Effects of reduced plant height on breeding requirements and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$il\VOLVEMENT OF RETII\OIC ACID II{ - MSpace at the University of ...$

not significani at Carman " At all sites decreased row spacing gave rise to significantly nore spikes per unit area. Finlay e! A]. {79?L) reported a si¡nilar resu,lt. i{o significant genotype by treatrnent interactions occurred (qla¡te 58), but the first incremen-b in seeding rate showed a greater response than the second for both genotypes at all sites, particularly at V{ínnipeg (Table 5g). The resulte also inclicated â greater nega_tive response to incr.easeci row width at the second increraent âs cor,lpared to the first. fhese t:'ends indicated no,¡ernents tovrard and away from the optima respectiveiy. At both Sanford. and Carrnan the combination <strong>of</strong> highest seeding rate ând narrowest row width gave the greatest nunber <strong>of</strong> spikes per u.rit area. I{owever, a significant seeding rate X row spacing interaction occurred at Winnipeg (fable 58)" The interaction resul-ted from seeding rate having a negative effect at the nanowest spacing but a positive effect at wider spacingsa lhis resulted. frorn the ideal conditíons elir¡inating much <strong>of</strong> the differenee due to the seeding rates at this site. tillering was suffici.ent to compensate for fev/er <strong>plant</strong>sn particularly at the narrowest row spacing in whieh there would also be less intra_row crorvding <strong>of</strong> <strong>plant</strong>s " Kernels Þer SÐike Table 60 contains i;he .q"NOvA for kernels per spike " L42
Table 60. Seedlng Rate - Row Spacing SÈudy, ANoVA for Kernels/spike. 9 .27 .60 19 . 04'r 77 .41 4,92 255 .88** 262 .44x.t 479.6I*1\ , 32.49 t7 .I7 2 I 2 5.76 27.69* 75.2t 4,8s 15.39 5 71 . 68'tik 729.97* I72,78 ?qn ot>rr< t7 tq 66..7 4 1.55 7,20 1.84 L7 .52* 5.24 39 .24 1 ,00 27.73 12.77 30 .23 58 . 91,r 62 .43* 18.06 5.s4 t2 .52 2 2 4 4 34 Repltcares (R) Genotypes (G) SeedÍng Rar.es (SR) f SRI vs SR2 SRI vs SR3 SR2 vs SR3 Row Spacíng (RS) RSL vs RS2 RSl vs RS3 RS2 vs RS3 GxSR GxRS SRxRS GxSRxRS Error Coefficient <strong>of</strong> Variabtlity % ** F sígnificant P=0.01 . t single degree <strong>of</strong> freedon comparisons are orthogonal, but not all frorn the same mutualry orthogonal set. signlflcant P=0.05.
Page 1 and 2:
University of Mani
Page 3 and 4:
ACKNOWI,EDGMENTS It has been a grea
Page 5 and 6:
ÎABI,E OF TONTENTS av írÞâ dô
Page 7 and 8:
Þâ o-â r Days to l'{aturity ....
Page 9 and 10:
vaal ËÞe rro Days to Heading . ".
Page 11 and 12:
SUGGÊSTIONSFORFIIIURSRESEÀRCH ,.,
Page 13 and 14:
11. Nitrogen Fertil-izer Applicatio
Page 15 and 16:
TABT-,8 42, 43, I+4, r+5. 46. 48. 4
Page 17 and 18:
74. 75" ?6, 77, 78,. 79, 80. 81" 82
Page 19 and 20:
xvii i occurred for yield, but the
Page 21 and 22:
I]TERATURE REVIEW Semi-dwarf Growth
Page 23 and 24:
In the United States the barley bre
Page 25 and 26:
Tabl-e 1. Broad Sense Ileritability
Page 27 and 28:
Table 2. Broad Sense Heritability E
Page 29 and 30:
wíth yield. fhis group discussed t
Page 31 and 32:
ship in common wheat. 0n the other
Page 33 and 34:
c onpared 'r . Two other important
Page 35 and 36:
eported a non-significant positive
Page 37 and 38:
majority of studie
Page 39 and 40:
correfation between diastatic power
Page 41 and 42:
extent. Frey et al-. (1951) indicat
Page 43 and 44:
seni-dwarf wheats to nitrogen ferti
Page 45 and 46:
number of spíkes
Page 47 and 48:
Stanberry and Lowrey (L965) reporte
Page 49 and 50:
Íright be of grea
Page 51 and 52:
from varyíng seeding rates in barl
Page 53 and 54:
Reports on the effect of</s
Page 55 and 56:
the effect of seed
Page 57 and 58:
l,upton et 41. (7974) pointed out t
Page 59 and 60:
Table 3. Pedigrees of</stro
Page 61 and 62:
(4) 200 Kernel weight * record.ed i
Page 63 and 64:
population, using individual line m
Page 65 and 66:
Site Sanford 19?6 Clay Cawnan 19?6
Page 67 and 68:
Orthogonal single degree of
Page 69 and 70:
Experiment lV: _-.t0qlepptite lenet
Page 71 and 72:
ferences between genotype s which w
Page 73 and 74:
and plant
Page 75 and 76:
Table 7. con¡tonêlts of</
Page 77 and 78:
was significant" fhe only case in w
Page 79 and 80:
(28 to 5B/"), as reported by nost o
Page 81 and 82:
Table 8. Continued Range Lor{est Li
Page 83 and 84:
the Highest Yielding l,ines within
Page 85 and 86:
Phenot:'¡pic Corre-Lations Sinpl-e
Page 87 and 88:
Table 10. (Cortínued) Châracteris
Page 89 and 90:
did Syme (f972), Fonseca and patter
Page 91 and 92:
significant negative correlation wi
Page 93 and 94:
elãted negative association betwee
Page 95 and 96:
Aglononie ChArae'qeri s! ic s Pl"an
Page 97 and 98:
Table 12. N1Ërogen FertLlizer Àpp
Page 99 and 100:
Teble 14. NltrogeÍ FertLlLzêr ApP
Page 101 and 102:
Table 15. NíËrogen ¡'ertil,izer
Page 103 and 104:
lable 16. Nltrogen Fertlllzer Appll
Page 105 and 106:
freedom comparison indicated lqínn
Page 107 and 108:
lab1e 19. Nftrogen trertÍlizer Áp
Page 109 and 110: Tâble 20, Nltrogei¡ FeltLltzêr A
Page 111 and 112: TabIe 22, Nltrogen Fertillzer Appli
Page 113 and 114: Table 23. Nitrogen Fertilizer Appl
Page 115 and 116: TabLe 25. Nltrogen Fefttlizef Appll
Page 117 and 118: itable 26. Nitrogen Fertfllzer Appl
Page 119 and 120: latlê 28. Nltrogen ¡'ertlllrer Ap
Page 121 and 122: Sanford â.nd Carnan, 1926, Since N
Page 123 and 124: Tabl-e 31 . Nítrogen Fertilizer Ap
Page 125 and 126: Îable33. Nítrogen Fertllizer Appl
Page 127 and 128: Table 34. Nitrogen Fertilfzer Appli
Page 129 and 130: îab1ê 36. NLtrogeî Fertl,LLzer A
Page 131 and 132: Table 38. Nitrogen Fertllizer Appli
Page 133 and 134: lab1e 39,. NLtrogen Fertllf¿er App
Page 135 and 136: Table 41. Nitïogen Iertillzer Appl
Page 137 and 138: Table 42. Nitrogen Fertllizer Appli
Page 139 and 140: 'IabLe 44. Nítrogen ¡'ertilizer A
Page 141 and 142: Q UAT,TTY Cltq.RÀcTER rsrf ts Q ua
Page 143 and 144: lable 47. Nitrogen ¡'ertilLzer App
Page 145 and 146: Table 49. Nltrogen ferrlllzer AppLl
Page 147 and 148: îhe F x G i.nteraction at portage
Page 149 and 150: fable 52, Nltrogen Fertfllze¡ Appl
Page 151 and 152: 'labLe 54- Seedlng Råte - Row Spac
Page 153 and 154: Table 55. Seeding Rate - Ror'7 Spac
Page 155 and 156: Table 57. Seeding Rate - Roúr Spac
Page 157 and 158: while the tall sho\^/ed virtually n
Page 159: Table 59. Seedlûg Rate - Row Spacl
Page 163 and 164: Table 61. Seedlng Rate - RotT Spaci
Page 165 and 166: Table 62, SeedLng Rate - Rorar Spac
Page 167 and 168: ?áble 64. Seedlng Rare - Ror.r Spa
Page 169 and 170: Table 65. SeedÍng Rate - Row Spaci
Page 171 and 172: Table 67. Seedfng Rate - Row Spací
Page 173 and 174: Table 68. AN0VA for Coleoptile Leng
Page 175 and 176: 'Iable 72. Means for Experíment IV
Page 177 and 178: Table 73. (Continued ) B Variables
Page 179 and 180: 'IabLe 74' Ranks of</strong
Page 181 and 182: Table 76. cenotype Means for Root D
Page 183 and 184: fabTe ?6 Cid not indicate this diff
Page 185 and 186: Table 79. Ranks of
Page 187 and 188: Tabl"e 81. ANOVA for Number <strong
Page 189 and 190: the second v¡as not significant (f
Page 191 and 192: Table 85. Mean Numbers of</
Page 193 and 194: of two locations f
Page 195 and 196: have increased the precision <stron
Page 197 and 198: showed no environmental interaction
Page 199 and 200: yield testlng experiments. Furtherm
Page 201 and 202: could in part account for the poor
Page 203 and 204: signlficant, the correl_ations were
Page 205 and 206: height and the qua
Page 207 and 208: trial period. The area in which the
Page 209 and 210: any specific cross. However, they d
Page 211 and 212:
as strong nor as consl-stent as is
Page 213 and 214:
with several critical agronomic par
Page 215 and 216:
maturity and days in post-anthesis
Page 217 and 218:
significantry rerated to several ot
Page 219 and 220:
icularly when nore optimum growing
Page 221 and 222:
would be useful to know the rerativ
Page 223 and 224:
Kernel Weight Added N had little ef
Page 225 and 226:
much as the tall genotypes. Also th
Page 227 and 228:
îhe effects of N
Page 229 and 230:
with the overall results of
Page 231 and 232:
Phenotypicaì.J_y novel gernplasm,
Page 233 and 234:
drastícaIIy changed phenotype as t
Page 235 and 236:
should not be recomnended for produ
Page 237 and 238:
One of the problem
Page 239 and 240:
The associatíon between root growt
Page 241 and 242:
GENER¡.L DTSCUSS]ON Since desired
Page 243 and 244:
inheríted" observation of<
Page 245 and 246:
indicated by this study suggests th
Page 247 and 248:
individual lines. It is generally c
Page 249 and 250:
sístent suppLy of
Page 251 and 252:
possibílity of ir
Page 253 and 254:
Testing et one site for one year wa
Page 255 and 256:
height genotJpes t
Page 257 and 258:
ïn terms of the o
Page 259 and 260:
Concern has been expressed by dryla
Page 261 and 262:
), +. ( 6, 7, Attempts should be ma
Page 263 and 264:
Beech' D.F" and M.J.T, Norman. 196g
Page 265 and 266:
Day, A.D, and R.K. Thonpson, 1970.
Page 267 and 268:
Guitard, 4,4., J.A. Neûrnan, and p
Page 269 and 270:
Konishi, T. L976. The nature and ch
Page 271 and 272:
Pawlisch, P.E., and H.L. shandp. Lg
Page 273 and 274:
Sisler, I^I.I^I, and p.J. Olsen. 19
Page 275 and 276:
trIoodward, R.trI. 7956. The effect
Page 277 and 278:
Appetrdr*' cenotvprc ìlêans fot j
Page 279 and 280:
^ppendlx conrlnue¿- Genotype Plán
Page 281 and 282:
.9anul¡uor xlpuâd¡¡V ezro tzz ,
Page 283 and 284:
^pIe¡¡¿tx conrtnued. Solu It lß
Page 285:
¿\tÎen¿lr conÈtnu€d, .,¡ÃE
show all

Effects of reduced plant height on breeding requirements and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?