Estimating an Aggregate Economic Genotype to Facilitate Breeding and Selection of Strawberry Genotypes in Southeast Queensland

The Queensland strawberry (Fragaria ×ananassa) breeding program in subtropical Australia aims to improve sustainable profitability for the producer. Selection must account for the relative economic importance of each trait and the genetic architecture underlying these traits in the breeding population. Our study used estimates of the influence of a trait on production costs and profitability to develop a profitability index (PI) and an economic weight (i.e., change in PI for a unit change in level of trait) for each trait. The economic weights were then combined with the breeding values for 12 plant and fruit traits on over 3000 genotypes that were represented in either the current breeding population or as progenitors in the pedigree of these individuals. The resulting linear combination (i.e., sum of economic weight × breeding value for all 12 traits) estimated the overall economic worth of each genotype as H, the aggregate economic genotype. H values were validated by comparisons among commercial cultivars and were also compared with the estimated gross margins. When the H value of ‘Festival’ was set as zero, the H values of genotypes in the pedigree ranged from –0.36 to +0.28. H was highly correlated (R2 = 0.77) with the year of selection (1945–98). The gross margins were highly linearly related (R2 > 0.98) to H values when the genotype was planted on less than 50% of available area, but the relationship was non-linear [quadratic with a maximum (R2 > 0.96)] when the planted area exceeded 50%. Additionally, with H values above zero, the variation in gross margin increased with increasing H values as the percentage of area planted to a genotype increased. High correlations among some traits allowed the omission of any one of three of the 12 traits with little or no effect on ranking (Spearman’s rank correlation 0.98 or greater). Thus, these traits may be dropped from the aggregate economic genotype, leading to either cost reductions in the breeding program or increased selection intensities for the same resources. H was efficient in identifying economically superior genotypes for breeding and deployment, but because of the non-linear relationship with gross margin, calculation of a gross margin for genotypes with high H is also necessary when cultivars are deployed across more than 50% of the available area.

Assessment of functional forms of crop yield loss models of invasive plant species applied in decision support tools and bioeconomic modelling

AbstractObjectives Decision support tools (DSTs) for invasive species management have had limited success in producing convincing results and meeting users' expectations. The problems could be linked to the functional form of model which represents the dynamic relationship between the invasive species and crop yield loss in the DSTs. The objectives of this study were: a) to compile and review the models tested on field experiments and applied to DSTs; and b) to do an empirical evaluation of some popular models and alternatives. Design and methods This study surveyed the literature and documented strengths and weaknesses of the functional forms of yield loss models. Some widely used models (linear, relative yield and hyperbolic models) and two potentially useful models (the double-scaled and density-scaled models) were evaluated for a wide range of weed densities, maximum potential yield loss and maximum yield loss per weed. Results Popular functional forms include hyperbolic, sigmoid, linear, quadratic and inverse models. Many basic models were modified to account for the effect of important factors (weather, tillage and growth stage of crop at weed emergence) influencing weed–crop interaction and to improve prediction accuracy. This limited their applicability for use in DSTs as they became less generalized in nature and often were applicable to a much narrower range of conditions than would be encountered in the use of DSTs. These factors' effects could be better accounted by using other techniques. Among the model empirically assessed, the linear model is a very simple model which appears to work well at sparse weed densities, but it produces unrealistic behaviour at high densities. The relative-yield model exhibits expected behaviour at high densities and high levels of maximum yield loss per weed but probably underestimates yield loss at low to intermediate densities. The hyperbolic model demonstrated reasonable behaviour at lower weed densities, but produced biologically unreasonable behaviour at low rates of loss per weed and high yield loss at the maximum weed density. The density-scaled model is not sensitive to the yield loss at maximum weed density in terms of the number of weeds that will produce a certain proportion of that maximum yield loss. The double-scaled model appeared to produce more robust estimates of the impact of weeds under a wide range of conditions. Conclusions Previously tested functional forms exhibit problems for use in DSTs for crop yield loss modelling. Of the models evaluated, the double-scaled model exhibits desirable qualitative behaviour under most circumstances.