I ‘ WM NHOP -‘n— 3 *3 I t" 1.11 > ”3 E33 A STUDY OF CERTAEN FACTORS AFFECTING YIELD EN EARLEY STRAENS Tlmsis for the Degree of Mr S. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE john Ksith Leasure 3946 This is to certifg that the thesis entitled A Study of Certain , Factors Affecting Yield In Barley Strains presented bl] John Keith Lensure has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for J: 5? -,,degree in £3971 C1025 5. 7A 9W Major professor Date- N Qvffl? S35; 1 51—1. (1+6 _ M-795 A.STUDY OF CERTAIN EACTORS AFFECTING YIELD IN BARLEY STRAINS By John Keith kgaeure A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Farm Crops 19146 A STUDY Ol' CERTAIN FACTORS AFFECTING YIELD IN BARLEY_STRAINS 18‘? 8E) ACKNOWLEDGMENT S The writer is grateful to Dr. E. 3. Down and Prof. H. M. Brown for guidance and aid in conducting this problem and for the review of this thesis. I. II. III. IV. V. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION A. Object B. Review of literature METHODS OF EXPERIMENTATION A. Materials used B. Field measurements 0. Sampling D. Labeling of samples E. Breaking strength measurements F. Calculations DATA A. Table of plot value frequency distributions B. Correlation coefficients 0. Table of sums of squares and products D. Table of strain means SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS LITERATURE CITED odla O woman: 11 12 13 11+ 15 16 17 INTRODUCTION It has long been agreed that it would be highly desirable in.p1ant breeding to be able to select for high yield on the basis of some closely correlated character which could be determined before threshing. An excellent opportunity to search for this elusive character was offered by using seventyafive strains of barley, all of which were mildewbresistant. Notes were taken on six characters, percentage of loose smut, extent of lodging, height of plant, length of head, strength of straw and test weight, which were individually correlated with yield. The results are here presented. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Correlations of yield with various agronomic characters have been rather widely reported. The majority of the work, however, has been done with oats and wheat. Comparatively, few results have been reported with barley. Following is a summary of the work with barley. Sir Humphrey Davy (u) remarked that it was unfortunate that so many high yielding grains pre- ferred to lie upon the ground. Gerber and Olsen (16) reported that they found no significant correlation between yield and lodging in a study involving 15 strains of barley. Kohls (9), working with 7 varieties, found positive correlations between yield and test weight and between yield and height of plant. At the Colorado Experiment Station, Robertson, et a1. (10) found a.positive correlation between yield and test weight. In a test including #1 varieties, they also found a positive correlation between yield and height of plant. Kiesselbach, et al. (8) found no correlation between yield and either height of plant or lodging, but found a positive correlation between yield and test weight. Babcock and Clausen (2) summarized the work very well in these words: ''Correlation between yield and certain.morpho- logical characters in small grains has been thor- oughly investigated and in no case has it been possible to find any one character which.would serve as a constant, reliable index of high.yield, unless it be the presence of awns in.wheat and barley. This does not mean that there is no genetic basis for yield, but rather that it is dependent upon so many genetic factors that it is impossible to discover high correlation between yield and one morphological character.” METHODS OF EXPERIMENTATION Seventybfive mildewaresistant strains of barley were grown at East Lansing in 19h6. They were planted in 15 six-bybsix latin squares: five strains being planted in each square with.Bay barley as a standard variety; Each.plot consisted of five rod rows. Loose smut counts were made on each plot. Two counts of one hundred heads each were averaged, giving the per cent of loose smut infection for the plot. Lodging notes were strictly field.notes, with classes from zero through three. Zero was taken as erect; one, culms inclined from zero to thirty degrees from the vertical; two, culms inclined from thirty to sixty degrees; and three, culms inclined over sixty degrees. No attempt was made to take a precise lodging index as did Clark and Wilson (3). With the above classification in mind, plot values were assigned by inspection, with no attempt to split the classification where parts of a plot fell into different classes. The larger area controlled the class value for the plot. The plots ripened with remarkable evenness probably due to the lack of rainfall during the latter part of the growing season. Normal rainfall at East Lansing from the time of planting barley until harvest is 9.73 inches. In l9h6, the rainfall during this period totaled only 5.h2 inches, with no rain after June 20. Harvesting was done on.July 13 and July lb, 1946, using a Gravely mower equipped with shields to out two rows at a time and keep them entirely separate. The three center rows of each plot were harvested for yield.and test weight determinations, and one edge row from each.plot was sacked and saved for the other sets of measurements. Ten culms were selected at random from each of these edge-row bundles, and the following measure- ments taken: 1. Height of plant 2. Length of head 3. Breaking strength of third internode below the head. Sampling was entirely random except that whole culms were chosen whose third internode below the head was not crushed. Some culms were crushed in tying and a few were out too high by the mower. Some heads were broken off in sacking. These culms were not used due to the nature of the measurements being made. The mean value of the ten determinations was taken as the plot value. It was decided that ten measurements per plot was an adequate number, after running a statistical analysis of three hundred random individual plant measurements of Bay; the standard variety. These Bay values were analyzed as a randomized block experiment having ten pseudo varieties, three replications, and ten measurements per plot. No significant differences were noted at the 10% point. Since six replications were used in this experiment, ten measurements per plot were deemed an adequate sample. Analysis of variance of statistical sample of Bay barley Degrees of Sums of Mean Source freedom sguares sguare E Total 299 1381.53 Replications 2 4.82 2.41 .50 Varieties 9 1.61 .18 .04 Error 288 1376.71 4.78 As the culms were measured for height of plant and length of head, the third internode below the head was saved for testing the strength of straw. The problem of how to label and keep the identity of 5,400 separate straws was solved by using only ninety labels in the manner shown in Figure l. The ten straws from a plot were cut so that the first straw was the shortest and the tenth straw was the longest, then all ten were bound together. The ten straws from the next plot were then bound with the same string, and so on until the six bundles from one replication of one latin square were tied to- gether, with plot six always being the last. The label then needed to show only the square and repli- cation numbers to give positive identification to all the straws. The breaking strength tests were made with a Toledo scale reading in grams (Figure 2.) and an apparatus designed and built by the author. Each culm was tested individually. The straw was laid across two supports placed five centimeters apart, and a force applied through a lever arm. The strawbsupports and the lever-arm-face bearing on the straw were rounded to an approximate diameter of one millimeter. The force was applied in a vertical direction at a right angle to the length of the straw and the force required at the instant of breaking was recorded in grams. No attempt was made to select perfectly round or straight culms, and no attempt made to test with any particular side uppermost. The internodes tested varied in length and were centered over the support. Although the values obtained by using this appa- ratut might not be duplicated exactly by using devices such as Salmon (11) or Willis (12) report, the values obtained were an accurate comparison of the samples tested. figure 2. An apparatus for determining the breaking strength of straw. 10 It was desired to exclude Bay from the analysis, and determine the correlations only from the seventy- five strains. This was done by using a correction factor for the measured plot values of each latin square. This factor was obtained by determining the difference between the mean.of Bay for a latin square (6 plots) and the general mean of Bay (90 plots). This value was added to the thirty remaining plot values of a square when that square's mean of Bay was less than the general mean of Bay, and was sub- tracted from the thirty remaining plot values of a square when that square's mean of Bay was greater than the general mean of Bay. Separate correction factors were determined for each square for each of the characters studied. The resulting values for the seventybfive strains were then analyzed by covariance to determine the correlation coefficients. The sums of squares for replications in five latin squares analyzed as single squares were all decimals. In view of this insignificant difference between replications, the calculation of sums of squares for replications was omitted from the 11 H ma.:m H ma.mn m ma.mm n aseH am me.Hm. e manH an 03.0“ a a.m a: mseH 30H ma.ma 0 man mH N.m ma mamH 50H m:.wa m mew mm 5.5 om maNH sow ms.ae me man aOH «.5 am maHH on ma.ea «OH an: em a.e aw . maOH aH ms.ma mmH man on N.e mm sea a ma.aa mOH mam on a.m nH asses mam H .sp\.pH ma.ma HH madam 03H aH .so N.n honosvoah upsHoaeHz honosvouh mpnaoacaz hosomwonh mundane“: hososaouh upnuopeHz caoaw .m pmmaor puma .H sauna mo nawdouao wsaxsoam .o coon mo nausea .e w ma.am o ma.mm m ma.mm mm ma.am H m.m~ a: ma.mm H o.Hm mm ma.mm m m.mH so ma.Hm n o.eH mm as.om mH m.mH um . m:.mm mm o.HH mm ma.wm HH m m: m.m Hm ma.am mm m Ha o.w om m:.mm and H mud m.m m .ea ma.mN new 0 msH ao.H hososvouh upsaoaea: homosvouh saddened: hososvoah wasaoada: pqsaa mo vanom .o msfimeog .p owmpsoouom seam omoog .o .eowddvu uuoaoousno no>oa on» no moses» ooaa mo msoauspwuaude hoqosdoah .H canoe 12 covariance problem. The resulting increase in error was insignificant. The correlation coefficient, r, was determined by the formula: 8 x y (SS 1) (SS y) The frequency distributions of the plot values for the various factors are given in Table l, to- gether with their class mid-points. Since the distributions for loose smut percentage and lodging were so definitely skewed, they were not involved in correlation calculations. Since it was desired to determine the correla- tions existing between the various factors on the basis of plot values and eliminate any effect due to differences in strain.meane, the sums of squares calculated for ”Between strains” was subtracted from the total sums of squares, and correlation coefficients were determined from the "Within strains“ line. Correlation coefficients determined from the "Within strains" lines of Table 2 are as follows: Height of plant and yield r a 0.225 Length of head and yield r a 0.360 Breaking strength of straw and yield r = -0.092 Test weight and yield r = 0.640 Table 2. Sums of squares and products used in the determination of covariance. a. Covariance between height of plant and yield. Degrees of ource freedom 88 x S x 1 SS 1 Total 449 2877.67 7770.3 10,722,363 Between strains 74 2834.9? 4189.5 4,798,383 Within strains 375 42.70 3580.8 _5,923,980 b. Covariance between length of head and yield. Degrees of Source freedom SS x S x y 83:: Total 449 330.17 21809.1 10,722,363 Between strains 74 265.18 14753.6 4.798.383 Within strains 375 64.99 7055.5 5,923,980 c. Covariance between breaking strength of straw and yield. Degrees of Source freedom SS x S x I 88 I Total 449 4. 909. 918 926. 739 10. 722. 363 Between strains 74 4,860,926 976,479 4,798,383 Within strains 375 48,992 -49,740 5,923,980 d. Covariance between test weight and yield. Degrees of Source freedom SS x S x 1 SS 1 Total 449 1133.0 5172 10,722,363 ‘ Between strains 74 824.7 -22183 4,798,383 Within strains 375 308.3 27355.4 5,923,980 13 Strain number 3 24 33 23 58 2 18 a 72 27 20 l 61 32 39 3O 8 37 22 19 68 51 31 Yield in grams 1437 1432 1410 1373 1366 1356 1353 1338 1318 1316 1313 1297 1293 1282 1281 1280 1275 1272 1270 1269 1269 1267 1260 1259 1254 1254 1249 1247 1246 1245 1244 1243 1243 1240 1227 1226 1226 1226 1223 1222 1212 1208 1202 1199 1190 1189 1188 1166 1162 1150 1144 1138 1131 1130 1130 1125 1120 1117 1095 1094 1092 1084 1079 1079' 1078 1067 1060 1060 1,955 1055 1039 1035 1018 1016 1016 871 Table 3. Test weight poundsplibu. 48 48 47 47 51 5o 48 49 49 47 52 48 51 48 50 55-888 88738685 0 e e e \3 U1 MN 0 O O eee WNNNCDWMKJJ WNN H e H O O O O O O O OO 0...... mmxunoooom H O O I O O CDCOQUOKDV FJFJ +4 e O O O O O 0 e momoowmumooowmwwxiwfloommwoo mowmoowmm U1 WNMONOCD OHOH O N H O O O O H O O 0 e H O O O O O H O O 0 e o 1414 1a 0 O 0 Breaking strength of straw in grams 229 429 564 468 399 298 331 484 521 511 255 364 278 506 370 457 403 219 490 489 280 293 500 323 437 391 440 171 287 330 397 408 535 297 462 335 451 398 232 398 347 370 436 230 418 601 530 377 510 464 470 320 297 216 709 380 168 357 325 330 339 336 371 291 276 370 399 362 320 240 237 286 232 347 341 366 Strain means for the seven factors studied. Height of plant in inches 30.9 31.8 35.0 26.7 29.6 25.5 31.9 29.9 28.5 28.7 \) \O o e e e e O\ NO‘~‘\7\J\'\I\_A\~O .'\)\J\‘O"\]O NOVWV O O DJFOKOKOFOFOKOKDKOKOKJ m>m>uanat oaowa>hiq>0111n>c>c>uom)c\rron UPON ee NCUNODI—‘mo\ O 0 NWKJJW N I\) (VWWW I‘JKJJKOWWU) I\)\i) F0 NQNWVWtWPF‘fiOOIT-C‘OMKJ‘OHOOx ‘YJNl-‘VCDCDOOHW‘QNWI—‘L‘ 0 Length of centimeters \OCDQNOF-‘Oknknwfl‘fikanxwCCOKOO~N©P\OC‘0\ T‘— .\1. \10‘KJ10‘CDO\O\\}O‘\1\)U1\1\T2CO'\1\}\1\}\1\1\n 0\\10\\n{:0\ e e e e e e e e e e 0 ' \iknan-‘flfl'fl wwoooow tow O\\O(IJU1U1 OowoomxanxbxoOHmooNt-Jow You) {rune-econ) mm Hg) 00 OOHJ (03301”ka tVOOWWWm‘JWOOO\OJ\nO\M\nPUJOON H t“) O H 5...: H (:O\\l\JJNNKJJNN'Q'QNWCOO‘CDOHOHHQQNKJ‘HO\H'\A)CT‘ e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e O O O l—" e HNNNQI‘OOKIXN ' C [.4 H p- 15 The significance of the correlation coefficients was determined by Fisher's (5) table of correlation coefficients, using the 1% level of significance. This test shows that there is a significant relay tionship between yield and height of plant, head length, and test weight; but not between yield and breaking strength of straw. Although these relationships are significant, the size of the correlation coefficients shows that not enmugh of the variability in yield can be attri- buted to variation in any of the factors studied to be of any value in a selection program. Table 3 lists the strains in the order of de- creasing yield and gives the strain means for the seven factors studied. Visual comparison of the strains can easily be made by use of this table.‘ SUMMARY Seventyafive mildewbresistant strains of barley were grown at East Lansing in 1946. Measurements were made and simple correlations determined between yield and height of plant, length of head, breaking 16 strength of straw, and test weight. Significant correlations were found between yield and height of plant (0.225), length of head (0.360), and test weight (0.640). No significant relationship was found between yield and breaking strength of straw. CONCLUSIONS Although significant correlations were found, no character studied was closely enough related to yield to be of much value from a selection standpoint. l. 3. 4. 5. 9. 10. 17 LITERATURE CITED Anderson, D. C. The Relationship of Hessian Fly Infestation to some Characters of the Wheat Culm. Thesis for the Degree of M. S., Michigan State College. 1934 Babcock, E. B., and Clausen, R. E. Genetics in Relation to Agriculture. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. Ed. 2. 390—391. 1927 Clark, E. R., and Wilson, H. K. Lodging in Small Grains. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 25: 561-572. 1933 Davy, Sir Humphrey. Elements of Agricultural Chemi 8t 17. London. Ed. 30 320. 1821 Fisher, R. A. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. Ed. 3 1930 Gerber, R. J., and Olson, P. J. A Study of the Relation of Certain Morphological Characteristics to Lodging in Cereals. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 11: 173-186. 1919 Helmick, B. C. A.Method for Testing the Breaking Strength of Straw. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 7: 118-120. 1915 Kiesselbach, T. A., Webster, 0. S., and Quisen— berry, K. S. Varieties of Oats, Barley, and Spring Wheat in Nebraska. Nebraska Ag. Exp. Sta. Bul. 328. 1940 Kohls, H. L. A Study of Some Factors Influencing the Yield of Two and Six-Row Barley in Michigan. Thesis for the Degree of M. 8., Michigan State College. 1930 Robertson, D. W., and Koonce, D. Barley Produc- tion in Colorado. Colorado.Ag. Exp. Sta. Bul. 431. 1936 ll. 12. 18 Salmon, S. C. An Instrument for Determining the Breaking Strength of Straw, and a Prelim- inary Roport on the Relation Between Breaking Strength and Lodging. Jour. Ag. Res., 43: 73-82. 1931 Willis, M. A. An Apparatus for Testing the Breaking Strength of Straw. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 17: 334-335. 1925 .. .1. _ . .. ... .....rv .. . 1. .. i . ...; I .. z... .i. 5.111 11111.. 4., 1.11.. . . . .... a . , . . ,. .n . , . ,. , , . .. , .. . f. ,, ... ._ ,. : t LI , _ ..., , Erin, ......ti:. 1 .. .sz .. . _. L.._......:,.v.:.r.. ......n..u: A-.. ...... ~ ‘wpmmm'm_v< ._ . nn‘rv- W— - 1 2... .0.&. _ "1:. ~ L ’J 4.- A <2:- J' O . Arliis-T _' V‘.’. (a 1- . - fl . — 0 ~ V u N _ a i; I“ '.._> A o 1 ,a v. . ar- l » ‘" ~ It . , \_‘ W - . I .41: _, " ' «2‘. ~ ,0. _ ' . A” ‘4‘ s ‘ 1 ° N r , . ‘ ‘Vl. ) I] ' I . ‘ \ ‘ 4b ' .‘v’c-‘M'fi” " r P 1‘ k . x J; 4“ . .‘t: i‘- l :1 r ’i \ v ?"r* ‘ v f ’5 r' I ., t r I . 5" ‘ . . W 3' ‘3‘.- .: - ’r a , .1 s ‘. 'l D n I. ' V r . 1...“, ,p}- ‘_ I 1 c. '1 _ e . J . f I .T‘O ‘. , - f I 1 ,3 “V I J ...- rd Q ' 1 (a; ‘ ‘ "z . \ """: .’.“'.' "5"” V ' .. .‘ ‘3‘ .10! ts» *- . w .. - 1 4.. vs. ave-«214a? a; ‘ 4”,, ~ _ ‘ ‘.., .4 1"‘1 __ .- .-.. 5“ ..:¢,"|.‘, “!<"~'"'"~'.'§ ‘ u. .- . v": \U ' ' ¥_.. H. il;",, - _.‘,' "a' ~l . I. ‘ .3. fr ’nfl‘v'vu'tfi.‘ ;’4 i ‘ . bitf‘.‘ V . ' x :- 4,-3' '4 "‘1', k - ‘l ' j a“- - in} 93.: ‘ WV" I ,. l"‘_' 9' ‘1' ...“.‘ A ‘-l ' .x' . I't-Y. . . '.' fl ' 37"‘3' ., o ' -; i, . )1. -_ \. ~14 , -.~.|, . VOL I ‘A' 5 -".¢' "1 3 - ~. -, ...“ 5 A u ."\' v. .. ' A ' v -‘.-'~;..:~‘«,~1>~.':~ 11453,. a .../r . ;‘.-..='r .1, v, 4. was. 1" u 1 ~ , " 1 ' I . . . _f4 "y.r gw ., , .., , . 1.}..5 \.,- 7', -; - 80 " - VN", (”q-8') "IC'OQ:;1:-‘ -~. VI .V‘ ... ‘ . .,, .1", '6‘. -, '1 .l 11". I .‘ ‘h‘ ! ‘.‘ f ~ ‘.-."1-. 'I ‘ 1