Improvement of Yield per se in Sugarcane - Translational Genomics for Crop Breeding: Abiotic Stress, Yield and Quality - page 222

Table 13.1. (Continued)

QTLs
detected
across
experiments

No. of
years (crop
cycle) a

Statistical
analysis and
threshold b

R 2 individual

Population
size

No. of
markers

No. of
locations

Traits c

Population Marker type Min Max References

100 RFLP among them

35 are EST-derived

222 1 2(cp,r1) SM (marker

wise p
value

Pol 7 0.04 0.13 Pinto et al.

(2010)

Fiber 7 0.04 0.11

< 0.05)

Cane yield 7 0.04 0.18

Sugar yield 5 0.04 0.20

RFLP, EST-RFLP,
EST-SSR

741 2 3(cp, r1,r2) Interval mapping

and SM marker
wise p value
<

Cane yield 13 - - Pastina et al.

(2012)

Sugar yield 14 - -

Fiber 11 - -

0.01), mixed
models

Sucrose content 8 - -

Panel of modern
cultivars
Panel of modern
clones. Half
Diversity panel
and half progenies
from 31 biparental
crosses

480 DArTs 1531 (discrete)

15360
(continous)

3 1(cp) SM (marker

wise p
value

CCS 42 (discrete

markers)
377(continu-
ous)

- - Weietal.

(2010)

< 0.01)

Several
mixed models

Cane yield 47 (discrete

markers) 352
(continuous)

- -

a cp: plant crop; r1: first ratoon; r2: second ratoon.
b SM: single marker analysis; IM: interval mapping; CIM: composite interval mapping.
c CCS: commercial cane sugar.
#: suggestive level according to Lander and Kruglyak (1995).