1 / 6

Leuven (B), 7-10 september 2009

« Layout of experiments and trials Assessment of traits Reference standards » Workshop: objectives. Luc E.Pâques. Leuven (B), 7-10 september 2009. Agree on common standardised ways for assessing traits Evaluate ‘ research ’ needs in methodology. Objectives of the survey and workshop.

elton-vincent
Download Presentation

Leuven (B), 7-10 september 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. « Layout of experiments and trials Assessment of traits Reference standards » Workshop: objectives Luc E.Pâques Leuven (B), 7-10 september 2009

  2. Agree on common standardised ways for assessing traits • Evaluate ‘research’ needs in methodology Objectives of the survey and workshop • Exchange partners’ best practice for trait assessment: • Which traits look as a priority? • Description of methods of assessment • Have each a critical look at our way of doing things • Validation of criteria used • How do we support the assessment to avoid bias?

  3. Context • In the framework of internationalprojects (genetic trials): • for ‘routine’ assessment of classical traits: evaluate the different systems available,and agree on one, • for ‘new’ traits: learn about how this is handled in other teams • Probably difficult for some traits to define the ‘best’ technique • but there is a need to agree: • if we want to facilitate joined analysis of our datasets (otherwise than through ranks). • if we want to compare results (eg. h² for stem straightness!!)

  4. What is ‘best’ ? • The assessment parameters should • reflect as precisely as possible the trait of interest • and allow description of its variability • The assessment technique should be • ‘repeatable’ by anyone, • controllable, • as far as possible ‘not-site dependant’, but can be ‘species-dependant’, ‘age-dependant’ • Continuous-like versus discrete distributions of datasets should be preferred • The assessment technique should remain simple, rapid and low-cost for most cases

  5. Other problems • Local constraints: • mostly for field trial establishment: eg. size, spacing, thinning, etc • low(er) priority traits • habits • (Data analysis software) • Continuity of assessment over years • Matching operations (establishment/ assessment period) over sites

  6. Propose • Protocols for some ‘new’ traits Trait assessment standards Agree on • List of priority traits (species) • Methodology • Which system? measure/count/score • Which tool? if easily accessible to all • Protocol: method, organ, period, ways of control, age, …

More Related