Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Supplementing selection decisions in a hybrid wheat breeding program by using F2 yield as a proxy of F1 performance

  • Published:
Euphytica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hybrid wheat breeding programs need to use chemical hybridizing agents for seed production due to its simplicity. Alternative methods such as cytoplasmic systems or hand pollinations restrict genetic combinations or seed production which limits testing experimental hybrids in large-scale multi-environment trials (METs). Using F2 seed instead of F1 can allow programs to test hybrid cross combinations in METs and the data can be used to supplement selection decisions at early stages of breeding cycle. To test this hypothesis, two METs consisting of 40 entries were conducted in 2017 and 2018 in six locations across Texas and Nebraska. The entries included hybrids at the F2 stage and their respective parents, selected from a previous preliminary F1 evaluation experiment. In six out of 10 test environments, a F2 hybrid had statistically significant higher yield than highest yielding parent. The F2 mid-parent heterosis ranged from − 20.97 to 27.52% in 2017 and − 9.90 to 9.17% in 2018. The F2 high-parent heterosis ranged from − 21.07 to 17.85% in 2017 and − 16.57 to 6.68% in 2018. The heterosis estimates of these cross combinations at F1 stage were extracted from previous large scale METs conducted on nine environments across Nebraska and Texas in 2016–2017. A comparison of F2 heterosis from this study and F1 heterosis from the previous study revealed that F2 heterosis was highly indicative of superior F1 performance. The results provide strong evidence for utility of F2 yield data in selecting superior F1 hybrids. In addition, a practical framework for using F2 performance to aid selecting F1’s in a hybrid wheat-breeding pipeline is provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

METs:

Multi-environment trials

GGE:

Genotype and genotype × environment interaction

MPH:

Mid-parent heterosis

HPH:

High parent heterosis

TAMU:

Texas A&M University

UNL:

University of Nebraska, Lincoln

CHA:

Chemical hybridizng agent

References

  • Adhikari A, Ibrahim AM, Rudd JC, Baenziger PS, Sarazin JB (2020) Estimation of heterosis and combining abilities of US winter wheat germplasm for hybrid development in Texas. Crop Sci 60:788–803

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Adugna A, Nanda GS, Singh K, Bains NS (2004) A comparison of cytoplasmic and chemically-induced male sterility systems for hybrid seed production in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Euphytica 135(3):297–304

  • Basnet BR, Crossa J, Dreisigacker S, Pérez-Rodríguez P, Manes Y, Singh RP, Rosyara UR, Camarillo-Castillo F, Murua M (2019) Hybrid wheat prediction using genomic, pedigree, and environmental covariables interaction models. Plant Genome 12(1):1–13

  • Basnet BR, Crossa J, Dreisigacker S, Pérez-Rodríguez P, Manes Y, Singh RP, Murua M (2019) Hybrid wheat prediction using genomic, pedigree, and environmental covariables interaction models. The Plant Genome 12(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler DG, Cullis BR, Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ (2009) ASReml-R reference manual. The State of Queensland, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  • Comstock RE, Robinson HF (1948) The components of genetic variance in populations of biparental progenies and their use in estimating the average degree of dominance. Biometrics 4(4):254–266

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Comstock RE, Robinson HF (1952) Estimation of average dominance of genes. In: Gowen JW (ed) Heterosis. pp 494–516

  • Cox T, Murphy J (1990) The effect of parental divergence on F 2 heterosis in winter wheat crosses. Theor Appl Genet 79(2):241–250

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cregan P, Busch R (1977) Early generation bulk hybrid yield testing of adapted hard red spring wheat crosses 1. Crop Sci 17(6):887–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterly AC, Stroup WW, Garst N, Belamkar V, Sarazin JB, Moittié T, Ibrahim AMH, Rudd JC, Souza E, Baenziger PS (2019) Determining the efficacy of a hybridizing agent in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Sci Reports 9(1):1–11

  • Easterly AC, Garst N, Belamkar V, Ibrahim AM, Rudd JC, Sarazin JB, Baenziger PS (2020) Evaluation of hybrid wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yield in Nebraska. Crop Sci 60(3):1210–1222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Longmans, Harlow, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Flachenecker C, Frisch M, Muminovic J, Falke K, Melchinger A (2006) Modified full-sib selection and best linear unbiased prediction of progeny performance in a European F2 maize population. Plant Breed 125(3):248–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrichs MR, Burton JW, Brownie C (2016) Heterosis and genetic variance in soybean recombinant inbred line populations. Crop Sci 56(4):2072–2079

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gerrish BJ, Ibrahim AM, Rudd JC, Neely C, Subramanian NK (2019) Identifying mega-environments for hard red winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production in Texas. Euphytica 215(7):129

  • Ghaderi A, Adams M, Nassib A (1984) Relationship between genetic distance and heterosis for yield and morphological traits in dry edible bean and faba bean 1. Crop Sci 24(1):37–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gizlice Z, Carter TE, Burton JW (1993) Genetic diversity in North American soybean: II. Prediction of heterosis in F2 populations of southern founding stock using genetic similarity measures. Crop Sci 33(3):620–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gowda M, Longin CFH, Lein V, Reif JC (2012) Relevance of specific versus general combining ability in winter wheat. Crop Sci 52(6):2494–2500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington J (1940) Yielding capacity of wheat crosses as indicated by bulk hybrid tests. Can J Res 18(11):578–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hockett E, Cook A, Khan M, Martin J, Jones B (1993) Hybrid performance and combining ability for yield and malt quality in a diallel cross of barley. Crop Sci 33(6):1239–1244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Immer F (1941) Relation between yielding ability and homozygosis in barley crosses. J Am Soc Agron 33(3):200–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isleib T, Wynne J (1983) Heterosis in testcrosses of 27 exotic peanut cultivars 1. Crop Sci 23(5):832–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi S, Sharma S, Singhania D, Sain R (2004) Combining ability in the F1 and F2 generations of diallel cross in hexaploid wheat (Triticum aestivum L. em. Thell). Hereditas 141(2):115–121

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Knott D (1994) The use of bulk F2 and F3 yield tests to predict the performance of durum wheat crosses. Can J Plant Sci 74(2):241–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotzamanidis ST, Roupakias D (2004) Plant density affects the reliability of using F1 and F2 yield to predict F3 yield in barley. Aust J Agric Res 55(9):961–965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotzamanidis S, Lithourgidis A, Mavromatis A, Chasioti D, Roupakias D (2008) Prediction criteria of promising F3 populations in durum wheat: a comparative study. Field Crops Res 107(3):257–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefort-Buson M, Guillot-Lemoine B, Da Ttée Y (1986) Heterosis and genetic distance in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Use of different indicators of genetic divergence in a 7 × 7 diallel. Agronomie, EDP Sci 6(9):839–844

  • Lewers K, St Martin S, Hedges B, Palmer R (1998) Testcross evaluation of soybean germplasm. Crop Sci 38(5):1143–1149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longin CFH, Gowda M, Mühleisen J, Ebmeyer E, Kazman E, Schachschneider R, Schacht J, Kirchhoff M, Zhao Y, Reif JC (2013) Hybrid wheat: quantitative genetic parameters and consequences for the design of breeding programs. Theor Appl Genet 126(11):2791–2801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meredith WR (1990) Yield and fiber-quality potential for second-generation cotton hybrids. Crop Sci 30(5):1045–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meredith W Jr, Brown JS (1998) Heterosis and combining ability of cottons originating from different regions of the United States. J Cotton Sci 2:77–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Mette MF, Gils M, Longin CFH, Reif JC (2015) Hybrid breeding in wheat. In: Ogihara Y, Takumi S, Handa H (eds) Advances in wheat genetics: from genome to field. Springer, Tokyo, pp 225–232

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Möhring J, Piepho HP (2009) Comparison of weighting in two-stage analysis of plant breeding trials. Crop Sci 49(6):1977–1988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oettler G, Becker H, Hoppe G (2001) Heterosis for yield and other agronomic traits of winter triticale F1 and F2 hybrids. Plant Breed 120(4):351–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shehata A, Comstock V (1971) Heterosis and combining ability estimates in F2 flax populations as influenced by plant density 1. Crop Sci 11(4):534–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang B, Jenkins JN, McCarty J, Watson C (1993) F2 hybrids of host plant germplasm and cotton cultivars: I. Heterosis and combining ability for lint yield and yield components. Crop Sci 33(4):700–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Technow F (2019) Use of F2 bulks in training sets for genomic prediction of combining ability and hybrid performance. G3: Genes Genomes Genet 9(5):1557–1569

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Troyer A (1986) Selection for early flowering in corn: 18 adapted F2 populations. Crop Sci 26(2):283–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winzeler H, Schmid J, Winzeler M (1993) Analysis of the yield potential and yield components of F 1 and F 2 hybrids of crosses between wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and spelt (Triticum spelta L.). Euphytica 74(3):211–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu Y, Yin J, Guo W, Zhu X, Zhang T (2004) Heterosis performance of yield and fibre quality in F1 and F2 hybrids in upland cotton. Plant Breed 123(3):285–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan W, Tinker NA (2006) Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data: principles and applications. Can J Plant Sci 86(3):623–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadoks JC, Chang TT, Konzak CF (1974) A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Res 14(6):415–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao Y, Li Z, Liu G, Jiang Y, Maurer HP, Würschum T, Mock H-P, Matros A, Ebmeyer E, Schachschneider R (2015) Genome-based establishment of a high-yielding heterotic pattern for hybrid wheat breeding. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(51):15624–15629

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the help of Geraldine Opena, Bryan Simoneaux, Russel L. Sutton, Jason Baker, Shannon Baker and Ravindra Devkota for help during planting, harvesting and data collection. We also would like to thank the funding from USDA NIFA-IWYP Grant No. 25-6222-0810-002, Monsanto Beachell Borlaug International Scholars Program, Texas Wheat Producers Board, Nebraska Wheat Board, and Texas A&M AgriLife Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Anil Adhikari & Amir M. H. Ibrahim

  2. Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Amarillo, Amarillo, TX, USA

    Jackie C. Rudd

  3. Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA

    P. Stephen Baenziger, Amanda Easterly, Nick Garst & Vikas Belamkar

  4. Asur Plant Breeding, Estrées-Saint-Denis, Picardy, France

    Jean-Benoit Sarazin

Authors
  1. Anil Adhikari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amir M. H. Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jackie C. Rudd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Stephen Baenziger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amanda Easterly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nick Garst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Vikas Belamkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jean-Benoit Sarazin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anil Adhikari.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that there is no competing interests between them or funding agencies.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 84 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adhikari, A., Ibrahim, A.M.H., Rudd, J.C. et al. Supplementing selection decisions in a hybrid wheat breeding program by using F2 yield as a proxy of F1 performance. Euphytica 216, 130 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-020-02664-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-020-02664-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation