Printer Friendly

Heterotic parameterizations of crosses between tropical and temperate lines of popcorn.

Introduction

Popcorn is quite popular in Brazil, and the crop area required for its growth has been expanding mainly due to the increased consumption of this product and of industrialized derivatives (CATAPATTI et al., 2008; FREITAS JUNIOR et al., 2009; RANGEL et al. 2008; RINALDI et al., 2007; SCAPIM et al., 2002). However, production can be considered low with respect to the vast market potential of this crop (ARNHOLD et al., 2009).

One of the limiting factors for increasing the yield of this crop is that there are very few cultivars that have both favorable agronomic traits and high popping expansion (FREITAS JUNIOR et al., 2009; MIRANDA et al., 2003; RINALDI et al., 2007). Currently, only four hybrids (IAC 112, IAC 125, Zelia and Jade) and three varieties (BRS ANGELA, RS 20 and UFVM2-Barao de Vicosa) are recommended and/or registered by the National System for Protection of Cultivars of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (PACHECO et al., 2000; RANGEL et al., 2008; SAWAZAKI, 2001; SCAPIM et al., 2002, 2010; TRINDADE et al., 2010; VIEIRA et al., 2009).

Though rare, diallel studies of popcorn in Brazil have been nearly exclusively done with crosses between varieties (ANDRADE et al., 2002; FREITAS JUNIOR et al., 2006; MIRANDA et al., 2008; RANGEL et al., 2008; SCAPIM et al., 2002, 2006; ZANETTE, 1989). Miranda et al. (2008), working with five genitors in a diallel cross with advanced generations of hybrids (IAC 112 and Zelia) and three varieties (RS 20, Branco and SAM), concluded the following: a) there is sufficient variability in Brazilian lines to allow for exploration of the non-additive effects for grain production, and b) there is little possibility of obtaining commercial varieties directly from local varieties because local varieties have poor popping expansion. Consequently, developing popcorn line hybrids can be considered a relevant strategy for crop improvement programs (MIRANDA et al., 2008; RANGEL et al., 2008; SILVA et al., 2010; VIEIRA et al., 2009).

To date, popcorn hybrids have not been evaluated in Brazil by diallel cross analysis. For hybrid production, the few existing published studies have been based on testcrosses to infer the combining capacity of lines at generations [S.sub.3], [S.sub.5] and/or [S.sub.6] (SAWAZAKI et al., 2000; SEIFERT et al., 2006; VIANA et al., 2007). For this reason, we decided to determine the heterotic parameterizations of diallel crosses between 10 inbred lines of popcorn derived from tropical, subtropical and temperate zone genotypes. Experiments were conducted in two different environments, examining five agronomic characteristics in total.

Material and methods

Ten pre-selected lines, originating from tropical, temperate and subtropical genotypes (Table 1), were crossed in a complete diallel scheme resulting in 45 [F.sub.1] hybrids. In March 2007, seeds of the inbred lines were planted with a spacing of 0.9 m between rows and 0.4 m between plants in the row to obtain the hybrids. Pollen grains for the crosses between lines were collected in brown paper bags during flowering.

In November 2007, two trials were run in the following environments: i) in the experimental fields of the Colegio Estadual 'Antonio Sarlo', in the municipality of Campos dos Goytacazes, in the northern region of Rio de Janeiro State (21[degrees] 45' south latitude, 41[degrees] 20' W longitude and 11 m altitude), and ii) in the experimental fields of PESAGRO-RIO, in the municipality of Itaocara, in the northeastern region of the state of Rio de Janeiro (21[degrees] 39' 12" south latitude, 42[degrees] 04' 36" W longitude and 60 m altitude), 120 km away from Campos dos Goytacazes.

In both fields, the trials were carry out in a complete block experimental design with three replications. The treatments were the 45 F1 hybrids and the 10 genitor lines. Randomization of the treatments was done separately for the group of inbred lines and for the group of hybrids so that the hybrids and inbred lines were not in neighboring plots, avoiding competition effects. The experimental plots consisted of planted rows 10.0 m long with 0.90 m spacing between rows and 0.20 m spacing between plants.

Several agronomic traits were evaluated, including the following: i) grain yield (GY), for which ears were harvested by hand in each parcel, and the production values were corrected to a standardized humidity of 15% and transformed into kg [ha.sup.-1], ii) mean plant height (PH), in m, of the point of insertion of the flag leaf in six competitive plants within the parcel, iii) ear height (EH), in m, in the same six plants per parcel, and iv) days to silking (FL). Popping expansion (PE), in mL [g.sup.-1], was also evaluated and estimated for a sample of 30.0 g of grains that were popped in a microwave oven (Panasonic, model NN-S65B) at 1000 W for 3 min. Six replications were conducted per treatment. The grains submitted to the popping test were taken from the central-basal part of the corn ears. These samples, and the 1.0 kg standard sample, were maintained in a cool, dry storage chamber. The expansion capacity estimate was made when the standard sample reached 14% humidity.

Analysis of the diallel was done using model II of Gardner and Eberhart (1966), with adaptations proposed by Morais et al. (1991) for analyses in various environments according to the statistical model.

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

"Where: [Y.sub.ijj'] is the mean of the inbred lines if j = j' and of the cross if j [not equal to] j', in the ith environment; [e.sub.i] is the environmental effect; [ev.sub.ij] and [ev.sub.ij'] are the effects of the interaction environment x inbred lines, and h is the mean heterosis effect; hi is the effect of the environment x mean heterosis; [h.sub.j] and [h.sub.j'] are the heterosis effects of the inbred lines; [eh.sub.ij] and [eh.sub.ij'] are the effects of the interaction environment x inbred lines heterosis; [s.sub.ij'] is the effect of specific heterosis; and [es.sub.ijj'] is the effect of the interaction environment x specific heterosis. The parameters of the model are defined by analogy to the model of Gardner and Eberhart (1966), in which for j = j', we have [theta] = 0 and for j [not equal to] j', [theta] = 1. The statistical analyses were done with the program GENES (CRUZ, 2006).

Results and discussion

The sources of variation genotype, inbred lines and heterosis had significant effects for all traits based on the F test (Table 2). With regard to the source of variation inbred lines, significant mean squares indicated that the lines did not constitute a uniform group, differing in the general combining capacity. The significant effect of heterosis demonstrates that heterosis affects the general combining capacity.

Separation of source of variation of heterosis revealed significant mean heterosis values for all of the traits, indicating that there is sufficient genetic divergence among the inbred lines that were evaluated to allow for genetic improvement. Inbred lines heterosis did not significantly affect PE, indicating that the lines were not significantly different for this trait. Among the other traits, the finding of most significance demonstrated that at least some of the genitors were different from each other in terms of mean genetic frequencies or in the degree of dispersion of these frequencies.

When specific heterosis was evaluated, it was found that only PE did not differ significantly, which demonstrates that these heterotic effects are not favorable for the synthesis of superior hybrids. This conclusion is similar to that of former studies that demonstrated the superiority of additivity for PE (DOFING et al., 1991; FREITAS JUNIOR et al., 2006; LARISH; BREWBAKER, 1999; LYERLY, 1942; PACHECO et al., 1998; PEREIRA; AMARAL JUNIOR, 2001; RANGEL et al., 2008; SCAPIM et al., 2006; SIMON et al., 2004; VIANA; MATTA, 2003).

However, it is important to understand that the lack of importance of heterosis for PE does not impede the ability to obtain superior hybrid combinations because if one has lines with elevated CE, due to successive expression of additivity in a series of selfings, this same additivity will help the hybrid express the mean of the estimates of PE in the genitor inbred lines.

Analysis of the sources of environmental variation, including genotype x environment, inbred lines and heterosis x environment interactions gave significant values for all traits but PE (Table 2). Alexander and Creech (1977) indicated that inheritance of PE is polygenic with little environmental influence. When heterosis was partition in mean heterosis x environments, inbred lines heterosis x environments and specific heterosis x environments, the following results were found: i) in mean heterosis x environments, only GY was significantly affected, and ii) in inbred lines heterosis x environments and specific heterosis x environments, only PE was not significantly affected.

For grain yield, the inbred lines [P.sub.3], [P.sub.5], [P.sub.2] and [P.sub.4] were the most promising per se for use due to the high values expressed for the [V.sub.i] estimate (Table 3). Despite the reduced values, the characteristics PH and EH had higher magnitudes of [V.sub.i] for the inbred lines [P.sub.4] and [P.sub.5], indicating that these lines contributed to increases in the value of this trait. On the other hand, considering the interest in the reduction of plant size and height of the first ear because of the high winds that are common in Campos dos Goytacazes and Itaocara, the line with the best performance per se was [P.sub.1]. Although [P.sub.7] also resulted in negative values for both traits, they were of low magnitude (Table 3).

Inbred Lines [P.sub.4] and [P.sub.9] stood out as being exceptional for the FL trait because they gave high negative values for the estimate [V.sub.i], which revealed potential for reducing the number of days to flowering in intrapopulational breeding programs. Six Inbred lines gave negative estimates of [V.sub.i] for PE, including the following: [P.sub.1], [P.sub.3], [P.sub.4], [P.sub.5], [P.sub.6], and [P.sub.7]. Based on these results, a direct relation between [g.sub.i] and [V.sub.i] was made clear, especially for traits that were little influenced by the effects of dominance, such as PE, in which dominance contributed only 10% towards total inherent heterosis of the sum of squares of the genotypes.

We can affirm that inbred lines P2, P3, P4 and P5 were the most promising for the greatest number of traits, especially for grain yield. Nevertheless, these inbred lines did not have good values for PE, demonstrating that the best genitors for production are not the best for grain quality.

In terms of the amplitude of variation in the effects of genitors and between genitors, it can be concluded that the genitors differ when the amplitude of variation is greater than twice the standard deviation; that is, there is genetic variability between the inbred lines (SINGH; CHAUDHARY, 1985). The characteristics PH, EH and PE had differences greater than two. Characteristic GY gave the lowest value (0.0202). This leads to the idea that allelic complementations contributed more than differences between the inbred lines for heterotic expression of these characteristics.

The characteristic GY gave high positive values for mean heterosis, demonstrating the expected hybrid vigor. FL gave negative heterosis values, demonstrating the possibility of selecting for precocity (Table 4). On the other hand, the mean negative heterosis for PE indicated that genetic improvement through heterosis of these inbred lines will not be viable. Consequently, it is necessary to follow the premise of Scapim et al. (2006), who indicated that when there is a low level of heterosis predictions about the hybrid should be made based on a mean of the genitors.

In the case of GY, for which there were environmental effects both for the inbred lines and for heterosis and its components, an indication of genitors for producing hybrids based on the performance of inbred lines heterosis is a fragile strategy, especially when the participation of this effect in total heterosis is markedly inferior. This became clear when the sum of squares of the inbred lines heterosis contributed only 2.03% to the sum of squares of total heterosis. Consequently, the logical strategy for this characteristic is to choose genitors for crosses based on estimates of [V.sub.i] because it is clear that genetic divergence strongly contributes to the expression of hybrid vigor.

For PH and EH, the positive values for the estimates of mean heterosis can be explained by the higher percentage of the contribution of the sum of the genotypes to the sum of squares of total heterosis. Examining the environments together, 70.90 and 62.05%, respectively, of the sum of the squares effects of total heterosis of PH and EH contributed to the sum of squares of the genotypes. This degree of heterotic expression makes it difficult to produce hybrids with reduced ear insertion height. When we examined the number of days to flowering, the inbred lines with negative values for the estimate [h.sub.i], including: [P.sub.2], [P.sub.3], [P.sub.4], [P.sub.6] and [P.sub.9], tended to promote precocity in the resulting hybrids.

For grain yield, the expectations for the best hybrids were based on the most highly positive estimates of [S.sub.ij], which were found in the following: [P.sub.1] x [P.sub.9], [P.sub.2] x [P.sub.9], [P.sub.3] x [P.sub.7], [P.sub.5] x [P.sub.9], and [P.sub.6] x [P.sub.7] (Table 5).

By associating the characteristics PH and EH, it was found that the most promising combinations were [P.sub.6] x [P.sub.9], [P.sub.2] x [P.sub.8], [P.sub.1] x [P.sub.7] and [P.sub.2] x [P.sub.4] because they gave high negative values for the estimate [S.sub.ij]. For the characteristic FL, the combinations that gave the highest negative values for the estimate [S.sub.ij], were the following: [P.sub.6] x [P.sub.9], [P.sub.1] x [P.sub.4], [P.sub.1] x [P.sub.8] and [P.sub.7] x [P.sub.8].

Conclusion

The inbred lines did not have good values "per se" for popping expansion, demonstrating that the best genitors for production are not the best for grain yield. The hybrids [P.sub.1] x [P.sub.3] and [P.sub.2] x [P.sub.4] had the best responses for the grain yield and popping expansion.

DOI: 10.4025/actasciagron.v33i2.9607

Acknowledgements

We thank UENF for supplying a scholarship, and Faperj and CNPq for financial support for the field studies and laboratory analyses.

References

ALEXANDER, D. E.; CREECH, R. G. Breeding special industrial and nutritional types. In: SPRAGUE, G. F.; FUCCILLO, D. A. (Ed.). Corn and corn improvement. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, 1977. p. 363-386.

ANDRADE, R. A.; CRUZ, C. D.; SCAPIM, C. A.; SILVERIO, L.; PINTO, R. J. B.; TONET, A. Analise dialelica da capacidade combinatoria de variedades de milho pipoca. Acta Scientiarum. AGronomy, v. 24, n. 5, p. 1197-1204, 2002.

ARNHOLD, E.; MORA, F.; SILVA, R. G.; GOOD-GOD, P. I. V.; SILVA, R. G. Evaluation of top-cross popcorn hybrids using mixed linear model methodology. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, v. 69, n. 1, p. 46-53, 2009.

CATAPATTI, T. R.; GONCALVES, M. C.; SILVA NETO, M. R.; SABROZA, R. Tamanho de amostra e nUmero de repeticoes para avaliacao de caracteres agronomicos em milho pipoca. Ciencia e Agrotecnologia, v. 32, n. 3, p. 855-862, 2008.

CRUZ, C. D. Programa genes: versao windows: aplicativo computacional em genetica e estatistica. Vicosa: UFV, 2006.

DOFING, S. M.; D'CROZ-MASON, N.; THOMAS-COMPTON, M. A. Inheritance of expansion volume and yield in two popcorn x dent corn crosses. Crop Science, v. 31, n. 3, p. 715-718, 1991.

FREITAS JUNIOR, S. P.; AMARAL JUNIOR, A. T.; PEREIRA, M. G.; CRUZ, C. D.; SCAPIM, C. A. Capacidade combinatoria em milho-pipoca por meio de dialelo circulante. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, v. 41, n. 11, p. 1599-1607, 2006.

FREITAS JUNIOR, S. P. F.; AMARAL JUNIOR, A. T.; RANGEL, R. M.; VIANA, A. P. Genetic gains in popcorn by full-sib recurrent selection. Crop Breeding and Applied Biotechnology, v. 9, n. 1, p. 1-7, 2009.

GARDNER, C. O.; EBERHART, S. A. Analysis and interpretation of the variety cross diallel and related populations. Biometrics, v. 22, n. 3, p. 439-452, 1966.

LARISH, L. B.; BREWBAKER, J. L. Diallel analyses of temperate and tropical popcorn. Maydica, v. 44, n. 1, p. 279-284, 1999.

LYERLY, P. J. Some genetic and morphological characters affecting the popping expansion of popcorn. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy, v. 34, n. 2, p. 986-995, 1942.

MIRANDA, G. V.; COIMBRA, R. R.; GODOY, C. L.; SOUZA, L. V.; GUIMARAES, L. J. M.; MELO, A. V. Potencial de melhoramento e divergencia genetica de cultivares de milho pipoca. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, v. 38, n. 6, p. 681-688, 2003.

MIRANDA, G. V.; SOUZA, L. V.; GALVAO, J. C. C.; GUIMARAES, L. J. M.; MELO, A. V.; SANTOS, I. C. Genetic variability and heterotic groups of Brazilian popcorn populations. Euphytica, v. 162, n. 3, p. 431-440, 2008.

MORAIS, A. R.; OLIVEIRA, A. C.; GAMA, E. E. G.; SOUZA JUNIOR, C. L. A method for combined analysis of the diallel crosses repeated in several environments. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, v. 26, n. 3, p. 371-381, 1991.

PACHECO, C. A. P.; GAMA, E. P.; GUIMARAES, P. E. O.; SANTOS, M. X.; FERREIRA, A. S. Estimativas de parametros geneticos nas populacoes CMS-42 e CMS-43 de milho pipoca. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, v. 33, n. 12, p. 1995-2001, 1998.

PACHECO, C. A. P.; GAMA, E. E. G.; PARENTONI, S. N.; SANTOS, M. S.; LOPES, M. A.; FERREIRA, A. S.; FERNANDES, F. T.; GUIMARAES, P. E. O.; CORREA, L. A.; MEIRELLES, W. F.; FELDMAN, R. O.; MAGNAVACA, R. BRS Angela: variedade de milho pipoca. Sete Lagoas: Embrapa/CNPMS, 2000. (Comunicado Tecnico, n. 27).

PEREIRA, M. G.; AMARAL JUNIOR, A. T. Estimation of genetic components in popcorn based on the nested design. Crop Breeding and Applied Biotechnology, v. 1, n. 1, p. 3-10, 2001.

RANGEL, R. M.; AMARAL JUNIOR, A. T.; SCAPIM, C. A.; FREITAS JUNIOR, S. P.; PEREIRA, M. G. Genetic parameters in parents and hybrids of circulant diallel in popcorn. Genetics and Molecular Research, v. 7, n. 4, p. 1020-1030, 2008.

RINALDI, D. A.; CARPENTIERI-PIPOLO, V.; GERAGE, A. C.; RUAS, C. F.; FONSECA JUNIOR, N. S.; SOUZA, A.; SOUZA, S. G. H.; GARBUGLIO, D. D. Correlacao entre heterose e divergencia genetica estimadas por cruzamentos dialelicos e marcadores RAPD em populacoes de milho-pipoca. Bragantia, v. 66, n. 2, p. 183-192, 2007.

SAWAZAKI, E. A cultura do milho pipoca no Brasil. O agronomico, v. 53, n .1, p. 11-13, 2001.

SAWAZAKI, E.; PATERNIANI, M. E. A. G. Z.; CASTRO, J. L.; GALLO, P. B.; GALVAO, J. C. C.; SAES, L. A. Potencial de linhagens de populacoes locais de milho pipoca para sintese de hibridos. Bragantia, v. 59, n. 2, p. 143-151, 2000.

SCAPIM, C. A.; PACHECO, C. A. P.; TONET, A.; BRACCINI, A. L.; PINTO, R. J. B. Analise dialelica e heterose de populacoes de milho-pipoca. Bragantia, v. 61, n. 3, p. 219-230, 2002.

SCAPIM, C. A.; PINTO, R. J. B.; AMARAL JUNIOR, A. T.; MORA, F.; DANDOLINI, T. S. Combining ability of white grain popcorn populations. Crop Breeding and Applied Biotechnology, v. 6, n. 2, p. 136-146, 2006.

SCAPIM, C. A.; PACHECO, C. A. P.; AMARAL JUNIOR, A. T.; VIEIRA, R. A.; PINTO, R. J. B.; CONRADO, T. V. Correlations among yield and popping expansion stability parameters in popcorn. Euphytica, v. 174, n. 2, p. 209-218, 2010.

SEIFERT, A. L.; CARPENTIERI-PIPOLO, V.; FERREIRA, J. M.; GERAGE, A. C. Analise combinatoria de populacoes de milho pipoca em topcrosses. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, v. 41, n. 5, p. 771-778, 2006.

SILVA, A. Q. R.; AMARAL JUNIOR, A. T.; SCAPIM, C. A.; FREITAS JUNIOR, S. P.; GONCALVES, L. S. A. Inheritance for economically important traits in popcorn from distinct heterotic groups by Hayman's diallel. Cereal Research Communications, v. 38, n. 2, p. 273-285, 2010.

SIMON, A. G.; SCAPIM, C. A.; PACHECO, C. A. P.; PINTO, R. J. B.; BRACCINI, A. L.; TONET, A. Depressao por endogamia em populacoes de milhopipoca. Bragantia, v. 63, n. 1, p. 55-62, 2004.

SINGH, R. K.; CHAUDHARY, B. D. Biometrical methods in quantitative genetic analysis. New Delhi: Kalyany Publishers, 1985.

TRINDADE, A. P.; PINTO, R. J. B.; AMARAL JUNIOR, A. T.; MANGOLIN, C. A.; MACHADO, M. F. P. S.; SCAPIM, C. A. Genetic diversity of breeding popcorn lines determined by SSR markers. Eletronic Journal of Biotechnology, v. 13, n. 1, p. 1-9, 2010.

VIANA, J. M. S.; MATTA, F. P. Analysis of general and specific combining abilities of popcorn populations, including selfed parents. Genetics and Molecular Biology, v. 26, n. 4, p. 465-471, 2003.

VIANA, J. M. S.; CONDE, A. B. T.; ALMEIDA, R. V.; SCAPIM, C. A.; VALENTINI, L. Relative importance of per se and topcross performence in the selection of popcorn [S.sub.3] families. Crop Breeding and Applied Biotechnology, v. 7, n. 1, p. 74-81, 2007.

VIEIRA, R. A.; SOUZA NETO, I. L.; BIGNOTTO, L. S.; CRUZ, C. D.; AMARAL JUNIOR, A. T.; SCAPIM, C. A. Heterotic parametrization for economically important traits in popcorn. Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, v. 31, n. 3, p. 411-419, 2009.

ZANETTE, V. A. Analise da variabilidade genetica em populacoes de milho pipoca (Zea mays L.) I. Heterose da capacidade de expansao do grao. Agronomia Sulriograndense, v. 25, n. 2, p. 173-181, 1989.

Received on March 11, 2010.

Accepted on May 13, 2010.

Vanessa Quitete Ribeiro da Silva (1), Antonio Teixeira do Amaral JUnior (1) *, Leandro Simoes Azeredo Goncalves (1), Silverio de Paiva Freitas JUnior (1) and Rodrigo Moreira Ribeiro (1)

(1) Centro de Ciencias e Tecnologias Agropecuarias, Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense "Darcy Ribeiro", Rua Alberto Lamego , 2000, 28013-620, Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. * Author for correspondence. E-mail: amaraljr@uenf.br
Table 1. Origin of the popcorn inbred lines.

Parental inbreds Description of the population which the inbred were
obtained

[P.sub.1] (PR 023) from the three-way hybrid 'Zelia', which
 belongs to Pioneer Seeds, and consists of
 temperate and tropical inbreds
[P.sub.2] (PR 024) from the composite of yellow grains 'CMS-
 42', which belongs to Embrapa-Maize and
 Sorghum, and consists of tropical inbreds
[P.sub.3] (PR 036) from the composite of white grains 'CMS-42',
 which belongs to Embrapa-Maize and Sorghum,
 and consists of tropical inbreds
[P.sub.4] (UEM J1) from South American races of tropical regions
[P.sub.5] (PR 045-1) from the three-way hybrid 'Zaeli',
[P.sub.6] (PR 045-2) which consists of
[P.sub.7] (PR 045-3) temperate inbreds

[P.sub.8] (PR 087-1) from the modified one-way hybrid 'IAC112',
 adapted
[P.sub.9] (PR 087-2) to tropical regions, and which consists of
 inbreds
[P.sub.10] (PR 087-3) from the open pollinated variety 'South
 Americam Mushroom' with inbreds from the
 South American interparietal hybrid 'Guarani'
 x 'Amarela'

Table 2. Combined analysis of variance of the five traits, using the
methodology of Gardner and Eberhart (1966), in a diallel cross
between 10 popcorn inbred lines. Campos dos Goytacazes and Itaocara,
Rio de Janeiro State.

Source of variation df Mean square of
 traits (1)

 GY

Genotypes (G) 54 3294181.2991 **
Inbred Lines (L) 9 8013436.3216 **
Heterosis (H) 45 2350330.2946 **
Mean Heterosis (M) 1 55323786.1878 **
Inbred Lines Heterosis (IL) 9 2383559.1237 **
Specific Heterosis (S) 35 828258.4273 **
Environment (E) 1 7015589.8315 **
G x E 54 457732.9609 **
L x E 9 608958.3015 **
H x E 45 427487.8927 **
 M. Heterosis x E 1 3825176.2117 **
 IL. Heterosis x E 9 212041.4128 **
 S. Heterosis x E 35 385811.6070 **
Error 216 83668.8350

Source of variation Mean square of traits (1)

 PH EH

Genotypes (G) 0.2715 ** 0.1159 **
Inbred Lines (L) 0.4740 ** 0.2637 **
Heterosis (H) 0.2310 ** 0.0863 **
Mean Heterosis (M) 0.9500 ** 0.6530 **
Inbred Lines Heterosis (IL) 0.1430 ** 0.0370 **
Specific Heterosis (S) 0.2331 ** 0.0829 **
Environment (E) 14.8952 ** 2.1749 **
G x E 0.1765 ** 0.0597 **
L x E 0.1407 ** 0.0499 **
H x E 0.1837 ** 0.0616 **
 M. Heterosis x E 0.0015n.(n.s.) 0.0233 (n.s.)
 IL. Heterosis x E 0.0914 ** 0.0390 **
 S. Heterosis x E 0.2126 ** 0.0685 **
Error 0.0250 0.0080

Source of variation Mean square of traits (1)

 FL PE

Genotypes (G) 136.5277 ** 5.9008 **
Inbred Lines (L) 57.9929 ** 31.7997 **
Heterosis (H) 152.2347 ** 0.7211 **
Mean Heterosis (M) 2413.6706 ** 12.7574 **
Inbred Lines Heterosis (IL) 28.5926 ** 0.3991 (n.s)
Specific Heterosis (S) 119.4159 ** 0.4599 (n.s)
Environment (E) 84.5830 ** 0.0318 (n.s)
G x E 112.8340 ** 0.0941 (n.s)
L x E 121.8820 ** 0.0700 (n.s)
H x E 111.0244 ** 0.0989 (n.s)
 M. Heterosis x E 8.4162 (n.s.) 0.8849 (n.s)
 IL. Heterosis x E 51.5329 ** 0.1884 (n.s)
 S. Heterosis x E 129.2539 ** 0.0535 (n.s)
Error 4.5100 0.3514

(1) GY = Grain Yield; PH = Plant Height; EH = Ear Height; FL = Days
to silking; and PE = popping expansion. (ns) = not significant (p >
0.05); ** = significant at p < 0.01; * = significant at p [less
than or equal to] 0.05.

Table 3. Estimates of the means of the inbred lines effects ([V.sub.1])
and the corresponding standard deviations (SD), using the
methodology of Gardner and Eberhart (1966), for five traits
evaluated in 10 popcorn inbred lines. Campos dos Goytacazes
and Itaocara, Rio de Janeiro State.

Inbred Lines Traits (2)

effects ([V.sub.1]) (1) GY PH EH FL

P1 -786.7490 -0.5400 -0.3460 1.4325
P2 318.2510 0.1420 0.0240 -0.0675
P3 339.9160 -0.0900 0.0340 -0.2325
P4 267.4160 0.1620 0.1240 -0.5675
P5 324.0810 0.1670 0.1190 -0.0675
P6 -14.2540 -0.0400 0.0090 1.1025
P7 -350.9140 -0.0900 -0.1160 -0.3975
P8 159.0860 0.1570 0.0990 -0.4025
P9 -212.5840 0.1070 0.0590 -0.5675
P10 -44.2490 0.0420 -0.0060 -0.2325

Mean 1475.0840 1.8930 1.0910 60.0675

SD (Mean) 2788.9611 0.0008 0.0003 0.1503
SD ([V.sub.1]) 25100.6505 0.0075 0.0024 1.3530
sd([V.sub.1]-[V.sub.j]) 55779.2233 0.0166 0.0053 3.0060

Inbred Lines Traits (2)

effects ([V.sub.1]) (1) PE

P1 -0.7280
P2 1.1453
P3 -1.0880
P4 -0.8113
P5 -1.3113
P6 -1.1213
P7 -1.3213
P8 2.4120
P9 1.3287
P10 1.4953

Mean 33.1710

SD (Mean) 0.0117
SD ([V.sub.1]) 0.1054
sd([V.sub.1]-[V.sub.j]) 0.2342

(1) [P.sub.1] = PR 023; [P.sub.2] = PR 024; [P.sub.3] = PR 036;
[P.sub.4] = UEM J1; [P.sub.5] = PR 045-1; [P.sub.6] = PR 045-2;
[P.sub.7] = PR 045-3; [P.sub.8] = PR 087-1; [P.sub.9] = PR 087-2;
[P.sub.10] = PR 087-3. (2) GY = Grain Yield; PH = Plant Height; EH =
Ear Height; FL = Days to silking; and PE = popping expansion.

Table 4. Estimates of mean heterosis ([bar.h]), and inbred lines
([[??].sub.i]) effects, and the corresponding standard deviations
(SD), using the methodology of Gardner and Eberhart (1966), for
five traits evaluated in 10 popcorn inbred lines. Campos
dos Goytacazes and Itaocara, Rio de Janeiro State.

Effects Traits (2)

 GY PH EH FL

Mean Heterosis ([bar.h]) 1061.5866 0.1391 0.1153 -7.0119

SD ([bar.h]) 3408.7300 0.0010 0.0003 0.1837

Inbred lines Heterosis
 ([[bar.h].sub.I]) (1)
P1 265.6626 0.1966 0.0728 0.8675
P2 369.2026 0.0573 0.0459 -0.257
P3 515.3720 0.0441 0.0084 -0.446
P4 525.8713 0.0529 0.0515 -0.153
P5 -441.316 -0.0965 -0.0635 1.7630
P6 -492.148 -0.1033 -0.0547 -2.57
P7 -86.1942 0.0123 0.0103 0.7400
P8 -171.421 -0.0321 -0.0103 1.3470
P9 -254.857 -0.1102 -0.0585 -1.67
P10 -230.17 -0.0208 -0.0016 0.3862

SD ([V.sub.i]) 9412.7439 0.0028 0.0009 0.5073
SD (V.sub.i]--V.sub.j]) 20917.2080 0.0062 0.0020 1.1270

Effects Traits (2)

 PE

Mean Heterosis ([bar.h]) -0.5098

SD ([bar.h]) 0.0143

Inbred lines Heterosis
 ([[bar.h].sub.I]) (1)
P1 --
P2 --
P3 --
P4 --
P5 --
P6 --
P7 --
P8 --
P9 --
P10 --

SD ([V.sub.i]) --
SD (V.sub.i]--V.sub.j]) --

(1) [P.sub.1] = PR 023; [P.sub.2] = PR 024; [P.sub.3] = PR 036;
[P.sub.4] = UEM J1; [P.sub.5] = PR 045-1; [P.sub.6] = PR 045-2;
[P.sub.7] = PR 045-3; [P.sub.8] = PR 087-1; [P.sub.9] = PR 087-2;
Pw = PR 087-3. (2) GY = Crop Yield;
PH = Plant Height; EH = Ear Height; FL = Days to silking; and
PE = popping expansion.

Table 5. Estimates of the effects of specific heterosis ([S.sub.ij])
and corresponding standard deviation (SD), using the methodology of
Gardner and Eberhart (1966), for four characteristics evaluated in 45
[F.sub.1] hybrids. Campos dos Goytacazes and Itaocara, Rio de Janeiro
State.

Genotypes (1) Traits (2)

 RG AP AE

P1 x P2 -148.9510 0.0395 -0.0080
P1 x P3 222.3763 0.0526 0.0435
P1 x P4 -171.8730 -0.1110 -0.0640
P1 x P5 243.6519 0.0257 -0.0020
P1 x P6 60.3169 0.0926 0.0491
P1 x P7 -590.6420 -0.1170 -0.0780
P1 x P8 -155.4090 0.0563 0.0000
P1 x P9 498.8606 0.1245 0.0879
P1 x P10 41.6713 -0.1620 -0.0260
P2 x P3 -481.9980 -0.0500 -0.0640
P2 x P4 -57.9130 -0.0890 -0.1070
P2 x P5 -98.2230 0.0176 -0.0150
P2 x P6 49.2769 0.1195 0.0510
P2 x P7 50.8176 -0.0510 -0.0460
P2 x P8 -151.4540 -0.2210 -0.0280
P2 x P9 701.1506 0.2013 0.1597
P2 x P10 137.2963 0.0345 0.0604
P3 x P4 -593.2440 -0.0560 -0.0550
P3 x P5 -129.3890 -0.0140 -0.0170
P3 x P6 295.6100 0.0976 0.0735
P3 x P7 702.3206 -0.0470 0.0010
P3 x P8 -88.4518 0.0063 -0.0350
P3 x P9 124.1488 0.0495 0.0373
P3 x P10 -51.3705 -0.0370 0.0179
P4 x P5 33.8607 -0.1620 0.0492
P4 x P6 263.0256 0.2088 0.0754
P4 x P7 168.7313 0.0482 0.0329
P4 x P8 82.2988 0.0776 0.0110
P4 x P9 244.0694 0.1557 0.1242
P4 x P10 31.0451 -0.0710 -0.0652
P5 x P6 -628.9540 -0.0640 -0.0720
P5 x P7 -137.4130 -0.0340 -0.0045
P5 x P8 146.1488 -0.0900 -0.0664
P5 x P9 428.7544 0.1876 0.0717
P5 x P10 141.5650 0.1357 0.0573
P6 x P7 402.5863 0.0870 0.0967
P6 x P8 271.1488 0.2213 0.1898
P6 x P9 -826.2455 -0.9200 -0.5370
P6 x P10 113.2351 0.1576 0.0735
P7 x P8 -16.4756 -0.0140 -0.0377
P7 x P9 -553.8699 0.0888 0.0554
P7 x P10 -26.0543 0.0420 -0.0189
P8 x P9 -158.6424 0.0882 0.0335
P8 x P10 70.8382 -0.1230 -0.0658
P9 x P10 -458.2261 0.0245 -0.0327

SD ([S.sub.ij]) 21691.9201 0.0064 0.0021
SD ([S.sub.ij]-[S.sub.IK]) 48806.8204 0.0145 0.0047
SD ([S.sub.ij]-[S.sub.KL]) 41834.4175 0.0125 0.0040

Genotypes (1) Traits (2)

 FLOR

P1 x P2 0.3169
P1 x P3 -0.5760
P1 x P4 -5.5300
P1 x P5 0.7963
P1 x P6 5.2160
P1 x P7 1.3190
P1 x P8 -2.2800
P1 x P9 2.1540
P1 x P10 -1.4000
P2 x P3 0.4638
P2 x P4 1.0070
P2 x P5 -1.6000
P2 x P6 -0.5700
P2 x P7 -0.9700
P2 x P8 -1.9000
P2 x P9 3.3500
P2 x P10 -0.0300
P3 x P4 0.1090
P3 x P5 -1.2000
P3 x P6 3.1900
P3 x P7 -1.0000
P3 x P8 -1.6000
P3 x P9 1.4600
P3 x P10 -0.7600
P4 x P5 -0.5100
P4 x P6 -1.0000
P4 x P7 -0.6500
P4 x P8 2.2300
P4 x P9 4.8400
P4 x P10 -0.3800
P5 x P6 3.9000
P5 x P7 -0.3200
P5 x P8 -0.5900
P5 x P9 -0.3200
P5 x P10 -0.0500
P6 x P7 0.9230
P6 x P8 5.6500
P6 x P9 -21.0000
P6 x P10 3.8600
P7 x P8 -2.5000
P7 x P9 5.0200
P7 x P10 -1.7000
P8 x P9 2.5900
P8 x P10 -1.4000
P9 x P10 1.9600

SD ([S.sub.ij]) 1.1600
SD ([S.sub.ij]-[S.sub.IK]) 2.6300
SD ([S.sub.ij]-[S.sub.KL]) 2.2550

(1) [P.sub.1] = PR 023; [P.sub.2] = PR 024; [P.sub.3] = PR 036;
[P.sub.4] = UEM J1; [P.sub.5] = PR 045-1; [P.sub.6] = PR 045-2;
[P.sub.7] = PR 045-3; [P.sub.8] = PR 087-1; [P.sub.9] = PR 087-2;
[P.sub.10] = PR 087-3. (2) GY = Crop Yield; PH = Plant Height; EH =
Ear Height; FL = Days to silking; and PE = popping expansion.
COPYRIGHT 2011 Universidade Estadual de Maringa
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:da Silva, Vanessa Quitete Ribeiro; do Amaral, Antonio Teixeira, Jr.; Goncalves, Leandro Simoes Azere
Publication:Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy (UEM)
Date:Apr 1, 2011
Words:5720
Previous Article:Integrated method for adaptability and phenotypic stability analysis.
Next Article:Simulation of bean crop growth, evapotranspiration and yield in Parana State by the CROPGRO-Drybean model.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters