Management of the French VCUS registration rules using genetic … S... · 2014. 7. 16. ·...

Saisissez votre texte


Management of the French VCUS registration rules using genetic progress assessment by

different statiscal methods (WOSR, Sugar Beet and Turf)

P.Bagot, S.Lassalvy, V.Gensollen, B.Richard, A.Lucciani



10 th Working Seminar on Statiscal Methods in Variety Testing- 2014 – P.Bagot – GEVES 2

Organization of the French national listing, Role of the CTPS

Different methods to assess the genetic progress

Examples of genetic progress assessment

Example of VCUS registration rules management by genetic

progress assessment

Steps of the presentation




CTPS : Technical and

Permanent Committee

for Selection




From European rules, each state member conducts technical studies triggering varieties registration on the national list.

• DUS studies (Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability) o Harmonized at an European and International level ( by the way of

CPVO and UPOV)

o Lead to an identity card of every new variety

• VCUS studies (Value for Cultivation Use and Sustainability) applied on agricultural crops

In France, each variety registration on the national list is validated and published by the Ministry of Agriculture.

The Ministry decides on the basis of the proposition of the consultative committee CTPS (Technical and Permanent Committee for Selection) and on the basis of trial results provided by GEVES.

Varieties registration (NL)





Studies CTPS (experts) Asks GEVES to conduct the trials and

then looks at the results

Ministry of Agriculture decides

National list

BREEDER Application of a variety

GEVES performs DUS and

VCUS studies

Results

Registration in the NL = homologation (Creation of the official French catalog of species and varieties in 1932)




CTPS : Technical and Permanent Committee for Selection

800 experts all species Parity Public / Private The entire sector is represented: creator to the user of the variety

Consultative committee for the Ministry to define, implement and develop its policy of "varieties, seeds and plants."

Genetic progress assessment

Ministry of Agriculture

CTPS Scientific Committee

12 members

14 specialist sections

40 to 60 members per section

DUS Commission VCUS Commission

Commission of validation of the VCU trials

Proposes the registration or refusal of candidate varieties.

Proposes changes in the technical rules for registration.

Provision of advice and technical support.

Orientation, Arbitration.

Scientific advice, Proposals for research programms.

Provides results

Breeder

Combines the results of DUS and VCU studies

Application of new varieties.

Sets up of experiments

Registration.

Technical rules for registration.

Special commissions : f.e. Disease Commission

IND

EX

EXPERIMENTS

GEVES

Listing Commission

CTPS Plenary Committee




The CTPS follows and gives direction to the genetic progress

by the way of permanent evolution of registration rules.

These evolutions aim to meet new technical, economic,

environmental and societal needs and depend on the

possibility for breeder to answer these changes.

New goals:

To obtain varieties adapted to an agriculture which needs

less inputs

To allow access to the NL for varieties that meet the criteria

of organic farming and for the conservation varieties

To deepen knowledge on varieties (for example, to point out

specific behaviors according to various agricultural contexts)





Example : Case of WOSR

VCUS registration rules:

Kernel Yield+Oil content+Proteins content+glucosinolates content+susceptibility to Phoma

y = -0,134x + 4,4441 R² = 0,7829

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Ave

rage

sco

re f

or

susc

ep

tib

ility

ph

om

a

Year of application

Evolution of Phoma susceptibility for varieties listed in the NL (1 : resistant; 9 susceptible)

Variétés inscrites

Témoins

Introduction of a bonus for resistance to Phoma

Introduction of resistance standards

Lowering the refusal threshold : SS + LSD 20% (by 10%)




Methods of genetic

progress assessment




Agronomic: Field Trials with old varieties and new ones

Estimation of the results of absent varieties on the basis

of the results of common varieties which are present over

years.

Estimation of an average varietal result over years by

variance analysis (model with year, location and GEI

controlled effects)

Measurement methods used in genetic progress in France:




Advantage: All varieties are compared directly and we can compare, for

example, the results of the varieties listed in 1994 compared to those listed in

2013.

Disadvantages:

• The varieties listed in 1994, for example, were adapted to:

– The climate of testing years

– The crop management of these years (High Input)

– The pathogens present these years

• High cost and difficulties to get reference seeds

When varietal progress is calculated a significant part of this assessment is due to

other effect than genetic changes:

Ex : genetic progress on the average root yield of sugar beet is due, in a large

part, to climate changes. In southern France, the stagnation of progress in wheat

yield is due to the increased number of heat stress days.

Agronomic Method: Field Trials with old and current varieties




Estimation of the results of absent varieties on the basis of the results of

common varieties which are present over years: ODEON

Two-way ANOVA on check varieties data :

Agronomic trait = Variety + Year + Residual

Estimation of missing values in check data :

Est(trait)=Est(Variety) + Est(Year)

A tool used in GEVES : GEVES Software ODEON for comparing turf varieties not sown together




Status A1 A2 A3 A4

V1

Check varieties

Y11 Y12 Y13 .

V2 . . . Y24

V3 . Y32 Y33 Y34

V4 . . Y43 Y44

N1

New varieties

. . Z13 .

N2 . . . Z24

N3 . Z32 . .

Input data : varieties years table






Scores calculation

Status A1 A2 A3 A4 Calculated scores

V1

Check varieties

Est(Y)11 Est(Y)12 Est(Y)13 Est(Y)14 Est(Y)1.

V2 Est(Y)21 Est(Y)22 Est(Y)23 Est(Y)24 Est(Y)2.



Over years means Est(Y).1 Est(Y).2 Est(Y).3 Est(Y).4 Est(Y)..

N1

New varieties

Z13 Z13/Est(Y).3xEst(Y)..

N2 Z24 Z24/Est(Y).4xEst(Y)..

N3 Z32 Z32/Est(Y).2xEst(Y)..

Check varieties

New varieties






Cultivar ID Denomination Status Type Trait 1987 1988 … 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Over years

means

Final

scores

104 798 Agio check Observation General Merit 4.1 4.7 … 4.4 4.1

104 808 Ensylva check Observation General Merit … 5.8 5.6 5.9 6.0 5.9

159 604 Mystic check Observation General Merit … 6.1 5.8 5.8 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.8 6.2

104 803 Pernille check Observation General Merit … 5.7 5.5 5.2 5.1 5.7 5.7

156 487 Salsa check Observation General Merit … 6.4 6.2 6.3 6.1 5.9 6.3 6.1 5.8 5.8 5.8 6.1 6.5

check Observed means General Merit 4.1 4.7 … 6.0 5.8 6.1 5.9 5.8 6.2 6.0 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.8

104 798 Agio check Calculation General Merit 4.1 4.7 … 4.0 3.8 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.4 4.1 4.1

104 808 Ensylva check Calculation General Merit 5.9 6.5 … 5.8 5.6 5.8 5.5 5.4 5.7 5.5 5.2 5.3 5.1 5.9 5.9

159 604 Mystic check Calculation General Merit 6.2 6.8 … 6.1 5.9 6.1 5.8 5.7 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.5 6.2 6.2

104 803 Pernille check Calculation General Merit 5.8 6.4 … 5.7 5.5 5.7 5.3 5.3 5.6 5.4 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.7 5.7

156 487 Salsa check Calculation General Merit 6.5 7.1 … 6.4 6.2 6.4 6.1 6.0 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.9 5.7 6.5 6.5

check Calculated means General Merit 5.7 6.3 … 5.6 5.4 5.6 5.3 5.2 5.5 5.3 5.1 5.1 4.9 5.7

167 921 Adinda new variety Observation General Merit … 6.0

1 007 561 ADV Frr 344 new variety Observation General Merit … 5.9 6.1

1 005 446 ADV FRR 361 new variety Observation General Merit … 5.9 6.0

1 005 448 Almerita new variety Observation General Merit … 6.1 6.2

1 022 812 Aponga new variety Observation General Merit … 5.9 6.6

1 000 933 BAR FRR 99432 new variety Observation General Merit … 5.6

Calculation details from ODEON

Species: Strong creeping red fescue, Characteristic: General Merit






Sequential correction of the year effect with respect to a reference

year Ai

Method applied on a set of yearly mean yields for several genotypes.

Each couple of years must have genotypes in common to allow year effect correction.

mean yield of variety j on year Ai.

nAiAi+1 number of varieties common to years Ai and Ai +1.

corrected mean yield of variety j on year Ai+1.

Ai reference year.

iA

jy

1iA

jyc


common varieties which are present over years: FX. Oury Method




Corrected mean for year Ai+1

1

11

ii

ii

AA

A

j

A

j dyyc

1

1

1

1

1

ii

iAiA

ii

ii

AA

n

j

A

j

A

j

AAn

yy

d

Corrected mean for year Ai+2

21

22

ii

ii

AA

A

j

A

j dcyyc

nAi+1Ai+2 number of varieties common to years Ai+1 and Ai +2.

21

21

21

21

1

ii

iAiA

ii

ii

AA

n

j

A

j

A

j

AAn

yyc

dc

Oury, F. X., Godin, C., Mailliard, A., Chassin, A., Gardet, O., Giraud, A., ... & Charmet, G. (2012). A study of genetic progress due to selection reveals a negative effect of climate change on bread wheat yield in France. European Journal of Agronomy, 40, 28-38.






Estimation of the results of absent varieties on the basis of the results of common

varieties which are present over years: FX. Oury Method

Winter Wheat : Genetic progress for the kernel yield

Untreated factor Treated factor




Calculation of the genetic progress

For a single set of corrected yields, the genetic progress is estimated as the

slope coefficient of the regression of the corrected yields on the years of

trial.

Choosing for reference year every possible year of trial leads to build as

many series of corrected yields as possible reference years.

– And leads to compute a series of slopes, each slope related to a

corrected series.

– Finally the genetic progress measurement is computed as the mean of

all slopes.

The method has been validated by simulations.






Y = variety + environment + variety*environment + Error

Fixed effect factor

Random effects factor

Estimation of random effects to calculate the variety adjusted mean that no longer depends only on the fixed effect of varieties. adjusted mean : status*variety

Y = status (Candidate or Standard) + year of application*status + year of application*status**variety + year of harvest + location + year of harvest*location + variety*location + E

Use of a mixed-design analysis of variance model (SPANOVA)




Examples of genetic

progress assessment




100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113

Index Y+OP

Index Y

Varieties registered since 2009 (63)

HR sans RLM7

HR avec RLM7

AV

HRDN

Lignées

Var>103 with OP

Var > 103 with Y, <103 with OP and > 103 with Phoma

Var > 103 with Y

Var >103 with Phoma and OP

79%

1 %

8 %

103

103

12%

Example : WOSR, Management of the VCUS registration rules in 2013

Index : Yield(%S) +Oil(≠S)+Protein((≠S)/2)+Phoma(bonus between 0 to 1.5)




Mean type var

Year CV HSD H OL

1988 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 4.60

1989 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 3.18

1990 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 3.99

1991 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 4.95

1992 5.04 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 4.90

1993 4.12 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 4.26

1994 3.68 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 2.61

1995 3.80 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 3.23

1996 2.75 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 3.47

1997 3.62 4.27 #DIV/0! 3.58

1998 3.73 #DIV/0! 3.94 2.84

1999 3.20 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 2.66

2000 #DIV/0! 4.96 #DIV/0! 2.89

2002 #DIV/0! 3.34 #DIV/0! 2.71

2003 2.92 3.23 0.66 2.48

2004 #DIV/0! 3.36 0.52 2.31

2005 2.79 3.48 2.28 1.92

2006 2.07 3.90 3.33 1.99

2007 1.05 3.46 2.66 2.36

2008 #DIV/0! 2.85 2.58 2.48

2009 2.81 2.43 1.39 2.63

2010 2.08 2.42 2.24 1.65

2011 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1.95 3.05

Total général 3.16 3.45 2.45 2.75

-57% -43% -51% -43% -53%

/year -3% -3% -4% -2% -2% 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Phoma susceptibility

Témoins

Decrease 0.15 points / year (less 3 points of susceptibilty over the period) or 2% year

Example : WOSR, Genetic progress assessment with SPANOVA in 2013




2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

HR 42,93 44,43 43,60 43,93 44,17 44,63 47,39 46,97 48,41

LIG 42,81 43,52 43,28 44,65 43,99 45,72 46,75 45,55

Témoin HR 41,77 41,31 40,88 41,81 42,17 43,04 44,72 45,98 46,15

Témoins LIG 42,25 41,90 41,90 41,90 42,26 43,48 44,50 45,17 45,53

NB HR 1 2 4 14 12 21 9 7 4

NB LIG 4 9 11 14 21 12 3 1 0

38,00

40,00

42,00

44,00

46,00

48,00

50,00

Yield of registered varieties and standards ( Hybrids and open lines since2003 (149))

HR

LIG

Témoin HR

Témoins LIG

NB HR

NB LIG

74

75





Year of application

Number of

Var Yield 11%

2003 5 42.83

2004 11 43.68

2005 15 43.36

2006 28 44.29

2007 33 44.06

2008 33 45.02

2009 12 47.23

2010 8 46.79

2011 4 48.41

Total 149 44.70

typevar

Year of application HR LIG Témoins HR Témoins LIG

2003 42.93 42.81 41.77 42.25

2004 44.43 43.52 41.31 41.90

2005 43.60 43.28 40.88 41.90

2006 43.93 44.65 41.81 41.90

2007 44.17 43.99 42.17 42.26

2008 44.63 45.72 43.04 43.48

2009 47.39 46.75 44.72 44.50

2010 46.97 45.55 45.98 45.17

2011 48.41 46.15 45.53

Total 45.11 44.32 43.09 43.21

min 42.93 42.81 40.88 41.90

max 48.41 46.75 46.15 45.53

diff in dt 5.48 3.95 5.27 3.63

Progress/year in dt/ha 0.61 0.49 0.75 0.45

diff en % 13% 9% 13% 9%

Progress/year in % 1.4% 1.2% 1.8% 1.1%

Progress +0.55 dt/ha/year or 1.3% / year +4.7q/ha in 9 years

- Reminder: Significant Progress +0.54 dt / ha / year between 1988 and 2000 or +1.4% / year

-NB: mean of 36dt/ha in 1989





2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

HR 43,6 43,1 43,6 43,6 43,9 43,7 44,2 44,4 44,1

LIG 43 44 43,9 44,8 44,4 44,5 44,4 44,2 44,1

Nb HR 1 2 4 15 11 21 9 7 4

Nb LIG 9 4 9 12 13 21 12 3 1

Tem HR 43,5 43,6 43,5 43,4 43,3 43,4 43,5 43,5 43,6

Tem LIG 43,9 44,1 44 43,9 43,8 44 44,1 44,3 44,5

41

42

43

44

45

46

47 Oil content of registered varieties and standards ( Hybrids and open lines since20032(158)





Differences between year of application : Hybrids

Mean of

Estimate _depot

depot 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total général

2003 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.2

2004 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.6 1.1 1.3 1.1 0.8

2005 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4

2006 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.5

2007 -0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2

2008 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.6

2009 0.2 -0.1 0.1

2010 -0.3 -0.3

Total général -0.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.4

Differences between year of application :Openlines

Mean of

estimate _depot


2002 1.0 0.9 1.8 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.3

2003 -0.1 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.3

2004 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5

2005 -0.4 -0.3 -0.4 -0.6 -0.7 -0.5

2006 0.2 0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1

2007 -0.1 -0.3 -0.5 -0.3

2008 -0.2 -0.4 -0.3

2009 -0.1 -0.1

Total général 1.0 0.4 1.1 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.1 -0.1 0.3

Slight overall progress and continuity in progress since 2003. Increase between 2004 and 2010 for Hybrids over 1pt but decline in 2011. Steep increase for Open lines until 2005 and then decline.





2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

HR 35,7 35 34,6 34,4 34,2 34,4 34,2 34,4 34,1

LIG 35,2 35,1 35,1 34,1 34,4 34 34,3 35,1

Nb HR 1 2 4 15 11 21 9 7 4

Nb LIG 4 9 12 13 21 12 3 1 0

Tem HR 35,6 35,5 35,3 35,2 35 34,5 34,4 34,6 34,8

Tem LIG 35,4 35,3 35,2 35 34,6 34,4 34,5 34,5 34,4

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

Proteins content of registered varieties and standards ( Hybrids and open lines since2003 (149)

HR

LIG

Nb HR

Nb LIG

Tem HR

Tem LIG





Significant decrease between 2003 and 2006, since stagnation in Hybrids and slight recovery in Open lines but serrated

Differences between year of application : Hybrids

Mean of Estimate _depot


2003 -0.8 -1.1 -1.4 -1.5 -1.4 -1.6 -1.3 -1.6 -1.3

2004 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -0.6 -0.8 -0.5 -0.8 -0.7

2005 -0.2 -0.4 -0.2 -0.4 -0.1 -0.4 -0.3

2006 -0.2 0.0 -0.2 0.1 -0.2 -0.1

2007 0.2 0.0 0.2 -0.1 0.1

2008 -0.2 0.1 -0.2 -0.1

2009 0.3 0.0 0.1

2010 -0.3 -0.3

Total général -0.8 -0.8 -0.7 -0.7 -0.4 -0.5 -0.2 -0.5 -0.5

Differences between year of application : Openlines

Mean of Estimate _depot


2002 -0.3 -0.4 -0.3 -1.4 -1.1 -1.5 -1.1 -0.3 -0.8

2003 0.0 0.0 -1.0 -0.8 -1.2 -0.8 0.0 -0.6

2004 0.0 -1.0 -0.7 -1.1 -0.8 0.0 -0.6

2005 -1.0 -0.7 -1.1 -0.8 0.0 -0.7

2006 0.3 -0.1 0.2 1.0 0.4

2007 -0.4 -0.1 0.8 0.1

2008 0.3 1.2 0.8

2009 0.8 0.8

Total général -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 -1.1 -0.6 -0.9 -0.4 0.4 -0.4






From this study, CTPS led a thinking on its rules Genetic progress observed for the yield criteria keep the 103 threshold with the same attention to the standards choice

Genetic progress observed for phoma resistance good system with Bonus and elimination, status quo with a more stringent level of elimination

For Oil and Proteins, no genetic progress is observed CTPS decided to keep the current bonus/malus to maintain pressure on the criterias without being too pushy (as farmers are paid on yield and not on oil or proteins)




Correlation for admitted

varieties:

R = 0.84 .

Regression model:

y = 0.05x – 101.06

R2 = 0.7

Slope in percentage of

varieties set mean: 0.9713 %

Correlation for all varieties:

R = 0.8 .

Regression model:

y = 0.05x – 93.65

R2 = 0.63



Example : Turf, Genetic progress assessment with Odeon




Correlation for admitted

varieties:

R = 0.86 .

Regression model:

y = 0.05x - 86.44

R2 = 0.74



Correlation for all varieties:

R = 0.79 .

Regression model:

y = 0.04x - 75.07

R2 = 0.62



Example : Turf, Genetic progress assessment with Odeon

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=rugby melee&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=0tOTJDmP6YWQ_M&tbnid=QYlekWUbl-_s7M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.epitez.fr/?post/2014/05/14/Rugby&ei=OQSvU-PgLsO70wXqwYCgDg&bvm=bv.69837884,d.ZWU&psig=AFQjCNH6Rtq0E5U9KiPo6HSJSu_Cevm-RA&ust=1404065115674667




Example of VCUS

registration rules

management by genetic

progress assessment




1984 A 2013

T/ha

Root Yield y = 0,8259x - 1587,6 1984 50,9856

R²=0,80 2013 74,9367

soit + 47%

T/ha

Sugar Yield y = 0,1698x - 327,98 1984 8,9032

R²=0,80 2013 13,8274

soit + 55%

Share increase root yield 85%

Share increase sugar content 15%

Evolution root yield and sugar content between 1984 and 2013

Example : Sugar Beet

Genetic progress assessment in 2013

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=betterave+a+sucre&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAQQjRw&url=http://forumde.lalogotheque.com/index.php?app=gallery&module=images&img=1808&ei=UyOvU6mfMqmO0AX6goDgAQ&bvm=bv.69837884,d.d2k&psig=AFQjCNF2NPs8rMHkY6QfU0zb72ikjgdVFw&ust=1404073171871715

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdns2.freepik.com/photos-libre/morceau-de-sucre--de-manger--de-nourriture--des-objets_375978.jpg&imgrefurl=http://fr.freepik.com/photos-libre/morceau-de-sucre--de-manger--de-nourriture--des-objets_243848.htm&docid=OCvrSDpjP0_XTM&tbnid=GbjUEz7_8C4CeM:&w=626&h=417&ei=iyOvU_TpDMzM0AXJvYGoAw&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c





Current context

Role of CTPS: to enhance genetic progress

Importance of the choice of standards (orientation).

Context of sugar beet

– End of quotas in 2017

– Competitiveness problem compared to sugar cane: difference of 30%.

– Importance of sugar yield and sugar content:

• Increase productivity Root yield

• Take into account the costs of transport and transformation: sugar

content.

– Choice of standards: empirical result of a compromise current rule

(« ¾ - ¼ »)





Choice of standards

For the main category (varieties resistant to Rhizomania): 4

varieties

Standards in this category are selected among varieties tested

during at least 2 years by the interprofessional sector.

the second point is to ensure that the mean of the 4 standard

varieties improve sugar yield obtained for about 3/4 by root

weight and about 1/4 by sugar content, without degradation of

industrial quality compared with the previous standards.

Current system until 2013, strong constraints = "rule of ¾ - ¼"





2012, 2013: the system of standards choice is breathless

– Few satisfactory combinations meet the criteria ¾ / ¼.

– Progress is limited because of the constraints of

standards choice.

constraints Maximum progress for root yield

Respect for the rule +/- 10 % 1.38 %

Respect for the rule +/- 20 % 1.40 %

No constraints 2.90 %





Some aspects of genetics and selection

y = -8,5239x + 248,61r = -0,79

84.00

86.00

88.00

90.00

92.00

94.00

96.00

98.00

100.00

17.80 18.00 18.20 18.40 18.60 18.80 19.00 19.20

Ro

ot Y

ield

Sugar content

Less variability root yield with high level of sugar content 1 point sugar content costs 7-8 t root yield Observed by each breeder

Sugar yield very positively related to theroot yield (r ~ 0.90) Sugar yield negatively linked to the sugar content (~ r -0.25 to -0.45) Consequence: to obtain fast progress on the sugar yield, the increase of root yield would be more effective than the increase of the sugar content.





New orientation built for the future :

To separate registration thresholds from standards choice:

1) Choose the standard varieties for their representation of the

market, the diversity of genetic origins, stability, etc..

2) Set thresholds for registration according to the wanted

progress every year on different criteria.

For this, the standard panel is selected on the criteria 1).

Then the threshold is adjusted according to these new

standards and to the targets that have been set.




97,5

98

98,5

99

99,5

100

100,5

101

101,5

99,5 100 100,5 101 101,5 102 102,5

Suga

r co

nte

nt

Root yield

Standard Y n-1

Values of the new standards

standards% in year n-1

Index 100

Year n+1

Variety A :

Yield 102 year n-1

100.5 year n+1

+0.5

+1

.1


Choosing a virtual standard with such objective:

+1.5% root yield , 0% sugar content / year N-1




The assessment of genetic progress is essential for managing registration rules:

The social and political context changes: The varieties of tomorrow are varieties

adapted to culture conditions with less inputs, more sustainability and with the same

production or at least more productive.

Climate change context

Crop systems change, etc ....

To do this, several methods exist and each have +/- lacks in the estimation of

GEI. Currently we have to consider trends to change our rules, but a more

precise assessment would allow us to establish rules directly integrating the

objectives of genetic progress (ex : sugar beet)

Conclusion




Thank you for your attention

Acknowlegments to: S.Lassalvy, V.Gensollen, B.Richard, A.Luciani, AL.Corbel, F.Masson, MH.Bernicot

Management of the French VCUS registration rules using genetic … S... · 2014. 7. 16. ·...

Documents

Transcript of Management of the French VCUS registration rules using genetic … S... · 2014. 7. 16. ·...