4.7 Article

Early selection for flowering time in almond breeding programs

期刊

SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE
卷 220, 期 -, 页码 1-3

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2017.03.024

关键词

Prunus dulcis; Germination time; Leafing time; Flowering time; Early selection

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competiveness
  2. Fundacion Seneca of the Region of Murcia [19879/GERM/15]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Late flowering to reduce the risk of late frosts is one of the main objectives of almond breeding programs. Breeders have to wait at least three years, however, to know the flowering time of newly obtained seedlings. Although some trials have been conducted correlating the chilling requirements for seed germination with leafing and flowering times, the results have not shown high correlations between these characteristics. In this work we studied the correlation between germination, leafing and flowering in four families created in 2009 between very early and very late progenitors with a broad phenotypic segregation for flowering time. In winter, the seeds obtained were stratified without shells for germination. Once a week notes of germination date were taken. The plants obtained were taken to the greenhouse in pots, where they were left to grow up until the summer. The plants were then moved to a cold room, where the number of buds sprouted was noted on a weekly basis as the leafing time in controlled conditions. Finally, the plants were taken to the definitive plots, and the leafing and flowering times were noted for three years. The results showed a strong maternal effect for germination time and also indicated that germination time was not correlated with any other trait. Correlations between the first leafing time in the cold chamber and the flowering time in the field four to six years later were intermediate, raising doubts about the use of this correlation as an early selection criterion for flowering time in almond. (c) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据