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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

Bonanza dropped consistently as seeding rate increased, while for Mínn 64-62, it went up witìr the firs.ù seed rate increment and remained constant thereafter. u The AN0V1, presented in iables 68 through fl, i_nd icate that significant differences existed. between the genotypes studied for coleoptile length, root nurnber, root score and shoot length. significant differences existed between the means <strong>of</strong> the two <strong>plant</strong> <strong>height</strong> groups (tall and serni_dwarf ) for coleoptile length and root number. the talls had longer coleoptiles and more roots (table ?Z)" However, one taII genotype, C7O3O|9, contributed greatly to the signlficant differences betweên <strong>height</strong> groups in this experiment (fable ?2), îakahashi (A946) previously reponted a positive association <strong>of</strong> <strong>plant</strong> <strong>height</strong> and coleoptile length in barley. Correlations (Table 23) indicated that, for the geno_ *ypes studied, coleoptile length was significantly and positively related to root number, kernel weight and pereent pJ.umpness. Contrary to fakahashi's (1946) report, no significant correlation was detectêd between <strong>plant</strong> <strong>height</strong> and coleoptile length in the present study. However, as previously stated, there was a significant difference between <strong>height</strong> classes in favour <strong>of</strong> the talls. Rank correlation also indÍcated that no reÌationship exj.sted between coleoptile length and yield or energence
Table 68. AN0VA for Coleoptile Length, Expêriment IV. Source <strong>of</strong> VarÍatÍon df Mean Souare Replícates (R) Genotyp es (G) Tal1 vs Semi-dwarf RxG Error 3 6 I8 !12 Total 139 coefficíent <strong>of</strong> v".Í"bffi * Signíflcant ar P=0.05. ** SignifÍcant ar ?=0.01. I 298 .5 662,0*r, 2695.5** 81.6 67 .2 Table 69, ANOVA for Root Numbeï, Experinent IV. Source <strong>of</strong> Varlation Mean Square ReplÍcates (R) Genotypes (G) Tal1 vs semf-drnrarf RxG Error 3 6 t8 1t2 Totâ1 139 Coefficient <strong>of</strong> Vart * Signiflcant ar p=0. 05. ** Significanr at p=0.01. 1 0. 56 1.46it* I . 10'l 0.53¡k 0.25 155
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 and 160: Table 59. Seedlûg Rate - Row Spacl
Page 161 and 162: Table 60. Seedlng Rate - Row Spacin
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: Table 67. Seedfng Rate - Row Spací
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?