Retrospective Theses and Dissertations
1950
Effect of the Y-y factor pair on yield and other
agronomic characters in corn
Marcus Stanley Zuber
Iowa State College
Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd
Part of the Agricultural Science Commons, Agriculture Commons, Agronomy and Crop
Sciences Commons, and the Plant Pathology Commons
Recommended Citation
Zuber, Marcus Stanley, "Effect of the Y-y factor pair on yield and other agronomic characters in corn " (1950). Retrospective Theses and
Dissertations. Paper 14199.
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Repository @ Iowa State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Iowa State University. For more information, please
contact [email protected].
EFFEOf OF IHE T-y FACTOS Pill 0!i YIELD
HI) OfHER ASEOIOiaC 0H4E4CI1BS
COffif
by
Maroas Stanlty Zuber
1 Dissertatioa Submitted to th®
ffraduat® Raoulty iia Partial Fulfillmsnt of
Th© l©quir®a0ats for th© ]j0g.r®9 of
DOCfOS OF PHILOSOPHY
lajor SubJ@oti Gafop Br®©<3iag
Approwid»
Signature was redacted for privacy.
Signature was redacted for privacy.
'fi©pa:
Signature was redacted for privacy.
D®an ofwSdwt® Colleg#
Iowa Stftt® College
1S50
UMI Number: DP13569
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform DP13569
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
S:Bi 9
eg
Z81e
il.
imm OP cosTBi®
SS£S.
IHEOroGIIOI
1
HEVSfr OP fsiiiiffiiT m'smruis
4
mmmAm Am wfioM
P«rfonmnc® trials of th© Y-^ Segregate® from Pg and First
©©aemtim Baofcoross Popalaticaib
MiTidml Plant Ileasurements from Populations Sogi^gating
for the T*y Paetor
EXraHMtAL iWUm
Perforsmnc® trials of the T-y Segregates from Fg and First
dejieratlott fetelceross Populations
field comparists^
field. ooapariscms within looatims
Yield oosps-risms with testers *
Yield ocmj^isms for testers
locations .......
lloietur« eoaparisooi
Moisture Qom|»riBms within looatims
fioistetre oomparisons wi'ttiia testerw
Moistwe oompariscm for testew by leoatims .....
Ear height grade eomparisoas
lar height gmde eomparisms wlldb-ia looations ....
Bar hei^t grade cc®parisoa witiiin testers
Ear height grade comparisaas for testers hy
io(mtims
Btiek ocrver gmde oom|iarisoas
Corx^lation studies
ladiTidml Plant Ifeaswrements from Populations Segregating
for tte Y*y Faetor
ii
11
15
17
17
17
21
23
23
25
26
26
27
29
29
29
29
31
33
39
MSCOSSIOff
45
SUMMI Mm COICLUSIO®
48
LHEMfOTS CltED
51
AeMfoiimnsiisijf
54
IPPEIDIX
55
1.
IirROOTCflOF
Hi© questioi offcen arise® wh®th©r -ssiiit© oom will exceed the yield
of yellow eom#
This proBiem confronts the oom breeders in the •various
experiment statims liiere -whit© oom is or has been of ©oonomio importance.
It is the opiaion of may farmer® residing in the southern part of
the oora belt that isliit® oora will oulgrisld yellow oom. Ihis opinion no
doubt ms foriaed fVoa obsermticms on relative perfonaanoe of white and
yellow opea»p0llimt®d TOrieties,
Bi© aoreeges of ^it® oom h&ve decreased ia Missouri and in the
Com Belt sino© Urn adwnt of h:;^rid oom. Ikta are not available to
s»i.k@ Biany ooiBimrisme, but the trend is definitely aotioeable by the
figures a-miJable from the Bureau of Agricultural loonomios of the United
States Beparturant of Agriculture (38). In 191?, 41 per cent of the total
oom acreage in the tfaited States ms planted to •v^ite oornj this figure
dropped to 11.8 per cent in 1946, A similar decline of the ij^ite oom
acreage ms planted wiiii isteit© com and by 1949 the acreage ms estimated
to be ab'Out 3 per cent.
It is also of interest to not© the shift in. the white oom production
area (25), Before liybrid oora ms used extensiwly in the Com Belt,
Illinois, Iowa, ladiam, Missouri and Nebraska were tJi© ohief production
areas of "rtiite corn*
A secondaiy production aarea consisted of Tennessee,
lentucky, Georgia, Alabaaa, ffi.Siiaalppi and Worth Carolina, along with
2.
smith®m states*
After
extensive adoption of hybrids in the
Com Bait, th® wajor #iit® eora produotioa area shifted to ishat prev­
iously had been the seeoadary produoticw, area.
Sio# et al« (it) presented da-te. showing that yellow oom contained
oarotenoid pigments ^i©h wr® ImkMg in white oom, and when white oom
ms "ta^e sole soureo of nutrition for growing animals, it ms inferior to
yellow 0om, Upon the advice of -a® Agrioultural Expariisent Stations
regarding -tine feeding value of whit© and yellow com most ftirEaers in the
Com Belt shifted fron white to yellow varieties. However, this tran­
sit icsn m« not as predcradnaat in the states lying on the southern edge
of th® Com B®lt» as in Missouri, Kansas and Kentucky.. Com breeders,
iaflueneed by th® inforaiation m th© relative vitamin contents of nAiite
and yellow com, and also by the greater availability of yellow varieties,
eoacentmted their effort on the d®velop®»nt of yellow inbjreds and hybrids.
laiit® oom not used for livestock: feed on farms is sold on the open
ssarfeet, -s^ere it is primrily utilized by the dry oom miller.
The dry
oom miller uses ushite oom in the i^iaufacturing of hominy, grits, oom
»al, brewer's grits, oom flour and com flakes. Yellow oom may be
used in immfaeturing most of the above products successfully with the
on® exception of corn flakes. Flakes laade from white oom are superior
to those raade from yellow oorn. Oie South has used white hoadny, meal
and grits for genemtims, and this traditim is so deeply iaibedded
that yellow oom products eaimot be substiiwted. This custom and tradi­
tion have mde a omtinued demand for the industrial products made from
white com.
With, th® emtiatj®<I d0Bmixd for %?h,it® oom products and the supply
©oatinaously falllagt it me som neoessary for th© •^shlte oom railler
to pay a pr©»ium for •Alt® oom, Th® amomt of preaiium mries from
yeftr to year, aad frcw day to day.. In th® past 5 years it has varied
fr« am# to SO o®ats p@r hushel «rr©r yellow oom»
The amoxint of premiim
depends ufoii liie supply aad deimad at -ttiat particular time. The paying
of a premium prevld#® only partial assuwrnoe of an adequate supply.
Burittg th® past deoad®
has heea an over-produotlon of oom.
It seesffl' impomti'Wi that speoial ©aidmsti h® given to finding new markets
or the expaation of Idi® existing mrkets for corn. It appears that -white
oom »igM; offer a poisit)!® outlet for surplus oom. One of th© problems,
of oours®, would h@ th# devislQpiBsnt of Tijetter adapted -v^ite hybrids.
In
the last 4 or S fos.ra, many of th® oom breedei^ have begun extensive
rtiite oora breeding progmn®, Se-yeral of th© dry oom milling oompanies
have pr«a»t0d research on. i#iite eora by assisting in a monetary my
•liirougto grants to Bxperiaent S'tetims.
the breeding of liiite com raises several questions, namelyt
1. Is there an aetual differeno© between -Wie yielding ability of
lAite and yellow oom?
2, In additim. to yield ar® there any other oharaeteristios asso­
ciated with white oom that might be eitlier beneficial or detriBwntel in th© developaent of adapted lAite oom hybrids?
This thesis presents results from the ooiajwison of th® association
of the T-y factors with such important oharaebers as yield, moisture perota'lags (mturi-ty), ear height aad husk oover#
i.
SSf111 OP fElflffilT UTiaRATUHB
Searoh ©f th® litera-faire fails to rewftl my imrestigation designed
®p®oifi0ally to H»asu3W th® relatiw yi«ldir^ ability or writa of whit®
and yellow oom. lost eoiapariscsias war© aad# after data had bean oolleoted
in mristy or hybrid ©omparistm tests# fti® of th® earliest comparisons
amilabl® ms reportsed
tras^ in 1898 (24). In 1267 oO!ni®.rative tests
cortdttQtsd by ©xperiweat staticaas ^roughout the South, 217 ishite varieties
had a 2«S bush®! gr@at®r yield than th® average of 273 colored imrieties.
lo iadioation of th© relative mturlties of -tti© varieties •were given,
Sariaea (s), in 1009# found tho average yield of th® -rtiite varieties oouif
pared with yellow varieties In Idatuolsy to be imoh higher than the 2,5
bushels reported by ^raoy. H® f®lt th® oondltions in Kentucky were more
favombl© for ^jito varieties, aM he believed it x'rould be advisable for
fa.m@rs to liait tholr produotlen largeto white varieties,
. mier aad Hughes ( 1 7 ) $ of lissouri, in 1910 suimnarized a number of
ooopemtlw tests ©mduoted for a three-year period, Th® average of the
"whlt® and yell©w varieties for th© "Aol© state ms ths same, but in test#
oonduot®i at ColuAia, Hissouri, the istoite varieties exceeded the yellow
varieties by S,2 bushels per a@re, Exaainatim of comparative yields for
th# same v«.ri@ti®8 tested in difjfereat geographical sections of the state
r®v®al@d the jwllow mrietiea were superior to white varieties in the
lorthera region -Ail® the #iit® varieties -mm superior over th© yellow
5.
la th® Ceatpal and Southern Regions.
Relative mturities were not given
"but 131® results -afould suggest the whit© varieties to be later in mturi-ty;
thereby th#y -mm able to take advantage of th® oorrespcaadingly longer
gro>wing ^riod in th® Central and Seuthem regions.
Own (18) of Ussisslppi reported yields and other oharaoteristies
in eom for a 10-^ar period at six different looations. The average
yield of 13 lAit© mrieties exceeded the yield of 0 yellow varieties
hy 4.9 bushels per aor®. Si® lAite varieties exceeded the yellow varieties
in the miraber of days from planting to silking by 3.3 days*
For other
eharaotoristics, stich as voluwj of kernel, per oent uroevil daraage, length
of ear, diaaater of ear and ntiitft)er of roiss, there ms no apparent differ­
ence betsseen the nfcite and yellew varieties* It is of interest to note
that 7 of th® isihite varieties aityielded the highest yielding yellow
Varie-ty#
Ihes® «®sie seven varieties were from 1 to 3 days later in silk­
ing -fean til® latest of th® yellow mrieties.
Ifcny audi coaparisons of #ilte and yellow varieties for the southern
regions laay be »d® from yield data in th® litera-feire but these few oitati<m« indicate a slight but consistent superiority of i#iite varieties,
'r&@w data were amilable on relative maturity the superior vAite varieties
were later than yellow varieties. Biis sight be a partial explanation for
th® yield differences assoeiated with utiit© and yellow varieties,
Coiapa»tive yields of #xite and yellow l^brids are available from
several stations. In tti® 1©48 Com Performanoe Teats of Kentucky (14),
•siiite I^brida averaged 90.1 bushels per aere, -Ail© the yellow hybrids
6,
aT®mg@d 85,0 bushels p©r aor®. Ia g»n©ml th© latsr mturing hybrids
also -TOr© higher in yi®ld#
1h® av®mg® sioi«tar« oontant for the is^ito
hybrids ms., 21»I per o©at eoapared with 19,4 per oaat for the yellow
hybrid®. 4T®mg# silking dates for whit® hybrids wr® caa® day later than
th© averag® of th« yellofw hybrids, "asr®® liiit© hybrids had a higher yield
than the higheft yieldlag.yellow h:^rid. Ihil© -tthie moisture content ms
ab»t th® «aa© at Imnrest, the silking dates of tero of the white l^brids
iwr® 2 and 4 days later than the yellossr hybrids.
Bifferenoes in moisture ooa,tent are not almys a reliable indication
of re^liitif® mtarities in regions -where l^rids or mrieties do not take
full adwatage of the growing period* fcta bearing on this point have
h®#» presented ia the Missouri li^brid ©.omfsirison tests (26) for the two
year periods 1948 and 1940»
la the Iforthem region* lite average of the
•white l^rids exeeeded ttoe aw,rage of th® yellow hybrids by 11.6 bushels,
and ©Awied S.3 per cent more moisture at harvest. In the Centml region
th® yield admntag® of th® whit® hybrids ms 10»3 bushels with 1.8 per cent
more moisture. In th© Soutiiera regicea the yield ad-rontage for idie white
hybrids ms 13.0 bushels, liiil® -fte moisture pe,roentaee for the two kinds
ms th© same, the ,appareat differenoes in mturity isere not e-vldent from
the mois'tare content at hardest in •Wi© Southern region, vdiile the mturity
diffeareaees w»r® ^tiite evident in the lorthem region.
A nujiiber of white %brids were higher yielding -tiian the highest yield­
ing yellow hybrids grown ia the same area ajid these ishite hybrids appeared
to be later ia aatwrity. fhis is the amm relatimship as ms previously
pointed <Mt for v/hite and yellow varieties.
7.
l®mp and Rothgeb ( 1 6 ) studied the ad-ronoad generations of a cross
betsroen S©id Yellow D®at and Stowell Iwrgreen, They reported that
plants ftfoa •whit© fceraels produced more ears than those from yellow kernels
tetthis
superiority diainished and finally disappeared after the F^,
Biey also found tJiat kernels segregating for yellow endosperm color
•e»ighed more than either th® he®0i^g0T3S yellow or white kernels and
plants from th© he1»rotygo«s yellow kernels were taller and averaged
jaore tillers than either hoaoaygous class. The heterozygous class Yy
produeed a greater sunfcer of keniels per plant than the hoiaoaygous
yellow through the Fg, Pg, and
*8 superior^
but- thereafter the hoswaygous yellow
They concluded -fee gene for -sstoite endosperm ms loosely
linked with one or more factors for prolificacy Aile the yellow gene
is Twry closely linked with one or more factors for rigor. Since they
used a sugary parent for the source of white endosperm their results may
not be directly applicable to the questions in.volTed in this study,
Ih® association of character® of inbt^d lines in relation to their
Pj^ hyljrids has been pointed out by mmerous workers,
Jenkins (9) reported coefficients of correlation between characters
of the inbred lines and Tarious characters in their crossbred progeny
aad also on th® assoolatioa b®t«w@en characters aaong F]_crosses. Within
the Fj crosses yield essShiblted significant positiire correlations with
date of taseeliag, date of silking, plant hei^t,. number of nodes per
plant, nuEiber of nodes below the ear, nuaSjer of ears per plant, ear
length, ear diaiaster and shelling percentage. PositiTe correlations
between the saa® tdiamcters in the inbred jmrents and in the crossed^bred
8»
prog«ay w&w obtained, layea and Jotinson (7) reported correlations
between the yields of inbB9<i-"5nari®-^ oro$8ea and various characters of
the imrental iiibred*.
TieW of the i»br©d-'mri®%- oross ms correlated
positit©]^ aad slgnlfioaatly wlifc date sitod, plant height, ear height,
leaf -area, pulling resistance, root Toltm®, stalk diaiaeter, total brace
root#, pollen yield, yield index and ear length,.
Although some of the
oorrelatims indieated sufficient assooiatim to be of some predictive
imlue, the final eroluation of lines appeared to be best secured from
their hybrid crosses#
than produce and test the
l^brids of
all possible aiagl® crosses iwiong a group of inbiH»d lines, most com
bweders 'prefer to us® m inbirod x mrie% top«oross test for the pre*
liaiimry emluation. E^tIs (s) suggested the use of top crosses, and
Jenkins and Brunson (ll) emluated its use in laeastiriag coutoining ability.
They conflated th# B^aa perforsaae© of inbred lines in single crosses
ftad the wan performao® of th© amm lines in iji^jred-mriely crosses.
Ike correlation, obtained ms highly significant, and on the basis of
tlwse findings ifliey su^ested tliat crosses of inbred lines with a coiaaisrcial mriety wy be used for rapid, prellminaty testing of new lines,
Johnson and Hay©® (13) used intored-mriety orosses to emluate inbred
lines of eis»@t oora. Line® that esdiibited poor top onass performance
were also poor in single cross oombiaations, and lines which produced
high top eros® yields mr® superior in single oross oombiaations,
Johnson and. Ilaye®
Cls)
reported on the pedigree method of breeding.
fh#y foiiad that line® of good coisfciaing ability -were obtained more frefueatiy from crosses of inbreds that were iiieaisel'TOS hi.gh combiners than
9
from oFom&s of inbwds tiat w©re poor conibineara, Bxay concluded that
©oiribtaing ability ma iulierited#
4®iicin0 (lO) presented data suggestiftg that oombiniag ability remains
rslatiwly UHahaaged during tte ooiirs® of inbreeding. Sprague (22) pre­
sented additional data on. early testiag for yield and lodging resistance,
fast orosses mm m4@ trm M7 Sq plants•
plants selooted oa a basis
of their top-or«f« p®rfor»ne© wr© tested in top crosses.
tic®. between test oross perforsiaaoe of
lines
The correla-
their S-| fasiily
mMMSM mw 0,85 for yield and 0.98 for per oeat stalk breatoage.
%®istiOTS iOTolved in the ohoioe of suitable testers have been studied
by 8®v®rs.l worlceaw* Beard (l) oomiimred the relative mine of two unre­
lated single orosees and axi open-pollinated vari®% as tester parents*
E® found the three testers raiils»4 the 7 lines tested in th© same order
fop ooafeining abiliii'- Mt the agreement with respect to lodging ms poor.
Sreea (6) oon^jared tw> testers, a double-oross hybrid and an open-pollinated
mriety. fh© two testei^ gaw oompamble estiasates of the average combin­
ing ability of Itie Fg progenies of th«>® single crosses from High x High,
High X Low, and -t4»T x Ltm ooHibining inbreds, but gave different estimates
of •&© eoBisiaing abili^- of •Uie individual segregates. II® concluded that
average ooribinlng ability eouM not be seasured by one tester parent.
€amn (z) fmnd a high positive correlation between top-cross yields of
unrelated iifisreds and thoir yields in single crosses. Ho correlation existed
lAere' related inbwds wro used. Mailer (10) found that two unrelated
10
t®tt#rs (aiixgl® arosBQs) did not giw like rwasures of ooitibiniag ability,
%*hloh 8mgg:©st®<S tiie adflsftbili%- of «sing moro than on® tester. He also
saggentM that th© ohoioe of a tester depmd-s upon the us© to be i»de of
•fell® lines uader test.
Stabler
stiggested ^mt gaiaetes from a heterozygous population
my be ©•mluateA %•'early testing*
fh® prooeduro proposed involves the
©rttisiag of an o|^a»pollt33ftt©d mriety with an elite line. Selected
plant® from suA a ©ross are self•pollinated and outorossed to a suitable
tos'ter* %aotio mriaticm amaag ^i© test,cross progenies is determined
fey Qie gsa»t©s eoatribttted by th® open pollinated •mriel^. Date are not
yet amilabl© for a oritioal emlmtioa of tSiis method*
i&rmms /a© sifiioDs
W&rtormnm trials of the Y-y S®gr®gates from Pg and
Fl,rst G@a@mticKi feokoross Populations
fo study the posslbl®. assoolation of th® Y-y allels with certain
ftgrcaofflio attriljutes two iabred lines -mt^ ohosen as parents, repre­
senting a high ©otablniag yellow endospem inbred line W9 and an e^jally
ooaiJiaiag late whit© endosperm iabred line Ito22. Prerious ohaei-mtioas indloated a possible assooiatiaa of inaturity with the differences
in th® yield, of liiite md. yellow oom. The follossring crosses wre imde:
w r a X . M o t 2 S F g a n d t h e h a c k c r o s s t o tsoth p a r e n t s # (lio«22 x Y i f Q ) ( W 9 )
and {¥®& X Mo.g2)(lfo.E2).
Seed of these ^-tdhiree populations were separated for yellow and white
eadospena and grown, in 1046»
Plants wewi selfed and top-crossed siimil-
taneoi^ly to two opeEtwpolllimt^d varieties as testers. Midland and St,
Qmrlm* Midland is a yellow mriety of about 125 days raaturity and
St# CImrles a #ilt0 mrie%' of about 1^ days joaturity. These tiw varieties
wore popular la Missouri before -tiieir replaceujent
hybrid com. Plants
aelfed in IQ-iS wire agaia selfed in 1947 to verify color classification.
flhlt® and. yellosr testers unsre ased to deteraiae the presence of an
iatetucticm of color of th© segi^gates vdth color of the testers. Each
selfed plant ms otjtorossed to ten plants of each of the two tester parents
as Spragu® (21) had fouad it ms desirable to use a ten plant sample of an
Qpm pollinated varie% to reduce the plant to plant variabililgf.
12,
fop eros® yield, trials -mr® planted m IHssouri River bottom land
in 194? a®ar <J®ff©i«an 01%-, Missouri#
The trials.ocnsist®d of a 12 by
12 tripl® lattio.® wiiti 6 rsplicjatiais of Z by 10 hill plots.
This trial
ms l#st du« to the Missouri Mi-mr flood which occurred in June of that
y®ar.
fh© top eroas yi®M trials mte replanted ia 1948. Shortage of seed
»duo©d 13i© test to m 11 'by 11 iatti<^ square with 6 replications.
For
ressoas of ,saf©% th© plot size ms reduced to 2 by 5 hills and planted
at oaeh of two looaticas# m*ly» &r®hall and Jefferson City, lilissouri,
Ih® soil wher© th© expeldiuent ms ©oadmoted at ^rshall, Missourit represeated a lyp© ohamoteristio of th® upland soils in Horthisest and Mortdi
Seatral liiesouri liiile th® ©x|»riJBeat at Jefferson City, rfissouri ms
looftted. m llisstouri fiiwr "bottom laad usually noted for high produotivity.
Hi© test at each location ma planted at the rate of 5 kernels per
hill «d after the first eultimtion iiie test at Marshall ms thinned to
three plants per hill and tto® Jeffeiwoa City test m® l^iimed to two
plants per MH»
Agroicmio data ineludei yield In bushels per acre, stand, per oent
moistui^ in the gimia at harvest^ root and stalk lodging, husk cover grade
and ear height gmde, .Aer® yields iwre not adjusted for differences in
stand but adju®1»at8 w«pe i».d® for up to S missing hills. Harvest
weight® wire eoaverted to a 15#5 per cent moisture basis by use of areaaoisfeir® factor tables prepared by the Iowa Igriouliaxral Sxpsriment
Station#
Staad i^roentag® ms determined by actual counts of the plants
pr#s®ii1s, Coua'ts also w®r® mde of root and stalk lo<ig0<3 plants. Husk
ooTwr gmd® was so©r®d from 1 (good) to 5 (poor). Ear hoight grade
oorrtspoads approximtely to tte nusfcer of feet from th© gramd to the
poiat of ear attaoliTOnt &n th® ©talk.
la order to siapll^- a»d siiorten th.® dissertation th© following
abbraiAatims will "b® ua«di
% • looatloa 1 Harslmll, Missouri
Ig •» looatictt 2 «J9ff®raoa City, Missouri
* t@st«r 1 Midlaad op@a pollinated mrie% (yollow)
fg • tester 2 St. Charles open pollinated .variety (white)
FgY <• 1t»llow ®adosp©r® (tl or Ty) segregate.® of th© oross Mo.22 x 1^9
Fg geaeratim possessing an average of 50 per cent of their
geaetio ooaatitutioa ooatribated "by ®li2xer pairent.
FgW •litoit® ©ndospem (yy) s.0gr©gat®s of th® orose lio.22 x ffPS Fg
• gettemtioQ peaaessing as average of 60 per oent of their
geaetio ©onititutiwi contributed by ©ither parent.
lellow" eadospem ( I f o r Yy) segregates of the orosa (Mo.22 x liF9)
(Wf0) first g©ja©»tioa back oross possessing an average of 75
per oeat of thoir geaetie ©oastit«tion contributed by the
yellow |®,roat aad 2S per oent by the tdiite parent.
BCjW* lliit® 0ado.8p©m (yy) segregates of th# cross (Mo.22 x htFO)
(WF9) {Soa-existRttt in the first generation baokoross due
to the doainaao® of th© T factor)
BCgY«. Yellow ©ndospena (Yy) segregates of idb.© oross (WJ^ x Mo,22)
{I0.22) first generation baokorosseii possessing an average of
14
85 per emt of their genstio oonstitutim contributed by.
me srellow parent aad IB
o©nt cmtritaited by th® white
BCgW* ftiit© ®ndosi5®wi (yy) segawgates of th© (Wf^ x Mo,22)(Mo.22)
first geaamtioa baokorosses possessing an average of 75 per
e®ttt of their genetic oonstitutioa oontributed by the white
^reat and 25 per eent by lai® yellow |®rent.
c( •(ali^a) pro-^des th® oontmst of the effects of the y segregates
of the FgW and the BCgW populatloa® and the Y segro^tes in the
FgY and BCg? populations.
/3
- (bete.) represents th® oomparison of th© Fg segregates against
the BCg segregates disregarding color*
y
-
represents the ooufjarlsoa of tli© y segregates of the
fgW and th© Y segregates of •tti.e BCgT against the Y segregates
of the l*gT aad th® y segregates of the BCgW,
2) - Cd©11») represents ifc® ©omptriscm of iiie
segregates against
the ?g and BCg segregates disregarding eolor.
.Ii»lysis of th© lattice sqtmre designs were made in aooordanoe with
the methods outlined by Boioeyer, Glea and Federer (8), Methods employed
la th© stttdy of the assoaiatioa of mriou® oharaoters with th© Y •* y (allele)
were supplied by Professor Os«»r leap'Wiome of the Statistical Dopartment
of Iowa Stat® College*
She m&m for ©aoh tester wi^in eadht loeation were ootsptited for each
of th© fi'W populations, fgW, FgT, BCjY,
and SC^Y so that the moans
from the two experiments were subdiTided into 20 groups. The within group
15,
mrianoe® aa(3 oorr®spoaciiiig degr®©s of tre@Aom •mre calculated and, these
twa% ®stlwit®s of irmriaae® -wap®' ooablnsd to yield a pooled -variano®
for tQStlag tJi© sigaificanoe of th® fear ocwparisms, d » ^ # V * and
•
Oorrelatioa aimly®«8 mm used in studying -tdhie folloislng associations:
Yi@ld of
Y md y »@gregat®s of fj vs, Sg' %
testers
within looatim,s,j yi«ld of s»gr®gat®i of th® Fg* ^'^i
iii®a erossed wilA
m*
^ea tested at 1^3^ ts.
and for testers
within Itoatlmsi s®sr»gates of th® Y and y classes for yield vs> moisture
in th® grain at harrest# .polllnatim date® of th©
plants in 1946 vs,
miBimm of their oorrespondiag top or©ss®8 in 1948 and Hioislsiro vs, ear
height grade of th® toperosses,
Sidividual Plant Usattireaents from Fopulations Segrsgating
for the Y-i-7 Paotor
After 1^0 loss of th® 1947 yield trial, an additional investigation
mm set up and ©rosses "wer® Jaad® te the greenheus® during th® isinter of
1047 and 1048.
ia2 X
seed of th© following crosses wr® planted t 0711 x E30,
21ft X lo, mm, W9 X
n and mz x a x 4RS. in oaoh of these
oros®®s the first parent of th® pedigree is y®llow and Idi® seeond #xlt«.
Pollen from 'thes® crosses, segwigating for the Y*y factor, •sser® used
in mking top ©rosses on four siagl© oross tester |»r©nts K@S x £64,
EyE7'x My49, 14 x B2, and
x S, Sh® fij^t two single orossos listsd
are whit® and th®' latter two are yellow. Seeds of th® lAit® topoross®®
•mm olassified as either Y or y whil® 8®®ds of th® yellow toperosses
10,
mm olassifiei. as either YY or Yy, Due to the dark yellow endosperm of •
th® LS X S toporosaes th@ YY olsis.s eoiiH not be distinguished from th®
Ty ©lass and •tties® test^orosses mr® aot included. For the purposes of
this ia-wstigation th© YY class of the yellow tester crosses were oonsldei^d as th® Y ©lass and the Yy g©ao%pe as th® y class. Hie remining
test crosses wr© plaatasd in 1948 in a split plot arrangeaieat of a random­
ized block with 4 mplimtims*
allels# Stand®
the split •me m the contrasting Y-y
reduced fey o«twom daamge to such an extent that
analysis of 'th© split plot madtsffilaed Ijlock design cotxld not be tnade and
data -were taken on an in<3ividt«l plant basis, %rmoaic date talmn incl.i3Ed©d tar wight, aurafcer of day® frm planting to silking, ear height
in feet, and nmftser of ears per plant, Analysis of mriance ms calculated
for each cross separately* I^e to th© lack of data for some crosses vrith
«oae testers a oombiaed analysis of mrianee ms not possible and thejrefor® th© »asure of tdti© R»an differences for the Y-y classification was
aocra^lished hy the **t" test# Attributes tested in this mnner wejre ear
weight, ear height and number of days from planting to silking.
If.
WmimWSAL IBSITLfS
P®rforaBii®0 frials of tli® t»ty S-egregates from
Mek&eom Popwlatims
A
First Generatica
eoH^risctt. of yield aad other agrmomio ch&raoteristics aasooiatod
with th® T«y s^gjwsgates ms otstaiaed fr&m top oross yield trials of the
stgregatttg plant® fr« the Mo»22 x 1F9 Pg and the first generation baok©rosses to both pareats (llo»22 x WF&) (WF9) scad CW9 x Mo,22) (Mo.22).
fhe iamlysis ©f variaaee and ih© ooeffioient of variability for "Kie
Marshall and «l»ff®rson Ci^ experiMsts are presented in Tab lea 1 and 2
respeetiwly,
Bi® awmge yield of the larshall experiswiit ms 56,2 bushels per
a^ ©oapsired with the ai^ei^ge yield of 82•? bushels for the Jefferson
Oi'ty experimsat iadioating th® relatiw productivity of the two test
fields. Sie eoeffioieat of mriabill^- for th© two teats tias 1S»1 per
mn.t and 12*.5 ^r cent 2»sp®@tlvely.
fariaaees mr® estimted for each of •tti© five genetio constitutions
Fg?l, FgT, BGj_Y, BCgY ^aad BCgW with ea<^ tester (Tj and Tg) and at each
of the two looati-ms (I^ and %)making a total of 20 estimates of mrianee. These are not a Maasujpe of total yariaaoe but rather awasures
of the irariano® for th® segmsgate® of a giren genetio oonstitution with
18
fatel® 1. Aaalysi® of •m.rlBnm of harvest wight for th®
11 by 11 lattio® square yield trial grom at
MarslmH, lassouri ia 1§48
Aaalysi® of farianoe
Degrees
of
freedom
Source of farlatim
Replioatioas
Boire ellaimtiag mrieties
ColiMifl ellaiaatiiig mrieties
Tarieties (i^orlng rows & oolunais)
Irror (tatra-felock)
•
Tobal
S
60
60
120 ^
480
laan oquar©
6,39
101.30
3.35
17.02
2,04
ftS
Coeffieieat of mriabilily 15.3^
fable 2, Analysis of •mri&noe of harveat wights for the
11 Isy 11 lattice square yield trial gromx at
Jefferson City, Missouri in 1948
Amlysis of Tarianee
Souro® of mriation
'Degrees
of
freedo»
leplicatims
lows eliminating mrieties
C&Xmm elittimtiag mrietles
Varieties i^oring rows & ooluwts
Irror (iat«*bloQk)'
B
60
60
120
480
Total
m
Ooeffioieat of mriability 12.5^
Maam square
738.88
69,54
13.24
28.64
3.49
19,
ft oarfeaia tester »t a particular location, fhe sura of the 20 estiimtos
of wriane® gaw m pooled mriano® ^Aioh ms used in oaloulating the
stmndard^ ®rroi« ftppliealjl® for iMJcing tests of signlficanc© for the -mrious yield ooiaparisaBS, Estimtes of v»rianoe, raean yield of segregates
and -Ml® degrees of freedoa froB
moh of the fiir® genetic constitutions
FgW| FgY, BC^y., BCgY and BOgTI wilit ©aoh of the two testers
and Tg)
aM at th© two looatioas (Isj, m& Ig) are gi-^sn in Table S. Bartletts (20)
efct-»squar@ test for homogeaeitiy ms aot si^ifleant indicating the -mriaaoe® -mTe hoaogeneous and the saisples eould be cor).sidered as having
beea dmm froa th© same populatim,
M eMHipl© of til© B»tliod used to mk® the CZ ,^ ,y , and h comj^risoas ar® Bhovm. in Table 4. Si®
.» /S ,T , and
aa orybogaml set of oomparisais, fhe
biologioal significwise#
OL $ /5, and
d
group represent
b corapirisons are of
The Y comparison, is of limited biological sig-
ntfloanee and is added only to mfc© this set of ooKiparisons orthoganal.
Difference® ar® the arit3iia®tio suss of tiie plus and mlms "mlues of the
correspmdiag iwaiis for the particular oowparison, Hio differences
between color (f "W. y) art represented by the Ct comparison if^ich is
••76 * 3»89 bushels in favor of the jfaotor and not aignifioant.
proTides a comparison of the Fg segjregates vs. the BCg segre­
gates, ttm b ©caparison contmsts the BCj segregates vs. tho Fg and
BCg segregates regardless of color#
1*1
©TOjaple wore significant*
lone of the oomparisms for the
20.
Tttbl® S, Bstimt©8 of v&riano®, mean yi«ld of the segregatas
and the degrees of freedom for ©aoh of th® following
g©a®tio oonatitutims!
and BG^'i
with ©aoh of two testers
mi3 at the two
looatime
Lg)
Genetic
oonstitution
Degrees
of
freedom
Itoan yield of
Looatirai Tester segregates
bu. per acre
Esrfcimatea
of
varianoe
1
1
54.69
56,47
505,12
119,82
2
2
56.58
55,08
600,34
138,86
2
8
1
1
79,26
81,37
926,04
244,42
16
8
2
2
2
2
79,30
81,92
788,94
313,38
BCjY
BCif
14
14
1
1
1
Z
57,04
55,32
218,86
205.31
BCiY
BC^Y
14
14
2
2
1
2
79,47
79,59
596,31
518,12
BCgY
BGgW
4
11
1
1
1
1
58.64
57,62
108,77
142.14
BCgY
BOfll
4
1
11
1
2
2
59,34
54,93
119,01
226,91
4
11
2
2
1
1
87,62
90,24
48.45
654,43
4
2
2
2
2
89,36
89,65
200,23
402.53
FgY
Fgl
16
8
1
FgT
PgW
16
1
8
1
FgY
FgW
16
F«Y
sf®
BCgl
BCgY
BCgW
Sua
8
11
212
1
7077.99
21
f&bl© 4«
Exaapl® of th® d $ j3 » ^ and ^ oompariscais for
denetie omstituicnis
PgW
PgY
BCjT
BOgW
BCgt
if. % genetio eoast.
ooatr. by y ,|»r©at
SO
SO
25
75
75
S6.47 m.SB 57.04
57,62
S8.64
m
f
mk
- -S.IO
f
- -2.80 i- 3.89
Isan-yields
.
-
4.
44
YleM ecanparlBons witliisa lo<atticmt«
ia table 4t, U ^
Diffsrenoes
-.76 ^ S.89
f
- f .74 f 7.11
tJsiag the procseduiN# illustmtsd
$ y' and ^ oon^risois wre mde for Lj^ and Lg#
mlues obtained are presented ia Tafele S*
3.89
At location 1 the
The
values
indioat® the f segr#,gates had, m|
2.58 2*8 bushel admntage over the y
Segi^gates #ill® at leoatioa 2 tii® y ®egiM»ga.tea exceeded the Y hy 3.82 J
i.S •bttshela pir aere, neither diffewai^ "beiag sigaifioant.
It is of
tetefWBt to not® -ttee apparent superiority of the tftiite endosperm segre­
gates i&t locaticsa 2 while the rewj^e ms true at location 1. Although
tfcese differeaoes are aot sigaificsmt th^ are in agreement iwith previous
yield trials liilsli iadimt® a general superiority of white lig?|jrids oil
riirer bottom lerad.#
zz.
a© /3 and B ©omparisons (See Table S) wr® highly significant
at looatim 2 iadleatiag that the BCg segregates -mrs superior to the
Pg eegiwgates and tt.® sum of the BCg aad Fg segregates were superior to
the BC]_- segregates. Bie BCg segregates received 7S ^r oent of their
geaetiQ cmstitutisai ivom the white parent while the Fg received SO
per cent of its genetic eoastitution. fVom eaoh of the ^lite and yellow
parents. This suggests that the white parent contributed the more de­
sirable ©oapleiaeat of genetic factors affecting yield, llhether these
factors -wre actual yield gene® or genetic factors for later ruaturity
thereby allowiag these segregates to mfce better ^ise of the growing eeaaon
at locatica
2
is prdbleBmti<»l»
She noa-slgnificanoe of the ^ and
S'
comparisoBS at location 1 imy be due to the Im yield potential of the
soil at this location as indicated by the comparatiw yields of the tvro
looatieas•
fable 5# Q. ,/3 P'and h ccsitrasts for yield in bushels per
acre at th© two locations, Lj and
Co3ii|>arisoa
Differences in bushels per acre
H
%
a
4. 2,58 1.
g.8
«•>
/3
- 3,86 1 8»8
-17,52 1; 2,8
r
• 2.84 4. 2,8
• ,90 4. 2,8
h
• 1,96 1 5,03
•^Significant at 1?^ level
-S*82
2.8
-21,20 * S,OS
2S.
Yield eomi».risms with testers*
for yield
Th© d » /5 » ^
^ contrasts
in bushels per acre for the two testers (Ti and Tg) are
presented ia ^ahl© 6# /S> and 5 differences Tiwr© highly significant
and these differences •mm in olos® agreeasent for both testers. Tho c(
coatmsts were not significant, and •mre of opposite signs.
In th© Tj
group th© J stgregatss w©r® superior in yield whereas the Y segrogatos
produoed the highest awrag®. yields with Tg*
fabl# 6.
Of ,/3 ,y and 5 contrasts for yield in bushels per
acre for th® two testers# T-^ and Tg
Goaparison,
Differences in bushel per acre
•^1
^2
a
r
S
- 2.75 * 2.8
f 1.50 i 2.8
-11.17 1 2.8
-10.20 *2.8
- 1.15 1 3.8
»*
^ 9,87 f 5.03
- 2.02 1 2.8
-13.24 4. 5.03
•'tSignifioaat at 1^® level
Yield oompariscais for testers "te" looations. A sruiatnarjr of the
Lgf
and LgTg ooapirisons Is presented in Table 7. Although the d
eomparisoBS show difference® ia fawr of the y group over the Y group
for three of the four testers by looation oorabinations these individual
differences and their sums were not significant.
E4.
o
•
*
m
*i
I
SO
b•
«
eg' CO
t i
3
I
«# iO
o»
sd
•
•
r4- »
cfe*
®
t
u
$m
8 §
•i
#
•
•
w eo
^1 •41 -••(
$
u
o
0>
M
1
0
U
1
*-l
6-i
•
!?-
t^.
1
^ ^^
to eo
^1
to *¥i
t> a
«
I
•
r1
**l"t
1^
CO
«
M HI
c^a
1
I
B ^«
i^> EHH m,
H( * to
U. lO
f-4
I
•w
•
• • §
m V3
HH '4t -•*1
•Hi rH
«o 0^«
05
•
»
lO ©s M
«« ^
1
t
03 *
4>
iO f»-4
§•
»
•41
V .rS
•I
^-f
I
I
@
1
HI
r*i#
to
•••I ^1 *w
s § E~
•' •
• •
1 f 1
I:!
5
1^
i
H
r*4
•
E~K
H
H
fr-
n S ^
25,
Th«/6 and 8 for
fliia touM
and LgTg wr© significant at the
level.
suggeat that lAe air@mg© of th® BCg segregates were superior
to the [email protected]® of the Fg .s»gwga,t@s disregarding color. It will be
reealled. •®at ?6 per cent of th® genetio oonstitution of BCg was contrilwted bj Idie white ^rent as oomimred 'with a 50 per oent contribution
of this saia® parent to tiie Pg»
fhis is a further suggestior. that the
ifeit® parent <3ontribut»«d genetic factors which reacted more favorably
with the enTironiaeatal ooixclitioas of location 2 than those emtributed
by the yelloff |®.reat. The 6 differenees which were highly significant
for
^2% provides additicmal support for this belief as this
corapariam JBeasuwa the BCj ®«g»gats3 against the Fg and BCg segregates.
The geaetio oaatributim of l^e lAite pawnt in this comparison being
1/4 m, 1/k plus 3/4.
lels.turt oommrisem
Separate mriances isere o&leulated for ©aoh of the fi-ro genetic pop­
ulations Fg> , FgY, 8^2^* BCgY and BCgW with each tester (Tj_ and Tg)
at each of 13%© two locations in tjie sarae manner as previously described
for yield, Tho pooled mrlane® and standard errors also ivere oomputed
as prerimsly desoribed#
Bartlett's (20) test for homogeneity of variance
ims applied and the dhl-squaiw mlue indicated the variances to be homo­
geneous,
CompariscBis of differences for the C? ,/3 , X and b contrasts isere
©oaputed
tii© same »thod as wtlined previously for the
eomparisons.
yield
26,
Moisture oomparisoas mthin looatiaas, iblsture comparisons within
looatioas ar® presented is Tabl® 8. !h© CL difference \ms highly sigaifloattt at Lj shcnfing tha y stgregates to oariy 1,4 per cent more
aoistur® than, th© T segr®gat®s. Bie differeao© at Lg ims in th® sa^
dirscticsa but not signifioant,
fh® /5 and h diff®r®xie®s mr® highly sigaificant, lii ©aoh of thes®
two OQiaparisoas th@ differeae® at ©ash loc®,ti<Mi isas of ab<mt idie same
mgiiitui© aad indioat®® that the ^it® parent contributed factors for
lat®a®f® as mBMumd hy ®. higher soistur® content &t harvest tiras.
'&hl« 8,
a /3 tY aad h ooatrasts for moisture ?/ithin
looatioas % aad Ig
Comparison.
, Differimoe in per cent moisture at harvest
H
a
.51
- ,5 * ,51
-4.0 i ,51
-2,9 i .51
r
• ,2 1 .51
•.1 * .01
h
-5,6 1 ,95
-5.l\ .95
-1.4
*•
**
**Sigaifioaat at the l/» level
Moisture coaparisoas mtfcin. testers, fhe CZ »/5 ,T and ^ oositrasts
for moisture within testers ar© presented in Table S, The (X differences
are aot sigaifioaat with either tester#
Hosffever, tJi©^ and 5 differences
ar® highly significant within each tester grexip. These differenoos were
almys in th© direotioa of th® higher moisture content heing associated
27
feble 9»
Comparisoa
CL $ /S
^ ooffij^risms for raois-taire per cent
at iiarrsat withia testers,
5^2
Blffereaoe la per cent moisture at harvest
"'^1
a
— 1.0 4 ,51
**
/3
y
5
- .9 4. ,51
•*
• 3.4 h
«» .51
-3.5 4- .51
• .6 4. .SI
•*
•5,4 1 .95
.5 £ ,51
—5,3
nm
.95
••Significant at the 3^ level
•wife th© oro8s®s having a larger parosat&ge of its genetic constitution
eoatributed by th© -siiit© pawst.
Iloietare pomparisoa for ttstera by looations. Tii© moisture oomparisoas for testers "by locations are given in Table 10. The OL oomparison
wts signifi^ttt .at th© 5 per o®at lovel for L3_t2 but not for the ronaining ttir®© test©!?® by locatioa oombinations, The cuirulative difference
ma highl^r signifioaat showing|
a S»8 ,37 greater moistiir© content for
th© y
Si® differences *«©» consistent in indicating that tJie y
®«g3»gat®s ©Aibited a hipiher moisture cmteat at harvest time,
the /5 and & differeaoee were highly significant for each of the
tester by looatitm oorabinatiraas as wll as for th© ouiailative totals,
ilgain th® differences are in th© direction expected if the higher moisture
percentage ms o<mtributed by iiie white |»r©n.t»
Iabl0 10,
CL^
an<3 h comparison for saoistor© per eoat at haarvest- for testers
by looatims
^^1%* %^1*
^2^2
i
1
3!
a
Coiaparisoa
%%
L|Ti
in Txsr oeat moistore at Imrwst
%%
%%
*•
#
a
total
- 5,8 4.
.S7
wt
-14,0 4,37
mt
—l.S if ,73
/d
-4.4 4 .73
-i.7 4 .m
-2,4 f .7§
—^.4 ^ ,73
y
- .4 i. .7S
4. ,1 f ,73
- ,8 4" ,7S
I- ,6 i ,73
• .5 i .S7
6
-6,4 il.S4
*•4,7 ^1,34
-4,4|1,M
-6,8 il,S4
—21,2 |« ,68
**
- ,8 !• .73
-.2 1. .73
-1.5 4- .7S
*#
**
**
^Significant at t^ie
lewl
••Significant at the 1?? leTsl
20
Ear height gmd® eompa-risottg
Th® ®ar height grad® r#pr©sents th® approximate number of feet frata
th© grcfund to th® poiat of attaohaeat of th® ear oa th© stalk. The (X ,
/5 , T , and h oQiapi,ri.8ons "w®re md@ la th® sain© mimer aa previously
iesoribed. Bstimtes of imriaiioe and
standajsi errors likemse were
obtained ia the saa® mmmv a® previously desorlbed. Bartlett's (20)
test for h«og©n®ity revealed Iti® mriaacas if@re hcaaogeneous.
Ear height jg^^d# eoBiimrisaas within locatioas»
In Table 11 the d
ooaparieon revealed a 8lgiii,ficaat diffei^ae® at the 5 per cont level
for locatic®. g,. The ear height of the -Ait© segi^gates exceeded that
of th® Y@llm segregatei#
Ih® /6 eoi^risoas -were significant at the
S per cetit Idwl for l0€»ti0a 1 and at th® 1 per cent level for looati<m 2,
Th® ^ eoapariscms were signifisant at 'tiie I per oe»t level at eaoh looatioii#
Hiese oomparisoas iadioated a greater ear height amoi:^, the segre­
gates from th® crosses having a greater proportim of their genetic
constitution, ooatributed by tti® white parent.
Bar heiRtit grade oommrison wilfcltt testems. The (X , /3 ,7 and b
oomparisoa® wlfchin tester® are given in Table 1B»
Tli® OL differences
•shioh -mm in favor of the TAit® segrej-sates were not significant. Highly
aignifioaat difr®jwnces were obtained for the/^ and h oomparisons for
eaoh teeter* As aentioned above, the greater ear heights vjere associated
with the segregates having a larger proportion of the tsiiite parentage,
Sar height gmde eommrisonB for teetere by locations. The OL
emtrast for eaoh of th® testers by location cojaparisons show a tendency
30,
fabl® 11#
^ i/S
aad S ooatrasts of ear height grades
witSiin looations
aad I^)
Differences to ear height grade
Cos|»,risoa
H
a
m
•1 1 ,14
• ,3 • .14
A
•
.3*1 ,U
- ,9*{ .14
r
h .1 •14
**
•m
.? 1 .26
•.1 4" .14
h
*1.3 i .26
*Sigaifioftat at th® 57a
«*Signlfioant at th®
Table 12#
1@t®1
<2, /5g T and h omtmsts of ®ar height gmdeo
with,in t©at®rs {f2_ aad fg)
1
?1
a
Cowptrism
h
a
.2 + .14
in ear height amd©
fg
- .2 4 .14
**
/5
- #6 4. .14
*•.64".14
r
*• .2 «f' #14
0 f .14
h
-1,0 1. .26
-1.2 ^ .26
**Sisiiifioaat at tlw 3^ Iwl
31
for th® higher ear height to be associated witli the ivhite segregates.
Boa® of th© iadividml diff®s^jio@s wr© sigiiifioaat. The sum of the
differeao®®, hmm-mrt ms 8igaifi<»at at the ifa leirel.
airo Bhowi in Table 13#
The differences for
tlm/S
The oomparieons
coaparison are sig-
aifleant at the S per o«nt 1qt®1 for Ljtj and L^fg and signifioant at
1 p®r o@nt' lifTsl for Lgfj and
-^11
testers hy location
eoabiaatiaas for th« ^ ooafjarisoa war® significant at "t^ie 1 per cent
1®T©1»
As pointed out for Mi® withia lotmtion and the within tester
0om|Kirisaa.8 the higher ear height gmdes iwre api®.rently eojitrihuted by
the whit# parent. It is of interest to note that among the moisture
Qomparisons those earrying a higher aoisture content also had a sig­
nificantly higher ear height grade.
Qm might expeot this associaticm,
as both dmraoters ar® uaially iadicati-r© of later mturily.
liask amm'- gmde is a visml score for average husk extension.
A
gmde of 1.0 is weed for the most desirable and 5.0 for the least
desirable -type,
3tO»
(26)
l%@re the htisk Just oorers the ear the grade would be
BiGst whit® I^rids in the Missouri Hybrid comparisons testa
thB husk cm®r gmde hag averaged aboit, 2.0 -while the yellow hybrids
la the sasi® test hed an awrag© imsk cover ranging from 3.5 to 4.0.
Estimates of variaaces and ooaisutatioas of standard errors i-sere
smie as pre-riously outllaeiS*
Tests of homogeneity of mriance by
Bartlett's (20) <&i»s^imre aeiiiod revealed the mriaaces to be homogeneofus.
Tatil© 12»
CL » /5
sxA ^ mirbensts of ©ar height gmd© for testem hy locations,
^1^1*
^^^2
DlffQretto^s in oaf height gmde
Coiaparisons
'^^l
^^*^8
Toissls
- .2 4 ,20
0 1. .20
o
«
1
a
»s|s
- .7 4- .10
.20
- .7 J .20
—2.8 4» .10
.20
# .1 1. .20
I- a 4- .10
*^5
«4,7 I; .18
- .2 4.
«w •20
*
1
h
- .4 I •20
.EG
-.4 4.
mt'
0 * .20
Kt ¥ .20
m*
-1.0 f .36
»Sigaifioaat at the 5/^ level
**Sigaifi(mnt at the # level
-1.0 4. *m
•.3 1"
••
-1.0
>«»
•1.4 ^
#s^
-1.3 4
•V' .i6
3S.
fh® ^ ^
^ eoMfarisons for h-^ and %t Xj and fg and
for I'll*!# %%• %%»
.Mtapeotiwly#
lig% w© pi^sented in Talbles 14, 15 and 16
Most of the <Slff#3reno®s wre mry swall and wr® ncjt
sigaifioQut. Stow of th.® diff&p®ao®s for and
were significant at
th® S p®r o®nt le^el in th© t®®t®r fey location oomparisona. However, ov«m
•tait«s-9 diff©r«n.o«s ar® smll and appear to b© of little ocoasequeno®.
Oaffyglaticgi studies
Correlatim eosffici@nt® mm oomputed for yield in bushels p«r
»©» 'b®tw»®n fj w. fg,
•®a©h oolor cla®«.
l^bl® 1?,
T8* Iig and for testers by locations within
oorrelatim oosffioients are presented In
Bi© agf«@»nt mmg tii© Y segregates for to,
Lg and for
ts.
within
Tg* % '^s.
iwtB good, glTing positiTe correlation
mlues sigalfioaat at th® 1 per oent lewl, Honwirer, the correlation
mine of
vs# % within % ms not sigaifioant although it approached
th© 0 per ©eat leirel of sigaifioanoe#
liiioh follow
In this ease and in the tables
th® oorrelatims mtm higjily significant the inagnitude
of r^ iadieates -tflmt they have c»ly limited predictive value. Apparently
th© Y segregates mm eonsisteat in ISieir perforraanoe with both testers
and at botto loeatims*
fh® correlations involving the y segregates isere
not sigttifl«at for any of th© OMiparisons and showed negative values
between l©oatl.«as«
It will be recalled from fable 5 that the
values
indicated the y segregates to yield uiore than the T segregates at Ig
•while the rewrse was true of Lj. Although th© differences wre not
34.
CL, /S
and ^ oontrasts for husk cover grade
for locatims
tsible 14*
in hmk ooiyer srade
C0iaparisc«B
a
$X4t
0
f ,2 + .14
0
4
MT .14
7
• ,2 t
«• .14
0
i .14
6
• »3' ^ »S6
0
4 .26
• .3
.14
I
Biff©r®no#s ar@ not signifimat
falil® 15»,
(2 ,
T and h omtiusts for husk cover grade
"by testor®
Differ©no08 ia husk cover Krade
Goi!|».rism®
%
a
m
^2
.1 f
.14
m.
0 i ,14
/6
I* a * .14
*
r
h .1 t .14 .
•.2
h
1- .1 4 .26
- .4 I .26
Dlff®r®no®s are not aigaifloaat
1"
.14
.14
Tabl® 16«
CL ^ /3
aaS ^ ©cmtrasts for husk Qtrmr gmd© for tester
Tjy ioeatiOBSs Vi* hh* %^i
hh
Comparisms
Siffejreao^s ixk Imsk sover gmda
Vg
hh
%%
Vl
- .11 •20
/3
- .3 4. .80
r
h
o
a
.
,2 4 .20
1. .1 4- .20
4. ,2
4. .30
* ^
.20
0 h
m
.1 I .20
- .St .20
1. .20
1. .2 «•
.»4k 4«• .80
..3 4 .20
.a 1 .Sf
0 1.
«i» •ST
.a *s?
.s 1
«6igaifioaiit at 5f& 1@t®1
•20
totals
,m
"•
4*
*» .10»
0 1 .10
0 h
m
'
ao
•A .19
m*
table 17, 0orr®latio& ooefficients for the Y and y segregatoa
betwien jrield .of fj_ ts, Tg,
vs. Ig and by
t®8t@r® withia looaticjns
Segregates
of
J)/F
f, rs. Tg
vs, l>2
-ra.
'i'l
,60**
Y
y
14
•3$
,51»#
-•IS
.44*^
-.07
T2
.31
•.!?
••Significant at the 3^ lewl
slgnifisent -Wi© oomi»r&ti"V® diff@r@ao®s and the correlation coefficient
mitt®® indieated the f s@gp®gftt03 to b© more general in their mnge of
adftpts-ticaa •whil® th© y s#gr©gat®a were aior© speelfioally suited for the
oonditlOQS cf locatica 3.
PrtTioua obierimtiona of betti open-pollimted -TCbrietios and hybrids
grmm la Mssouri Mto indimted that where a superiority of yield for
the •white mdoepena lyp© oomrred it geaerally was associated with
later aaturil^#
The CC ooiB|3arisons for laoistiw previously mde in Table® 8, 9 and 10
iadioated the y segregates carry a higher aTsmg® moisture content than
did the
Y
segregates, the/5 aad^ eompsrisons also indicated that the
segregateB wJ-th the largest iaerewnt of the white parentage also carried
a higher mois-tare ooateat at h®.r?e3t time.
Shis suggested the inTesti^ticM of the possible association of
mturi%*t
indioated by the moisture of the grain at hamrest, ivith yield.
37.
folliaatloa dat«s of th© SQ plants ia 1946 aad «ar height.
Highly signifioaat wlu©s -mm dbtateei for all correlations involviag the y segregates#
Imm$ the y segregates correlations wr® highly
sigaifioant except for jrl®ld irs» moisture which tms signifimnt at the
5 per cent leTel.
Bi© agreesieat hetweea the pollimtion dates of th©
plants and
moisture ia th® g»ia of 1A© oorrespmdiiJg top crosses me highly
sigaifio.ant«
fhis indicatee tlmt the later
plants gave top cross
progeny with grain of higher moisture content. T he aara© relationship
ms observed for moisture content and ear heights of top cross progeny.
It is of interest to note th® slightly higher correlation values that
mere obtained for the y segregates, Iheae differences my be of little
0ignific»noe* however, since a si»ller ntii^er of degrees of freedom -Has
involved, I«ter aaturiiy was indimted from the significsant correlations
ohtained between pollination dates of SQ plants and ear height with
moisture in the grain of harvest,
Sie correlation mlues of fable 18 show the yield behavior of the
segregate® trtm.Wie Fg,
end BCg for
vs.
Lj vs. Lg and for
testers within locations. In general ^e higher correlation values
•rore obtafaied when th® genetic ccrastitiiticai of the segregates were made
up with th© larger inoreiawit of yellow parentage, Th© BC3_ -mines 'were
hic#ier in every case than the Fg or BCg and in turn th© F2 -mre higher
than the BG2. Shis is an indication that the yield perforiaance of the
8eg.3«gate« on the white tester were not ranked in the sauw order at the
38,.
Table 18. Correlation, coefficients of th.® Pg, BCj_ and ECg
segjpegates 'botween jrieM of
vs. fg, Lj vs. Lg
and between teeters wittiin locations
Li vs. Lg
Segi^gates
of
D/P
^2
34
BGj^
IS
BCg
IS
w. fg
vs. I<2
.4S#
.25
.27
.14
.62**
,70**
.27
-.26
—.00
.12
%
-.08
•Significant at the ^ lewl
**Stgaifioant at the
level
Table 19»
Gorrelatim owffioien^ within the Y and y segregates
for yield ts. moisture ia the grain, pollination dates
of the SQ plants in 1946 m* the moisture in the grain
at harvest of the topoross grcfwn in 1948 and moisture
in
grain at harvest ire. the ear height gmde
Sega?0gaie8
of
Yield vs.
moisture
Polltaatioa dates of SQ
plants vs. moisture of
oowespoading toporosses
Moisture
vs.
ear height
Y
S5
,S9*»
,49*»
,50**
y
10
.51*
,74,*'^'
.63**
^Significant at
level
**Signifieant at 3?S level
39.
two lecfttims, fh® aegativ© corrolatim for the BCg segregatea on tester
m& tor % TS. Lg wouM indioat© a tendency for Idle -ssfoite segregates to
perform differently at th© two locations. The^ differences in Table 5
haTT® a dir®ot bearing on this point. The superiority of tiie BGg over
th® Fg at "Lg
significant while at L]_ the difference ms in
favor of tho BCg but not 8igaifl<»n.t«
ladividml. Plant Measwremonts fro® Populations Segregating
for -Sdn©
Ikotor
After tho loss of tii® yield trials by t3i® flood of the Missouri
liwr in 1947# an additimal study ms begun to investigate the association
of yield and other agronoiBio characters with the I-y allels. Five
crosses.!, each between white and yellcw ©ndospem parents were made as
followst 0711 X ISO, mZ X L97, IfFS x Ifo21a,W9 x 1^22 and 1522 x 1453.
The first i»r©iit of each pedigree carries th® factors for yellow endosperia. Pollen froa these F| orossea ms used to pollinate four s ingle
cross testers# iffiS x IS4,. lyS? x
14 x B2 and L3 x
The first
two tester single crosses were of fAit® eadosperm and the latter two
yellow.
Seed from th® lAit® top crosses wer® separated into th® two classes
Y and y wll^ and froa 1^® y«llow topoross into lY' and Yy crosses with th©
exception of th© 1>S x G top crosses whew tb© dark yelloi'sr endospem pre­
vented classifioatim and they were not included. After classification
th® seed me plsmted in asplit plot arrangement of a randomized block
design, Gijt wonn daiaage t^duoed stands to such an extent that an analysis
40.
of th& split plot arrangsOTtit couW not be md®»
on a single plant basis*
Msasiireiaents •sror© taken
Plants adjacent to a skip "were discarded to
avoid tfe® effect of ooap©titiai,
Tlsa analyses of mriaae© for ear wigbt for ©aob of the five Fj_
crosses ara given in Tables 30 to 24. In mly on© of th© five crosses
•ms there a oigaifleant diffewno® between oolor. In ttiis cross WS x I.!o21a
th© Y s®gr@gat©« exceeded the y segi^ga-fces by an amount tf/hioh •ms hi^ly
sipiifioant#
A mtswmrj of the ear iwight Mans is preseated in Table E5.
In
three of the five comparisons th© difference observed -ms in favor of
th© y group# 0m being signifioant at •tti® 1 per cent Is'TOI, In two of the
five compariscais th® y group eaSiibited the greater ineans but in nei-fcher
case "g»®
difference significant, the differences betwen testers inas
highly significant but ia no case ms the iatemction, oolor x testers
significant.
fable 26 sufflaarizes th© laeasurewsnts for all Y and y plants frcm
th® five crosses. Differences ia J^vor of the Y segregates •mre found
for rasan iroight of ®mm, mMsber of days from planting to silking, and
ttUBfctr of eaw per plant# Mon® of these differences were significant as
»as«red by a '*t" test.
Greater ear height associated \?ith the y group
•were significant at the 1 per cent level. M indicated in the previous
section# the greater ear heights also were associated
AM
th© y segregates.
showQ previously ear height ms correlated positively and significantly
•with laoisture at harvest indicating that plants mth greater ear heights
41.
Talsle SO. Analysis of variaae® for ear weights from the cross
®7H X 'SSO witia thr®© top cross testers K55 x KB4,
lyg? X
aad .14 x BZ
Soaroa of -mriation
Color
T@$t®rs
CXf
Error
Degrees
of
freedom
Sum of squares
.06
2.50
*05
15.41
1
S
3
208
Ifean s<^ai^
.06
1,25**
.025
.0741
*^lgaifioant at 3^5 Ist©!
fabI© 21, Analysis of mriwio® for ear weights from iaxe cross
¥32 X M? on th©
top cross tsitera 155 x i(64,
%27 X I3r49 and. U x M
Bmrm of variation
Color
Testers
CIS
B^rror
••Signifioaat at tta
'Dsgrees
of
freedoia
1
2
2
Sum of squares
.0046
1.0151
.2615
9.8407
ISS
J%an square
.0046
.5076»«
,1308
•07399
lowl
Tabl® 23. ilaalysis of variaaoo for ®ar ifeights from the cross
ffF © X floEla on th® thr®# top cross t©8te« IS5 x 164,
!%-27 X Kyt0 &M 14 x B2
Sours® of mriaticn
Color
festers
CXI
Irror
"SSgjroea"
of
Su® of squares
tvm&om
2
.36
5.48
0
180
12.00
*^ignifl<sant at th® 2^^ 1@to1
Jleaa square
,36**
2.74^»
0
.0667
42
Tabi® 23»
Analysis of TOriaao© for ear eights from the cross
¥5^ X IksZB on the threo top cross teetojre 1S5 x KjS4»
Ky27 X %49 aM Ki x B2
Souro® of mriatim
OoXor
T@St®F
CXf
•iiilTOr
Degrees
of
fr®0do3sj
Sum. of squares
1
2
g
198
.14
E.S7
0
14.42
Iifeaji square
.14
1,19**
0
.0728
»*Sigaifloant at tfc® 3?^ leml
tabl® S4» tealysis of Tarxaao® for oar waights from the cross
¥®2. X SX4RS oa the two top cross testers K55 x VS,^
and %S7 x %4§
Souroo of TOriati«.
Color
fo-stor
CXf
Error
D0gr®©8
of
freodoffl
Sua of squares
1
1
1
232
.01
.91
.10
18,62
*»«€igaifio®3it at th© 3^ l@v®l
Ifean square
.01
»91**
.10
.0802
43.
fable 25., Jfean ®ar wight ia pounds from the Y and y groups
for 5 orossas
Gross
Ar^mge ®ar
TWigllt of
T^f^roup .
Averag® ear
wight of
y Kroup
.9829
.^26
.9408
.9045
,0886
.9087
•8809
.8589
.9571
.9919
§711 X HSO
l?2r 'X mi
Ifogla X fIF 9
lloSS xW 9
f X 4R3 3C m&
**Sigiifioaiit at Hw-
fable 26»
Ciffaronoe
Y-y
^ .0442
f .0117
* .0819**
- .0626
• .0080
1®T®1
Comparism. for the Y aad y group for ©ar weight,
©ar heigiit# nujiiser of days to silking and number of
ears per plant
f
lo. plants
Weight of aars
Ear height
^ys to silkihig
lo. ®ars p©r plant
451
.9408 tta.
4'.08 ft>
68.1
1.483
**Sign.ifloairfc at th® 2^ l@wl
y
529
.9239 lbs.
4.22 ft. '
68.0
1.471
Difforenco
y
.
f .0169
- ,16»#
f .1
* .011
44,
war® of letter Maturity#
la this phase of tti© atudy moisture ms not
detorainefi. Ear iwi^its -wer® taken after th® mterial had boen thoroughly
air <iri0d. fh©r©for«., nualjer of days from planting to silking vma the
only wasur® of laatari'ty amilabl©#
Differences were not significant,
la pre'^lous o'bsermtiais th© niaijar of dsgrs frora planting to silking
has bean fouai to b© a poor swasur© of m-tority at Goluriaia, Missouri.
45.
DISCUSSI«
l^ta amilalJl® from -vari«iy oomparisoas in the southeim part of
th® 0ait®d States iadioat® that white stmias in general are suporlor
in, yl®M to y®llow strains, Th® sam® general siiaiation prevails amoag
h3?l3rici8 ia lAiia saiae area. Th® queatim is often raised as to whather
ther® is any neeessary relationship "between endosperm color and yield or
rtiether th© differeno®® observed ar© du® to varietal differenoes in
gea® fr®qtteney.
Several modes of attack wi this general prohlem were considered.
Dohzhans&y and ihoades (4) have suggested inversions as a method of
locating genes affeotiog yield. Hoover,n© inversions stocTos for ohromoson® six iwre available. Another aethod oonsidered ms to contrast the
top oross, performnoe of Y and y segregates from yellow Ijy #iite crosses.
This method ms used. However, it ms felt that this method alone would
not provide a definite m&'mr. Yield is generally assumed to be con­
ditioned by envirmmea'fea.l oeaiditions and
a large nuntoer of genes
distritwted at randoia over th® ehromosorBe eosnpleiaent. Separation for
Y and y eadosperra would at best mark only a snail segment of the sixth
ohromosoK® end would give no lafowtation on varietal gene frequency differ©soe®, fhere'for®, testing of Fg segregates on 'the basis of endosperm
oolor ms supplewnted by -Uie use of baokorosses to b oth parents.
Bjr
this approach oontrasts were available for Y and y segregates vth&n the
46
residual genetio baofegramd ms md® up of E5, SO and 75 per oent of
til© origS-SEl genotype of ©aoli parental lin®,
la general* yellw or tiilt® eadospersa oolor %«s found aot bo b©
regularly a.S800iat®d with yi@l(i. However, th@r® were rather consistent
amaig
til#
ttm/6 aad § ocntrasts ©inphasizing th© iraportexioe of
rmidvm,! genetio MekgrottM, IMte mrietios Imve been grown in the
southera part of th© Corn Belt for long periods of time.
Through natural
end artifioial selection, •i^iey have tieen, aodified so as to be wll adapted
to #»,0 premiliftg seaatsml and soil soitditions. Yellow -mrietiea in this
saaw area were grovKi oa a relatively smll soal© and in general represent
mther reoent introduetiojas.
It tai^t b© expected therefore that they
%mnM haw geae frequorioies for high yield performance characteristically
different from th® well adapted whit® varieties. 5lirth©r»ore caie of the
parent lines used ia this s*tady, IfPQ, ms isolated from a Com Bolt
mrie-ty*
?iP9 Is mterially earlier tMia Mo»22«
In the co-sps.rls€!ns involving
•tiio Y and y segregatos, later imtuadty was consistently assooiated with
tSi© y olaas. This suggests that <m© or wore factors affecting irsaturi-ty
probab3^ are linked with endosperm color.
Hotwver, to definitely estab­
lish this association a® a genetic linfcage it -would be necessary/ to study
B®gregati<m in a cross involving a late yellofw and an early -^ite inbred.
Bils has not been done.
Hi© asBociatim between late mturifrf and Miite endospem oolor
smy b® siMoh closer than .indicated by the data presented here.
Two measures
47»
of iKturi-ly
usedj ©ar height and aoistur®. Ifeither of these providos
a oofflpletQly satisfactoiy measure»
Uader Missouri conditions strains
elaesifled as 120 and 140 days ia maturity my silk and tassel within
•til© same twefc. Ih® differeaoes hetween suoh strains come about in the
period aft®r polliaaticm, Itamwr, in th® so«th com ganere.lly stands
ia the field lotig aft«r it is physiologi<sally iaaturo«
this -would pro-
trid® oppGrttmi^- for irarietiss or hybrids differing ocmsiderably in
mturity to r®&oh • B«ar1y th© saia® aoistur© content at harvest tims. A
better saeasur® of i!mturi%- wotild b© to determine the nuij3)er of days from
polllaatloa to physlologloal mtarity.
Siao© the
# /3,T and 6 oontirasts are baaed m differences between
totals it ms of some interest to mmdno th© ©oastanoy of the relation­
ship betwea
and other cto-mcters such as yield, ear hei^t and
polllmtion dates of -tt.®
plants• fhe correlations obtained indicate
the relatimshlp betwea
as measured by moisture in the grain
at harrost, and the mriables ffi«tic«©d was ocmsistent and significant.
fh© data pres®n1;»d suggest so» differmtial response between looatioas. larked diff®.r®no«s in yield contrasts of/5 mad 6 wre obtained
m th® zaore fertile soil of location 8, At location 1 differences vfere
consistently smller# 3Ji© relatively lower yield leirel prevailing at
l^is looatiim tmy have failed to permit the test crosses to reveal their
full genetio potentialities* Since only two looations Tsere used soHie
other explanation my be e«jmlly mlid,
Sewml inwstigators hare reported significant line by tester
48.
teteraotioas«
In th© pressat study ther© appeared to b© mther good
O-gm^rmnt of th©
Oi $ /5
nnd 6 •ifiiaito testsrs 1 and 2, This of course
do®s not mean that liae 'by tester iatewotims were absent. It doea
suggest#, hewever, itiat sudi interaotioas wsr® not of suffioient magaitudo
to obsour© the 8iailari% of r®spoiw®»
Ifctsk ooTwr gsmd© ma not fostrnd to be related to the Y and y endo­
sperm eolori* Ifeit® mrieties mmm. to the area in gmeral posaeas
good husk oo*rar #iile yellow -mrieties are poor in this respect. The
smm geaeral relatioaship hold® with the ourrentJy used is^ite and yellow
l^brids. Biis suggests that these ohamoteristio differences in huak
eover represent additional ©Tideaoe for initial diffe,renc©a in their gene
freqaeaoy# Slao® there was no assooiation. between endosperm color and
husk cowr gra^d.® it should not be too difficult to isolate yellow lines
having satisfaotory husk cover#
m.
BVmmY Affi) COICLISIOffi
1h.« assoeiaticfflt of yQllow and wliit® colored endosperm in oom
•with yield and other agronoaio ©haraoters tsas studisd in a serlos of
orossss. fh@ me-ttiod ©spliced ms to oontrast th© top-cross performaao© of Y aad y 8«gr@g&t®s froa Pg aad paroatal backoroe® populations,
A Midssasoi yellow iahred lia® 'W'F^ and a late whit® inbred !.Io.22 vwr©
s«l©et®(3 for parents of thesa oros»es, Ih© top-oross greats consisted
of a Tiiit® aad a yellow ©adosperm op®a pellinated mriety to determine
th© pr@8®ao® of an interBotimi bettiwen oolor of the segragatss with
oolor of the t©#t@r®»
Top^orosfs performsoe trials wore cond-aoted at
t®o looatims.
Various oontmst® aa«ig the I and y segregates from the top-oross
perforsaao® data r®i»al@d th© folloTfings
1«
lo assooiation «as fooad "between yield and eolor of endosperm.
Moisture ooatent of tt© grain at harrost m® significantly higher
for tti® whit® esd^ospem segregates.
This suggested tiae white endo-
spena segregates on the aimrage were later in maturity than the
yellow segregates.
3»
Sar height grades were gigaifioaatly higher for 'fclie isrhite endosperm
segi^gates ithicsli also indioatod later 7».t5arity for this f*roup,
4#
Signifioaat positiiro oori^lations between yield and moisture indicated
the later mturiag segregates were giving higher yields.
so.
S»
fop»oross ear heigiits tier© significantly correlated with moisture
as •w@r© th© polliaatim dates of th©
plejata with moisture of their
oorreepmditag top crosses, Sieae data iadioated that moistur© was a
suitable oriterxai of maturity.
6. Differeao08 in hmk oomr gmd© batroen the two endospom oolora
ms aot sTident.
7»
Althotigh ther® appeersd to b© a raider good agreeasat of th© yield
perfonremo® of all segregates -with the t^-^c testers th© Y aagr©gat««
ga.TO a asor© oonsistmt psrforsmao© betisssai testers thaix the
gatss*
Comparison of th© perfonmno© of Idxe Pg,
y S9gr®-
and BCg segre­
gates 'b0ti*»©a th® tw> testers showed that T#i®re a higher peroentego
of th® geaetio constitution of the segimgates ms mad® up of i^ite
parentage tii® poorer i&e agreemnt between tasters,
8« Segregates with a proportijmally higher percentage of their geuetio
©csagtitiition oositri'but.ea by the whit® pi,r@nt gave higher yields, per
oent moisture and ear height grades at loeatiaa 2 v/hile these saiae
segregates did not esthibit this adiraurtag© at loeatiaa 1.
From a study of iadividuftl plant measurements involving Y and y
colored ©adosperm no sigaifioaat difforeaoes ismre found for oar weight,
au!!ft)@r of days froa planting to silking or the nuniber of ears per plant.
A
sigoifioaat differeuo® me fouad for ear hei^t. Plants grmm from
the y classified seeds had a greater avemge ear height.
The top-cross
perforraaao® study indicated the greater ear height gmdes denoted lator
maturity, Therefore, these data suggest factors for later mturity were
liaked tvith lAlt© endosperm eolor. This assooiatim is in general agreen»nt
with the results of lii® top-cross perfortmiioe trials.
SI.
UfEM.'mm CITED
1, B©ar^, I)»F, Kelativ® mltxas of imrelatsd single crosses and an
o^n»polliBat@(3 mriety, as testers of inbred lines of com.
Fh,D« Bisserfcation CSiio State University. 1940,
2, Cowan, J,I. Si© value of doable cross ^-brlds involving istoreds
of similar -and divers® genetie origin. Soi. i^rio. 23i2872&.@» 194S.
5. Davie., t»L, Beport of the plant breeder. Sep, Puerto Rioo
%rio. Exp. Stft. 192?114-15. 1929,
4. Dobzhanslsy,
and Bhc^des, M..M, A possible method for locating
favorable growfdj genes in Miiae. Jour. Amer. Soo, ikgron.
3Oi608«875. 19S8,
6, Qarraen, S. 1. Some lessons from the com shows, 2. Com pests.
Kentael^y Agri®. l3cp. Sta. Bui. Ho. 145. 1809,
6. Sreea, «J«1. Kie iriberitane® of eonftjining abilil:^ of aaisse l^brids.
Jcwr, Aaer. Soo, Jlgron., 40i58»6S. 1948.
?. &iyes, H,K. and Johnson, I.J.
breeding of improved selfed lines
of e©m. Jour* ijj^r. So®, iigron. 31J710-724. 1939,
8. IcMseyer, Paul G,, Clem* ¥&rf A, and Federer, lalter T, Rinched
eard and ealoulating mehlne methods for analyzing lattice
experiiwate including lattice square and the cubic lattice,
Iowa %ric. Bxp. Sta. les. Bui, 347. April 1947.
•9. Jenkins, M,I, Correlatim studies with inbred and crossbred strains
of com. Jour. ,%rio. l0s.39i377-721. 1929.
10,
Th® effect of inbreeding and of selection within inbred
lines of miise upon Idie h;^rids made after successive gener­
ations of selfing. lom State College Jour. Sol. 6»429-450,
19S5*
11,
and Brmson, A.M. Methods of testing inbred lines of maiee
in crossbred oosbiM-tims. Jour. A-mr, Soo. Agrm. 24»S23-630.
19SS.
52
Johnsm, I»J. and
H.E# Th® oombining ability of inbred linefl
of ^oMea Gross Ban'teaa swaet oom. Jour, laer. Soc, igron,
28iE40«2S2. 1936.
IS. Johnson, I«J# etnd Hayes, H,I. fhe imlu® ia l^brid oombiimtime of
inb«d lia®s of com soleotod from single crosses
th©
pedlgre© E»thod of breeding. Jour. Aner, Soo. Agron. 32x
470*48g, 1940.
14. Jos®ifesoin$ I#.!, and Joimstm®, VI.C, 1948 oom performano© tests.
Kentuoly %rio. Exp. Sta» A MLa. 195. 1948,
15. Keller, I.K. A oosiparisoo, inrolTing th® number of, and relationship
b®tiw<m t@st®ra in ©mluatSng iiAred lines of maize.
igron. Jour. 41iS2S-.SSl. 1949.
16* Seiap, W.B, and lothgeb, 1.S, Seleotion and genetic responses in
a segregating raaiz® populatiaa. Maryland Agrio. Exp. Sta«
Bul» A36 (T®itoi»l). July 194S.
17. Miller, 11«F» and Hughes, l.D. Gooporati-re 'mriety tests of com*
mriei^ tests of oom at ColusAia, Mo. Missouri Agric. Exp.
Sta. Bui. 87, 1910.,
18* Qmn, G.l. 0om varieties in Mississippi. Mississippi ilgrio,
Exp# Sta# Bui. 339. 1940.
10* Si®#, J.B, ®t .al» A oom|«.ri6on of -whit© and yellow corn for growing
aM fattening swia© and for brood sows. 111. Igrio. Exp,
ita* Bol. g81» 1926*
go. Sa®d®oor, CJ,W, Statistical arothods. Fourth edition. An®s, lo^.
Th® Gollegiat® Press, In®. 1945*
21. Spmgu®, S*f# An ©stismtioa of th® nusfcer of top-oross®d plants
r®gui»d for adeqpaat® representation of a com vari®ty.
Jour, Auier. Soo, %ron. 31J11-16. 1939*
22, Spragm®, S.P. Sarly testing of inbred lin®8 of corn. Jour, Amr,
Soo. Agron. S6tS88»989. 1944.
2S, Stadler, la.J. SMiet® selection in oom breeding. Jour. Amer, Soo.
Agron, 301988-989. 1944,
S3*
84# 'Tmoiy^
Cora oaltur® in th® aoutJi. U»S, D@pt, Igrio, Bui, 81.
1898.
2S. U^S, Bureau of %rioultuml Bomomios. Informtion m white com
pro&<ition d#©lining., F,S, Dept. Agrio., Tiashington, D.C,
Bee# 194S. (laiiaeo).
06#
E«b®r»
L.J#, Aslin, W,E» 1949 yield trials ivith com
jQ!%rMs in Missouri, Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta, Bui, 533.
Bcc. 1940•
54
MmmiMmmm
fh© writer wish®® to express his appreciation to Dr. G,F. Sprague
for M® helpful adTic© during -lax© course of study.
The writer also wish®® to thaak Prof. Oscar Seapttiome for hie
susg®®tioas omceming 1^® statistical analyBis of th© data.
Data used in this s-faufy wer® th® results of inv«Btigations conducted
as a part of th® ooo^mtiY® corn breeding project between th© JiH-ssouri
Agricultural Experinwit Station and the United States Bopartiasnt of -agri­
culture.
55 •
APPEIJDIX.
56
cocococDtoeaOO
Wt0c0l!060«4«^"<j<
f
11
»t3
I
L.
®
AJ © -ra
m
© 65
• ©
4)
la o s5i
5
w lo ea CO w Ot~WCvSOE>OOt-OKI0a«5Ot-CMt0t0Ofr-tt»5 W W €*3 w wtowtowpiwwjejsowwjoatOcvitowiototNjw
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
© OS
O O O C J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . O O
O 'ri
I
:K
© *0
$s
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
» • » • • • • » # • • • • « • * » » » • • • • • • • •
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
m
+>
m
•H •tet
i
B& *
g
o
05
to , -P
« o si
aa MC0B-'«sJ0>t~WC»»-4»0«#O«3O0>0)t0®«itflC>I«|xJ«MC0«-l
« • # • • • » » * » • • • • • • • * • • • • • • •
fis «« tm lO in tn 'rt <f> «# ua o «0 «0 lO CO CO lO "# IQ ""I* «a
e>o>«l»iC!60<oe3<acatQ
IrHr-lrHr-lr-4f-)rHi—tr4
»«< HI rt •r4 .Hr iH 1-4 Hi f~l «-<
OJ o
O
t t h
*E 0 r-l
O Q 0
© tJ
ti # 4»
ojcj5ro®os*cft<»a>®cii0scoroo3cfi
©
orooojoioojoos
Vfi
Hi
^ is
4 1 1
g«-^
^(N> (9
.5
ei s
^
I
#
4>
tj
$m
I
I
13
g >0 c!
III I^=» XS
» fO
%*
•o as
» '54
* tS * 'O •tJ •t3
fd -P a1 45a-|4>rj4>rf4>jH4J>.H4igi4's:i45rf4>d+>{d4>g:f-P
Sa}S3's3 3«js1w^®»59o9S3taS3wS3»j^«j«eQ&icoSw
ttf
r4 1-4 *n r-l
eq a> o o> O O
fH fHI SHrHir4«ac^c«ca
" ^
IS t- IS O O
0> 0> to
tH <o
rHI
O &](4
QO
<i
r-t r-f <M
r-4 64
r-<
iHl
Ml |H»
«• ••
**• flMl H*
M
CM 03 &»
»
*
?
CO r ?
to V
Oo
S S Si
G> M oa IN3
t;;^ M |« '1^ M •»*
CO 03 ~3 Si
IS'
03 w fg i/i tt m H CO e fa S w a ra K m a {•« a gs w K » isS
chP-d-pJci-PJ«f-M5ct-f-«cf-PSd-p2«^-f3id-l^d-fSct-p5tt*pfrf-P
• Oi* Cb# a»* til* Q» Hi j3«» &.• s.» a.» a»* jx* pa* a
f i f i f i1i i d f i f i f i f i •if i >irf i1f ind
1
f
i
i-»
g
H
I
I-"
g
»-»
s
f
g
I
(-•
t
I-J
I
(^.A
g
g
§
OioicnCTai«n#.cncno>aj®>cfi,fikOi{S»caoiCT€»CT€!it®»#».o>««
•• • • • » • • » • » • • « •«••'•* • • * * • «
tvJ»(s»t«O3Oi!WC»OOSM5-»<0J-*®#»MO t« »•-*«« •-8. O0iS#»8-»
00t0O<003<0?0<0«J<0C0«(C0<0€a<0«3C0Ca«0C9®«0«0f0C»
-^C>-~30<J>-3Q3-4
VJJ S
W j_»
-»4 w •«,) wt s
wi © ^ OI
-3
•••
••
• •
• • • • • • • * * « • • . • •
»f» cn 05 M tn
o o o o ooo o O
K •_ • • »_ •
tf*
W 03 w OS
»<•
* • * • # ' « • *
O O O O O O O O O O ' Oo
^ oo oo
o
•• •
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Oo
C o
"
ooo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
b bo boo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c
MMr0Wi0a0<J030!lE0MMWM&3e«&3W0908«A0SMMMMe>3
• • • • » • • • » • • # • • • • • • • • # • • • * • • • • •
M»
»{>• •
ll* 03
M•
05 • •
#'* •
* •••• • « •
«
•
• •
oa o o a» 00 <j-ScooOMOmcaWOtooo-^OOO-^MO
•iS
<3
JS
faljle 2»
Averngs agrmondo iata. r®cortsd oa 26 8^ plants from tii© Fg of t&e aingl® cross 1IF9 x
Mo* 22 f top Qross®€ on eaek of two op@G-»polliimt®<i mrl®ti«s Mdlaad and St» Qiarles
ia a yield trial grown at Jetfmm-on City, iiissouri in 194S
P©4igi^
foster pai^nt
46J1107-4
46ai07-4
4611107-8
4St1107-8
4611107-12
46f1107-12
^»1107-14
46t1107-14
46sU07-16
46s1107-16
4Sj1107-17
^J1107-17
4611107-18
46t1107-18
46ai07-lS
46tll07-19
46 J1107-20
46»1107-80
46fll20-g
4811120-2
46s1120-S
46i1120-5
4611120-9
4611120-9
mdUnd
St. ®arle0
adlaBd
St* camrlss
maiana
St» Qharl#s
Haiaaa
St« Clmrles
ladlfiad
St. Qmrlss
Midland
St» Charles
Midlaad
St, Charles
Ifidland
St. dmrles
Mdland
St. CSiarles
Midlaad
St. Camrles
Midlaad
St. Charles
Midland
St. Charles
Seaotype
Y
T
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Aer®
yield
bu.
m,2
85,M
73.4
7E.1
75.3
86.1
79.6
84.2
77.S
71a
79.1
81.8
81.9
68.9
89.1
78.2
81.3
80.2
78.8
75.5
74.7
71.1
76.5
Stand
s*
/#
97
98
97
96
98
94
97
100
98
97
97
100
99
97
97
100
99
92
97
96
97
98
99
98
Hoist,
/3
loot
J-&
sSlfc
%
Husk
©©•v©r
Krads
Bar
ht.
17.7
16.5
16.0
15.6
15.7
14.3
18.3
18.0
15,1
16.4
15.3
15.9
15.8
15,8
16.0
17.9
15.6
17.3
15.8
16.4
17.1
1G.9
14.6
15.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0»0
4.4
0.9
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
1.7
0*8
0.9
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
3.4
2.5
0.0
1.7
3.7
S.S
3.7
§.7
S.7
S.7
S.8
S..7
S.S
s.o
S.S
3.0
S.S
s.o
3.5
3.2
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.3
3.7
3.7
4.0
3.7
4.0
4.7
3.5
3.8
S.S
4.S
4*3
4.2
3,5
3.8
3.7
4.5
4.0
4,2
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.0
4.2
4.0
4.0
59.
u. •
M
_
»OOt»-Ot-WMOwWiO
lD0^-WW^•®00^•. WM (rseowsoio..
•• • • • • • •
tn -il4 « SO to 4 s<5 4^
l0Kj!>'«3M>t-l0l0®«O£»l!060W«SUSE~C>JS0OUJt0t~t0cai0e~
0O6O»K»»Wi*O»Wi«»P9»eOli«JWtOW!sO6O'5!4tO6OtOCOtOtOt!O
oiot~o«>-<»e~'#o«oesooO!aW«aoco*i"®ocD"!}«oo><oo
# « * « ••..<*»«'•« # « ' « « • « # * • • « » • • » « •
OMP^OiHoH6«O«OOOOsajt0OOOWOOOi>OOOWO
o* o• o• o
. o
• - ^ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
o oo o o b 6d o d o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o
C-f-levlf*l0st0i0<0O'^®<»mU5«#'«}'CN3»-<r4C-CJ00«i<OOWK>ca
&S*S2Bgi2a2J2S!aS2!2S^;^SSS!SSSSHiSS
p~n 1*^ e~i F*^
ip-*i
f»*t f"ii
n r~i r"»
r—i
%
I
«o
oo>o3O3e5o>0iOcaiac»o5ejcj>C5QGsOG5Oo>OCJ5O)oSo>o>
iH r-l f)
IO
03
»w
1-3
g .H 3,
«s| {>»/J
M 6^
••
H
0>
CJ c*
r-l
o
« » • •
rH HI'
CD tD
io O} 00« fr- •
so UJ
P3 CO O
CO C53 CO
e- a
•*JI fcO * ®o• ft to• • to• •
o> CO
ao
o
o CD p c^
CO
€0 CO CO CO CO CO <0
M
• • • •
I
&
f
©
U
f
g
e t t a t a t s Q a n r a u n
©
®
®
©
©
®
®
©
®
®
o
©
U U U U f 4 U f * U i * i * '
.i^^'cfcsS'XJajtiiS'cssa. •tjsS'Cifii'dffii'q
|l|l|l|l|iP|l|5p|5p|
»0 •ra •tJ •'CS *»t3 •'O t'O •'£3 •'"O •'O •'C3 •'O •'O •'O •
;si£sigs!s=jsgsssggssssa.«ssas3iss£
«o <0
•H
03«»
r4 r-4
HO 0> CD O O
t-l
iH CI CM
A
to
,r-l f-l !-<• 'rt rH iHi ««*<• »-l »H 1
r4i-<r-lr4i-lir-t»-4Hlrtrtlr^HI«Hr4r-fi-<«H»-l»H
60.
, »
I
U
e&
a
coooo«oo»»POO®ocoK5t~e>t-wu>oocoo>t>-oino
# • * ••#•#••
• • * »•• • • • • ••« • » •
iiO>i5H*j»<#W*jt(!OtO^'<!}»6O«i3«eoe0t0tOi!0toeO6Ocot!OtiO'?HiO'!}«
la f S
to«>ceioi0»o«ooe~ooMO««>e^i0eMwoowo<»o
• t * • •''*
•'» • •
•••••
li^WWMiiOWtoosWMtotowtotocsaMevseoeotocowtONiiO
$
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
•
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
SM«OtO<OCO0>t-«X)«Jt<MHloO'<i«OOi-<i»O«-lt-«-tWWO>ti-nii^
in
(T^
f-|(f • . »
„.,|»
,.....* — •«
I""!
irnf
. ...*
:. *
•..«
,-,,j ... *
1*^
"I
11 I
r"* 1*1
..—* ,. ..»
t
.»
. <
I*
,. .t
'O
¥-5.
«3
<X).t" to iH est to rH r-t «a .so r»» W fc- t-- w
ciai'0C3Ci&&a> (O O) Oi'O t~ CO o
CiJ rHI
to o> o CO
60 w <M 00 C\J
CO C71 O CO 00
tOHi. oM'E-'OiNcotoO'tJ'fflKJtntoooweacaoiootoooo
CO CO M t-l to _
UV • »•» MY* WO
-H- "»»
to » © K3 U5 » "# U3 ID © to to in
m Ii5 >o ^ ioi£>u>i<5toin«otn«oiQ
0
1
4>
Sg-g
m
64
m»
I
6-1
V
B
M
•13 » *0 •'tS •
stsasss
• tj •
•P Jri +»
03 M »
• t> ••tS »'0 ••tS •'O •'O ••o •
^ f!il tP -ri 4? Jri -P 5!^ _-P g
CO
03
03 CO 03 S c^»
•e 3d +>
» K> ^
•H
•g^
ft
rH f-1 iH r-l iH
w pa to CO <0
I I i I 1
G) in
OS
05 lO
r-4
r-»
I—t r-i
Sa^l© g, CeoEtinusd)
Aom
Pedigi^©
Tester tmrant • G®ao%|»
46ai85-7
laaiasd
Ms1185-7
46«1185-®
46S118S-9
St. Charlss
laaiand
St» Charles
Y
T
Y
Y
yi@M
Stand
bu.
%
56,4
09.8
96
58.«4
JS
8®
55,1
89
Ifoist;,
% .
17.9
14.8
16.1
16.2
LodRlns
Boot
Stalk
%
%
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0.0
Husk
60sr#r
S.S
3.2
2.5
3,5
lay
tit,
S.2
3.7
S.2
3,5
Hi HI M M H« H» M M M H»
t-» M t-* (M
H"
l-* (-• |I.MI l->
V-i t-<
I-" H* M l-J
M l-» H» H»(M H« H» H" l-» H> M M
OT
CO
Si oi S ff C51
M ^^ M si t3 iS ?§
1 1 1 I—1
1 « 1 1 i
1
1 1
1 OJ In
M i-» «o eo C» 4 -4
^ J* <« l«
w CO w
H o
MM o
<!>
•
o
a
M a fJ E^ 05 g 03 s ca
^ d- i3« <rt* pJ rt- H' c^
HCu •rtOJ a*•
* Cu • OJ
t»
ta
•t
J-J
s
i tn i "-sf i nf i
HI
S
M
S
l-J
3
M
£
fSS:BSBgg
Pit • Cu • p« • Oi
Iflflll
1-4
I
s
H
e
H:!K'-<><>-^t-«K'-4HKKi-4w^t-JK4K5»-4KKK»-4KHSi-4MK
a>coc3C2<ico<i-4!«a~3-«a-a-a~4:s3®<»tor3-5-<»o>'®«9«*a>
M-^-4cnc!>-<icoO'»&«»-'if»i->-aO>®t~»65wOiif»caoaOGJ»«'
• • • « • * • • • * • • # • * • • • * ' • • • • * • «
O0>MO«0l»0»»f>.l0. MfOC350£*a®«5<Orf9.C(JOO»li>>««MO®
i-^
ifM#
«j«)?oo<oo«3«ocg50to«oQ«o^i;o<o®oo5<otoo«oo
Ca<0-^00<J-O0C>C3'®«»«J«JO«0-4®-4SiO-4O<®®O*^<0
-cicooi|f»iCnc5scn-4a'CfiC»biCJCTaicrt#.<;r»0lOicn«0!C&-4#»
O>rt>.«OCi>OT»-»|f»l-»MO<0-JlO(»W~3O>O>CiSM«O<»-4-^<£>OO
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
OMMMOOWOOCIMOOOOaWCOOOtJIt-iit-iOOOO
•• • • • • • • • • • • * * •'»•'•«••»•••'*
o-flO>.~300cncooOcnoa)a>i#i>£n<n«aco»-i-4-40000
OaO«MM0il05l03W03MCKI0!!«a«<M&«S««MWW<MS«MCU0»
MCJi09i-^-~acnc;a-s[wcnO03-^«a€<««i0aMW«<^-nin»aMa3
•Mcnc3OO»o-4K»siooooe<i>oc«03Cj»w&je«3O«a0»o
• • • • • • t * ••»•••••••«»•'••»••*••»•••••'•
•89
Table 4
PedigFes
. 4611185-7
46*1185-7
4611185-9
40tll85»9
Tester -gamn-t
Midland.
St. Charl#s
adlarid
St.Qiarlea
C}@ao%pe
Y
f
Y
Y
(oontinued)
Aeje
yield
DU.
Stand
77,8
78.5
75.7
77.6
98
98
98
98
Moist.
.
15.6
15.4
17.9
16.4
Soot
.
E/
FA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
C4
/3
Husk
cover
araS®
Bar
ht..
0.0
0.0
S.4
1.7
S.S
3.3
3.5
S..S
S.8
5.8
3.7
3-.8
Stalk
CS
05
is ^ s si ^ s s s s; 6?
^
(P to tp ep tp 'p 'P
J fp
_. fp ^||s|||ss|te
.: . : : : . : . i ; . : . t I
f
I
I
H' i-j a> at
03 09 M 1^
&
dh 15 t+ PJ
ca
ca EJ ta ts «
dh P* ct' p« d- !&• df- P' cfr fit ^
• a<« Oi>« ft* Oi* o.«
fa d^
c<jvj«<j<<}<<'k!'ii{'kj K (KSM ««4 <«4
K
«<! K h4«4 ««{ H
H
cn cn cn cn Ol cn oi Oi OJ cn ai ai oi cn
cn 0} 01. © CSl CTJ cn CI
CD
03 00 CO M <o ai -4
03 r>3 <o
ilf M to rfi.
» • • « • • « • • • • • • • • • • • * * » • • •• • «
O CO Ol CI Oil o 03 CO 00 >p» o |P» ca <0
o o & <ai. CfJ M
OS fo
<o to
•:0tOCDC0«5ti>tD00CO<O<O
MO<»»f»'»-'NM--4t!s»OJ^
CO «0 «} M3 OS ca
M #. J-» O IM ~3
lifc
05
OJ CO to «3 CO
•<» ® O
i-»
M »->
Ht. f-J h* W
M N h-» CO l-» •!-' 0>
M hi
cn H* rfS.
•«a CD to •<5
G5 03
50
o
«o (O CO CO
«s
EO 03
# • • • • • » *
•
* •
oi »-» a> o t-* cn o » o M t o 00 hi • o SO ca b €;« •
0> •
o f c S %^
• • • • •
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
• • • • • • • ? _ • • • • • • • • » » • * • • • ' « • * '
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
ooooooo o ooo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
- • • • • • • • » * « • « » « • • • « • » * •
oooooooooooo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
• * -
t*» •W •M •
03 •M *
09 •
03 •O J'M•o a•M•C O•w«M N•&«s i
O i»l #
t ^•a •
O J•W•W W»W
•
• M#O S
« C•H »
~ 3 O OJ N 03 0 3 o t o c r i M O M O i c f l o e O c o o a O O - s i w O w - ^ O
WOtOOWM-
*' • m • * • • «i ' <i
OosocnooowojM
^ O O
•t9
MMo
CO W
03
o tel
l® i ^
Cf* 0
jE* »
©MWOOCOlO^-
^ 55 lOOW»l<36^«eIt .• 4 « If <1 • t
§ g
<M «> to to e« M « M
ifl o feM
eo
f
•
4»
S5
•H
oooooooo
o o o o o o o o
o« o« o« o• o
' *o •o* o•
o o O' © o o o o
O
OS
•SVJ
•CO
• so
• Ct
,
® 50 O)O '!>• 'to to Cft
^
,.
.
,
hs^j osraoOTcaojTOco
aa
•a
® t-H.
K © •
« » • • » • » #
«0 «# i-< -x# 'to 69 «H
»ooiot»<otntDto
•p
&
u
I
S-i
I
•H
*XS.
Tf «S
l^lg
*0 •'C! *12 * 'O •
S 03 S -M S ej m ta
<!' <1 AAii
Oi
r4r4«^r-4fHli~ir-liH
®
Tatjl® 6,
agroacsde data reooirded an 17
plants from l^s lgt-g©a©mtim baekert^s of
(\fF9 X Mo» 22)(Mom 22)^ top-ert>ss«d m eaeh of two open—pollinated vapieties, Sidlaad
aad St, CJiarl®®, in a yield trial growa at Jetfersm City, ilissowi ia 1S48
&jsm
P«digre®
46ai46-4
46s1146-4
46tll46-6
46tll46-6
46$1146-10
46tll46-10
«11146-12
^81146-12
46tH46-15
46f1146-15
4611148-18
46t1146-18
46s1146-19
46ill4S-19
48s1146-20
46t1146-00
46J1159-3
4811159-3
4^J1159-5
46«1159-5
45I1159-8
46s1159-8
46 J1159-11
46 11159-11
Test©? parmt
Midland
St, Qmrlsa
Mdlaad
St, CJharles
maland
St» CJharles
Hidland
St, Charles
Midland
St. Charles
liidland
St, <3iarl0S
ladland
St. Charles
mdtod
St. Charles
Midland
St, Charles
Hidland
St. (Siarles
Mdland
St, Charles
Midland
St, Charles
Genotype
y
Y
T
Y
y
J
1
Y
J
y
T
Y
7
'7
7
7
Y
Y
7
7
7
7
7
7
yield
b«.
Si^d
fS
S3.7
90.9
90.7
J8,?
89.8
8g,2
8S.3
?8,9
98.1
98.6
84.3
88.4
99.S
89.5
92.9
98.4
91.1
89.9
96,5
83.1
85.0
86.9
80.1
94.5
99
100
97
100
96
1®
100
99
im
97
m
99
100
97
98
99
100
98
100
97
97
98
100
97
Moist.
, ^
18.2
19.1
18.2
18.S
17.5
17.1
16.7
19.1
17,S
IS.5
17,4
M.4
19.1
19.0
16.7
19.0
18.3
17.0
16.9
17.5
18.1
20.6
19.1
20.0
LodKias
loot stalk
.,
<#
/«.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0.0
,
0.0
0.0
0,0
1,7
0.0
4.2
0.0
1.7
3.5
1.7
2.5
0,8
0,8
0.0
1.7
1.7
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
0,0
ftisk
ewer
gmd®
ht.
3,0
3.5
3.7
3.S
3.8
3.5
3.3
3,7
S.8
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.5
3.0
3.7
3.5
3.8
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.7
3.7
4.3
4.5
4.S
5.0
5,0
4.7
4.5
4.2
4.3
4.7
4»7
4.S
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.8
4.8
4.7
4,5
4.0
4.3
5.0
4,7
5,0
S&r
67,
^
*
SO w
t- io t- e» o £0 «0
•» f
to lO
ill
Hi o «iis
£~t>.!MOM>KiOra«tO
IsOeOOTSO^WMStOtOOT
©0c40>0
» • • • »0
•0l0®0
• # # •
I C/3
•o
S'"
4»
•rim
M
OO-fiJ'OOOOMOO
o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o
M'oatoOs*® "«j««-isoofr~
ooomfr-CBocotNOico
»!> W g g
13
ttj,.
CO
: • Hi» «3« JO•
»»lO
•ko• .t•W
• # ..W
r-» <0 « CO
03
CD
CO
a> CO m © t> oj o ®
a
©
m
•P
m
• ts • tJ * xs *
Kf (»3 £Ei
03 Jd w a
mm
Bow'tqmowffijojoo
I
«3
Oi- St'Si
<Ss <3> 0> Si O £»
iSiSiiiSii