WP1: Breeding for quality and health · PDF file Task 1.2.3 and Task 1.5: Breeding for...

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    28-May-2020
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    4
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of WP1: Breeding for quality and health · PDF file Task 1.2.3 and Task 1.5: Breeding for...

  • WP1: Breeding for quality and health

    COBRA final conference Vingsted Centeret, Denmark

    24-25th November 2015

    Anders Borgen

  • WP1 structure

    Task 1.1 NIRS

    Task 1.2.2 Dwarf bunt

    Task 1.2 Adaptation

    Task 1.3 Populations

    Task 1.4 Peas

    CRA-PAV (Italy)

    CRA-FLC (Italy)

    Inagro (Belgium)

    Uni Ghent (Belgium)

    Stende (Latvia)

    Priekuli (Latvia)

    Jõgeva (Estonia)

    MTT (Finland)

    DTU (Denmark

    Uni Maribor (Slovenia

    Aarhus Uni (Denmark)

    Agrologica (Denmark)

    BOKU (Austria)

    Weihenstephan (Bavaria)

    Lantmännen (Sweden)

    SLU (Sweden)

    Copenhagen Uni (Denmark)

    Task 1.2.1 Common bunt

    NordGen (Sweden)

  • W P

    1: s

    pe ci

    fic ta

    sk s

    ● Task 1.1.1 and 1.1.2: Seed analysis based on NIRS ● Oral presentation by Johannes Ravn Jørgensen ● Poster presentation by M. Vresak

    ● Task 1.2.1: Purifying specific virulence races of common bunt ● Poster presentation by Anders Borgen

    ● Task 1.2.2: SMART breeding for resistance to dwarf bunt ● Oral presentation by Almuth Elise Müllner ● Oral presentation by Berta Killermann

    ● Task 1.2.3 and Task 1.5: Breeding for plasticity and adaptation ● Poster presentation by Mara Bleidere ● Poster presentation by Linda Legzdina ● Poster presentation by Marja Jalli ● Poster presentation by Manfred Jakop in WP 2 ● Oral presentation by Rikke Bagger Jørgensen in WP2

    ● Task 1.3: Population breeding for quality and health ● Oral presentation by Anders Borgen

    ● Task 1.4.1: Seed treatment to control antrachnose in peas ● Oral presentation by Luciano Pecetti in the Legume workshop

    ● Task 1.4.2: Breeding for resistance in peas (Task terminated)

  • Bunt infection in pure lines and populations

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    35

    40

    45

    50

    20 parents, mean: Pop-1: 40 crosses 20 parents, own spores Mean of crosses

  • Bunt infection in pure lines and populations

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    35

    40

    45

    50

    20 parents, mean: Pop-1: 40 crosses 20 parents, own spores Mean of crosses

  • Bunt infection in pure lines and populations

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    35

    40

    45

    50

    880 head-rows from Pop-1

    160 Selected head rows grown as population

    2012 2013 2014 2015 0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    80

    90

    No parents tested CCP-YQ (Elm Farm) CCP-YQ (Hungary)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    35

    40

    45

    50

    31 parents, mean Pop All, 220 crosses 31 parents, own spores mean of crosses

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    35

    40

    45

    50

    20 parents, mean: Pop-1: 40 crosses 20 parents, own spores Mean of crosses

  • Conclusion on population breeding towards resistance to plant diseases

    ●Populations created by natural and mass selection sometimes have advantages compared with the mean of the parents

    ● but plant health is neither optimal nor acceptable.

    ●Selecting the right parents for CCPs is crucial ●The way forward is mixtures of multiple lines,

    preselected for resistance to the major plant diseases

  • CCP Winter wheat with a disgusting infection of stripe rust (Puccinia striiformis)

  • CCP German spring wheat Stripe rust (Puccinia striiformis) in development

  • Accelerated evolution of CCPs for leaf disease resistance

    A good “dot it yourself” tool for on farm breeding

  • Short grain filling period: Small hard high protein seeds

    Long grain filling period: Big low protein soft seed

    Quality improvement in populations

  • Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS)

    BoMill TriQ sorters

  • NIR protein sorting of Pop-All-2012

    Low protein fraction Soft seed

    High protein fraction Hard seed

  • casana * Øland dacke * scalin luteus * dacke fiorina * dacke

    luteus * Vår Perl casana * dacke

    dacke * nadro luteus * Øland

    dacke * Indigo nadro * 1159

    ci-14952 * dacke nadro * konini dacke * 1159

    dacke * konini dacke * H86-701

    0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

    Protein content in harvested grain

    Fraction 1 Lowest 20% of the sown seed Fraction 6 Highest 20% of the sown seed

    Protein content %

    Purple wheat: Fraction 1: 13,8% Fraction 6: 14,4% Difference: 0,6%

    Common wheat: Fraction 1: 13,3% Fraction 6: 14,2% Difference: 0,9%

    Two years of seed sorting

  • D*I N*1159

    CI*D D*K

    D*H86701 N*K

    D*1159

    L*D L*VP L*Ø D*S F*D C*D N*D C*Ø

    0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

    2015: repeated growing without sorting

    Low protein seed High protein seed

    protein content %

    Mean protein content: Low protein seed: 11.5% High protein seed: 12.3% Difference: 0,8%-point

    Mean yield: Low protein seed: 5674 kg/ha High protein seed: 5251 kg/ha Difference: 422 kg/ha (=8%)

  • Conclusion quality sorting ● Never forget that any seed cleaning is also see sorting, including TKW ● Protein concentration can be increased in populations by seed sorting ● Gravity sorting and colour sorting can be used, but NIT-single seed

    sorting is the most effective ● Effects can be improved by decreasing environmental effect, and by

    improved calibration of the equipment ● Protein improved population suffers a yield penalty of about 10% per

    protein percent-point. Also total protein yield decreases ● Selecting for protein quality would be better that selecting for protein

    content, since this most likely can be done without yield loss ● Selecting the right parents for CCPs is easier and more efficient than

    seed sorting afterwards

  • Thank you for your attention

    Dias 1 Dias 2 Dias 3 Dias 4 Dias 5 Dias 6 Dias 7 Dias 8 Dias 9 Dias 12 Dias 13 Dias 14 Dias 15 Dias 16 Dias 17