A comparison of hill, micro-, and miniplots with conventional row plots in winter wheat
by Leslie John Frederickson
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE
in Agronomy
Montana State University
© Copyright by Leslie John Frederickson (1979)
Abstract:
The type of information attainable in early generations of a cereal breeding program is limited, in part,
by the amount of seed and land available. An evaluation of several small-size plots was undertaken to
determine their suitability as alternatives to conventional row plots in winter wheat research.
Twenty-three winter wheat (Triti-cum aestivum L.) cultivars were evaluated in hill, micro-, mini-, and
row plots grown under dryland conditions in 1978. In addition, the hill and microplots were irrigated
three times during the growing season in nurseries separate from their dryland counterparts.
Comparisons of these small plots versus the row plots were made using overall means, phenotypic
correlations between row and small plots, ranges, coefficients of variation, and the percentage of
entries that were common in the extreme 10, 25, and 50% of the population. All small plots provided
satisfactory results for discriminating among cultivars for heading date, plant height, seed weight, and
harvest index. The hill and microplots were as efficient as the row plots in identifying winter wheat
cultivars for percent flour protein and mixogram characteristics (peak distance, peak height, and curve
pattern). Based on phenotypic correlations between row plot grain yield and small plot harvest index
and biological yield, small plot harvest index provided a better indication of row plot grain yield than
did small plot grain yield. No advantage using irrigated hill and irrigated microplots versus their
dryland counterparts was detected.
Correlation coefficients were calculated between the agronomic and quality characteristics within plot
types to determine if the kinds of inter-relationships that occurred in the row plots also existed in the
small plots. Cultivars grown in each of the small plot types showed within plot correlations not
exhibited by cultivars grown in the row plots, indicating differential ability of cultivars to compete
within and between experimental units.
The relative importance of harvest index and biological yield in determining grain yield of winter
wheat cultivars was studied using multiple regression analysis. Harvest index and biological yield
accounted for 95 to 99% of the variation in grain yield across plot types and the ratios of their standard
partial regression coefficients indicated that harvest index was more important than biological yield in
determining grain_yield. except in the dryland hill and microplots, where both harvest index and
biological yield were of equal importance. STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO COPY
In p r e s e n tin g t h i s ,t h e s is in p a r t ia l f u lf il lm e n t o f. th e r e q u ir e ­
ments fo r an advanced d eg ree a t Montana S ta te U n iv e r s it y , I agree t h a t .
th e L ib rary s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a ila b le fo r in s p e c t io n .
I fu r th e r
agree th a t p erm issio n fo r e x t e n s iv e co p y in g o f t h i s t h e s i s fo r s c h o la r ly
purposes may be gran ted by my major p r o f e s s o r , o r , in h is a b se n c e , by
th e D ir e c to r o f L ib r a r ie s .
I t i s u nderstood th a t any cop yin g or pub- ■
l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f in a n c ia l g a in s h a l l n ot be a llo w ed w ith ­
ou t my w r itte n p e r m issio n .
Signature_
Date
f i (J O
ja 'A
6 .
ZtI^
- .
' A COMPARISON OF HILL, MICRO-, AND
•. MINIPLOTS NITH CONVENTIONAL
ROW PLOTS IN WINTER WHEAT
■Ly
LESLIE JOHN FREDERICKSON
A t h e s i s su b m itted i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t
o f th e req u irem en ts fo r th e degree
of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Agronomy
Approved:
Chairman, Examining/CJbmmittee
Head,yMajor Department
Graduate mean
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, .Montana
A ugust, 1979
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The au th or w ish es to e x p r e ss h is g r a titu d e and a p p r e c ia tio n to
Dr. G1 A lla n T aylor fo r h is guidance and support throughout th e pur­
s u it o f th is d eg ree.
A s in c e r e thanks i s a ls o exten d ed to D r s. J a r v is H1 Brown, John
M1 M artin, Raymond L. D i t t e r l i n e , and Richard E. Lund f o r s e r v in g on
th e graduate com m ittee and p r o v id in g in v a lu a b le s u g g e s tio n s and g u id ­
ance throughout th e developm ent o f t h i s i n v e s t ig a t i o n .
A s p e c ia l acknowledgment i s g iv e n to Dr, C harles F 1 McGuire, H is
tim e and ex p e r ie n c e were alw ays r e a d i ly a v a i l a b l e , even when he was
n ot a member o f th e graduate co m m ittee.
The au th or would a ls o l i k e to acknowledge th e a s s it a n c e o f Dr.
E .P . Sm ith w ith th e a n a ly s is o f th e d a ta used in t h i s t h e s i s .
I
would a ls o l i k e to thank my w i f e , R egina, and my d a u g h ter,
A n g e la , f o r t h e i r su pp ort and encouragem ent throughout my c o lle g e
career.
A p p r e c ia tio n to th e Montana Wheat Commission fo r th e a s s i s t a n t s h ip th a t made t h i s r e se a r c h p o s s ib le i s a ls o ex ten d ed .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
V IT A .....................................................................
....................... ......................
ii
..................................................................... • ..................................
ill
TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................
iv
LIST OF TABLES
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
. .
.......................................................................................
LIST OF F IG U R E S ..........................................................................................................
ABSTRACT.......................................................................... ' ............................. ....
xi
x ii
INTRODUCTION . . . ......................................................................................................
I
LITERATURE REVIEW
......................................................................................................
3
The A p p lic a t io n .o f Sm all P lo t s to W inter Wheat R esearch . .
Comparison o f Row and Sm all P lo t s f o r E v a lu a tio n o f
H arvest In d ex , B io lo g ic a l Y ie ld , and Grain Y ie ld . . . .
E v a lu a tio n o f Q u a lity in W inter Wheat . . . .
................... . .
3
SECTION I : THE APPLICATION OF SMALL PLOTS TO WINTER
WHEAT RESEARCH................................ ...................................................... .. . .
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................
MATERIALS AND METHODS ...................................................................................
E sta b lish m en t o f F ie ld P lo t s .......................................................
Methods o f S a m p l i n g ..........................................................................
S t a t i s t i c a l Methods
.........................................................................
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..............................................................................
E v a lu a tio n o f Wind and H a il D a m a g e.............................................
Comparison o f Row and Sm all P lo t s fo r S e le c t io n
P u r p o s e s ..............................................
SUMMARY.......................................... ......................................................
SECTION I I : COMPARISON OF ROW AND SMALL PLOTS FOR
EVALUATION OF HARVEST INDEX, BIOLOGICAL YIELD,
AND GRAIN Y IEL D ..........................................■...........................................
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................
MATERIALS AND METHODS.........................................................................
E sta b lish m en t o f F ie ld P lo t s ..........................................................
Methods o f S a m p l i n g ..........................................................................
6
10
14
15
16
. 16
18
21
.2 4
24
28
.4 6
48
49
-50
50
50
V
■ .
Page
S t a t i s t i c a l M e t h o d s ................................
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . ........................' ......................... ..
Comparison o f Row and Sm all P lo t s fo r S e le c t io n
P u r p o s e s ...........................
C o n tr ib u tio n s o f H arvest Index and B io lo g ic a l
Y ie ld to Grain Y ie ld
................... . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY . . . . ■ .........................................
SECTION I I I : THE EVALUATION OF WINTER WHEAT QUALITY
IN ROW AND SMALL P L O T S ...............................................................................
51
53
53
69
72
73
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................
MATERIALS AND METHODS ....................................................... . . . . .
E sta b lish m en t o f F ie ld P lo t s ...................................................
L aboratory P r o c e d u r e s .........................................
S t a t i s t i c a l Methods .....................................................................
RESULTS AND D ISC U SSIO N ....................... ' .....................■ ........................
Comparison o f Row and S m all P lo t s f o r S e le c t io n
P u r p o s e s .........................................
A s s o c ia t io n o f Mixogram Data w ith Other Q u a lity
T r a i t s ............................................................................................
R e p lic a te d V ersus Bulk Mixogram Data .................................
SUMMARY
.........................................
7475
75
75
7679
OVERALL SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................
96
LITERATURE CITED
98
..................................... ....
. , . . . .
A PPE N D IX ...................................................................................
. . . . . . .
79
85
91
95
102
vi
L IST OF TABLES
T a b le
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
Page
D e s c r ip tio n o f th e f i e l d n u r s e r ie s used in th e compar■ is o n o f row and sm a ll p l o t s .............................................. .... . . „
17
D a te , p la n t a v a ila b le m o is tu r e , and amount o f w ater
a p p lie d to th e ir r ig a t e d h i l l and m icr o p lo ts
. . . . . . .
I9
T r a it measured and r e p l i c a t e s used in th e a n a ly s e s
o f row and sm a ll p l o t s ..........................................................................
23
Summary s t a t i s t i c s fo r p erce n t culms lod ged measured
on te n c u lt i v a r s grown in th e row and sm a ll p lo t s . . . .
26
Summary s t a t i s t i c s fo r p e r c e n t heads damaged measured
on te n c u lt i v a r s grown in th e row and sm a ll p lo t s . . . .
2?
C u ltiv a r ( c ) and e r r o r ( e ) mean sq u ares (MS) from th e
a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e f o r 11 t r a i t s measured in row
and sm a ll p lo t s . . . . . . . .
...........................................................
30
Mean o f a l l e n t r ie s fo r each p lo t typ e and t e s t s o f
s ig n if ic a n c e between th e means o f row and sm a ll p lo t s
' f o r 11 t r a i t s .................................................................................................
P h en otyp ic c o r r e la t io n s betw een row and sm a ll p lo t s
f o r 11 t r a i t s .................................................................................................
. P ercen t o f sm a ll p lo t e n t r ie s common to th e to p 10*
2 5 , and 50% e n t r ie s grown in th e row p lo t s f o r 11
t r a i t s .............................................................
33
36
38
C o e f f ic i e n t s o f_ v a r l a t i o n ( C . V . ) , standard e r r o r s ( s ) ,
o v e r a ll means ( X ) , and range o f perform ance (R) f o r
11 t r a i t s measured in row and sm a ll p lo t s
40
11
C o r r e la tio n s between t r a i t s w ith in p lo t ty p e s ..........................
44
12
C u ltiv h r and er r o r mean sq u a res (MS) .from th e a n a l­
y s i s o f v a ria n c e fo r h a r v e st in d e x , b io lo g i c a l y i e l d ,
and g r a in y i e l d measured in row and sm a ll p lo t s . . . . . .
5^
v
v ii
T a b le
13
14
15
Page
Mean o f a l l e n t r ie s f o r each p lo t typ e and t e s t s o f
s ig n if ic a n c e betw een th e means o f row and sm a ll
p lo t s fo r h a r v e st in d e x , b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d , and g r a in
• y i e l d ................................................... .... ......................................... ....
55
.H e r i t a b i l i t i e s (h2 ) , g en o ty p ic (Vg ) , . and e r r o r (Ve )
v a r ia n c e s f o r h a r v e st in d e x , b io lo g i c a l y i e l d , and
g r a in y i e l d measured in row and sm a ll p l o t s ............................58
P hen otyp ic c o r r e la t io n s betw een row and sm a ll p lo t s
fo r h a r v e st in d e x , b io lo g i c a l y i e l d , and g r a in y i e l d
. . ' 6'0
16
P hen otyp ic c o r r e la t io n s between row p lo t g r a in y ie ld
and sm a ll p lo t h a r v e st in d ex and b io lo g i c a l y i e l d . . . .• 60-
17
P ercen t o f sm a ll p lo t e n t r ie s common to th e to p 10,
2 5 j and 5Q^ e n t r ie s grown in th e row p lo t s fo r har­
v e s t in d e x , b io lo g i c a l y i e l d , and g r a in y ie ld . ...................
63
C o e f f ic ie n t s 0! ^ v a r ia tio n (C. V . ) , standard e r r o r s ( s ) ,
o v e r a ll means ( X ) , and range o f perform ance (R) fo r
h a r v e st in d e x , b io lo g i c a l y i e l d , and g ra in y i e l d mea­
su red in row and sm a ll p lo t s
..................................... ....
65
C o r r e la tio n s between th e in d ir e c t s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a
and o th er agronomic c h a r a c te r s w ith in p lo t ty p e s
. . . .
68
C o e f f ic ie n t s o f d eterm in a tio n (R ^ ), standard p a r t i a l
r e g r e s s io n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r th e m u ltip le r e g r e s s io n s
o f g r a in y i e l d on h a r v e st in d ex and b io lo g i c a l y i e l d ,
and th e r a t io o f h a r v e st in d ex stand ard p a r t i a l r e ­
g r e s s io n c o e f f i c i e n t s to b io lo g i c a l y ie ld stan d ard p ar­
t i a l r e g r e s s io n 'c o e ffic ie n ts
................................................... . . .
71
C u ltiv a r ( c ) and e r r o r (E) means squares (MS) from th e
a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e fo r p e r c e n t p r o t e in , mixogram
peak d is t a n c e , and peak h e ig h t measured in row and
sm a ll p l o t s ............................................................ ' ................... ....
80
18
19
20
21
22
Mean o f a l l .e n t r ie s fo r each p lo t ty p e and t e s t s o f ■
s ig n if ic a n c e betw een .the means o f row and sm a ll p lo t s
-. V
f o r p erce n t p r o t e in , mixogram peak d is t a n c e , and peak,
h e i g h t .............................................................................. ■............................. 80
v iii
T a b le
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Page
P h en otyp ic c o r r e la t io n s betw een row and sm a ll p lo t s
f o r p e r c e n t p r o t e in , mixogram peak d is t a n c e , and
peak h e ig h t . .
....................... ...........................................................
82
P ercen t o f sm a ll p lo t e n t r ie s common to th e to p 10,
' 2 5 , and 50% e n t r ie s grown in th e row p lo t s f o r p e r ­
c e n t p r o t e in , mixogpram peak d is t a n c e , and peak
h e ig h t ; ..........................................................................................................
82
C o e f f ic i e n t s o f _ v a r ia t io n (C. V . ) , standard e r r o r s ( s ) ,
o v e r a ll means (X ), and range o f perform ance (R) f o r
p erce n t p r o t e in , mixogram peak d is t a n c e , and peak
h e ig h t measured in row and sm a ll p l o t s .....................................
84
C o r r e la tio n s among sev en q u a lit y c h a r a c t e r is t ic s
o f w in ter wheat grown in row p l o t s ..............................................
88
C o r r e la tio n s among sev en q u a lit y c h a r a c t e r is t ic s
o f w in te r wheat grown in h i l l p lo t s
..........................................
89
C o r r e la tio n s among sev en q u a lit y c h a r a c t e r is t ic s
o f w in ter wheat grown in m i c r o p l o t s .........................................
90
C o r r e la tio n s between bulk and r e p lic a t e d d a ta fo r
mixogram peak d is ta n c e and peak h e ig h t tak en from
row and sm a ll p l o t s ............................ ' .................. ■ ........................
93
C o r r e la tio n s between bulked mixogram in fo rm a tio n
and o th er q u a lit y c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f w in ter wheat .
c u lt i v a r s grown in row and sm a ll p lo t s
9^
ix
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
i
T a b le
1
2
Page
W inter wheat c u l t i v a r s , e n tr y , and a c c e s s io n num­
b ers u sed t o compare row and sm a ll p lo t s
. . . . . . . .
103
Comparison o f e r r o r mean sq uares between row and
sm a ll p lo t s f o r 16 t r a i t s
............................................................ ...
.104
3
Ranked c u lt i v a r means fo r p erce n t culms lod ged
measured in row and sm a ll p l o t s ....................................................... 105
4
Ranked c u lt i v a r means f o r p erce n t heads damaged
measured in row and sm a ll p l o t s ....................................................... 106
5
Ranked c u lt i v a r means f o r days t o emergence mea­
su red in row and sm a ll p l o t s ............................................................107
■6
Ranked c u lt i v a r means f o r f a l l c o lo r measured in
row and sm a ll p l o t s ...................................................................................108
7
Ranked c u lt i v a r means fo r s p r in g c o lo r measured in
row and sm a ll p lo t s ................................................................................... 109
8
Ranked c u lt i v a r means f o r f a l l growth h a b it measured
in row and sm a ll p l o t s ..........................................................................HO
9
Ranked c u lt i v a r means f o r s p r in g growth h a b it mea­
su red in row and sm a ll p l o t s ....................... '. . . . . . . .
10
11
12
13
14
Ranked c u lt i v a r means f o r h ead in g d a te measured
in row a,nd sm a ll p l o t s ..............................................
Ranked c u lt i v a r means f o r p la n t h e ig h t measured in
row and sm a ll p lo t s . . ............................................................
I ll
112
. . .
113
Ranked c u lt i v a r means fo r number o f h e a d s/9 0.0 cm^
measured in row and sm a ll p lo t s .................. . . . . . . . .
114
Ranked c u lt i v a r means f o r number o f s e e d s .per head
measured in row and sm a ll p l o t s . ..................................... .... . .
115'
Ranked c u lt i v a r means fo r 1 0 0 -seed w eigh t measured
in row and sm a ll p l o t s ...................................................116 *
Page
T a b le
15
16
17
18
19
20
Ranked c u lt i v a r means fo r g r a in y i e l d measured
in row and sm a ll p l o t s .....................................................................
117
Ranked c u lt i v a r means f o r h a r v e st in d ex measured
in row and sm a ll p l o t s .....................................................................
118
Ranked c u lt i v a r means fo r b io lo g i c a l y ie ld mea­
su red in row and sm a ll p lo t s
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
119 -
Ranked c u lt i v a r means fo r p erce n t p r o te in mea­
su red in row and sm a ll p l o t s .......................................................
120
Ranked c u l t i v a r .means f o r mixogram peak d is ta n c e
measured in row and sm a ll p l o t s ............................................... ...
121
Ranked c u lt i v a r means f o r mixogram peak h e ig h t
■ measured in row and sm a ll p l o t s ...................................................
122
.
xi
L IST OF FIGURES
F igure
1
2 '
Rage
Schem atic diagram showing mixogram m easurem ents, Line
A d e s c r ib e s th e d is ta n c e in cm from th e s t a r t o f th e
mixogram to th e p o in t o f minimum m o b ility , or peak
( e •g • I peak d is t a n c e ) . Line B d e s c r ib e s peak h e ig h t
in cm . '........................................... • ........................................................
.7 7
E f f e c t s o f tem pered ( l 3 .5% mb) s ie v e d wheat meal on •
dough developm ent u sin g fo u r w in te r wheat c u lt i v a r s
grow n-in row, h i l l , and m ic r o p lo ts . V alues under
cu rves are th e mean p erce n t p r o te in fo r each p lo t type .
86
x ii
ABSTRACT
The ty p e o f in fo rm a tio n a t t a in a b le in e a r l y g e n e r a tio n s o f a c e r ­
e a l b reed in g program i s li m it e d , in p a r t , by th e amount o f seed and
la n d a v a i l a b l e . • An e v a lu a tio n o f s e v e r a l s m a ll- s iz e p lo t s was under­
tak en to d eterm ine t h e i r s u i t a b i l i t y a s a lt e r n a t i v e s to c o n v en tio n a l
row p lo t s in w in te r wheat r e s e a r c h . T w enty-three w in te r wheat ( T r i t i c urn a estiv u m L .) c u lt i v a r s were e v a lu a te d in h i l l , m ic r o -, m in i- , and
row p lo t s grown under d ryland c o n d itio n s in 1978. ' In a d d it io n , th e
h i l l and m icr o p lo ts were ir r ig a t e d th r e e tim es d u rin g th e growing s e a ­
son in n u r s e r ie s s e p a r a te from t h e i r d rylan d c o u n te r p a r ts .
Comparisons o f th e s e sm a ll p lo t s v ersu s th e row p lo t s were made
u s in g o v e r a ll means, ph en otypic, c o r r e la t io n s between row and sm a ll p l o t s ,
r a n g e s , c o e f f i c i e n t s o f v a r ia t io n , and th e p ercen ta g e o f e n t r ie s th a t
were common in th e extrem e 10, 2 5 , and 50% o f th e p o p u la tio n . A ll s m a ll
p lo t s p ro v id ed s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s f o r d is c r im in a tin g among c u lt iv a r s
f o r h ead in g d a t e , p la n t h e ig h t , seed w e ig h t, and h a r v e st in d e x . The
h i l l and m ic r o p lo ts were a s e f f i c i e n t as th e row p lo t s in id e n t if y in g
w in te r wheat c u lt i v a r s f o r p ercen t f lo u r p r o te in and mixogram c h a r a c te r - ■
i s t i c s (peak d is t a n c e , peak h e ig h t , and curve p a t t e r n )„ Based on pheno- ■
t y p ic c o r r e la t io n s betw een row p lo t g r a in y ie ld and sm a ll p lo t h a rv est
in d ex and b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d , sm a ll p lo t h a r v e st in d ex p rovid ed a b e t t e r
in d ic a t io n o f row p lo t g ra in y ie ld than d id sm a ll p lo t g r a in y i e l d . No
advantage u sin g ir r ig a t e d h i l l and ir r ig a t e d m icr o p lo ts v ersu s t h e ir
dryland' co u n terp a rts was d e t e c t e d .
C o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s were c a lc u la t e d between th e agronomic
and q u a lit y c h a r a c t e r is t ic s w ith in p lo t ty p e s to d eterm ine i f th e k in d s
o f in t e r - r e la t io n s h ip s th a t occu rred in th e row p lo t s a ls o e x is t e d in
th e sm all- p l o t s . C u ltiv a r s grown in each o f th e sm a ll p lo t ty p es show­
ed w ith in p lo t c o r r e la t io n s n o t e x h ib it e d by c u lt i v a r s grown in th e
row p l o t s , in d ic a t in g d i f f e r e n t i a l a b i l i t y o f c u lt i v a r s to compete w ith ­
i n and betw een ex p erim en ta l u n i t s .
The r e l a t i v e im portance o f h a r v e st in d ex and b i o l o g i c a l y ie ld ind eterm in in g g r a in y i e l d o f w in ter wheat c u lt iv a r s was s tu d ie d u sin g
m u ltip le r e g r e s s io n a n a ly s is . ' H arvest in d ex -a n d b io lo g i c a l y ie ld accou n ted f o r 95 to 99% o f th e v a r ia t io n in g ra in y ie ld a c r o ss plot.ty p e s and th e r a t i o s o f t h e ir stan d ard p a r t ia l r e g r e s s io n c o e f f i c i e n t s .
in d ic a te d th a t har v e s t in d ex was, more im p o rta n t. th a n b io lo g i c a l y i e l d
i n determ in in g g r a in _ y ie ld . e x c e p t in th e dryland h i l l and m icro p lo ts , '
w here^bothTharvest index^and b i o l o g i c a l y ie ld were o f eq u a l im p o rta n ce,-
INTRODUCTION
C erea l b reed ers must s c r e e n la r g e numbers o f ex p erim en ta l l i n e s
in t h e i r sea rch fo r optimum gene co m b in a tio n s.
.T his p r o c e ss r e q u ir e s
r e l a t i v e l y la r g e amounts o f la n d , tim e , and e x p e n se .
R ecent i n t e r e s t
in r e c u r r e n t s e l e c t i o n methods as a means o f o b ta in in g new com binations
o f genes in s e l f - p o l l i n a t e d s p e c ie s has p la ce d a premium on ra p id and
a ccu ra te te c h n iq u e s to e v a lu a te many g e n o ty p e s .
S e v e r a l in v e s t ig a t o r s have shown th e s u i t a b i l i t y o f s m a ll- s iz e
p lo t s in e a r ly g e n e r a tio n t e s t i n g o f s e v e r a l c r o p 's p e c ie s where c o s t s ,
la n d , and se e d are l i m i t i n g , and where la r g e numbers o f p la n ts must be
scree n e d e f f i c i e n t l y .
The h i l l p lo t and i t s v a r ia t io n , th e lin e a r h i l l
p lo t or m ic r o p lo t, have been su g g e ste d a s a lt e r n a t iv e s t o th e conven­
t i o n a l row p lo t in t e s t i n g sm a ll g r a i n s .
Many workers have shown th a t
h i l l p lo t s p ro v id e a s much p r e c is io n a s row p lo t s in t e s t i n g fo r head­
in g d a te , p la n t h e ig h t , p erce n t p r o t e in , h a rv est in d e x , and th e compon­
e n ts o f y i e l d .
They have a ls o been used in g e n e tic s t u d ie s and fo r
s c r e e n in g la r g e p o p u la tio n s fo r r e a c t io n to c e r t a in d i s e a s e s .
The use
o f h i l l p lo t s as p r e c is e in d ic a t o r s o f com parative y i e l d s , however, has
met w ith l i t t l e s u c c e s s .
The o b j e c t iv e s o f t h i s in v e s t ig a t i o n were: l ) compare th e perform ­
ance o f 23 w in ter wheat c u lt i v a r s grown in c o n v e n tio n a l row p lo t s w ith
t h e i r perform ance in h i l l , m ic r o -, and m in ip lo ts ; Z) a n a ly ze th e r e l a ­
t i v e im portance o f h a r v e st in d ex and b i o l o g i c a l y ie ld in d eterm in in g '
2
g r a in y ie ld ; and 3 ) e v a lu a te th e ten-gram mixograph as a ra p id s c r e e n ­
in g tech n iq u e fo r c e r t a in q u a lit y c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f w in ter w h eat.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The A p p lic a tio n o f Sm all P lo t s to W inter Wheat R esearch
The need f o r s m a lle r p lo t s i z e in agronomic r e s e a r c h , e s p e c i a l l y a s
i t r e l a t e s to p la n t, b reed in g , was re c o g n iz e d as e a r ly a s I 9 0 7 , when J . B .
N orton ( 2 ? ) su g g e ste d th e use o f 1 7 -fo o t rows to r e p la c e th e h a lf - a c r e
and a cre p l o t s th en u sed f o r c u lt i v a r t e s t i n g .
N orton found t h i s system
o f y i e l d e s tim a tio n gave much b e t t e r com parative v a lu e s on a uniform
f i e l d than d id th e much la r g e r p lo t s i z e s .
He a ls o n oted th e p o s s i b i l i t y
o f r e p l i c a t i o n , which was im p r a c tic a l w ith h a lf - a c r e p l o t s .
Row p lo t s
are now w id e ly a cce p te d a s a p r e c is e method o f co n d u ctin g crop r e se a r c h .
(17).
B onnett and S ever ( 6 ) rep o rte d th e use o f a h e a d - h ill procedure f o r
e v a lu a tin g wheat and o a t s .
D ir e c t com parisons o f p la n t developm ent in
h e a d - h ills and head-row s grown in th e same year were n o t
made„ Ross and
M ille r ( 3 l ) compared rod rows' and h i l l p lo t s f o r y ie ld in o a ts and b a r le y
and con clud ed t h a t h i l l y ie ld t e s t s w ith sm a ll g r a in s "have v alu e o n ly
a s a supplem ent to p r e se n t t e s t i n g methods when la r g e numbers o f l i n e s
are to be s c r e e n e d , seed su p p ly i s s c a r c e , and lan d i s lim it e d ."
Several
c r o p s, e s p e c i a l l y th e sm a ll g r a in s , have been t e s t e d in h i l l p l o t s , i n ­
c lu d in g durum wheat ( 3)1 o a ts ( 6 , 1 7 » 1 9 , 2 0 , 2 9 , . 3 0 , 3 1 » 3 9 » 4 8 ) , s p r in g
b a r le y (2 8 , 3 l ) » s p r in g wheat (3> 6 , 11, 2 3 ) , and soybeans (32)'.
Perhaps
th e most e x t e n s iv e e v a lu a tio n o f h i l l p lo t s has been by 'Frey, w ith o a ts
( 17) . ' '
Many v a r ia t io n s o f th e h i l l p lo t d e s ig n (6 ) have been in tro d u ced a s '■
4
a r e s u l t o f th e p e c u lia r c o m p e titiv e r e l a t io n s h ip s in h e r e n t in th e h i l l
p lo t s due to s e v e r a l p la n t s grow ing in a sm all, sp a c e .
Jen sen and Robson
( 2 0 ) in tro d u ced th e li n e a r h i l l p l o t (m ic r o p lo t) becau se th e y b e lie v e d
th a t th e s p a t i a l arrangem ent in h i l l p lo t s m od ified th e i n t e r - p l o t com­
p e t i t i v e r e l a t io n s h ip s e x i s t i n g in row p l o t s .
Sm ith e.t a l . (3 9 ) d e t e r ­
mined th a t in t e r - g e n o t y p ic co m p e titio n among h i l l p lo t s i n .o a ts had a
major e f f e c t upon y i e l d .
S ch u tz and Brim (3 2 ) d esig n ed a n i n e - h i l l p lo t
which s u c c e s s f u l l y removed "70% o f th e c o m p e titio n b ia s e x h ib ite d by an
unbordered h i l l o f so y b e a n s."
Jellu m e t a l . ( 19) in t e r - p la n t e d h i l l p l o t s .
w ith rows o f s p r in g wheat t o "promote uniform c o m p e titio n between h i l l s ."
In a d d itio n t o a l t e r i n g th e p lo t d e s ig n i t s e l f , s e v e r a l in v e s t ig a ­
t o r s have v a r ie d th e amount o f seed p er h i l l and th e d is t a n c e s e p a r a tin g
each p lo t ( 1 1 , 17, 28, 3 l ) .
In most c a s e s , 15-30 se e d s p er h i l l and 30
cm sp a c in g s were found to be s a t i s f a c t o r y ; alth o u g h sp a c in g X genotype
and se e d number X genotype in t e r a c t io n s were s i g n i f i c a n t , com parisons w ith
th e c o n v e n tio n a l p lo t s were not. g r e a t ly a f f e c t e d .
D if f e r e n t p la n t in g .methods were a ls o e v a lu a te d .
B ohnett and Bever ■
(6). used a corn p la n te r to p la n t h i l l p l o t s o f o a ts and s p r in g w heat.
They were a b le t o p la n t 7,^ 9 4 h e a d - h ill s o f o a ts in 34 m an-hours,
F rey
( 1 7 ) compared th e use o f a hand h o e, a corn p la n t e r , and a sto v e p ip e f o r .
p la n tin g h i l l p lo t s o f o a t s .
He found a l l th r e e methods a c c e p ta b le f o r
m easuring th e y ie ld in g c a p a c ity o f o a t c u l t i v a r s , but o b ta in ed a h ig h
c o e f f i c i e n t o f v a r ia t io n w ith th e corn p la n t e r .
The hand hoe method was ■
5
p r e fe r r e d and two men co u ld p la n t p lo t s and borders in a 2500- h i l l e x ­
perim ent in e ig h t h o u r s .
- '■ H i l l p lo t s a re v a lu a b le a lt e r n a t i v e s to rod rows because o f t h e i r \
s u i t a b i l i t y a s a tech n iq u e o f o b ta in in g many k inds o f agronomic inform a­
tion.
ta k in g .
B onnett and S ev er ( 6 ) found h e a d - h ill s co n v en ien t f o r g en era l n o t e ­
Other workers have em phasized t h e i r use where la n d and seed were
lim it in g ,, such a s in e a r ly -g e n e r a tio n s c r e e n in g , or where la r g e numbers
o f e n t r ie s must be e v a lu a te d ( 3 , 6 , 11, I ? , 19, 2 0 , 2 3 , 3 l ) .
H i l l p lo t s
are comparable t o row p lo t s f o r o b ta in in g data, on h ead in g d a t e ,. p la n t
h e ig h t , p erce n t p r o t e in , heads per u n it a r e a , se e d s per head, and seed
w eigh t in wheat ( l l , 2 3 ); h eading d a t e , p la n t h e ig h t, heads per u n it a r e a ,
se e d s per head, seed w e ig h t, d a t e - o f - p la n t in g ,. f e r t i l i z e r r e sp o n se , p la n t
m a tu rity , and h a r v e st in d ex in o a ts ( 1 7 , 19, 2 9 ); and se e d s per head and
seed w eigh t in b a r le y ( 2 8 ) .
In a d d it io n , h i l l p lo t s h a v e.b een used f o r
g e n e tic s t u d ie s in wheat ( 3 ) ; p u r if ic a t io n o f v a r i e t i e s o f o a ts and w h ea t;
and s c r e e n in g fo r d is e a s e r e s is t a n c e in wheat ( 6 ) .
. H i l l p lo t s were n o t found s a t i s f a c t o r y by some in v e s t ig a t o r s fo r
th e e v a lu a tio n o f lo d g in g ( 1 9 , 3.1 ) , h ead in g d ate ( 3 l ) , t e s t w e ig h t, and'
number o f heads p er p la n t ( 2 8 , 3 1 ) in o a ts and s p r in g b a r le y .
Baker and
L e is ie (3.) r e p o r te d th a t, few b reed ers use h i l l p lo t s and su g g este d t h a t .■
t h i s was due to th e poor c o r r e la tio n s , or the- d if f e r e n t ran k in gs betw een
y ie ld s, o f h i l l and row p lo ts ..
However, Frey ( 17) found th a t h i l l p lo t s
were a s a c cu ra te a s row p l o t s .fo r y ie ld d eterm in a tio n in o a ts arid s u g g e s-
6
te d th a t p r e c is io n may he in c r e a se d by u sin g more r e p l i c a t i o n s .
( l l ) proposed th e u se o f more gen o ty p es to in c r e a se p r e c is io n .
Ergun
Baker and
L e i s l e ( 3 ) and F rey ( 17) used g en o ty p ic r a th e r than p h en o ty p ic c o r r e la ­
t io n s to compare perform ance o f c u lt i v a r s fo r s e v e r a l t r a i t s in h i l l and
row p lo t s and found g en o ty p ic c o r r e la t io n s were h ig h er than ph en otypic
c o r r e la t io n s .
Frey ( 1 7 ) argued t h a t g en o ty p ic c o r r e la t io n s were more
a p p ro p ria te than p h en o ty p ic c o r r e la t io n s "because g en o ty p ic e x p r e ssio n
i s what th e p la n t b reed er w ish es to m easure," and p h en o ty p ic c o r r e la t io n s
may be m is le a d in g .
Comparison o f Row and Sm all P lo t s fo r E v a lu a tio n o f
H arvest In d e x , B io l o g ic a l Y ie ld , and Grain Y ield
Im proving one t r a i t , such a s g r a in y i e l d , by s e l e c t i o n fo r o t h e r ,
a lt e r n a t i v e t r a i t s i s r e f e r r e d to a s in d ir e c t s e l e c t i o n ( 3 3 ) .
The r e ­
quirem ents o f any in d ir e c t s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r io n a r e : l ) th e a b i l i t y to '
measure many p la n t s in a sh o r t tim e; 2 ) th e g e n e tic v a r i a b i l i t y th a t e x ­
i s t s fo r th e ch a r a c te r ( i . e . , i t s h e r i t a b i l i t y ) ; 3 ) th e r e la t io n s h ip i t
shows w ith g r a in y ie ld ; and 4 ) i t s r e p e a t a b il it y ( 1 6 , 3 3 ) P r e se n t h ig h - y ie ld in g c u lt iv a r s o f c e r e a l crops a re la r g e ly th e r e ­
s u l t o f two ty p e s o f b reed in g program s: d e f e c t e lim in a tio n and d ir e c t s e ­
le c t io n fo r y ie ld ( 9 ) .
D e fe c t e lim in a t io n has reduced or e lim in a te d th e
s u s c e p t i b i l i t y o f a crop to d is e a s e , i n s e c t s , f r o s t , d ro u g h t, h ig h tem­
p e r a tu r e , and lo d g in g .
The r e s u l t has. p r im a r ily been y i e l d m aintenance.
I n d ir e c t s e l e c t i o n f o r y i e l d p o t e n t ia l has g e n e r a lly been lim it e d to th e
7
s e l e c t i o n o f y i e l d components ( i . e . , number o f heads per u n it' a r e a , num­
ber o f se e d s p er head, and seed w e ig h t ) .
However, th e m an ip u lation o f
th e s e components has n o t been s u c c e s s f u l b e c a u se , in sm a ll g r a in s , an
in c r e a s e in one component i s o f t e n fo llo w e d by a d ecre a se in one or more
o f th e o t h e r s , a r e la t io n s h ip known a s component com pensation ( l O ) .
Many p la n t b reed ers r a r e ly p r a c t ic e u n r e s t r ic t e d d ir e c t s e l e c t i o n
fo r y i e l d ( l ) „ R e s t r ic t io n s are g e n e r a lly p la ced on c e r t a in agronomic
t r a i t s , such a s m a tu rity and p la n t h e ig h t , b efo re s e l e c t i o n s f o r y ie ld
are made.
T h is p r o c e ss i s c a lle d r e s t r i c t e d d ir e c t s e l e c t i o n ( 2 9 , 3 0 )„
In o a ts ( 3 0 ) r e s t r i c t e d d ir e c t s e l e c t i o n fo r y ie ld was found to be o n ly
51% a s e f f i c i e n t fo r im proving g r a in y i e l d a s u n r e s t r ic t e d d ir e c t s e l e c ­
t io n fo r y i e l d .
Donald and Hamblin ( 1 0 ) and Evans and Wardlaw .(12) proposed th a t s e ­
l e c t i o n em phasis sh ou ld be p la ce d on v e g e t a t iv e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , p a r t i ­
c u la r ly a s th e y r e l a t e to th e p h o to sy n th e tic c a p a c ity o f th e crop canopy
and th e c o m p e titiv e a b i l i t y o f th e p la n t s .
N ic ip o r o v ic ( 5 ) rec o g n ized
th a t a g r ic u lt u r e i s a system o f e x p lo i t in g p h o to s y n th e s is .
He d e fin e d
th e " c o e f f ic i e n t o f e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f fo rm a tio n o f th e econ om ic,p art o f
th e t o t a l y ie ld " a s th e f r a c t io n o f p h o to sy n th a te th a t i s c o r r e c t ly d i s t r ib u t e d .a t th e r ig h t tim e to u sefu l, .pa r t s o f th e p la n t .
I t is d eter- \
mined a s th e r a t i o o f econom ic y i e l d t o b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d and_can be e x ­
p r e sse d a s a f a c t o r l e s s than u n it y , or a s a p ercen ta g e ( l O ) .
The eco n ­
omic y i e l d o f a. crop i s th a t p o r tio n which i s h a rv ested by th e farm er f o r
8
l a t e r s a le ( e . g . , g r a in , f i l e r , o i l , or tu b e r ) and b io lo g i c a l y ie ld i s
d e fin e d a s th e t o t a l above-ground dry m atter accum ulatio n o f a p la n t
s y s t em ( 5 ) .
Donald (8 ) proposed th e term "harvest index" f o r th e r a t io
o f g ra in y ie ld to b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d in c e r e a l crops .
T h is term i s i d e n t i ­
c a l in meaning t o th e c o e f f i c i e n t o f e f f e c t i v e n e s s , but w ith o u t i t s p h ys­
i o l o g i c a l or t e l e o l o g i c a l o v erto n es ( 1 0 ) .
Ha r v e s t in d ex i s a d ir e c t i n ­
d i c a to r o f th e e f f i c i e n c y w ith which a - p la n t popul a t i o n p a r t it io n s uho to s y n th a te in to econom ic y i e l d and any en vironm en tal or g e n e tic f a c t o r
which a f f e c t s t h i s p a r t it i o n i n g , a ls o a f f e c t s th e magnitude o f th e h a r - ■
v e s t in d ex ( 1 0 ) ,
S i g n i f i c a n t , p o s it iv e c o r r e la t io n s have been found to e x i s t between
h a r v e st in d ex and y i e l d fo r s e v e r a l c r o p s „
V alues r e p o r te d in th e l i t e r ­
a tu re a r e : a p h en otyp ic c o r r e la t io n o f 0 .5 4 and a g en o ty p ic c o r r e la t io n
o f 0 . 6 0 in l e n t i l s (3?)> a p h en otyp ic c o r r e la t io n o f 0 .5 0 ( 3 8 ) and geno­
t y p ic c o r r e la t io n s o f 0 . 4 2 ( 2 9 ) and 0 . 5 4 (4 8 ) in o a t s 5 a p h en otyp ic c o r ­
r e l a t i o n o f 0 . 6 6 in s p r in g b a r le y ( 38)5 p h en otyp ic c o r r e la t io n s o f O.5 6 .
( l 6 ) , 0 . 6 2 , and 0 , 7 5 ( 2 6 ) in s p r in g w h ea t; and a p h en o ty p ic c o r r e la t io n
o f 0 .6 2 in w in te r wheat ( 3 8 ) .
Singh, and S to sk o p f ( 3 8 ) found a h ig h degree o f v a r i a b i l i t y in t h e .
h a r v e st in d e x e s . o f ■w in te r w heat, s p r in g b a r le y , w in ter b a r le y , w in ter r y e ,
and o a t s .
W inter wheat showed th e g r e a t e s t v a r ia tio n (range = 18$) and '
s p r in g b a r le y showed th e h ig h e s t mean (51%),.
R o s i e ll e and Frey ( 2 9 ) found
th a t th e mean h a r v e st in d ex o f o a ts in Iowa had a range o f 28$ among
9
1200 Fg l i n e s and a c r o s s s i x en v iro n m en ts„ H arvest in d ex had a h ig h er
stan d ard u n it h e r i t a h i l i t y than y i e l d in o a ts (6 0 v e r su s 53%), but v a r ­
i a t i o n in h e r i t a h i l i t y e s tim a te s was n oted depending upon th e m ethod.used
to c a lc u la t e i t .
Takeda and F rey (4 9 ) su g g e ste d t h a t harvest, in d ex in o a ts i s near
optimum in th e M idwest, but th a t y ie ld in c r e a s e s co u ld a ls o be a ch iev ed
by in c r e a s in g b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d .
H arvest in d ex and b i o l o g i c a l y ie ld have
a p o t e n t ia l f o r m a n ip u la tio n t h a t i s u n a v a ila b le when u s in g th e heads
per u n it a r e a , se e d s per h ead , and w eig h t p er seed o f a sm a ll g r a in .
For
in s t a n c e , in c r e a s e s in th e y ie ld s o f o a t s , s p r in g b a r le y , and s p r in g
wheat in A u s t r a lia have been accom p lish ed by an in c r e a s e in h a r v e st i n ­
dex w ith o u t a s i g n i f i c a n t change in b i o l o g i c a l y ie ld ( 1 0 , 3 6 , 4 6 ) .
In
e f f e c t , c e r e a l b reed ers have a p p lie d in d ir e c t s e l e c t i o n p ressu re fo r
h a r v e st in d ex w ith o u t p u r p o siv e ly d o in g s o , by s e l e c t i n g d i r e c t l y fo r
y i e l d , s h o r te r stra w , and e a r l in e s s ( l O ) .
S e v e r a l workers ( l 6 , 2 6 , 4 y ) have in v e s t ig a t e d th e p r e d ic tiv e v a lu e
o f h a r v e st in d ex a s an in d ir e c t s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i o n .
F isc h e r and K ertesz
( l 6 ) showed t h a t s p a c e d -p la n t h a r v e st in d ex was s u p e r io r to sp a c e d -p la n t
y i e l d as a p r e d ic to r o f y ie ld in g a b i l i t y in la r g e p lo t s o f s p r in g w h ea t.
Syme ( 4 y ) found th a t th e h a r v e st in d ex o f p o tte d p la n ts in a g la ssh o u se
accou n ted f o r 71.7% o f th e v a r i a b i l i t y irt' th e F i f t h I n te r n a t io n a l S p rin g
Wheat Y ie ld N ursery y i e l d s , and recommended h a r v e st in d ex as an in d ir e c t,
method o f p r e d ic tin g r e l a t i v e mean y ie ld s o f wheat g e n o ty p e s .
10
E v a lu a tio n o f Q u a lity in W inter Wheat
Wheat q u a lit y i s d e fin e d in term s o f th e w heat’s s u i t a b i l i t y f o r a •
g iv e n p roduct ( 1 5 ) .
Q u a lity in a s o f t w h ite wheat i s d e fin e d in term s
o f m illin g c h a r a c t e r is t ic s and s u i t a b i l i t y in th e m anufacture o f c a k e s ,
c o o k ie s , and c r a c k e r s .
On th e o th er hand, q u a lit y in hard red w heats
i s d e fin e d in term s o f p r o p e r tie s t h a t determ ine u t i l i t y f o r hard wheat
m illin g an d .b read p ro d u c tio n .
For bread -b ak in g p u rp o se s, a f lo u r o f
good q u a lit y sh o u ld have a h ig h w ater a b so r p tio n , a medium to mediumlo n g m ixing req u irem en t, a sm a ll to medium o x id a tio n req u irem en t, s a t -
'
is f a c t o r y m ixing to le r a n c e and d ou gh -h an d lin g p r o p e r t ie s , good l o a f - v o l ­
ume p o t e n t i a l i t i e s , and good in t e r n a l crumb g ra in and c o lo r ( 1 5 ) . The
amount and q u a lit y o f p r o t e in , e s p e c i a l l y g lu t e n , i s u sed as a measure
o f .s t r e n g t h in bread wheats ( 4 ) .
S u c c e s s f u l te c h n iq u e s f o r th e m illin g and baking o f w heats and f lo u r s
were d ev elo p ed b efo re th e e s ta b lish m e n t o f wheat and f lo u r t e s t i n g la b ­
o r a to r ie s .
As p la n t b reed ers d ev elo p ed new c u l t i v a r s t h e y were t e s t e d
by th e m illin g and baking in d u str y a g a in s t co m m erc ia lly -a ccep ta b le s t a n :
■
. f ■■
dards ( 4 l ) . Johnson and Swanson ( 2 1) and Swanson ( 4 1 , 4 2 ) review ed th e
many m echanical d e v ic e s d ev elo p ed in f l o u r - t e s t i n g - l a b o r a t o r i e s . fo r e v a l ­
u a tin g th e p h y s ic a l p r o p e r tie s o f dough in com m ercially a c c e p ta b le hard
red wheat c u l t i v a r s . Two o f th e s e m ach in es, th e Brabender Farinograph
and th e Swanson, and Working R ecording Dough Mixer (m ixograp h ), grew .in
im portance a t about th e same tim e (3 4 , 45)«
11
The f a r in o graph i s a h ig h ly sta n d a rd ized in stru m en t and one o f th e
most w id e ly used p h y s ic a l dough t e s t i n g in stru m en ts in th e world ( 15) .
I t was d esig n ed to measure th e developm ent tim e o f th e dough ( 4 l ) and
to p rovid e in fo rm a tio n on f lo u r a b so r p tio n and m ixing to le r a n c e ( 15) .
Shuey ( 3 4 ) s u r v e y e d .th e l i t e r a t u r e on th e fa rin o g ra p h and found th a t
farinogram a b so r p tio n agreed w ith in one p erce n t o f t h a t determ ined by a
baker; peak tim e was c o r r e la te d ( r = 0 . 88* * ) w ith crude p r o te in but n o t
w ith baking m ixing tim e ( r = 0 .2 7 ); farinogram s t a b i l i t y was found to
g iv e some in d ic a t io n o f th e m ixing to le r a n c e o f a f l o u r ; and farinogram
v a lo r im e te r v a lu e s were c o r r e la te d w ith l o a f volume ( r = 0 .5 ? * ), f lo u r
p r o te in ( r = 0 . 6 ? * ) , and se d im en ta tio n v a lu e ( r = 0 .8 4 * * ),
The mixograph i s a h ig h -sp e e d r e c o r d in g dough m ixer ( 1 5 ) .
Swanson
( 4 2 ) s t a t e d i t was " designed to measure and record a u to m a tic a lly th e r a t e ,
o f dough d ev elo p m en t, th e d u ra tio n o f r e s is t a n c e a g a in s t m echanical a c tio n ,
and th e r a te and e x te n t o f in c r e a se in m o b ility o f dough a s a r e s u l t o f
m echanical a c t i o n ,"
The main d if f e r e n c e in th e a c t io n o f th e f a r in o - .
graph and th e mixo graph i s th a t th e mixo graph dough trea tm en t i s much
more se v e r e ( 4 l ) .
U n t il r e c e n t ly ( l 4 ) th e mixo graph has n o t been a h ig h ­
l y sta n d a rd ized apparatus ( 1 5 ) .
Swanson and Johnson ( 4 4 ) rec o g n ized th e
need f o r a b a s is o f d e s c r ip t io n and in t e r p r e t a t io n o f th e mixogram, and
d evelop ed a system u s in g th e an gu lar t r a i t s o f th e c u rv e.
S e v e r a l v a r­
i a t i o n s on t h i s tech n iq u e have been r e p o r te d (2 1 , 2 5 , 5 0 ); but d is ta n c e
to peak and curve h e ig h t rem ain th e most im portant mixogram c h a r a c t e r is ­
12
t ic s (21).
M orris e t a l . ( 2 5 ) d ev elo p ed a s i n g l e - f i g u r e sc o r e fo r a
mixogram based on th e a rea under th e c u r v e , but Z a lik and O sta fich u k
( 5 0 ) found t h a t t h i s method obscured some o f th e r e le v a n t d a ta on t h e '
q u a lit y o f th e doughs b e in g s t u d ie d .
Johnson e t a l.. ( 2 2 ) rev iew ed th e l i t e r a t u r e on th e in t e r p r e t a t io n
o f curve c h a r a c t e r is t ic s in a mixogram.
They rep o rte d t h a t dough d e­
velopm ent tim e in d ic a te d th e amount o f.m ix in g req u ir ed to d ev elo p a dough
t o optimum c o n s is t a n c y .
The curve h e ig h t in c r e a se d d i r e c t l y w ith i n - '
c r e a s in g p r o te in c o n te n t and in c r e a s in g a b so r p tio n .
The w idth o f th e
curve a t th e peak was th ou gh t to in d ic a t e e l a s t i c i t y , but Swanson (4 3 )
l a t e r m o d ified t h i s in t e r p r e t a t io n b ecause he found t h a t a s ta r c h -w a te r
m ixture a ls o gave a wide band.
Johnson and Swanson (2 1 ) a ttem p ted t o sta n d a r d iz e c e r t a in te c h n iq u e s
in th e m ixograph's o p e r a tio n by stu d y in g th e e f f e c t s o f g r in d in g , tem­
p e r in g , and a b so r p tio n upon th e ty p e s o f cu rves p rod u ced „ Shuey and
G i lle s (3 5 ) e v a lu a te d th e e f f e c t o f s p r in g s e t t i n g s and d if f e r e n t ab­
s o r p tio n s on th e mixogram c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f s e v e r a l d if f e r e n t f lo u r s .
They found th a t f lo u r s r e a c te d d i f f e r e n t l y to d if f e r e n t c o n d itio n s and
recommended th e use o f th e two s p r in g s e t t i n g s and a b so r p tio n s fo r each
f lo u r t e s t e d .
F inn ey and Shogren ( 1 4 ) d e sc r ib e d a h ig h ly sta n d a rd ized
ten-gram mixograph " fo r d eterm in in g m ixing req u irem en t, m ixing t o le r a n c e ,
w ater a b s o r p tio n , and f o r p r e d ic t in g o x id a tio n req u irem en t, dough-han­
d lin g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and l o a f volum e," where f lo u r p r o t e in co n ten t i s
13
known.
Bruinsma e t a l . ( 7 ) in tro d u ced a ra p id method o f d eterm in in g
•wheat q u a lit y hy u s in g tem pered {13.5% mb) s ie v e d wheat meal in a t e n gram m ixograph.
They o b ta in ed a c o r r e la t io n c o e f f i c i e n t o f 0.92 betw een
f lo u r mix peak and meal mix peak, and found th e a s s o c ia t io n between ab­
s o r p tio n o f f lo u r s and m eals to be v ery c l o s e ( r = 0 . 9 9 ) .
S e v e r a l a u th o rs ( 2 2 , 2 4 , 3 4 ) have e v a lu a te d com parisons between
b ak in g r e s u l t s and th e v a lu e s a s s o c ia t e d w ith th e f a r in o gram and m ixogram.
Johnson e t a l . ( 2 2 ) found a b e t t e r c o r r e la t io n betw een p r o te in
c o n te n t and l o a f volume than w ith any c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f th e mixogram and
l o a f volum e.
M ille r e t a l . ( 2 4 ) compared th e r e l a t i v e c o n tr ib u tio n s o f
farin ogram , mixogram, and s e d im e n ta tio n c h a r a c t e r is t ic s to baking d a ta .
The o n ly c o r r e la t io n s la r g e enough to have p r e d ic t iv e v a lu e were betw een
baking and mixogram m ixing t im e , f lo u r p r o t e in and sed im e n ta tio n v a lu e ,
and v a lo r im e te r v a lu e and sed im e n ta tio n v a lu e ,
Mixogram m ixing tim e was
shown to be s u p e r io r to farinogram m ixing tim e in p r e d ic t in g baking mix­
in g tim e , and th e mixogram w eakening a n g le was a b e t t e r in d ic a t o r o f th e
s e n s i t i v i t y o f a f lo u r to m ixing tim e th a n th e farin ogram m ixing t o l e r ­
ance in d ex .
SECTION I i
THE APPLICATION OF SMALL
PLOTS TO WINTER WHEAT RESEARCH
INTRODUCTION
The s i z e o f th e f i e l d p lo t s used by a p la n t b reed er d e te r m in e s, to
a g r e a t e x t e n t , th e amount o f m a te r ia ls he i s a b le to e v a lu a t e .
T his
i s e s p e c i a l l y tr u e o f e a r ly g e n e r a tio n m a te r ia ls which in c lu d e te n s o f
thousands o f u n te ste d g e n o ty p e s.
The h i l l p lo t and i t s v a r ia t io n , th e
li n e a r h i l l p lo t or m icro p lo t r e q u ir e l e s s lan d and seed and have been •
su g g e ste d a s a lt e r n a t i v e s to c o n v e n tio n a l row p lo t s f o r o b ta in in g com­
p arab le agronomic in f o r m a t io n .■ The o b j e c t iv e o f t h i s in v e s t ig a t io n was
to d eterm ine th e s u i t a b i l i t y o f s m a ll- s iz e p lo t s a s a lt e r n a t i v e s to con­
v e n tio n a l row p lo t s in w in te r wheat r e s e a r c h .
MATERIALS AND METHODS
E sta b lish m en t o f F ie ld P lo t s
T h is stu d y was conducted a t th e F ie ld R esearch L aboratory near
Bozeman, Montana d u rin g th e 1 9 7 7 -7 8 grow ing se a so n .
Twenty-two hard red
w in te r wheat c u lt i v a r s and one s o f t w h ite w in ter wheat c u lt i v a r (Appen­
d ix Table l ) were grown in c o n v e n tio n a l row p lo t s and th r e e ty p e s o f
sm a ll p lo t on an Amsterdam s i l t loam , T ypic G ryob orall s o i l .
S ix f i e l d n u r s e r ie s were e s t a b lis h e d , one each f o r row p lo t s and
m in ip lo ts , and two each ( ir r ig a t e d and d ry la n d ) f o r h i l l and m icr o p lo ts
(T able l ) .
A l l n u r s e r ie s , e x c e p t th e m in ip lo ts , were seed ed 1 .3 cm
deep w ith a cone se e d e r equipped w ith s i x furrow open ers spaced 30 cm
a p a r t.
P r io r to s e e d in g , th e h i l l p lo t ex p erim en ta l a r e a s were marked
in 30 cm sq u ares w ith a hand-drawn marker.
The m in ip lo ts were seed ed
0 .6 cm deep w ith a cone se e d e r equipped w ith 12 double d is k openers
spaced 15 cm a p a r t.
The p la n tin g d a te s were 29 S e p t , and 5 Oct. '1977
f o r th e row p lo t s and th e o th e r f i v e p lo t n u r s e r ie s , r e s p e c t i v e ly .
The row p lo t n u rsery c o n s is t e d o f fo u r 3 m rows per p lo t ,with 30
cm sp a c in g s betw een rows seed ed a t a r a t e o f 8 g p er row . Two rows o f .
.
1
border were p la n te d on each s id e o f th e n u r s e r y . Both h i l l p lo t n ur- ■
--
■
.
.
'
s e r i e s c o n s is t e d o f . o n e h i l l p e r . ex p erim en ta l u n it and were p la n ted w ith
I g se e d per p lo t (a p p ro x im a tely 28 s e e d s ) .
cm a p a rt in p erp en d icu la r d i r e c t i o n s .
H i l l p lo t s were spaced 30
Two r e p l ic a t io n s a t a tim e were,
surrounded by two "rows" o f border h i l l s ' , and each s id e o f th e s e n u r s e f-
Table I . D e s c r ip tio n
p l o t s .*
N u r se fy t
• T o ta l
r e p lic a te s
used
o f th e f i e l d n u r s e r ie s u sed i n th e com parison o f row and sm a ll
Seed/
30 cm
o f row
.g
Row-D
H ill-I
H ill-D
M icro-I
Micro-D
Mini-D
6
12
12
12
12
6
0 .8
1 .0
1 .0 .
1 .0 ,
1.0 .
0.-5
Seed
r e q u ir e d
p er e n tr y
Rows/
p lo t
g
192
12
12
• 12 .
12
72 .
4 ■
. 1
1
1
1
. 6.
D ista n c e
betw een rows
Row
le n g th .
cm.
m
3 .0
0 .3
0 .3
0 .3
0.3
1 .2
H arvest
■s i z e #
' ■ m2 -
N ursery
s iz e §
m2"
•
.
497
199
.
■ 25
25
'2 5
'
25
25
’ 52
25
52
"
149
.
75
a re a b b r e v ia tio n s f o r d rylan d and ir r ig a t e d ,
.30
30
39
30.
30
15
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g n u r s e r ie s
r e s p e c t i v e ly .
* H arvest s i z e s in c lu d e 23 e n t r ie s and a l l r e p l i c a t e s used in p lo t ty p e c o n sid e r e d .
§ N ursery s i z e s g iv e n do n ot in c lu d e a l l e y s and b o r d e r s . N ursery s i z e fo r th e m icr o p lo ts
in c lu d e th e 10 cm sp a ces betw een p lo t s w ith in th e row and th e 36 cm borders capping
each end o f th e row.
18
i e s were "bordered by two s o lid - p la n t e d row s.
Each m icr o p lo t n u rsery
c o n s is t e d o f fo u r m ic r o p lo ts p la n te d in a row 2 .4 m lo n g .
M icro p lo ts
w ith in th e row were 30 cm lo n g w ith a 10 cm space "between p l o t s .
cm "border m icr o p lo t capped each end o f th e row.
a t a r a te o f I g se e d p er 30 cm.
A 36
M icro p lo ts were p la n ted
Two rows o f m ic r o p lo ts were p la n ted
on each s id e o f th e n u r s e r ie s a s "border„ The m in ip lo ts c o n s is t e d o f
s i x 1 .2 m rows w ith 15 cm "between ro w s.
o f 2 g seed .
Each row was p la n te d a t a r a te
Four-row "borders were p la n te d on each s id e o f th r e e para­
l l e l runs o f th e p la n t e r .
I r r ig a t io n w ater was a p p lie d to th e ir r ig a t e d h i l l and ir r ig a t e d
m icr o p lo t n u r s e r ie s th r e e tim es d u rin g th e growing se a so n (T able Z)
v ia a g r a v ity flo w , f lo o d -ty p e sy stem .
S o i l m oistu re was brought to
f i e l d c a p a c ity a s determ ined by a s e r i e s o f e l e c t r i c a l r e s is t a n c e b lo c k s
p la c e d w ith in th e ex p erim en ta l a r e a .
Weeds in a l l n u r s e r ie s were hand
h o ed .
Methods o f Sam pling
■ Days to em ergence, c o lo r and growth h a b it in th e f a l l and s p r in g ,
h ead in g d a t e , p la n t h e ig h t , number o f heads/9 0 0 cm2 , number o f seed s
p er head, 1 0 0 -seed w e ig h t, and y i e l d d a ta were tak en on th e row p l o t s ,
d rylan d h i l l , d rylan d m icr o -, and m in ip lo ts .
Only p la n t h e ig h t , number
o f heads/9 0 0 cm2 , number o f se e d s per head, 10 0 -seed w e ig h t, and y ie ld
d a ta were ta k en on th e ir r ig a t e d h i l l and ir r ig a t e d m ic r o p lo ts , s in c e
th e y were n o t c o n sid e r e d to be d i f f e r e n t from t h e i r d rylan d c o u n te r -
T able 2 , D a te, p la n t a v a ila b le m o istu r e , and amount o f w ater a p p lie d
t o ■th e ir r ig a t e d h i l l and m ic r o p lo t s .
Date (1 9 7 8 )
19 June •
21 June
30 June
P la n t
a v a ila b le
m oistu re
Water
added
cm
%
24
1 4 .8
8 .2
■ 59
25
.
1 4 .7
20
p a r ts u n t i l a f t e r th e f i r s t i r r i g a t i o n .
P ercen t culms lo d g ed and p e r ­
c e n t heads damaged by h a i l were ta k en on te n e n t r ie s o f a l l n u r s e r ie s .
Days to emergence was determ ined a s th e number o f days from p la n t ­
in g u n t i l 50% o f th e p o s s ib le c o l e o p t i l e s in a 30 cm le n g t h o f row or
in a h i l l p lo t were em erged.
S e e d lin g c o lo r was reco rd ed on a s c a le o f
one to f i v e , w ith a one eq u a l to th e p a le s t green and a f i v e eq u al to
th e d a rk est g ree n .
S e e d lin g growth h a b it was e stim a te d on a s c a le o f
one to f i v e , w ith a one a s sig n e d to th e most e r e c t s e e d lin g s and a f i v e
to th e most p r o s t r a t e .
Heading d a te was record ed as th e number o f days
from January I u n t i l 50% o f th e heads in a p lo t were f u l l y ou t o f th e
b o o t.
P la n t h e ig h t was measured a s th e h e ig h t in cm from th e s o i l s u r ­
fa c e t o th e t i p o f th e main s p ik e , e x c lu d in g aw ns. The number o f heads
p
p er 900 cm was o b ta in ed by c o u n tin g th e number o f h ead -p rod ucin g t i l ­
l e r s in a 900 cm^ a r e a in a l l p lo t t y p e s .
1 0 0 -seed w eig h t was d e t e r ­
mined by c o u n tin g 100 se e d s from a p lo t and o b ta in in g t h e i r w eigh t in
gram s.
The number o f se e d s p er head was determ ined by d iv id in g p lo t
y ie ld by th e product o f th e number o f heads/9 0 0 cm^ and 1 0 0 -seed w e ig h t .
P r io r to m easuring y i e l d , th e c e n te r two rows o f th e row p lo t s were
trimmed to 2 .4 m and th e c e n te r fo u r rows o f th e m in ip lo ts were trimmed
to 0 .9 m.
Y ie ld was determ ined from each h i l l p l o t , each m ic r o p lo t, th e
c e n te r two rows o f each row p l o t , and from th e c e n te r fo u r rows o f each
m in ip lo t.
On 16 J u ly 1978 a h a i l and wind storm damaged th e e x p e r i­
m ental a r e a s .
On 24 J u ly 1978, p e r c e n t culms lod ged and p erce n t heads
21
damaged were measured to p ro vid e an in d ic a t io n o f th e n atu re and e x ­
t e n t o f th e damage.
P ercen t culms lo d g ed was e stim a te d a s th e r a t io
2
o f th e number o f lo d g ed culms in a $00 cm area t o th e t o t a l number o f
culms in t h a t a r e a , tim es 100.
P ercen t heads damaged was e stim a te d a s
th e r a t i o o f th e number o f heads show ing a t l e a s t
damage ( i . e „,
m issin g s p i k e l e t s or s p i k e l e t s t h a t were o th erw ise v i s i b l y damaged by
h a i l ) to th e t o t a l number o f heads in a $00 cm a r e a , tim es 100.
S t a t i s t i c a l Methods
'
S ix r e p l ic a t io n s o f row p lo t s and m in ip lo ts and 12 r e p l ic a t io n s
o f h i l l p lo t s and m ic r o p lo ts were p la n te d in a random ized com plete
b lo ck d e s ig n .
G u ltiv a r s were a s sig n e d to ex p erim en ta l u n it s by u se o f
a random number t a b l e .
An a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e fo r a two-way c l a s s i ­
f i c a t i o n and an F - t e s t were used to d eterm ine i f c u lt i v a r s gave e q u i­
v a le n t e x p r e s s io n s f o r each o f th e 11 t r a i t s s t u d ie d .
t r e a te d a s random e f f e c t s in th e two-way m odel.
C u ltiv a r s were
A t e s t f o r homogeneous
e r r o r v a r ia n c e s betw een agronomic d a ta o b ta in ed from th e row p lo t s and
th a t o b ta in ed from th e sm a ll p lo t s was c a lc u la t e d (Appendix Table 2 ) .
A t - t e s t was used t o compare th e mean o f a l l c u lt i v a r s in each sm a ll
p lo t ty p e w ith th e mean o f a l l c u lt i v a r s in th e row p l o t s f o r each o f
th e t r a i t s s t u d ie d .
The t - s t a t i s t i c was w eigh ted f o r non-homogeneous
e r r o r v a r ia n c e s (4-0); when er r o r v a r ia n c e s were homogeneous t h e ir v a lu e s
and r e s p e c t iv e d eg ree s o f freedom were p o o led and S tu d e n t's t - d i s t r i ­
b u tio n was f o llo w e d .
P h en otyp ic c o r r e la t io n s based on c u lt i v a r means
22
were computed fo r each c h a r a c te r "between row p lo t s and sm a ll p lo t s and
w ith in p lo t t y p e s .
The p erce n t o f sm a ll p lo t e n t r ie s common to th e to p
10, 2 5 , and 50% o f e n t r ie s f o r th e row p lo t s was c a lc u la t e d f o r each
tr a it.
The number o f r e p l ic a t io n s used f o r each t r a i t in each p lo t
ty p e i s p resen ted in Table 3 .
Table 3•
T r a it measured and r e p l i c a t e s used in th e a n a ly s e s o f row and sm a ll p l o t s .
T r a it
Days to emergence
F a l l c o lo r
S p rin g c o lo r
F a l l growth h a b it
S p rin g growth h a b it
Heading d a te
P la n t h e ig h t
Number o f h ea d s/9 0 0 cm^
Number o f se e d s/h e a d
1 0 0 -seed w eigh t
Y ie ld
P er cen t culms lod ged
P ercen t heads damaged
Rowr-D
3 *
3
3
3
3
6
6
3
3
3
6
4
4
H ill-I
0
0 ■
o ■
0
0
0
12
5
5
5
12
4
4
P lo t T y p e t '
H ill-D
M icro -I
12
O
O
3
O
3
O
3
O
3
O
12
12
12
5
5
5
5
5.
5
12
12
4,
4
4
4
Micro-D
12
3
3
3
3 •
12
12
.
5
5
■5
12'
4
4
Mini-D
6
3
■ 3
3
3
6
6
3 ■
3
3
■
6
2
2
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s a r e ■a b b r e v ia tio n s f o r dryland and ir r ig a t e d ,
r e s p e c tiv e ly .
t Numbers in body o f t a b le are th e number 'o f r e p l i c a t e s used to measure each t r a i t .
R
E
S
U
L
T
SA
N
DD
IS
C
U
S
S
IO
N
E v a lu a tio n o f H a il and Wind Damage
T h e .f ie ld n u r s e r ie s u sed in t h i s in v e s t ig a t i o n were damaged .by
wind and h a i l on 16 J u ly 1978, s i x days a f t e r th e l a s t c u lt i v a r had
headed.
Ten o f th e 23 e n t r ie s in th e s e n u r s e r ie s were s e le c t e d to r e ­
p r e s e n t - th e range o f p la n t ty p e s and used to e v a lu a te th e nature and
■e x te n t o f th e damage.
A com parison betw een row and sm a ll p lo t s f o r
h a i l - and w in d -in du ced lo d g in g and h a il-in d u c e d head damage was made.
S ig n if i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s f o r p erce n t culms lo d g ed e x i s t e d among th e
c u l t i v a r s o f th e row, ir r ig a t e d h i l l , ir r ig a t e d m ic r o -, and dryland
m ic r o p lo t s .
S i g n if i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s among th e c u lt i v a r s o f th e d ryland
h i l l p lo t s and m in ip lo ts were not d e te c te d (T able 4 ) .
S ig n if ic a n t
d if f e r e n c e s among c u lt i v a r s fo r p e r c e n t heads damaged were d e te c te d
for. a l l p lo t n u r s e r ie s e x c e p t th e m in ip lo ts (T able 5 ) .
A t - t e s t was used to determ ine i f th e mean o f th e sm a ll p lo t e x ­
p erim en ts d if f e r e d from th e mean o f th e row p lo t s f o r p erce n t culms :
lod ged and p e r c e n t heads damaged (T a b les 4 and 5 ) .
For p erce n t culms
lo d g e d , o n ly th e means f o r th e d rylan d h i l l and d rylan d m icr o p lo ts were
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from th e mean o f th e row p l o t s .
Both sm a ll
p lo t n u r s e r ie s e x h ib it e d low er o v e r a l l means and t h e i r c o r r e la t io n c o ­
e f f i c i e n t s f o r p e r c e n t culms lod ged w ith th e row p lo t s were n o n s i g n i f i­
c a n t, in d ic a t in g th e s e two n u r s e r ie s s u ff e r e d r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e from
h a i l - and w in d-induced lo d g in g . Because o f th e p e c u lia r s p a t i a l arrange
ment o f
c u lt i v a r s
grown in h i l l and m ic r o p lo ts ,
th e mass o f Io d g - .
25
in g - s u s c e p t ib le c u l t i v a r s , which occu rred in th e row and m in ip lo ts ,
may n ot have te e n g r e a t enough to fo r c e o th e r lo d g in g - s u s c e p t ih le as
w e ll a s n o n -s u s c e p tib le c u lt i v a r s to lo d g e .
A lthough c u lt i v a r s grown
in th e two ir r ig a t e d n u r s e r ie s shared th e s p a t i a l arrangem ents o f t h e ir
d ryland c o u n te r p a r ts , th e f a c t t h a t th e s e c u lt iv a r s were ir r ig a t e d p r e ­
sumably in c r e a se d t h e i r r e l a t i v e s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to lo d g in g .
T his may
have been e s p e c i a l l y tr u e in th e ir r ig a t e d m icr o p lo ts s in c e th e c u l t i v a fs grown in th a t p lo t typ e had a g r e a te r mean p la n t h e ig h t than th e
c u lt i v a r s grown in th e row p lo t s (T able ? ) .
A ll sm a ll p lo t means fo r p erce n t heads damaged were n ot s t a t i s t i ­
c a l l y d if f e r e n t from th e row p lo t mean (T able 5 ) .
The c o r r e la t io n c o ­
e f f i c i e n t s betw een th e row p lo t n u rsery and each sm a ll p lo t nursery
fo r p erce n t heads damaged were p o s i t i v e and h ig h ly s i g n i f i c a n t , in d ic a ­
t i n g th a t th e c u lt i v a r s grown in th e sm a ll p lo t s r e a c te d to h a il-in d u c e d
head damage .in a manner s im ila r to row p lo t c u l t i v a r s .
The amount o f v a r i a b i l i t y fo r p erce n t lod ged culms and p ercen t heads
damaged w ith in each p lo t ty p e was h ig h ^ The range o f e x p r e s s io n a c r o s s
p lo t ty p e s fo r p erce n t culms lo d g ed was 2 0 .0 to 81,3% (T ab le 4 ) and f o r
p erce n t heads damaged, 7 .5 to .17.0% (T a b le • 5 ) .
The number o f c u lt iv a r s
in a l l p lo t ty p e s e x h ib it in g a la r g e e f f e c t from h a i l were sm a ll fo r
both p erce n t culms lo d g ed and p e r c e n t , heads damaged (Appendix T ables 3
and 4 ) .
The range in c o e f f i c i e n t s o f v a r ia t io n (C .V .) a c r o s s .p l o t ty p e s
fo r p erce n t lo d g ed culms was 41 to 293% (T ab le 4 ) . Because th e o v e r a ll
26
Table 4 . Summary s t a t i s t i c s f o r p erce n t culms lo d g ed measured on te n
c u lt i v a r s grown in th e row and sm a ll p l o t s .
S ta tis tic
MS (C)*
MS (E )§
d f (C)
d f (E )
X..(#)TT
C.v. (% )
Range(%)
r #
Row-D
3 4 9 6 .0 * *
3 5 .1
9
27
1 4 .4
4 1 .1
8 1 .3
H ill-I
1 8 2 4 .0 *
7 2 4 .4
9
27
2 1 .3
126.4
5 2 .5
0,72*
P lo t Typet
H ill-D
M icro-I
2 2 2 .8
6 5 1 .1 *
2 1 7 .8
3 2 1 .7
9
9
27
27
6 .1 *
8 .5
173.6
2 9 3 .9
2 0 .0
4 2 .5
0 .4 5
0.73*
Micro-D
35 5 .8 *
1 2 0 .3 .
9
27
4 .3 *
2 5 5 .1
2 7 .5
0 .3 0
Mini-D
1425.0
4 7 8 .3
9
9
2 2 .5 .
97.2
8 0 .0
.0.83*
* ,* * S ig n if i c a n t a t th e 0 .0 5 and 0 .0 1 l e v e l s , r e s p e c t i v e l y ,
t The l e t t e r s D a n d -I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s fo r d ry­
la n d and i r r i g a t e d , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
t , § MS (C) and MS (E) are c u lt i v a r and er r o r mean sq u a r e s, r e s p e c t iv e ­
ly .
cIT Numbers are o v e r a ll p lo t means and a s t e r is k s I n d ic a te a s i g n i f i c a n t
d if f e r e n c e e x i s t s betw een th e mean o f th e row p lo t and th e mean o f
th e sm a ll p lo t under c o n s id e r a t io n .
# C o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t between row and sm a ll p lo t s f o r p ercen t
culms lo d g e d .
27
Table 5 . Summary s t a t i s t i c s fo r p erce n t heads damaged measured on te n
c u lt iv a r s grown in th e row and sm a ll p l o t s .
S ta tis tic
ES (C)*
ES (E )§
d f (C)
d f (E)
X..(#)TT
C.V. (# )
Range (%)
r #
Row-D
? 2 .4**
8 .4
9 '
27
7 .6
3 8 .1
1 5 .8
H ill-I
56.2*
2 1 .9
'9
27
7 .7
6 1 .7
. 1 3 .3
0.8 9 * *
P lo t Type t
H ill-D
E icro-D
E ic r o -I
9 0 . 8**
.2 3 .9 * *
1 6 .5 * .
1 9 .1 .
5 .3
5 .7
9
■
9
■
9
27
27 .
27
6 .0
7 .6
6 .3
. 3 9 .8
5 7 .5
3 6 .5
8 .2
1 7 .0
7 .5
0 . 98**
0 . 96**
0.93**
E in i-D
4 0 .0
8 ,6
9
27
6 .6
4 4 .4
1 4 .5 •
0 .8 8 * *
* ,* * S ig n if i c a n t a t th e 0 ,0 5 and 0 .0 1 l e v e l s , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s fo r d ry­
lan d and i r r i g a t e d , r e s p e c t i v e ly .
t , § MS (C) and ES (E ) a re c u lt i v a r and e r r o r mean s q u a r e s , r e s p e c t i v e ­
ly .
cH Numbers are o v e r a l l p lo t means.
# C o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s betw een row and sm a ll p lo t s f o r p ercen t
heads damaged.
28
means fo r each sm a ll p lo t were e i t h e r n ot s i g n i f i c a n t l y d if f e r e n t or
sm a lle r than th e mean o f th e row p lo t n u r se r y , th e la r g e r G . V .' s o f
th e sm a ll p lo t s can be a t t r ib u t e d to la r g e r stand ard e r r o r s .
The G . V . ' s
f o r p erce n t heads damaged in th e two m icro p lo t n u r s e r ie s .and th e m in i­
p lo t n u rsery were s im ila r to th a t o f th e row p lo t n u r s e r y .
The G . V .' s
in th e two h i l l p lo t n u r s e r ie s were c o n s id e r a b ly la r g e r than th a t o f
th e row p lo t n u rsery (T able 5 ) .
The o v e r a ll means o f th e h i l l p lo t
n u r s e r ie s fo r t h i s t r a i t were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from th e row
p lo t mean, but th e stan d ard e r r o r s o f th e former p lo t ty p e s were about
tw ic e as la r g e as t h a t o f th e l a t t e r .
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s e v a lu a tio n in d ic a te d a l l but th e dryland h i l l
and d rylan d m icro p lo t n u r s e r ie s were a f f e c t e d by h a i l - and w ind-induced
lo d g in g and by h a il-in d u c e d head damage in a manner s im ila r to th e row
p lo ts .
The d rylan d h i l l and m ic r o p lo ts , however, were n o t as s e v e r e ly
a f f e c t e d by h a i l - and w ind-induced lo d g in g a s th e row p l o t s , a lth o u g h •
h a il-in d u c e d head damage was s im ila r to th e row p lo t n u rsery .
Comparison o f Row and Sm all P lo t s fo r S e le c t io n Purposes
A n a ly s is o f V ariance
E lev en c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f 23 w in ter wheat c u lt i v a r s were compared
in row and sm a ll p l o t s .
S ig n if i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s among c u lt iv a r means
a c r o s s p lo t ty p e s were d e te c te d f o r h ead in g d a te , p la n t h e ig h t , 100seed w e ig h t, and y i e l d (T able 6 ) .
S ig n if i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s among th e
c u lt i v a r s fo r days to emergence were d e te c te d in th e row and m in ip lo ts ;
29
f o r f a l l c o lo r in th e row, d ryland m ic r o -, and m in ip lo ts ; f o r f a l l
growth h a h it in th e d ryland h i l l , d rylan d m icr o -, and m in ip lo ts ; fo r
s p r in g growth h a b it in th e d rylan d m icro - and m in ip lo ts ; fo r number o f
}•
heads/9 0 0 cm^ in th e row, d ryland h i l l , ir r ig a t e d m ic r o -, dryland m icroand m in ip lo ts ; and f o r th e number o f se e d s per head in th e row, i r r i ­
g a ted m ic r o -, and m in ip lo ts .
Of th e s i x p lo t ty p e s s t u d ie d , s i g n i f ­
ic a n t c u lt iv a r F- t e s t s f o r a l l t r a i t s were d e te c te d o n ly in th e a n a l­
y s i s o f th e m in ip lo t n u rsery .
Because th e h y p o th e sis o f eq u a l c u lt i v a r means in th e a n a ly s e s o f
s e v e r a l t r a i t s ( i . e . , s p r in g c o lo r , f a l l growth h a b it , and sp r in g growth
h a b it measured in th e row p lo t s ; days to em ergence, f a l l c o lo r , s p r in g
growth h a b it , and number o f se e d s per head measured in th e dryland h i l l
p lo t s .; number o f heads/9 0 0 cm^ and number o f seed s per head measured in
th e ir r ig a t e d h i l l p l o t s ; and days to emergence and number o f seed s per
head measured in th e d rylan d m ic r o p lo ts) was not r e j e c t e d by an F - t e s t
(T able 6 ) , com parisons o f in d iv id u a l c u lt i v a r means betw een row and
sm a ll p lo t s were made w ith c a u tio n ( 1 8 ) .
Comparison o f O v e r a ll Means
The o v e r a ll means o f th e c u lt i v a r s grown in th e sm a ll p lo t s fo r
f a l l c o lo r , f a l l growth h a b i t , s p r i n g c o lo r , sp r in g g ro w th .h a b it , head­
in g d a te , 100-s e e d w e ig h t, and number o f se e d s per head were not s i g ­
n i f i c a n t l y d if f e r e n t from th e o v e r a ll means fo r th e s e . t r a i t s ; i n th e row
p lo t n u rsery (T able 7 ) .
T able 6 . G u ltiv a r (C.) and e r r o r (E ) means sq u a res (MS) from th e a n a ly s is o f v ar­
ia n c e f o r . 11 t r a i t s measured i n row and sm a ll p l o t s .
.T ra it
Days to emergence
F a l l c o lo r
c
(E)
(G)
(E )
S p rin g c o lo r
(E)
F a l l growth h a b it (C)
(E ) .
S p rin g growth
h a b it
(E ) .
H eading d a te
(C)
(E)
P la n t h e ig h t
(C)
(E )
p
H eads/900 cm
(c
(E)
S eed s/h ea d
(c.)
(E)'.
100-s e e d w eig h t
(E)
Y ie ld
(G)
(E )
. Row-D
MS
0 . 90**
0 .3 0
0 .5 2 * *
0 .1 2
0 .1 9
0 .2 3
OM
0 .2 6
0 .8 6
0 .2 2
4 4 .80**
0 .3 0
8 6 9 . 90**
1 1 .2 0
2 6 6 . 70**
9 9 .6 0
1 7 . 67* •
9 .7 0
O.25**
0 . 03.
1 7 0 . 70**
1 8 .0 0
df
22
HO
22
44
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
HO
22
44 ■
22
44
22
44
22
44
22
HO
P lo t Typet
H ill-I
MS
df
——
—
—
——
——
——
——
—
—
——
—
——
——
——
—
——
—
——
—
——
13 6 5 .5 1 * *
1 5 .2 2
1 6 6 .3 5
1 2 6 .0 2
2 7 .1 9
3 0 .7 7
0 .4 8 * *
0 .0 6
5 1 3 . 71**
9 2 .3 7
-—
22
242
22
88
22
88
22
88
22 .
242
H ill- -D
MS
df
3 .1 1
22
2 ,05.
242
. 0 .2 2
22
44
. 0 .1 9
' 0 .32**
22
44
0 .1 5
22
0 .72**
44
0 .3 2
0 .3 1
44 (Gon0 .4 5
22 tin n e d )
8 3.51**
1 .2 0
242
965.46**
22
242
1 6 .3 1
1 6 3 .7 4 * * ' 22
88
' 7 5 .2 4
.22
4 7 .5 7
4 5 .4 1
88
22
0 .39**
0 .0 2
88
22
338.9 7 * *
242
71 .5 1
* ,* * S i g n if i c a n t a t th e 0„05 and 0 .0 1 l e v e l s , r e s p e c t i v e l y ,
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s f o r d rylan d and
ir r i g a t e d , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
T able 6 .
(C o n tin u ed ).
Days t o emergence (C)
(E )
F a l l c o lo r
(C)
(E)
(C)
S p r in g c o lo r
(E)
F a l l growth h a b it (C)
(E )
S p rin g growth
(C)
(E )
h a b it
H eading d a te
(C)
(E )
P la n t h e ig h t
(C)
(E )
H eads/900 cm^
(C)
(E)
S eed s/h ea d
(C)
(E ) .
1 0 0 -s e e d w eig h t
Y ie ld
H
Micro-- I
MS
df
——
—
—
—
——
——
——
. ----'--—
——
——
—
—
——
—
——
——
. ——
22
1 5 9 1 .1 6 * *
242
27.04.3 0 8 .7 4 *
22
88
1 6 2 .1 3
22
5 1 .6 9 *
2 9 .0 2
88
0.45**
22
0 .0 3
88
22
6 9 2.13**
242
• 1 7 2 .8 9
—
—
—
—
P lo t Typet
Micro--D
MS
df
22
0 .5 9
242
0 .5 0
22
0 .4 6 * *
• 44
0 .0 8
0 .4 3 * *
22
0 .1 3
44
0 ,8 0 * *
22
44
0 .1 7
0 .8 4 *
22
44
0 .4 1
6 6 .1 0 * *
22
242
1 .5 1 '
1 1 4 0 .0 2 * *
22
242
2 6 .6 6
1 9 4 .4 4 *
22
88
1 1 9 .0 3
22
.31.59
88
2 0 .3 5
22
0 .5 3 * *
88
0 .0 4
4 1 0 .7 1 * *
22
242
1 0 3 .6 9
‘ Mini--D
MS
df
1 .6 0 *
22
HO
0 .6 2
. 0 .47**
22
0 .1 1
44
0 . 2 7 **
22
44
0 .0 7
0 . 74**
22
44
0 .2 6
1 .1 0 * *
22
44
0 .2 7
3 8 . 32**
22
HO
0 .3 6
668.60**
22
HO
1 5 .5 4
470 ;2 7 *
22
44
2 2 5 .9 2
2 1.04**
22
44
9 .1 1
22
0 .2 2 * *
44
0 .0 3
22
1 9 5 . 79**
HO
3 8 .9 4
(C)
(E ) '
■*,** S ig n if i c a n t a t th e 0 .0 5 and 0 .0 1 l e v e l s , r e s p e c t i v e l y ,
t ■The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s a re a b b r e v ia tio n s f o r d ryland and
ir r ig a t e d , r e s p e c tiv e ly .
32
A lthough p la n tin g d a te in th e sm a ll p lo t s was sev en days l a t e r th an
in th e row p lo t n u rsery , days to emergence in th e d rylan d h i l l and d ry ­
lan d m ic r o p lo ts were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d if f e r e n t th a n in .t h e row p l o t s .
Growing c o n d it io n s , a s e x p ressed by tem perature and p r e c i p it a t io n , d id
n ot change t o a g r e a t e x te n t d u rin g th e p erio d from p la n t in g th e row
p lo t s to s e e d lin g emergence in th e sm a ll p l o t s ,.
The mean days to emer­
gence in th e m in ip lo ts , however, was e a r l i e r than in th e row p lo t s and
t h i s was a t t r ib u t e d to s h a llo w e r p la n t in g depth in th e m in ip lo t s .
Mean p la n t h e ig h t in th e d ryland m icro - and m in ip lo ts were s im ila r
in magnitude t o p la n t h e ig h t in th e row p l o t s .
G e n e r a lly , p la n ts were
t a l l e r in th e ir r ig a t e d n u r s e r ie s , a lth o u g h o n ly th e d ryland h i l l and
ir r ig a t e d m icr o p lp ts ex p ressed s i g n i f i c a n c e .
Throughout th e growing
s e a s o n .th e c u lt i v a r s grown in th e d rylan d h i l l p lo t s appeared l e s s v i g ­
orous., in term s o f amount o f t i l l e r i n g and p la n t h e ig h t , than th o se
grown in th e o th e r n u r s e r ie s ,
T his o b se r v a tio n was e v id e n t in a t e n ­
dency for. d rylan d h i l l p lo t c u lt i v a r s to be s h o r t e r ,- o n th e a v e r a g e , ■
than th o se i n th e row p l o t s .
The s i g n i f i c a n t l y . g r e a te r number o f head -p rod ucin g t i l l e r s e x p r e s s ­
ed in th e m in ip lo ts was th e r e s u l t o f sam plin g both rows in th e 30 cm '.
s p a c in g , th u s d o u b lin g th e number o f h ea d s/9 0 0 cm^,
The 10 cm sp a ces
betw een th e e n t r ie s in th e m ic r o p lo ts ( p . .18) had no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t
on th e number o f h ea d s/9 0 0 cm^ (T able 7 )•
T his may be a t t r ib u t a b le to
an apparent la c k o f border e f f e c t .■ D uring th e p la n tin g o p e r a tio n some ■
T a b le 7 .
M ean o f a l l e n t r i e s f o r e a c h p l o t t y p e a n d t e s t s
m ea n s o f r o w a n d s m a l l p l o t s f o r 1 1 t r a i t s .
T r a it
Days t o em ergence t
F a l l c o lo r §
S p rin g c o lo r §
F a l l growth h a b it SI
S p rin g growth h a b it SI
H eading d a te #
P la n t h e ig h t (cm)
H eads/900, cmr
S eed s/h ea d
1 0 0 -s e e d w eig h t ( g )
Y ie ld (q /h a )
Row-D
1 7 ,3
3A ■
3 .2
2 .7
2 .8
1 7 1 .0
1 1 0 .7
67 A
■
13.7
3 .0
2 7 .O
H ill-I
—
---—
—
—
■
-1 1 2 .8
5 3 .8
17.5 '
3 .2
.3 5 .4 * *
o f s ig n ific a n c e
P lo t Type+
H ill-D
M icro-I
1 6 .4
—
3 .3
—
3 .5
2 .9
3 .2
1 7 1 .5
1 1 4 .8 *
1 0 5 . 5**
4 2 .1 * *
8 1 .1
■ 2 0 .1 *
1 7 .8
3 .0
3 .1
3 0 .8
5 1 . 6**
—
—
—
—
M icro-D
16.0
3 .4
' 3 .3
. 2.8.
3 .4
1 7 1 .2
1 0 7 .6
6 2 .2
1 8 .9
3 .0
4 3 .5 * *
b e tw e e n th e
Mini-D
1 5 .1 * *
3 .5
3 .5
2.9
3 .1
1 7 1 .0
1 0 8 .1
9 6 .2 * *
14.-8
3 .1
4 6 .9 * *
* ,* * S i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from th e row p lo t mean a t th e 0 ,0 5 and 0 .0 1 l e v e l s ,
r e s p e c tiv e ly .
^
t The l e t t e r s D and I .f o llo w in g p l o t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s f o r d rylan d and i r r i g a ­
te d , r e s p e c tiv e ly .
* , § 1^»# Days from p la n t in g u n til 50% o f p o s s ib le c o l e o p t i l e s em erged, s c a le 1 -5 (5 =
d a r k e st g r e e n ) , .s c a le 1 -5 ( 5 , = most p r o s t r a t e ) , and days from January I , r e s p e c ­
tiv e ly .
V)
V)
•
34-
seed landed In th e s e 10 cm sp a ces and th e p la n ts were a llo w ed to grow
u n t i l heads/ 900 cm2 was measured, a t which tim e th e y were cu t a t h ar­
v e s t l e v e l and n o t in clu d ed in th e c o u n t.
A nother in d ic a t io n o f th e reduced v ig o r o f th e c u lt i v a r s grown; in
th e d rylan d h i l l p lo t s was e x h ib ite d by th e s i g n i f i c a n t l y low er mean
number o f heads/9 0 0 cm2 than occu rred in th e row p l o t s .
T he'reduced
v ig o r o f th e c u lt i v a r s grown in th e d rylan d h i l l p lo t s was a sc r ib e d to
th e i n t r a - p lo t c o m p e titio n fo r n u t r ie n t s and l e s s grow ing space a v a i l ­
a b le p er p la n t a s n oted by o th e r workers (2 0 , 32, 39)„
C o n v ersely ,
i n t r a - p lo t c o m p e titio n may n ot have been a s .s e v e r e in th e ir r ig a t e d
h i l l p lo t s due to an assumed la c k o f w ater s t r e s s .
G e n e r a lly , c u lt i v a r s grown in th e sm a ll p lo t s y ie ld e d more g r a in
per u n it a rea o f la n d th an c u lt i v a r s grown in th e row p lo t s as shown b y .
t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a te r means (T ab le 7 ) .
T his ten d en cy was n ot e x ­
p r e sse d by th e c u lt i v a r s grown in th e d ryland h i l l p l o t s , which had a
mean y ie ld s im ila r to th e row p l o t s „
C o r r e la tio n Between Row and Sm all P lo t s 1
P h en otyp ic c o r r e la t io n s betw een th e t r a i t s measured in th e row p lo t s
and th o se same t r a i t s -.,measured in th e sm a ll p lo t s were c a lc u la t e d (T able
8 ).
C o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s betw een th e sm a ll and row p lo ts, f o r days
t o em ergence, number o f heads/9 0 0 cu r , and number o f se e d s p er head
were n ot s i g n i f i c a n t l y d if f e r e n t from z e r o , in d ic a t in g th a t none o f th e
sm a ll p lo t ty p e s s tu d ie d wo.uld be s a t i s f a c t o r y fo r e v a lu a tin g th e s e
■
35
c h a r a c te r is tic s .
C o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s between sm a ll and row p lo t s
f o r h ead in g d a t e , p la n t h e ig h t , and 1 0 0 -seed w eigh t were p o s it iv e and
h ig h ly s i g n i f i c a n t , ' s u g g e s tin g .a n y o f th e p lo t ty p e s co n sid ered would
be ex p ecte d to g iv e s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s in e v a lu a tin g w in te r wheat '
c u lt i v a r s f o r th e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
Only th e dryland, m icr o p lo ts e x ­
h ib it e d a s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c ia t io n w ith th e row p lo t s f o r f a l l growth
h a b it and o n ly th e m in ip lo ts e x h ib it e d a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e la t io n w ith ■
th e row p lo t s f o r s p r in g growth h a b i t ; a lth o u g h s i g n i f i c a n t , th e s e c o r ­
r e l a t i o n s may be m ea n in g less s in c e s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s among c u l t i ­
v a rs in th e row p lo t s f o r th e s e t r a i t s were not d e te c te d (T able 6 ) .
C o r r e la tio n s f o r y i e l d in th e ir r ig a t e d h i l l p lo t s and dryland
m ic r o p lo ts were s i g n i f i c a n t but lo w .
Y ie ld o f m in ip lo t c u lt iv a r s show­
ed a h ig h ly s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e la t io n w ith y i e l d in row p l o t s , s u g g e s tin g
th a t m in ip lo ts co u ld be used a s an a lt e r n a t i v e to row p lo t s fo r measur­
in g y i e l d . ■However, m in ip lo ts were n o t co n sid ered t o be a s u it a b le a l ­
t e r n a t iv e to row p lo t s because o f th e d i f f i c u l t y in p la n t in g and th e
g r e a te r la n d and seed req u irem en ts r e l a t i v e to th e o th e r sm a ll p lo t
ty p e s (T able l ) .
Common E n tr ie s
.
1
■
S e v e r a l in v e s t ig a t o r s ( 1 2 , 21 , 2 3 ) have used th e number o f e n t r ie s
in h i l l p lo t s common t o th e to p 10, 2 0 , and 50% o f th e e n t r ie s in row
p lo t s a s a c r i t e r i o n o f com parison. . For com parison o f row and sm a ll
p lo t s in t h i s in v e s t ig a t i o n , I
arranged th e means o f th e 11 t r a i t s
Table 8 . P h en otyp ic c o r r e la t io n s between row and sm a ll p lo t s fo r 11
tr a its ,
T r a it
Days to emergence
F a l l c o lo r
S p rin g c o lo r
F a l l growth h a b it
S p rin g growth h a b it
Heading d a te
P la n t h e ig h t
H eads/900 cm^
S eed s/h ea d
100-s e e d w eig h t
Y ie ld
H ill-I
—:
—
—
—
—— .
0.95**
0 .1 0
0.23
0.83**
0 .4 4 *
H ill-D
0 .2 0
0 . 61**
-0.04
0 .3 8
0 .4 0
0 . 97**
0 . 97**
0.23
- 0 .1 6
0 .8 4 * *
0 .3 0
P lo t Type t
Micro-D
M icro-I
—
0.0 9
—
0.72**
—
-0.35
—
0.52*
—
0 .3 0
——
0.96**
0.94**
0 . 96**
0 .0 6
0 .3 4
- 0 .1 4
0 .1 1
0 . 81**
0 . 73**
0 .4 1 *
0.3 6
Mini-D
0 .1 0
0.75**
- 0.2 3
0.28
0 .4 6 *
0 . 96**
0 . 96**
0.28
0.29
0.8 1 * *
0.62**
* ,* * S ig n if i c a n t a t th e 0 .0 5 and 0.0 1 l e v e l s , r e s p e c t i v e ly ,
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s fo r
d rylan d and .ir r ig a t e d , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
37
from h igh to low so th a t e n t r ie s common in both row and sm a ll p lo t s
co u ld be compared a t th r e e s e l e c t i o n i n t e n s i t i e s (Appendix T ab les 5 to
15 ) .
The p e r c e n t o f e n t r ie s in sm a ll p lo t s in common w ith row p lo t s a t
each s e l e c t i o n i n t e n s i t y are p r e se n te d in Table 9 .
S e le c t io n on th e b a s is o f e n t r ie s in th e to p 1C% o f sm a ll p lo t s
common to th e row p lo t s c o r r e c t ly i d e n t i f i e d th o se c u lt i v a r s e x p r e s s in g
th e h ig h e s t v a lu e s f o r f a l l c o lo r in th e dryland h i l l p l o t s , sp r in g
growth h a b it in th e d rylan d m ic r o p lo t s , h ead in g d a te in th e m in ip lo t s ,
and p la n t h e ig h t in a l l sm a ll p l o t s .
A lthough o n ly two' e n t r ie s in th e
■10% c a te g o r y were p o s s ib le f o r s e l e c t i o n p u rp o se s, none o f th e sm a ll
p lo t s had c u lt i v a r means ranked in th e same order a s th e row p lo t s f o r
a l l 11 t r a i t s and s i g n i f i c a n t r e v e r s a ls were d e te c te d in even th e most
h ig h ly c o r r e la t e d t r a i t s ( i . e . , f a l l c o l o r , heading d a t e , and 1 0 0 -seed
w eigh t)., in d ic a t in g t h a t t h i s s e l e c t i o n i n t e n s i t y was n o t to o s e v e r e .
S e le c t io n o f th e to p 25% o f e n t r ie s common.to th e row p l o t s reduced th e
number o f c o r r e c t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s to h ead in g d a te in a l l sm a ll p lo t s and
•
'
. ■
1 0 0 -seed w eigh t in th e ir r ig a t e d h i l l p l o t s . .S e le c t io n o f th e to p ^0%
o f c u lt i v a r s common to th e row p lo t s reduced p e r f e c t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t o . . '
h ead in g d a te and p la n t h e ig h t in th e d rylan d h i l l p l o t s .
. .
T h is c r i t e r i o n o f com parison p rovid ed an in d ication " o f th e s u i t a - '
b i l i t y o f sm a ll p lo t s fo r s e l e c t i o n pu rp oses s im ila r to t h a t o b ta in ed
I;. ■
’
by th e use o f p h en o ty p ic c o r r e la t io n s . Because th e amount o f lan d and
se e d used in th e s e sm a ll p lo t s was
from o n e -te n th to one-third'' o f th a t
T a b le 9 .
P e r c e n t o f s m a ll, p l o t . e n t r i e s
i n t h e r o w p l o t s f o r 11 t r a i t s .
10
T r a it
Days to emergence
F a l l c o lo r
S p rin g c o lo r
F a l l growth h a b it
S p rin g growth habit
H eading d a te
100
P la n t h e ig h t
H eads/900 cirr
0
0
S eed s/h ea d
1 0 0 -s e e d w eigh t
50
Y ie ld
50
common t o
t h e t o p 1 0 , 2 5 , a n d 50% e n t r i e s
grow n
______________ __________ ;_____ P lo t T y p et._____________________________
H ill-I
H ill-D
M icro-I
Micro-D
Mini-D
10
10
10
10
50*
50
50
50
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
50
50
58
33
17 .
100
50
83
67
67
75 50
67
0 ■ 33
0
0
0
42
50
17
■0
58
0
50
58 5 0 . 50
17
50
100
50
67
33
67 50
67
92 100
50
50
83 100
83
83
92 100 100
100
92 100 100 100 100 100
92 100 100
0
0
42
0
50
58
50
50
17
67
I?
33
33
0
0
.
0
0
58
50
50
67
50
58
17
50
33
100
83 50
67
50
83 50
67
75 50
83
83 50
50
50
67 50
67 50
67
67 50
67
75 50
83 '
50
50
75
42
33
50
92
83
58
58
83
75
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s f o r d rylan d and ir r ig a t e d ,
r e s p e c tiv e ly .
* S e le c t io n i n t e n s i t i e s u sed in th e com parison o f row and sm a ll p l o t s .
39
used in th e row p l o t s , a p la n t b reed er would be a b le to save a la r g e r
p r o p o r tio n o f th e e n t r ie s in th e f i e l d and e v a lu a te more gen otyp es than
when u s in g row p l o t s , th ereb y in c r e a s in g th e accu racy w ith which s e l e c t io n s were made.
'
Depending on th e s e l e c t i o n i n t e n s i t y a p p lie d , th e use
o f common e n t r ie s in d ic a te d th a t th e sm a ll p lo t ty p e s s tu d ie d cou ld be
adopted f o r s e l e c t i o n o f c u lt i v a r s w ith th e h ig h e s t v a lu e s fo r h ead in g
d a t e , p la n t h e ig h t , and 1 0 0 -seed w e ig h t.
Only th e d rylan d m icro- And
m in ip lo ts gave s im ila r r e s u l t s when s e l e c t i n g fo r y i e l d , e s p e c i a l l y a t
th e low er s e l e c t i o n i n t e n s i t i e s .
R e la tiv e V a r ia tio n W ithin P lo t - S iz e Experim ents
Other workers ( l ? ) have com plained o f th e g r e a te r range in e x p r e s s io n
o f a g iv e n t r a i t measured on c u lt i v a r s grown in h i l l p l o t s .
However,
s in c e th e number o f r e p l i c a t i o n s used in th e a n a ly s is o f an agronomic
c h a r a c te r in h i l l p lo t s i s u s u a lly g r e a te r than when row p lo t s are u sed ,
an in c r e a s e in th e range i s ex p ecte d ( 4 0 ) .
In t h i s in v e s t ig a t i o n th e '
range in perform ance f o r th e 11 t r a i t s o f th e c u lt i v a r s grown in row
and sm a ll p lo t s were s im ila r (T ab le 1 0 ) .
The magnitude o f th e c o e f f i c ­
ie n t s o f v a r ia t io n (C .V .) in sm a ll p lo t s r e l a t i v e to row p lo t s were sim ­
i l a r f o r days to em ergence, f a l l c o l o r , f a l l growth h a b it , sp r in g c o lo r ,
s p r in g growth h a b it , h ead in g d a t e , p la n t h e ig h t, th e number o f heads p er
900 cm^, and 1 0 0 -se e d 'w e ig h t (T able 1 0 ) ,
Both h i l l and both m icro p lo t
n u r s e r ie s e x h ib ite d somewhat h ig h er G . V . ' s fo r th e number o f se e d s per
head than d id th e row p l o t s ..
Because th e p lo t means f o r t h i s t r a i t were
40
Table 1 0 . C o e f f ic i e n t s o f v a r ia t io n (C . V . ) , stand ard e r r o r s ( s ) ,
o v e r a ll means ( X ) , and range o f perform ance (R) f o r 11 t r a i t s mea­
su red in row and sm a ll p l o t s .
P lo t Typet
H i l l - •D M icro-I
T r a it
Row-D ■ H i l l - I
Days to emergence*
c . v . (#)
3.2
8.7
S
1.4
0 .6
X
1 6 .4
17.3
R
2 .2
1 .7
F a l l c o lo r §
1 0 .2
c . v . (#)
1 3 .1
S
0 .4
0 .4
X
3 .4
3 .3
R
0 .8
1 .3
S p rin g c o lo r § ■
——
—
1 1 .0
C.V. (%)
1 5 .1
—
-- ,
S
0
.
4
0.5
—
X
——
3.2
3.5
—
——
R
1 .0
1 .0
F a l l growth H abittU
——
——
O.V. ( # )
19.2
18.7
—
—
S
0 .6
0.5
—
—
—
X
2.7
2.9
. 1 .8
R
1.3
S p rin g growth H abittH
——
—
2 0 .8
C.V. ( * )
16.7
—
—
S
0.5
0.7
—
——
X .
2 .8
3.2
R
2 .0
1 .0
——
Heading d a te #
—
. 0 .6
C.V. ( # )
0.3
—
■
S
1 .1
0.5
—
—
X
1 7 1 .0
1 7 1 .5
R
9.6
9.5 ■
P la n t h e ig h t (cm)
3.0
3.8
C.V. ( # )
3.5
4.5
4.0
S
,5.2
3.9
3.3
1 1 4 .8
X
1 1 0 .7 1 1 2 .8
1 0 5 .5
4 3 .8
40.0
R
5 1 .2
, 4 6 .8
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Micro-D
Mini-D
4.4
0.7
1 6 .0
0 .8
5.2
0 .8
1 5 .1
1 .7
8 .2
0 .3
3 .4
1 .1
9 .6
0 .3
3 .5
1 .0
10.3
0. 4
3.5
1 .0
7.7
0.3
3.3
1 .0
14.6
0.4
2 .8
1 .7
1 7 .8
0.5
2.9
,1.7
19.0
0 .6
3.4
2 .2
1 6 .7
0.5
3.1
2 .0
0.7
1 .2
1 7 1 .2
9.1
0.4
0 .6
1 7 1 ,0
8 .8
4.8
5.2
1 0 7 .6
4 3 .1
3.7
3.9
1 0 8 .1
45.5
(C ontinued)
41
Table 1 0 .
(C o n tin u ed ).
T r a it
H eads/900 cm^
C.V. ( # )
S
X
R
S eed s/h ea d
c . v , 0&)
S
Row-D
P lo t Typet
M icro-I M icro-D
H ill-I
H ill-D
14 „9
10.0
67 .4
. 3 2 .6
2 0 .9
1 1 .2
5 3 .8
2 3 .2
2 0 .6
8 .7
4 2 .1
21.8
15.7
12.7
8 1 .1
2 8 .8
17.5
1 0 .9
62 .2
2 4 .6
1 5 .6
.15.0
96.2
5 8 .0
2 2 .6
3.1
13.7
9 .8
3 1 .6
5.5
17.5
8 .4
. 3 7 .8
6.7
17.8
14.8
2 6 .8
5.4
20.1
13.0
2 3 .9
4.5
1 8 .9
8.4
20.4
3.0
. 14.8
1 0 .5
7.5
0 .2
3.2
1.4
4.9
0.1
3.0
1.4
5 .5
0.2
3.1
1.4
6.4
0 .2
3.0
1.7
5.4
0 .2
3.1
1.3
X
. R
1 0 0 -se e d w eigh t
C.V. ( # )
(s )- ‘ 6 .1
S
0 .2
X
3.0
R
1.3
Y ie ld (q /h a )
C .v. c&)
15.7
'4.2
S
X
2 7 .0 .
■R
. 1 9 .8
Mini-D
2 3 .4
2 7 .4
2 7 .2
13.3
2 5 .5
1
0
.
2
6 .2
9 .6
1
3
.
1
8 .5
3 0 .8
5 1 .6
3 5 .4
4
6 .9
4 3 .5
2
3
.0
29
.1
2
3 .7
2 5 ,7
1 9 .3
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s fo r d ry ­
lan d and ir r ig a t e d , r e s p e c t i v e l y . .
* r § i # Days from p la n tin g t i l l ^Ofo o f p o s s ib le c o l e o p t i l e s . emerged,
s c a le 1 -5 (5 = d a rk est g r e e n ) , s c a le 1 -5 (5 = most p r o s t r a t e ) , and
days from January I , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
42
n ot s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from th a t in th e row p lo t s (T ab le ? ) , th e
la r g e r 'C1W s were a t t r ib u t e d to g r e a te r standard e r r o r s in th e h i l l
and m ic r o p lo ts .
The C . V . ' s f o r y i e l d in a l l sm a ll p lo t ty p e s were l a r ­
ger than th a t o f th e row p l o t s , e s p e c i a l l y in th e h i l l and m ic r o p lo ts. .
A s s o c ia tio n s Between T r a its W ithin P lo t Types
C o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s betw een a l l p o s s ib le com b in ation s o f th e
11 t r a i t s measured w ith in each p lo t ty p e were computed to determ ine i f
th e ty p e s o f r e la t io n s h ip s e x i s t i n g betw een th e agronomic c h a ra cte rs
in th e row p lo t s a ls o occu rred in th e sm a ll p lo t s (T ab le l l ) .
Only
th o se a s s o c ia t io n s e x p r e s s in g s ig n if ic a n c e in a t l e a s t one p lo t typ e are
g iv e n .
The tr a n sfo r m a tio n from r to a q u a n tity z , as g iv e n by Snedecor ■
and Cochran ( 4 0 ) , was used to " t e s t th e h y p o th e sis t h a t two sample v a l ­
u es o f r were drawn a t random from th e same p o p u la tio n ."
C o r r e la tio n " c o e f f ic ie n t s c a lc u la t e d w ith in th e row p lo t s showed
th a t s p r in g c o lo r and f a l l c o lo r were n e g a t iv e ly a s s o c ia t e d , and f a l l
c o lo r and s p r in g growth h a b it , f a l l c o lo r and heading d a t e , f a l l c o lo r
and p la n t h e ig h t , f a l l . growth h a b it and p la n t h e ig h t , s p r in g growth ha­
b i t and h ead in g d a t e , number o f se e d s p er head and 1 0 0 -seed w e ig h t, and
number o f se e d s, p er head and y ie ld were a l l p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e la t e d . There
were a ls o low, but s i g n i f i c a n t n e g a tiv e a s s o c ia t io n s betw een th e number
o f heads/9 0 0 cm^ and both h ead in g d a te and number o f s e e d s per head.
In th e sm a ll p lo t s th e c o r r e la t io n c o e f f i c i e n t s betw een heading .
d a te and s p r in g h a b it in th e dryland h i l l and m in ip lo ts , f a l l c o lo r and
43
p la n t h e ig h t in th e m in ip lo t s , number o f heads/9 6 0 cm^ and number o f
se e d s p er head in th e m in ip lo ts , and number o f se e d s p er head and y ie ld '
in th e d rylan d m icro - and m in ip lo ts were a l l p o s i t i v e l y r e la t e d .
t e s t o f th e h y p o th e sis o f eq u a l c o r r e la t io n s was n o t r e j e c t e d .
A
Nega­
t i v e r e la t io n s h ip s in th e row p lo t s f o r s p r in g c o lo r and f a l l c o lo r ,
and f o r heads/9 0 0 cm^ and se e d s p er head were p o s it iv e in th e d ryland
h i l l , d rylan d m ic r o -, and m in ip lo ts f o r th e form er, and p o s it iv e in th e
d rylan d h i l l and d rylan d m ic r o p lo ts f o r th e l a t t e r a s s o c ia t io n .
The
r e l a t io n s h ip o f number o f se e d s p er head and 100-s e e d w eigh t was p o s i ­
t i v e in th e row p lo t s but n e g a tiv e in th e ir r ig a t e d m ic r o p lo t s .
Each o f th e sm a ll p lo t s e x h ib ite d s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e la t io n s among
th e 11 agronomic t r a i t s t h a t were n ot d e t e c t e d in th e row p l o t s . These
a s s o c ia t io n s were a t t r ib u t e d t o th e i n t e r - and in t r a - c u l t i v a r com p eti­
t i v e r e la t io n s h ip s in sm a ll p lo t s n oted by o th er workers ( 2 0 , 3 2 , 4 9 ) .
A lthough h i l l , m ic r o -, and row p lo t s were a l l spaced 30 cm a p a r t, th e
p ro x im ity o f one c u lt i v a r to an oth er in th e sm a ll p lo t s was much g r e a t ­
e r than e x is t e d in th e row p l o t s .
In th e h i l l and m in ip lo t s , s e v e r a l
p la n ts were grown in a very c o n cen tra ted a r e a , in c r e a s in g c o m p etitio n
fo r s u n lig h t and n u t r i e n t s .
Table 1 1 .
C o r r e la tio n s betw een t r a i t s w ith in p lo t t y p e s .
A s s o c ia t io n
Row-D
Days t o emergence
• vs-, f a l l c o lo r ■
-0..07 •
v s . f a l l growth h a b it
0 .0 2
v s . heads/ 900 cm^
-0.03
■
v s . y ie ld
0.00
F a l l c o lo r
v s . s p r in g c o lo r
- 0 . 52**
v s . f a l l growth h a b it
0 .3 0
■v s . s p r in g growth h a b it
.0.66**
v s . h e a d in g ■d a te ■
0 . 50*
vs., p la n t h e ig h t
0 . 62**.
v s . y ie ld
-0 .2 0 .
S p rin g c o lo r
v s . s p r in g growth h a b it ■ - 0 .1 ?
vs', h ead in g d a te
- 0 .2 1
F a l l .growth h a b it
■ v s . p la n t h e ig h t
0.-44* ' •
S p rin g growth h a b it
Vs.. h ead in g d a te
0 .6 0 * *
Heading d a te
v s . p la n t h e ig h t
0.40
v s . heads/9 0 0 cm2
. -0 .4 3 *
. v s . y ie ld
-0 .2 1
P la n t h e ig h t
' _
v s . heads/9 0 0 cm0.02
v s . s e e d s/h e a d
-0.04-
H ill-I
_ _
—
—
. --—
—
—
—
——
——
__
„
P lo t Typet
H ill-D
M icro-I
-0.06
-0.2?
- 0 .2 9
-0.40
0 .0 2
0 .02
—
—
0 . 63**
- 0 .1 4
0.28
0 .3 4
0 .0 3
-0.37
0.28
. 0 .4 8 *
——
——
——
—
—
__
0 .4 6 *
-0 .3 5
- 0 .47*
0 .0 7
- 0 .1 3
0 .3 9
- 0 . 51*
-0 .4 5 *
-O . 54**
0.53**
-0 .6 4 * *
- 0 .1 0 "
- 0 .3 4
0 .2 4
0.20
——
_ _
Mini-D
0 .7 6 * *
0.63**
- 0 .1 7
■ - 0 . 50*
0.2$
0 .3 4
0 .2 4
0.40 •
0 .2 8
0 .49*
-0 .4 7 *
- 0 . 57**
—
0 .0 3
0.50*
—
—
——
Micro-D
0 .4 7 *
0 . 59**
0 .1 9
- 0 .0 7
■ 0.24
0 .4 9
.
■------
0.4 2 *
- 0 .1 5
-0 .4 3 *
0 .2 8
- 0 .0 9
- 0 .3 4
0 .4 1
■ - 0 .1 1
0.44*
-0.21.
0 .1 9
-O.45*
—
( C o n t in u e d )
T able 1 1 . (C o n tin u ed ).
A s s o c ia t io n
H eads/900 cm2v s . s e e d s/h e a d
v s . 100-s e e d w eigh t
■ v s . y ie ld
S eed s/h ea d
v s . 100-s e e d w eig h t
v s . y ie ld
.
Row-D
H ill-I
- 0 A 5*
- 0 .1 2
0 .2 ?
0.43*
- 0 .1?
0.69**
0.75**
0 .6 2 * *
0.02
0 .3 6
P lo t Typet
H ill-D
M icro-I
Micro-D
Mini-D
0 .4 2 *
- 0 .0 2
0 . 69**
- 0 .0 2
0.33
0.50*
0 . 50*
0 .2 1 '
0 .71**
- 0 . 6?**
-0 .4 3 *
- 0 .2 1
- 0 .2 4
0 .1 3
- 0 .45*
0 .2 7
- 0 .1 5
0 . 60**
0.04
0.69**
* ,* * S i g n if i c a n t a t th e 0 . 0 5 and 0 .0 1 l e v e l s , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s a re a b b r e v ia tio n s f o r d rylan d and i r r i g a t e d ,
r e s p e c tiv e ly .
SUMMARY
A com parison was made between c o n v e n tio n a l row p lo t s and th ree
ty p e s o f sm a ll p lo t s u t i l i z i n g 23 w in te r wheat c u lt i v a r s and 11 a g ro ­
nomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
In a d d it io n , th e h i l l and m ic r o p lo ts were
grown in two en v iro n m en ts, ir r ig a t e d and d ry la n d .
■A l l p lo t n u r s e r ie s were damaged by wind and h a i l s i x days a fte r th e l a s t CifLtivar had headed.
An e v a lu a tio n o f t h i s damage showed
th a t c u lt i v a r s grown in th e sm a ll p lo t n u r s e r ie s r e a c te d to h a i l - i n ­
duced head damage and w ind- and h a il-in d u c e d lo d g in g in a manner sim ­
i l a r t o th e c u lt i v a r s grown in th e row p l o t s .
Four c r i t e r i a o f com parison betw een row and sm a ll p lo t s were used
in t h i s in v e s t ig a t i o n .
These in clu d ed a com parison o f row and sm all
p lo t s fo r each t r a i t u s in g o v e r a ll means, p h en otyp ic c o r r e la t io n s be­
tw een row and sm a ll p lo t s fo r each t r a i t , an e v a lu a tio n o f th e number
o f e n t r ie s o f sm a ll p lo t s
common to th e e n t r ie s o f row p lo t s a t th r e e
s e l e c t i o n i n t e n s i t i e s , and an e v a lu a tio n o f sim p le c o r r e la t io n s between '
t r a i t s w ith in each- p lo t t y p e .
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s in v e s t ig a t i o n in d ic a t e th a t any o f t h e ■sm all
p lo t s t e s t e d were u s e f u l in s e l e c t i o n for' heading d a t e , p la n t h e ig h t, .
and 100-seed w eigh t w ith rea so n a b le a ssu ra n ce th a t th e b e s t c u lt iv a r s
were i d e n t i f i e d .
The r e la t io n s h ip s ' betw een row p lo ts, and dryland m icro -
and m in ip lo ts fo r th e s e t r a i t s were g e n e r a lly c l o s e r th an between th e
■
row and o th e r sm a ll p l o t s , a s shown "by t h e ir h ig h er c o r r e la t io n c o e f f i c ­
ie n t s and. a g r e a te r p e r c e n t o f common e n t r i e s , e s p e c i a l l y a t th e low er
4?
s e le c tio n in t e n s i t i e s .
The c u lt i v a r s grown in th e d rylan d h i l l p lo t s
appeared t o he l e s s v ig o r o u s , in term s o f p la n t h e ig h t , number o f heads
p er 900 'cm^, and y i e l d , than th o se grown in' th e o th e r sm a ll p l o t s .
R e la tio n s h ip s betw een agronomic c h a r a c te r s w ith in sm a ll p lo t ty p es
d if f e r e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y from th e s e r e la t io n s h ip s in th e row p lo t nur­
sery .
T h is was a t t r ib u t e d to th e d i f f e r e n t i a l a b i l i t y o f c u lt iv a r s to
compete w ith in and betw een ex p erim en ta l u n i t s .
A lthough th e in fo rm a tio n o b ta in ed f o r t h i s in v e s t ig a t i o n was d e­
r iv e d from one lo c a t i o n - y e a r , d a ta f o r h ead in g d a t e , p la n t h e ig h t , 100se e d w e ig h t, and y ie ld agreed c l o s e l y w ith th e r e s u l t s o f o th er i n v e s t i ­
g a to r s .
In fo rm a tio n on th e number o f h ea d s/9 0 0 cm^ and th e number o f
se e d s per head d id n ot s u b s t a n t ia t e th e r e s u l t s o f p r e v io u s w orkers,
e s p e c i a l l y in w h ea t.
These r e s u l t s may have been r e la t e d to th e h a i l
and w in d •damage t h a t o c c u r r e d .
SECTION H s.
COMPARISON OF ROW AND SMALL PLOTS''FOR EVALUATION
OF HARVEST INDEX, BIOLOGICAL YIELD, AND GRAIN YIELD
INTRODUCTION
H arvest in d ex i s th e r a t i o o f econom ic to b i o l o g i c a l y ie ld and
' p ro v id es an in d ic a t io n o f th e e f f i c i e n c y w ith which a p la n t p o p u la tio n
p a r t it i o n s p h o to sy n th a te in to econom ic y i e l d .
H arvest in d ex and b io lo g i c a l y i e l d le n d th em selv es to a r t i f i c i a l
m an ip u la tio n in a manner u n a v a ila b le u s in g th e number o f heads per
u n it a r e a , number o f se e d s per head, and se e d w e ig h t, b ecause th ey do
n ot appear t o s u f f e r from component com p en sation .
Thus, an in c r e a se ■
in e i t h e r th e b i o l o g i c a l y ie ld or h a r v e st in d ex o f a crop sh ou ld r e ­
s u l t in a d ir e c t in c r e a s e in i t s econom ic y ie ld w ith o u t a f f e c t i n g th e
magnitude o f th e o th er com ponent.
The purpose o f t h i s in v e s t ig a t i o n was to d eterm ine th e r e l a t i v e
im portance o f h a r v e st in d ex and b i o l o g i c a l y ie ld to g r a in y i e l d and to
p rovid e in fo rm a tio n on th e use o f sm a ll p lo t s as a tech n iq u e o f e v a l­
u a tin g w in ter wheat c u lt i v a r s f o r h a r v e st in d e x , b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d , and
g r a in y i e l d .
MATERIALS AND METHODS
E sta b lish m en t o f F ie ld P lo t s
T h is stu d y was conducted a t th e F ie ld R esearch L aboratory near
Bozeman, Montana, d u rin g th e 1 9 7 7 -7 8 grow ing s e a s o n .
Twenty-two hard
red w in te r wheat c u lt i v a r s and one s o f t w h ite w in ter wheat c u lt iv a r
(Appendix Table l ) were grown in both c o n v e n tio n a l row p lo t s arid th r e e
ty p e s o f sm a ll p l o t on an Amsterdam s i l t loam , Typic G ryob orall s o i l .
S ix f i e l d n u r s e r ie s were e s t a b lis h e d by th e methods d e sc r ib e d in S e c ­
tio n I .
Methods o f Sam pling
Ten t r a i t s were measured in most p lo t t y p e s .
Days t o em ergence,
f a l l and s p r in g s e e d lin g c o l o r , h ead in g d a te , p la n t h e ig h t , number o f
heads/9 0 0 c In^, number o f se e d s p er head, and g ra in y i e l d were d e t e r ­
mined by th e methods d e sc r ib e d in S e c tio n I .
Days to em ergence, f a l l
and s p r in g s e e d lin g c o l o r , and h ead in g d a te were, not measured in th e
ir r ig a t e d sm a ll, p l o t s , s in c e t h e y were n o t c o n sid ered t o be d if f e r e n t
from t h e i r d rylan d co u n terp a rts u n t i l a f t e r th e f i r s t ir r ig a t io n (T a: b le 2 ) .
At m a tu r ity , p la n ts in a p lo t were h a rv ested a t ground l e v e l
and- f i e l d d r ie d .
B io l o g ic a l y ie ld was determ ined a s .the w eigh t o f th e
t o t a l aboverground dry m atter o f th e h a rv ested p o r tio n o f th e p lo t ( p .
2 0 ) and ex p ressed a s q /h a .' H arvest in d ex was c a lc u la t e d a s th e r a t io
o f g r a in y i e l d to b io lo g ic a l- y ie ld and ex p ressed a s a f a c t o r l e s s than
u n ity .
51
S t a t i s t i c a l Methods
S ix r e p l ic a t io n s o f row p lo t s and m in ip lo ts and 12 r e p l ic a t io n s
o f h i l l p lo t s and m ic r o p lo ts were p la n te d in a random ized com plete
b lo ck d e s ig n .
G u ltiv a r s were a s sig n e d to ex p erim en ta l u n it s by use o f
a random number t a b l e .
An a n a ly s is o f. v a ria n c e f o r a two-way c l a s s i ­
f i c a t i o n and an F- t e s t were u sed to determ ine i f c u lt i v a r s gave e q u i­
v a le n t e x p r e s s io n s f o r h a r v e st in d e x , b io lo g i c a l y i e l d , and g ra in
y ie ld .
C u ltiv a r s were t r e a t e d a s random e f f e c t s in th e two-way m odel.
A t e s t f o r homogeneous er r o r v a r ia n c e s betw een agronomic d a ta o b ta in ed
from th e row p lo t s and th a t o b ta in ed from th e sm a ll p l o t s was c a lc u ­
la t e d (Appendix Table 2 ) .
A t - t e s t was u sed to compare th e mean o f a l l
c u lt i v a r s in each sm a ll p lo t ty p e w ith th e mean o f a l l c u lt iv a r s in th e
row p lo t s f o r h a r v e st in d e x , b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d , and g r a in y i e l d .
The
t - s t a t i s t i c was w eigh ted f o r non-homogeneous err o r v a r ia n c e s (4 0 ) ;
when e r r o r v a r ia n c e s were homogeneous, t h e i r v a lu e s and r e s p e c t iv e d e­
g r e e s o f freedom were p o o led and S tu d e n t's t - d i s t r ib u t io n was fo llo w e d .
P h en otyp ic c o r r e la t io n s based on c u lt i v a r means were computed fo r each
c h a r a c te r betw een row and sm a ll p lo t s and w ith in p lo t t y p e s .
The p e r ­
c e n t o f sm a ll p lo t e n t r ie s common to th e to p 10, 2 5 , and 50% o f e n t r ie s
f o r th e row p lo t s was c a lc u la t e d f o r each t r a i t .
E x p e c ta tio n s o f mean
sq u ares were equated t o t h e i r n u m erical v a lu e s and g en o ty p ic (Vg) and
e r r o r (V0 ) v a ria n c e components were computed.
Narrow se n se h e r i t a b i l -
\
52
i t i e s on an e n tr y mean b a s is were determ ined by th e fo rm u la : h e r i t a b i l i t y (h^) = Vg/[Vg + Ve / r ] , where r = th e number o f r e p l ic a t io n s in
th e ex p erim en t.
The r e l a t i v e c o n tr ib u tio n s o f h a r v e st in d ex and b io ­
l o g i c a l y ie ld to g r a in y ie ld were determ ined u sin g m u ltip le r e g r e s s io n
a n a ly s is w ith in each p lo t ty p e .
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Comparison o f Row and Sm all P lo t s f o r S e le c t io n Purposes
A n a ly s is o f V ariance
S i g n if i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s among c u lt i v a r means w ith in each p lo t ty p e
were d e te c te d fo r h a r v e st in d e x , b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d , and g r a in y i e l d .
(T able 1 2 ).
Comparison o f .O v e r a ll Means
For h a r v e st in d e x ,' ir r ig a t e d h i l l a n d . ir r ig a t e d m ic r o p lo t■means
d id n ot d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from th e row p lo t mean, but in th e dryland
h i l l , d rylan d m ic r o -, and m in ip lo ts , means were s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a te r
than th e row p lo t mean (T able 1 3 ).
Only th e dryland h i l l p lo t n u rsery
e x h ib ite d a n o n - s ig n if ic a n t d if f e r e n c e in b io lo g i c a l y i e l d from th e
o v e r a ll e x p r e s s io n in th e row p l o t s .
As d is c u s s e d e a r l i e r (p . 3 4 ) ,
c u lt i v a r s grown in th e d rylan d h i l l p lo t s were n ot a s v ig o r o u s in t h e ir
grow th, in term s o f p la n t h e ig h t , number o f heads/9 0 0 cm^, and g ra in
y i e l d , a s were c u lt i v a r s grown in th e o th e r p lo t t y p e s .
There was a
ten d en cy in t h e s m a ll.p lo t s f o r g r e a te r y ie ld per u n it la n d area than
occu rred in th e row p lo t s a s shown by t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a te r means
T h is ten d en cy was n o t e x p ressed by th e c u lt iv a r s grown in th e dryland
h i l l p l o t s , which had a mean y i e l d s im ila r to th e row p lo t y i e l d .
An
exam in ation o f th e mean c u lt i v a r e x p r e s s io n s fo r h a r v e s t in d ex and b io ­
l o g i c a l y ie ld in th e d rylan d h i l l p lo t s s u g g e s t s , s in c e mean y ie ld b e­
tw een •th e row and d rylan d h i l l p lo t s was n o t d i f f e r e n t , t h a t th e en -
54-
Table 1 2 . C u ltiv a r and e r r o r means sq u a res (MS) from th e a n a ly s is o f
v a ria n c e f o r h a r v e st in d e x , b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d , and g r a in y ie ld mea­
su red in row and sm a ll p l o t s .
T r a it '
H arvest index
C u ltiv a r
Error
B io l o g ic a l y ie ld
C u ltiv a r
. Error
Grain y ie ld
C u ltiv a r
Error
.
. Row-D
MS
df
H ill- -D'
M3
0 . 01**
0 .0 0 2
22
242
' 91.40
2283.10**
570.80
22
242
1147.64**
110
1 7 0 . 70**
1 8 .0 0
22
HO
■51 3 .7 0 * *
9 2 .4 0
22
338.97**
242
0 . 01**
0 .0 0 1
2 9 7 . 00**
22
P lo t Typet
H ill- I
MS
df
HO
22
Micro - I
MS
df
T r a it
H arvest in d ex
0 . 01**
C u ltiv a r
22 '
0 .0 0 2 , 242
Error
B io lo g ic a l y ie ld
22 •
■ C u ltiv a r
3999.29**
E rror
242
1 1 4 2 .6 5
Grain y ie ld
C u ltiv a r
22
6 9 2 . 13**
.242
Error
1 7 2 .9 0
P lo t Typet
Micro -D
MS
df
0 . 01**
0.0 0 1
22
242
df
0 . 01** . 22
0.002
573.82
71 .5 1
242
22
242
22
242
. Mini-D
MS
df
0 , 01**
0.002
22
HO
241 3 .6 6 * *
6 0 3 .42
22
242 .
22
710.25**
2 8 7 .4 8 ■ HO
4 1 0 .7 1 * *
1 0 3 .6 9
.22 .
242
195.79**
38.94
22
• HO
S ig n if i c a n t a t th e 0 .0 5 and 0 .0 1 l e v e l s , r e s p e c t i v e ly ,
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s fo r d ry­
lan d and ir r ig a t e d ,, r e s p e c t i v e ly I '
55
Table 1 3 . Mean o f a l l e n t r ie s f o r eatih p lo t ty p e and t e s t s o f s i g n i f ­
ic a n c e b etw een -th e means o f row and sm a ll p lo t s f o r h a r v e st in d e x ,
b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d , and g r a in y i e l d .
P lo t ty p e t
Row-D
B io lo g ic a l y ie ld
(q /h a )
1 0 5 .2
H arvest
in d ex
0.26
H ill-I
0.2 ?
H ill-D
0.2?**
M icro-I
Grain y ie ld
(q /h a )
2 7.00
1 3 1 .4 * *
35.40**
105.4-
3 0 .8 1
0 .2 6
1 9 6 . 0**
51.62**
Micro-D
0.29**
152.3**
43.50**
M ini-D: '•
0.30**
-
46.91**
157.5**
** S i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from th e row p lo t mean a t 0 .0 1 l e v e l ,
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s f o r d ry­
la n d and i r r i g a t e d , r e s p e c t i v e ly .
56
t r i e s grown in the. l a t t e r p lo t ty p e s were more e f f i c i e n t in p a r t i t i o n ­
in g p h o to sy n th a te to th e d e v e lo p in g k e r n e ls than th o se grown in th e •
row p l o t s .
An e x p la n a tio n f o r t h i s e f f e c t i s ten d ered "by th e con cep t
th a t in a dense community o f p l a n t s , upper le a v e s are o v e r -illu m in a te d
and low er le a v e s a re shaded ( 8 ) .
S in c e few er h ead -p rod ucin g t i l l e r s
p er p lo t were found in th e d rylan d h i l l p lo t s (T able 7 )» more sun­
l i g h t was a b le to p e n e tr a te th e crop canopy, p o s s ib ly in c r e a s in g
p h o to s y n th e tic e f f i c i e n c y .
R e la tiv e H e r i t a b i l i t i e s in Row and Sm all P lo t s
H e r i t a b i l i t y on an e n tr y mean b a s is fo r h a r v e st in d e x , b io lo g i c a l
y i e l d , and g r a in y i e l d were computed u s in g th e components o f v a ria n ce
f o r a l l p lo t ty p e s (T ab le 1 4 ).
H e r i t a b i l i t y fo r h a r v e st in d ex ranged
from 0 .6 4 to O.8 7 , f o r b io lo g i c a l y i e l d from 0 .5 0 to 0.75» and fo r
g r a in y ie ld from 0 .7 5 to O.89 a c r o s s p lo t ty p e s .
Because th e valu e
o f th e h e r i t a b i l i t y f o r a c h a r a c te r depends on t h e 'magnitude • o f a l l
th e components o f v a r ia n c e , a change in any one o f th e s e w i l l a f f e c t
it.
Sm all plot" g en o ty p ic v a r ia n c e s were t e s t e d f o r hom ogeneity w ith
row p lo t g en o ty p ic v a r ia n c e s u s in g an F - r a t io ( 4 0 ) . D egrees o f freedom
fo r t h i s t e s t were, p rob ab ly in f la t e d which may have caused to o many geno
t y p ic v a r ia n c e s to he a cce p te d a s hom ogeneous,
In a l l sm a ll p lo t t y p e s ,
e x c e p t th e ir r ig a t e d h i l l . p l o t s , g en o ty p ic v a r ia n c e s 'f o r h a rv est in d ex '
were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t than t h a t o f th e row p lo t s (T able .1 4 ).
For b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d , o n ly th e d rylan d h i l l p lo t g en o ty p ic v a ria n ce
57
was homogeneous w ith th e row p lo t g en o ty p ic v a r ia n c e .
In a l l sm a ll
p lo t t y p e s , g en o ty p ic v a r ia n c e s f o r g r a in y ie ld were homogeneous w ith
row p lo t g en o ty p ic v a r ia n c e .
In a l l sm a ll p lo t t y p e s , e x c e p t th e
ir r ig a t e d m ic r o p lo t s , e r r o r v a r ia n c e s f o r h a r v e st in d e x , " b iological
y i e l d , and g r a in y i e l d were s i g n i f i c a n t l y la r g e r than th o se o f th e
row p lo t s (T ab le 1 4 ).
These r e s u l t s in d ic a t e th a t d if f e r e n c e s in
th e e s tim a te s o f h e r i t a h i l i t i e s "between th e row and sm a ll p lo t s were
due to en viron m en tal ( e . g . , p lo t ty p e ) and sam pling e r r o r (n o te : s in c e
one environm ent was used in th e c a lc u la t io n o f th e v a r ia n c e . com ponents,
no e s tim a te o f a g en o ty p ic X environm ent in t e r a c t io n was a v a il a b l e ) .
The r e l a t i v e magnitude o f th e e s tim a te s o f h e r i t a b i l i t y fo r th e
th r e e t r a i t s w ith in each p lo t ty p e were s im ila r , e x c e p t in th e i r r i ­
g a ted m ic r o -, d rylan d m ic r o -, and m in ip lo t s .
In th e ir r ig a t e d m icro-
p l o t s , a l l h e r i t a b i l i t y v a lu e s fo r th e th r e e t r a i t s were n e a r ly th e
sam e.
In th e d rylan d m ic r o p lo ts , h e r i t a b i l i t y o f h a r v e st in d ex was
g r e a te r than e i t h e r b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d or g r a in y i e l d , w h ile in th e m in i­
p l o t s , h e r i t a b i l i t y o f g r a in y ie ld was g r e a te r than e i t h e r h a rv est
in d ex or b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d (T able 1 4 ).
' Because h e r i t a h i l i t i e s were computed u sin g v a r ia n c e components
from th e a n a ly s is o f homozygous g e n o ty p e s, th e s e v a lu e s a re e s tim a te s
o f narrow se n se h e r i t a b i l i t y .
H e r i t a b i l i t y e s tim a te s f o r y ie ld and
h a r v e s t in d ex were o f s im ila r magnitude and r e l a t i v e l y h ig h a c r o ss
a l l p lo t ty p e s and ample g e n e tic v a r i a b i l i t y e x is t e d f o r th e s e t r a i t s
T a b le 1 4 .
H e r i t a b i l i t i e s ( h 2 ) , g e n o t y p i c (V g ) , a n d e r r o r (V g ) v a r i a n c e s f o r h a r v e s t
in d e x , b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d , an d g r a in y i e l d m ea su red i n row an d s m a ll p l o t s .
T r a it
H arvest in d ex
(h2 )
Row-D
H ill-I
H ill-D
P lo t Typet
M icro-I
Micro-D
Mini-D
-
0 . 8?
0 .0 0 1 5
0.0.014
0 .8 6
o .o o lo
0 , 0019**
0.83
0 . 0083**
0 . 0021**
0.75
0 . 0006*
0.0024**
0.84
0 . 0053**
0 .0012 ■
0.6 4
0 . 0006*
0 . 002**
B io l o g ic a l y ie ld
(h2 )
(v fi
Grain y i e l d
(h2 ) ;
0.6 9
3 4 .2 7
9 1 .4 0
• 0 .7 5 '
1 4 2 . 69**
5 7 0 . 80**
0 .5 0
4 7 .8 2
573.82**
0.89
25.45
1 8 .0 0
0 .8 2
35.1192.37**
0.7 9
22.29
7 1 .5 1 * *
0 .7 1
2 3 8 . 05**
1 1 4 2 . 65**.
0.75
4 3 .2 7 '•
172.89**
0 .7 5
1 5 0 . 85**
6 3 0 .42**
. 0 .6 0
7 0 .4 6 *
287.48**
0.75
25.59
1 0 3 . 69**
0 .8 0
2 6 .1 4
38.94**
* ,* * S i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from th e row p lo t v a ria n ce component a t th e 0 ,0 5 and 0 .0 1
l e v e l s , r e s p e c t i v e ly .
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s a re a b b r e v ia tio n s f o r dryland and i r r i g a t e d ,
r e s p e c tiv e ly .
59
even in t h i s s e t o f e l i t e c u l t i v a x s .
C o r r e la tio n betw een Row and Sm all P lo t s
P h en otyp ic c o r r e la t io n s betw een th e t r a i t s measured in th e row
p lo t s and th o se measured in th e sm a ll p lo t s were c a lc u la t e d (T able 1 5 ) .
C o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s betw een th e sm a ll and row p l o t s f o r h a rv est
in d ex were s i g n i f i c a n t and p o s it iv e in a l l sm a ll p lo t s e x c e p t th e i r r i ­
g ated m ic r o p lo t s .
The. c o r r e la t io n betw een h a r v e st in d ex in th e row
p lo t s and ir r ig a t e d m ic r o p lo ts , how ever, was not d i f f e r e n t from z e r o ,
s u g g e s tin g th a t th e ir r ig a t e d m ic r o p lo ts would n ot be s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r
s e l e c t i o n o f h a r v e s t in d e x .
C o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s between th e sm a ll
and row p lo t s f o r b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d were n o t d if f e r e n t from z e r o , e x c e p t
in th e m in ip lo t s , where i t was h i g h l y .s i g n i f i c a n t .
The ir r ig a t e d h i l l ,
d rylan d m icro t , and m in ip lo ts gave, s i g n i f i c a n t , p o s it iv e c o r r e la t io n s
w ith th e row p lo t s fo r g r a in y ie ld ; o n ly th e c o r r e la t io n c o e f f i c i e n t
computed fo r th e m in ip lo ts was c o n sid ered h igh enough f o r s e l e c t i o n
p u r p o se s.
P h en otyp ic c o r r e la t io n s between row p lo t g ra in y i e l d and sm a ll p lo t
h a r v e st in d ex and b io lo g i c a l y ie ld were a ls o computed (T ab le 1 6 ). Cor­
r e l a t i o n v a lu e s betw een h i l l and m icr o p lo t h a rv est in d ex and row p lo t
g r a in y i e l d were la r g e r th an th e c o r r e la t io n s betw een h i l l and m icr o p lo t
g r a in y ie ld s and row p lo t g r a in y i e l d . A lthough a t e s t f o r eq u al c o r r e la
t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s (4 0 ) betw een th e g r a in y ie ld - g r a in y i e l d and g ra in
y ie ld - h a r v e s t in d ex c o r r e la t io n s from th e row p lo t s and th e ir r ig a t e d
60
Table 1 5 . P h en otyp ic c o r r e la t io n s betw een row and sm a ll p lo t s fo r
h a r v e st in d e x , b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d , and g r a in y i e l d .
P lo t Typet
M icro-I
0 .3 4
T r a it
H arvest in d ex
H ill-I
0.59**
H ill-D
0 .4 ? *
B io lo g ic a l y ie ld
0.14 .
0 .1 2
. 0 .1 7
Grain y ie ld
0 .4 4 *
. 0.30
0.36
Micro-D
0 .4 7 *
Mini-D
0 .4 9 *
. 0.58**
0.23
0 .4 1 * .
0.62**
* ,* * S ig n if i c a n t a t th e 0 .0 5 and 0 .0 1 l e v e l s , r e s p e c t i v e l y ,
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s fo r d ry ­
la n d and ir r ig a t e d , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
T able 1 6 . P h en otyp ic c o r r e la t io n s betw een row p lo t g r a in y ie ld and
sm a ll p lo t h a r v e st in d ex and b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d .
Sm all p lo t t r a i t
H arvest in d ex
O.56**
B io l o g ic a l y ie ld
0 .0 1
H ill-D
0.50*
0.02
M icro ti
0 .4 4 *
0.05
Micro-D
0.57**
0 .1 1
Mini-D
0 . 59**
0 .1 6
P lo t ty p e t ■
H ill-I
.
*,*•* S ig n if i c a n t a t th e 0 .0 5 and 0 ,0 1 l e v e l s , r e s p e c t i v e l y ,
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s fo r d ry­
lan d and ir r ig a t e d , r e s p e c t i v e ly .
61
h i l l and d rylan d m icr o p lo ts was n ot r e j e c t e d , th e g r a in y ie ld - h a r ­
v e s t in d ex c o r r e la t io n s were a cce p te d a t a h ig h er l e v e l o f p r o b a b il­
ity .
T h e r e fo r e , in d ir e c t s e l e c t i o n o f h i l l and m icr o p lo t h a rv est i n ­
dex f o r row p lo t g r a in y ie ld sh ou ld p ro v id e more' s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s
than d ir e c t s e l e c t i o n o f g r a in y i e l d in. th e s e p lo t t y p e s .
A te st
fo r eq u a l c o r r e la t io n c o e f f i c i e n t s betw een th e g r a in y ie ld - g r a in y ie ld
and g r a in y ie ld - h a r v e s t in d ex a s s o c ia t io n s from row p lo t s and m in i- '
p lo t s was n ot r e j e c t e d , t h u s , no advantage would be a ch ie v ed by i n ­
d ir e c t s e l e c t i o n o f h a r v e st in d ex in th e m in ip lo ts f o r row p lo t g ra in
y ie ld .
The c o r r e la t io n c o e f f i c i e n t s betw een row p lo t g r a in y ie ld and
sm a ll p lo t b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d were n ot d if f e r e n t from z e r o , th e r e fo r e
none o f th e sm a ll p lo t s used i n t h i s in v e s t ig a t io n would be s a t i s f a c ­
to r y f o r in d ir e c t s e l e c t i o n o f row p lo t g r a in y ie ld u s in g sm a ll p lo t
b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d .'
Common E n tr ie s
.
S e v e r a l in v e s t ig a t o r s (1 2 , 2 1 , 2 j ) have used the- number o f en­
t r i e s in h i l l p lo t s common to th e to p 10, 2 0 , arid 50% o f th e e n t r ie s
in row p lo t s a s a c r i t e r i o n o f com parison.
For com parison o f row and
sm a ll p lo t s in t h i s in v e s t ig a t i o n , ■. I arranged th e means o f th e th r e e
t r a i t s from h ig h to low so t h a t e n t r ie s common in b oth row and sm a ll
p lo t s co u ld be compared a t th r e e s e l e c t i o n i n t e n s i t i e s (Appendix Ta­
b le s 15 to I ?) .
The p erce n t o f e n t r ie s in sm a ll p lo t s in common w ith
row p lo t s , a t each s e l e c t i o n i n t e n s i t y are p resen ted in Table 17.
62
At th e 10% s e l e c t i o n i n t e n s i t y o n ly 50% o f th e e n t r ie s in th e
ir r ig a t e d and d rylan d h i l l p lo t s were common to th e to p 10% in th e
row p lo t s f o r h a r v e st in d e x .
The d rylan d m icr o p lo ts were 'u sefu l in
c l a s s i f y i n g 83% o f th e to p 25% e n t r ie s in th e row p l o t s .
The o th er
p lo t ty p e s had from 58 to 75% o f th e e n t r ie s in common w ith th e row
p lo t s a t th e 25 and 50% s e l e c t i o n i n t e n s i t i e s .
For b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d , th e m in ip lo ts c o r r e c t ly i d e n t i f i e d 50% o f
th e c u lt i v a r s a t th e 10% s e l e c t i o n i n t e n s i t y .
The b e s t s e l e c t i o n
a c r o s s sm a ll p lo t ty p e s f o r b io lo g i c a l y i e l d d id n ot o ccu r u n t i l th e
50% s e l e c t i o n i n t e n s i t y was u sed , where from 50 to 75% o f th e e n t r ie s
common to th e row p lo t s were s e l e c t e d .
For g r a in y i e l d , a l l sm a ll p lo t s were u s e f u l in id e n t if y i n g h a lf
o f th e e n t r ie s common t o th e row p lo t s a t th e 10% l e v e l .
With 25% s e ­
l e c t i o n i n t e n s i t y , th e range a c r o s s sm a ll p lo t ty p e s was 50 to 83%,
w ith th e m in ip lb ts e x h ib it in g th e h ig h e s t v a lu e and th e two h i l l p lo t ■
n u r s e r ie s show ing t h e .l o w e s t .
At th e 50% s e l e c t i o n i n t e n s i t y , th e
i r r i g a t e d . m icr o p lo ts arid th e d ryland h i l l p lo t s were u s e f u l .i n c o r ­
r e c t l y id e n t if y ir ig
67% and th e drylarid m icr o p lo ts a n d . m in ip lo ts were
u s e f u l in c o r r e c t ly id e n t if y i n g 75%.o f th e e n t r ie s in common w ith th e ■
b e s t 50% in th e row p l o t s .
T h is c r i t e r i o n o f com parison betw een row and sm a ll p lo t s gave a
b e t t e r in d ic a t io n o f th e s u i t a b i l i t y o f sm a ll p l o t s . f o r s e l e c t i o n pur­
p o ses than d id th e use o f p h en otyp ic c o r r e la t io n s , e s p e c i a l l y fo r s e -
63
Table 17.. P ercen t o f sm a ll p lo t e n t r ie s common to th e to p 1 0 , 2 5 , and
5Q& e n t r ie s grown in th e row p lo t s f o r h a r v e st in d e x , b io lo g i c a l
y i e l d , and g r a in y i e l d .
(
T r a it
H arvest in d ex
B io lo g ic a l y ie ld
Grain y ie ld
H ill-I
10
25
50
50
P lo t Typet
H ill-D
10
25
50
50
67
75
50#
67
0
0
67
0
50
50
67
50
0.
50
10
0
•
50
0
- 67
50
M icro-I
25 - 50
58
67
17
50
67 .
67
P lo t TypetT r a it
H arvest in d ex
B io lo g ic a l y i e l d •
Grain y ie ld
M icro-I)
10
50
25
0
83 . 58
Mini-D
10
25
50
0 ■ 50
67
0
33
58
50
33
75
50
67
75
50
83
75
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s fo r d ry ­
la n d and ir r ig a t e d , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
* S e le c t io n i n t e n s i t i e s ' used in th e com parison o f row and sm a ll p l o t s .
64
-
l e c t i o n o f h ig h " b io lo g ica l y i e l d , where c o r r e la t io n s in a l l but th e ■
m in ip lo ts were n o n - s ig n if ic a n t (T ab le 1 5 ).
R e la tiv e V a r ia tio n W ithin P lo t - S iz e Experim ents
The range in perform ance fo r h a r v e st in d ex o f th e c u lt iv a r s grown
in th e row and s m a ll p lo t s was s im ila r (T ab le 1 8 ) .
For b io lo g i c a l
y i e l d , th e range among c u lt i v a r s grown in th e ir r ig a t e d h i l l and i r r i ­
g ated m ic r o p lo ts , and th e d ryland m ic r o p lo ts was two to th r e e tim es
g r e a te r th an in th e row p l o t s .
c u lt i v a r s grown in th e
The range in perform ance among th e
ir r ig a t e d h i l l and ir r ig a t e d m icr o p lo ts was
somewhat g r e a te r th an t h a t e x h ib ite d in th e row p lo t s f o r g ra in y i e l d ,
a r e s u l t a t t r ib u t e d t o d i f f e r e n t i a l c u lt i y a r resp o n se t o ir r i g a t i o n .
The o th e r th r e e sm a ll p lo t n u r s e r ie s , however, were n o t g r e a t ly d i f ­
f e r e n t than th e row p lo t n u rsery f o r g r a in y i e l d .
The c o e f f i c i e n t s o f v a r ia t io n (C , V .) in sm a ll p lo t s and.row p lo t s
fo r h a r v e st in d ex were s im il a r , a s were t h e i r standard e r r o r s (T able
1 8 ).
The C .V .'s and stan d ard e r r o r s f o r - g r a in y ie ld in b oth ty p e s o f
h i l l and m ic r o p lo ts were about tw ic e a s la r g e a s in th e row p l o t s .
S in ce th e C . V . ' s and stan d ard e r r o r s f o r h a r v e st in d ex were e s s e n t i a l l y
th e same, a c r o s s p lo t t y p e s , t h i s su g g ests' an oth er advantage fo r u sin g ,
sm a ll p lo t h a r v e st in d ex to p r e d ic t row p lo t g ra in y i e l d .
Both h i l l
and m icr o p lo t n u r s e r ie s had C . V . ' s about tw ic e as la r g e a s th o se in
th e row and m in ip lo ts f o r b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d .
These d if f e r e n c e s were
a t t r ib u t e d to th e g r e a te r stand ard e r r o r s o f th e form er p l o t ■ty p es than
65
Table 1 8 , C o e f f ic i e n t s o f v a r ia t io n (C ..V .), sta n d a r d -e r r o r s ( s ) ,
o v e r a ll means ( X ) , and range o f perform ance (R) f o r h a r v e st in d e x ,
b io lo g i c a l y i e l d , and g r a in y i e l d measured in row and sm a ll p l o t s .
T ra it*
H arvest in d ex
C.V. {%)
S
X
B
B io lo g ic a l y ie ld
C.V. (%)
S
X
R
Grain y ie ld
c . v . (# )
S
X
B
P lo t T ypet
M icro-I
Row-D
H ill-I
H ill-D
1 5 .3 8
0 .0 4
0.2 6
0 .1 5
1 4 .8 1
0 .0 4
0.2 ?
0 .1 4
1 7 .2 4
0.05
0.29
0 .1 3
19.23
0 .0 5
.0 .2 6
0.1 1
9 .1 0
9 .5 6
105.20
4 3 .4 0
1 8 .1 8
2 3.89
1 3 1 .4 0
4 8 .6 0
2 2 .7 3
2 3 .9 5
105.40
3 7 .6 6
1 7.25
3 3 .8 0
1 9 6 .0 0
77.70
1 5 .7 0
4 .2 0
2 7.00
1 9 .8 0
2 7 .2 0
- 9 .6 0
3 5.40
2 5.70
27.43
8.50
3 0 .8 0
1 9 .3 0
25.51
1 3 .1 0
5 1 .6 0
2 9.10
Micro-D
1 0 .3 4 ■
0.03
0.29
0 .1 0
.
Mini-D
1 6 .6 7
0 .0 5
0 .3 0
0.11.
1 6 .1 3
2 4 .5 6
152.30
5 6 .8 0
1 0 .7 7
1 6 .9 6
1 5 7 .5 0
4 8 .8 0
2 3 .4 0
1 0 .2 0
. 4 3 .5 0 .
2 3 .0 0
1 3 .3 1
6 .2 0
4 6 .9 0
23.70
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s fo r d ry ­
la n d and ir r ig a t e d , r e s p e c t i v e l y . ■
t U n its fo r b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d and g ra in y i e l d are q /h a ,
66
occu rred in th e row -and m in ip lo t s .
The g r e a te r v a r ia t io n shown in a l l sm a ll p lo t ty p e s f o r b i o l o g i ­
c a l y i e l d , and in t h e ' h i l l and m icr o p lo ts f o r g r a in y i e l d , i s an i n ­
d ic a t io n o f th e broader range o f e x p r e s s io n among c u l t i v a r s . which has
been e x p la in e d by th e d i f f e r e n t i a l c o m p e titiv e r e l a t io n s h ip s o f c u l­
t i v a r s grown in h i l l p lo t s by o th e r workers (2 0 , 3 2 , 3 9 )•
However,
a g r e a te r range i s a ls o ex p ecte d a s th e number o f r e p l ic a t io n s used
to measure a t r a i t i s in c r e a se d ( 4 0 ) .
A s s o c ia tio n s Between T r a its W ithin P lo t Types
C o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s betw een a l l p o s s ib le com b in ation s o f th e
te n t r a i t s measured w ith in each p lo t ty p e were computed to determ ine
i f th e ty p e s o f r e la t io n s h ip s between h a r v e st in d e x , b io lo g i c a l y i e l d ,
and th e o th er agronom ic c h a r a c te r s in th e row p lo t s a ls o occurred in
th e sm a ll p lo t s (T able 1 9 ).
Only th o se a s s o c ia t io n s e x p r e s s in g s i g ­
n if ic a n c e in a t l e a s t one p lo t ty p e a re g iv e n .
The tra n sfo rm a tio n
from r to a q u a n tity z_, a s g iv e n by Snedecor and Cochran ( 4 0 ) , was u sed
t o " t e s t th e h y p o th e sis th a t two sample v a lu e s o f r were drawn a t ra n ­
dom from th e same p o p u la tio n ,"
C o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s c a lc u la t e d w ith in th e row p lo t s showed
th a t th e number o f se e d s per head and- h a r v e st in d e x , g r a in y ie ld and
h a r v e st in d e x , and b io lo g i c a l y i e l d and g ra in y ie ld were p o s i t i v e l y
c o r r e la t e d .
.
.
Only th e d rylan d m ic r o p lo ts •e x h ib ite d a l l th r e e o f th e s e
r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and a t e s t o f th e h y p o th e sis o f eq u a l c o r r e la t io n s was
.
67
not r e je c te d .
A ll p lo t ty p e s ex p ressed th e s i g n i f i c a n t , p o s it iv e
a s s o c ia t io n betw een g r a in y i e l d and th e two s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a ( e . g . ,
h a r v e st in d ex and b io lo g i c a l y i e l d ) and a t e s t o f th e e q u a lit y be­
tw een th e row p lo t c o r r e la t io n s and th o se o f th e sm a ll p lo t s was not
r e je c te d .
Each o f th e sm a ll p lo t s e x h ib it e d s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e la t io n s be­
tw een th e two s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a and th e o th er agronom ic t r a i t s th a t
were n ot d e t e c t e d in th e row p lo t s ,.
H arvest in d ex in th e dryland h i l l
and d rylan d m ic r o p lo ts was n e g a t iv e ly a s s o c ia t e d w ith f a l l s e e d lin g
c o lo r and h ead in g d a t e ,
B io l o g ic a l y i e l d and th e number o f heads per
2
900 cm in both ty p e s o f h i l l and m icr o p lo t n u r s e r ie s ;
b io lo g i c a l
y i e l d and h a r v e st in d ex in th e dryland, h i l l and d rylan d micro p lo ts.;
th e number o f se e d s p er head and h a r v e st in d ex in th e two m icro p lo t •
n u r s e r ie s ; b i o l o g i c a l y ie ld and th e number o f seed s p er head in th e
d rylan d m ic r o p lo ts and n iin ip lo t s ; and b io lo g i c a l y i e l d and p la n t '
h e ig h t in th e ir r ig a t e d ■m ic r o p lo ts were a l l p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e la t e d .
The d rylan d m ic r o p lo ts e x h ib it e d s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e la t io n s between th e ..
two s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a and each o f th e o th er agronomic c h a r a c te r s , e x ­
c e p t f o r b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d and p la n t h e ig h t .
These d if f e r e n c e s be­
tw een row and sm a ll p lo t s were a t t r ib u t e d to the. i n t e r - and in t r a ­
c u l t iv a r c o m p e titiv e r e la t io n s h ip s in sm a ll p lo t s n oted by o th er work­
e r s (.20, 32* 3 9 ) .
A lthough th e c u lt i v a r s grown in th e h i l l , m icr o -,
and row p lo t s were e q u a lly spaced. 30 cm a p a r t, th e p ro x im ity o f one
T able 19. C o r r e la t io n s ' betw een th e in d ir e c t s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a and o th er agronomic
c h a r a c te r s w ith in p lo t t y p e s .
A s s o c ia t io n
• Row-B
H arvest in d ex
v s . f a l l c o lo r
- 0 .1 2 .
0 .1 8
v s . s p r in g c o lo r
- 0 .1 1
v s . h ea d in g d a te .
- 0 .2 2
v s . . p la n t h e ig h t
v s . s e e d s /h e a d .
0 . 62**
v s . g r a in y i e l d ' . .
0 .8 9 * *
B io l o g ic a l y ie ld
v s . days t o emergence
0 .1 6
v s . p la n t h e ig h t
, 0 .0 0
v s . h e a d s /9 0 0 .cm^.
0 .3 4
. v s . se e d s /h e a d
. 0 .3 9
v s . g r a in y ie ld
0 . 6$**
H ill-I
__
P lo t Typet
H ill-D ■ M icro -I
__
- 0 .0 2
0 .2 9
0 . 8?**
-0 .4 ? *
- 0 .3 3
-0 .4 3 *
- 0 .2 3
0 .0 2
0 . 8$**
- 0 .3 ?
0 .4 2 *
0 .7 9 * *
0.3 1
. 0 . 79**
0 .2?
0 . 76**
- 0 .3 2
. 0 .1 1
0 .8 4 * *
0 .2?
0 . 8$**
0 .4 2 *
0 .?$**
0 . 0$
0 . 68**
—
—
-----—
Micro-D
Mini-D
- 0 .$$**
-0 .4 4 *
' - 0 .$ 6**
-0 .4 8 *
-0 . 30*
0 .?$**
- 0 .3 5
- 0 .2?
^ 0.33
- 0 .3 7
0 .3 9
0 . 7$**
-0 .4 $ *
0 .1 3 .
. 0 .0 0 ■ - 0 .1 1
0 . 91**
- 0 .3 0
0.4 8 *
o .$ 6**
0.81**
0 .$ 9 * *
* ,* * S ig n if ic a n t , a t th e 0 .0 $ and 0 .0 1 l e v e l s , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s f o r d ryland and i r r i g a t e d ,
r e s p e c tiv e ly .
"
69
c u lt i v a r to a n o th er in th e sm a ll p lo t s was much c l o s e r than e x is t e d
in th e row p l o t s .
In th e h i l l and m in ip lo t s , s e v e r a l p la n ts were
grown in a v ery c o n cen tra ted a r e a , thus, in c r e a s in g c o m p e titio n fo r. s o i l
n u tr ie n ts .
C o n tr ib u tio n s o f H arvest Index and
B io lo g ic a l Y ie ld t o Grain Y ield .
The c o n tr ib u tio n s o f 'h a r v e st in d ex and b io lo g i c a l y i e l d
to g r a in
y i e l d w ith in each p lo t ty p e were determ ined u sin g m u ltip le r e g r e s s io n
a n a ly s is (T ab le 2 0 ) .
The v a r ia t io n in g r a in y ie ld w ith in each p lo t
typ e was a lm o st c o m p le te ly accou n ted f o r by h a r v e st in d ex and b io lo g ­
ic a l y ie ld .
T h eir r e s p e c t iv e c o e f f i c i e n t s o f d eterm in a tio n ranged from
0 .9 5 in th e row p lo t s to 0 .9 9 in th e d rylan d m ic r o p lo t s .
The standard
p a r t i a l r e g r e s s io n c o e f f i c i e n t s o f h a r v e st in d ex to g r a in y ie ld and
b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d t o g r a in y i e l d were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from zero 1
a t th e 0 .0 1 l e v e l .
The r a t io s ’ o f th e stand ard p a r t ia l r e g r e s s io n 'co­
e f f i c i e n t s o f h a r v e st in d ex to th o se o f b io lo g i c a l y i e l d in d ic a te d
th a t th e r e l a t i v e c o n tr ib u tio n o f h a r v e st in d ex to grain- y i e l d was
g r e a te r than t h a t o f b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d a c r o s s a l l p lo t t y p e s .
However,
th e r a t i o s measured f o r th e d ryland : h i l l and d ryland m icr o p lo ts were
n ot much g r e a te r than 1 . 0 , in d ic a t in g th a t both h a r v e st in d ex and b io ­
l o g i c a l y ie ld were o f eq u a l im portance in d eterm in in g g r a in y ie ld in
th e s e two p lo t t y p e s .
These r e s u l t s in d ic a t e th a t s e l e c t i o n f o r h a r v e st in d ex would ,
70
t e n d 't o in c r e a s e g r a in y ie ld in most o f th e p lo t ty p e s more than would
s e le c t io n fo r b io lo g ic a l y ie ld .
R o s i e ll e and Frey (2 9 ) showed th a t
in d ir e c t s e l e c t i o n f o r g r a in y i e l d in o a ts through h a r v e st in d ex had
l i t t l e v a lu e when compared w ith u n r e s t r ic t e d d ir e c t s e l e c t i o n fo r
g r a in y i e l d .
F is c h e r and K ertesz (1 6 ) have shown t h a t sp a c e d -p la n t
h a r v e st in d ex i s s u p e r io r to s p a c e d -p la n t g r a in y i e l d a s a p r e d ic to r
o f y ie ld in g a b i l i t y in la r g e p lo t s o f s p r in g w heat.
T h is in v e s t ig a ­
t io n has shown t h a t h a r v e st in d ex in h i l l and m icr o p lo ts was a b e t t e r
p r e d ic to r o f row p lo t g r a in y ie ld than g r a in y i e l d . measured in th e s e
two p lo t t y p e s .
71
Table 2 0 . C o e f f i c i e n t s .o f d eterm in a tio n (R^) 1 stan d ard p a r t ia l r e ­
g r e s s io n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r th e m u ltip le r e g r e s s io n s o f g r a in y ie ld
on h a r v e st in d ex and b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d , and th e r a t i o o f h a rv est i n ­
dex stand ard p a r t ia l r e g r e s s io n c o e f f i c i e n t s to b i o l o g i c a l y ie ld
stan d ard p a r t ia l r e g r e s s io n c o e f f i c i e n t s .
R2
0.95
b ! 2 .3 t
O.77**
M 3 .2 §
0.4-1**
R a tio
1 .8 6
. 0.98
0.69**
0 . 51**
' 1 .3 6
H ill-D '
0.97
0.58**
0 .5 7 * *
1 .0 3
M icro-I
. 0.98
0 . 72**
0 . 60**
1 .2 0
P lo t Typet
Row-D
H ill-I
Micro-D
0:99 .
0 . 61**
.0 . 60**
1 .0 2
Mini-D
0.96
0 . 79**
0 . 63**
1 .2 6
O
Il
S
** S ig n if i c a n t a t th e 0 .0 1 l e v e l f o r Ho:
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s fo r d ry ­
lan d and ir r ig a t e d , r e s p e c t i v e ly .
* ,§ b l2 .3 and b !3 .2 = stand ard p a r t i a l r e g r e s s io n c o e f f i c i e n t s o f
g r a in y ie ld on h a r v e st in d ex and b io lo g i c a l y i e l d , r e s p e c t i v e ly .
SUMMARY
H a r v e st. in d e x , b io lo g i c a l y i e l d , and g ra in y i e l d were o b ta in ed
from 2 3 w in te r wheat c u lt i v a r s grown in co n v e n tio n a l row and th ree
ty p e s o f sm a ll p l o t s .
The c o n tr ib u tio n s o f h a rv est in d ex and b io lo g ­
i c a l y ie ld to g r a in y i e l d w ith in each p lo t typ e were determ ined u sin g
m u ltip le r e g r e s s io n a n a l y s i s .
The v a r ia t io n in g r a in y i e l d w ith in
each p lo t ty p e was a lm o st co m p le te ly accou n ted f o r by h a r v e st in d ex
and b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d .
The r e l a t i v e c o n tr ib u tio n s o f h a r v e st index
and b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d t o g r a in y i e l d w ith in p lo t t y p e s , a s g iv e n by
th e r a t i o s o f t h e i r stand ard p a r t ia l r e g r e s s io n c o e f f i c i e n t s ( i . e . ,
b ! 2 . 3 / b l 3 . 2 ) , showed th a t h a r v e st in d ex was more im portant than b io ­
l o g i c a l y i e l d in d eterm in in g g r a in y i e l d in th e c u lt i v a r s s t u d ie d .
Narrow se n se h e r i t a b i l i t i e s on an e n tr y mean b a s is were c a lc u la t e d
from th e components o f v a r ia n c e ; th e s e v a lu e s showed t h a t h a r v e st i n ­
dex was a t l e a s t a s h e r it a b le a s g r a in y i e l d in a l l p lo t ty p e s ex ce p t
th e m in ip lo ts' and b io lo g i c a l y i e l d was n o t a s h e r it a b le a s g ra in y ie ld
o r -h a r v e s t in d e x , e x c e p t in th e ir r ig a t e d m icr o p lo ts and m in ip lo ts .
A com parison o f row and sm a ll p lo t s fo r h a r v e st in d e x , b i o l o g i ­
c a l y i e l d , and g r a in y ie ld in d ic a te d t h a t ir r ig a t e d h i l l and dryland
m ic r o p lo ts p rovid ed s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s when used to s e l e c t c u lt iv a r s
f o r h a r v e st in d e x .
Only th e d ryland m icror and m in ip lo ts were, found
u s e f u l in s e l e c t i o n o f h ig h - y ie ld in g c u lt i v a r s and o n ly th e m in ip lo ts
p rovid ed s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s when s e l e c t i n g fo r h ig h b io lo g i c a l y ie ld
SECTION I I I :
THE EVALUATION OF.WINTER WHEAT
QUALITY IN ROW AND SMALL PLOTS
INTRODUCTION'
The mixograph and f a r in o graph- a re w id e ly a c c e p te d t o o l s fo r s c r e e n ­
in g wheat c u lt i v a r s dr e a r ly g e n e r a tio n l i n e s when in fo rm a tio n on "bakin g q u a lit y i s n eed ed .
The ten-gram m ixograph, u sin g tempered (13.5%
mb) s ie v e d wheat m eal, has been proposed a s a ra p id method o f o b ta in ­
in g in fo rm a tio n on wheat q u a lit y when th e amount o f g r a in i s s m a ll, such a s when s m a ll- s iz e p lo t s a re used in a b reed in g program.
The ob­
j e c t i v e s o f t h i s in v e s t ig a t i o n w ere: I ) compare th e q u a n tity o f f lo u r
■ protein o b ta in ed from c u lt i v a r s grown in row and sm a ll p lo t s ; 2 ) com­
pare th e curve c h a r a c t e r is t ic s and c u l t i v a r p a tte r n s o b ta in ed from th e
ten-gram mixograph run on sam ples o f wheat grown in row and sm a ll p l o t s ;
and 3 ) compare th e r e l a t i v e a s s o c ia t io n s o f p ercen t f lo u r p r o te in , m ixogram d a ta , and farinogram d a ta o b ta in ed from row and sm a ll p l o t s . ■
■
MATERIALS. AND METHODS
E sta b lish m en t o f F ie ld P lo t s
.
T h is stu d y was conducted w ith m a te r ia ls grown a t th e F ie ld Re­
sea rch L aboratory n ear Bozeman, Montana, d u rin g th e 1977-78 growing
se a so n .
W inter wheat g r a in sam ples were o b ta in ed from 22 hard red
w in ter wheat c u lt i v a r s and one s o f t w h ite w in ter wheat c u lt iy a r (Appen­
d ix Table l ) grown in c o n v e n tio n a l row p l o t s , h i l l p l o t s , and m icrop lo t s on an Amsterdam s i l t loam , Typic G rybborall s o i l .
'
The th ree
f i e l d n u rseries' were e s t a b lis h e d by t h e ■methods d e s c r ib e d in S e c t i o n •
I fo r th e row , , d ryland h i l l , and d rylan d m ic r o p lo ts .
L aboratory Procedures
Q u a lity measurements were made a t th e C erea l Q u a lity L aboratory,
Montana S ta te U n iv e r s it y .
Q u a lity a n a ly s e s in clu d ed th e measurement
o f f lo u r p r o te in q u a n tity and mixograph d a ta on sam ples from a l l th r e e
p lo t ex p erim en ts.
In a d d itio n ,- f a r in o graph a b s o r p tio n , peak t im e ,
s t a b i l i t y , a n d .v a lo r im e te r measurements were tak en on f lo u r sam ples
from c u lt i v a r s grown in th e row p lo t exp erim en t.
• . ' The percent- f lo u r p r o t e in (p e r c e n t p r o t e in ) was determ ined w ith
an I n fr a Red R e fle c ta n c e A n a ly zer, m anufactured by T echnicon I n d u s tr ia l.
S ystem s, on 4 g sam ples from each p lo t ty p e ;
The g r a in sam ples used
■
,to ob tain -m ixograp h in fo rm a tio n .were tempered to 13.5% and ground in
a Udy C yclone M ill with, a I mm s c r e e n . . A •Strand s i f t e r w ith a 250
p i s c r e e n was.-used, to o b ta in 10 g . o f s ie v e d wheat meal ( 7 ) .
The m ix-
■
'
76
ograph was o p era ted a cco r d in g t o th e proced u res g iv e n "by F inney and
Shogren ( l 4 ) .
Method 5 ^ -2 1 o f th e A.A .0 . 0 . ( 2 ) was used to o b ta in th e
f a r in o graph d a ta on th e row p lo t sa m p les.
F ig . I i l l u s t r a t e s t h e manner in which mixogram in fo rm a tio n was
o b ta in e d .
Time o f dough developm ent ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d to a s peak
d is t a n c e ) was d eterm ined by th e d is ta n c e i n cm from th e s t a r t o f th e
mixogram to th e p o in t o f minimum m o b ilit y , or peak ( A ).
T h is valu e
co u ld a ls o have been e x p r e sse d in m in u te s, where th e tim e t o p a ss b e­
tw een two curved l i n e s was about one m in u te.
Peak h e ig h t was o b ta in ed
a s th e d is ta n c e in cm from th e base o f th e mixogram to th e to p o f th e
curve a t th e peak ( B) .
S t a t i s t i c a l Methods
A stand ard a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e f o r a two-way c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and
an F- t e s t were used to determ ine i f c u lt i v a r s gave e q u iv a le n t e x p r e s ­
s io n s f o r p erce n t p r o t e in , mixogram peak d is ta n c e ,, and peak h e ig h t .
C u ltiv a r s were t r e a t e d a s random e f f e c t s in th e two-way m odel.
A test
f o r homogeneous e r r o r v a ria n ces' between, q u a lit y d a ta o b ta in ed from th e
row p lo t s and t h a t .o b ta in ed from th e sm a ll p lo t s was c a lc u la t e d (Appen­
d ix Table 2 ) .
A t - t e s t was used to compare th e mean o f a l l c u lt iv a r s
in each sm a ll p lo t ty p e .w it h th e mean o f a l l c u lt i v a r s in th e row p lo t s
f o r p erce n t p r o te in ,- mixograph peak d is t a n c e , and peak h e ig h t .
The
t - s t a t i s t i c was w eigh ted when er r o r v a r ia n c e s were non-homogeneous
( 4 0 ) ; when e r r o r v a r ia n c e s were homogeneous, t h e ir v a lu e s and r e s p e c -
77
F ig . I . Schem atic diagram show ing mixogram m easurem ents. Line
A d e s c r ib e s th e d is t a n c e in cm from th e s t a r t o f th e mixogram
t o th e p o in t o f minimum m o b ilit y , or peak ( e . g . , peak d is t a n c e ) .
Line B d e s c r ib e s peak h e ig h t in cm.
78
t i v e d eg ree s o f freedom were p o o led and S tu d e n t's t - d is t r ib u t io n was
fo llo w e d .
P h en otyp ic c o r r e la t io n s based on c u lt iv a r means were com­
puted betw een row and sm a ll p lo t s f o r each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c .
The p er­
c e n t o f sm a ll p lo t e n t r ie s common to th e to p 10, 2 5 , and 50# o f en ­
t r i e s f o r th e row p lo t s was c a lc u la t e d f o r each t r a i t i
A ll p o s s ib le
c o r r e la t io n s among th e th r e e t r a i t s measured in a l l p lo t experim ents
and th e fo u r f a r in o graph t r a i t s measured in th e row p lo t s were a ls o
computed based on c u lt i v a r me ans .
.
.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Comparison o f Row and Sm all P lo t s fo r S e le c t io n Purposes
A n a ly s is o f V ariance
:
S ig n if i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s among c u lt i v a r s fo r p e r c e n t p r o te in and
'
I
mixogram peak d is ta n c e were d e te c te d in a l l p lo t t y p e s .
S ig n if ic a n t
d if f e r e n c e s among th e c u lt i v a r s f o r mixogram peak h e ig h t were d e te c te d
in th e row and h i l l p lo t s o n ly (T able 2 1 ) .
Comparison o f O v e r a ll Means
A t - t e s t was u sed to compare th e means fo r p e r c e n t p r o t e in , mixo­
gram peak d is t a n c e , and peak h e ig h t o f a l l c u lt i v a r s grown in th e sm a ll
p lo t s to a l l c u lt i v a r s grown in th e row p lo t s (T able 2 2 ) .
A ll means
fo r a l l t r a i t s were e q u iv a le n t e x c e p t p erce n t p r o t e in in th e h i l l p l o t s ,
where i t was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a te r than t h a t in th e row p l o t s .
P h en otyp ic c o r r e l a t i o n s , based on c u lt i v a r means, between t h e ■
t r a i t s measured in th e row p lo t s and th o se measured in th e sm a ll p lo t s
were c a lc u la t e d (T ab le 2 3 ) .
C o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s betw een th e sm a ll
and row p lo t s fo r each o f th e th r e e c h a r a c t e r is t ic s were s i g n i f i c a n t .
and p o s itiv e -. ■ The r e la t io n s h ip betw een sm a ll and row p lo t c u lt iv a r
e x p r e s s io n s f o r p e r c e n t p r o te in and mixogram peak d is ta n c e were very
h ig h , in d ic a t in g t h a t e i t h e r o f th e sm a ll p lo t s might s u c c e s s f u l ly be
employed to c l a s s i f y w in te r wheat c u lt i v a r s f o r th e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
The a s s o c ia t io n betw een c u lt i v a r s grown in row and s m a ll p lo t s fo r m ix- '
ogram peak h e ig h t was s i g n i f i c a n t but accou n ted fo r o n ly '23% o f th e •
v a r ia tio n shown in th e row p lo t s f o r t h i s t r a i t .
S in c e s i g n i f i c a n t
80
Table 2 1 . .G u lt iv a r (C ) and er r o r (E) mean sq u ares (E S) from th e
a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e f o r p erce n t p r o t e in , mixogram peak d is t a n c e ,
and peak h e ig h t measured in row and sm a ll p l o t s .
P lo t Type
H ill
MS
df
Row
T r a it
P r o te in
■(C)
(E)
Peak d is ta n c e ( c )
(E)
Peak h eig h t
(C)
(E)
MS
df
2.68**
0.09
22
HO
22
0.8 1 * *
0.08
44
0 .8 1 *
22
0.39
44
3.20**
0.09
2.08**
0.08
22
HO
22
44
0.64**
0 .1 1
0.93**
22
0.49
22
0 .4 2
44 ‘
0 .3 4
44
0 .8 9 * *
0 .1 3
.
22
no22
Micro
MS
df
44
* ,* * S ig n if i c a n t a t th e 0 . 0 5 and 0.0 1 l e v e l s , r e s p e c t i v e ly .
Table 22 . Mean o f a l l e n t r ie s f o r each p lo t type and t e s t s o f s i g n i f ­
ic a n c e betw een th e means o f row and sm a ll p lo t s f o r p ercen t p r o t e in ,
mixogram peak d is t a n c e , and peak h e ig h t .
T r a it.
P r o te in {%)
__________________
Row
■13.5
Peak d is ta n c e (cm)
3.6
Peak h e ig h t (cm)
5.9
P lo t Type______
H ill
13.8*.
.
.
Micro
1 3 ,6
' 3.7
3.9
.5.8
6.2
* S i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from th e row p lo t mean a t th e 0 , 0 5 l e v e l .
81
d if f e r e n c e s among m icr o p lo t c u lt i v a r s f o r mixogram peak h e ig h t were
n ot d e t e c t e d , th e in t e r p r e t a t io n o f com parisons between row and m icrop lo t c u lt i v a r means must be made w ith c a u tio n ( 1 8 ) .
Common E n tr ie s
The mean e x p r e s s io n f o r p erce n t p r o t e in , mixogram peak d is t a n c e ,
and peak h e ig h t o f c u lt i v a r s grown in th e th r e e p l o t - s i z e experim ents
and t h e i r r e l a t i v e ra n k in g a re p r e se n te d in Appendix T ab les 18 to 2 0 .
S e v e r a l in v e s t ig a t o r s
( 1 2 , 21 , 2 3 ) have used th e number o f e n t r ie s in
■ h ill p lo t s common to the' to p 10, 2 0 , and
p lo t s a s a c r i t e r i o n o f com p arison .
o f th e e n t r ie s in row
The p erce n t o f e n t r ie s in sm all
p lo t s in common w ith row p lo t s at, s e l e c t i o n i n t e n s i t i e s o f 10, 2 5 , and
50% are p r e se n te d in Table 24 fo r th e th r e e q u a lit y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
S e le c t io n on th e b a s is o f th e to p 10% e n t r ie s common to th e row
p lo t s c o r r e c t ly i d e n t i f i e d 100% o f th e c u lt i v a r s e x p r e s s in g th e h ig h ­
e s t v a lu e s in th e row p lo t s fo r p erce n t p r o t e i n . ' S e le c t io n o f th e to p
25% e n t r ie s f o r p erce n t p r o te in c o r r e c t ly id e n t i f i e d 83% o f th e high
p r o te in c u lt iv a r s . in 'b o th sm a ll p l o t s .
F i f t y p e r c e n t s e l e c t i o n in t e n ­
s i t y c o r r e c t ly c l a s s i f i e d 83 and 92% o f th e e n t r ie s in h i l l p lot's and
m ic r o p lo ts , r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r p e r c e n t p r o t e in .
On th e b a s is o f common
e n t r i e s , both h i l l and m ic r o p lo ts sh o u ld p rovid e s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s '
i f used in s te a d o f row p lo t s to o b ta in in fo rm a tio n on p erce n t p r o t e in .
The m ic r o p lo ts showed th e g r e a t e s t s e l e c t i o n p o t e n t ia l fo r mixo­
gram peak d is t a n c e and peak h e ig h t , e s p e c i a l l y a t th e 50% s e l e c t i o n
82
Table 2 3 . P h en otyp ic c o r r e la t io n s betw een row and sm a ll p lo t s fo r
p erce n t p r o t e in , mixogram peak d is t a n c e , and peak h e ig h t .
P lo t Type
T r a it
P r o te in
H ill
O.96**
Micro
0.93**
Peak d is ta n c e
O.79**
0 . 78**
Peak h e ig h t
0.4 8 *
0.49*
* ,* * S i g n if i c a n t a t th e 0 . 0 5 and 0.0 1 l e v e l s , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Table 24 . P ercen t o f sm a ll p lo t e n t r ie s common to th e to p 1 0 , 25,
and 5 Q^ e n t r ie s grown in th e row p lo t s f o r p ercen t p r o t e in , m ixo. gram peak d is t a n c e , and peak h e ig h t .
P lo t Type
T r a it
P r o te in
10
. 100
H ill
25
83,.
■
.
50t
83
10
100
Micro
25
83
30
92
67
83
Peak d is ta n c e
■ 0
33
83
. 0
Peak h e ig h t
• 0
33
38
0
'I ?
t S e le c t io n i n t e n s i t i e s u sed in the- com parison o f row and sm a ll
p lo ts .
67
in te n s ity .
C o r r e la tio n s fo r peak h e ig h t between th e row and sm a ll p lo t s
were p o s it iv e and s i g n i f i c a n t but low er th an th o se f o r p erce n t p r o t e in
and peak d is ta n c e (T able 2 3 ) .
However, s e l e c t i o n e f f i c i e n c y in sm a ll
p lo t s f o r t h i s t r a i t co u ld be improved by s im u lta n e o u sly c o n s id e r in g
p erce n t p r o t e in , s in c e both peak h e ig h t and p ercen t p r o t e in p rovid e an
in d ic a t io n o f baking a b so r p tio n ( 1 3 , 2 2 ) .
R e la tiv e V a r ia tio n W ithin P lo t - S iz e Experim ents
The range in perform ance fo r p e r c e n t p r o t e in , mixogram peak d i s ­
ta n c e , and peak h e ig h t were s im ila r f o r th e h i l l and row p l o t s , but th e
range o f th e s e t r a i t s was n o t ic e a b ly lo w er in th e m ic r o p lo ts (T able 25)..
Other in v e s t ig a t o r s have shown th e range in perform ance fo r agronomic
t r a i t s measured in h i l l p lo t s was w ider than when th o se t r a i t s were
measured in row p lo t s ( 3 2 , 3 9 ) .
The s i z e o f th e c o e f f i c i e n t s o f v a r ia t io n in th e two sm a ll p lo t
ty p e s fo r th e th r e e q u a lit y t r a i t s were s im ila r w ith th o se o b ta in ed ■
from th e row p lo t s (T able 2 5 ) .
E rror v a r ia n c e s f o r a l l o f th e t r a i t s
were homogeneous betw een .the sm a ll and row p lo t s (Appendix Table 2 ) , and,
e x c e p t f o r p erce n t p r o te in measured in th e h i l l p l o t s , a l l means were
e q u a l. between th e row and sm a ll p lo t s (T ab le 2 2 ) .
Comparison o f C u ltiv a r Mixogram P a tte r n s Between P lo t Types
In a d d it io n to p r o v id in g in fo rm a tio n on baking m ixing req u irem en ts
and m ixing t o le r a n c e , th e mixogram p a tte r n has q u a lit a t iv e c h a r a c te r ­
i s t i c s th a t are fu n c tio n s o f c u lt i v a r d if f e r e n c e s ( 2 2 ) .
P a tte r n s from ■
f lo u r s o f known baking q u a l i t i e s can be compared w ith p a tte r n s produced
84
Table 2 5 . C o e f f ic ie n t s o f v a r ia t io n (C . V . ) , standard e r r o r s ( s ) ,
o v e r a ll means ( X ) , and range o f perform ance (R) f o r p erce n t p ro t e i n , mixogram peak d is t a n c e , and peak h e ig h t measured in row and
sm a ll p l o t s .
T r a it
P r o te in {%)
C.V. ( # )
■ S
. X .
R
Peak d is ta n c e (cm)
C.V. ( # )
S
X
R
Peak h e ig h t (cm)
C.V. ( # )
s ■
X
R
Row
P lo t Type
H ill
Micro
2 .2 0
0.30
13.50
3 .4 8
2 .1 0
0.29
13.80
3 .6 1
2 .1 0
0.29
1 3 .6 0
3 .0 5
9 .7 0
0.3 6
3 .7 0
2 .0 0
8 .5 0
0 .20
3 .9 0
1.60
1 1 .1 0
0.64
5 .80
2 .3 0
9 .4 0
0.5 8
6 .2 0
1 .2 0
7.80
0.28
3 .6 0
2 .1 0
10.60
0.63
5 .9 0
1.90.
.
85
by ex p erim en ta l l i n e s , and th e d if f e r e n c e s between p a tte r n s can be
u sed a s a c r i t e r i o n f o r s e l e c t i o n ( 1 4 ) .
F ig . 2 shows mixograms produced from fo u r c u lt i v a r s grown in th e
th r e e p lo t t y p e s .
'W in a lta ,'
'G en tu r k ,'' and 'MT 6928' are hard red
w in ter w heats o f s im ila r p r o t e in c o n te n t.
They d i f f e r in d is ta n c e
to p eak , w ith 'G enturk' showing th e s m a lle s t and 'MT.6928' th e la r g e s t
v a lu e s a c r o s s p lo t ty p e s (Appendix Table 1 9 ), and peak h e ig h t , w ith
'MT 6928' show ing th e s m a lle s t v a lu e a c r o s s p lo t ty p e s (Appendix Table
2 0 ).
'W in a lta ' i s a q u a lit y stan d ard in Montana, and p a tte r n s from
c u lt i v a r s or ex p erim en ta l l i n e s are compared to th e 'W in alta' p a tte r n
f o r s e l e c t i o n p u r p o se s.
'N u g a in es' i s a s o f t w hite w in te r wheat w ith low p r o t e in co n ten t
.and low a b s o r p tio n , c h a r a c t e r is t ic s s u it a b le in th e m anufacture o f p a s­
t r i e s and r e la t e d p rod u cts ( 1 5 ) .
I t s mixogram p a tte r n i s in clu d ed in
F ig . 2 to show th e s i m i l a r i t i e s a c r o s s p lo t t y p e s .
A s s o c ia t io n o f Mixogram Data With Other Q u a lity T r a its
C o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s between a l l p o s s ib le com b in ation s o f th e
th r e e q u a lit y c h a r a c t e r is t ic s measured in a l l p lo t ty p e s p lu s th e fo u r
f a r in o graph t r a i t s measured in th e row p lo t s were computed to determ ine
i f th e ty p e s o f p erce n t p r o t e in , mixo graph, and fa rin o g ra p h i n t e r - r e ­
la t i o n s h ip s in th e row p lo t s a ls o occu rred in th e sm a ll .p lo t s (T ab les
26 to 2 8 ) .
The tr a n sfo rm a tio n from r t o a q u a n tity z , a s g iv e n by
.Snedecor and Cochran ( 4 0 ) , was u sed to " t e s t th e h y p o th e sis th a t two
86
\
nn .,VUimmtKBme
m
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ ^\
F ig . 2 . E f f e c t s o f tem pered (13.5% mb) s ie v e d wheat meal on
dough developm ent u sin g fo u r w in ter wheat c u lt i v a r s grown
in row, h i l l , and m ic r o p lo ts . V alues under cu rves are th e
mean p erce n t p r o te in fo r each p lo t t y p e .
8?
sample v a lu e s o f r were drawn a t random from th e same p o p u la tio n
W ithin th e row p lo t ex p erim en t, p e r c e n t p r o te in was s i g n i f i c a n t l y
c o r r e la te d w ith f a r in o gram a b so r p tio n and v a lo r im e te r v a lu e (Table. 26)
Mixogram peak h e ig h t was p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c ia t e d w ith
farinogram a b s o r p tio n , s t a b i l i t y , and v a lo r im e te r v a lu e .
Shuey (3 4 )
r e p o r te d t h a t farinogram peak tim e was h ig h ly c o r r e la t e d w ith crude
p r o te in ( r = 0 .8 8 ) , but t h i s r e la t io n s h ip was n ot o b se r v e d , p o s s ib ly
■due to th e narrow range in p r o te in c o n te n t o f c u lt i v a r s used in t h i s
stu d y .
The s i g n i f i c a n t p o s it iv e a s s o c ia t io n between p e r c e n t p r o te in
and farinogram v a lo r im e te r v a lu e has been rep o rted in th e l i t e r a t u r e
(3 4 ).
H ig h ly s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e la t io n s betw een s e v e r a l f a r ­
inogram t r a i t s were a ls o found, but b ecause th e s e measurements are
g e n e r a lly e v a lu a te d s e p a r a t e ly by th e c e r e a l c h e m is t, no fu r th e r i n ­
v e s t ig a t io n o f th e s e r e la t io n s h ip s was made.
The c o r r e la t io n s among
q u a lit y t r a i t s in sm all, p lo t s common to th o se in th e row p lo t s w e r e ,
homogeneous (T a b les 27 and 2 8 ) .
Q u a lity in fo rm a tio n o b ta in ed from th e sm a ll p lo t s e x h ib ite d r e l a ­
t io n s h ip s n o t ex p ressed by row p lo t q u a lit y in fo r m a tio n , su ch as th e
h ig h , p o s i t i v e c o r r e la t io n between h i l l p lo t mixogram peak h e ig h t and
farinogram s t a b i l i t y .
T his r e l a t io n s h i p in d ic a te d t h a t mixogram peak
h e ig h t would p rovid e some in d ic a t io n o f th e f l o u r ' s to le r a n c e to mix­
in g (T ab le 2 7 ) .
The p o s i t i v e r e l a t io n s h ip s .between p r o t e in 'conten t
and farinogram peak tim e and s t a b i l i t y were s im ila r t o v a lu e s 'repbr-:
T
atxL
e 26. Correlations am
ong seven quality characteristics of winter w
heat grow
n in
rowplots.
C h a r a c t e r is t ic
P ercen t p r o t e in
(PRO)
Mixogram peak d is ta n c e
(PKD)Mixogram peak h e ig h t
(PKH)
Farinogram a b so r p tio n
(FAB) .
Farihogram peak tim e
(FPT)
Farinogram s t a b i l i t y
(FST)
Farinogram v a lb r im e te r
' (FVA)
PRO "
1 .0 0
- 0 .1 6
PKD
PKH
FAB
FPT
•
FST
1 .0 0
0 .3 8 .
- 0 .1 9
1 .0 0
0 . 51*
-0 .2 ?
0 . 58**
1 .0 0
0 .4 0
0.39
0.39
0.28
1 .0 0
0.38
0.2?
• 0 .4 5 *
0.1?
0 . 70**
1.00
0.40
0.6$**
0 .57**
0.52*
FVA
- 0 .1 1
0 .$ 4 * *
Significant at the 0.0$ and. 0.01 levels, respectively.
1 .0 0
Table 27. Correlations am
ong seven quality characteristics of winter w
heat grow
n in
hill, plots.
C h a r a c t e r is t ic
P ercen t p r o te in
(PRO)' .
Mixogram peak d is ta n c e
(PKD)
Mixogram peak h e ig h t (PKH)
Farinogram a b so r p tio n
(FAB) '
Farinogram p ea k .tim e
(FPT)
Farinogram s t a b i l i t y
(FST)
Farinogram v a lo r im e te r
(FVA).
PRO
1 .0 0
PKD
-0 .0 9
1 .0 0
0 .4 8 *
0.20
0.52*
-0 .1 2
0 .4 4 *
0 .4 2 *
0 . 56**
PKH
FAB
FPT
FST
1 .0 0
0 .4 3 *
1 .00
0 .3 1
0.55**
0.28
1 .0 0
0.32
0.52*
0 .1 ?
0 . 70**
1 .0 0
0 .6 5 * * .
0 .4 0
0.65**
0.57**
-0 .1 3
*,** Significant at the 0.05' and 0.01 levels, respectively.
Table 28. Correlations am
ong seven quality characteristics of winter w
heat grow
n in
microplots
C h a r a c t e r is t ic
PRO
1 .0 0
P ercen t p r o te in
(PRO)
0 .1 1
Mixogram peak d is ta n c e
(PKD)
0 . 0?
Mixogram peak h e ig h t
(PKH)
Farinogram a b so r p tio n
0 .3 8
(FAB)
Farinogram peak tim e
0 .3 3
(FPT)
Farinogram s t a b i l i t y
0 .3 1
(FST)
F a rin o g ra m ,v a lo rim eter . 0 .4 4 *
(FVA)
PKD
PKH
FAB
FPT
FST
FVA
1 .0 0
0 .0 8
1 .0 0 ■
- 0 .3 0
0 ,2 5
1 .0 0
0 .3 8
0 .4 0
0 .2 8
1 .0 0
0 .4 ? *
0 .3 9
0 .1 7
0 . 70**
1 .0 0
0 .0 8
.. 0 .5 6 * *
0 .4 0
0 .6 5 * *
0 . 57* * -
*,** Significant at the 0.05 and 0,01 levels, respectively.
I.PO
91
te d in th e l i t e r a t u r e ( 3 4 ) .
C o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s o b ta in ed from
m icr o p lo t q u a lit y d a ta d id n ot a g ree a s c l o s e l y w ith th o se o b ta in ed in
th e row p lo t s a s d id th e h i l l p lo t d a ta (T able 2 8 ) .
. R e p lic a te d V ersus Bulk Mixogram Data
The mixograph in fo rm a tio n (peak d is ta n c e and peak h e ig h t ) u t i l i z e d
in t h i s in v e s t ig a t i o n was o b ta in ed from r e p lic a t e d g r a in sam ples from
each p lo t t y p e . . A bulk o f th e r e p l i c a t e s was a ls o u sed to o b ta in m ixogram peak d is t a n c e and peak h e ig h t and c o r r e la t io n c o e f f i c i e n t s were
computed w ith in p lo t ty p e s betw een th e r e p lic a t e d and bulked v a lu e s
f o r th e s e t r a i t s (T able 2 9 ) .
C o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s were p o s i t i v e and h ig h ly s i g n i f i c a n t f o r
both peak d is ta n c e and peak h e ig h t f o r a l l but th e m ic r o p lo t s .
These
r e s u l t s in d ic a t e th e s u i t a b i l i t y o f u s in g bulked gprain sam ples from
row and h i l l p lo t s when in fo rm a tio n on mixogram peak d is ta n c e and peak
h e ig h t are n eed ed .
In form ation on peak d is ta n c e o b ta in ed from th e
m icr o p lo t g r a in sam ples in d ic a te d t h a t r e p l ic a t io n o f mixograms fo r
t h i s p lo t ty p e would be n e c e s s a r y to o b ta in s im ila r r e s u l t s when d e­
term in in g peak h e ig h t .
The c o r r e la t io n s o f mixo gram in fo rm a tio n o b ta in ed from bulked
sam ples o f wheat w ith p erce n t p r o t e in and row p lo t faririogram d ata
w ith in each p lo t ty p e are p r e se n te d in Table 3 0 .
A com parison o f th e s e
q u a lit y r e l a t io n s h ip s w ith th e r e la t io n s h ip s e x h ib ite d u s in g r e p l i c a ­
te d g r a in sam ples (T a b les 26 to 2 8 ) showed t h a t most q u a lit y i n t e r - '
92
r e la t io n s h ip s were m aintained-.
The d if f e r e n c e s t h a t d id occur were: .
row p lo t mixogram peak h e ig h t and farinogram peak tim e were' u n r e la te d
in th e r e p lic a t e d sa m p les, but a s i g n i f i c a n t , p o s i t i v e r e la t io n s h ip
was d e te c t e d f o r th e s e t r a i t s u s in g bulked g ra in sam p les;
in th e h i l l
p l o t s , p o s i t i v e a s s o c ia t io n s betw een mixogram peak h e ig h t and fa rin o ,gram peak tim e and s t a b i l i t y were- d e t e c t e d u sin g r e p lic a t e d sam p les,
but n ot in th e bulk sam ples; and r e la t io n s h ip s betw een mixogram peak
d is ta n c e and farinogram peak tim e and mixogram peak h e ig h t and f a r in o ­
gram a b so r p tio n were n ot d e te c te d in r e p lic a t e d m icro p lo t sa m p les, but
s i g n i f i c a n t , p o s i t i v e c o r r e la t io n s were o b ta in ed from th e bulk sa m p le s.
93
Table 2 9 . C o r r e la tio n s betw een bulk and r e p lic a t e d d a ta f o r mixogram
peak d is ta n c e and peak h e ig h t tak en from row and sm a ll p l o t s .
P lo t Type
Row
Mixogram C h a r a c t e r is t ic
P eak.
Peak
D ista n c e
H eigh t
0.7 8 * *
0 .7 3 * *
H ill
O.78**
0 . 76** '■
Micro
0 .8 2 * *
0 .4 9 *
* ,* * S i g n if i c a n t a t th e 0 ,0 5 and 0 .0 1 l e v e l s , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
T a tle 3 0 . C o r r e la tio n s betw een bulked mixogram in fo rm a tio n and o th e r q u a lit y c h a r a c te r ­
i s t i c s o f w in te r wheat c u l t i v a r s grown i n row and sm a ll p l o t s . ■
T r a it
P ercen t p r o t e in
■
Farinogram a b so r p tio n
'______________________ P lo t Type ________________
______Row________
________H i l l _______
______ Micro______
Peak
• Peak
Peak'
Peak
Peak
Peak
D ista n c e
D ista n c e
H eigh t
H eigh t
D ista n c e
H eigh t
0 .2 ?
- 0 .1 2
0 .5 0 *
.0 .0 8
0 .3 0
- 0 .3 5
- 0 .3 9
O.54.**
- 0 .1 5
0 .4 3 *
-0 .2 3
0 .37**
Farinogram peak tim e
0 .2 1
0 .4 5 *
0 .2 7
0 .4 0
0.5 1 *
0 . 51*
Farinogram s t a b i l i t y
0 .1 1
0 .4 4 *
0 .3 2
0 .3 6
0.62**
0 .3 3
- 0 .3 0
0 .6 8 * *
0 .0 1
0 .5 2 * *
0 .1 0
0 .4 0
Farinogram v a lo r imet e r .
* ,* * S i g n if i c a n t a t th e 0 .0 5 and 0 .0 1 l e v e l s , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
SUMMARY
F lo u r p r o t e in c o n te n t and mixograph in fo rm a tio n (p eak d is ta n c e
and peak h e ig h t ) were o b ta in ed from' w in te r wheat c u lt i v a r s grow n'in
c o n v e n tio n a l row p lo t s and two t y p e s . o f sm a ll p lo t and a com parison
was made, between them .
A ten-gram m ixograph, u sin g s ie v e d wheat m eal,
was adopted to d eterm ine d is ta n c e to peak and peak h e ig h t and to com­
pare c u lt i v a r curve p a t t e r n s .
T h is in v e s t ig a t i o n has shown t h a t e i t h e r h i l l or m ic r o p lo ts would
p rovid e s a t i s f a c t o r y in fo rm a tio n on p r o t e in c o n te n t and mixogram ch a r­
a c t e r i s t i c s , e s p e c i a l l y when th e number o f e n t r ie s i s la r g e or when
th e amount o f se e d and la n d a v a ila b le i s lim it e d , such a s in e a r ly
g e n e r a tio n s o f a b reed in g program.
OVERALL SUMMARY
T w en ty-three w in ter wheat c u lt i v a r s were e v a lu a te d in h i l l , m icr o -,
m in i- , and row p lo t s grown under d rylan d c o n d itio n s in 1978.
In a d d i­
t i o n , th e h i l l and m ic r o p lo ts were ir r ig a t e d th ree tim e s d u rin g th e
■growing sea so n in n u r s e r ie s s e p a r a te from t h e i r d rylan d c o u n te r p a r ts .
Comparisons o f th e s e s m a ll.p lo t s w ith th e row p lo t s were made u t i l i z i n g
t h ir t e e n agronomic and fo u r q u a lit y c h a r a c t e r is t ic s a s c r i t e r i a fo r
d eterm in in g t h e i r s u i t a b i l i t y a s a lt e r n a t i v e s t o .t h e row p lo t s in win­
t e r wheat r e s e a r c h .
A ll p lo t n u r s e r ie s were damaged by wind and h a i l s i x d a y s .a f t e r th e
l a s t c u lt i v a r had headed.
An e v a lu a tio n o f t h i s damage, u sin g te n o f
th e 23 c u l t i v a r s , determ ined th a t c u lt i v a r s grown in th e sm a ll p lo t
n u r s e r ie s r e a c te d to h a il-in d u c e d head damage and w ind- and h a il-in d u c e d
lo d g in g in a manner s im ila r to th e c u lt i v a r s grown in th e row p lo ts ,.
Comparisons o f th e sm a ll p lo t s v e r su s th e row p lo t s u sin g o v e r a ll
means, p h en o ty p ic c o r r e la t io n s betw een row and sm a ll p l o t s , f a n g e s ,
00-.
e f f i c i e n t s o f v a r ia t io n , and th e p ercen ta g e o f e n t r ie s that.' were com­
mon in th e extrem e 10, 2 5 , and 50% o f th e p o p u la tio n in d ic a te d th a t ■
th e h i l l , m ic r o -, and m in ip lo ts were s u it a b le , a lt e r n a t i v e s to row p lo t s
to d is c r im in a te among c u lt i v a r s f o r h ead in g d a te , p la n t h e ig h t , seed
w e ig h t, and h a r v e st in d e x .
The h i l l and m icr o p lo ts were a s e f f i c i e n t
a s th e row p lo t s in id e n t if y i n g w in te r w h ea t. c u lt iv a r s f o r p ercen t
f lo u r p r o te in and mixogram c h a r a c t e r is t ic s (peak d is t a n c e , peak h e ig h t ,
97.
and curve p a t t e r n ) .
No advantage u s in g ir r ig a t e d h i l l and ir r ig a t e d
m ic r o p lo ts was d e t e c t e d .
The' c u lt i v a r s grown in th e d rylan d h i l l p lo t s were l e s s v ig o r o u s ,
in term s o f p la n t h e ig h t , number o f h e a d s /9 0 0 .cm2 , and g r a in . y i e l d ,
th an th o se grown in th e row p lo ts .. . R e la tio n s h ip s betw een agronomic
and q u a lit y c h a r a c t e r is t ic s w ith in sm a ll p lo t ty p e s d if f e r e d su b sta n ­
t i a l l y from th e s e r e la t io n s h ip s in th e row p lo t n u rsery and t h i s was
a t t r ib u t e d t o th e d i f f e r e n t i a l a b i l i t y o f c u lt i v a r s to compete w ith in
and betw een ex p erim en ta l u n i t s .
The r e l a t i v e im portance o f h a r v e st in d ex and b i o l o g i c a l y ie ld to
g r a in y ie ld w ith in p lo t ty p e s was determ ined u sin g m u ltip le r e g r e s s io n
a n a ly s is .
H arvest in d ex and b i o l o g i c a l y ie ld accou n ted f o r 95 to 99%
o f th e v a r ia t io n in g r a in y i e l d a c r o s s p lo t ty p es and th e r a t i o s o f
t h e i r stand ard p a r t i a l r e g r e s s io n c o e f f i c i e n t s in d ic a te d th a t h a rv est
in d ex was more im portant than b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d in d eterm in in g g ra in
y i e l d e x c e p t in th e d rylan d h i l l and m ic r o p lo ts , where b oth .h a rv est
in d ex and b i o l o g i c a l y i e l d were o f eq u a l im p ortan ce.
LITERATURE CITED
1.
A lla r d , R.W. i 9 6 0 . P r in c ip le s o f p la n t b reed in g . John W iley and
S o n s, I n c . New York, London, Sydney, p . 180.
2.
American A s s o c ia t io n o f C erea l C h em ists. 1962. Approved methods
o f th e AACC. The A s s o c ia tio n s S t . P a u l, Minn.
3.
Baker, R .J . and D1 L e i s l e . 1970. Comparison o f h i l l and rod row
p lo t s in common and durum w h e a ts. Crop S c i . 10: 5 8 1 -5 8 3 .
4.
B a ld r id g e , D .E. 1959• An ex am in ation o f th e wheat meal ferm en ta - ■
t i o n tim e t e s t a s a t o o l f o r e v a lu a tin g th e q u a lit y o f red
h a r d .w in te r wheat Eg d e r iv e d l i n e s . M.S. T h e s is . Montana
S t a t e U n iv e r s it y . '4? p .
5.
B la c k , J .N . and D .J . W atson, i 9 6 0 . P h o to sy n th e sis and th e th e o r y
o f o b ta in in g h ig h crop y i e l d s , by A,A. N ic ip o r o v ic . F ie ld
Crop A b s tr . 13: 1 69-175.
6.
B o n n e tt, O.T. and W.M. B e v e r . 1947. H e a d -h ill method o f p la n tin g
head s e l e c t i o n s o f sm a ll g r a in s . Agron. J . 39: 4 4 2 -4 4 5 .
7.
Bruinsm a, B .L ., P.D . A nderson, and G.L. R u b en th a ler. 1978. Rapid.
method to d eterm ine q u a lit y o f wheat w ith th e mixograph.
C erea l Chem. 55: 7 3 2 -7 3 5 .
8.
D onald, C.M. 1962. In sea rch o f y i e l d . A u s t. I n s t . A gr. S c i 1 28:
. 17 1 -1 7 8 .
9.
D onald, G .M ..I9 6 8 . The b reed in g o f crop id e o t y p e s . E u p hytica 17:
3 8 5 -4 0 3 .
10.
D onald, C.M. and J . Ham blin. 1976. The b io lo g i c a l y i e l d and h ar­
v e s t in d ex o f c e r e a ls a s agronom ic and p la n t b reed in g c r i t e r ­
i a . Adv. A gron. 28: 3 6 1 -4 0 5 .
11.
Ergun, Y1 1971. Comparison o f h i l l and row p lo t s f o r e v a lu a tin g
g en otyp es and th e e f f e c t o f m issin g a rea s on p lo t y ie ld o f
s p r in g wheat ( T riticu m a estiv u m L . ) . M.S. T h e s is . N. Dak.
S t a t e U n iv . 45 p .
12.
E vans, L .T . and I .F , Wardlaw. 1976. A sp ects o f th e com parative
p h y sio lo g y o f g r a in y i e l d in c e r e a ls . Adv. A gron. 28: 3 0 1 -
359.
99
.1 3 .
F in n ey , K .F. 19^5. Methods o f e s tim a tin g and th e e f f e c t o f v a r i- '
e t y and p r o t e in l e v e l on th e ta k in g a b so r p tio n o f f lo u r .
C erea l Chem. 22: 1 4 9-158.
14.
F in n ey , K.F. and M1D. S h o g ren , 1972. A ten-gram mixograph fo r d e ­
term in in g and p r e d ic tin g f u n c t io n a l p r o p e r tie s o f wheat
f l o u r s . B a k er's D ig e s t 4 6 ( 2 ) : 32-35» 3 8 -4 2 , 77.
15.
F in n ey , K.F. and W.T. Yamazaki. I 9 6 7 . Q u a lity o f h ard , s o f t , and
durum w h e a ts. In Wheat and Wheat Improvement. Agronomy Mono­
graph No. 13, chap. 14. American S o c ie ty o f Agronomy. Madison
WI.
16.
F is c h e r , R .A. and Z . K e r te s z . 1976. H arvest in d ex in spaced popu­
l a t i o n s and g r a in w eigh t in m ic r o p lo ts a s in d ic a t o r s o f
■ y ie ld in g a b i l i t y in s p r in g w heat. Crop S c i . 16: 5 5 -5 9 .
17.
F re y , K .J. I 9 6 5 . The u t i l i t y o f h i l l p lo t s in o a t r e s e a r c h . Euphyt i c a 14: 1 9 6 -2 0 8 .
18.
G uenther, W.C. 1973. C oncepts o f s t a t i s t i c a l in f e r e n c e . (2nd E d .) .
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
19.
J e llu m , M. D. , C.M. Brown, and R. D. S e i f . 1 9 6 3. H i l l and row p lo t
com parisons f o r y i e l d in o a t s . Crop S c i 1 3: 194—196.
20.
J en sen , N .F , and D .S . Robson. I 9 6 9 . M iniature p lo t s f o r c e r e a l
■ t e s t i n g . Crop S c i . 9: 2 8 8 -2 8 9 ,
21.
Johnson, J .A ., J r . , and C.0 . Swanson. 1942. The t e s t i n g o f .wheat
q u a lit y by r e c o r d in g dough m ixer cu rves o b ta in ed from s i f t e d
wheat m e a ls. C erea l Chem. 2 1 6 -2 2 9 .
22.
Johnson-, J .A . J r-., C.O. Swanson, and E.G. B a y f ie ld . 1943. The c o r ­
r e l a t i o n o f mixo grams w ith baking r e s u l t s . C erea l Chem. 20:
6 2 5 -6 4 4 .
23.
Khadr, F .H ., A.A. Kassem, and A.A. E lK h ish en . 1970. H i l l v ersu s
row p lo t f o r t e s t i n g w h e a t .lin e s . Crop S c i . 10: 4 4 9 -4 5 0 .
24.
M ille r , B .S ., B. H ays, and J .A . Johnson. 1956. C o r r e la tio n o f f a r in o graph, mixo graph, se d im e n ta tio n , and b ak in g d a ta fo r hardred w in te r wheat- f lo u r sam ples v a ry in g w id e ly in q u a lit y .
C erea l Chem. 338- 2 7 7 -2 9 0 .
100
25.
M orris, V .H ., G.E. Bode, and H.K. H e iz e r , 1944, The u se o f th e
mixogram in e v a lu a t in g q u a lit y in s o f t wheat v a r i e t i e s . C erea l
Chem. 21: 4 9 -5 ? .
26.
H ass, H.G. 1973. D eterm in a tio n o f c h a r a c te r s f o r y i e l d s e l e c t i o n
in s p r in g w heat. Can. J . P la n t S c i . 53: 7 5 5 -? 6 2 .
2?.
N orton, J . B. 190?. N otes on b reed in g o a t s . Amer. B reeders A ss o c .
B ep . 3: 2 8 0 -2 8 5 .
28.
Park, S . J . , E 1 E e in b e r g s , and L .S .P . Song. 19??. Grain y ie ld and
i t s components in s p r in g b a r le y under row and h i l l p lo t con­
d i t i o n s . E u p h ytica 26: 5 2 1 -5 2 6 .
29.
R o s i e l l e , A.A. and K.J . F rey . 1975• E stim a tes o f s e l e c t i o n para­
m eters a s s o c ia t e d w ith h a r v e st in d ex in o a t l i n e s d eriv ed
from a bulk p o p u la tio n . E u p hytica 24: 1 2 1 -1 3 1 .
30.
R o s i e l l e , A.A. and K. J. F rey . 1975. A p p lic a tio n o f r e s t r i c t e d s e ­
l e c t i o n in d ic e s f o r g r a in y i e l d improvement in o a t s . Crop
S c i . 15: 5 4 4 -5 4 7 .
31.
R o ss, W.M. and J .B . M ille r . 1955. A com parison o f h i l l and conven­
t i o n a l y i e l d t e s t s u s in g o a ts and s p r in g b a r le y . A gron. J .
4 ?: 253- 255.
32.
S ch u tz, W.M. and C.A. Brim. 196?. I n te r -g e n o ty p ic co m p e titio n in
s o y b e a n s . I . E v a lu a tio n o f e f f e c t s and proposed f i e l d p lo t
d e s ig n . Crop S c i . ?: 3 7 1 -3 7 6 .
33.
S e a r l e , S .R . 1965-. The v a lu e o f in d ir e c t s e l e c t i o n ; I . Mass s e l e c ­
t i o n . B io m e tr ics 2 1 (3 ): 6 8 2 -7 0 ? .
34.
Shuey, W.C. ( E d .) . 1972. The f a r in o graph handbook. American A sso c­
i a t i o n o f C erea l C h em ists, I n c . S t . P a u l, Minn. ?1 p.
35.
Shuey, W.C. and K.A. G i l l e s . 1966. E f f e c t o f s p r in g s e t t i n g s and
a b so r p tio n on mixograms f o r m easuring dough c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
C erea l Chem. 43: 9 4 -1 0 3 .
36.
S im s, H .J . I 9 6 3 . Changes in th e hay p ro d u ctio n and th e h a rv est i n - '
d ex o f A u s tr a lia n o a t v a r i e t i e s . A u s t. J . Exp. A gr. Anim.
Husb1 3: 19 8 -2 0 2 .
37.
S in g h , T .P . 1977. H arvest in d ex in l e n t i l ( Lens c u li n a r is M ed ik .).
E u p h ytica 26: 8 3 3 -8 3 9 .
101
38.
S in g h , I . D. and N.C. S to s k o p f . 1971. H arvest in d ex in c e r e a ls '.
A gron. J . 63: 2 2 4 -2 2 6 .
3 9 . ■ S m ith , O .D ., R.A. K le e s e , and D.D. Stuthm an. 1970. C om petition
among o a t v a r i e t i e s grown in h i l l p l o t s . Crop S c i . 10: 3 8 1 -
384.
40.
S n ed eco r, G.W. and W.G. Cochran. 1974. S t a t i s t i c a l methods ( 6th
e d . ) . The Iowa S ta te U n iv . P r e s s . Ames, Iowa, 593 p .
41.
Swanson, C.0 . 1936. P h y s ic a l t e s t s t o determ ine q u a lit y in wheat
v a r i e t i e s . C erea l Chem1 13: 17 9 -2 0 1 .
42.
Swanson, C.0 . 1939. V a r ia tio n s in dough-developm ent c u r v e s . C erea l
Chem. 16: 6 2 5 -6 4 3 .
43.
Swanson, 0 . 0 . 1940. F a c to r s which in flu e n c e th e p h y s ic a l p rop er­
t i e s o f dough. I . E f f e c t s o f a u t o ly s is on th e c h a r a c t e r is t ic s
o f dough m ixer, c u r v e s . C erea l Chem1 17: 6 7 9 -6 8 9 .
44.
Swanson, C.O. and J .A . Johnson. 1943.. D e s c r ip tio n o f mixograms.
C erea l Chem.. 20: 3 9 -4 2 .
45.
Swanson, C.O. and E .B . Working. 1933. T e s tin g th e q u a lit y o f f lo u r
by th e r e c o r d in g dough m ixer. C erea l Chem. 1 0 ( l ) : 1 -2 9 .
46.
Syme, J-.R1 1970. A h ig h - y ie ld in g Mexican sem i-d w arf wheat and th e
r e la t io n s h i p o f y i e l d to h a r v e st in d ex and o th e r v a r i e t a l
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A u s t. J . Exp. A g r ic . Anim1 Husb1 10: 35 0 -
353. .
47.
Syme, J .R . 1972. S in g le - p la n t c h a r a c te r s a s a measure o f f i e l d
p lo t perform ance o f wheat c u l t i v a r s . A u s t. J . A g r ic 1 R es. 23:
753-760.
48.
Takeda, K. an d -K .J. F rey . 1976. C o n tr ib u tio n s o f v e g e t a t iv e growth
r a t e and h a r v e st in d ex to g r a in y ie ld o f p r o g e n ie s from Avena
s a t iv a X A^ s t e r i l i s c r o s s e s . Crop S c i . 16: 8 1 7 -8 2 1 .
49.
Takeda, K1 and K .J . F rey . 1977• Growth r a te in h e r ita n c e arid a s s o c ­
i a t i o n s w ith o th e r t r a i t s in back cross p o p u la tio n s o f Avena
s a t iv a A. s t e r i l i s . E u p h y tica . 26: 3 0 9 -3 1 7 .
50.
Z a lik , S . and M. O sta fic h n u k . i 9 6 0 . Note on a method o f a p p r a iz in g
mixogram d a ta . C erea l Chem. 37: 105-106.■
APPENDIX
10 3
Appendix Table I . W inter wheat c u l t I v a x s » e n tr y , and a c c e s s io n numbers'
u sed t o compare row and sm a ll p l o t s .
E ntry
number
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 .
19 .
20 .
21
22
23
G u ltiv a r
W in alta
Genturk
Cheyenne
W arrior
Winoka
H ip la in s
Sundance
Trapper
Lancer
N ugaines
Wanser
F roid
O rest
Roughrider
Advanced l i n e (TX 55-391-56-D8/WMT n - 4 - 3 ) .
Advanced l i n e (YG/CNN 11-5-5//Y G SS 4662 2 0 - 4 - 1 - 1 )
Advanced l i n e (LCR/WLT 1 0 2 -4 -1 4 )
Advanced l i n e (MT 6319 *2/LCR)
Advanced l i n e ( rg/ cnn 39-18-7//W LT)
Maria's I I
B ohls S e le c t io n
NAPB 1289
Rocky
A c c e ssio n
number
Gi 13670
Gi 15075
Cl 8885
Gi 13190
Cl 14000
Cl 17262
c i 15327
' Cl 13990
Cl 13547
Cl 13968
' -Cl 13844
■ c i 13872
Cl 13880
c i 17439
MT 6928
'MT 7216
MT 7244
MT ■ 7420
MT 7431
MT 7801
MT 7802
NA .1289
NA 1316
A
ppendix Table 2.
traits.
C
om
parison of error m
ean squares betw
een rowand sm
all plots for 16
T r a it
Days t o emergence
F a l l c o lo r
S p rin g c o lo r
F a l l growth h a b it
S p rin g growth h a b it .
H eading d a te
P la n t h e ig h t
H eads/900 cm^
S eed s/h ea d
1 0 0 -s e e d w eig h t
Y ie ld
H a rv est in d e x '
B io l o g ic a l y i e l d
P ercen t p r o t e in
Mixogram peak d is t a n c e
Mixogram peak h e ig h t
Row-D .
0 .3 0
0 .1 2
0 .2 3
0 .2 6
0 .2 2
0 .3 0
1 1 .2 0
99.60
9 .7
0 .0 3
18.0,0
0 .0 0 1
9 1 .4
H ill-I
—
—
—
‘--—
1 5 .2 2
1 2 6 .0 2
30.77
0 .0 6
P lo t Typet
H ill-D
M icro-I
—
2.05 **
—
0 .1 9 .
0 .1 5
—
0.32
0 .4 5 *
1 .2 0 **
—
**
27.04
**
1 6 .3 1 **
1 6 2 .1 3 *
75.24
-X-X4 5 .4 1 **
29.02 **
*
0.02 *
0.03
-X-X7 1 .5 1 ** 172.89 **
92.37
0.002**
—
0.002**
0.002**
5 7 0 .8 0 -X-X 573.82 ** 1 1 4 2 .6 5 **
Micro-D
Mini-D
0.50 *
0.08
0.62 **
0 .1 1
0 .1 3
0.07 **
0.26
0 .1 7
0 .4 1
0 .2 7
0.36
1 .5 1 **
2 6 .6 6 ** 1 5 .5 4 *
1 1 9 .0 3
225.92 **
9 .1 1
20.35 *
0 .0 4
0.03
1 0 3 .6 9 ** 38.93 **
0.001
0.002**
6 0 3.42 ** 2 8 7 .4 8 **
0 .0 8
0.09
-----------
0.09
0 .0 8
—
0 .1 3
— —
0 .1 1
0.39
—
0.42
—
0.34
— —
,
— —
—
* ,* * S i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from th e row p lo t e r r o r mean square a t th e 0 .0 5 and 0 .0 1
l e v e l s , r e s p e c tiv e ly .
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s fo r d ryland and ir r ig a t e d ,
r e s p e c tiv e ly .
A
ppendix Table 3• R
anked cultlyar m
eans for percent culm
s lodged m
easured in rowand
small plots.
H ill-I
Row-D
C u lt.
C ult.-* ■Mean
Mean
P lo t Typet
H ill-D
M icro-I
Mean
C u lt.
Mean
C u lt.
Micro-D
Mean
C u lt.
Mini-D
Mean C u lt .
■
•
%
%
.. % ■
. %
12
2 0 .0
14
20'
I
8 0 .0
12
4 2 .5
8 1 .3 . 12
5 2 .5
2 7 .5
12
12
•
12
4
5
.0
1
5
.0
1
5
.0
■
1
5
.0
I
4
7
.5
,v l
' I,
5 7 .5
2
12
0
.0
14 . . 3 5 -0
3
5
.0
5 .0
1
1
.3
7
.5
'15
3
. 3.
1 0 .0
21
0 .0
.21
14
3 0 .0
2 . 3 5 .0
5 .0
2
0 .0
3
2
0
.0
10
21
3
0
.0
.
21
0 .0
20
5
.0
4
.9
3
3 2 .5
0 .0
10
1 0 .0
14
0 .0
2
14
0 .0
21 .
5 .0
4 .9
15
0
.0
.
10
0
.0
0
.0
10
20
0
.0
21
0 .0
4
.9
3
15
0
.0
0
.0
2
0
.0
0
.0
I
0
.0
10
0 .0
15
3
15
0 .0
0 .0
20
0 .0
14
10'
0.0.
20
■. 20
0 .0 • 15
0 .0
0 .0
0 .0
■ 0 .0
- 0 .0
16
16
0 .0
0 .0
16
16 '
16
16
2 6 .0
2 1 .4
8 .6 §
1 5 .9
3 9 .1
4 9 .5
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s f o r dryland and ir r ig a t e d ,
r e s p e c tiv e ly .
$ R efer t o Appendix T able I f o r c u lt i v a r nam es.
§ L .S .D . a t 0 .0 5 l e v e l .
A
ppendix Table 4.
small plots.
Row-D
C u lt . t
Mean
$
■
21 '
14
2
. 7 .0
12
6 .8
6 .8 • 16
10
6 .5 .
6 .4
I
6 .0
20
5 .8
3
3 .5
15
1 9 .3 '
8 .0
4 .2 $
t
■
$
§
R
anked cultivar m
eans for percent heads dam
aged m
easured in rowand
H ill-I
C u lt.
Mean
%
1 7 .0
. 1 0 .8
7 .5
7 .5
6 .8
6 .8
6 .0
5 .9
5 .0
3 .8
6 .8
P lo t Typet
H ill-D
M icro-I
■ Mean
C u lt .
Mean
C u lt.
%
21
10
12 '
16
3
20
14
I
2
15
%
2 0 .5
Micro-D
Mean
C u lt .
Mini-D
Mean
C u lt.
%
%
21
16
2
14
10
15
20
12
3
I
21 ■
1 2 .8
21
21
1 1 .5
1 7 .5
20 ■■
10
1 0 .0
12
7 .5
6 .3
14
16
10 6 .3
6 .3
7 .5
6 .0
14
14
5 .8
7 .3
3
7 .5
2
12
I
6 .5
5 .3
5 .5
5 .5
10
16
6 .5
5 .3
4 .5
5 .5
3
6 .0
12
4 .0
I
20
5 .3
5 .3
5 .0
20
2
5 .5 ■
3
5 .3
3 .5
4 .8
2
5 .0
. 3 .0
4 .3
15
15
I
4 .0
3.0
3 .5
4 .5
16
15
5 .8
6 .3
3 .3
6.6
I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s a re a b b r e v ia tio n s fo r d ryland and i r r i g a t e d ,
8.3
7 .8
The l e t t e r s 'D and
r e s p e c tiv e ly .
R efer t o Appendix Table I f o r c u lt i v a r names.
L .S .D . a t 0 .0 5 l e v e l .
'
A
ppendix Table 5.
small plots.
R
anked cultivar m
eans for days to em
ergence m
easured in rowand
P lo t Typet
H ill- D
Micro-D
Row-D
Mean
Mean
C u lt.
C u lt.
Meant ■C u l t .§
21
1 6 .4
16
1 7 .4
9
1 8 .3
16
1 7 .8
9
1 6 .3
1 7 .3
23
1 6 .2
1 7 .0
3
5
1 7 .7 . 6 :
8
.10
1 7 .0
11.
1 6 .3
1 7 .7
18
14
.
1 6 .8
1 6 .3
15.
1 7 .7
41 6 ,1
1 6 .6
15
17
1 7 .7
1 6 .0
1 6 .6
16
21
. 4
1 7 .7
1 6 .0
1 6 .5
I
1 .
5
1 7 .5
1 6 .0
8
. 3
1 6 .5
5
1 7 .5 '
1 6 .0
14
10
ll
1 6 .5
1 7 .3
1 6 .0
20.
. 18 '
18
'
•
1 6 .5
1 7 .3
21
22
1 6 .0
. 20
1 6 .5
1 7 .3
1 6 .4
22
22
1 7 .2
7 ■
1 5 .9
12
1 6 .4
I
'1 5 .8
1 7 .0 '
3
6
4
1 5 .8
6
1 7 .0
1 6 .3
1 5 .8
1 7 .0
1 6 .3
13
' 15
7 .
1 5 .8
8
1 7 .0
19
1 6 .3
23
2
1 6 .2
1 7 .0
1 5 .7
17
9
10
20
12
1
6
.1
,1 7 .0
1 5 .7
11
1 6 .1
1 7 .0
1 5 .7
23
13
2
1 5 .6
14
1 5 .8
1 7 .0
7
12
. 1 5 .4
1 5 .6
1 7 .0
.13
19
. 2
■
. .. 1 5 .6 .
1 5 .3
19
17
1 6 .7
0 .6 SI
0 .6
1 .2
t The l e t t e r D f o llo w in g p l o t t y p e s i s an a b b r e v ia tio n , f o r d r y la n d .
t Days from p la n t in g u n t i l 50% o f th e c o l e o p t i l e s were em erged.
§-R e fe r t o Appendix Table I f o r c u lt i v a r names.
SI L .S.D a t 0 .0 5 l e v e l .
Mini -D
Mean
C u lt.
1 6 .0
3
■ - 1 5 .8
5 12
1 5 .7 '
21
1 5 .7
16.
1 5 .5
I
1 5 .3
4
1 5 .3
1 5 .3
9
1 5 .3
17
8
1 5 .2
1 5 .2
11
1 5 .2
13
. 1 5 .2
15
18
1 5 .2
1 4 .8
14
1 4 .8
22
10
1 4 .7
• 1 4 .7
19
1 4 .7
20
1 4 .5
2
6
1 4 .5
1 4 .2
23
1 4 .0
7
0 .9
A
ppendix Table 6.
R
anked cultivar m
eans for fall color m
easured in rowand small plots.
P lo t Typet
H ill- D
Row-D
Micro-D
Mean
C u lt.
C u lt.
Mean
Meant C u l t .5
I
4 .2
■
4
.
0
3
.
7
5
5
4 .0
4 .0
12
■I
3 .7
5.
4 . 0 • 14
12
4 .0
14
3 .7
■ 14
4 .0 .
4 .0
16
3 .7
15
16
4 .0
3 .8
12
16
3 .7
3 .8
3 .8
3 .6
17
19
9
6
I
3 .7
3 .5
3 .7
7
.
10
3 .7
17
3 .5
3 .7
3
11
3 .5
19
3 .5 •
3
3 .5
20
3 .4
13
3 .5
9
3 .5
4
3 .3
15
3 .3
3 .3
13
6.
3 .3
19
3 .3
3 .3
17
21
18
18
3 .3
3 .3
3 .3
20
3 .2
. 18
3 .2
. 4
3 .3
2
3 .0
3 .2
. 3
3 .1
3
■ 8
3 .0
3 .2
3 .1 . ' 4
. 7
3 .0
11
11
3 .2
.
3 .1
7
21
3 .0
3 .2
9
. 3 .1
13
8
3 .0
3 .0
23
3 .1
15
21
8
3 .0
10
3 .0
3 .0
20
3 .0
3 .0
2 .9
2
23
2
10.
22
.2 .9
2 .9
2 .9
22
: :
. 22
2 .9
2 .9
2 .9
23
0 .6 . TI
■o .7 0 .5
- t The l e t t e r D f o llo w in g p l o t ty p e s i s an a b b r e v ia tio n f o r d ry la n d .
$ S c a le 1 -5 ( 5 = d a r k e st g r e e n ) .
§ -R efer t o 'Appendix T able I f o r c u lt i v a r names„
" IT. L .S .D . a t 0 .0 5 l e v e l . .
'
.
■
‘
.
■■
'
•
'
"
-
.
.'
108
T - • -v-
Mini-D '
Mean
C u lt .
4 .0
I
4 .0
4
4 .0
5
4 .0
12
4 .0
14
3 .8
9
3 .8
16
3 . 8 • 17
18
3 .7
3 .5
3
21
3 .5
.6
3 .3
7
3 .3
8
3 .3
3 .2
6 .
3 .2
10
3 .1
19
3 .0
2
3 .0
11
.3 .0
.13
3 .0
15
3 .0
22
3 .0
23
0 .6
'
•
■-
A
ppendix T
aixL
e ?.
plots.
R
anked cultivar m
eans for spring color m
easured in rowand sm
all
P lo t Typet
H i l l -D
Micro -D
Row-D
Mean
C u lt .
C u lt.
Mean
Meant C u l t .§
4 .0
4 .0
14
I
11
3 .8
4 .0
I
3 .8
3 .8
5
13
4 .0
14
10
4.
3 .8
3 .7
4 .0
2
16 .
3 .8
15
3 .3
4 .0
3 .3
16
6
. 3 .8
•17
20
10
6
3 .8
3 .7
3 .3
12
18
3 .7
7
3 .7
3 .3
12
20
3 .7
3 .7
13
3 .3
21
18
3 .7
17
3 .3
3 .7
18
22
19
3 .7
3 .7
3 .3
' I
20
3 .2
3 .7
7
3 .5
3 .2 .
9
7
3 .5
5
3 .5
4
8
3 .2
Il .
3 .5
3 .3
4
8
.■
3 .2 . . 1 6
. 3 .3
3 .3
8
11
3 .2
19
3 .3
3 .3
21
3 .2
3 .2
3
23
3 .3
21
22
3 .2
2 .8
3
3 .3
22
3 .2
3 .2
2 .8
5
13
2
2 .8
2
3
.
0
3
.0
9
12
6
3
.0
2 .8
3 .0
3
14
10
3 .0
3 .0
2 .8
9 .
2 .8 .
3 .0
3 .0
. 19
15
15
3 .0
3 .0
2 .8
17 .
23
23
1 . 0 cH
. 0 .6
0 .6
t T
he. letter Dfollowing plot types is an abbreviation for dryland,
+Scale 1 - 5 ( 5 - darkest green).
§ Refer to A
ppendix Table I for cultivar nam
es.
tU L.S.D
. at 0 . 0 5 level.
Mini-D
Mean
C u lt .
4 .0
I
4 .0
5
10
3 .7
14
3 .7
3 .5
7 .
8
3 .5
16.
3 .5
18
3 .5
3 .3
3
4
3 .3
6
3 .3
3 .3
9
.17 '
3 .3
- 21
3 .3
3 .2
13
3 .2
20
12
3 .1
2
3 .0
3 .0
11
3 .0
15
3 .0
19
3 .0
3 .0
0 .4
22
23
A
ppendix Table 8.. R
anked cultivar m
eans for fall grow
th habit m
easured in rowand sm
all
plots.
Mini-D
Mean
C u lt.
2
3 .7
3 .7
7
6
3 .3
3 .3
13
18
3 .3
23
3 .3
14
3 .2
3 .2
15
8
3 .0
20
3 .0 .
21
3 ,0
2 .9
19
22
2 .9
I
2 .7
4
2 .7
11
2 .7
2 .3
3
2 .3
5
9
2 .3
2 .3
16
2 .3
17
■ 2 .0
10
12
2 .0
• 0 .8
HO
P lo t Typet
H ill- D
Micro -D
Row-D
C
u
l
t
.
Mean
C u lt .
Mean
Meant C u l t .S
22
3 .8
I
13
3 .7
3 .3
22
- 6
3 .5
.3 .8
7
3 .3
7
3 .7
3 .5
■ 7
13
3 .3
14
2
3 .0 3 .5
23
3 .3
12
3 .2
3 .0
5
3 .3
3
8
3 .2
6
3 .0
3 .3
13
10
I
3 .0
12
3 .0
3 .2
4
3 .2
3 .0
3 .0
23
17
3 .0
20
3 .0
17
9
3 .1
I
14
3 .0
3 .0
22
3 .0
2 .
20
3 .0
4
. 3 .0
2 .7
4
3 .0 .
17
2 .7
2 .9
5
14
3 .0
. 9
2 .7
5
2 .7
21
6
18
■ 2 .7
2 .9
2 .7
2
2 .8
3
2 .3
19
2 .7
12
8
■
2 .3
2 .7
3
2 .3
8
2 .7
2 .3
15
9
2 .3
10
11
2
.7
19
. 2 .3
2 .3
H
2 .3
2 .3
15
2 .3
' 15
2 .3
16
18
2 .3
= 16
2 .3 .
18
21
2 .3
2 .3
19
2 .3
20
2 .0
11
2 .3
2 .3
23
21
2 .0
2 .0
2 .0
10
16
0 .8 tH
0 .9 -..
______ _______ 0 /7 ____
t T
he letter Dfollowing plot types is an abbreviation for dryland.
$ Scale 1 - 5 ( 5 = m
ost prostrate).
§ Refer to A
ppendix Table I for Cultivar nam
es.
H L.S.D
. a t 0 .0 5 l e v e l .
A
ppendix Table 9.
small plots.
R
anked cultivar m
eans for spring grow
th habit m
easured in rowand
P lo t Typet
F i l l -D
Mean
C u lt.
5
3 .7
18
3 .7
I
3 .5
7
3 .5
12
.
3 .5
3 .5
: 13
16
3 .5
2
3 .3
8
3 .3
14
3 .3
3 .3 . . 17
21
3 .3
22
3 .3
3 .2
3
11
3 .2
4
3 .0
,3 .0
9
10
, 3 .0
20
3 .0 .
6
2 .7
.
15
2 .7
2 .7
19
Micro -D
C u lt.
Mean
14
'4 .5
6
4 .3
4 .0
9
2
3 .8
3 .8
5
18
3 .8
3 .7
7
12
3 .5
. 16
3 .4
I
3 .3
8
3 .3
3 .3
13
22
3 .3
3 .2
3
22
3 .2
17
2 .7
20
3 .2
17
2 .5
2
3 .2
2 .3
23
10
11
3 .1
2 ,3
2 .3
23
2 .9
15
2 .2
2 .8
3
19
1 .8
4
2 ,7
13.
1 .8
11
2 .7
15
20
21
31.8
2 .3
2 .7
23
1 . 0 SI .
1 .1
ia
t T
he letter Dfollowing plot types is an abbreviation for dryland„
* Scale 1 - 5 ( 5 = m
ost prostrate).
§ Refer to A
ppendix Table I for cultivar nam
es.
ITL..S.D
. at 0 . 0 5 level. .
Row-D
Meant C u lt .§
I
3 .8
3 .8
5
14
3 .8
3 .8
16. .
7
3 .5
.1 9
3 .3
3 .2
. 4
8
3 .2
18
3 .2
• 10
3 .0
6
2 .8
2 .8
. 21
2.7.
9
. 12
2 .7
Mi ni .-D
Mean
C u lt.
4 .0
5
4 .0
14
4 .0
18
3 .8
.I
3 .8
7
12
3 .7
22
3 .7
2
3 .3
8
3 .3
3 -3
23
3 .2
17
3 .0
3
10
3 .0
21
2 .9
2JB
13
2 .8
15
2 .7
9
2 .7
19
2 .6
16
4
2 .3
6
2 .3
20
2 .3
2 .0
11
0 .9
A
ppendix Tatle 10.
plots.
R
anked cultivar m
eans for heading date m
easured in rowand small -
Mini-D
Mean
C u lt.
1 7 6 .8
7
10
1 7 4 .5
1 7 4 .2
12
1 7 4 .0
3
1 7 3 .3
5
18
173.0
1 7 2 .8
I
172.8
14
16
172.3
11
1 7 1 .3
1 7 1 .2
8
1 7 0 .0
4
169.8
19
169.2
17
1 6 8 .8
6
1 6 8 .8
9
168.8
13
168.8
21
1 6 8 .8
22
168.7
15
168.7
1 6 8 .2
1 6 8 .0
0 .7
23
20
'2
112
P lo t Typet
H ill-D
Micro-D
Row-D .
Mean
C u lt.
Mean
C u lt.
Meant C u l t .5
1 7 8 .2
7
7
1 7 7 .5
1 7 7 .3
7
12
12
10
1 7 4 .1
1 7 5 .9
1 7 5 .1
■10
10
. 1 7 4 .1
1 7 3 .9
1 7 4 .2 . 12 .
14
.1 7 3 .9
3
1 7 3 .5
173 .3 '
3
14
173.2
5
1 7 3 .1
173.7
3
I
18
1 7 3 .0
1 7 2 .7
1 7 3 .5
5
14
1 7 2 .6
16
172.8
16
173.5
18
1 7 2 .8 - 18
172.5
1 7 3 .3
5
16
11
I
1 7 3 .1
1 7 2 .5
1 7 2 .5
11
I
1 7 2 .1
19
. 172.5
1 7 2 .5
8
8
172.0
. 172.3
1 7 1 .7 .
8
1
7
0
.6
4
11
1 7 1 .8
19
1 7 0 .7
4
4
6
1 7 0 .1
1 7 0 .5
1 6 9 .5
1 6 9 .8
1 6 8 .8
6
1 7 0 .1
9
19
6
22
1 6 8 .8
17
1 6 9 .5
1 6 9 .5
1
6
9
.2
22
1 6 8 .7
9
9
169.3
1 6 9 .0 . 17
169.2
20
15
1 6 8 .5
20
21
169.0
20
169.2
1 6 8 .5
1
6
9
.0
'
23
22
1 6 9 .1
1 6 8 .5
17
168.8
1 6 8 .9
1 6 8 .5
15
23
15
21
168.7
1 6 8 .0
1 6 8 .9
13
13 •
2
1 6 8 .6
2 ■
1 6 7 .8
168.6
23 .
21
, 1 6 8 .6
1 6 8 .4
2
1 6 7 .8
13
1 .0
0 .6 5TT
0 .9
t The l e t t e r D f o llo w in g p l o t ty p e s i s an a b b r e v ia tio n f o r d r y la n d .
* Days from January I .
§ R efer t o Appendix T able I f o r c u l t i v a r nam es.
IT L . S . D. a t 0 .0 5 l e v e l .
A
ppendix Table 11.
plots.
Row-D
Mean C u lt.*
cm •
1 2 8 .7
1 2 6 .2
1 2 4 .2
1 2 1 .0
H 9 .5
1 1 7 .3
1 1 7 .0
1 1 6 .7
1 1 6 .0
1 1 5 .8
H 5 .3
1 1 4 .2
1 1 1 .7
1 1 0 .3
1 1 0 .3
1 0 6 .2
1 0 5 .5
1 0 3 .5
1 0 3 .2
1 0 0 .2
R
anked cultivar m
eans for plant height m
easured in rowand small
H i ll- I
Mean C ult.
cm
cm
12
7
18
5
I
1 3 0 .8
1 3 0 .2
1 2 3 .2
1 2 2 .2
121.6
P lo t Typet
H ill-D
Micro-I
Mean C ult.
Mean C ult.
7
12
3
I
1 1 9 .2
1 1 7 .9
1 1 3 .4
1 1 2 .2
1 1 1 .2
1 1 0 .8
1 1 0 .2
7
12; '
8
I.
Micro-D
Mean C ult.
cm
cm
1 3 3 .9
1 3 3 .4
1 2 6 .7
1 2 6 .1
1 2 4 .8
7
12
3
1 2 3 .2
1 2 0 .8
1 1 6 .9
I
115.2
12 '
7
8
3
18
Min;L - D
Mean C ult.
cm
123.2
120.7
12
7
3
8
1 1 9 .8
1 1 8 .7
.1 1 7 .0
I
1 1 6 .2
5
1 1 4 .5
18
1 1 3 .0
20
1 1 2 .7
11
14
1 1 1 .3
1 1 1 .0
4
1 1 0 .0
16
1 0 9 .3 9
1 0 7 .0
17
1 0 5 .7
19
6
1 0 5 .5
1 0 5 .0
22
8
18
1 1 4 .9
5
18
1 1 4 .8
1
2
1
.4
8
I
122.8
5
3
1
2
1
.4
14
1 1 4 .7
1 1 9 .7
9
5
3
5
20
18
8 . 1 1 8 .5
14
4
109.6
1 2 0 .9
1 1 3 .5
1 1 6 .4
1 1 8 .8
9
9
9
1 1 1 .3
9
.1 9
109.3
20 '
1
0
8
.6
1 1 1 .1
20
1 1 4 .7
19
19
1 1 7 .3 . 11
1 0 8 .3
14
14
4
1 1 4 .1
1 1 7 .2 • 20
11
1 0 9 .7
1
0
8
.1
4
14
11
11
11
1
0
8
.6
1 1 6 .7
1 1 3 .1
1 0 7 .4
4
1 1 4 .7
20
107.2
4
1 1 2 .6
6
19
• 1 1 2 .0
■
6
'
6
16
6
1 0 6 .7
1 0 5 .9
1 1 3 .1
17
16
1 0 6 .2
1 0 5 .6
16
1 1 3 .0
16
1 1 0 .5
17
I?
22
1 1 0 .2
1 0 5 .4
22
1 1 0 .3
17
103.9
17
19
1
0
8
.6
22
1 0 4 .2
22
22
16
108.6
1
0
2
.7
23
2
1 0 0 .3
2
6
102.7
1
0
6
.7
1
0
2
.7
1 0 6 .7
23
23
23
2
1
0
1
.1
2
1
0
6
.1
99.6
13
1 0 5 .5
1 0 0 .7
23
23
13
2
1 0 1 .8
1 0 3 .4 .13
99.0
2
13
13
98.3
13
98.5
21
21
1
0
2
.4
92.8
21
96:8
99.2
95.0
21
15
15
96.3
94.8
21
21
9 1 .4
90.8
88.5
15
15 .
9W
92.5
15
15
10
8 7 .0
10
10
7 9 .2
10
8 0 .1
10
10
87.1
7 7 .5
7 7 .7
4 .2
3 .2
4 .1
3 .1
3 .8 5
4 .5
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p l o t ty p e s are a b b r e v ia tio n s f o r d r y la n d .and ir r ig a t e d ,
r e s p e c t i v e l y , t R efer t o Appendix T able I f o r c u lt i v a r names. § L .S .D . a t O.Oj? l e v e l .
A
ppendix Table 1 2 . R
anked cultivar m
eans for num
ber of heads/900 cnf' m
easured in
rowarid small plots.
H
Row-D
Mean
C u lt .* Mean
6 5 .4
20
8 6 .7
6 1 .8
18
8 5 .3
6 0 .2
8 3 .7
23
22
5 9 .2
8 0 .7
5 7 .6
7 5 .0
17
5 6 .8
. 8
7 2 .7
5 6 .8
11
6 8 .7
6 8 .3
9
. 5 6 .2
5 6 .2
6 7 .0
15
.2
5 6 .2
6 5 .3
4
5 5 .6
6 6 .3
5 4 .8
6 5 .3
5
5 4 .6
6 5 .3
13
5 4 .2
19
6 5 .3 .
6
5 2 .6
6 3 .7
10
5 1 .8
6 3 .7
14
5 1 .8
6 1 .3
6 1 .0
5 1 .0
3
4 7 .0
I
5 9 .0
5 9 .0
12 .
4 6 .6
21 • 4 5 .2
5 6 .3
4 4 .6
5 4 .3
7
4 2 .2
16
5 4 .0
1 6 .4 §
1 4 .1
+ The l e t t e r s U arid
r e s p e c tiv e ly .
t
P lo t Type+
H ill- D
Micro-D
Micro- I
M ini-D
Mean
C u lt .
Mean
C u lt.
Mean
C u lt.
Mean
C u lt.
5 0 .8
I
9 6 .6
8
7 1 .4
20
22
1 2 3 .3
4 9 .2
9 2 .2
2
7 0 .6
19
1 0 9 .0
2
13
4 8 .4
6
9 2 .0
18
7 0 .4
I
1 0 8 .7
9
4 8 .4
8 9 .6
6 8 .8
13
18
19
7
1 0 7 .7
4 7 .0
18
8 8 .6
6 8 .2
18
3
1 0 7 .0
6 .
4 6 .6
8 6 .4
6 7 .2
15
5
13
1 0 5 .3
5
4 5 .6
8 5 .8
12
6 5 .8
17
1 0 4 .0
3
13
4 5 .2
22
8 4 .8
I
6 5 .4
8
1 0 3 .0
12
4 4 .8
20
8 4 .4
6 5 .2
1 0 2 .0
7
23
11
4 4 .4
2
2
8 3 .2
4
6 4 .8
1 0 0 .7
14
4 4 .2
8 1 .0
5
17
■ 6 3 .0
1 0 0 .7
5
19
4 3 .4
11
6
7 9 .6
6 2 .8
4
19
9 6 .3
4 2 .4
8
22
6 2 .0
7 9 .6
22
9 3 .3
17
4 2 .2
4
7 9 .4
6 1 .6
7
17
8
9 2 .3
4 0 .8
16
11
6 0 .6
7 9 .4
6
9 2 .0
3
21
3 9 .0
7 9 .2
11
5 9 .4
9
9 1 .0
16
21
7 6 .0
3 9 .0
5 9 .0
9
9 0 .0
20
15
14
21
3 7 .8
23
7 5 .0
5 7 .2
8 9 .0
10
3 7 .4
14
7 3 .4
5 6 .2
23
15
8 8 .3
7
4
20
7 3 .2
16
. 3 5 .4
5 5 .6
8 2 .7
23
3 4 .0
10
6 9 .0
12
5 5 .0
3
8 0 .3
15
3 2 .8
10
6 9 .0
16
5 3 .6
9
I
7 9 .7
12
2 9 .0
14
6 7 .8
4 6 .8
, 10
21
6 5 .3
1 0 .9
1 6 .0
1 3 .7
2 4 .7
I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s ;a re a b b r e v ia tio n s f o r d ryland and ir r ig a t e d ,
R efer t o Appendix Table I f o r c u lt i v a r names. § L .S .D . <it 0 .0 5 l e v e l
ill-I
C u lt .
13
2
12
22
7
15
19
6
8
11
4
5
17
23
18
I
9
14
20
. 21
16
3
10
A
ppendix Table 13.
and small plots.
R
anked cultivar m
eans for num
ber of seeds per head m
easured in row
P lo t Typet
F -m -D
Mtni -D
H ill-I
’
Micro -D
Row-D
Micro - I
Mean
C u lt .
Mean
C u lt .
Mean
C u lt .
Mean
C u lt.* Mean . C u lt.
Mean
C u lt.
2 1 .4 ■ . 7
2 8 .0
18
2 8 .4
2
2 3 .4
2 2 .4
7
1 8 .9
23
23
2 7 .8
2 1 .0
16
2 3 .2
. 2 0 .6
1 9 .6
23
15
1 7 .1
13
15
15
2 0 .8
20
1 6 .6
I
2 0 .6
2
2 3 .8
2 2 .8
21
1 7 .6
13
23
1
0
.
2 •
2 0 .4
2 3 .0
8
1 9 .6
2 2 .2
I
1 7 .2
1 6 .5 '
15
7
8 •
2
2 1 .8
2
1 9 .6
1 9 .6
1 5 .8
2 1 .6
2
7
5
1 6 .9
12
22
.1 9 .2
1 9 .4
22
2 1 .6
2 0 .6
10
1 5 .4
5
7
1 6 .7
21
21
10
1
9
.2
11
■
2
0
.4
1 5 .0
1 9 .2
2 0 .2
1 6 .1
I
13
1 4 .8
2 0 .4
18
1 9 .0
6
1 8 .6 ■
1 9 .6
18
16
5
5
1 5 .7
1 4 .5
21
16
. 12
2 0 .0
1 9 .0
. 1 8 .6
8
1 9 .2
13
1 5 .1
3
22
1
8
.0
1
8
.6
16
I
6
1 9 .8
1 9 .0
16
1 4 .3
1 4 .0
13
1 4 .0
4
1 8 .6
22.
1 7 .6
. 1 8 .4
1 9 .6
14.
1 4 .0
7
17
17
1
8
.0
21
11
1 8 .4
21
1 3 .6
1 7 .6
20
3
1 9 .6
13
1 3 .8
18
10
12
14
1 7 .4
1 8 .2
10
1 3 .2
1 7 .0
1 9 .2
1 3 .6
6
4
1 6 .4
20
4
1 8 .2
1 7 .0
6
1 9 .2
20
1 3 .4
1 3 .1
19
1 6 .2
4
1 8 .8
. I
1 6 .8
16
1 7 .8
1 3 .0
• 9.
1 3 .2
3
"5
1
5
.6
1
6
.8
■
1
8
.8
4
1 7 .8
1 2 .3
12 .
23
15
3
19
1 3 .1
1 2 .2
10
1 6 .2
8
1 5 .6
1 8 .6
22
1 7 .8
17
1 3 .0
11
9
1 2 .2
1 8 .0
I
1 5 .6
1 6 .6
6
1 5 .6
14
19
17
19
1 2 .9
1 1 .2
20
6
14
1 5 .4
1 5 .4
11
1
7
.8
1
6
.6
1 2 .8
4
17
11
1 4 .8
1 6 .4
• 19
1 5 .0
1 7 .8
1 1 .1
1 2 .4
17
15
3
9
1 4 .4
12
1 5 .0
1 7 .2
1 1 .1
1 5 .6
1 2 .4
18
23
19
3
9
■ 8
1 4 .6
1 3 ,8
ll
14
1 5 .8
1 5 .2
1 2 .2
8
9 .9
9
9
20
1 3 .0
1 3 .2
18
14
1 5 .4
1
5
.0
12
9 .1
22
• 5
1 1 .9
7 .0
6 .8
5 .1 G
8 .5
5 .0
5 .7
t The l e t t e r s D and I f o llo w in g p lo t ty p e s a re a b b r e v ia tio n s f o r d ryland and ir r ig a t e d ,
r e s p e c tiv e ly .
* R efer t o Appendix Table I f o r c u l t i v a r names. § L .S .D . a t 0 .0 5 l e v e l .
A p p e n d ix T a t l e 1.4.
s m a ll p l o t s .
- R a n k ed c u l t i v a r m ea n s
f o r 1 0 0 - s e e d w e ig h t m ea su red i n row and
P lo t Type t
Mini -D
H
ill-D
Micro - I
Micro -D
H
i
l
l
I
Row -D '
C
u
lt.
Mean
Mean
C
u
l
t
.
Mean
C
u
lt.
Mean
C
u
lt.
C u lt.
Mean
Meant C u l t . S
21
21
4
.0
3
4
.1
6
21
21
21
21
3 .7 7
3 .8 7
3 .7 5
3 .9 9
3 .6 0
. 11
3 .4 2
3 .5 8
3 :4 2
5
19
17
3 .3 3
7
3 .3 5
17
11
3 .4 1
17
3 .3 2
3 .3 2
3 .4 0
3 .5 1 . 17
I?
3 .4 5
17
3 .
11
11
3 .4 2
I
11
3 .3 7
3
20
3 .2 7
3 .2 7
3 .3 3
3 .2 9
3 .2 0
3 .4 1
3 .3 4
3 .1 8
3 .2 4
7
7
3 .2 4
. 5
3
3
3
I
I
I
3 .4 1
I
3 .1 4
3 .1 6
3 .3 2
11
5
3 .2 3
3 .2 3
3 .1 0
3 .3 2
3 .1 4
3 .1 0
9
3 .
19
3 .2 2
3 .2 7
7
5
19
20
4
'
4
3
.2
0
20
3 .1 4
3 .0 9
3 .2 7
3 .0 9
7
I
3 .1 6
3 .2 4
3 .2 0
6
19
5
3 .0 7
9
19
3 .0 5
3 .1 2
3 .1 1
13
2
• 8
8
3 .1 6
3 .0 1
3 .0 8
3
3 .1 2
2 .9 9
6
9
3 .0 7
10
4
3
.1
4
2
.9
4
8
3 .0 6
9
.
3 .1 2 . 13.
2 .9 7
■ 3 .0 7
9
14
14
14
3 .0 6
14
2 .9 4
3 .1 0
14
2 .9 5
3 .0 5
19
3 .0 7
20
3
.0
6
20
3
.1
0
4
23
2 .9 1
3.0413
2 .9 5
2 .9 9
7
12
8
3 .0 4
2 .8 8
20
3 .0 8
2.9.1
3 .0 4
9
2 .9 7
13
23
10
3 .0 2
2 .8 8
2 .8 6
6
2
3 .0 6
14 ■
13
10
3 .0 1
2 .9 7
4
12
10
2 .8 4
2 .8 6
3 .0 1
3 .0 1
23
16
22
2 .9 7
2 .9 5
8
2.82.
16
2 .8 4
22
2
2 .9 6
13
2 .9 7
2 .9 7
8
2 .9 3
22
2
2 .8 4
6
2 .9 6
2 .9 2
23
23 .
2 .7 9
2 .8 9
16
2 .9 3
18
22
18
2 .8 0
18
2 .8 3
2 .9 0
22
2 .7 7
2 .9 3
4
2 .9 1
2
•
6
22
2
.8
4
16
2
.7
6
18
2
.9
1
2 .8 3
2 .7 5
18
2 .7 9
18
16
2 .8 1
12
2 .8 6
2 .7 6
12
2 .7 6
2 .7 3
23
2 .8 4
2
12
16
10
2
.7
2
10
2
.7
8
2 .5 7
15
2 .7 5
2 .5 1
12
2 .8 3
6
2 .7 4
2 .3 2
2 .4 7
2 .4 9
15
2 .3 7
15
15
2 .6 6
15
15
0 .1 8
0 .3 0
0 .3 0 <fl
0 .2 1
0 .1 9
0 .2 7
t T
he letters b.and I following plot types are abbreviations for dryland and irrigated,
' respectively; * gram
s. § Refer to A
ppendix Table I for cultivar nam
es,
il L.S.D. at 0,05 level.
A
ppendix Table 15.
plots.
R
anked cultivar m
eans for grain yield m
easured in rowand sm
all
P lo t Typet
H ill - I
H i l l -D
Micro -D
Micro - I
Row-D
Mini.-D
C u lt.
Mean
C u lt .
Mean
Mean
C u lt.
C u lt .
Mean
C u lt.
Meant C u lt .§ Mean
2
65.2
5
0
.2
62.2
5
5
.2
4
1
.3
13
13
13
23
3 6 .5
23
2
2
4 1 .2
2
3 4 .4
5 7 .0
6 3 .1
4 7 .1
5 0 .3
19
13
13
4
2
.3
6
2
.1
2
•
22
5
0
.1
7
17
17
5 1 .7
3 5 .9
13
3 3 .4
2
4 8 .8
4 0 .5
21
10
3 5 .6
5 1 .4
3 3 .2
6 0 .9
19
7
19
8
I
5
9
.4
23
4
9
.6
4
8
.7
17
3 9 .6
7
17
3 5 .3
3 2 .3
21
4 8 .4 ' 23
3 2 .0
20
4 9 .0
3 4 .4
21
7
5 8 .3
17
3 9 .5
8
3 4 .2
4 6 .6
3 8 .8
5 8 .1
4 8 .8
19
17
19
3 1 .1
5
23
21
3
4
.0
6
4
6
.6
18
I
4 8 .6
2 9 .6
5
3
.1
3
3 7 .5
3
4 6 .2
3 4 .0
5 1 .0
22
4 8 .0
2 9 .0
22
3 7 .4
. 7
15 '
5
5
8
8
20
4 8 .0
22
I
3 7 .2
4 5 .9
5
2 8 .9
3 2 .7
5 0 .7
4
I
5 0 .4
I
4 5 .0
22
3 2 .4
10
2 7 .6
3 5 .6
4 7 .1
19
21
4 4 .0
22
6
4 7 .0
3 1 .0
11
2 6 .3
9
5
5 0 .3
3 5 .3
4 9 .8
4
12
2 9 .2
4 3 .6
4 7 .0
2 6 .0
16
9
3 4 .7
15
3
21
4 9 .4
20
2 9 .2
6
2 5 .8
11
23
3 3 .8
4 2 .9
4 6 .9
15
12
18
4 9 .4
18
4
20
2 7 .2
20
2 5 .2
4 1 .9
4 6 .7
3 3 .7
4 l.l
4
12
18
4
4 9 .2
6
4 6 .4
2 4 .0
2 7 .1
9
3 2 .3
14
3 2 .0
2 7 .0
4 0 .6
4 4 .9
I
2 3 .6
4 8 .7
9
3
7
15
11
20
4 3 .0
3 1 .4
3 9 .8
6
2 2 .6
4 8 .7
2 6 .5
3
9
3
3 0 .0
18
16
14
2 6 .0
3 6 .8
11
18
4 7 .3
5 '
3 9 .9
2 1 .9
3 6 .4
11
ll
16
8
2 1 .7
16
4 4 .9
2 9 .9
15
' 2 5 .5
3 9 .5
10
4 1 .7
10 '
2 5 .4
14
12
8
2 0 .2
3 4 .7
3 9 .2
2 9 .1
9
14
3 4 .4
14
10
3 8 .8
10
2 4 .8
2 3 .0
4
1 9 .1
15
3 8 .9
12
12
2 1 .4
2 2 .0
3 6 .1
3 2 .2
14
16
16
3 8 .5
6
1 6 .6
8 .1
6 .8
1 0 .5
4 .9 SI
7 .7
7 .1
t T
he letters Dand I following plot types are abbreviations for dryland and irrigated,
•respectively. . * q/ha. § Refer to A
ppendix Table I for cultivar nam
es.
ITL.S.D. at 0.05 level.
A
ppendix Table 16.
plots.
R
anked cultivar m
eans for harvest index m
easured in rowand sm
all
P lo t Typet
H ill-D
H ill-I
M icro -I
Micro-D
Row-D
Mini-D
Mean
C
u
lt.
Mean
C
u
lt
.
Mean
C u lt .
C
u
lt
.
Mean
C u lt . t Mean
Mean
C u lt.
2
2
0 .3 4
0.32
23
0.36
17
13
0 .3 7
0.33
0.33
9
2
10
0.32
2
0 .3 1
13
13
0.33
0.33
0.33
23
.0 .3 5
0 .3 0
22
21
0.3 2
0.32
2
17
0.3 1
I?
0:33
0.3 5
23
0 .3 0
2
21
0 .3 0
0 .3 0
0.32
23
0 .3 1
7
17
0.33
17
I
21
0.29
0
.3
0
0.32
0.2 9
0.29
. 0 .3 1
17
7
9
7
ZO
0 .2 8
0 .2 8
10
10
0 .2 9
0 .3 1
0.3 2
3
5
13 . 0 .3 0
0 .2 9
0 .2 7 . 12
0.2 8
21
0 .3 0
21
0.3 2
19
19
0 .3 1
13
4
4
0
.2
8
23
0 .3 0
0.2 7
0.32
0 .2 7
23
0.2 9
1
22
I
0 .2 8
0.3 0
I
0 .2 6
0 .2 7
0.2 9
6
9
15
0 .3 1
13
4
21
0 .2 8
4
0 .2 6
I
0.3 0
0 .2 6
0.3 0
0.29
7
5
18
0.3
0
0
.2
6
0 .2 6
0 .2 7
0.2 9
5
0 .2 9
5
3
19
3
8
22
0 .2 6
6
0.3 0
6
0.2 6
22
0 .2 7
0.2 9
0.29
19
20
20
0.2 5
0.3 0
0 .2 8
0 .2 6
4
0.2 8
0.2 7
I
9
19
0.2
9
8
0
.2
7
22
0 .2 8
22
0
.2
6
0 .2 8
0.25
6
19
5
0 .2 4
10
0.2 9
0 .2 5
20
8
0 .2 6
0 .2 8
8
0 .2 8
8
7
12
0 .2 7
0 .2 6
0 .2 8
0 .2 5
0.23
0 .2 8
9
11
3
3
15
0
.2
5
10
0.25
6
0
.2 7
0
.2
7
0 .28
12
7
9
0.23
3
10
0 .2 5
Il
0.24
14
0 .2 6
16
0.23
0 .2 8
0 .2 7
15
15
14
14
16
0.24
0 .2 6
20
0 .2 3
0.23
0 .2 8
0 .2 7
20
5
8
11
0.2 5
0.23
11
0.23
12
0.22
18
0 .2 6
4. '
0 .2 7
18
12
0.22
0 .2$
0.21
16
18
11
0 .2 3
0 .2 7
0 .23
16
0 .1 8
0.21
0.25
18
6
0.22
11
0 .2 4
14
0 .2 5
14
15
0 .1 8 - J J i 0 .2 0
16
14
0 .2 1
0 .2 4
16
12
18
0.2 3
0.25
0 .0 4 5
• 0.04
0 .0 4
0.03
0.03
0 .0 5
t T
he letters Dand I following plot types are abbreviations for dryland and irrigated,
respectively. * Refer to A
ppendix Table I for cultivar nam
es. § L.S.D
. at 0.05
level.
A
ppendix Table I?.
plots.
R
anked cultIvar m
eans for "biological yield m
easured in rowand sm
all
' P lo t Typet
Micro-D
H ill-D
H ill-I
M icro -I
Mini-D
Row-D
Mean •C u lt.
Mean
C u lt.
Mean
C u lt.
C u lt.
Mean
Meant C u lt .§
Mean
C u lt.
1
2
5
.2
2
23
2 3 2 .9
13
1 5 1 .9
7
13 •
1 7 2 .5
1 3 5 .2
23
1 7 7 .7
2 2 5 .4
18
1 7 4 .1
16
1 6 8 .3
1 5 2 .1
.1 1 8 .7 . 19
19
13
7
1 1 3 .9
2 1 4 .8
18
8
8
1 6 8 .3
1 1 2 .2 • 11
I
1 4 6 .7
1 1 7 .9
1 6 7 .9
19
2
1
4
.1
22
.
1
4
2
.4
11
17.
1 1 3 .9
7
13
15
1 6 7 .7
1 6 7 .9
1 1 1 .5
12
1 6 5 .0
2
1 4 1 .0
6
1 1 3 .3
1 1 1 .3
2 1 3 .9
5
1 6 7 .5
15
17.
8
1 1 1 .2
I
1 6 7 .6
1 1 2 .3
1 6 3 .9
19
5
1 3 9 .7
15
2 0 5 .7
3
2 0 4 .2
2
1 1 1 .4
2
1 6 6 .8
1 1 1 .1
1 6 1 .5
3
3
5
1 3 8 .5
13
1 1 1 .0
2 0 4 .1
11
20
1 1 0 .4 : 19
22.1 6 6 .8
20
1 6 0 .7
19
1 3 8 .5
8
1 1 0 .3
20
2
0
2
.8
20
1
6
2
.9
2
21 .
1 3 7 .8
1 0 9 .7
7
158.9
1
0
9
.0
2
18
11
21
1 0 6 .1
1
5
8
.1
1
6
0
.6
15
5
1 3 6 .5
1 9 6 .5
1 9 4 .8
14
1 0 5 .2
18 : 1 0 8 .8
18
22
1 3 6 .4
1 6 0 .4
155.2
I
9
1
0
8
.8
1 0 5 .0 ‘ 20
22
1
5
1
.8
1
6
0
.0
1
9
3
.8
.1
1 3 0 .7
5 .
17
5
1 0 8 .0
1 0 4 .2
12
I
6
18
1 2 9 .6
1 5 9 .6
1 9 3 .7
17
1 5 1 .7
13
1 0 2 .0
10
1 0 3 .8
Il
22
1 4 9 .6
4
1 5 5 .0
1 9 3 .5
1 2 9 .3 "■ ■1 .
7
1
0
0
.0
1
9
0
.0
1
4
7
.2
6
16
11
1
5 4 .0
14
2
3
.
1 2 9 .3
9
1 0 3 .3
1 0 0 .0
6
16
1 0 2 .6
129.2
6 "
1 5 3 .6
188.9
1 4 6 .7
15
23
?
1
0
0
.0
21
21
21
1 0 0 .9
4
1
8
8
.1
1
4
5
.6
1
5
9
.0
22
1
2
7
.1
I?
20
1 4 5 .0
' 9 8 .1
1 4 8 .5
3
9
3
1 2 3 .9
1 8 7 .3
15
9 8 .3
17
14
14
14
1 8 5 .6
14
1
4 7 .2
9 5 .2
10
. 9 5 .8
1 2 1 .3
1
4
3
.3
23
4
■
21:
1
4
0
.0
1
2
0
.7
.
9
4
.2
1
8
4
.4
4
12
1
4
4
.1
.
4 .
9 2 .3
23 '
12
1
1
0
.3
4
16
.
1
3
4
.8
16
1
4
1
.1
8
1
7
1
.9
3
.
9
0
.3
9 2 .3
1 0 7 .0
8 8 .0
12
1 6 6 .8
9 2 .2
6
16
1 4 0 .0
12
9
1 3 2 .7
9
10
10
10
9 1 .8
8
1 5 5 .2
10
. 8 7 .6
1 0 3 .3
1 1 5 .7
1 2 8 .9
9
1 9 .2
1 9 .4
1 0 .9 IT.
1 9 .1
2 7 .1
1 9 .7
t T
he letters Dand I following plot types are abbreviations for dryland and irrigated,
respectively.
* q/ha. § Refer to A
ppendix Table I for cultivar nam
es.
I L.S.D
., at 0.05 level.
120
A
ppendix Tatle 18. R
anked cultivar m
eans for percent protein m
easur­
ed in rowand small plots.
Row
Mean
C u lt . t
%
1 4 .6 0
1 4 .3 0
1 4 .2 2
1 4 .1 0
1 4 .0 0
1 3 .9 0
1 3 .8 2
1 3 .7 3
1 3 .7 2
1 3 .6 7
1 3 .6 3
13.62
1 3 .6 0
1 3 .6 0
1 3 .4 3
1 3 .3 5
13.35
1 3 .3 0
1 3 .2 7
13.05
1 3 .0 3
1 3 .0 2
1 1 .1 0
P lo t Type
H ill
Mean
C u lt.
%
O
O
18
1 4 .9 0
12
1 4 .7 3
1 4 .4 8
5.
14
1 4 .4 8
1 4 .2 ?
I
1 4 .2 ?
19
1 4 .2 2
16
1 4 .1 0
7
1 4 .0 3
22
2
• 1 4 .0 2
13.92
3
1 3 .8 0
23
21
1 3 .7 8
8
1 3 .6 5
4
13.62
1 3 .5 7
15
1 3 .4 7
9
11
1 3 .4 5
1 3 .4 2
13
6
13.33
20
1 3 .1 5
1 3 .1 3
17
1 1 .2 8
10
0
.4
0
*
t Refer to A
ppendix Table I for cultivar nam
es.
* L.S.D
. at 0.05 level.
18
12
14
16
5
19
7
8
22
3
I
15
2
13
6
21
23
4
9
11
17
20 .
10
Micro
Mean
C u lt.
%
1 4 .8 7
1 4 .5 7
14.23
1 4 .0 3
1 4 .0 0
1 4 .0 0
1 3 .9 3
1 3 .8 8
1 3 .8 0
1 3 .6 3
13.57
1 3 .5 0
1 3 .5 0
1 3 .4 7
1 3 .4 7
1 3 .4 5
1 3 .3 8
1 3 .3 7
1 3 .3 5
1 3 .2 5
1 3 .2 2
1 3 .0 7
1 1 .8 2
0 .4 0
12
18
14
19
5
22
16
7
I
3
2
8
15
9
21 .
11
23
13
4
20
6
17
10
121
A
ppendix Table 19. R
anked cultivar m
eans for m
ixogrampeak distance
m
easured in rowand small plots.
Row
C u lt . t
Mean
cm
P lo t Type
H ill
Mean
C u lt.
cm
4 .8
22
4 .6
23
4
4 .6
15
4 .3
22
4 .2
11
4 .5
4 .2
4 .3
13
23
21
4 .0
4 .3
13
4 .0
3 .9
3
15
4
20 '
4 .0
3 .9
.6
I
3 .8
3 .9
I
l
3
.8
5
3 .9
12
10
3
.8
3 .9
20
12
3 .8
3 .8
I
■3 .7
3
3 .7
8
'
6
3 .7
3 .7
8
3
.6
5
3 .7
.10
3 .6
19
3 .7
14
21
3 .6
3 .4
3
.6
14
19
3 .3
18
9
. 3 .3
3 .3
■ 3 .2
3 .2
7
7
16
16
3 .1
3 .1
18
' 9
3 .1
2 .9
2
2
.8
2 .8
17
.
2
.8
2
17
2 .5
0 .6
0 .5 *
t Refer to A
ppendix Table I for cultivar nam
es.
* L.S.D
. at 0.05 level.
Micro
Mean
C u lt .
cm
4 .6 .
5
4 .6
12
4 .6
15
4 .4
22
• 4
■4 .3
4 .3
13
4 .3
. 23
4 .2
11
4 .1
I
4 .0
. 8
21
4 .0
3 .9
3
10
3 .9
19
3 .9
20
3 ,8
18
3 .7
6
3 .6
3 .4
,9
3 .4 ■ 14
2
3 .3
' 7
3 .3
17
3 .3
3 .0
16
0 .5
122
A
ppendix Table 20. R
anked cultivar m
eans for m
ixogrampeak height
m
easured in rowand sm
all plots.
Row
Mean
C u lt . t
cm
P lo t Type
H ill
Mean
C u lt .
cm
19
6 .7
6 .9
5
6 .6
23
6 .5
3
2
6 .5
9
6 .5
18
3
6 .3
6 .5
6 .2
6A
I
.9
6 .2
8
6A
13 '
6 .1
14
5
6 .3
20
6 .1
6 .2
21
6 .0
I
11
6 .1
6
.0
6
22
6 .1
8
6
.0
2
6 .0
21
6 .0
4
6 .0
12
6 .0
20
5 .9
18
5
.8
5 .9
19
22
6
5 .8
5 .7
14
16
5
.
6
5 .8
5
.6
15
23
5 .7
16
5 .6
5 .6
17
11
12
•
5
.4
5 .3
5
.2
17
13
5 .3
4
■5 .1
7
5 .2
5
.0
5 .2
7
15
10
4 .4
10
5 .0
1 .1
1 .0 *
t R efer t o Appendix Table I f o r c u lt i v a r names„
* L .S .D . a t 0 .0 5 l e v e l .
Micro
Mean
C u lt .
cm
6 .7
6 .7
6 .7
6 .7
6 .6
6 .6
6 .5
6 .5
6 .4
6 .4
6 .3
6 .3
6 .3
6 .3
6 .0
5 .9
5 .9
5 .9
5 .8
5 .7
5 .6
5 .6
5 .5
1 .0
2
8
19
20
4
6
5
18
3
9
I
13
22
23
16
11
12
17
15
10
7
14
21
ilSIBl
Frederickson, Leslie J
A comparisonpf hill,
micro-, and miniplots
with convention row
plots in winter wheat
DATE
ff*
IS SU E D TO
H
tig M -X r ™
m -sx a .