Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T11:51:37.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The isolation of ‘pure lines’ from F1 hybrids of tomato, and the problem of heterosis in inbreeding crop species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Watkin Williams
Watkin Williams
Affiliation:
John Innes Horticultural Institution, Bayfordbury, Hertford, Herts.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The problem of inbreeding and the fixation of apparent heterosis in the cultivated tomato and in inbreeding crop species generally is discussed. The case is argued that ‘heterosis’ as normally understood in out-breeders is not likely to exist as a general phenomenon in inbreeding species.

2. Selections were made among segregating progenies of two successful, commercial F1 hybrids, and the performance of the selected lines, up to the F4 generation, shows that the superiority of the hybrids over their parents can be fixed in purebreeding lines.

3. Owing to selection effects in inbreeding species of crops the best parents will differ in respect of fewer quantitative loci than is to be expected from general experiments on quantitative inheritance. In the present material, desirable recombinants were isolated at a frequency of 1 in every 1000–1500 F2 individuals.

4. The utility of F1 hybrids in the tomato thus depends on the economy of effort involved in their development as compared with the isolation of pure lines. It is concluded that the production of hybrids is to be favoured only when reliable methods of prediction of their performance are available, and then as an interim measure while pure-line forms become available.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , December 1959 , pp. 347 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ashby, E. (1937). Ann. Bot., N.S., 1, 11.Google Scholar
Burdick, A. B. (1954). Genetics, 39, 488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crane, M. B. (1951). Rep. Innes Hort. Instn, p. 11.Google Scholar
Darby, L. & Gilbert, N. E. (1958). Euphytica, 7, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, N. E. (1958). Heredity, 12, 477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, E. S. J. (1940). Ann. Bot., N.S., 4, 735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luckwill, L. C. (1937). Ann. Bot., N.S., 1, 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powers, L. (1945). Bot. Gaz. 106, 247.Google Scholar
Powers, L. (1952). In Heterosis (ed. Gowen, J. W.), p. 298. Iowa.Google Scholar
Rick, C. M. (1950). Evolution, 4, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rick, C. M. & Butler, L. (1956). Advanc. Genet. 8, 267.Google Scholar
Smith, H. H. (1952). In Heterosis (ed. Gowen, J. W.), p. 161. Iowa.Google Scholar
Whaley, W. G. (1939). Amer. J. Bot. 26, 609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, W. (1956). Rep. Innes Hort. Instn, p. 7.Google Scholar
Williams, W. (1958). Rep. Innes Hort. Instn (in the Press).Google Scholar