Cost and accuracy of advanced breeding trial designs in apple

Abstract

Trialing advanced candidates in tree fruit crops is expensive due to the long-term nature of the planting and labor-intensive evaluations required to make selection decisions. How closely the trait evaluations approximate the true trait value needs balancing with the cost of the program. Designs of field trials of advanced apple candidates in which reduced number of locations, the number of years and the number of harvests per year were modeled to investigate the effect on the cost and accuracy in an operational breeding program. The aim was to find designs that would allow evaluation of the most additional candidates while sacrificing the least accuracy. Critical percentage difference, response to selection, and correlated response were used to examine changes in accuracy of trait evaluations. For the quality traits evaluated, accuracy and response to selection were not substantially reduced for most trial designs. Risk management influences the decision to change trial design, and some designs had greater risk associated with them. Balancing cost and accuracy with risk yields valuable insight into advanced breeding trial design. The methods outlined in this analysis would be well suited to other horticultural crop breeding programs.

References

[1] Harker FR, Gunson FA, Jaeger SR . The case for fruit quality: an interpretive review of consumer attitudes, and preferences for apples. Postharvest Biol Technol 2003; 28: 333-347.

[2] Miller SS . Apple cultivars-current situation and trends around the world: an introduction. Fruit Var J 1991; 45: 75-76.

[3] Brown AG . Apples. In: Janick J, Moore JN (eds). Advances in Fruit Breeding. Purdue University Press: IN, USA, 1975, 3-37.

[4] Evans K. Apple breeding in the Pacific Northwest. Acta Hortic 2013; 976: 75-78.

[5] Kellerhals M, Patocchi A, Frey JE, Spuhler M, Duffy B . Selection efficiency in apple breeding. Acta Hortic 2009; 814: 177-183.

[6] Falconer DS, Mackay TFC . Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 4th edn. Longman Group: London, UK, 1996.

[7] Cooper M, Byth DE, Delacy IH, Woodruff DR . Predicting grain-yield in Australian environments using data from CIMMYT international wheat performance trials 1. Potential for exploiting correlated response to selection. Field Crops Res 1993; 32: 305-322.

[8] Weber M. Sustainable Apple Breeding Needs Sustainable Marketing and Management. 13th International Conference on Cultivation Technique and Phytopathological Problems in Organic Fruit-Growing 2008, 232-237.

[9] Arief VN, DeLacy IH, Crossa J, Payne T, Singh R, Braun H-J et al. Evaluating testing strategies for plant breeding field trials: redesigning a CIMMYT international wheat nursery. Crop Sci 2015; 55: 164-177.

[10] Brennan JP, Kingwell RS, Thomson FM, Cullis BR . Optimal strategies for regional cultivar testing. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 1998; 42: 209-226.

[11] Cullis BR, Thomson FM, Fisher JA, Gilmour AR, Thompson R . The analysis of the NSW wheat variety database. 1. Modelling trial error variance. Theor Appl Genet 1996; 92: 21-27.

[12] Cullis BR, Thomson FM, Fisher JA, Gilmour AR, Thompson R . The analysis of the NSW wheat variety database. 2. Variance component estimation. Theor Appl Genet 1996; 92: 28-39.

[13] Patterson HD, Silvey V, Talbot M, Weatherup STC . Variability of yields of cereal varieties in UK trials. J Agric Sci 1977; 89: 239-245.

[14] Talbot M . Resource allocation for selection systems. In: Kempton RA, Fox PN (eds). Statistical Methods for Plant Variety Evaluation. Chapman & Hall Ltd: London, UK, 1997, 162-174.

[15] Cooper M, Delacy IH, Byth DE, Woodruff DR . Predicting grain-yield in Australian environments using data from CIMMYT international wheat performance trials. 2. The application of classification to identify environmental relationships which exploit correlated response to selection. Field Crops Res 1993; 32: 323-342.

[16] Arnold G. A tasting procedure for assessing bitterness and astringency. In: Anonymous (ed.). Sensory Quality in Foods and Beverages: Definition, Measurement and Control. Horwood Ltd: FL, USA, 1983, 109-114.

[17] Oraguzie N, Alspach P, Volz R et al. Postharvest assessment of fruit quality parameters in apple using both instruments and an expert panel. Postharvest Biol Technol 2009; 52: 279-287.

[18] Hardner C, Evans K, Peace C, Brien C . Genetic architecture of fruit quality traits in apple following short-term storage and implications for genetic breeding and selection. Tree Genet Genomes 2016; doi: 10.1007/s11295-016-0977-z.

[19] Blanpied GD, Silsby KJ . Predicting harvest date windows for apples. Cornell Coop Ext Bul 1992; 221: 1-12.

[20] Evans K, Brutcher L, Konishi B, Barritt B . Correlation of sensory analysis with physical textural data from a computerized penetrometer in the Washington State University apple breeding program. HortTechnology 2010; 20: 1026-1029.

[21] Patterson HD, Thompson R . Recovery of interblock information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 1971; 58: 545-554.

[22] Gilmour AR, Gogel B, Cullis BR, Thompson R ASReml User Guide Release 3.0. VSN International Ltd: UK, 2009. Available at https://www.vsni.co.uk/downloads/asreml/release3/UserGuide.pdf accessed 18 January 2016.

[23] Shapiro SS, Wilk MB . An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 1965; 52: 591-611.

[24] Kenward MG, Roger JH . Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 1997; 53: 983-997.

[25] Wilks SS . The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses. Ann Math Stat 1938; 9: 60-62.

[26] Hampson CR, Quamme HA, Hall JW, MacDonald RA, King MC, Cliff MA . Sensory evaluation as a selection tool in apple breeding. Euphytica 2000; 111: 79-90.

[27] Evans KM, Barritt BH, Konishi BS, Brutcher LJ, Ross CF . ‘WA 38’ apple. HortScience 2012; 47: 1177-1179.

[28] Watkins CB . Principles and practices of postharvest handling and stress. In: Ferree DC, Warrington I (eds). Apples: Botany, Production and Uses. CABI Publishing: MA, USA, 2003, 585-614.

[29] Piepho H, Mohring J . Computing heritability and selection response from unbalanced plant breeding trials. Genetics 2007; 177: 1881-1888.

[30] Butler D, Redden RJ, Delacy IH, Usher T . Analysis of line × environment interactions for yield in navy beans. 1. Components of variance. Aust J Agric Res 2000; 51: 597-605.

[31] Bonany J, Brugger C, Buehler A, Carbo J, Codarin S, Donati F et al. Preference mapping of apple varieties in Europe. Food Qual Pref 2014; 32: 317-329.

[32] Daillant-Spinnler B, MacFie HJH, Beyts PK, Hedderley D . Relationships between perceived sensory properties and major preference directions of 12 varieties of apples from the southern hemisphere. Food Qual Pref 1996; 7: 113-126.