|Li, Shuobi - NW A&F UNIVERSITY, CHINA|
|King, Garrison - WASHINGTON STATE U|
|Burns, John - WASHINGTON STATE U|
|Ross, Andrew -|
Submitted to: Cereal Chemistry
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: March 17, 2009
Publication Date: May 21, 2009
Repository URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10113/32577
Citation: Morris, C.F., Li, S., King, G.E., Engle, D.A., Burns, J.W. 2009. A Comprehensive Genotype and Environment Assessment of Wheat Grain Ash Content in Oregon and Washington -- Analysis of Variation. Cereal Chemistry 86:307-312. Interpretive Summary: The current study assessed the effect of genotype and environment to variation in ash content within wheat for the purpose of determining if it is possible to manipulate that trait using contemporary adapted germplasm. As explained here, the study determined that wheat grain ash is more greatly influenced by crop year and location than by genotype though enough variation exists that the potential to manipulate ash content through plant breeding is there.
Technical Abstract: A comprehensive analysis of the variation in wheat grain ash content has not been conducted. This study assessed the relative contribution of genotype and environment to variation in ash content, with a particular aim of ascertaining the potential for manipulating the trait using contemporary adapted germ plasm. A total of 2,240 samples were drawn from ten years of multi-location field plots grown in the wheat production areas of Oregon and Washington states. Genotypes included commercial cultivars and advanced breeding lines of soft and hard winter and soft and hard spring wheats with red and white kernel color, several ‘club’ wheats, and one waxy wheat cultivar. In addition to ash, protein content, test weight, and Single Kernel Characterization System kernel hardness, weight and size were measured. In total, 20 separate fully balanced ANOVAs were conducted. Highly significantly whole model R2’s ranged from 0.62 to 0.91. Nineteen of the 20 ANOVAs returned significant genotype effects, but the effects were not large. In contrast, ‘environment’ effects were always highly significant with F-values often 1 to 2 orders of magnitude larger than the genotype F-values. The grand mean for all samples was 1.368% ash. For individual data sets, genotype means across environments varied about 0.1-0.3% ash. The following genotypes were judged noteworthy in that they had more consistently high ash content: OR9900553, ORH010920, Brundage96 and Madsen soft white winter, Weston hard red winter, Cataldo soft white spring, and Lochsa (white), WB926 and Buck Pronto hard spring wheats. More consistently low ash genotypes were: ORSS1757, Rely (club), Tubbs/Tubbs06 and Eltan soft white winter, ID621 hard red winter, WA7952 and Eden (club) soft white spring, and Macon (white) and Hollis hard spring wheats. In conclusion, wheat grain ash is more greatly influenced by crop year and location than by genotype. However, sufficient genotype variation is present to plausibly manipulate this grain trait through traditional plant breeding.