Review on Assessment of Use and Efficiency of Mating Design in Plant Breeding

Abstract

Abstract

Plant breeder works with many different characters, some of which will be controlled by genes whose individual effects can be easily detected. Selection with these characters can give spectacular results others however, form a bulk of the characters plant breeders work with and are governed by genes whose individual effects are so small that they are not amenable to conventional analysis of segregation ratios. The success of any breeding programme largely depends on the selection of suitable parental lines. The starting point of mating designs is a random mating population in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium with material deemed appropriate by a breeder for a particular purpose. Mating designs in breeding has two-fold primary objectives. Firstly, to generate information for the breeder to understand the genetic control of the trait and secondly, to generate a base population to initiate an effective breeding programme. Consequently, in order to estimate genetic variances plant breeders, choose from among several standard mating designs to use. A mating can be as simple as a cross between two parents to a more complex one like diallel mating. Mating configuration alludes to the methodology of creating the progenies. The decision of a mating plan for evaluating hereditary fluctuations ought to be managed by the objective(s) of the research, time, space, cost and other organic impediments. This review of paper describes a number of mating designs and assesses the efficiency of their use. These include biparental progenies (BIP), polycross, North Carolina I (NCI) (Nested design), North Carolina II (NCII), North Carolina III (NCIII) and Diallels (I-IV) and line by tester.

Keywords: Mating design, plant breeding, parents, progenies

Cite this Article

Urinzwenimana C, Muhizi F. Review on Assessment of Use and Efficiency of Mating Design in Plant Breeding. Research & Reviews: Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology. 2017; 6(2): 40–57p.