Revisited Cloning Seedling of Reproduced Best DxP Cross Strategy

Document Sample
Revisited Cloning Seedling of Reproduced Best DxP Cross Strategy Powered By Docstoc
					Revisited: Cloning Seedlings
 of Reproduced Best DxP
       Cross Strategy

  Soh, A.C., Wong, G., Tan, C.C., Hor,
          T. Y. & Wong, C.K.

  Applied Agricultural Research Sdn.
  Bhd., Sg. Buloh, Selangor, Malaysia
                  Introduction
   Low heritability for oil yield among individual
    palms
   Inefficient cloning technique (number of palms
    clonable and mantling risk)
   Best DxP family oil yields are more heritable
    (about 13% yield improvement)
   Better efficiency in cloning seedlings
   Better clones could be selected after clonal testing
     Materials and Methods
 T2 – URD D x Dy. AVR P
 T3 – URD D x Ybi. AVR P
 DPC – Commercial DxP
 SC – Standard DxP (URD D x Dy. AVR P)
              Materials and Methods
            Info       Treatment        Control      Soil      Location
Trial                (No. of Clones)
        BCT5-89          T3 (4)        SC & DPC   Inland     Selangor
                                                  (Munchong)
        BCT7-90          T3 (3)        SC         Inland     Selangor
                                                  (Munchong)
        BCT6-91          T3 (2)        DPC        Inland       Johore
                                                  (Rengam)
        BCT9-91         T3 (12)        DPC        Inland       Johore
                                                  (Rengam)
    BCT11-92         T2 (5) & T3 (2) AA DP        Inland       Johore
                                     Prog.        (Rengam)
  Commercial            T3 (15)        DPC        Inland       Perak
Field Test (35 ha)                                (Sogomona)
     Comparative yield performance (1982-
       1986) of T2 and T3 DxP families
Progeny   Lineage       FFB       %FFB    OB      OY       % OY
                        t/ha/yr            %     t/ha/yr
T3         URD x Ybi.   27.8      112.7   27.5    7.6      122.9
           AVROS
T2         URD x Dy.    26.3      106.7   27.1    7.1      114.9
           AVROS
AA DxP URD x Dy.        24.7      100.0   25.1    6.2      100.0
prog. (18) AVROS
SEDiff                   3.0              2.2     0.8
 BCT5-89. Comparative yield performance
   (1998-2000) of T3 (embryo derived)
                 clones
Clone /   Lineage    FFB     % FFB   OB     OY        % OY
Progeny              t/ha/yr         %      t/ha/yr
T3/E212 URD x Ybi.   24.2   79.6     29.3   7.1       84.3
          AVROS
T3/E213 URD x Ybi.   25.1   82.4     29.4   7.4       87.5
          AVROS
T3/E218 URD x Ybi.   31.7   104.0    32.8   10.4      124.1
          AVROS
T3/E237 URD x Ybi.   31.5   103.6    32.0   10.1      120.2
          AVROS
AAR SC URD x Dy.     33.5   109.9    27.2   9.1       107.8
          AVROS
AA DPC URD x Dy.     30.4   100.0    27.7   8.4       100.0
          AVROS
SEDiff               2.0             0.9    0.6
  BCT7-90 Comparative Yield Performance of
        T3 (embryo derived) clones

Clone/    Lineage             FFB       %FFB     OB     OY        %OY %OY
Progeny                       t/ha/yr            %      t/ha/yr       *
T3/E218   URD x Ybi. AVROS     31.5      100.8   32.0   10.0      118.1   127.5
T3/E278   URD x Ybi. AVROS     38.0      121.7   29.0   11.0      129.6   140.0
T3/E279   URD x Ybi. AVROS     30.5      97.7    31.5   9.6       113.0   122.0
AAR     URD x Dy. AVROS        31.2      100.0   27.3   8.5       100.0   107.8
STD DxP
Ctrl
SEDiff                         1.7               0.6    0.6

* Expected % OY compared with AA Commercial DxP control as in BCT5-89
 BCT11-92. Comparative yield performance (1998-
   2001) of T2 and T3 (seedling derived) clones
   Clone /     Lineage            FFB     % FFB OB      OY        % OY
   Progeny                        t/ha/yr       %       t/ha/yr
   T2/S192     URD x Dy. AVROS    20.1   86.8    27.5   5.5       91.9
   T2/S110     URD x Dy. AVROS    20.9   89.9    29.0   6.0       100.5
   T2/S190     URD x Dy. AVROS    23.0   98.9    27.4   6.3       105.3
   T2/S115     URD x Dy. AVROS    22.0   94.8    27.2   6.0       99.8
   T2/S157     URD x Dy. AVROS    27.7   119.5   22.0   6.1       100.7
   T3/S200     URD x Ybi. AVROS   21.3   91.9    28.9   6.2       102.6
   T3/S199     URD x Ybi. AVROS   25.4   109.6   30.9   7.8       130.4
   AA DxP      UR/LM Deli x Dy.   23.2   100.0   25.9   6.0       100.0
   prog.(18)   AVROS
   SEDiff                         1.8            2.5    0.8

NB. LM Deli D x Dy. AVR P’s OY was 85% of UR Deli D x Dy. AVR P’s OY
        BCT6-91. Comparative yield performance
       (1998-2001) of T3 (embryo derived) clones

   Clone/     Lineage            FFB       %FFB     OB     OY        %O      %OY
   Progeny                       t/ha/yr            %      t/ha/yr   Y       *
   T3/E218    URD x Ybi. AVROS    32.4      116.5   28.9   9.3       136.8   116.3
   T3/E278    URD x Ybi. AVROS    31.4      113.2   29.4   9.2       135.9   115.5
   AAR        LMD x Dy. AVROS     27.8      100.0   24.6   6.8       100.0   85.0
   Comm.
   DxP Ctrl
   SEDiff                         1.1               1.0    0.5


* Expected OY compared with AA DxP (UR x Dy. AVROS) based on BCT11-92 Result
BCT9-91. Comparative yield performance (1998-2001) of T3 (embryo derived) clones
   Clone/     Lineage            FFB       %FFB    OB     OY        %OY     %OY
   Progeny                       t/ha/yr           %      t/ha/yr           *

   T3/E279    URD x Ybi. AVROS   14.5      71.3    29.1   4.2       80.5    68.4
   T3/E283    URD x Ybi. AVROS   30.1      148.0   27.5   8.3       158.6   134.8
   T3/E284    URD x Ybi. AVROS   25.5      125.4   27.6   7.0       134.4   114.2
   T3/E308    URD x Ybi. AVROS   25.4      124.7   27.3   7.0       133.1   113.1
   T3/E312    URD x Ybi. AVROS   24.7      121.4   27.5   6.8       130.0   110.5
   T3/E348    URD x Ybi. AVROS   29.9      146.9   24.5   7.3       140.1   119.1
   T3/E352    URD x Ybi. AVROS   31.3      153.8   30.0   9.4       180.0   153.0
   T3/E353    URD x Ybi. AVROS   25.8      126.6   28.5   7.4       140.7   119.6
   T3/E379    URD x Ybi. AVROS   25.3      124.3   30.4   7.7       146.8   124.8
   T3/E380    URD x Ybi. AVROS   28.2      138.6   28.2   7.9       151.9   129.1
   T3/E383    URD x Ybi. AVROS   30.7      150.9   23.3   7.1       136.6   116.1
   T3/E280    URD x Ybi. AVROS   25.5      125.1   26.0   6.6       127.2   108.1
   AAR        LMD x Dy. AVROS    20.3      100.0   25.6   5.2       100.0   85.0
   Comm.
   DxP Ctrl
   SEDiff                        1.1               1.0    0.5

* Expected OY compared with AA DxP (UR x Dy. AVROS) based on BCT11-92 Result
                 Com parative yield perform ance (1998-2001) of
       200
                 T3 (em bryo derived) clones
       180

       160
       140

       120
% OY




       100
        80

        60
        40

        20
         0
             T3/E279
                       T3/E283
                                 T3/E284
                                           T3/E308
                                                     T3/E312
                                                               T3/E348
                                                                         T3/E352
                                                                                   T3/E353
                                                                                             T3/E379
                                                                                                       T3/E380
                                                                                                                 T3/E383
                                                                                                                           T3/E280
                                                                                                                                     T3 Clone




         T3 Clone           AA Comm. DxP Cont rol                    T3 DxP f amily yield perf ormance in B79-T10
                           Figure 1: Comparison of yield profiles between Block PM92A1 (T3
                          clones, 35 ha.) & Block PM92B1 (AA DXP, 21ha), neighbouring blocks
                                    planted during the same period in Kampar Estate


                    45

                    40

                    35

                    30
FFB YIELDS (t/ha)




                    25

                    20

                    15
                                                                                      PM92B1
                    10
                                                                                      PM92A1
                     5

                     0
                         24-35   36-47   48-59   60-71   72-95   96-107   108-119 120-131 132-143
                                                 AGE OF PALMS (mths)
            Advantage(s)
 Consideration:


  – Inefficiency of individual palm selection
    due to low heritability of oil yield among
    individual palms
  – Limited by the number of trial palms per
    family
 Cloning
        seedlings of Reproduced
 Best DxP Cross Approach:

  – Saves a generation testing time
Comparison of time sequence to obtain
  reclones with the ortet cloning and
    embryo cloning approach from
  reproduced / produced best cross
Year          Ortet Cloning              Embryo Cloning
 0             Best cross               Best cross produce /
           produce/reproduced               reproduced

 1          Seed germination              Embryo cloning

 2           Nursery planting            Nursery planting

 3         Progeny field testing     Embryo-clone field testing

 9      Ortet Selection & Cloning    Clone selection & recloning

 11      Ortet-clone field testing


 17    Clone selection & recloning
 Cloning
        seedlings of Reproduced
 Best DxP Cross Approach:

  – Saves a generation testing time
  – Higher quantum improvement from
    cloning as breeding improvement would
    be one step slower to catch up
  – More palms can be sampled (ensures
    capturing the superior transegregants)
  – More efficient and less prone to mantling
  – Short cut approach to join the game for
    laboratories without breeding programme
                  Precautions
   Legitimacy of the reproduced family must be
    guaranteed
   Stringent culling in the nursery for runts and off-
    types
   Distinctly superior family statistically and
    quantum wise from trials replicated over different
    environments
   Selection biases towards higher OB
    Large number (>100) of embryo explants per
    family to ensure capturing the outstanding clones
Thank You

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:9
posted:12/8/2009
language:Malay
pages:19