DisplayTitle

Genotype and Environment Effects on Wheat Quality Traits in a Population Derived from a Soft by Hard Cross

¹USDA, ARS, Rice Research Unit, Beaumont, TX 77713. Names are necessary to report factually on available data; however, the USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of the product, and the use of the name by the USDA implies no approval of the product to the exclusion of others that may also be suitable. ²Corresponding author. Phone: 409/752-5221. E-mail: c-bergman@tamu.edu ³USDA, ARS, Soft Wheat Quality Laboratory, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH. ⁴Ohio State University, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH. ⁵Department of Plant Breeding and Biometry, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Advances in understanding the biochemistry and genetics underlying wheat end-use quality require that cereal chemistry research utilize lines grown in the same environments. It also requires that effects of linkage disequilibrium and small ranges in trait variation be avoided. Our objectives were to: 1) ascertain the effects of genotype and environment and their interactions on hard and soft wheat end-use quality traits, and 2) examine relationships between traits and heritability, using recombinant inbred lines derived from a soft by hard wheat cross. All traits showed transgressive segregation. Kernel texture (KT) was not genetically correlated with mixograph traits, indicating the feasibility of producing soft-textured genotypes with stronger mixing properties. KT was highly genetically correlated with alkaline water retention capacity (AWRC) and moderately genetically correlated with flour yield (FY). Protein content (PRO) was not genetically correlated with dough mixing time across lines, but was with dough mixing strength. KT, FY, and mixograph traits demonstrated higher heritabilities than did AWRC and PRO. Genotype and environment and their interactions affected all traits. Year caused the greatest environment effects, affecting primarily AWRC and PRO. Genotype affected mainly KT, FY, and peak time. The effect of environment on those traits supports the need to develop screening methods using genotype rather than phenotype.