'—

 

 

0
w ‘vvwfi

PERFORMQNCE OF MULTIPLE-EARED MBRED
LtNES IN THREEWAY HYBRSDS

Thain §or flu Dost» M M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Fem" M. Bagshaw
1959

‘1 v " 5-.‘-

i,

'3

M

[1

AL“...-

112 (t) 4 21‘?

Ct

LLM‘L’J H

Univ crsity

PERFORMANCE OF MULTIPLE-EARED INBRED LINES
IN
THREE-WAY HYBRIDS

By
FARRELL M . BAGSHAW

A THESIS
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Farm Crops

1959

PERFORMANCE OF MULTIPLE-EARED INBRED LINES
IN
THREE-WAY HYBRIDS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to eXpress his gratitude for the
guidance and inspiration of Dr. E. C. Rossman under
whose supervision this study was conducted.

The author is grateful to Dr. Fred C. Elliott and
Mr. Hubert M. Brown for their suggestions and construct-
ive criticisms.

To my wife, Dottie, goes sincere thanks for her

assistance and encouragement.

II.

III.

IV.

VII.

VIII.

TABLE OF

Introduction . . . . .

Review of Literature .

Materials and Methods.

EXperimental Results .

Discussion . . . . . .

Summary. . . . . . . .

Literature Cited . . .

Appendix: Tables 17 to

CONTENTS

27 inclusive.

.44

.46

.47

INTRODUCTION

During the days of hand harvesting, Corn Belt farmers
preferred single-cared corn varieties because the time and
expense of harvesting was less than with two or more small-
er ears per plant. This preference became so well estab-
lished that the great majority of open-pollinated varieties
were bred and selected with one ear per plant, and this pref-
erence still continues with the hybrids of today.

Universal success of mechanical corn harvesting and
emphasis on higher yields and profits should remove preju-
dice against two or more ears per plant if yields are improved
and efficiency of mechanical harvesting is not reduced. Pref-
erence associated with choosing hybrids for “eye appeal'I where
single-cared hybrids are preferred may not be overcome so eas-
11?.

Multiple-eared corn varieties have been well established
in much of the southern United States. Basic germ-plasm en-
tering into the deve10pment of these varieties was late ma-
turing and multiple cared. Less emphasis on the economics of
corn production, corn shows and eye appeal and more available
labor has favored the use of the more prolific types.

There are three evident objectives for the deve10pment
and evaluation of multiple-cared hybrids. (1) At a given

plant population, increasing the number of ears per plant may

offer an opportunity to increase corn yields. (2) Aside
from the possibility of higher corn yields, a predominance
of two or more ears per plant at a lower plant population
may produce yields equal to those obtained with single-cared
hybrids at higher plant pepulations. These lower plant pop-
ulations might reduce stalk lodging and some mechanical har-
vesting difficulties. (3) At high plant populations and
under adverse conditions, multiple-eared hybrids may produce
fewer barren plants and consequently higher yields than sin-
gle-eared hybrids.

There are few inbred lines adapted to the Corn Belt that
develop two or more cars per plant consistently and the char-
acteristic is not strongly expressed in hybrids among these
lines. Southern prolific varieties, inbreds, and hybrids
offer a source for this character which could be introduced
into Corn Belt lines through various breeding procedures.
POpcorn and sweet corn varieties and hybrids are other sources
of prolificacy, but selection against pop and sweet kernel
types and other weaknesses of these types would be necessary.

Little research has been done on inheritance and breeding

for the multiple—cared character.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

According to Josephson (l), Richey developed early pro—
lific inbred lines from crosses of the Jellicourse prolific,
open-pollinated variety with Corn Belt inbreds. Hybrids in-
volving these early prolific inbreds crossed with Corn Belt
inbred lines produced higher yields than standard prolific
and single-cared hybrids. Correlation between the number of
ears per plant and yield was positive. Populations of 12,000
plants per acre produced the highest average yields. One
prolific hybrid was the highest in yield at the 16,000 rate
in a test involving prolific and single-cared hybrids.

Zuber and Grcgan (3) tested prolific and single-ear hy-
brids in Missouri. They reported that a population of 12,000
plants per acre produced the highest average yields. Pro-
lific hybrids were consistently high in yield at all plant
pOpulations.

Lang, et a1. (2) in Illinois, found that hybrids with
the highest number of cars per plant at low populations pro-
duced fewer barren plants at high populations. Plant pepu-
lation affected percentage of barren plants more than hybrid
or level of nitrogen. Barrenness affected yield more than

did population or nitrogen level.

-4-

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 1955, two early maturing single—cared inbreds (M81341
and M324A) were crossed with several different southern pro-
lific inbreds, hybrids and open-pollinated varieties (see
Appendix Table 17). Selfing with selection for plants with
two or more ears per plant and other desired agronomic char-
acteristics led to a group of S5 inbreds available for test
crossing in 1957 and evaluation in 1958. Expression of the
multiple-eared characteristic during successive generations
of selection was affected considerably by environment.

Observations from various breeding procedures in prog-
ress with these materials indicated that the inheritance of
ear number was largely recessive. Thus, a multiple-cared
tester appeared to be the best choice to evaluate the mul-
tiple-cared 53 inbreds.

In 1957, 33 plants with two or more ears per plant at
pollination time were selected for selfing and crossing to the
single-cross hybrid (0h51 x 0h26). The second ear buds on
some of the selected plants did not complete development and
most of these plants were discarded at harvest. The tester
(0h51 x 0h26) deveIOps a relatively high frequency of two-
eared plants compared to most other available testers of sim-
ilar maturity. Inbred 0h51 is typically two-cared while 0h26

is predominantly single-cared.

The three-way hybrids were evaluated at three plant
pepulations (approximately 8,000, 12,000 and 16,000 plants
per acre) at two locations - Ingham and Saginaw Counties.
Eighty-one entries were included in a 9 x 9 triple lattice
design with three replications for each population at each
location.

Plots were hand harvested after recording the number
of plants that deveIOped two or more ears, stalk and root
lodging. Plants broken below the ear were counted as "stalk
lodged". Plants leaning more than 50° from the vertical
were counted as "root lodged".

Moisture samples at harvest were taken by cutting a one-
inch cross section from ten representative ears from each
plot. The samples were weighed, oven-dried, weighed again and
moisture percentages computed.

Parental inbred lines were grown in two adjacent Ing-
ham County nurseries designed for about 6,500 and 13,000
plants per acre. Stands in some of the nursery rows were not

uniform and these were discarded.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Cultural and weather data are given in Tables 1, 2 and
5. Both locations were dry and cool during May, and con-
tinued cool during May and June. Degree day totals for the
growing season showed that Saginaw County was cooler than
Ingham County. Total rainfall was slightly greater for Sagi-
naw County but 0.30 inch more rainfall occurred at Ingham
County, May through July. Distribution of rainfall was simi-
lar for both locations for the period May through July. In
mid-August, the Ingham County location received 0.75 inch of
rain that the Saginaw County location did not get.

Table 4 presents means and range in performance for the
six experiments. Mean yield at each location was highest with
12,000 plants per acre and lowest with 8,000 plants per acre
(Table 4). The mean percentage of two-eared plants decreased
as plant pepulation was increased. Stalk and root lodging
increased slightly as pepulation increased. Yields and per-
centages of two-eared plants were higher and lodging was low-
er in the Ingham County experiments than in Saginaw. Percent-
age of two-eared plants ranged from 77.8 to zero depending on
the particular hybrid, plant pepulation and location. The 85
lines included in these hybrids had not been previously evalu-
ated in hybrid combinations and were therefore, relatively un-

selected for combining ability. Pedigreesof the inbred lines

ounces mafia es
commend scam .cowcapac moaned om swam a

.mpmop Ham new memos“ on we: apoaz 30m

 

 

 

ttNHINHIQ -
.mwnu90poo H has .mnH 0mm en mm b.m thmHH< cepmxooam recawmm
- analnauna
m nonopoo mm Hano< .mna com on em s.o anoo nopocoo asnmeH
oopmopamn caveman aoNAH CNN momm mg dose camp hpcsoo
ofimfi. opwm. napamm chow and mocdom macabmam Hdom

 

 

GZHEmmB ho monB<oOA Nazaoo 3<2Hw<m Qz<
z<meH mme mom ZOHE<EmChZH Q<mDBQDU

H Ham¢9

.cocaoooa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

one: when seamed o: .zoaon.ao .mono we; came can “H .m 000 no omen c soak moazpwaoa
lamp haawc pmozoa 0cm panama: esp no uses on» weapowapQSm an ocpzdaoo one: ammo commoo
cans .oz .HHHxxa moasao> .ooamasoo .o.m.p .span HsoamoHOpsaaao sons.
0 m 00.H DH.H nm.m b0.m owe men m.ao e.mm n.0n 0.m¢ m.m0 ¢.n0 .poo
pa ma ms.a om.a so.m mo.m moa «ma n.oo s.Hm ~.m¢ m.as n.ms m.as .pdmm
b Hm m¢.H mm.H bb.m an.n on an ©.c© m.m© «.00 0.00 0.Hm ¢.om .w54
e n H0.H 0v.H Hp.n ¢¢.¢ ea 0 v.00 0.00 0.0m 0.00 0.00 n.0r haze
m H m0.H ¢¢.H 00.0 00.0 mvH mod 0.H0 0.H0 0.0v 0.09 0.05 0.05 0:55
an mm 00.0 na.0 «0.0 Hw.0 wmn 0cm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.m¢ 0.0b 0.Hb hex
o s mm.o no.0 om.m «n.a new man o.ms o.ss m.mn o.nn s.mm o.mm Hands
.wmm .mcH .wmm .mcH .mmm .wcH .mmm .mcH .wcm .wcH .wmm.wch .wmm .waH apco:

open. Nww pmmpmmaw profill mmmwlmoawon owwAc>< .cHs .c>< .Kma .o><
manned l codpmpaaaomam, caspasemaobi

 

 

.szHeaooa wazpoo 3<zHa<m 82¢ zamezH mma mos «sap mamaamg

N HAm<B

TABLE 3

COMPARISON OF DEGREE DAY AND PRECIPITATION TOTALS,
APRIL THROUGH OCTOBER AND MAY THROUGH JULY
INGRAM AND SAGINAW COUNTIES. 1958

 

 

ITotal degree days‘“ Total precipitation

 

 

 

Location Apr.-Oct. May—July Apr.-Oct. May-July

Ingham Co. 1488 411 17.23 8.23

Saginaw Co. 1675 487 18.40 7.93
Difference 187 76 1.17 0.30

 

**Degree days were computed by subtracting the mean of the
highest and lowest daily temperatures from a base of 65°F.

If the mean was 65° F. or below, no degree days were re—

corded.

-10...

TABLE 4

MEAN AND RANGE IN PERFORMANCE FOR 81 HYBRIDS AT THREE
PLANT POPULATIONS GROWN IN INGHAM COUNTY (EXPERIMENTS
91.93.95) AND SAGINAW COUNTY (EXPERIMENTS 92,94,96) 1958

 

 

 

 

 

‘Plant Eip. Yield Two-cared Lodging Moisture
pOpu- num- bushels __plants Stalk__Rnot .in cars"
lation ber per acre % %
Location: Ingham County
8,000 91 Mean 92.4 29.3 0.7 22.4 36.6
Low 63.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.5
High 141.1 77.8 4.1 60.3 48.1
Tester Mean 69.8 17.3 1.0 2.3 40.7
12,000 93 Mean 108.4 14.7 2.1 26.0 35.1
Low 81.3 0.0 0.0 2.9 22.9
High 136.0 51.2 12.0 73.3 45.6
Tester Mean 101.7 3.0 5.4 4.7 33.0
16,000 95 Mean 102.5 10.1 2.2 30.8 36.9
Low 80.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 26.4
High 128.6 35.4 16.3 68.8 45.4
Tester Mean 94.1 2.6 12.6 17.5 35.3
Location: Sgginaw County
8,000 92 Mean 70.2 14.2 3.4 39.3 30.2
Low 57.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 20.1
High 85.3 37.3 10.3 76.7 40.0
Tester Mean 72.9 19.5 9.3 17.0 28.5
12,000 94 Mean 79.6 6.4 4.5 38.4 31.3
Low 61.1 0.0 0.0 8.8 24.6
High 104.5 21.4 17.8 85.9 41.1
Tester Mean 94.7 12.6 12.3 15.4 31.2
16,000 96 Mean 76.5 3.6 6.8 44.3 30.9
Low 64.5 0.0 0.0 6.0 24.4
High 96.0 20.0 21.7 86.7 39.9
Tester Mean 75.2 3.0 17.7 13.9 29.6

-11-

and their performance data in three-way hybrids are given in
Tables 17—27 of the Appendix.

Mean yields at the Saginaw County location were 22.2
to 28.8 bushels lower, depending on pOpulation, than at Ing-
ham County for the same 81 hybrids. This reduction in yield
indicated that some factor or factors in the environment -
temperature, moisture, fertility, etc. - had become limiting
earlier at Saginaw County for the same hybrids. These lim-
itations apparently interfered with development of second
ears.

Analysis of variance for yield (Table 5) showed highly
significant differences due to hybrids, plant populations and
locations. Interactions of locations x pOpulations and lo~
cations x hybrids were highly significant. Hybrid x pOpulation
and location x pOpulation x hybrid interactions were not sig-
nificant. Effects of hybrids and plant populations on yields
were not similar at each location but the hybrids did respond
in a similar manner at each population. When components of
variance were determined, hybrids and location were found to
have the greatest effects on yield.

Correlation of yields for the two locations at each plant
population(Table 6) showed that the high yielding hybrids at
Ingham County at the 8,000 population tended to be among the
high yielding ones at Saginaw County also. The correlation
was low but significant. At 12,000 and 16,000 pOpulations,

yields were not significantly correlated for the two locations.

-12-

These low correlations and the highly significant hybrid x
location interaction (Table 5) indicates that, in general the
relative performance of the hybrids was not the same at each
location.

Significant interactions, hybrid x location, are common
when evaluating yield of selected or unselected lines from corn
belt germ-plasm in hybrid combinations. This population of
untested lines involved approximately 25% unadapted southern
germ-plasm and could be expected to react differently with the
environment at the two locations.

Correlations for yields at various pOpulations in Ingham
County were highly significant while those at Saginaw County
were lower and only one was significant. Although the inter-
actions, hybrid x population (Table 5), were not significant,
the correlations (Table 6) showed that the response of hybrids
to pOpulation in Saginaw County was not nearly as consistent
as it was in Ingham County. Considering average yields from
both locations, the correlation was highly significant and
the interaction, hybrid x pOpulation, was not significant.
Relative performance of the hybrids tended to be consistent at
each population.

These correlations and first order interactions indicate
that testing at several locations seems to be more important
than testing at several plant populations. More precise evalu-
ations may be obtained by including more locations and reduc-

ing the number of plant populations.

-13-

TABLE 5

ANALYSES OF VARIANCE FOR YIELDS
EXPERIMENTS 91-96, INGRAM AND SAGINAW COUNTIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Components
Source d.f. M.». F of
variance
Total 1457
Hybrids 80 458.6 82.3** 73.4
Populations 2 798.0 143.3** 4.7
Locations 1 16,268.? 2920.8** 66.8
H x P 160 4.7 N.s.\‘/ 0.0
L x P 2 33.1 5.9** 0.34
L x H 80 18.3 3.29** 4.2
L x P x H 160 5.0 N.S.\'/ 0.0
Error 972 5.6 5.6
Ingham COunty Saginaw Coufity
Source d.f. Exes.91,93 95 Exps. 92 94,96
M75. M.S. E“
Total 728
Populations 2 569.6 94.9** 261.5 70.5**
Hybrids 80 50.1 8.4** 14.1 3.8**
H x P 160 6.0 N.S. 3.7 N.S.
Error 486 6.0 5.1
** Significant at the 1% level

¢,Not significant

-l4—

TABLE 6

CORRELATION OF YIELDS WITH PLANT
POPULATIONS FOR EACH LOCATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

h t
goiigiaigéstic Location and pOpulation correlated r
Ingham County Saginaw County
Exp. 91,93,95 Exp. 92,94,96
Yield 8,000 with 8,000 0.25*
' 12,000 " 12,000 0.01
16,000 " 16,000 0.12
Means - all Means - all
populations ' populations 0.25*
Ingham County) Exps. 91,934.95
Yield 8,000 12,000 0.56**
" 8,000 16,000 0.57**
" 12,000 16,000 0.48**
Saginaw County, EXps. 92,94,96
Yield 8,000 12,000 0.16
' 8,000 16,000 0.28*
” 12,000 16,000 0.19
Combined Locations
Yield 8,000 12,000 O.53**
“ 8,000 16,000 0.50**
“ 12,000 16,000 O.86**

 

n = 70, r = 0.23 at the 5% level and 0.30 at the 1% level

Ingham and Saginaw Counties, Experiments 91-96

-15-

For each population, hybrids with high percentages of two
cars at one location tended to be high in ear number at the
other location as indicated by highly significant correlations
(Table 7). Number of ears per plant were lower at Saginaw
County but correlations were still highly significant indica-
ting that, although environment did affect development of the
second ears, a useful portion of the variation in ear number
was inherited.

Highly significant correlations were Obtained between
percentage of two-eared plants at the various populations,
(Table 7). While the percentage of two-cared plants was lower
at the higher populations, those hybrids with the highest ear
number at the lower populations also tended to be higher in
ear number as population increased. Expression of the two-eared
characteristic was reduced at the higher populations but se-
lection for multiple ears could be effective at either popu-
lation.

Correlations of yield with percent of two-eared plants
were significant at 8,000 and 12,000 populations and highly
significant at the 16,000 population in Ingham County (Table 8),
but only five to 19 percent of the variation in yield was
associated with ear number. Correlations of yield and ear
number for the other experiments were not significant. Yield
was not very dependent on ear number.

Correlations of percentage of two-cared plants with stalk

and root lodging were low, generally not significant, and were

-16...

TABLE 7

CORRELATION OF PERCENT TWO-EARED PLANTS
AT THREE PLANT POPULATIONS FOR EACH LOCATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Egiggigigéstic Population and locations correlated r
Ingham County Saginaw County
Exp. 91,93195 Exp. 92,94,96
% two ears 8,000 with 8,000 0.82**
“ 12,000 ” 12,000 0.66**
‘ 16,000 “ 16,000 0.49**
Ingham County - Exps. 91,93,95
% two ears 8,000 with 12,000 0.76**
" 8,000 “ 16,000 0.73**
“ 12,000 ' 16,000 0.78**
Saginaw County -Exps. 92194196
% two ears 8,000 with 12,000 O.62**
" 8,000 " 16,000 0.54**
" 12,000 " 16,000 O.56**

 

n = 70, r = 0.23 at the 5% level and 0.30 at the 1% level
Ingham and Saginaw Counties, Experiments 91-96

-17-

TABLE 8

CORRELATION OF PERCENT TWO-EARED PLANTS WITH YIELD, STALK
LODGING, ROOT LODGING AND WITH PERCENT EAR MOISTURE

 

 

 

Location Percent two ears correlated with
and Zetalk %_foot % ear
plant Yi eld lodging 1249:1112 .mniat. are.
gpopulation r r r r

 

Ingham County - Exps. 91, 93, 95

8,000 population 0.24* 0.24* -O.12 -0.20
12,000 ' 0.26* —0.13 —0.02 0.09
16,000 " 0.44** -0.04 0.02 0.09

Saginaw County -Exps. 92, 94, 96

8,000 population -0.04 0.05 -0.24* 0.27‘
12,000 ” 0.17 0.09 —O.15 0.04
16,000 " 0.02 0.22 -0.12 0.05

 

n = 70 r = 0.23 at the 5% level and 0.30 at the 1% level
Ingham and Saginaw Counties, Experiments 91-96

-18-

not consistent. There was no consistent evidence that hybrids
with higher percentage of two ears were any more or less sus-
ceptible to lodging than hybrids with lower ear number.

Only two of the nine correlations of percentage of two-
eared plants with percentage ear moisture were significant.

In general, there was little evidence that hybrids with high-
er percentages of two ears were later or earlier in maturity
than hybrids with lower percentages of two ears. Late matu-
rity and prolificacy from the southern prolific sources did
not appear to be closely linked since some relatively early
maturing lines contributing high percentages of two—cared
plants were obtained.

Correlations of yield with ear moisture, a measure of
maturity, were low and generally not significant (Table 9).
Some of the high yielding entries were relatively early in
maturity while others were later in maturity. Even when test—
ing highly selected adapted hybrids in Michigan, there is
generally little correlation between yield and maturity since
some early maturing hybrids yield as much or more than later
maturing hybrids. Both early and late maturing lines possess-
ing high combining ability with the tester could be selected
from the population of 85 lines evaluated (Appendix Table 17).

Low, non-significant correlations of moisture content
for 83 lines between locations (Table 10) show that relative
maturity was not consistent for both locations. Low corre-

lations between locations and significant hybrid x location

-19-

TMflEQ

CORRELATION OF YIELD WITH
PERCENT EAR MOISTURE AT EACH LOCATION

 

 

'CHaracter

correlated Population and location r

 

Ingham County - Ekps. 94195195

 

Yield with %

ear moisture 8,000 population - 0.14
" 12,000 “ - 0.10
” 16,000 " — 0.04.

Saginaw County -Exps. 92,94,96

“ 8,000 population - 0.18
a 12,000 ” - 0.29*
" 16,000 “ - 0.04

 

n = 70 r = 0.25 at the 5% level, Ingham and Saginaw
Counties, Experiments 91-96

 

 

 

 

 

 

amped Ma 00 0s.0 .Hopoa an as 00.0 n a 0 n c \2,
amped ad 00 00.0 .Hmpma an as 00.0 n a 0s u c a
00.0 ¢¢00.0 000.0H . 000.0H a
400.0 0400.0 000.0H = 000.0 .
H0.0 :t00.0 000.0H and: 000.0 oaspmaoa a
mmwwmawm .mmkml.wpcsoo swcdmwm
0a.0 ¢4s0.0 000.0H . 000.0H g
H4.0 4:04.0 000.0a . 000.0 .
$00.0 tsmw.0 COO-NH Spa? 000.0 QRSpmaOE m
00400.H0 .maxm : mpcaoo amawsH
m t:0s.0 t:ss.0 acoapaasaod z meoapsasdod
J- Han I :00: Ham I c002 a
00.0 00.0 000.0H . 000.0a .
:00.0 sa.0 000.0H . 000.0H a
00.0 00.0 000.0 and: 000.0 magpmaos &
004400.00 .80 000.0 40 dam
590500 wmcdwwm nuance adgwcH
a xwlh dopwaoaaoo
nomad awom mocaa am dcpwamaaoo macapwooa 0:0 coapaflgmom oapwahmpomawno
eaoomwmp 000 in»

 

 

‘ll

 

ZOHE<OOA mofim mom mZOHB¢ADmOA Bz<Am mmmma B<
mmDBmHOz Bzwommm ho mZOHB¢AmmmOO

0H mamds

 

It if] l :(II All“ illil.‘

 

 

H H

'li‘l"

H H

-21...

interactions for yield could be due in part to the relatively
high prOportion of southern unadapted germ-plasm in these
lines. One of the parents for all lines was a late maturing
southern prolific source. Interactions with day length as
southern germ-plasm is moved north is often striking, espe-
cially for time of flowering. While the Saginaw County lo-
cation is only about fifty miles north of the Ingham County
location, lack of correlation in moisture content between
the two locations seems to indicate a maturity interaction
with environment. This is not common when testing more a-
dapted germ-plasm since correlations of maturity with location
are usually quite high. Correlations between locations for
moisture content of entries involving only Corn Belt germ-
plasm were generally higher than those for S:5 lines with the
southern germ—plasm (Table 10). Hybrids with only Corn Belt
germ-plasm appeared to be more consistent in maturity.

Percentages of two-cared plants for the inbred lines
were correlated with similar data for the hybrids (Table 11).
Inbreds stands were not as uniform as hybrid stands and plant
population for the inbreds represents more of a range in
population pressures. Inbreds with extremely low stands in
the nursery were omitted from the correlations.

A11 correlations were significant for both locations,
(Table 11). Inbreds, in the nursery, with more two-cared
plants tended to develOp more second ears in hybrids at all

populations at both locations. The correlations of the per-

-22-

TABLE 11

CORRELATION OF PERCENT TWO-EARED PLANTS FOR INBREDS
WITH PERCENT TWO-EARED PLANTS IN THREE-WAY HYBRIDS

 

 

Inbred Hybrid
population\${ population r

 

Ingham County - Exps. 91,93,95

15,000 with 8,000 0.59**
15,000 a 12,000 0.59**
15,000 a 16,000 0.48**
6,500 n 8,000 0.45**
6,500 " 12,000 0.41**
6,500 " 16,000 0.44**

Saanaw County —Exps. 92,94196

15,000 With 8,000 0.57**
15,000 . 12,000 0.51*
15,000 “ 16,000 0.26*
6,500 ~ 8,000 O.36**
6,500 . 12,000 0.509
6,500 “ 16,000 0.51*

 

n = 63 r : 0.24 at 5% level, 0.52 at 1% level
Ingham and Saginaw Counties, Exps. 91—96

‘67 Inbreds grown only in Ingham County nurseries

formance of the inbred with that of its 83 test—cross hybrid
while useful to the plant breeder for selection in the nurs-
ery, were not close enough to rule out the necessity of evalu-
ating prolificacy of the inbreds in hybrids.

The correlation of percentage of two-cared plants at
6,500 plant population with percentage of two-cared plants
at the 13,000 population of inbreds grown in Ingham County
nurseries was 0.75** (n - 63, r = 0.32 at the 1% level).
Classification of lines for the two-cared characteristic was
effective at either population in the nursery.

Frequency distributions for percentage of two-cared
plants and yield by population and location are presented in
Figures 1-6. In general, some of these 85 lines were con-
tributing markedly, more so at Ingham County than at Saginaw
County, to increased ear number and higher yields in crosses
with the tester. Some environmental factor or factors were
limiting development of second ears and also yields in the
Saginaw County location more than in Ingham County. The
double-cross hybrid Ohio M15, included in all of these trials,
is an older, widely used and adapted hybrid in central Michi-
gan. It has a reputation for more second ears than most other
adapted hybrids for this area although it did not possess a
high degree of prolificacy in these trials. The tester, 0h51
x 0h26, is one of its single cross parents. A number of the
three-way hybrids were superior in ear number and yield com—

pared to Ohio M15. Again, this was more evident at the Ingham

-24-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1
Ingham County, 8,000 plant population
70. Experiment 91
0 60-
0
'8
4. 501
‘ s:
0
‘4 40— T
O
t 50-
,0
5
7;: 20-
10~
9 3;? - _
10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80
P6 cent two-cared plants
70-
m 60'
0
E
I; 50-
o T
H 40"
O
{3; 50 .
"é ~—
2 20‘ 7......
10 -
. 9 '5? LT“! , ..._.
60 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Yi 1d - bushels per acre
Legend:

0 = Ohio M15 T = Tester '3 3 Mean of 85 hybrids

Number of entries

Number of entries

70—
60'
50.
40+
304
20‘

10‘

 

Figure 2

Saginaw County, 8,000 population
Experiment 92

 

 

97—.

-HI

 

60-J

50-

30'

20'

 

 

10 o 50 40 50
Pe cent two-cared plants

 

 

 

 

10d“
9 '5 I

 

60 '70 so 90 100

Yielh - bushels per acre

 

tau _.

 

Number of entries

Number of entries

70-
60-

50-

30 w

20‘v

10‘

 

..26..

Figure 3

Ingham County, 12,000 plant population
Experiment 93

l l I~ I 1

 

 

 

 

70~

60'-

50“

401

50'*

20"

10 ‘

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Percent two-cared plants

 

 

 

 

Ari—La

 

60 70 80 90 100110 120 130 140
Yield - bushels per acre

 

Number of entries

Number of entries

Figure 4

Saginaw County, 12,000 plant population
EIperiment 94

70%

60-
50-
40..
50-

201

101

 

OX
11

 

'L

 

60!

50~

50‘

20‘
10.

 

10 20 50 40 50 60 70

 

 

 

[_

3L.

 

( Percent two-eared plants

.1

 

60 70 80 90

100 110 120 150 140 150

 

Yield - buéhels per acre

‘4‘

Number of entries

Number of entries

70-

601

50«

SOT
201

10-

 

Figure 5

Ingham County, 16,000 plant population
Experiment 95

 

 

er: 1

 

701
60-

50*

30‘
201

10.

 

10 20 50 40 50 60 70 80

Percent two-cared plants

 

 

 

I I

 

 

60 '70 so 90 100110 1250 1501110150
Yield - bushels per acre

 

\I
O
s

O)
O

O!
0

Number of entries
5

T
Saginaw County, 16,000 plant population

 

-29-

Figure 6

Experiment 96

 

 

 

30 i
20
10 .
di'n__1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Percent two-eared plants
70‘
III
a 60-
.2 T
.,50~
t.
C’40-
a ___q
.8 50
2
20- ""'
10.

 

 

i 9| T. ‘“'—1-

 

 

 

60 70 80 90 100 110120 130 140 150

 

Yield -bushels per acre

County location than at Saginaw County. Maturity (Table 10)
of some of these hybrids was comparable to that of Ohio M15
indicating that they could be expected to mature in central
Michigan.

Hybrids significantly higher in yield than the tester
at the l, 5 and 10% level of significance are shown by plant
population and location (Tables 12-14). None of the hybrids
yielded significantly more than the tester at any plant pop-
ulation at Saginaw County. While a majority of those yield-
ing better than the tester in Ingham County were also higher
in percentage of two-eared plants, some of the higher yielding
entries had fewer two-cared plants than the tester. These
tables show that two-eared hybrids were not significantly
higher yielding than singleeeared hybrids. Average perform-
ance at both locations and all populations (Table 14) showed that
about one-half of the entries yielding significantly higher
than the tester were equal to or lower than the tester in ear
number.

Classifying the 70 hybrids involving 85 lines into three
classes based on percentage of two-cared plants (Table 15)
shows that the most prolific group averaged higher than the
intermediate or least prolific groups in yield at all pOpu-
lations in Ingham County. The most prolific group exceeded the
other two groups only at the 12,000 pOpulation for Saginaw
County. While the most prolific hybrids were not consistently
superior in yield, the results warrant continued testing and

evaluation of the better entries.

T BLE 12

HYBRIDS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN TESTER IN
YIELD AT THREE PLANT POPULATIONS AND TWO LOCATIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13”L.s.0. EZTL.6.D. IOETL.6.D.

Tester En- -% En- WEI En— 5?: En- 47"
mean try two try two try two try two
yield 2-ears no. ears no. ears no. ears no. ears

Ingham County, 81000 pOpulationJ Experiment 91
69.8 (17.5) 66 (67.2) 66 (67.2) 66 (67.2) 59 (49.1)
1 (16.7) 1 (16.7) 1 (16.7) 11 (25.5;
76 8.3) 76 ( 8.3) 76 ( 6.5) 52 (11.7
69 (72.9) 69 (72.9) 69 (72.9 42 (29.5)
55 (65.5) 55 (63.3) 55 (65.5) 47 (41.6)
75 (55.5) 75 (55.5) 75 (55.5) 25 (25.0)
14 (18.5)LSD 14 (16.5 14 (18.5; 46 ( 5.2)
64 (59.0) 64 ( 5.0 64 (59.0 40 (14.0)
10 (26.5) 10 (26.5) 10 (28.3) 56 (67.9)
46 (50.0) 46 (50.0) 46 (50.0) 29 (54.2)
2 (55.5) 2 (55.5) 44 (51.4)
56 (15.5) 56 (15.5) 17 (46.6)
71 (12.5) 71 (12.5) 51 (41.4)
41 (24.6) 41 (24.6) 5 (57.5)
15 (49.0) 74 (46.9)
59 (24.1) 75 (55.1)
65 (56.5) 21 (41.1)
26 (21.7)

LSD 6 (56.9;
1 49.

Ingham County, 12,000 populationJ Experiment 93

 

101.7 ( 5.0)

39

(19.5)

39
1
6

66

46

(19.5)
(14.9)
(56.6)
(51.2)
(19.5)

39
1
6

66

64

(19.5)
(14.9)
(36.6)

Table 12 continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

:5 5.5.5. %% LZS.D. IO; L.S.D.
Tester En- 7.? n- T EK- En- 3'—

mean i?» try two try two try two try two
yield 2-ears no. ears no. ears no. ears no. ears

 

Ingham County,_l§,000_popu1ation, Egperiment 95

94.1 ( 2.6) 69 (55.4) 69 (55.4) 69 (55.4)
66 (27.2) 66 (27.2) 66 (27.2)

76 5.6) 76 ( 5.6)

64 (10.0) 64 (10.0)

67 (15.6) 67 (13.8)
52 ( 1.0) 52 ( 1.0)
55 (26.4) 55 (26.4)
47 (12.4)
14 ( 9.5)
44 (11.0)

Saginaw Countyi_8,000 populatiog, Experiment 92
72.9 (19.5) None None None

Saginaw County, 12,000 population, Experiment 94
94.7 (12.6) None None None

. Saginaw CountyJ 161900ApopulationL_Experiment 96
75.2 ( 3.0) None None None

-55...

TABLE 13

HYBRIDS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN TESTER IN YIELD
AT THREE POPULATIONS AVERAGED FOR BOTH LOCATIONS

 

 

 

 

—1 e e e e e e 05-er

Tester - En- % ’En- %

mean try two try two try two
yield 2-ears no. ears no. ears no. ears

 

Ingham and Saginaw Counties, 8,000 pOpulation
Experiments 91-92

71.3

( 6.4)

LSD

66 (52.2)

1 (10.0)
14 (11.0)
69 (52.0)
10 (15.0)
76 ( 6.5)

LSD

66 (52.2)
1 (10.01

 

 

 

73—117.67
55 (46.2)

2 (21.6)
11 (16.2)
52 ( 9.2)
65 (27.5)
16 (56.4)

14‘111.0
(52.0)
(15.0)
( 6.6)
(17.6)
(46.2)
2 (21.
(1

(2
(5

U1

N

A
CDQCOO}
IFU‘NNO)
vvvvv

LSD 66 (52.2)
1 (10.0)
14 (11.0)
69 (52.0)
10 (15.0
76 ( 6.6)
75 (17.6)
55 (46.2)
2 (21.6
11 (16.2
52 ( 9.2
65 (27.5)
16 (36.4)
64 (26.2)
21 (31.8;
20 (56.0
71 ( 7.0
25 (21.0)
40 (12.0;
6 (56.1
41 (20.6)
74 (50.6)
15 (29.5)
47 (28.4)
59 (29.4
59 (19.6%
17 (40.0
29 (45.2)
19 (18.3)
51 (24.2)
18 (15.0)
48 ( 6.0)
46 (20.2)
56 (51.6)
56 (12.5)

Table 13 continued

 

 

‘1 Than. 501150. 10 ...

Tester En— En— E En-
fifififir““7r“—‘_' try two try two try two
yield 2—ears no. ears no. ears no. ears

 

Ingham and Saginaw Counties, 12,000 population
Experiments 93-94

98.2 ( 7.8) None None None

Ingham and Saginaw Counties, 16,000 population
Experiments 95-96

64.6 ( 2.8) 69 (22.6) 69 (22.6) 69 (22.6)
47 (10.4) 47 (10.4) 47 (10.4;
52 ( 1.5) 52 ( 1.5) 52 ( 1.5
14 ( 6.1) 14.( 6.1) 14.( 6.1)
64 ( 8.5; 64 ( 6.5) 64r( 6.5)
41 ( 4.4 41 ( 4.4) 41 ( 4.4)

66 (18.8; 66 (18.8;
54 (12.6 54 (12.6
10 ( 5.6) 10 ( 5.6;
44 ( 6.0 44 ( 6.0
55 (16.4) 55 (16.4)
57 ( 6.1) 57 ( 6.1;
42 ( 1.9) 42 ( 1.9
2 (10.0) 2 (10.0)
56 ( 5.4)

67 ( 7.5)

76 ( 5.4)

11 ( 5.6)

60 (15.6)

-35-

TABLE 14

HYBRIDS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN TESTER IN YIELD
AVERAGE OF THREE POPULATIONS AND TWO LOCATIONS

 

 

 

 

l L.S.D. ‘5? L.S.D. 15%"L.S.D.

Tester En- % 'En- IZ En- %

mean % try two try two try two
yield two-ears no. ears no. ears no. ears

 

Ingham and Saginaw Counties, Experiments 91-96

 

 

 

64.7 ( 9.7) 66 (65.6) 66 (65.6) 66 (65.6)
69 (66.5 69 (66.5) 69 (66.5)
1 ( 7.6) LSD 1 ( 7.6) LSD 1 ( 7.6)
LSD 14 ( 7.6) 14 ( 7.6) 14 ( 7.8;
10 ( 9.7) 10 ( 9.7) 10 ( 9.7
52 ( 6.6) 52 ( 6.6) 52 ( 6.6)
65 (27.6) 65 (27.6) 65 (27.6)
76 ( 4.5) 76 ( 4.5) 76 ( 4.5)
2 (14.0) 2 (14.0) 2 (14.0)
64 (17.1) 64 (17.1) 64 (17.1;
11 ( 9.6) 11 ( 9.6) 11 ( 9.6
47 (16.9) 47 (16.9) 47 (16.9)
71 ( 4.2) 71 ( 4.2) 71 ( 4.2;
42 ( 7.6) 42 ( 7.6) 42 ( 7.6
76 (12.6) 76 (12.6) 76 (12.6)
41 (11.0) 41 (11.0) 41 (11.0)
54 (26.2) 54 (26.2) 54 (26.2)
51 (14.5) 51 (14.5) 51 (14.5)
64 (16.6) 64 (16.6) 64 (16.6)
20 (19.5) 20 (19.5) 20 (19.5;
46 (11.6) 46 (11.6; 46 (11.6
6 (24.7) 6 (24.7 6 (24.7)
69 (16.5) 69 (16.5) 69 (16.5)
29 (29.6) 29 (29.6) 29 (29.6)
16 (20.2) 16 (20.2) 16 (20.2)
40 ( 7.5) 40 ( 7.5) 40 ( 7.5)
25 (10.9) 25 (10.9) 25 (10.9)
17 (21.6) 17 (21.6) 17 (21.6)
55 (61.5) 55 (61.5)

67 (11.6) 67 (11.6)

44 (12.6)

56 ( 4.7)

21 (14.9)

27 (16.0)

19 ( 6.2)

16 ( 9.6)

15 (14.6)

66 (18.6;

74 (20.6

59 (14.9)

65 (12.6)

26 (16.2)

answam umgwmlozp ho pcooama 6662 \w/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“6.6 V 6.66 66 66.6 V 6.66 6H “6.66V 6.66 H 666.6H
A+.6 V 6.66 66 A6.6 V 6.66 6H AH.6HV «.66 6 666.6H
A6.6 V 6.66 H6 A6.6HV 6.66 66 A6.H6V 6.H6 6 666.6
66466.66 .6666: 666666 3666666
A6.6 V 6.Hofl 6w AH.6HV 6.66H 66 “6.66V 6.6HH 6 666.6H
A6.6 V 6.66H 66 A6.66V 6.HHH 66 A6.66V H.66H 6 666.6H
“6.6HV 6.66 66 AH.66V 6.66 66 4w,A6.66V 6.66H 6H 666.6
66.664H6 .6666 1 666666 smgmcH
6Hoam mufipnmn uflmaa 666666: 6amda 666666: coapmasgom
2662?, .mo .oz :662 mo .62 C668 Ho .02 6:6
camafioam pmwmq 696a6oepmp6H oawaaoam,pmoz coapmooq

 

 

Mo<loHdomm OB 62H0m000¢ mmbomw mamme OBZH QMQH>HQ
mQHmmNm wok ZOHB<DOA 92¢ ZOHB<ADmom mo¢m a<
mez¢dm nwm<MI038 Bzmommm Qz¢ QAHHM z<mz

DH mqmfia

Table 16 shows that a number of the 83 lines contributed
significantly more yield to the tester than WFQ (Entry 19,
Appendix Table 17) which is one of the most widely used in-
breds with high combining ability in the Corn Belt. All of
the highest yielding hybrids involved 83 lines. The increase
in yield appears to have been contributed by the southern
germ-plasm in these 85 lines since neither of the two paren-
tal lines, M824A and M81641, added significantly to the test-
er yield. Other Corn Belt lines, W70, M812 and M8150, did

not contribute significantly to the tester.

TABLE 16

MEAN YIELDS OF ADAPTED INBREDS CROSSED TO
TESTER FOR THREE POPULATIONS AND TWO LOCATIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Population Population
Inbred 8,000 12,000 ’16,000 87000 12,000 16,000
Ingham County Saginaw County
W70 78 118 95 64 82 79
WFQ 86 111 111 82 76 69
M824A 68 88 80 64 69 66
M812 66 96 91 67 76 72
M8150 85 95 92 70 61 75
M81541 75 87 95 67 65 66
Tester 70 102 94 75 95 75
Ohio M15 74 100 108 65 84 69

Mean Of 33
lines 95 110 104 70 80 77

 

DISCUSSION

When the highest yielding prolific hybrids were compared
with the highest yielding single ear hybrids at each plant
population and location, there was no significant yield ad-
vantage for the multiple-ear hybrids. Further breeding, se-
lection, and testing of these lines and others involving
different sources of prolificacy and adapted germ-plasm ap-
pears necessary to determine the possibilities of increasing
corn yields by increasing number of ears per plant.

The degree of adaptation of the hybrids using 85 inbreds
from one cross to adapted material was encouraging. Further
recombination of the genes for the multiple-eared character
with early maturity should result from the use of recurrent
selection techniques.

The size of the F2 population should be increased to en-
able selection to include segregates possessing as many of
the possible different prolific genes, and perhaps modifying
genes, as well as the genes for early maturity. Selfing in
a small F2 population fixes the genes so rapidly that the
opportunity for the recombination of the genes for multiple
ear, adaptation and high combining ability is severely limited.

At both locations, the yields of the highest yielding
prolific hybrids at either the 8,000 or the 12,000 populations

were not significantly different from the yields of the high-

..40-

est yielding single-ear hybrids at either the 12,000 or the
16,000 plant populations. However, there were single-eared
hybrids at all populations that were as high yielding as the
best multiple-cared hybrids. The performance of this group

of multiple—cared hybrids did not indicate that plant popu-
lations could be reduced with multiple-eared hybrids while
maintaining corn yields equal to single-eared hybrids at high-
er pOpulations.

Multiple-cared hybrids may be better adapted to high
plant pOpulation, particularly under adverse conditions, and
less subject to deve10ping barren plants even though the
number of two-cared plants may be reduced. In these trials,
barren plants were not observed at any population. Multiple-
eared hybrids showed no less barrenness than single-eared
hybrids at the highest population, 16,000 plants per acre.
Tests at higher populations, 20,000 or more plants per acre,
may be necessary to determine if multiple—eared hybrids are
more resistant to barrenness under population pressure.

These evaluations demonstrated that inbreds contributing
higher yields, increased ear number, improved resistance to
lodging and early maturity to the tester, 0h51 x 0h26, could
be obtained from crosses of southern prolifics with two early
Michigan inbreds, M81541 and M824A. Several lines contributed
significantly more yielding ability to the tester than WF9, a
widely used Corn Belt inbred with outstanding combining a-

bility. The added contribution in yield appeared to come from

the southern germ-plasm since the two parental lines M81541
and M824A did not contribute significantly to the tester.

While there was no consistent superiority in yield for
the best two-eared hybrids compared to the best single-eared
hybrids, further breeding, selection and evaluation of these
lines and others from different sources may eventually lead
to higher yielding two-eared hybrids for the northern Corn
Belt. Intercrossing the best lines to form a pOpulation for
recurrent selection procedures may lead to improvement in
yield, ear number and adaption to the area.

Although the 70 83 lines, chosen for crossing to the
tester in 1957, exhibited two ears per plant, the character-
istic was not universally exhibited in all of the three-way
hybrids in 1958. The selected lines as 84 plants in the 1958
nursery were not all two-cared which shows that environment
was a factor in selection. Correlations for ear number in
inbreds with ear number in hybrids were generally significant
indicating that selection was partially effective. Highly
significant correlations for percentage of two-cared plants
at various populations and for both locations indicated fur-
ther that the characteristic was heritable.

Observations from backcross populations not reported in
this study indicated that ear number was largely recessive
and multi-genic in inheritance. While the tester, Oh51 x 0h26,
deve10ps as many as or more two-cared plants than any other
adapted tester available, it was not outstanding in ear num-

ber. One of its parents, 0h51, is typically a two-eared

inbred while the other, 0h26, is predominantly single—eared.
Failure of some selected lines to add to ear number of the
tester was probably due to greater lack of dominance for ear
number, fewer genes affecting ear number, and errors in clas-
sification of lines due to the effects of the environment.
Since few, if any, single crosses, double crosses and Open-
pollinated varieties adapted to the Corn Belt, are multiple-
eared, one of the few adapted two-eared inbreds, such as
Oh51, may be a better choice of a tester.

Significant hybrid x location interaction and low or
non-significant correlations between locations for yield are
frequently encountered when evaluating previously untested
breeding materials. Lack of consistent responsesin yield at
both locations were not surprising with these three-way hy-
brids in which 25 percent of the germ-plasm originated out-
side of the region.

Low correlations for moisture content between the two
locations indicate a maturity interaction with environment
for those hybrids involving 83 inbreds. If maturity proves
to be inconsistent over several locations, the utilization
of southern sources for prolificacy in hybrids for the north-
ern Corn Belt should be seriously questioned. The use of re-
current selection may lead to lines more consistent in ma-
turity and more adapted to northern environments.

Hybrid interactions with plant pOpulation were not sig-

nificant. Future evaluations of similar materials should

-45-

emphasize testing at more locations and only one plant popuo
lation, preferably 16,000 or more plants per acre.

Ratings of inbred lines for multiple-eared plants in
the nursery at 6,500 and 15,000 populations were significant-
ly correlated. Nurseries at higher pOpulations may prove
more effective in identifying lines with stronger development

of second ears.

-44...

SUMMARY

Seventy 83 inbred lines, selected for multiple ears
during three segregating generations of inbreeding in crosses
of several southern prolific sources with two early maturing
single ear Michigan inbreds (M81541 and M824A) were crossed
with the single cross (Oh5l x 0h26). These three-way hybrids
were tested at three populations (8,000, 12,000 and 16,000
plants per acre) at two locations in 1958.

With this group of previously untested lines, yields and
percentage of two-eared plants varied depending upon hybrid,
plant population and location. Mean yields were lowest and
percentages of two—eared plants were highest at the 8,000
plant population. Highest mean yields were at the 12,000 pop-
ulation. Stalk and root lodging increased at higher popula-
tions.

One of the best two-eared hybrids (Entry 66, Appendix
Table 17) averaged 52, 56 and 19 percent two-eared plants and
112, 105 and 100 bushels per acre at the three pOpulations,
respectively. One of the best single-cared hybrids (Entry 1,
Appendix Table 17) averaged 10, 10 and 5 percent two-cared
plants and 106, 108 and 95 bushels per acre.

Several inbreds develOped from these "exotic“ crosses
contributed higher yields (significantly more than WE9), in-

creased ear number, improved resistance to lodging, and early

-45... —

maturity when compared to the tester, Oh51 x 0h26, The added
contributions in yield came from the southern germ-plasm.

Although affected by environment, a usable portion of
the variation in car number was heritable.

Hybrid x location interaction for yield was significant
while hybrid x population interactions were not significant,
suggesting that future tests could be conducted at one popu- )
lation (16,000 plants) but should include more locations. I

The best multiple-eared hybrids showed no consistent
superiority in ability to yield more than the best single- (“

 

eared hybrids at any of the three populations. There were L___u
no examples to illustrate the possibility that the best two-
eared hybrids could be planted at lower plant populations
with less lodging and harvest losses and that their yields

would exceed the best single-cared hybrids at the lower popu-

 

lation and still equal or exceed the yields of the best sin-
gle-eared hybrids at the higher populations. At the high
population, barren plants did not occur and the best two-eared
hybrids showed no ability to yield more than the best single-
eared hybrids.

While these evaluations did not identify any superior
two-cared hybrids, further breeding, selection and evaluation
of these lines and others from different sources may eventually
lead to two-cared hybrids that would exceed the performance

of the best single-cared hybrids in the northern Corn Belt.

 

(1)

(2)

(5)

LITERATURE CITED

Josephson, L. M. Breeding for early pro-
lific hybrids. Proceedings Twelfth Hy-
brid Corn Industry-Research Conference:
71-79. 1957

Lang, A. L., Pendleton, J. W., and Dungan,
G. H. Influence of population and nitro-
gen levels on yield and protein and oil
contents of nine corn hybrids.

Agron. Jour. 48:284-289. 1956

Zuber, M. 8. and Grogan, C. 0.
Rate of planting studies with corn.
Missouri Agric. Exp. Sta. Bul. 610. 1956

 

 

APPENDIX

Tables 17 to 27 inclusive

Means and ranges for Tables 18 to 25

are given in Table 4 of the text.

 

 

TABLE 17

ENTRY NUMBER AND PEDIGREE OF HYBRIDS IN EXPERIMENTS
91 THROUGH 96, INGHAM AND SAGINAW COUNTIES. 1958

 

 

Entry number

Pedigree

 

LOGQCDUIPOINH

(Jellicorse x M14) X M81541
u

W70
(Jellicorse x M14) x MS24A
(Jellicorse x Kle6) x M81541
I

(Dixie 22 x M824A)
I I

(Dixie 22 x M81541)

(Dixie 22 x M824A)

(Dixie 22 x M81541)
I I

I , I
(Jellicorse x M14) x MS24A
I I

(Jellicorse x Ky106) x MS24A

WFQ

(Short stalk Prolific O.P. x MS24A)
I I

(Jarvis Golden Prolific O.P. x M81541)
M824A-1
(Weekleys 21 x M824A)

I I

(Jellicorse x M824A)
V II
(Dixie 55 x M824A)
I

(Oh51 x Oh26)

MSZ4A-2

MSlZ—l

(Difle 22 x M824A)
u

(Dixie 22 x M81541)
(Jellicorse x M14) x MS24A
I I

(Bests Prolific x M81341)
(Jellicorse x Kle6) x M81541

Table 17 continued

-48-

 

 

Entry number

41
42
45
44
45
46
47

Pedigree

(Dixie 17 x M81541)

(Jarvis Golden Prolific x M81541)
M8150
(Thompson Prolific x M824A)
(NC18 x M81541)
(K18145 x M824A)

(Dixie 22 x M824A)

(Dixie 55 x M824A)

(B2 x MO.21A) B2 M824A

I I

(B2 x Mo. 21A) 32 M824A
u n

(Jellicorse x MS24A)
(Thompsons Prolific x M824A)
I I u

(Dixie 22 x M61641)
)1 ll

(Jellicorse x M14) x M824A
(Dixie 22 x MS24A)
M812-2
(Dixie 22 X M824A)
I I

(Dixie 55 x M824A)
(Miss. 1125 x MS24A)
(Jarvis Golden Prolific O.P. x MS24A)
(M188. 1125 x M824A)
(0.1.21 x NC7) x MS24A
(Dixie 18 x M824A)
(Jellicorse x M824A)

(Dixie 22 x M824A)
u a

(Dixie 17 x M81541)

(Jarvis Golden Prolific x MS24A)
M81541

(N018 x M61641)

(Jellicorse x Kle6) M81541
Oth M15

Oh51 x Oh26

 

 

P0pulation:8,000 plants per acre, Ingham County

TABLE 18

" LU

Agronomic data from Experiment 91

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bafik eld Moisture Lod ing o-eared
by Entry bushels in ears StaIE Root plants
yield number per acre 1 4 f 15
1 66 141.1 26.5 5.2 60.5 67.2
2 1 128.4 55.6 - 26.7 16.7
5 76 125.8 59.9 - 45.0 8.5
4 69 121.5 58.7 - 15.5 72.9
5 55 120.1 40. - 20.0 65.5
6 75 116.9 58. - 26.7 55.5
7 14 112.5 54. 1.9 57.0 18.5
8 64 112.1 27. 1.7 42.4 59.0
9 10 110.9 56. - 51.7 28.5
10 46 107.8 57. - 45.0 50.0
11 2 107.2 57. 1.7 46.7 55.
15 71 105.5 51.6 - 26.5 12.5
14 41 105.5 55.7 - 47.4 24.6
15 15 105.0 56.5 4.1 24.5 49.0
16 59 102.5 56.2 - 24.1 24.1
17 65 102.1 42.1 - 25.5 58.5
18 6 101.9 41.7 - 29.5 56.9
19 16 101.0 59.1 - 7.5 49.1
20 59 100.9 55.4 1.9 55.8 49.1
21 11 100.2 59.5 1.8 9.1 25.5
25 42 99.4 56.7 5.4 20.7 29.5
24 47 99.1 58.9 - 25.5 41.8
25 25 98.6 57.5 5.5 16.7 25.0
26 48 98.4 56.4 - 24.1 5.2
27 40 97.8 57.7 - 15.8 14.0
28 58 97.4 55.2 - 22.6 67.9
29 29 97.5 55.6 1.7 8.5 54.2
50 44 97.2 58.1 2.0 29.4 51.4
51 17 96.6 55.4 1.7 - 46.6
52 51 96.1 56.7 — 12.1 41.4
55 5 95.9 57.4 - ’8.9 57.5
54 74 95.9 58.5 - 8.2 46.9
55 75 94.6 56.7 - 56.1 55.1
56 21 94.1 51.6 - 1.8 41.1
57 28 94.1 56.1 - 25.5 21.7
58 12 92.4 56.0 1.7 55.0 18.5
59 7 91.9 55.0 - 7.0 42.1
40 15 91.4 51.0 - 17.0 52.1

fl ’0?! anal

 

 

Table 18 continued

*;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Rafik Yield Moisture ‘Ibd ing Two-cared

by Entry bushels in ears Stalk Beet plants

.yield number per acre ._5 5 _ 5
41 20 90.8 29.0 7.1 10.7 57.1
42 57 90.6 41.7 1.8 46.4 21.4
45 68 90.6 40.0 - 50.5 25.4
44 57 90.5 52.8 - 20.8 15.2
45 50 90.5 57.4 - 56.7 18.5
46 18 89.8 57.1 1.7 20.0 21.7
47 54 89.6 56.5 - 49.2 16.9
48 26 89.5 55.8 - 56.4 29.1
49 70 88.1 58.0 - 9.5 55.2
50 60 87.5 58.1 - 52.8 57.7
51 55 87.4 55.8 — 25.5 25.0
52 56 86.6 55.5 - 59.0 27.1
55 67 85.2 56.7 - 26.5 28.1
54 8 86.1 55.7 1.8 18.2 16.4
55 19 86.1 48.1 - 12.7 25.6
56 27 84.8 56.7 - 15.6 20.5
57 45 84.8 55.2 - 46.5 11.1
58 72 84.1 55.9 - 5.8 40.4
59 55 85.4 55.4 - 15.0 77.8
60 49 82.4 57.1 - 21.7 21.7
61 5 82.2 56.1 1.8 5.5 25.6
62 54 82.1 55.8 - 8.5 55.2
65 9 82.0 57.4 - 14.5 28.6
64 78 81.6 40.7 - 25.0 50.0
65 65 81.4 56.0 - 51.0 22.4
66 24 80.5 45.8 - 14.5 25.0
67 45 80.0 59.6 - 19.0 12.1
68 22 78.5 57.2 - 28.5 18.5
69 55 78.5 56.4 - 8.1 40.5
70 4 78.2 56.5 - - 19.0
71 79 75.1 57.7 - 4.0 12.0
72 62 74.9 55.9 - 2.0 6.1
75 80 74.0 55.0 1.9 11.1 16.7
74 77 75.2 29.2 - 10.5 -
75 51 71.8 54.8 1.7 8.5 18.6
76 81 71.2 59.8 2.1 2.1 25.0
77 56 69.7 56.7 - 17.2 12.1
78 50 68.5 41.5 - 2.4 9.5
79 52 67.9 29.2 5.5 5.5 5.5
80 61 64.4 56.5 - 7.1 5.4
81 25 65.9 55.4 ~ - 29.4
Standard error of means = 10.4 bu.

Least significant difference at 5% level = 28.8 bu.

Least significant difference at 1% level = 57.8 bu.

Coefficient of variation = 11.5

 

TABLE 19

Agronomic data from Experiment 92
Population:8.000 plants per acre, Saginaw County

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fin: 7 "Yield Moisture ‘Lod Ln Two-eared
by [Entry bushels ling ears lStali 5005 plants
yield number per acre 45 15
1 20 85.5 24.110.5 5.2 19.0
2 1 82.9 29. 5 1.7 55.0 5.5
5 11 82.7 55.8 6.9 20.7 6.9
4 21 82.6 25.5 - 15.2 22.6
5 14 82.2 55.0 6.8 57.5 5.4
6 19 81.8 29.5 - 30.4 1300
7 52 81.8 51.7 5.5 28.5 6.7
8 54 81.8 25.7 5.5 45.5 25.5
9 66 81.4 55.6 ’5.4 50.8 57.5
10 10 81.1 50.1 - 55.5 1.7
11 16 78.9 55.5 5.6 18.2 25.6
12 65 78.6 22.9 1.7 56.7 16.7
14 55 77.2 51.5 8.5 55.9 15.6
15 25 76.2 29.4 - 59.0 16.9
16 74 76.2 29.8 5.6 5.7 14.8
17 81 76.2 28.9 2.7 - 16.2
18 2 76.0 50.5 1.7 71.7 10.0
19 40 76.0 50.0 1.7 58.5 10.0
20 65 75.5 50.5 7.4 44.4 5.7
21 45 75.1 52.7 8.5 51.7 5.0
22 54 75.9 55.8 1.8 42.1 24.6
25 27 75.4 50.5 5.5 28.5 16.7
24 24 75.2 50.7 - 52.8 20.7
25 22 75.1 51.8 1.7 61.7 25.0
26 50 72.7 50.7 5.4 55.9 22.0
27 17 72.4 56.8 1.8 7.0 55.5
28 47 72.0 54.2 1.7 50.0 15.0
29 51 71.9 52.9 - 45.1 6.9
50 78 71.8 25.8 1.8 47.5 1.8
51 9 71.7 28.1 10.0 ‘28.5 8.5
52 61 71.6 25.0 8.6 25.9 1.7
55 29 71.5 25.5 8.6 19.0 56.2
54 69 71.4 54.7 9.8 19.7 51.1
55 75 71.1 52.7 1.8 14.5 1.8
56 6 70.7 54.0 - 61.4 19.5
57 7 70.5 27.6 5.7 62.5 15.2
58 45 70.2 28.0 5.9 49.0 19.6
59 55 70.1 50. 7 - 60.0 15.5
40 71 70.0 55.7 5.5 56.4 1.8

Table 19 continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rank Yield Moisture 1 Lodging Two-cared

by Entry bushels in ears a 00 plants

yield Anumber .per acregg X A! S
41 8 69.9 28.3 8.3 35.0 11.7
42 30 69.5 28.1 15.9 34.1 22.7
43 59 69.5 31.8 3.9 60.8 9.8
44 12 69.3 31.0 1.8 56.1 1.8
45 38 69.1 35.5 3.8 34.0 35.8
46 41 69.0 27.0 - 76.7 16.7
47 13 68.9 24.1 1.8 50.0 ,19.6
48 48 68.9 27.1 3.4 37.9 6.9
49 15 68.7 28.4 1.7 33.3 10.0
50 37 68.5 26.9 1.9 20.8 7.5
51 67 67.7 28.9 - 46.7 6.7
52 3 67.4 31.4 - 20.0 28.3
53 26 67.2 30.0 - 29.1 10.9
54 57 67.2 29.4 8.3 76.7 6.7
55 31 67.0 26.2 5.5 30.9 20.0
56 39 66.8 28.7 10.0 43.3 15.0
57 77 66.6 24.8 1.8 60.0 1.8
59 35 66.1 40.0 6.5 32.3 29.0
60 76 65.6 31.1 1.6 56.5 4.8
61 75 65.5 29.6 1.7 37.3 13.6
62 64 65.1 33.2 3.8 55.8 17.3
63 42 64.9 30.2 1.7 63.3 5.0
64 4 64.2 29.2 - 36.5 9.6
65 28 64.2 30.4 3.5 29.8 17.5
66 56 64.2 20.1 1.7 69.5 3.4
67 70 63.2 34.6 3.9 33.3 21.6
68 60 62.9 33.4 5.3 35.1 14.0
69 55 62.8 27.8 - 61.4 19.3
70 80 62.8 29.7 6.1 14.3 16.3
71 32 62.1 25.5 5.7 41.5 3.8
72 5 61.1 29.8 1.8 26.8 12.5
73 23 61.0 30.5 4.0 8.0 16.0
74 68 59.9 33.5 1.6 26.2 18.0
75 58 59.8 38.2 1.7 73.3 11.7
76 79 59.8 30.7 - 37.7 20.8
77 72 59.0 35.0 4.2 22.9 22.9
78 . 46 59.0 30.4 1.7 43.1 10.3
79 44 58.1 34.9 6.7 36.7 6.7
80 36 57.6 28.0 - 50.0 6.7
81 62 57.2 32.5 2.1 33.3 12.5
Standard error of means = 9.3 bu.

Least significant difference at 5% level = 25.8 bu.

Least significant difference at 1% level = 33.8 bu.

Coefficient of variation 8 13,2

.-55-

ATABLE 20

Agronomic data from Ekperiment 93
Population:12,000 plants per acre, Ingham County

 

 

 

 

 

 

833k "5 * Yielfl Moisture lodging tTib-eared
by Entry bushels Jin ears BTEIE"TFEEY’[ plants
‘yield ‘number per acre_w 7 .5 4% f
1 59 156.0 54.0 5.7 42.7 19.5
2 1 150.8 54.4 - 28.7 14.9
5 6 127.1 55.5 - 46.1 56.8
4 66 126.5 59.5 1.2 42.7 51.2
5 46 125.5 54.7 - 20.7 19.5
6 69 124.9 59.4 5.5 22.4 55.5
7 64 124.4 52.5 1.5 44.5 25.5
8 14 125.5 58.5 1.2 75.5 11.6
9 55 122.5 58.2 5.5 16.7 27.8
10 10 122.2 54.0 1.1 50.0 10.2
11 42 122.2 56.1 7.1 15.5 4.7
12 58 122.1 59.2 - 67.0 -
15 20 121.6 22.9 5.6 22.5 14.6
14 68 120.2 56.9 5.6 25.5 20.5
15 71 119.4 51.7 - 18.5 2.4
16 40 119.2 57.9 1.2 26.8 11.0
17 4 118.1 25.1 6.8 5.4 9.5
18 52 116.9 56.1 - 16.5 2.5
19 54 116.8 55.4 5.4 46.1 21.5
20 29 116.8 52.5 - 5.6 42.2
21 51 116.6 29.1 - 56.6 14.6
22 67 114.8 56.5 - 29.1 17.7
25 56 115.6 51.8 - 42.9 14.5
24 26 115.5 52.2 - 24.4 15.1
25 47 115.2 58.4 2.5 52.1 19.2
26 75 112.8 55.5 1.2 6.2 21.0
27 18 112.1 55.6 1.1 40.4 6.7
28 45 112.0 57.8 4.9 16.0 14.8
29 22 111.8 55.2 1.1 52.6 19.1
50 11 111.6 57.2 4.7 20.0 5.5
51 19 111.2 58.7 1.5 16.5 2.5
52 65 111.2 56.9 1.2 22.4 16.5
55 57 110.7 55.5 - 50.6 9.2
54 2 110.6 54.2 - 50.0 19.5
55 24 110.6 57.0 - 57.6 7.1
56 44 110.6 54.5 - 15.9 14.6
57 25 110.4 55.2 25.6 7.8
58 54 110.4 57.4 25.4 27.5
59 76 109.0 41.4 52.9 7.1
40 75 108.2 57.6 40.5 27.4

-54-

Table 20 continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fink ‘Yield ’Moisture ‘Lodging Tic-cared

by Entry bushels in ears Stalk Root plants

_yield number per acre 5 5 1% S
41 78 108.1 57.9 1.2 19.8 9.5
42 57 108.0 52.5 2.4 8.5 7.5
45 79 107.6 57.4 1.5 15.8 11.5
44 16 107.5 58.0 5.6 22.9 22.9
45 65 107.4 57.8 2.2 45.8 12.4
46 17 107.5 55.6 - 5.8 18.6
47 28 106.5 56.9 5.6 28.9 16.9
48 50 106.5 56.8 4.7 50.2 7.0
49 59 106.2 59.0 9.5 46.4 11.9
50 15 105.6 55.5 1.2 15.4 15.9
51 55 105.1 57.5 1.5 18.8 57.5
52 81 104.8 51.5 5.2 4.8 1.6
55 7 104.1 54.5 2.4 15.9 24.4
54 27 104.0 57.0 2.5 15.0 15.0
55 55 105.2 50.6 5.4 54.8 15.7
56 55 102.7 54.9 1.2 20.7 20.7
57 48 102.5 52.1 12.0 25.5 4.8
58 72 102.5 54.4 4.5 15.9 50.4
59 74 102.4 57.4 - 7.5 25.8
60 60 102.1 58.2 1.2 51.5 26.5
61 49 101.4 55.4 5.6 15.1 7.1
62 15 101.2 28.8 - 22.5 11.5
55 41 101.2 59.5 - 49.4 8.4
54 5 101.0 54.4 1.5 10.5 9.0
65 80 99.7 54.0 1.6 8.1 9.7
66 61 99.4 28.9 5.7 21.0 5.7
67 50 98.5 54.8 7.5 4.5 4.5
68 56 97.7 54.5 2.4 27.4 1.2
69 70 95.5 45.6 1.4 26.4 18.1
70 45 95.0 52.8 2.9 45.7 8.6
71 5 94.5 55.5 - 9.0 9.0
72 52 94.0 28.2 1.1 6.9 2.5
75 58 95.9 55.6 - 54.2 25.5
74 21 95.7 40.0 - 6.4 9.0
75 62 95.7 56.7 - 5.2 -
76 8 95.5_ 54.5 8.1 12.8 8.1
77 25 88.9 55.2 - 2.9 16.2
78 12 87.4 57.5 - 44.5 8.9
79 51 87.0 55.2 5.5 5.5 19.8
80 77 86.9 28.8 - 54.2 -
81 9 81.5 51.7 - 11.5 16.1

 

Standard error of means = 8.4 bu.
Least significant difference at 5% level = 23.4 bu.
Least significant difference at 1% level 8 30.8 bu.

Coefficient of variation 3 7.8

.-

\ I . \ I e I t . 1
8 ‘ | I. . OI .
p I
I . 1‘ u .. . . p
. | . 7
.II V i . .0
I I I \ n ‘I‘
i u n .
n . o .
, . ., e
. e o 0 e o o O n
o
I c .
.D .
. y. . \ -
0 I I
, . .
_. .u n. . .
. I e. a
.
o I o a o o o I a I
. . . s .
.
. I . r n
. I .
5 m \ n I
e . e e o . o o u e
' u
.
c .
. .
.
.. \ In ~ ; >-
. . 7 . s
. .. . I .
e e e c o u l n e o
.. .
.4. x
. . a I t
. . . . n I
.. , i . _
e o 0 Q a e e u e I
. . .0 I

TABLE 21

Agronomic data from Experiment 94
Pepulation:12,000 plants per acre, Saginaw County

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fink ‘Yield EolEture ’_:Iodging; ‘Tio-earéd
by Entry bushels Jin ears .Stalk float—J plants
yield number per acre 8 j J 5 Z;
1 81 104.5 29.4 8.2 14.3 14.3
2 35 95.9 28.8 7.4 39.5 14.8
5 55 95.6 27.4 7.1 47.1 21.4
4 69 93.3 33.3 7.1 32.1 16.7
5 48 92.6 25.0 17.8 27.8 1.1
6 71 92.6 33.8 - 46.2 -
7 27 92.2 30.8 6.4 17.9 6.4
8 52 90.1 31.6 2.2 53.9 -
10 76 88.7 30.7 5.9 48.1 -
11 17 88.6 32.3 2.7 20.3 10.8
12 2 88.5 30.8 4.7 44.7 1.2
13 38 88.5 30.0 3.7 24.7 6.2
14 34 87.8 33.7 3.6 33.7 12.0
15 22 87.7 33.8 - 72.0 2.4
16 72 86.7 29.8 8.0 22.0 18.0
17 1 86.3 29.7 3.6 24.1 6.0
18 11 86.2 34.5 5.0 15.0 11.3
19 33 86.1 33.9 5.6 31.9 16.7
20 49 86.1 31.9 6.0 25.3 8.4
21 37 85.9 27.8 2.4 13.3 -
22 29 85.2 28.0 3.8 25.3 20.3
23 30 84.9 32.9 16.4 16.4 10.9
24 21 84.8 26.9 2.5 8.8 3.8
25 80 84.2 29.3 11.8 11.8 4.4
26 3 83.7 "26.9 2.3 17.4 14.0
27 5 83.7 30.1 6.8 51.4 5.4
28 54 83.7 29.2 10.4 37.7 10.4
29 45 83.6 36.5 8.3 36.9 4.8
30 66 83.2 35.7 1.3 57.7 20.5
31 42 82.7 30.1 4.5 62.5 1.1
52 4 82.5 28.9 5.4 65.8 1.7
33 51 82.3 31.7 9 .3 48.8 5.8
34 41 82.2 31.8 3.8 85.9 7.7
35 24 82.0 34.0 1.4 41.7 6.9
36 47 81.7 35.0 6.0 25.0 4.8
37 62 81.1 33.1 - 31.5 5.5
58 9 80.7 25.2 5.4 17.6 4.1
39 28 80.6 30.5 5.9 17.6 4.4
40 67 80.6 29.2 1.2 45.2 3.6

Table 21 continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

835k Yield Moisture lod5ing 5TEo-eared

by Entry bushels in ears Stalk Root plants

yield number_ per acre 4% «z
41 25 80.4 31.2 1.2 52.9 7.1
42 10 79.9 30.7 - 64.0 7.0
43 79 78.9 33.7 2.6 36.4 2.6
44 15 78.8 31.2 5.2 15.6 2.6
45 36 78.3 30.3 2.2 31.5 2.2
46 32 78.2 29.0 2.6 60.5 -
47 26 78.1 31.4 7.2 39.1 8.7
48 56 77.7 31.3 1.3 46.7 1.3
49 13 77.5 26.1 3.6 34.5 2.4
50 44 77.3 32.1 6.6 ' 34.2 9.2
51 19 76.0 32.3 - 44.1 2.9
52 50 76.0 30.5 6.2 50.6 4.9
53 6 75.9 31.5 5.2 45.5 6.5
54 8 75.6 32.2 13.5 29.7 2.7
55 74 75.6 30.4 6.8 13.7 9.6
56 18 75.5 28.0 1.4 16.7 1.4
57 53 75.1 31.3 2.2 30.0 5.6
58 40 74.8 28.7 2.5 22.5 2.5
59 59 74.2 32.6 2.9 51.4 2.9
60 61 74.0 27.4 2.5 55.6 -
61 46 73.9 31.0 4.8 59.5 4.8
62 63 73.6 32.2 4.1 61.6 4.1
63 70 73.3 36.4 - 30.3 16.7
64 16 72.8 35.6 6.4 35.9 9.0
65 75 72.2 35.3 5.2 42.9 2.6
66 73 72.1 33.6 4.0 5.3 1.3
67 31 71.2 30.1 1.4 24.3 4.3
68 64 71.1 34.1 8.2 50.7 4.1
69 20 71.0 28.2 10.5 10.5 7.9
70 7 70.7 29.1 1.1 52.9 3.4
71 78 69.5 34.7 5.7 36.8 4.6
72 58 68.7 38.0 5.0 70.0 -
73 12 68.6 30.1 7.1 39.3 4.8
74 68 66.7 32.6 1.4 38.9 8.3
75 65 66.3 34.0 2.4 37.3 1.2
76 23 66.2 29.4 2.6 22.4 15.8
77 39 65.6 29.4 5.0 41.3 10.0
78 77 65.1 24.6 2.3 41.4 3.4
79 60 62.7 41.1 1.3 54.5 10.4
80 57 62.6 32.1 - 78.4 6.8
81 43 61.1 31.0 3.1 66.2 3.1
Standard error of means = 9.3 bu.

Least significant difference at 5% level = 25.8 bu.
Least significant difference at 1% level = 33.8 bu.

Coefficient of variation 3 11.7

a...

._,.. .
. "l '
I“.
.- .‘ ',
.4
'1.
.1;
a. u
'5
- .
u
-.
.\.
. .

-\
,. .
. -

TABLE 22

Agronomic data from Experiment 95
POpulation:l6,000 plants per acre, Ingham County

 

 

4

 

 

 

 

 

833E I Yieldf Moisture I 'Lod in Two-cared
by {Entry bushels in ears gStaIE ”Root plants
yield ‘number per acre #% E % % fl
1 69 128.6 38.7 3.0 29.3 35.4
2 66 122.0 39.7 2.2 63.0 27.2
3 76 118.4 39.5 - 50.6 5.6
4 64 118.3 26.4 1.1 44.4 10.0
5 67 117.7 36.7 1.1 34.5 13.8
6 52 116.1 37.3 2.0 19.2 1.0
7 55 115.3 37.0 - 33.0 26.4
8 47 113.8 38.8 1.9 25.7 12.4
9 14 112.4 40.5 10.2 50.0 9.3
10 44 111.8 36.6 2.4 15.9 11.0
11 60 111.4 28.0 3.2 36.6 15.1
12 10 111.1 37.5 3.1 59.2 10.2
13 19 111.0 36.5 - 7.8 4.4
14 2 110.8 36.1 1.1 68.8 14.0
15 35 110.7 41.2 2.1 39.2 20.6
16 71 109.8 37.7 4.9 29.6 8.6
17 75 109.6 38.1 2.2 47.3 20.4
18 6 109.4 37.7 - 41.9 23.3
19 73 109.0 36.3 3.4 10.3 13.8
20 57 ‘ 108.4 36.1 - 60.2 11.2
21 21 108.1 30.8 3.0 5.1 9.1
22 80 108.0 34.9 2.3 20.7 3.4
23 7 107.8 35.3 - 37.9 12.6
24 20 107.3 32.3 9.3 13.0 13.9
25 36 107.0 34.6 - 32.4 7.8
26 16 106.8 38.1 - 40.6 14.2
27 58 106.8 42.1 1.0 59.4 -
28 68 106.6 39.0 1.0 22.3 21.4
29 12 105.8 37.1 1.1 58.5 5.3
30 34 105.8 38.4 1.0 41.4 15.2
31 59 105.7 38.2 15.2 68.5 8.7
32 39 105.3 37.1 - 48.6 10.3
33 54 105.2 36.6 1.3 25.0 18.8
34 33 105.1 37.2 2.9 23.5 11.8
35 46 104.9 37.6 1.9 53.8 3.8
36 11 104.7 40.1 4.2 34.4 7.3
37 41 104.6 36.1 1.0 45.6 5.8
38 40 104.5 39.2 2.2 29.0 6.5
39 15 104.4 34.4 2.2 27.5 5.5
40 50 104.4 36.8 1.9 41.7 10.7

-58..

Table 22 continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rank Yield Moisture Lodging ,Tiboeared

by Entry bushels in ears talk Root plants

_yield number per acre .5 ' z 45 _j[g
41 24 104.0 45.4 4.1 40.2 10.3
42 74 103.9 39.8 1.1 18.2 25.0
43 38 103.6 37.8 4.5 30.3 13.5
44 51 103.3 38.0 2.2 33.0 15.4
45 28 102.8 36.3 1.9 17.0 11.3
46 63 101.9 38.0 3.5 31.8 7.1
47 70 101.5 39.1 1.2 10.6 21.2
48 26 101.1 35.9 4.2 20.8 6.3
49 27 100.8 38.1 1.1 17.2 12.6
50 62 100.3 37.0 - 10.0 2.5
51 18 99.5 38.1 - 41.2 18.6
52 1 99.2 37.1 0 35.6 5.8
53 42 98.7 38.0 0 22.1 3.8
54 25 98.4 36.4 20.8 5.0
55 49 97.3 38.3 1 19.8 4.2
56 65 97.1 38.7 0 48.0 7.0
57 22 97.0 44.3 30.3 7.9
58 72 96.7 35.3 3 22.0 13.2
59 48 96.6 36.0 2 24.7 2.1
60 29 96.5 34.8 9 18.1 20.0
61 78 96.5 39.4 30.0 11.0
62 17 95.8 37.5 9.5 13.7
63 37 95.6 34.4 6.5 2.2
64 77 94.9 29.5 23.5 3.7
65 13 94.7 34.7 37.2 4.3
66 30 94.7 34.6 15.0 3.8
67 81 93.5 35.9 20.0 1.3
68 4 93.3 40.3 12.5 4.5
69 56 93.3 35.7 46.9 3.1
70 3 93.2 36.1 12.0 13.0
71 45 92.8 39.7 22.2 6.7
72 43 91.5 35.9 43.8 1.1
73 53 91.3 36.4 26.0 3.1
74 79 90.9 38.3 25.8 5.4
75 61 90.2 31.1 31.6 -
76 32 89.8 31.8 25.6 -
77 8 87.7 37.3 24.4 2.2
78 9 86.9 32.5 7.6 7.6
79 5 85.9 43.4 9.2 9.2
80 31 80.5 39.9 30.1 9.6
81 23 80.0 32.8 1.3 13.3
Standard error of means = 7.5 bu.

Least significant difference at 5% level = 20.7 bu.
Least significant difference at 1% level = 27.2 bu.

Coefficient of variation 3 7.3

TABLE 23

Agronomic data from ExPeriment 96
Pepulation:l6,000 plants per acre, Saginaw County

 

 

 

 

 

 

FafiE 'Yield ’Moisture £53 In !T§o-ear53
by Entry ‘bushels Vin ears EtaIE Roof ? plants
_yield number 'per acre 1 _% i
1 41 96.0 27.9 7.0 35.0 3.0
2 42 94.5 28.6 6.4 53.2 -
3 54 92.2 27.1 9.8 29.3 6.5
4 47 89.6 32.3 8.4 45.3 8.4
5 14 88.4 32.5 1.0 49.5 2.9
6 1 86.9 27.- 3.9 35.3 -
7 52 85.9 31.3 5.9 45.5 2.0
8 10 85.7 30.6 5.2 62.5 1.0
9 57 85.4 27.3 1.0 76.0 1.0
10 36 85.1 29.4 3.8 41.3 2.9
11 45 85.0 32.0 2.0 48.0 2.0
12 11 84.9 34.0 9.9 19.7 4.2
13 44 83.4 28.6 9.2 41.4 1.1
14 79 83.0 30.7 4.6 47.1 3.4
15 64 82.4 31.6 11.6 52.3 7.0
16 33 82.2 35.0 9.5 30.5 8.4
17 51 82.2 32.6 7.4 44.2 3.2
18 2 82.0 32.0 6.1 60.2 6.1
19 49 81.6 31.9 5.0 56.0 -
20 3 81.3 30.4 3.3 40.7 6.6
21 28 81.3 30.4 11.4 40.5 7.6
22 27 81.2 30.9 7.9 16.9 6.7
23 17 80.6 29.2 7.0 20.9 8.1
24 46 80.6 28.7 6.3 41.1 1.1
25 22 80.2 34.3 10.3 69.0 3.4
26 55 79.2 28.5 9.7 63.4 6.5
27 18 78.9 28.8 7.4 16.8 2.1
28 4 78.6 27.1 2.4 43.4 2.4
29 24 78.4 29.7 3.2 35.8 3.2
30 65 78.1 31.4 15.7 34.9 -
31 34 78.0 34.9 9.4 57.6 9.4
32 60 78.0 33.2 4.6 58.6 12.6
33 25 77.8 30.7 3.5 62.4 3.5
34 78 77.5 34.9 8.8 37.4 1.1
35 66 77.4 32.4 4.7 61.6 10.5
36 7 77.2 27.9 4.5 52.3 -
37 74 77.1 28.0 11.9 9.5 3.6
38 81 76.3 28.8 15.9 21.7 2.9
39 9 76.2 26.8 19.5 26.8 2.4
40 13 76.2 26.8 1.1 86.7 2.2

-50-

Table 23 continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'fiifik ineId *MOisture Ledging wo-eared

by Entry bushels in ears Stalk Root plants

_yieldg number .per acre: 5 % pf %
41 29 76.2 30.8 4.6 44.8 5.7
42 69 75.9 32.9 17.3 17.3 9.9
43 16 75.8 30.7 9.3 33.7 2.3
44 37 75.5 28.5 1.1 10.5 -
45 43 75.4 26.6 4.9 56.1 1.2
46 20 75.3 27.2 21.7 6.0 4.8
47 73 75.3 31.6 4.7 16.3 2.3
48 59 74.2 33.5 4.7 56.5 7.1
49 30 74.0 30.4 19.4 6.0 3.0
50 32 73.9 25.9 - 46.6 1.1
51 38 73.8 37.2 7.5 36.6 3.2
52 58 73.6 37.4 6.1 82.8 3.0
53 39 73.5 29.4 6.1 59.6 2.0
54 21 73.3 25.9 5.1 26.6 3.8
55 75 73.1 30.3 12.1 58.2 5.5
56 67 72.9 28.5 1.2 43.0 1.2
57 35 72.3 36.9 9.1 42.9 10.4
58 15 72.1 28.7 10.5 22.4 2.6
59 76 72.1 30.3 2.3 65.5 1.1
60 61 71.3 26.8 6.2 51.9 -
61 5 71.1 29. 9.4 37.6 1.2
62 40 70.8 34.4 1.1 80.2 1.1
63 26 70.6 39.9 3.3 39.6 2.2
64 53 70.4 35.2 8.9 41.6 1.0
65 71 70.4 33.4 1.2 40.7 -
66 48 69.8 34.4 11.5 50.6 2.3
67 8 69.7 32.1 20.8 42.9 5.2
68 63 69.5 33.7 7.4 71.6 1.2
69 19 69.4 29.3 2.5 37.5 2.5
70 80 69.0 27.5 5.9 24.7 2.4
71 56 68.4 30.9 1.1 81.6 -
72 50 67.7 32.6 5.4 53.8 5.4
73 12 67.6 29.0 6.7 57.3 1.1
74 68 67.4 30.8 1.1 27.6 4.6
75 72 66.3 28.7 4.6 38.5 20.0
76 6 66.0 37.5 15.6 45.5 5.2
77 23 65.8 29.8 1.2 23.5 4.7
78 31 65.8 27.5 9.5 42.9 -
79 77 65.8 24.4 6.3 63.5 -
80 70 65.4 39.4 - 53.3 -
81 62 64.5 36.7 4.7 35.3 -
Standard error of means = 7.9 bu.

Least significant difference at 5% level = 21.8 bu.
Least significant difference at 1% level 3 28.6 bu.

Coefficient of variation 8 10,3

-51-

TABLE 24

Mean agronomic data for 81 corn hybrids grown
at three plant populations: 8,000, 12,000 and
16,000 plants per acre, grown at Ingham and
Saginaw Counties. Experiments 91-96, 1958.

 

 

 

 

fink ' TYi eld Moisture Lodgin o-eared
by .Entry ‘bushels in ears Stalk [Root plants
yield Lnumber _per acre 6% ‘ l f .5 _§
1 66 105.3 34.9 3.0 56.0 35.6
2 69 102.6 36.3 6.8 22.7 33.5
3 1 102.4 32.4 1.7 30.9 7.8
4 14 101.3 35.2 4.1 48.8 7.6
5 10 98.5 33.2 1.6 56.8 9.7
6 52 98.5 34.1 2.2 28.0 3.6
7 35 97.9 37.6 4.7 31.8 27.6
8 76 96.3 35.5 1.7 53.1 4.5
9 2 95.8 33.4 2.6 57.0 14.0
10 64 95.6 30.9 4.6 48.3 17.1
11 11 95.1 36.5 5.4 19.8 9.8
12 47 94.9 36.3 3.4 33.9 16.9
13 71 94.6 33.6 1.9 32.9 4.2
14 42 93.7 33.3 4.0 39.5 7.3
15 73 92.9 34.4 2.5 13.2 12.3
16 41 92.7 33.0 2.0 56.7 11.0
17 54 92.5 32.0 4.4 28.9 23.2
18 51 92.1 33.5 3.2 36.3 14.5
19 34 92.0 35.4 3.2 45.0 16.6
20 20 91.9 27.3 0.8 11.3 19.5
21 46 91.9 33.2 2.4 43.9 11.6
22 6 91.8 36.3 3.5 45.0 24.7
23 39 91.6 32.5 4.1 43.3 13.5
24 29 90.6 30.8 3.4 20.2 29.8
25 16 90.5 35.8 3.8 26.4 20.2
26 40 90.5 34.6 1.4 35.4 7.5
27 25 90.3 33.4 1.9 36.2 10.9
28 17 90.2 34.5 2.2 10.6 21.8
29 55 90.0 32.3 3.0 39.4 31.5
30 67 90.0 32.7 0.6 37.5 11.8
31 44 89.7 34.1 4.5 28.9 12.3
32 58 89.5 39.6 2.3 67.4 4.7
33 21 89.4 30.1 1.8 10.3 14.9
34 27 89.4 34.0 3.5 18.2 13.0
35 19 89.2 35.7 0.6 24.8 8.2
36 18 89.0 32.1 1.9 27.2 9.8
37 15 88.8 32.4 4.2 22.8 14.3
38 33 88.6 34.8 4.6 24.8 18.6
39 74 88.5 34.0 4.2 10.1 20.6
40 59 88.4 35.1 6.4 53.2 14.9

-52-
Table 24 continued

fiank T :Yield Moisture Lod in ”Tho-cared
by :Entry bushels in ears §ta1E [8005 plants
_yie1d ;number iper acre ; 5 j_§ . 4%

 

 

 

'I

41 65 88.3 34.5 3.8 40.7 12.6
42 28 88.2 33.4 4.4 26.2 13.2
43 24 88.1 36.8 1.4 33.7 12.2
44 45 88.1 36.4 3.9 29.0 7.6
45 48 88.1 31.8 8.3 31.7 3.7
46 22 88.0 36.1 2.2 49.0 12.7
47 36 88.0 31.3 1.0 39.5 10.2
48 81 87.8 32.3 8.1 10.5 10.2
49 38 87.7 35.2 3.2 30.4 25.0
50 57 87.5 33.6 1.9 64.7 9.4
51 37 87.3 30.5 1.3 13.4 5.0
52 75 87.2 34.6 3.5 47.1 17.4
53 3 87.1 32.8 1.2 31.6 18.1
54 7 87.0 31.5 2.3 38.0 16.0
55 26 86.6 34.2 2.4 31.6 12.1
56 50 86.2 34.1 3.6 44.8 11.4
57 4 85.8 31.2 2.1 26.9 7.8
58 49 85.8 34.5 2.8 30.7 9.8
59 63 85.5 34.5 3.9 43.8 9.2
60 68 85.2 35.5 1.5 28.5 16.4
61 13 85.0 28.6 1.3 41.3 12.0
62 78 84.2 35.6 2.9 32.7 9.6
63 60 84.1 35.3 2.6 44.8 19.4
64 80 83.0 31.7 4.9 15.1 8.8
65 53 82.9 33.3 2.9 36.0 10.6
66 72 82.5 31.2 4.1 20.8 24.2
67 79 82.5 34.8 1.4 27.5 9.2
68 12 81.8 33.4 3.1 48.4 6.7
69 30 81.6 33.7 11.3 13.1 9.1
70 70 81.2 38.8 1.1 27.2 18.8
71 8 80.4 33.3 9.1 27.2 7.7
72 5 79.8 33.7 3.5 23.2 10.2
73 9 79.8 30.3 6.4 17.6 11.2
74 43 79.7 31.6 2.5 51.2 7.4
75 62 78.6 35.3 1.1 19.5 ' 4.4
76 56 78.5 31.5 1.1 48.2 3.5
77 61 78.5 28.9 3.7 32.2 1.8
78 32 77.6 28.3 2.1 30.7 1.8
79 77 75.4 26.9 1.7 38.8 1.5
80 31 73.9 32.0 4.8 23.4 12.0
81 23 71.0 31.5 1.5 9.7 15.9

 

Standard error of means = 1.5 bu.

4.2 bu.

Least significant difference at 5% level
5.5 bu.

Least significant difference at 1% level

-52-
Table 24 continued

‘fith 5 Yield 'Moisture Lodging 7Tio-eared
by :Entry bushels in ears J ta I 00 plants
ljeld‘finumber ‘per acre 1 j_j§ %

 

 

 

 

 

 

41 65 88.3 34.5 3.8 40.7 12.6
42 28 88.2 33.4 4.4 26.2 13.2
43 24 88.1 36.8 1.4 33.7 12.2
44 45 88.1 36.4 3.9 29.0 7.6
45 48 88.1 31.8 8.3 31.7 3.7
46 22 88.0 36.1 2.2 49.0 12.7
47 36 88.0 31.3 1.0 39. 5 10.2
48 81 87.8 32.3 8.1 10. 5 10.2
49 38 87.7 35. 2 3.2 30. 4 25.0
50 57 87.5 33. 6 1.9 64. 7 9.4
51 37 87.3 30.5 1.3 13.4 5.0
52 75 87.2 34. 6 3.5 47.1 17.4
53 3 87.1 32. 8 1.2 31. 6 18.1
54 7 87.0 31. 5 2.3 38. O 16.0
55 26 86.6 34. 2 2.4 31.6 12.1
56 50 86.2 34. 1 3.6 44.8 11.4
57 4 85.8 31.2 2.1 26.9 7.8
58 49 85.8 34.5 2.8 30.7 9.8
59 63 85.5 34.5 3.9 43. 8 9.2
60 68 85.2 35. 5 1.5 28. 5 16.4
61 13 85.0 28. 6 1.3 41.3 12.0
62 78 84.2 35. 6 2.9 32.7 9.6
63 60 84.1 35. 3 2.6 44.8 19.4
64 80 83.0 31. 7 4.9 15.1 8.8
65 53 82.9 33.3 2.9 36.0 10.6
66 72 82.5 31.2 4.1 20.8 24.2
67 79 82.5 34.8 1.4 27.5 9.2
68 12 81.8 33.4 3.1 48.4 6.7
69 30 81.6 33. 7 11.3 13.1 9.1
70 70 81.2 38. 8 1.1 27.2 18.8
71 8 80.4 33. 3 9.1 27.2 7.7
72 5 79.8 33.7 3.5 23.2 10.2
73 9 79.8 30.3 6.4 17.6 11.2
74 43 79.7 31.6 2.5 51.2 7.4
75 62 78.6 35.3 1.1 19. ' 4.4
76 56 78.5 31.5 1.1 48.2 3.5
77 61 78.5 28.9 3.7 32.2 1.8
78 32 77.6 28.3 2.1 30.7 1.8
79 77 75.4 26.9 1.7 38.8 1.5
80 31 73.9 32.0 4.8 23.4 12.0
81 23 71.0 31.5 1.5 9.7 15.9
Standard error of means = 1.5 bu.
Least significant difference at 5% level = 4.2 bu.
Least significant difference at 1% level = 5.5 bu.

-52-

Table 24 continued

fiank 5 Yield ’Moisture Lod in TTio-eared
by :Entry bushels in ears J§tglE ‘9 t plagts

4, oo
ygeld #number iper acre 1 l E

 

 

 

T

 

41 65 88.3 34.5 3.8 40.7 12.6
42 28 88.2 33.4 4.4 26.2 13.2
43 24 88.1 36.8 1.4 33.7 12.2
44 45 88.1 36.4 3.9 29.0 7.6
45 48 88.1 31.8 8.3 31.7 3.7
46 22 88.0 36.1 2.2 49.0 12.7
47 36 88.0 31.3 1.0 39.5 10.2
48 81 87.8 32.3 8.1 10.5 10.2
49 38 87.7 35.2 3.2 30.4 25.0
50 57 87.5 33.6 1.9 64.7 9.4
51 37 87.3 30.5 1.3 13.4 5.0
52 75 87.2 34.6 3.5 47.1 17.4
53 3 87.1 32.8 1.2 31.6 18.1
54 7 87.0 31.5 2.3 38.0 16.0
55 26 86.6 34.2 2.4 31.6 12.1
56 50 86.2 34.1 3.6 44.8 11.4
57 4 85.8 31.2 2.1 26.9 7.8
58 49 85.8 34.5 2.8 30.7 9.8
59 63 85.5 34.5 3.9 43.8 9.2
60 68 85.2 35.5 1.5 28.5 16.4
61 13 85.0 28.6 1.3 41.3 12.0
62 78 84.2 35.6 2.9 32.7 9.6
63 60 84.1 35.3 2.6 44.8 19.4
64 80 83.0 31.7 4.9 15.1 8.8
65 53 82.9 33.3 2.9 36.0 10.6
66 72 82.5 31.2 4.1 20.8 24.2
67 79 82.5 34.8 1.4 27.5 9.2
68 12 81.8 33.4 3.1 48.4 6.7
69 30 81.6 33.7 1.3 13.1 9.1
70 70 81.2 38.8 1.1 27.2 18.8
71 8 80.4 33.3 9.1 27.2 7.7
72 5 79.8 33.7 3.5 23.2 10.2
73 9 79.8 30.3 6.4 17.6 11.2
74 43 79.7 31.6 2.5 51.2 7.4
75 62 78.6 35.3 1.1 19.5 ‘ 4.4
76 56 78.5 31.5 1.1 48.2 3.5
77 61 78.5 28.9 3.7 32.2 1.8
78 32 77.6 28.3 2.1 30.7 1.8
79 77 75.4 26.9 1.7 38.8 1.5
80 31 73.9 32.0 4.8 23.4 12.0
81 23 71.0 31.5 1.5 9.7 15.9
Standard error of means = 1.5 bu.
Least significant difference at 5% level = 4.2 bu.
Least significant difference at 1% level = 5.5 bu.

-53-

TABLE 25

Mean agronomic data for 81 corn hybrids grown
at 8,000 plants per acre at two locations - Ingham
and Saginaw Counties. Emperiments 91 and 92, 1958.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

flank ’Yield Moisture ‘deging iTib-eared
by Entry bushels lln ears Stalk Root plants
yieldgpumber‘1 er acre 1 j % I 2
1 66 112.5 31.1 x 4.3 55.6 52.2
2 1 105.6 32.6 0.9 30.9 10.0
3 14 97.2 33.6 4.4 37.2 11.0
4 69 96.4 36.7 4.9 17.5 52.0
5 10 96.0 33.2 - 52.5 15.0
6 76 94.7 35.5 0.8 50.8 6.6
7 73 94.0 35.7 0.9 20.5 17.6
8 35 93.1 40.1 3.3 26.2 46.2
9 2 91.6 33.8 1.7 59.2 21.6
10 11 91.4 36.6 4.4 14.9 16.2
11 52 91.0 34.3 1.7 16.7 9.2
12 65 90.4 32.5 0.9 40.0 27.5
13 16 90.0 36.2 1.8 12.8 36.4
14 64 88.6 30.6 2.8 49.1 28.2
15 21 88.4 28.6 - 7.5 31.8
16 20 88.0 26.6 8.7 8.0 38.0
17 71 87.6 32.7 2.8 31.4 7.0
18 25 87.4 33.5 1.7 27.9 21.0
19 40 86.9 33.9 0.9 27.1 12.0
20 6 86.3 37.9 - 45.4 38.1
21 41 86.2 31.4 - 62.1 20.6
22 74 86.0 34.1 2.8 6.0 30.8
23 15 85.8 32.5 2.9 28.9 29.5
24 47 85.6 36.6 0.9 37.8 28.4
25 59 85.2 33.6 2.9 48.3 29.4
26 39 84.6 32.5 5.0 33.7 19.6
27 17 84.5 36.1 1.8 3.5 40.0
28 29 84.4 29.6 5.2 13.8 45.2
30 51 84.0 34.8 - 27.6 24.2
31 18 83.8 32.0 0.9 24.2 15.0
32 48 83.6 31.8 1.7 31.0 6.0
33 46 83.4 33.7 0.9 44.1 20.2
34 38 83.2 35.4 1.9 28.3 51.8
35 58 83.0 40.4 0.9 62.5 12.5
36 42 82.2 33.5 2.6 42.0 17.2
37 54 82.0 30.8 1.7 25.9 38.2
38 34 81.8 35.1 0.9 45.7 20.8
40 50 81.5 34.1 1.7 46.3 20.2

 

-64-

Table 25 continued

fiink ‘7 Yield TMoisture.St Ibd in Wo-eared
by ‘Entry bushels lin ears jE Foot ‘ plants
yield number per acre f 5% .%

 

 

 

41 7 81.2 31.2 2.9 34.7 27.6
42 12 80.8 33.5 1.8 45.6 10.0
43 13 80.2 27.6 0.9 33.5 25.8
44 75 80.0 33.2 0.9 46.7 24.4
45 37 79.5 29.9 1.0 20.8 10.4
46 28 79.2 33.3 1.8 26.6 19.6
47 27 79.1 33.6 1.7 21.0 18.5
48 57 78.9 35.6 5.1 61.6 14.0
49 53 78.8 33.3 - 41.7 19.2
50 63 ' 78.4 33.3 3.7 37. 7 13.0
51 26 78.2 32.9 - 32. 8 20.0
52 8 78.0 32.0 5.1 26. 6 ' 14.0
53 33 77.8 33.9 4.3 21. 0 27.0
54 44 77.6 36.5 4.4 33.1 19.0
55 45 ' 77.6 36.2 4.2 25.4 8.6
56 77.5 31.6 2.0 47.7 15.4
57 77.0 32. 8 - 36.5 17.4
58 76.8 32. 8 5.0 21.3 18.4
59 76.8 37. 3 - 23.6 22.8
60 76.7 33.3 0.9 36.2 15.9
61 75.8 34.5 0.9 45.0 21.6
62 75.7 36.3 2.0 21.3 28.4
63 75.2 35.8 2.7 44.0 25.8
64 75.2 36.8 0.8 28.4 21.7
65 74.4 34.8 - 34. 9 19.5
66 73.7 34.4 2.4 1.1 20.6
67 73.1 31.6 - 37. 2 48.6
68 72.1 30.8 - 44. 5 16.9
69 71.6 33.0 1.8 16.2 18.0
70 71.6 34.5 2.1 13.4 31.6
71 71.2 32.8 - 18.3 14.3
72 69.9 27.0 0.9 35.2 0.9
73 69.4 30.5 3.6 19.7 19.3
74 68.9 34.8 8.0 18.3 16.1
75 68.4 32.4 4.0 12.7 16.5
76 68.0 29.7 4.3 16. 5 3.6
77 67.4 34.2 - 20. 9 16.4
78 67.0 28.4 0.9 43. 4 7.8
79 62 66.1 34.2 1.1 17.7 9.3
80 32 65.0 27.4 4.5 22.4 3.6
81 23 62.4 32.0 2.0 4.0 22.7

 

Standard error of means 8 5.0 bu.
Least significant difference at 5% level = 13.8 bu.
Least significant difference at 1% level = 18.2 bu.

-65..

TABLE 26

Mean agronomic data for 81 corn hybrids grown
at 12,000 plants per acre at two locations -Ingham
and Saginaw Counties. Experiments 96 and 94, 1958.

 

 

 

Hank V Wield : More—furs L—odging Tito-cared
by EEntry bushels Jin ears a . 00 J plants
Leld number 1 per acre . Y % % 7 j

 

1 35 109.1 33.5 5.4 28.1 21.3

2 69 109.1 36.4 5.3 27.3 26.0

3 1 108.5 32.1 1.8 26.4 10.4

4 14 106.2 35.6 2.4 59.6 5.8

6 66 104.8 37.6 1.3 50.2 35.8

7 81 104.6 30.4 5.7 9.6 8.0
8 52 103.5 33.9 1.1 35.1 1.2

9 42 102.4 33.1 5.8 38.9 2.9
10 34 102.3 34.6 3.5 39.9 16.6
11 6 101.5 33.4 2.6 45.8 21.6
12 10 101.0 32.4 0.6 57.0 8.6
13 29 101.0 30.2 1.9 15.5 31.2
14 39 100.8 31.7 4.4 42.0 14.8
15 55 100.4 32.5 4.2 33.0 29.4
16 4 100.3 27.0 5.1 34.6 5.6
17 22 99.8 g 34.5 0.6 52.3 10.8
18 46 99.6 32. 9 2.4 40.1 12.2
19 2 99.5 32. 5 2.4 47.4 10.3
20 51 99.4 30.4 4.7 42.7 10.2
21 11 98.9 35.9 4.9 17.5 7.4
22 76 98.8 36.1 3.2 50. 5 3.5
23 27 98.1 33.9 4.5 16.5 10.7
24 17 98.0 34.0 1.4 13.1 14.7
25 45 97.8 37.2 6.6 26.5 9.8
26 64 97.8 33.2 4.8 47. 5 14.7
28 48 97.6 28. 6 14.9 26. 6 3.0
29 47 97.4 36. 7 4.3 28. 6 12.0
30 37 97.0 30. 2 2.4 10. 9 3.6
31 40 97.0 33. 3 1.9 24.7 6.8
32 54 97.0 33. 3 5.9 30.6 18.8
33 20 96.3 25. 6 8.1 16.5 11.2
34 24 96. 3 35. 5 0.7 39.7 7.0
35 36 96. 0 31. 1 1.1 37. 2 8.2
36 26 95. 8 31.8 3.6 31. 8 11.9
37 25 95.4 33.2 2.3 39.3 7.4
58 58 95.4 38.6 2.5 68.5 -
39 72 94.6 32.1 6.2 19.0 24.2
40 33 94.4 34.4 3.4 26.3 18.7

-66-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 26 continued

Rank * ’ineld Moisture Ind ing_ 5Two-eardd

by Entry bushels in ears 95312 Root plants

lggld number _per acre .% % %
41 44 94.0 33.3 3.3 25.1 11.9
42 18 93.8 30.8 1.3 28.6 4.0
43 49 93.8 33.7 4.8 19.2» 7.8
44 19 93.6 35.5 0.7 30.2 2.7
45 28 93.6 33.7 4.8 23.3 10.6
46 68 93.4 34.8 2.5 32.1 14.4
47 79 93.3 35.6 2.0 25.1 7.0
48 3 92.4 30.7 1.8 13.9 11.5
49 63 92.4 34.6 2.7 42.0 10.2
50 73 92.4 33.6 2.6 5.8 11.2
51 15 92.2 33.4 3.2 14.5 9.2
52 80 92.0 31.7 6.7 10.0 7.0
53 30 91.7 33.9 12.0 10.5 7.7
54 41 91.7 35.6 1.9 67.7 8.0
55 38 91.2 32.8 1.9 29.5 14.8
56 50 91.1 33.7 5.5 40.4 6.0
57 16 90.2 36.8 5.0 29.4 16.0
58 59 90.2 35.8 6.2 48.9 7.4
59 75 90.2 36.5 2.6 41.7 15.0
60 13 89.4 27.5 1.8 28.5 6.8
61 21 89.2 33.5 1.3 7.6 6.4
62 53 89.2 31.0 2.8 32.4 10.6
63 5 89.1 31.8 3.4 30.2 7.2
64 74 89.0 33.9 3.4 10.6 16.7
65 78 88.8 36.3 3.5 28.3 7.0
66 56 87.7 32.8 1.9 37.1 1.2
67 7 87.4 31.7 1.8 34.4 13.9
68 62 87.4 34.9 - 18.4 2.8
69 65 86.8 35.9 2.3 40.6 6.8
70 57 86.7 33.7 - 64.5 8.0
71 61 86.2 .28.2 3.1 38.3 1.9
72 32 86.1 28.6 1.9 33.7 1.2
73 8 84.4 33.3 10.8 21.3 5.4
74 70 84.4 41.0 0.7 28.4 17.4
75 60 82.4 39.7 1.3 42.9 18.4
76 9 81.0 28.5 2.7 14.5 10.1
77 31 79.1 31.7 2.5 13.9 12.0
78 12 78.0 33.8 3.6 41.8 6.8
79 43 78.0 31.9 3.0 56.0 5.8
80 23 77.6 31.3 1.3 12.7 16.0
81 77 76.0 26.7 1.2 57.8 1.7

Standard error of means = 5.4 bu.
Least significant difference at 5% level a 15.0 bu.
Least significant difference at 1% level = 19.7 bu.

-67...

TABLE 27

Mean agronomic data for 81 corn hybrids grown
at 16,000 plants per acre at two locations -Ingham
and Saginaw Counties. EXperiments 95 and 96, 1958.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

&1 Yield Moisture rLodging. :Two-eared
Entry bushels in ears StalE’ Root 'plants
yield jnumber Lper acre

1 69 102.2 35.8 10.2 23.3 22.6
2 47 101.7 35.6 5.2 35.5 10.4
3 52 101.0 34.3 4.0 32.4 1.5
4 14 100.4 36.5 5.6 49.8 6.1
5 64 100.4 29.0 6.4 48.4 8.5
6 41 100.3 32.0 4.0 40.3 4.4
7 66 99.7 36.1 3.5 62.3 18.8
8 54 98.7 31.9 5.6 27.2 12.6
9 10 98.4 34.1 4.2 60.9 5.6
10 44 97.6 32.6 5.8 28. 7 6.0
11 55 97.2 32.8 4.9 48. 2 16.4
12 57 96.9 31.7 0.5 68.1 6.1
13 42 96.6 33.3 3.7 37. 7 1.9
14 2 96.4 34.1 3.6 64.5 10.0
15 36 96.0 32.0 1.9 36.9 5.4
16 67 95.3 32. 6 1.2 38.8 7.5
17 76 95.2 34. 9 1.2 58.1 3.4
18 11 94.8 37. 1 7.1 27.1 5.8
19 60 94.7 30.6 3.9 47.6 13.8
20 33 93.6 36.1 6.2 27.0 10.1
21 46 92.8 33.2 4.1 47.5 2.4
22 51 92.8 35.3 4.8 38.6 9.3
23 1 93.0 32.5 2.5 35.5 2.9
24 7 92.5 31. 6 2.3 45.1 6.3
25 73 92.2 34. 0 4.1 13. 3 8.0
26 28 92.0 33. 4 6.7 28. 8 9.4
27 34 91.9 36.7 5.2 49. 5 12.3
28 35 91.5 39.1 5.6 41.1 15.5
29 75 91.4 34.2 7.2 52. 8 13.0
30 16 91.3 34.4 4.7 37. 2 8.2
31 20 91.3 29.8 15.5 9 5 9.4
32 24 91.2 37.6 3.7 38. 0 6.8
33 27 91.0 34.5 4.5 17.1 9.7
34 21 90.7 28.4 4.1 15. 9 6.4
35 74 90. 5 33.9 6.5 13.9 14.3
36 19 90. 2 32.9 1.3 22.7 3.4
37 58 90.2 39.8 3.6 71.1 1.5
38 71 90.1 35. 6 3.1 35.2 4.3
39 59 90. 0 35. 9 10.0 62. 5 7.9
40 39 89. 33. 3 3.1 54.1 6.2

-68-

Table 27 continued

Fink A TTYield 'Moisture led in fTQo-eared
by 1Entry 'bushels [in ears StalE 5005 1 plants
yield number [per acre , . %

t

 

 

 

 

 

‘0‘
R

 

41 49 89.4 35.1 3.6 37.9 2.1
42 18 89.2 33.5 3.7 29.0 10.4
43 45 88.9 35.9 1.0 35.1 4.4
44 38 88.7 37.5 6.0 33.5 8.4
45 22 88.6 39.3 5.2 49.7 5.6
46 80 88.5 31.2 4.1 22.7 2.9
47 15 88.2 31.6 6.4 25.0 4.0
48 17 88.2 33.4 3.5 15.2 10.9
49 25 88.1 33.6 1.8 41.6 4.2
50 6 87.7 37.6 7.8 43.7 14.3
51 40 87.6 36.8 1.7 54.6 3.8
52 65 87.6 35.1 8.4 41.5 3.5
53 3 87.2 33.3 1.7 26.4 9.8
54 68 87.0 34.9 1.1 25.0 13.0
55 78 87.0 37.2 4.4 33.7 6.0
56 79 87.0 34.5 2.3 36.5 4.4
57 12 86.7 33.1 3.9 57.9 3.2
58 29 86.4 32.8 3.3 31.5 12.8
59 4 86.0 33.7 1.2 28.0 3.4
60 50 86.0 34.7 3.7 47.8 8.0
61 26 85.8 37.9 3.8 30.2 4.2
62 63 85.7 35.9 5.5 51.7 4.2
63 37 85.6 31.5 0.6 8.5 1.1
64 13 85.4 30.8 1.1 62.0 3.2
65 81 84.9 32.4 16.1 20.9 2.1
66 30 84.4 32.5 14.1 10.5 3.4
67 43 83.4 31.3 2.5 50.0 1.2
68 70 83.4 39.3 0.6 32.0 10.6
69 48 83.2 35.2 8.4 37.7 2.2
70 62 82.4 36.9 2.4 22.7 1.2
71 32 81.8 28.9 - 36.1 0.6
72 9 81.6 29.7 11.7 17.2 5.0
73 72 81.5 32.0 4.0 30.3 16.6
74 53 80.8 35.8 6.0 33.8 2.0
75 .56 80.8 33.3 0.6 64.3 1.6
76 61 80.8 29.0 3.7 41.8 -

77 77 80.4 27.0 3.2 43.5 1.9
78 8 78.7 34.7 11.5 33.7 3.7
79 5 78.5 36.3 5.2 23.4 5.2
80 31 73.2 33.7 8.4 36.5 4.8
81 23 72.9 31.3 1.3 12.4 9.0

 

Standard error of means - 4.2 bu.

Least significant difference at 5% level ‘ 11.6 bu.

Least significant difference at 1% level 15.3 bu.

PERFORMANCE OF MULTIPLE-EARED INBRED LINES
IN
THREE-WAY HYBRIDS

BY

Farrell M. Bagshaw

AN ABSTRACT
Submitted to the Graduate School of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied
Science in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Farm Crepe

1959

Approved y/(yCE/o @141 4.2-x

—*r— 7— fl

ABSTRACT

Seventy 85 inbred lines, selected for multiple ears dur-
ing three segregating generations of inbreeding in crosses of
several southern prolific sources with two early maturing sin-
gle ear Michigan inbreds (M81341 and MS24A) were crossed with
the single cross (Oh51 x 0h26). These three-way hybrids were
tested at three populations (8,000, 12,000 and 16,000 plants
per acre) at two locations in 1958. The objectives were to
evaluate the performance and adaptation of these lines in hy-
brids and to obtain information concerning the potential of
multiple-cared hybrids in northern corn production.

With this group of previously untested lines, yields and
percentage of two-cared plants varied depending upon hybrid,
plant population and location. Mean yields were lowest and
percentages of two-cared plants were highest at the 8,000
plant population. Highest mean yields were at the 12,000 pop-
ulation. Stalk and root lodging increased at higher popu-
lations.

One of the best two-eared hybrids averaged 52, 36 and 19
percent two—eared plants and 112, 105 and 100 bushels per
acre at the three pOpulations, respectively. One of the best
single—eared hybrids averaged 10, 10 and 3 percent two-eared
plants and 106, 108 and 93 bushels per acre.

Several inbreds develbped from these “exotic" crosses
contributed higher yields (significantly more than WF9), in-
creased ear number, improved resistance to lodging, and early
maturity when compared to the tester, Oh51 x 0h26. The added
contributions in yield came from the southern germ-plasm.

Although affected by environment, a usable portion of
the variation in ear number was heritable.

Hybrid x location interaction for yield was significant
while hybrid x population interactions were not significant,
suggesting that future tests could be conducted at one popu-
lation (16,000 plants) but should include more locations.

The best multiple-cared hybrids showed no consistent
superiority in ability to yield more than the best single-
eared hybrids at any of the three populations. There were
no examples to illustrate the possibility that the best two-
eared hybrids could be planted at lower plant pOpulations
with less lodging and harvest losses and that their yields
would exceed the best single-cared hybrids at the lower pOpu-
lation and still equal or exceed the yields of the best sin-
gle-eared hybrids at the higher populations. At the high
population, barren plants did not occur and the best two-cared
hybrids showed no ability to yield more than the best single—
eared hybrids.

While these evaluations did not identify any superior

two-eared hybrids, further breeding, selection and evaluation

of these lines and others from different sources may eventually
lead to two-eared hybrids that would exceed the performance

of the best single-eared hybrids in the northern Corn Belt.

‘\\I"'“

OCT 1 2‘ E?

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

3 1193 03042 5693

 

 

- -- ._____ A‘

 

-—.‘1-—_ _.