* Materials and methods
* Results and discussion
* Literature Cited
ABSTRACT: Six spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotype Were crossed in a diallel system to study Combining Ability for grain yield and twelve malting quality traits. The F1 hybrids WAS Behavior Analyzed using Griffing’s Model I, method 2. The analysis for General Combining Ability (CCG), specific Combining Ability (CCE) and the Relationship CCG / CCE Eichmann That expression of eight out of the thirteen traits associated with genes Which Were Were in Their additive effects: grain weight, malt extract, viscosity , friability, malt protein, soluble protein, Kolbach index and free amino nitrogen (FAN). On the Other hand, the expression of grain plumpness, extract difference and the Hartong index Eichmann Both additive and non-additive genetic control, the Former Being of Greater magnitude. Only grain yield and diastatic power Had Mainly non-additive control, Even Though Were Also present additive effects.
Key words: Combining Ability, malting quality.
SUMMARY: crossed six genotypes of barley Spring development cycle in a diallel arrangement, in order to study combining ability for grain yield and twelve malting quality traits. The behavior of F1 hybrids was analyzed using Model I, Method 2 of Griffing. The general combining ability analysis (CCG), specific combining ability (CCE) and the relationship CCG / CCE showed that eight of the thirteen traits showed gene expression associated with effects additive, which were: grain weight, extract Malta, viscosity, friability, malt protein, soluble protein, Kolbach index and free amino nitrogen (FAN: free amino nitrogen). On the other hand, the expression of grain plumpness, extract difference, and Hartong index were important both additive and non-additive, the former being of greater magnitude. Only grain yield and diastatic power of gene action had mainly non-additive (dominance and overdominance), although additive effects were also present.
Keywords: combinatorial capacity, malting quality.
For a breeding program to get new varieties through hybridization, is of great importance in the choice of the parents that result in superior hybrid combinations. One way to do this selection is through the evaluation of combining ability of genotypes to use, giving information on which ones are most favorable for improving the character or interest.
Hartong FAN and index. The general combining ability (CCG) reports the average behavior of a parent in all crosses in which it participates, while the specific combining ability (CCE) reported on the behavior of a particular hybrid. Moreover, as the GCC is considered to be associated with additive type gene action and the CEC to the non-additive (dominance and overdominance), through the relationship CCE / CCG can get an approximation on how to inherits the trait under study, so it is important to choose the method of improvement to continue (Griffing, 1956; Falconer, 1972; Vencovsky and Barriga, 1992).
Malting quality in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) is a complex character, since it depends both on the physical properties of the ripe grain as enzymes synthesized during germination (Thomas et al., 1996), and has been defined as the product of a set of characters, the most studied for its importance, size and weight of grain, malt extract, extract difference, wort viscosity, friability of the malt, nitrogen content in the grain malting and wort ( also expressed as malt protein and soluble protein, respectively), ratio N must / N malta (or index Kolbach), free amino nitrogen in wort (FAN: free amino nitrogen), Hartong index and diastatic power (Molina-Cano et al ., 1986; Narziss, 1990; Arias, 1991, Mather et al., 1997).
The inheritance of malting quality traits is quantitative and influenced in various ways by genotype, environment and genotype x environment interaction, making it complex and poorly understood (Sparrow, 1971, Peterson and Foster, 1973; Hockett and Nill, 1985, Mather et al., 1997; Igartua et al., 2000; Zale et al., 2000). In this regard, Hockett et al. (1993) noted that while numerous studies have investigated the combining ability for grain yield in barley, there is much less information available on the combining ability of the features of interest to the malting and brewing industry, which is corroborated by reviewing the available literature .
The GCC associated with additive gene effects has proven to be the most important characters of grain weight (Hockett and Nill, 1985), malt extract (Baier, 1978; Hockett et al., 1993) and the ratio N must / N malta (Hiddema, 1977), while the ECC associated with non-additive gene effects has been identified as predominant for grain yield (Hockett and Nill, 1985).
Both the GCC and SCC have been shown to be important to determine the inheritance of seed size (St. Pierre and Jensen, 1972; Briggs, 1974; Hockett et al., 1993), extract difference (Hiddema, 1977), N malta and N must (Hiddema 1977, Hockett et al., 1993) and diastatic power (Hayter and Riggs, 1978), indicating that both additive gene effects are additive and not relevant to the expression of these characters. In the literature review found no information about the characters viscosity, friability,
The objectives of this research were to evaluate the importance of the effects of combining ability and type of gene action involved in the inheritance of grain yield and major malting quality traits in F1 generation of a diallel cross between six genotypes barley.ign = “center”>
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The germplasm analyzed consisted of six genotypes of barley spring growth habit, selected according to their quality malting, and the 15 possible F1 hybrids between them, from a diallel cross not included in the reciprocal. The six parental genotypes were: variety Leo INIA / CCU and S87.4 line quality, variety Acuario INIA / CCU and the line-Belts Julia 1285 / / St. average quality, and lines 226.82 and 2860 Andes 309 low quality. This material was planted for evaluation in September 1994 in Carillanca Research Center, under the Institute of Agricultural Research (INIA), located 20 km northeast of the city of Temuco (38 ^0 41 ‘lat. South, 72 ^0 4 ‘long. West, 200 m). The floor of Carillanca corresponds to a series Andisol Vilc’un classified as Medial, mesic, Entic Dystrandept (Mella and K”uhne, 1985).
The experimental design was randomized complete block with three replications and plots of two rows 2 m long and 0.3 m between rows. 60 seeds were planted per plot (30 per row) and the emerging population was adjusted to 50 seedlings per plot, replanting where necessary to maintain uniform population. Fertilization was done according to soil test recommendation, with 100 kg N ha-1, 180 kg ha-1 P2O5 and 50 kg K2O ha-1 in the form of sodium nitrate, triple superphosphate and muriate of potassium, respectively. Tending corresponded to the best practices for the species.
The evaluated traits from harvested grain were: grain yield, calculated on the total weight of grain from each plot, expressed in t ha-1, grain size and percentage of grains retained on sieves of 2.8 and 2 , 5 mm, weight of 1,000 grains, such as average weight in grams of two subsamples of 100 grains each multiplied by a factor of 10, which were previously dried in a forced air oven at 65 ^0 C for 48 h. Malting quality traits were: malt extract, and fine grind extract (g kg-1), the difference of extract, and extract fine grind coarsely least extract (g kg-1), wort viscosity (cP) friability, measured as the percentage breakdown of the friabilimetro malta, malta total protein, and N content in Malta increased by a factor of 6.25 (g kg-1), soluble protein, and N content wort multiplied by the factor 6.25 (g kg-1); index Kolbach as percentage ratio between soluble protein and total protein of Malta; content of free amino N must or FAN (mg 100 g-1) as the concentration of a-amino dissolved by Congress approach, Hartong index at 45 ^0 C (VZ45 ^0) as an indicator of the activity of proteolytic enzymes, and diastatic power in degrees Litner (L) as an index of activity the b-amylase. The characters in the malta micromalteo were evaluated in the laboratory of the Plant of the Company Calera (CCU), according to standards established by the laboratory of the USDA Barley and Malta, University of Wisconsin (Devilat, 1987 1988).
The values obtained from three repetitions of each of the 21 treatments (6 parents and 15 hybrids) for each character studied, were subjected to analysis of variance according to the design of randomized complete block, and the differences between the average were established by least significant difference (LSD). The effects of general combining ability (GCC) and specific (CCE) were analyzed using Method 2, Model I of Griffing (1956) and descriptions of Vencovsky and Barriga (1992). In addition, we obtained the relationship CCG / CCE for the characters studied, as an estimate of the ratio of additive gene effects and no additives.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The comparison of mean values of parents and F1 hybrids for each of the traits studied are presented in Tables 1 and 2, showing intraspecific variability enough for them.
Table 1. Mean values of parents and F1 hybrids for grain yield and quality traits of the grain physics.
Table 1. Mean values of the Parents and F1 hybrids, for grain yield and physical grain quality traits.
DMS (0.05): Minimum significant difference at 5%.
Table 2. Mean values of parents and F1 hybrids for malting quality traits.
Table 2. Mean values of Parents and F1 hybrids, for malting quality traits.
DMS (0.05): least significant difference at 5%.
FAN: free amino nitrogen.
The results of the analysis for general combining ability (CCG), specific combining ability (CCE) and the relationship CCG / CCE, as an estimate of the relationship between the effects of additive and nonadditive gene are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Mean squares for general combining ability (GCC) and specific (CCE) and the relationship CCG / CCE, for grain yield, physical quality traits and grain quality traits of Malta.
Table 3. Mean squares for General Combining Ability (GCC) and specific Combining Ability (CCE) and the GCC / SCC ratio for grain yield, grain quality physical traits and malt quality traits.
* And ** significant at 0.05 and 0.01 level of probability, respectively.
FAN: free amino nitrogen.
All characters showed, in general, highly significant differences for the GCC, while for the CCE exhibited significant differences only characters grain yield, seed size, extract difference, FAN, Hartong index and diastatic power. The variances of the GCC were higher than those of CCE for all quality parameters studied, except for grain yield and diastatic power, where the reverse occurred, these being the only two cases in which the relationship CCG / CCE was lower than one. This suggests that much of the observed genetic variation is additive in nature, with the exception of the last characters mentioned in predominantly non-additive gene effects (dominance and overdominance), although additive gene action was also present.
The results are consistent with those reported in the literature, except for characters malt protein and soluble protein (N malta and grape, respectively), which indicates the significance of both the GCC and the SCC (Hiddema 1977, Hockett et al., 1993), in contrast to the significance of the GCC only found here. The above discrepancy could be due to the influence of environment on the CCE, similar to those reported by Hockett et al. (1993) for the case of malt extract.
Regarding the effects of each parent GCC (Tables 4 and 5), 226.82 Andes genotype was presented the highest positive effect on grain yield and the greatest negative effect malt protein, while Aquarius INIA / CCU exhibited the greatest positive effects of grain size and weight of thousand grains. The above results indicate that these two genotypes have good ability to generate superior hybrids in the characters mentioned, but not for most of the malting quality parameters.
Table 4. Estimates of general combining ability effects (GCC) of the parents for grain yield and quality traits of the grain physics.
Table 4. Estimates of the effects of General Combining Ability (GCC) of the Parents, for grain yield and physical grain quality traits.
Table 5. Estimates of general combining ability effects (GCC) of the parents, for characters of malt quality.
Table 5. Estimates of the effects of General Combining Ability (GCC) of the Parents, for malting quality traits.
FAN: free amino nitrogen.
The variety Leo INIA / CCU showed the greatest positive impact malt protein and the greatest negative impact on grain yield, features that are unfavorable, but in turn presented the highest positive impact on soluble protein, Kolbach index, FAN, index Hartong and diastatic power. For its part, S87.4 line showed the highest positive effect on the extract and friability, and larger negative effects extract difference and viscosity, which is favorable in generating quality hybrids in these characters, but , ranked second in negative effects for grain yield. You can see that Leo INIA / CCU and S84.4 would be complementary in their ability to generate progeny with malting quality, but unfavorable for grain yield, grain size and weight, which exceeded specific hybrid combinations, as discussed later .
Julia lines Belts 1285 / / 309 St and 2860 had adverse GCC for most of the traits studied, except in some specific hybrid combinations.
F1 hybrids showed mostly positive effects of CCE characters grain yield, malt extract, friability and Kolbach index, and extract negative difference, viscosity and malt protein. In other parameters there was no clear trend, appreciating hybrid combinations with effects of positive and negative CCE, almost in equal proportion.
Leo was stressed hybrid INIA / CCU x Julia-Belts 1285 / / St. (Table 6), which presented the highest CCE effects and positive for friability, soluble protein, and index Kolbach Hartong index, and low and negative for the difference of malt extract and viscosity, which makes the progeny which brought more desirable characteristics.
Table 6. Hybrids with specific combining ability effects of higher and lower for grain yield and physical quality traits and grain quality traits of Malta.
Table 6. Hybrids with the Highest and Lowest Ability Combining specific effects for grain yield, grain quality physical traits and malt quality traits.
FAN: free amino nitrogen.
It should be noted that parents with low and negative GCC resulted in hybrid combinations with the highest positive effects of CCE for five of the thirteen characters analyzed, highlighting the hybrid Leo INIA / CCU x S87.4 in grain yield, and Andes 226.82 x 2860 309 malt extract. Similarly hybrids behaved Aquarium INIA / CCU x Julia-Belts 1285 / / St for protein malta, Acuario INIA / CCU 2860 x 309 for FAN, and Julia-Belts S87.4 x 1285 / / St for diastatic power .
Within these previous cases, it should highlight situations in which both parents representing the lowest phenotypic expression for the respective character, hybrid combinations were clearly exceeded in this expression to the best of their parents and most other hybrids , as was the case of Leo INIA / CCU x S87.4 in grain yield, Andes 226.82 309 x 2860 extract, and Aquarius INIA / CCU FAN 309 x 2860.
The observations made in the two preceding paragraphs may be due to the manifestation of hybrid vigor, mainly due to genetic dissimilarity between genotypes (Vencovsky and Barriga, 1992).
1. The results demonstrate the need for testing of combinatorial genotypes to be used as parents in a crossing program, which avoids discarding useful germplasm base your selection solely on their phenotypic behavior, and help reduce number of genotypes to cross.
2. It is possible to obtain some degree of improvement of malting quality, using parental genotypes Leo, INIA / CCU S87.4 and Julia-Belts 1285 / / St, with those who would be advisable to double or triple crosses, in order to concentrate alleles favorable in one offspring.
3. Moreover, as the additive genetic variance increases as you go through generations of selfing, one would expect that most analyzed traits respond to selection in early generations by using the mass method, except grain yield and power diastatic control showed in prevalence of non-additive gene effects (dominance and overdominance), which would be appropriate to the pedigree method.
This research was funded by the INIA-CCU Convention: “Breeding of varieties of malting quality barley.”
Arias, G. 1991. Industrial-quality malting barley. 54 p. Technical Series No. 18. National Agricultural Research Institute, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Baier, W.H. 1978. Heterosis, Combining and mixing in grain and malt abilitity Characteristics of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Z. Pflanzenzuecht. 80:241-249.
Briggs, K.G. 1974. Ability Combinig for kernel plumpness in a diallel cross of five Canadian barley cultivars. Can J. Plant Sci 54:29-34.
Devilat, J. 1987. Analysis of malting quality in barley. p. 40-41. In E. Beratto (ed.) Research in malting barley breeding. Ninth Annual Report. Agricultural Research Institute, Regional Research Center Carillanca, Temuco, Chile.
________. 1988. Analysis of malting quality barley advanced lines. p. 71-81. In E. Beratto (ed.) Research in malting barley breeding. Tenth Annual Report. Agricultural Research Institute, Regional Research Center Carillanca, Temuco, Chile.
Falconer, D. S. 1972. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 430 p. C.E.C.S.A, Mexico D.F., Mexico.
Griffing, B. 1956. Concept of general and specific Combining Ability in relation to diallel crossing systems. Aust. J. Biol Sci 9:463-493.
Hayter, A.M., and T.J. Riggs. 1978. The inheritance of diastatic power, and alpha-amylase contents in spring barley. Theor. Appl. Genet. 52:251-256.
Hiddema, J. 1977. Programmes Hybridization with malting barley. p. 21-25. In European Brewery Convention Proc. 16th Congress, Amsterdam, The Netherland. May 23-27. IRL Press Ltd., Oxford, England.
Hockett, E.A., and R.A. Nill. 1985. Genetics. p. 187-230. In Rasmusson, D.C. (Ed.). Barley. Agron. Monogr. 26. ASA. CSSA, SSSA, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
A.F. ________; Cook, M.A. Khan, J.M. Martin, and B.L. Jones. 1993. Hybrid performance for yield and Combining abilitity and malt quality in a diallel cross of barley. Crop Sci 33: 1239-1244.
Igartua, E., M. Edney, B.G. Rossnagel, D. Spanair W.G. Legge, G.J. Scoles, e.g. Eckstein, G.A. Penner, N.A. Tinker, K.G. Briggs, S.D. Falk, and S.D. Mather. 2000. Marker-based selection of QTL Affecting Grain and malt quality in two row barley. Crop Sci 40:1426-1433.
Johnson, L.P.V., and R. Aksel. 1964. The Inheritance of Agronomic and malting quality characters in a diallel cross of barley. Can. J. Genet. Cytolean. 6:178-200.
Mather, S.D., N.A. Tinker, S.D. Laberge, M. Edney, B.L. Jones, B.G. Rossnagel, W.G. Legge, K.G. Briggs, R.B. Irvine, S.D. Falk and K.J. Kasha. 1997. Regions of the genome That Affect grain and malt quality in a North American two row barley cross. Crop Sci 37:544-554.
Mella, A., and A. K”uhne. 1985. Systematic description of the families, associations and soil series derived from pyroclastic materials in the central-southern Chile. p. 549-716. In J. Tosso (ed.) volcanic soils of Chile. Agricultural Research Institute, Santiago, Chile.
Molina-Cano, J.L., B. Madsen, M.J. Atherton, B.W. Drost, J. Larsen, R. Schildbach, J.P. Simiand, K. Voglar. 1986. An index for overall assessment of the malting and brewing quality of barley. 12 p. Beer and Malta No. 92. Spanish Association of Beer and Malta, Madrid, Spain.
Narziss, L. 1990. Malt Specifications, properties and Limitations of barley malting technology. Brauwelt International 3:180-185.
Peterson, G.A. and A.E. Foster. 1973. Malting barley in the United States. Adv. Agron. 25:328-378.
Rasmusson, D.C., B.R. Upadhyaya, and R.L. Glass. 1966. Malting quality of barley in F1 hybrids. Crop Sci 6:339-341.
Sparrow, D.H.B. 1971. Genetics of quality-malting. p. 559-574. In R.A. Nilla (ed.) Barley Genet. II. Proc. 2nd Int Barley Genet. Symp., Pullman, Washington. 6-11 July 1969. Washington State University Press, Pullman, Washington, USA.
St. Pierre, C.A., and N.F. Jensen. 1972. Evaluating the Potential selection of crosses of barley. Can. J. Plant Sci 52:1029-1035.
Thomas, W.T.B., W. Powell, J.S. Swanston, R.P. Ellis, K.J. Chalmers, U.M. Barua, P.V. Lea, B.P. Foster, R. Waugh, and D.B. Smith. 1996. Quantitative trait loci and malting quality characters in a spring barley cross. Crop Sci 36:265-273.
Vencovsky, R., and P. Barriga. 1992. Biometric genetic Fitomelhoramento not. 496 p. Sociedade Brasileira de Genetica, Ribeir~ao Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Zale, J.M., J.A. Clancy, S.E. Ulrich, B.L. Jones, P.M. Hayes, and The North American Barley Genome Mapping Project. 2000. Summary of barley malting quality QTLs mapped in Various Populations. Barley Genet. Newsl. 30:44-54.
Rudy Rivas Patricio Barriga B.3 P.2
1 Part of the thesis of the first author for the degree of Master of Science, Universidad Austral de Chile, majoring in plant breeding.
2 Institute of Agricultural Research, Regional Research Center Carillanca, Casilla 58-D, Temuco, Chile.
3 Q.E.P.D. Universidad Austral de Chile. Institute of Plant Health and Production, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Casilla 567 Valdivia, Chile.