TABLE 2

Estimated location L(cM) and power of detection of QTL effect (βf for testing H1|H0) and QTL × E interaction (βe for testing H2|H1) employing the general (MG) and approximated (MA) models in single-QTL situations

βet (%)(H2|H1)βft (%)(H1|H0)
L(cM)α%→510.1510.1npdfedffAIC
S 1MA66.0 ± 2.0367411667452283510.8
MG65.4 ± 2.56572966434821911
S 2MA61.7 ± 0.8997877094876783512.4
MG62.5 ± 1.4588714791784921911
S 3MA59.8 ± 0.491009994100999783512.2
MG61.1 ± 0.681009581100989021911
  • The results of 200 Monte-Carlo runs are presented for single-QTL situations (see Table 1). L is the estimated QTL location (the simulated value of L is 60 cM); α is significance level; np is the number of parameters specifying the model. To reduce np, the vector of mean values across environments was calculated before starting the optimization procedure for the tests 3, 3a, and 3b (for either MA or MG); dff and dfe are the degrees of freedom for the tests of QTL presence (H1 vs. H0) and QTL × E interaction (H2 vs. H1), respectively.