Abstract
Genetic correlations for more important agronomic traits between S1 and HS families of two composites of maize (Composite B and M) were investigated. For the grain yield genotypic correlation between S1 and HS families in Comp. B was significant, medium strong (0,359*), but too low for predictable purposes. Greater correlation for the grain yield was obtained in Comp. M, it was strong and highly significant (0,663**). Correlations for grain yield were lower than for the other investigated traits in both composites. For the ear height and 1000 kernel weight these correlations were higher in Comp. B, while for the rest of the traits they were greater in Comp. M, indicating greater share of the additive in the total genotypic variance in this composite. As far as the grain yield is concerned, combined S1-HS selection should be applied only in the Comp. M, based on the strong, highly significant correlation between investigated families. In Comp. B this is not the case. For this composite, alternative procedure, for the simultaneous improvement of the population per se and its combining ability, is first to apply S1, and after that HS selection, but with very low intensity (about 30%).
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield correlation between S1 and HS families in Composite B was significant but too low for prediction.
- Material
- Comp. Be0
- Outcome
- grain yield genotypic correlatione0
- Value
- 0,359*e0
- Qualifier
- too low for predictable purposese0
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For the grain yield genotypic correlation between S1 and HS families in Comp. B was significant, medium strong (0,359*), but too low for predictable purposes.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield correlation in Composite M was strong and highly significant.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Greater correlation for the grain yield was obtained in Comp. M, it was strong and highly significant (0,663**).”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield correlations were lower than other trait correlations in both composites.
- Material
- both compositese0
- Outcome
- Correlations for grain yielde0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- other investigated traitse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Correlations for grain yield were lower than for the other investigated traits in both composites.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Ear height correlations were higher in Composite B.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For the ear height and 1000 kernel weight these correlations were higher in Comp. B”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
1000 kernel weight correlations were higher in Composite B.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For the ear height and 1000 kernel weight these correlations were higher in Comp. B”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Correlations for the remaining traits were greater in Composite M.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“while for the rest of the traits they were greater in Comp. M, indicating greater share of the additive in the total genotypic variance in this composite.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors interpret Composite M as having a greater additive share of genotypic variance.
- Outcome
- greater share of the additive in the total genotypic variancee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“indicating greater share of the additive in the total genotypic variance in this composite.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined S1-HS selection is recommended only for Composite M for grain yield.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“combined S1-HS selection should be applied only in the Comp. M”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
For Composite B, the authors recommend S1 selection followed by low-intensity HS selection.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For this composite, alternative procedure, for the simultaneous improvement of the population per se and its combining ability, is first to apply S1, and after that HS selection, but with very low intensity (about 30%).”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”