalties may not be as severe for low [DELTA] populations as published reports may indicate. Two of the 18 accessions (PI 434600 and PI 430636), which possessed low [DELTA] values in the study of Johnson and Tieszen (1994), were also evaluated for forage yield during 3 yr in southern New Mexico. They ranked first and third, respectively, for yield among 88 alfalfa core collection accessions and two checks (Vernal and Spredor II) that possessed limited fall regrowth height (Ray, 2000, unpublished data). In another diallel study, the fall-dormant PI 434600 ('Fortin Pergamino' from Argentina) possessed the highest GCA for yield among nine parent populations selected from the alfalfa core collection. These nine parents were comprised of three populations that were selected for high per se yield from within each of three general fall dormancy classes, dormant, semidormant, and nondormant (Ray, 2003, unpublished data). Some PI 434600 hybrids were the highest yielding in the study, and equaled or exceeded the performance of five elite check cultivars.
Given that [DELTA] was influenced primarily in an additive fashion in our study, and appears to be moderately heritable, it would be worthwhile to evaluate recurrent selection strategies as a means to develop elite breeding populations with reduced [DELTA]. The most direct approach would be to practice selection for improved yield within populations already possessing relatively low [DELTA], but good yield potential (e.g., PI 434600 or perhaps Peruvian, which both demonstrated high GCA for forage yield but relatively low per se [DELTA]). Monitoring [DELTA] in each breeding cycle would determine if gross shifts in [DELTA] accompany selection for improved yield.
Alternatively, the positive association observed between [DELTA] and hybrid yield indicated that selection for high [DELTA] may be warranted in flood-irrigated production environments of the arid southwest. Values for [DELTA] affiliated with the overall two highest-yielding hybrids suggest that opportunities to develop high-yielding hybrids with moderate [DELTA] may also be possible. Parental GCA effects consistently provided the best prediction of hybrid [DELTA]. However, in harvests experiencing conditions conducive to high evapotranspiration, variety/parental effects also provided reasonable estimates of hybrid [DELTA]. The apparent sensitivity of [DELTA] to harvest environments indicated that this trait should be monitored throughout the growing season, particularly in those harvests that possess the greatest differences in environmental growth conditions (e.g., early, mid-, and late-season harvests).
Abbreviations: [DELTA], carbon isotope discrimination; GCA, general combining ability; SCA, specific combining ability; WUE, water-use efficiency.
Table 1. Means for carbon isotope discrimination across nine alfalfa parents and 36 diallel hybrids, and associated environmental variables, during three harvests and 2 yr. Mean daily ambient temperature Carbon isotope 1997 1998 Precipitation discrimination Harvest 1997 1998 Max. Min. Max. Min. 1997 1998 % [degrees]C mm May 19.11 19.46 27 9 26 6 12 1 June 19.84 19.81 32 14 32 11 21 11 July 19.80 20.48 35 15 36 16 3 8 Table 2. Mean squares for carbon isotope discrimination (%o) from a diallel analysis among nine alfalfa germplasms during May, June, and July harvests across 2 yr near Las Cruces, NM. ([dagger]) Mean square Source df May June July Blocks (B) 2 0.067 0.080 0.032 Entries (E) 44 0.174 * 0.182 ** 0.534 ** Parents/varieties (V) 8 0.164 * 0.395 ** 1.217 * Varieties vs. crosses (h) 1 0.100 0.051 0.082 Crosses (C) 35 0.179 ** 0.137 ** 0.391 ** GCA 8 0.367 ** 0.309 * 1.139 ** SCA 27 0.123 * 0.086 0.169 E x B 88 0.076 ** 0.057 * 0.135 Years (Y) 1 7.857 ** 0.058 31.577 ** E x Y 44 0.047 * 0.061 ** 0.138 V x Y 8 0.070 * 0.064 * 0.254 [bar.h] x Y 1 0.017 0.392 ** 0.005 C x Y 35 0.042 0.050 * 0.115 GCA x Y 8 0.070 * 0.072 * 0.152 SCA x Y 27 0.034 0.044 * 0.104 Residual 90 0.031 0.028 0.159 CV, % 0.92 0.84 1.90 * Significant at [alpha] = 0.05. ** Significant at [alpha] = 0.01. ([dagger]) Diallel conducted according to Analysis III of Gardner and Eberhart (1966), as reported by Murray et al. (2003). GCA, general combining ability; SCA, specific combining ability. Table 3. Carbon isotope discrimination of nine alfalfa parents (diagonal) and their diallel hybrids (off diagonal). Data are presented as that obtained from the May harvest (above diagonal, and diagonal underlined) and the average of the June and July harvests (below diagonal, and diagonal in parentheses) across 2 yr. Germplasm African Chilean Flemish %o African 19.36 19.16 19.14 (20.27) Chilean 20.14 19.17 19.49 (20.19) Flemish 20.07 20.21 19.20 (20.07) Indian 20.01 20.17 20.26 Ladak 20.00 19.97 19.88 M. falcata 19.94 19.83 19.89 M. varia 19.97 20.19 19.79 Peruvian 20.03 20.01 20.17 Turkistan 20.02 20.13 19.90 Mean [DELTA] of crosses 20.02 20.08 20.02 Mean [DELTA] of four checks in June in July 20.17 Range of checks 20.10-20.32 LSD (0.05) 0.29 Germplasm Indian Ladak M. falcata %o African 18.99 19.38 19.18 Chilean 19.43 19.47 19.29 Flemish 19.45 19.26 19.31 Indian 19.12 18.99 19.04 (20.19) Ladak 19.87 19.26 19.21 (19.75) M. falcata 19.61 19.63 19.42 (19.14) M. varia 19.92 19.77 19.64 Peruvian 20.18 20.13 19.84 Turkistan 20.12 19.92 19.59 Mean [DELTA] of crosses 20.01 19.89 19.74 Germplasm M. varia Peruvian %o African 19.21 19.31 Chilean 19.62 19.29 Flemish 19.23 19.41 Indian 19.16 19.17 Ladak 19.62 19.53 M. falcata 19.34 18.98 M. varia 19.38 19.25 (19.94) Peruvian 19.96 18.90 (19.97) Turkistan 20.00 20.32 Mean [DELTA] of crosses 19.90 20.08 Mean [DELTA] Germplasm Turkistan of crosses African 19.33 19.21 Chilean 19.24 19.37 Flemish 19.26 19.31 Indian 19.15 19.17 Ladak 19.45 19.36 M. falcata 19.11 19.18 M. varia 19.59 19.37 Peruvian 19.38 19.29 Turkistan 19.36 19.31 (20.21) Mean [DELTA] of crosses 20.00 Mean [DELTA] of four checks in May 19.30 Range of checks 19.10-19.44 LSD (0.05) 0.32 Table 4. Dry matter yield of nine alfalfa parents (diagonal) and their diallel hybrids (off diagonal). Data are presented as that obtained from the May harvest (above diagonal, and diagonal underlined) and the average of the June and July harvests (below diagonal, and diagonal in parentheses) across 2 yr. Germplasm African Chilean Flemish kg [ha.sup.-1] African 2224 2263 2032 (1973) Chilean 1774 2471 2775 (1884) Flemish 1760 2188 1809 (1426) Indian 1823 1886 1834 Ladak 1825 1878 1191 M. falcata 1673 1500 1088 M. varia 1799 1927 1553 Peruvian 2328 2228 1915 Turkistan 1858 2021 1902 Mean yield of crosses 1855 1925 1679 Mean yield of four checks in 2148 June and July 2039-2436 Range of checks 279 LSD (0.05) Germplasm Indian Ladak M. falcata kg [ha.sup.-1] African 2032 2211 2076 Chilean 2563 2716 2387 Flemish 2300 1713 1116 Indian 2225 1655 1811 (1900) Ladak 1316 1795 1722 (1297) M. falcata 1179 919 254 (177) M. varia 1451 1180 916 Peruvian 1990 1739 1251 Turkistan 1736 1508 1256 Mean yield of crosses 1652 1444 1223 Mean yield Germplasm M. varia Peruvian Turkistan of crosses kg [ha.sup.-1] African 2058 2699 2304 2209 Chilean 2681 2973 2511 2609 Flemish 2030 2566 2386 2115 Indian 2067 2353 2379 2145 Ladak 1869 2632 2239 2095 M. falcata 1231 2136 1583 1758 M. varia 1942 2377 2128 2055 (1536) Peruvian 1754 2170 2631 2546 (1556) Turkistan 1614 2016 2126 2270 (1708) Mean yield of crosses 1524 1902 1739 Mean yield of four checks in May 2597 Range of checks 2422-2931 LSD (0.05) 450 Table 5. Correlation coefficients between actual and predicted values for carbon isotope discrimination (DELTA) and forage yield of 36 diallel hybrids (dependent variable), as determined by linear regression analyses based on general combining ability (GCA) and per se performance of parents (independent variables). Parental GCA Carbon isotope Hybrid trait discrimination Forage yield May harvest Carbon isotope discrimination 0.68 ** 0.27 Forage yield 0.35 * 0.88 ** June harvest Carbon isotope discrimination 0.72 ** 0.68 ** Forage yield 0.89 ** 0.93 ** July harvest Carbon isotope discrimination 0.82 ** 0.77 ** Forage yield 0.85 ** 0.90 ** Parental per se performance Carbon isotope Forage Hybrid trait discrimination yield May harvest Carbon isotope discrimination -0.04 0.26 Forage yield -0.59 ** 0.70 ** June harvest Carbon isotope discrimination 0.60 ** 0.64 ** Forage yield 0.72 ** 0.79 ** July harvest Carbon isotope discrimination 0.72 ** 0.65 ** Forage yield 0.78 ** 0.72 ** * Coefficients are significantly different from zero at [alpha] = 0.05. ** Coefficients are significantly different from zero at [alpha] = 0.01. Table 6. Estimates of diallel effects for varieties/parents (V), general combining ability (GCA), mean of varieties ([[mu].sub.v]), and mean of crosses ([[mu].sub.c]), and their respective standard errors (in parentheses) for carbon isotope discrimination in each of three harvests across 2 yr. May harvest Effect Estimate Effect Estimate %o %o [V.sub.1] 0.12 GC[A.sub.1] -0.09 ** [V.sub.2] -0.07 GC[A.sub.2] 0.10 ** [V.sub.3] -0.04 GC[A.sub.3] 0.03 [V.sub.4] -0.12 GC[A.sub.4] -0.13 ** [V.sub.5] 0.02 GC[A.sub.5] 0.09 ** [V.sub.6] 0.18 ** GC[A.sub.6] -0.12 ** [V.sub.7] 0.14 ** GC[A.sub.7] 0.10 ** [V.sub.8] -0.34 ** GC[A.sub.8] 0.00 [V.sub.9] 0.12 GC[A.sub.9] 0.03 SE (0.07) (0.03) [[mu].sub.v] 19.25 [[mu].sub.c] 19.29 June harvest Effect Estimate Effect Estimate %o %o [V.sub.1] 0.23 ** GC[A.sub.1] 0.03 [V.sub.2] 0.10 GC[A.sub.2] 0.08 ** [V.sub.3] 0.06 GC[A.sub.3] -0.01 [V.sub.4] 0.18 ** GC[A.sub.4] 0.06 * [V.sub.5] -0.10 GC[A.sub.5] -0.06 * [V.sub.6] -0.60 ** GC[A.sub.6] -0.18 ** [V.sub.7] -0.10 GC[A.sub.7] -0.05 [V.sub.8] -0.07 GC[A.sub.8] 0.08 ** [V.sub.9] 0.22 ** GC[A.sub.9] 0.06 * (0.06) (0.02) [[mu].sub.v] 19.85 [[mu].sub.c] 19.81 July harvest Effect Estimate Effect Estimate %o %o [V.sub.1] 0.37 * GC[A.sub.1] 0.08 [V.sub.2] 0.34 * GC[A.sub.2] 0.16 ** [V.sub.3] 0.14 GC[A.sub.3] 0.12 * [V.sub.4] 0.26 GC[A.sub.4] 0.04 [V.sub.5] -0.33 * GC[A.sub.5] -0.12 * [V.sub.6] -1.05 ** GC[A.sub.6] -0.34 ** [V.sub.7] -0.05 GC[A.sub.7] -0.11 [V.sub.8] 0.08 GC[A.sub.8] 0.16 ** [V.sub.9] 0.25 GC[A.sub.9] 0.00 (0.15) (0.06) [[mu].sub.v] 20.10 [[mu].sub.c] 20.15 * Effects are significantly different from zero at a = 0.05. ** Effects are significantly different from zero at a = 0.01. ([dagger]) Diallel effects of parent germplasms designated as 1 = African, 2 = Chilean, 3 = Flemish, 4 = Indian, 5 = Ladak, 6 = M. falcata, 7 = M. varia, 8 = Peruvian, and 9 = Turkistan.
Research supported by a United States Department of Agriculture grant (#99-34186-7496) to the Southwest Consortium on Plant Genetics and Water Resources, and the New Mexico Agriculture Experiment Station. We also thank the anonymous reviewers of this manuscript for their useful comments and perspectives.
Barnes, D.K., E.T. Bingham, R.P. Murphy, O.J. Hunt, D.F. Beard, W.H. Skrdla, and L.R. Teuber. 1977. Alfalfa germplasm in the United States: Genetic vulnerability, use, improvement, and maintenance. USDA-ARS Tech. Bull. 1571. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC.
Besag, J., and R. Kempton. 1986. Statistical analysis of field experiments using neighboring plots. Biometrics 42:231-251.
Condon, A.G., and R.A. Richards. 1993. Exploiting genetic variation in transpiration efficiency in wheat: An agronomic view. p. 435-450. In J.R. Ehleringer et al. (ed.) Stable isotopes and plant carbonwater relations. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Farquhar, G.D., H.R. Ehleringer, and K.T. Hubick. 1989. Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 40:503-537.
Gardner, C.O., and S.A. Eberhart. 1966. Analysis and interpretation of the variety cross diallel and related populations. Biometrics 22: 439452.
Hall, A.E., R.A. Richards, G.D. Wright, and G.D. Farquhar. 1994. Carbon isotope discrimination and plant breeding. Plant Breed. Rev. 12:81-113.
Johnson, D.A., and M.D. Rumbaugh. 1995. Genetic variation and inheritance characteristics for carbon isotope discrimination in alfalfa. J. Range Manage. 48:126-131.
Johnson, R.C., and L.B. Bassen. 1991. Carbon isotope discrimination and water use efficiency in four cool season grasses. Crop Sci. 31:157 162.
Johnson, R.C., and L.L. Tieszen. 1994. Variation for water-use efficiency in alfalfa germplasm. Crop Sci. 34:452-458.
Kehr, W.R., D.K. Barnes, E.L. Sorensen, W.H. Skrdla, C.H. Hanson, D.A. Miller, T.E. Thompson, I.T. Carlson, L.J. Elling, R.L. Taylorl, M.D. Rumbaugh, E.T. Bingham, D.E. Brown, and M.K. Miller. 1975. Registration of alfalfa germplasm pools NC-83-1 and NC-83-2. Crop Sci. 15:604-605.
McKenzie, J.S., R. Paquin, and S.H. Duke. 1988. Cold and heat tolerance. p. 259-302. In A.A. Hanson et al. (ed.) Alfalfa and alfalfa improvement. Agron. Monogr. 29. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Melton, B., M. Wilson, and C. Currier. 1989. Registration of 'Wilson' alfalfa. Crop Sci. 29:485-486.
Murray, L.W., I.M. Ray, H. Dong, and A. Segovia-Lerma. 2003. Clarification and reevaluation of population-based diallel analyses: Gardner and Eberhart Analyses II and III revisited. Crop Sci. 43: 1930-1937.
Ray, I.M., M.S. Townsend, and J.A. Henning. 1998. Variation for yield, water-use efficiency, and canopy morphology among nine alfalfa germplasms. Crop Sci. 38:1386-1390.
Ray, I.M., M.S. Townsend, and C.K. Muncy. 1999a. Heritabilities of water-use efficiency traits and correlations with agronomic traits in water-stressed alfalfa. Crop Sci. 39:494-498.
Ray, I.M., M.S. Townsend, and C.K. Muncy. 1999b. Heritabilities and interrelationships of water-use efficiency and agronomic traits in water-stressed alfalfa. Crop Sci. 39:1088-1092.
SAS Institute. 1989. SAS/STAT user's guide, v. 6, 4th ed., Vol. 2. SAS Inst., Cary, NC.
SAS Institute. 1992. SAS/STAT software: Changes and enhancements. Release 6.07. Tech. Rep. P-229. SAS Inst., Cary, NC.
Segovia-Lerma, A., L.W. Murray, M.S. Townsend, and I.M. Ray. 2005. Population-based diallel analysis among nine historically recognized alfalfa germplasms. Theor. Appl. Genet. (in press).
Stroup, W.W., P.S. Baenziger, and D.K. Multize. 1994. Removing spatial variation from wheat yield trials: A comparison of methods. Crop Sci. 34:62-66.
I. M. Ray, * A. Segovia-Lerma, and L. W. Murray
I.M. Ray and A. Segovia-Lerma, Dep. of Agronomy and Horticulture, and L.W. Murray, University Statistics Center, New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces, NM 88003. Received 5 Nov. 2003. * Corresponding author (firstname.lastname@example.org).
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Crop Breeding, Genetics & Cytology|
|Author:||Ray, I.M.; Segovia-Lerma, A.; Murray, L.W.|
|Date:||Nov 1, 2004|
|Previous Article:||Moving beyond the winter hardiness plateau in U.S. oat germplasm.|
|Next Article:||Agronomic performance of hard red spring wheat isolines sensitive and insensitive to photoperiod.|