DaDa work 2001-2003
Efficient long-term Efficient long-term cycling strategycycling strategy
Contents of 1 hContents of 1 h
Introduction and our studies (5 min.)Introduction and our studies (5 min.)
Main finding (2 min)Main finding (2 min)
Testing strategy: optimization and Testing strategy: optimization and timing (50 min):timing (50 min):Single-stage strategies compared,Single-stage strategies compared,
Two-stage strategies compared,Two-stage strategies compared,
Amplified case: Progeny testing versus Amplified case: Progeny testing versus Pheno/Progeny.Pheno/Progeny.
Main finding separately for pine and Main finding separately for pine and spruce (5 min.)spruce (5 min.)
4: BP size optimised
3: Ph/Prog amplified (pine), effect of J-M.
Seminar 2004.03.02
1-2: Best testing strategy
The Road to this semianrThe Road to this semianr
Breeding cycler
Hungry shark
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Main findings: Main findings: cloningcloning is the best is the best strategystrategy
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Main findingsMain findings
•CClonallonal test is superior (use for test is superior (use for spruce)spruce)
•ProgenyProgeny testing not efficient testing not efficient
•For Pine, use 2 stage For Pine, use 2 stage PhenoPheno//ProgenyProgeny
•Pine flowers not needed before age Pine flowers not needed before age ~~ 10-15 10-15
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
General M&MGeneral M&M
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15Basic advantage of our Basic advantage of our
approachapproach
Gain per time
Cost
Diversity
Is a Is a completecomplete comparison as it comparison as it simultaneouslysimultaneously considers: considers:
Other things, e.g. to well see the road
The long-term The long-term programprogram
Recurrent cycles of mating, testing and balanced selectionAdaptive environment
Testing
Within family
selection
Mating
We consider one such breeding population
Breeding population
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Benefit Benefit == Group Merit/Year Group Merit/Year
Gain Diversity
Time
Diversity loss was set to be as important as gain
Main inputs and Main inputs and scenariosscenarios
While testing an alternative parameter value, the other parameters were at main scenario values
Low
lower reasonable
bound
Genetic parameters
Time components
Cost components
Main
typical for Pine or spruce
High
higher reasonable
bound
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
•Cost per test plant = 1 ’cost unit’, all the other Cost per test plant = 1 ’cost unit’, all the other
costs expressed as ratio of this 1. costs expressed as ratio of this 1.
•Such expression also helped to set the budget Such expression also helped to set the budget
constraint corresponding to the present-day constraint corresponding to the present-day
budget budget
The time and cost explainedThe time and cost explained
Established in 5 years after seed harvest
Field trial
Establishment, maintenance and
assessments
Cutting of ramets Rooting of
ramets (1 year)
TransportationCrossing
Recombination cost=20, Time=4
Plant dependent cost=1 (per ramet)Genotype
depend. cost=2 (per ortet)
Nursery
Production of sibs (4 years)
Mating time
Time before
Testing time
Lag
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
All these costs should fit to All these costs should fit to a present-day budgeta present-day budget
Budget estimate is taken from pine and spruce Budget estimate is taken from pine and spruce breeding plan ~ test size expressed per year breeding plan ~ test size expressed per year and BP member.and BP member.
~ 10 ’cost units’ for pine, 20- for spruce.~ 10 ’cost units’ for pine, 20- for spruce.
Established in
5 years after
seed harvest
Field trial
Establishment,
maintenance and
assessments
Cutting of
rametsRooting of
ramets (1 year)
Transportation
Crossing
Recombination
cost=20-50,
Time=3
Plant dependent cost=1 (per ramet)
Genotype
depend. cost=0.1
(per ortet)
Nursery
Production of
sibs (4 years)
Mating time
Time beforeTesting time Lag
Established in
5 years after
seed harvest
Field trial
Establishment,
maintenance and
assessmentsEstablished in
5 years after
seed harvestEstablished in
5 years after
seed harvest
Field trial
Establishment,
maintenance and
assessments
Cutting of
rametsRooting of
ramets (1 year)Cutting of
rametsCutting of
rametsRooting of
ramets (1 year)Rooting of
ramets (1 year)
TransportationTransportation
Crossing
Recombination
cost=20-50,
Time=3
Crossing
Recombination
cost=20-50,
Time=3
Plant dependent cost=1 (per ramet)
Plant dependent cost=1 (per ramet)
Genotype
depend. cost=0.1
(per ortet)
Nursery
Production of
sibs (4 years)
Genotype
depend. cost=0.1
(per ortet)
Nursery
Production of
sibs (4 years)
Nursery
Production of
sibs (4 years)
Mating timeMating time
Time beforeTime before
Testing timeTesting time LagLag Budget
constraint
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Why budget constraint per Why budget constraint per BP member and year?BP member and year?
• Because costs expressed per BP Because costs expressed per BP member = easier to handlemember = easier to handle
• Gain efficiency should be assessed Gain efficiency should be assessed per unit of timeper unit of time
• Optimization= optimum combination Optimization= optimum combination of of testing timetesting time and and testing sizetesting size to to obtain max obtain max GM/YearGM/Year and to satisfy and to satisfy the the budget constraintbudget constraint (use Solver) (use Solver)
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
The Relativity theory holds The Relativity theory holds for the Cycler as well… It for the Cycler as well… It
optimizes “your case”optimizes “your case”What if budget is suchWhat if budget is such
What if costs are suchWhat if costs are such
What if we reduce themWhat if we reduce them
What if heritably is suchWhat if heritably is such
What if J-M correlation What if J-M correlation isis
So, interpretation So, interpretation should consider that should consider that everything is relative to everything is relative to each othereach other
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Single-stage Single-stage testing testing
strategiesstrategies
Objective: Objective: compare strategies based on compare strategies based on phenotypephenotype, , cloneclone or or progenyprogeny testing testing
(…n) (…n)
Phenotype testing
N=50
(…n), (…m) and selection age were optimized
Clone or progeny testing
N=50
(…n) (…n)
(…m)(…m)(…m)(…m)(…m)(…m)OBS: Further result on numbers and costs- for one of these families
Parameters- for referenceParameters- for referenceParameters Main scenario Alternative scenarios
Additive variance A2 ) 1
Dominance variance, % of the additive variance in BP D2) 25 0; 100
Narrow-sense heritability (h2) (obtained by changing E2) 0.1 0.05; 0.5
Additive standard deviation at mature age (Am), % 10 5; 20
Diversity loss per cycle, % 0.5 0.25;1
Rotation age, years 60 10; 120
Time before establishment of the selection test (TBEFORE), years
1 (phenotype) 3; 5 (phenotype)
5 (clone) 3; 7 (clone)
17 (progeny) 5; 7 (progeny)
Recombination cost (CRECOMB), $ 30 15; 50
Cost per genotype (Cg), $ 0.1 (clone), 1; 5 (clone),
1 (progeny) 0.1; 5 (progeny)
Cost per plant (Cp), $ 1 0.5; 3
Cost per year and parent (constraint) 10 5; 20
Group Merit Gain per year (GMG/Y) To be maximized
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
CVa at mature age CVa at mature age •CVCVaa=14 % is based on pine tests in =14 % is based on pine tests in
south Sweden Jansson south Sweden Jansson et alet al (1998), (1998),
•1/2 of additive var in pop is within full 1/2 of additive var in pop is within full sib families, sib families,
•Our program is balanced= gain only Our program is balanced= gain only from within full-sib selection, from within full-sib selection,
•Thus, CVThus, CVaa within fam= CVa in pop within fam= CVa in pop divided by the square root of 2, thus divided by the square root of 2, thus a CV = 10%, which we use here a CV = 10%, which we use here (even if not quite correct).(even if not quite correct).CVa within =CVa within = sqrt(sqrt(22/2)/2)= = sqrt(sqrt(22)/sqrt(2)= )/sqrt(2)=
22/sqrt(2) /sqrt(2)
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Results-Results-clonalclonal best, best, progenyprogeny worst worst
At all the scenarios, Clonal was superior, except high h2.
Test 26 clones with 21 ramet (18/15 budget), select at age 20
Test 182 phenotypes; select at age 15, ( budget: 86, for 17 years) (second best)
Test 11 female parents with 47 progeny each; select at age 34 ( budget: 8/34, 40 years)
Ann
ual G
roup
Mer
it, %
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Narrow-sense heritability
PhenotypeClone
Progeny
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15GM/Y digits after comma are GM/Y digits after comma are
importantimportant• If for Clone GM/Y=0.25%; cycle= If for Clone GM/Y=0.25%; cycle=
30 years then 30 years then
•Cycle GMCycle GM=8 % (gain 8.5 - 0.5 div =8 % (gain 8.5 - 0.5 div loss) loss)
•Thus GM/Y reduction by 0.03 (10%) Thus GM/Y reduction by 0.03 (10%) = = Cycle gainCycle gain reduction by 1% reduction by 1%
•Loss of Loss of Cycle gainCycle gain by 1% = by 1% = important lossimportant loss
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
4(59) 10(25) 15(18) 20(14) 30(10) 40(8)
Clone no (ramets per clone)
An
nu
al G
rou
p M
erit
, %
How flat are the optima How flat are the optima ((cloneclone)?)?
Clone number (ramet per Clone number (ramet per clone) = clone) = 1212((2222)-)-2424 ( (1414))
Less ramets at optimum Less ramets at optimum clone number is clone number is sensitive: no > than 5, sensitive: no > than 5, (not shown)(not shown)
If problems with cloning, If problems with cloning, better-> clones with < better-> clones with < rametsramets
If hIf h22 is higher , see next is higher , see next
GM/Y by Pheno
hh22=0.1, lower budget, at optimum testing =0.1, lower budget, at optimum testing timetime
Optimum 18(15)
17 18 20 22 23 25
Test time
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15If not enough cuttings, better more clones with less If not enough cuttings, better more clones with less
ramets, rather than to reduce ramet number at ramets, rather than to reduce ramet number at optimum clone numberoptimum clone number
0.436
0.3300.3400.3500.360
0.3700.3800.3900.4000.4100.420
0.4300.4400.450
19(1
9)
20(1
8)
21(1
8)
22(1
6)
24(1
5)
26(1
4)
28(1
3)
30(1
2)
32(1
1)
36(1
0)
39(9
)
45(8
)
50(7
)
57(6
)
70(5
)
Optimum for clone number (ramet no per clone)
Budget=20, h2=0.1, Cycling cost=20, time 4, Tbefore=5, Cg=2, J-M corr by L(2001), c=100
This line marks loss of GM/Y > 0,03
Variation in these outlined numbers will not cause marked loss of benefit
GM/Y by Phenotype=0,275
12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 15 15 15 15 17
testing time
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Higher hHigher h22 = more clones = more clones and less rametsand less ramets
Spruce plan 40/15
Ola’s thesis, paper I, Fig. 9= 40 cl with 7 ram at test size 280
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Narrow-sense heritability
GM
/Y, %
13/23
18/1528/9
46/5Clone no/ramet no
Optimum then is between 18/15 and 30/10
Budget= 10
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Clone strategy
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Testing time, years
An
nu
al G
rou
p M
erit
, %
The optimal testing time 18-The optimal testing time 18-2020
•No effect to test longer than 18-20 years
•These 18-20 years with conservative J-M function (Lambeth 1980)
•With Lambeth 2001, about 15-17 years Figure with optimum at main scenario parameters (budget=10)
clones/ramets 18/15
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
How realistic are the How realistic are the optima?optima?• Optima depends on Optima depends on budgetbudget, , hh22, , J-M J-M
correlation- how realistic are they?correlation- how realistic are they?
1.1.Budget Budget is the present-day allocation. is the present-day allocation. Increase will result in more gain. But Increase will result in more gain. But we test how to optimise the resources we test how to optimise the resources we have.we have.
2.2.hh22 =0,1 seems to be reasonable =0,1 seems to be reasonable
3.3.J-M functions taken from southerly J-M functions taken from southerly pines, it affects the timing with stand. pines, it affects the timing with stand. error of 2 years (7-10-12).error of 2 years (7-10-12).
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Why Why Phenotype Phenotype ≥≥Progeny Progeny ??
• Drawbacks of Drawbacks of ProgenyProgeny: long time and : long time and high cost (important to consider for high cost (important to consider for improvement)improvement)
• PhenotypePhenotype generates less gain but this generates less gain but this is compensated by cheaper and faster is compensated by cheaper and faster cycles.cycles.
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Dominance seems to matter Dominance seems to matter littlelittle
Ann
ual G
roup
Mer
it, %Dominance would Dominance would
not markedly not markedly affect superior affect superior performance of performance of clonal testingclonal testing 0.0
0.10.20.30.40.50.6
0 25 50 75 100 125Dominance variance (% of
additive)
Clone
ProgenyPhenotype
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
On Genotype cost TbeforeOn Genotype cost Tbefore
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cost per genotype
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0 3 6 9 12 15 18Delay before establishment of
selection test (years)
Expensive genotypes are of interest only if it would markedly shorten T before for Progeny or improve cloning
Clone
Progeny
Phenotype
Clone
Progeny
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Recombinatin cost and total Recombinatin cost and total budgetbudget
Clone
Progeny
Phenotype
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25
Budget per year and parent
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
10 20 30 40 50 60
Recombination cost
Clone
Progeny
Phenotype
Important factors; what happens if they Important factors; what happens if they fluctuate?fluctuate?
Phenotype get more attractive at low budget, Phenotype get more attractive at low budget, strategy choice not depending on strategy choice not depending on recombination costrecombination cost
An
nu
al G
rou
p M
erit
, %
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
ConclusionsConclusions
• Clonal testing is the best breeding strategy
•Phenotype 2nd best, except very low h2 or high budget
•Superiority of the Phenotype over Progeny is minor = additional considerations may be important (idea of a two-stage strategy).
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Let’s do it in 2 Let’s do it in 2 stages?stages?
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Stage 2:.Sexual propagation of
pre-selected individuals
Reselection based on
performance of the progeny
Mating
Testing of the progeny
Stage 2:.Sexual propagation of
pre-selected individuals
Reselection based on
performance of the progeny
Mating
Stage1: Phenotype test and pre-selection
Testing of the progeny
Phenotype/Progeny strategy
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Values- study 2Values- study 2Parameters Main scenario Alternative
scenarios Additive variance A
2 ) 1 - Dominance variance, % of the additive variance in BP D
2) 25 0; 100
Environmental variance, % of total variance (E2) 88 0; 38; 94
Additive standard deviation at mature age (Am), % 10 5; 20 Diversity loss per cycle, % 0.5 0.25;1; 5 Rotation age, years 60 10; 20; 120
1 (phenotype) 3; 5 (phenotype) 5 (clone;
phenotype/clone) 3; 7 (clone;
phenotype/clone) Time before establishment of the selection test (TBEFORE), years
17 (progeny; phenotype/progeny)
5; 7 (progeny; phenotype/progeny)
Recombination cost (CRECOMB), $ 30 - 0.1 (clone), 1; 5 (clone), Cost per genotype (Cg), $ 1 (progeny) 0.1; 5 (progeny)
Cost per plant (Cp), $ 1 0.5; 3 Budget per year and parent (the constraint) 10 5; 20; 50 Group Merit Gain per year (GMG/Y) To be maximized
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
arrows show main scenario
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
Delay before establishment of selection test (years)
•If Progeny initiated early, may~ PhenotypePhenotype//ProgenyProgeny = need for a amplification
•Phenotype/Progeny is shown with a restriction for Phenotype selection age > 15
•CloneClone = = PhenotypePhenotype//CloneClone = no = no need for 2 stages.need for 2 stages.•PhenotypePhenotype//ProgenyProgeny is is 2nd best = best for Pine2nd best = best for Pine
Clone
ProgenyPhenotype
Pheno/Progeny
Results: two-stage 2nd bestResults: two-stage 2nd best
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Budget cuts = switching to Budget cuts = switching to PhenotypePhenotype tests in Pine tests in Pine
If budget is cut by half = simple Phenotype test
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20Budget per year and parent (%)
Ann
ual G
roup
Mer
it, %
Clone
Progeny
Phenotype
Pheno/Progeny
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Budget cuts for Budget cuts for PhenoPheno//ProgenyProgeny
Budget = resources reallocated on cheaper Phenotype testTesting time 10 (stage 1) and 14 (stage 2) little affected by the budget
2
3
4
5
Budget=10 Budget=5
Ge
ne
tic
ga
in, %
Stage 1 Phenotype
Stage 2 Progeny
17
32
5(44) 5(72)
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Why Why Pheno/Pheno/ProgenyProgeny was so was so good?good?
• It generated extra gain by taking It generated extra gain by taking advantage of the time before the advantage of the time before the candidates reach their sexual maturity candidates reach their sexual maturity
• This was more beneficial than single-This was more beneficial than single-stage stage ProgenyProgeny test at a very early test at a very early age age
• Question for the next study: is there Question for the next study: is there any feasible case where any feasible case where ProgenyProgeny can can be better?be better?
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15 ProgenyProgeny test with and test with and
without without phenotypicphenotypic pre- pre-selectionselection•Is there any realistic situation where
Progeny testing is superior over Pheno/Progeny (reasonable interactions and scenarios)
•What and how flat is the optimum age of pre-selection for Pheno/Progeny? (when do we will need flowers?)
Phenotype test Pre-selection age?
Progeny test
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Simply- where best to invest?Simply- where best to invest?
Phenotype-Phenotype-based pre-based pre-selection selection
Early Early flowering flowering inductioninduction
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Time and cost componentsTime and cost components
CPer CYCLE = Crecomb + n (CG + m CP),
Tcycle = Trecomb + TMATING + TLAG + Tprogtest
TLAG is crossing lag for progeny test (polycross, seed maturation,
seedling production)
TTMATINGMATING age of sufficient flowering capacity to initiate age of sufficient flowering capacity to initiate
progeny test (for 2-stage strategy it corresponds to the age progeny test (for 2-stage strategy it corresponds to the age of phenotypic pre-selectionof phenotypic pre-selection
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15 Parameters study 3Parameters study 3
Parameters Main scenario
values Alternative
scenario values* Interactive
scenario values
Additive variance A2 ) 1 - -
Dominance variance, % of the additive variance D
2) 25 0; 100 -
Narrow-sense heritability (h2) (obtained by changing E
2) 0.1 0.01; 0.5 0.01
Additive standard deviation at mature age % 10 - -
Diversity loss per cycle, % 0.5 - -
J-M genetic correlation function L (2001) L(1980); G(2000) L(1980)
Age of mating for progeny test (age of sufficient flowering capacity for progeny testing), years 3 to 25 by 1 - -
Crossing lag for progeny test (crossing; seed maturation, seedling production), years
3 5; 8 -
Rotation age (RA), years 50 20; 30; 80 80
Recombination cost (CRECOMB), $ 30 0; 100 -
Cost per genotype (Cg), $ 1 0.1; 10 -
Cost per plant (Cp), $ 1 0.1; 2 -
Budget per year and parent, $ (the constraint) 10 5; 20 -
Annual progress in Group Merit (GM/Y) To be maximized
1
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
J-M correlation functionsJ-M correlation functions
•Lambeth (1980)= phenotypic fam mean corrs from many trials of 3 temperate conifers
•
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ratio selection/rotation age (Q)
J-M
gen
etic
co
rrel
atio
n c
oef
fici
ent
Lambeth (1980)
Lambeth & Dill (2001)
Gwaze et al. (2000)
•Gwaze et al. (2000)= genetic correlations from 19 trials with 190 fams of P taeda western USA.
•Lambeth (2001) Main = genetic corrs in 4 series (15 trials) P taeda (296 fams)
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Results: 2 stage is betterResults: 2 stage is better
• 2 stage strategy 2 stage strategy was better under was better under most reasonable most reasonable valuesvalues
Main scenario
0.0
0.3
0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25
An
nu
al G
rou
p M
erit
(%
)
Age of mating for progeny test (years)
•No marked loss No marked loss would occur if would occur if mating is mating is postponed to age postponed to age 15 15
Pheno/Progeny
Progeny
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15J-M correlation affects pre-selection J-M correlation affects pre-selection
ageage•Optimum selection age Optimum selection age depends on efficiency depends on efficiency of of PhenotypePhenotype to to generate enough gain to generate enough gain to motivate prolongation of motivate prolongation of testing for an unit of testing for an unit of time. time.
•
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ratio selection/rotation age (Q)
J-M
gen
etic
co
rrel
atio
n c
oef
fici
ent
Do we have J-M estimates for spruce and pine?
Gwaze et al. (2000)
7
Lambeth & Dill (2001)
10
Lambeth (1980)
12
Gain increases fast by time
Gain would increase faster if switching to progeny test
•The gain generating The gain generating
efficiency mainly efficiency mainly
depends on slope of J-M depends on slope of J-M
correlation function.correlation function.
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
When the loss from optimum When the loss from optimum is important?is important?
Rotation age = 20
0.0
0.3
0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25
When early testing is advantageous
hh22 is high but is high but then then Phenotype Phenotype alone is betteralone is better
0.0
0.3
0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25
Plant cost= 0.1
0.0
0.3
0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25
Rotation is Rotation is shortshort
Plants are cheapPlants are cheap
h2= 0.5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 5 10 15 20 25
Pheno/Progeny
Progeny
An
nu
al G
rou
p M
erit
(%
)
Age of mating for progeny test (years)
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15 Better crossings are Better crossings are
motivatedmotivated
Crossing lag and genotype costs had no Crossing lag and genotype costs had no
marked effect = the crosses can be made over marked effect = the crosses can be made over
a longer time to simultaneously test all pre-a longer time to simultaneously test all pre-
selected individuals and their flowering may be selected individuals and their flowering may be
induced at a higher cost.induced at a higher cost.
Crossing lag= 5
0.23
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
10; 0.26
Crossing lag= 8
0.22
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
10; 0.25
Pheno/Progeny
Progeny
An
nu
al G
rou
p M
erit
(%
)
Age of mating for progeny test (years)
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
These are as for our interactive scenario:
•low heritability (0,01),
•long rotation (80 y)= less J-M at pre-selection,
•weak J-M correlation (L1980)
ProgenyProgeny is motivated when is motivated when conditions disfavour conditions disfavour
PhenotypePhenotype
But the optima flat and scenario unrealistic
Pheno/Progeny
Progeny
Interactive scenario
0.00
0.03
0.06
0 5 10 15 20 25An
nu
al G
rou
p M
erit
(%
)
Age of mating for progeny test (years)
Optimum test time and size for Optimum test time and size for pine pine (for one of the 50 full sib fams)(for one of the 50 full sib fams)
Long-term
breedingStage 2. Progeny-test each of those 5 with 30 offspring
Stage 1: Test 70 full-sibs
Mating
2-4 years, at a high cost if feasible
Lag- 3-4 years
Cycle time~ 27 Gain=8 % GM/Y= 0,27%
Select back the best of 5
when progeny- test
age is 10
Select 5 at age 10
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15What if no pine flowers until age What if no pine flowers until age
25?25?
•Pheno/Progeny is still leading
•Phenotype with selection age of 25 is better
•Progeny is the last
•Budget cuts, high h2 will favour Phenotype
This means, singe stage Phenotype cycle time > 25 years and For the two-stage, pre-selection not at its optimum age (10 years)Main (h=0.1, budget=10), Flowers at age 25
0.179
0.135 0.140
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Pro
geny
Phe
noty
pe Pheno/Progeny
Ann
ual G
roup
Mer
it, %
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15 May be 2 cycles of May be 2 cycles of
PhenotypePhenotype instead of instead of PhenoPheno//ProgenyProgeny??
CycleCycle, , yearsyears
GM/GM/year, %year, %
GM/GM/cyclecycle
2 cycle 2 cycle s of s of PhenoPheno
PhenotypPhenotypee
2020 0,1520,152 3,043,04 6,086,08
PhenoPheno//ProgProg
4040 0,1810,181 7,267,26
Answer is No: 7,26 is > 6,08
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
ConclusionsConclusions
•Under all realistic values, Pheno/Progeny better than Progeny
•Sufficient flowering of pine at age 10 is desirable, but the disadvantage to wait until the age of 15 years was minor,
•If rotation short, h2 high, testing cheap, delays from optimum age could be important
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Our main findings
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Main findingsMain findings- - sprucespruce
(18) (18)
(15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15)
Clonal test by far the best
Select at age 15 (20) depending on J-M correlation
If higher h2 more clones less ramets
Present plans: size 40/15, selection age: 10 years
With L(2001), Cycle time~ 21 Gain=8.2 % GM/Y= 0,34%
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
MMain findingsain findings- P- Pineine
(70) (70)
Use 2 stage Pheno/Progeny strategy
Stage 1 Phenotype select at age 10 (15 only 3% GM lost)
Stage 2 Progeny test select at ca 10(30) (30)(30)(30)(30) (30) (30)(30)(30)(30)
With L(2001), Cycle time~ 27 Gain=8 % GM/Y= 0,27%
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Research needs- Faster Research needs- Faster cloning cloning
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
Research needs (a PhD Research needs (a PhD thesis)thesis)
•Faster, better cloning: embryogenesis, Faster, better cloning: embryogenesis, rooting, C-effects (especially for pine) rooting, C-effects (especially for pine)
•Sufficient flowering at age 10 (15) for Sufficient flowering at age 10 (15) for pinepine
•Documentation of flowering in breeding Documentation of flowering in breeding stockstock
•How sexual maturation, flowering How sexual maturation, flowering abundance are related to breeding value? abundance are related to breeding value?
Clonal- best; progeny- worst; Pine- phenotype pre-selection and progeny; flowers at age 15
In breeding, thanks to Dag there may be less risk to enter a wrong
way ...
The endThe end