dc.creatorAngelini, Julia
dc.creatorBortolotto, Eugenia Belén
dc.creatorFaviere, Gabriela Soledad
dc.creatorPairoba, Claudio Fabián
dc.creatorValentini, Gabriel Hugo
dc.creatorCervigni, Gerardo Domingo Lucio
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-19T18:57:42Z
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-15T14:16:06Z
dc.date.available2022-07-19T18:57:42Z
dc.date.available2023-03-15T14:16:06Z
dc.date.created2022-07-19T18:57:42Z
dc.date.issued2022-07
dc.identifier1573-5060
dc.identifier0014-2336
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-022-03063-3
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/12355
dc.identifierhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10681-022-03063-3
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/6215291
dc.description.abstractIdentification of stable and high-yielding genotypes is a real challenge in peach breeding, since genotype-by-environment interaction (GE) masks the performance of the materials. The aim of this work was to evaluate the effectiveness of parameter estimation and genotype selection solving the linear mixed models (LMM) under frequentist and Bayesian approaches. Fruit yield of 308 peach genotypes were assessed under different seasons and replication numbers arranged in a completely randomized design. Under the frequentist framework the restricted maximum likelihood method to estimate variance component and genotypic prediction was used. Different models considering environment, genotype and GE effects according to the likelihood ratio test and Akaike information criteria were compared. In the Bayesian approach, the mean and the variance components were assumed to be random variables having a priori non-informative distributions with known parameters. According the deviance information criteria the most suitable Bayesian model was selected. The full model was the most appropriate to calculate parameters and genotypic predictions, which were very similar in both approaches. Due to imbalance data, Cullis’s method was the most appropriate to estimate heritability. It was calculated at 0.80, and selecting above 5% of the genotypes, the realized gain of 14.80 kg tree1 was attained. Genotypic frequentist and Bayesian predictions showed a positive correlation (r = 0.9991; P = 0.0001). Since the Bayesian method incorporates the credible interval for genetic parameters, genotypic Bayesian prediction would be a more useful tool than the frequentist approach and allowed the selection of 17 high-yielding and stable genotypes.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherSpringer Nature
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.sourceEuphytica 218 (8) : 107. (jul. 2022)
dc.subjectDurazno
dc.subjectPrunus persica
dc.subjectModelos Lineales
dc.subjectModelos Estadísticos
dc.subjectFitomejoramiento
dc.subjectInteracción Genotipo Ambiente
dc.subjectPeaches
dc.subjectBest Linear Unbiased Predictor
dc.subjectLinear Models
dc.subjectStatistical Models
dc.subjectPlant Breeding
dc.subjectGenetic Gain
dc.subjectGenotype Environment Interaction
dc.subjectMejora Genética
dc.titleParameter estimation and selection efficiency under Bayesian and frequentist approaches in peach trials
dc.typeinfo:ar-repo/semantics/artículo
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución