WI

4
1
|

i
l

WM

_—__—
——
_____—.-

 

A STUDY OF SOME FACTORS
INFLUENCWG THE WELD OF
TWO AND SEX-ROW BARLEY lN N’HCHIGAN
THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF M. 8.
Harold L.Kohls

1930

..‘.I‘ ..‘
I'Zgfl ”‘1".
I‘ '|.
\
1

q

"- u :N l'."..

{-7. - “.1": .‘ I 0",! u y.
a. .II‘I'.‘.‘. -V'~ "_,,- _A' K
‘ull‘.’ '1." ,I‘g'r ‘3.fl'1‘3.>}w.{ w’ir ‘r‘
--. r .. -. ..w w;

a. V=424é1e-éiéi’Ic-"?\e31§2

A 1Q —' 1 A i. If“ . f';\: . J 'I'. '
‘* 4v -. “1.2-: J ‘ . -: . .
' ' ‘V‘, ”3.1% ‘4 ffi

5; ' *2". . .‘o _

I
' i
. A as"), .. . ‘ .' KI”.
...v..' I .
k . ’1". ‘I ‘
" I ‘ ‘-‘ ._'

           

0‘2“

)1 :3.“- "I.
'5‘ .‘ ‘5 .}$:"»

. ‘

    

   

j"

*3)» -. -:~-*

..'I u; I r'.;‘.'..J-". .Ildtmhv.$;?w-wl -ru“

5‘." ""'~.'"'T-" 5'55“?" #4“— _ fir“ :‘é’
wk}.- 3;. m2" 31%”;95‘9WW .7.
1’ '- mm “flak“ . x
V 54;, .‘v ,9; he: 20;.-. . g,“ ' ~
9 r ' y", _ .‘L 'hfif‘a’

‘ "95' . v

        

A .1: , . . r".
. “1 ‘ .
, be"? -.

,u
>
I
a II.
'.

  

  

   
  

 
 
 
 
      
    
 
 
      

  
    

 
   
   
 
     
  
 
  
  

  

P (’ :..r“§' ?‘Afi'
’ ”‘9 .1 v
\"f 8,. t ..' p‘
' .21-.
v sun
x 2 .
I

{fix
, ’i‘!

I
Kst . . . ‘ ‘ 1“.
. a .‘4 v- (v. ‘55 v v‘ I -' I
.. 3' ', ‘_PI'."“(‘..-r~.._ ‘~..-';.' -. 5“ “v. .
. 3‘.” . 0‘, ‘ ..'“ ".. ..' “‘v} ‘ 3,), L" ' r ' ’,:: --l
. ,.° ‘ 'I ’I") ..'.‘1i‘é _‘:Vl I‘X‘ . ,;I ‘:“‘.‘.§~
._~g f '.- ' v3! ‘5‘: ‘ 3' "2’53? $4 3- AI‘ ‘ " . " 'r‘i'xrr‘
. ' , . . ‘. ‘ ' ".655“... ‘aLL‘JN;.-‘..'p fl; 2-} F‘ 1. o I‘ j '. a
' ‘ .’ ' I ‘ ‘ '-b_ "‘ .l . ‘ - ..J‘ |' A , . V 1:,.' j. ‘ ‘ '. IV .
I ' " ' ' -C’ 'V'k" ' '1 '. "' " 64-“: ?¢'r‘ 35"," a ‘r.- .)1 ‘.. '} I'M? ,
" . ' Wt} " .y 3 7' -‘ 'I ' j 7* ’ ~11?“ v‘ L“. ‘yfifi'w #13) '2 '11 .‘u‘
.9; at. A 4 -. .. ., .2- t ~ . - flaw :
‘ , 3’13“? 03/ If. u.- w ‘ m \ ‘ 11 V '13.} p; 5' "‘ i '- H"‘ '5' M
l ,|‘_ ..’ l‘t‘b .: v- i. ' I .5; 0‘ l 1““ _‘ .- . .’ Lu . ..‘. ‘ . h r,
. h'l'. 1“ v . I '4 \' ..‘ r .' ' 4" . ’ K ' \ . I u' '\ ‘.
“(u’ro' ,pl‘vL'q fi. . v _ , ‘,_f V‘ I Li M.‘ _. ‘i‘ .5
4 9” "kw" 'fl " 1‘ ' 'L w' my. '. ~-,1.,~L
. ..4 . "I , § . b‘ «I. _ j . , 4 .1 \ § 1 ‘¢ }-5 I 5'. , v‘
. _ ark“; wig”: ' ._ .fiF-‘ o; .- , cn§;‘lu‘ _' f :1
. ‘,u 1118' .7" ' ,5 i‘ w. ' '
a |‘ I l - k
't ‘Hsh' 4h Qwak v—u" (9.
r 1"“. J h. .

  

$1..
‘.. '9
‘ l.‘ 1-,-
.» ~ 1 “3' ".-
‘. .. ..‘" I. ‘ 1.. 1!- .

  

"‘"figsz’zz :31...“ ‘3’ if“. "1?“; '\'.' ‘ LN. .—
. ‘n . ’4 ,. {its 1‘)"\.‘,.“‘:, "5.".'g',"'157. .' .

1 5'- 9," 5 9‘” $7. ‘ 1‘. Q7”- 1', ..'x- 1 ' ~. .
I‘ ' t,.;l. .“ u .1." V. ' ‘ , . »_' -

   

“ i 3.2- ' I ‘ .A 'L
| ‘I - -' - ..‘). I ‘1
‘a b ~ '4’. I‘ x
. 1' 5.; .. ,
f t’k ‘ ' c. In? t
‘ .' ' " :ru.’,’ '1
v , '§.§ ..'.

I. ; . . .
. #Lh‘fijfivg 4v ..

,L~‘

I

..,«1
.

 
 
 
  
   
  

 
 
      
    
  

{‘1‘} ..'» I" .'
x _ -. M .
‘ 7"“‘1’K’v~.§§§£zw}:;§g<g;g 3K; ‘1‘?“ 1: -.yyw ,
k. V ,I '> , I 29", ..-V_’,'.:: ', ".S I. ~
1‘ ’ ‘fi’tfl: ,3’4‘135‘: his 0‘ C“. 1‘33""

h .
'mi 5." 1- .- '. . ’ L" :l’.‘ .1 .- , .. '
r6? If": h!" I I“; . 5' q "-Aflfrfl‘fl: 32"?)n- .1",, I. 7“")? 27.1““: "~'%‘:.',"‘La'3,'-€{'g_' r“ i, , ‘
' ..‘F‘, hem-2.32:1. 5-4.1»: 331-1 -v mv 5 .5.sz f} A-‘y ‘w'A'1-v1r“.n >= w‘l- a“.
‘ 3.31?!” .- _‘ ' . "_ ; L n , h‘g' ' ‘1‘! ' ' ‘ 6 7“ f
1.: . ‘ . I 4 I
q
I

   
  

    

1 A
1,. .

 
     
 
   

    

 
  

. 1‘ ~ . 2’. .
m u‘ ‘ — .. . -' f. ' .,
. ‘ - _- . , : , J A , V ." .1 I .' ‘.
- . _‘ . . c . . . ‘ _
.. .1 :v 1; V . - ,_, v: .
C 3' .1 ,' ‘ '.'x _ .l
. . . . . . ‘ < .
0‘! - - . - , . w . . ' 4 1
a). A . . 1 A _‘ . v ‘ .1 .. r I
l 'V l' ' ‘ ‘ ' ' - . p ’2
__ < .1 .. . __. 0,. A _ H _
‘ A -.p .v‘ ._-1 < . ~ .' - ‘ _‘ . .
' D 'x ' . 1. 1 ' . - .‘v -
' ' '. . _ - . ‘-
P ' n ' l
V. - ‘ ‘
. . _ '_ .

 
 

f5.» 1 '
". -f‘.
755'

."
._ ‘ 1:
Mach“

  

         
       

0's.
‘ §
t
‘ f6.
‘. ‘hkfi .
"19‘

1

I1. 2

‘75ka . _L
,;‘."-.fe‘-J

..<.-1‘ A —
‘ "$13
wow:
1:- .. . _
f
A
,1
,
”.1
‘w
..
I
t'
J \
)L‘
‘2‘ A

..y‘;-'.
-

V 532‘ ‘
'31::
‘ -‘ ‘1 ..
.4 f
.4'
r
1 gm
.3'
ax.

‘8
C
4
- :3
.3“ '9".
: ..‘.

 
 

‘ 5‘ . L599: ' '. ,3; ~
“‘ " i.“ ‘ 3.3;",- k‘? “1"». -. 13.73.34." :7 .. \r‘
..’ .-~.- ., 3919?}, 'i‘f'a ' «by.» 81¢? 41-. 1 1 * ' -“'.
' ‘~ ‘ f“:.'¢;i‘.';f'.+-:v“.Lf, any» ‘ 4:3. 1 1
" _.‘ -'“ '{53‘k “‘- % :

 

. .. " . A. A ‘
x _ .. ... ,1 u' - -- , ' -., v'
H! g ‘\'1'-.f';‘05,"-"H.“'. 94-. '.‘,. A,“
t 0': '..‘|-‘.‘.'z> w" ' 7g .‘VFr ‘ ‘
4 \i“ -. )v ., U , 1.,
v3. 7.“: 1‘ i g r'n‘z ‘

‘ -, A -..~ 2,611,”;
5‘ m ’1‘“ "‘7‘!" gt. .75
. 1“. 'l‘ ,

' . 'f-‘ffi‘ffi; . 1,1,3 ‘3‘
' “’3'34‘5iifié’t‘q'» 7:
. >fi' . ". a):
v.‘ . l 4

"1" :32? i‘

53335 ‘ x:

‘ —’ " ‘ 1;;
3 £4» , 1

V ",.'
. ' .‘ . . |
..‘. ~ : 7 , 1 ‘..',- o , _ . ._ a h _'
. , 'I." I . .1 ' . ' x ," “-. .‘. .11.... ‘ ..‘-.‘ ' \ I. '- I. " a :_ I h (2%;

fl’; “ ":1‘ ‘ittv.v¢:)“ ; J, - . _'y. L‘ '. S 5.. i ‘ ', - .‘ ':. . .' 0‘ -‘ ' ’5' . " $4.“ ‘ '-' . . z ’1‘... i _ (1;. .' “I 1'; ..‘R
l-l . -.. a ‘ . - .. ,' ' L . . ‘ ‘. . ' ' . " ‘ n ., 1 ' . 9 ~ - ‘ . u -. .
'n‘ . '1 . .- flak-t ‘ 2’ 5-H .. . - 4: . _. ,. (3 3g; ' “.4‘ 13“? .3555 4,331 3‘ . \{f H @3143. '.

\ .w ." a '5 ‘ _ ‘ , . H , ‘ - ,‘ . . V‘ 3k: ' ' > - ‘ P_ - 1- _ " .. ‘. ‘:. ‘ < ..'." “ ..w - > _-.4

  
  
  
 
   
 
 

L '73:
‘3.“ ‘I\71-(6«
H-F. )

£3"
26.

J.
- 3'
1 ' g
'5; s
‘7 " 1‘1 O’
V y r" .

V .5
n ' l
.13

'5‘“

    
 
 
  

 
 
  

   
  
    
    
 
  
 
 
  
   
     

th 1.}, 1 a; .1 >1 1""-
. ' 1,! 20. .4. _.l f , - . .. V , ' . ‘ _. . , ’3 11")" La” L_’ &‘ ’\(‘ 3‘ . “‘7 N\‘ | 5‘; J"
'. " M .:|.. g; .'h&l . ,‘ ‘ ’h ' . ' .: 3. ‘0' ,|_ "L, I ' l N‘ . * ‘. -.‘ ”I'- a -' ' " . I. ‘ '_ c D\"1 "g :Q :1 ‘ ‘firto‘ A‘_: .k I 1") ‘ v'
‘_ K In it"? I‘ 'g ' ‘ . .‘ , ‘I ..' " ‘ ' . -‘ ' . J- .31 "7_ _ “1'. ',l o,‘ . ‘11” ‘ '. V“ i ' ’1'47‘4'; ,f.g“‘:.p J)*'. ‘ V > . -. .) V1 1- . '\ 1"“7' ‘3"
.246 , ’.1~..< _~ _ .» -. ~- .. = p _. . - a . rm . ‘ w '-‘z 11-:I'-+1"--5¢"'~‘»'- °- W “- i4! ‘--‘ -1'
-~.---m~-. , ~- ~ - n - . -. .w' 1 5&2 . - 3-1 -' .- = . ~ _ --. '1~ warn .‘r .‘9 «.9. c 1H“). .v
. .H'INI' ,"1" ,v 3 . ‘ - '1‘ (.‘~ 3‘. '_ L» _,, . ,‘v ' -, ~ ..‘“ .I‘Q‘. It! . 7...} 1 g 1“ ‘ _ "‘I:?“- V ‘t ‘3‘" u ..‘ _.I'. . ‘fi“ "“9 o.‘_:’_}f‘1'_lr‘.j 'K’r ‘. , "_‘1 7:.

"’ -..‘.‘I fig”, .0 ’ u I . . _ ' 1. " .. ‘ , i . .' " ' “r- " "'u ..' -' ‘ * ‘ ' ‘ ' “N435 ' “; . ‘ t ‘1 , $v‘"'-“A';‘ ,1.:?i: 12‘ ‘« ; .

- .,~-.~ -- ‘ - - '_ ' . . . .. , » ’.“ --- . ‘t ._A. ‘ -‘
‘ 1" 'J ‘1' “4~‘£“. ,i ‘ ;)i Ln:.’ .‘ $.r“ \ \
‘ -"~ A '.' S" S: .57" V ‘ ..n. 13‘! 9‘: '- I j. 1 n.

,‘ ..'. "14. 2-“ v ‘ 1‘ \. “~. 1' - " ' ' ‘ \ .

.v. . ~~n~".~ ' ' \R ~~m
. .'- f—‘fif’ L ‘1 ‘ , 4‘fi5/L" “bat $ . 1’ ~‘ '.‘ 1 L. ( f
‘ '3‘ " ’f .; 43"» “' ‘;'A~.~.w‘-v-. 'M 1““ ”:"J"MV-’t. " M
I I."fl&:"i:l'iylt}n u“ g: . .‘ ‘I’ugda ." g‘rg . 1 \‘ '
'l’wv ' , .

i .V \v' "‘ . 4 -1'.‘_ _: ‘ N ’11-! 2;. _‘. 192." la ..‘.L‘gu" "‘2’."
-A%Vk< il— ‘R’F {‘3‘L‘h-T'h'jxé "'1; k [fit-"‘1‘! - .0:- . " effing??? -' ”I," w .1.)
.?J , ‘ L ‘1 .' H. ." '. ‘ ..'.
6% £3135: .1 ,
3 "*1. ‘~.

“#711 " ..,.

' a-w‘d'{\“"~i , w”? ' ("'14 A" 2"” “

a" I?" II ‘ ‘3. ‘,“flq;' ‘ ‘ ' “ v . ‘ _. (A, f? if??? I. LIL'I‘.‘“".1“

l.‘ 93:, .‘ 2%?" V?» mt».- ..'..v.‘
. I

 
 
  

  
   

'. gala ‘ v
..a" . x3
. .)‘(

J
I

    

+1

 

  
      

1.. . - . i v I 2-, _ ' ‘ '

~ i a- t w $.19.“ #24 1 «waxéfla. r?"- ;‘- .. 1'. :

M. ' :‘fiWA In 15- .1 14‘7”.“ 'i *1" “v (-3.“ ~ ,2; .

f 1 j {El-flu: éiw’ifznafl-‘f ..’ 2}‘31,ib.:~.3~\€¢ 1i Fifi-1.7:; 5-2. ,'_ f“ 1-!
m“, 5 - - '1 1a '.‘- . '1' \

        

  
 
 

  

'\

$32» . .7 ‘H L l - I
v 1 ’3'!" fagfiyxflcsfi‘ ‘25};

If? I "

..__ "3.114“ *‘fi‘4
1? l
' C A'
9.. ~33WL§1J

 

A
‘1‘:

"--/v I A- I . . ..’
Na 1 - ... , “n+3
I W 261.113 "‘  .‘J

‘c' is

«I-
gffL ' s
- f.

..‘.

‘ ,_;__~'_4
i~€ {\f: .2
-~O :.
s K". ?;.
3.1:: '.

‘1
p
1
¢
' V
I
1.
\ ?

 

A STUDY OF SOME FACTORS INFLUENCING THE YIELD
OF TWO AND SIX-ROW BARLEY IN MICHIGAN

A STUDY OF SOME FACTORS INFLUENCING THE
YIELD OF TWO AND SIXPROW BARLEY IN MICHIGAN

Thesis

Respectfully submitted in partial fulfillment
for the degree of Master of Science
at
Michigan State College of Agriculture
and Applied Science

’7

Harold L. 3293;:

1930

THES‘S

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer is grateful to Professor E. E.
Down, Mr. H. M. Brown, and Mr. F. H. Clerk for
guidance and constructive criticisms thruout

this problem, and final review of this paper.

us
:3
to
p.
LI
Pb

TABLE OF CONTfiflT
INTRODUCTION.....................................Page 1
LITERATURE CITED..................................... 1
LIAIERIAL AND LLSTZIODS USED............................ 3
DATA OBTAINED

Comparative Yields.............................. 7
Table I Comparative Yields................... 8
Correlation Coefficients........................10
Table II Correlation Coefficients............ 9
Percentage of heads detained....................12
Table III Bereentage of Heads Retained.......14
Length of Hesd..................................15
Table IV Length of Head......................15
Weight per Kernel...............................l7
Table V weight per Kernel....................16
Number of iernels per nead......................18
Table VI Number of Kernels per nead..........l9
Yield per Head..................................18
Table VII Yield per dead.....................20
Number of Heads per flow.........................21
Table VIII Number of Heads per how...........22
Height per Bushel...............................23
Table IX Weight per Bushel...................25
Number of Blants per now........................24
Table X Number oifPlants per now.............26
Laboratory Germination..........................27

Table XI Laboratory Germination..............28

Yield per Blant..............................Page 27
Table XII Yield per Plant.....................29
Length of Fruiting feriod.........................50
Table XIII Length of Fruiting Period..........3l
dstimated Number of-Blants per how and Yield
per plant (Drilled)...............................30
Table XIV Estimated Number of Plants per
new and Yield per plant (Drilled).............32

Discussionoo....o........oo.o....o...............o53

SUMJARY................................................54
Table XV Comparison of the Two Types accord-
ing to the Averages as Given in the Various
Tables........................................57
CONCLUSIONS............................................4O

BIBLIOGRILPHYOOCOOO0.00.0000.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0......42

J

O O 3‘ C

'1

A STUDY OF SOHS FACTORS IKFLUENGING Ire YIELD OF

TKO AND SIX-ROW BARLSY IN AICHIGAN
IETdODUCIION

michigan B-row barley has been outstanding in its
yielding ability, for a number of years at the Michigan
Experiment Station, in comparison with Wisconsin Pedigree
No. 9, a six-row barley commonly grown by Michigan far-
mers. In 1926 and 1927 Spartan, a new smooth awn two-row
variety developed at this station, out-yielded Wisconsin
Pedigree No. 9. when growing in the field two-row bar-
leys appear to yield less than six-row varieties, and
under some conditions and according to results obtained
at adjoining state experiment stations this is actually
true. For that reason it seemed advisable to undertake
an investigation to determine some of the factors that
contribute to the yielding ability of two and six-row

barley varieties under Michigan conditions.

”A

LIIERATURF CITED

L

Different workers have reported relationships in
small grains between yield and several morphological
characters such as plumpness of kernel, number of heads
per unit area, and the number of kernels per head. Cor-
relations have also been found between yield and crown
rust, lodging, date of heading, and length of fruiting

period. However, most of the work was done with cats

-2-

or wheat rather than with barley.

r. B. Immer and F. J. Stevenson (7) working with
strains of cats reported that plumpness of grain, date
of heading, crown rust, and lodging are closely asso-
ciated with yield. Also, height of plant and spiklet
blight have very little influence on yield.

John H. Martin (8) found that in Spring wheat it
was important to secure a full stand, but seeding thick-
er than necessary did not appear to reduce the yields in
either wet or dry seasons.

Working with winter wheat in 1926, Karl S. Quisen-
berry (9) concluded that under the cropping conditions
in the fields sampled, the number of heads per unit area
is one of the most important factors in determining
yield, closely followed by the number of kernels per
head. Plumpness of grain is not as important a factor
in determining yields as the other two factors mention-
ed. It is, therefore, of major importance to obtain a
good stand of’wheat, if high yields are desired. It ap-
pears that there is little relationship between number
of heads per unit area and the size of heads or plump-
ness of grain, emphasizing the importance of full stands,

and showing that a thin seeding does not increase the

size of kernels.

-5-

J..Allen Clark and John R. Hacker (2) found that the
length of fruiting period and height of plant are the
most important factors positively correlated with yield
in Marquis and Hard Federation crosses of spring wheat.

H. K. Hayes, 0. S. Aamodt, and F. J. Stevenson (5)
found a correlation of 4.5101 between.plumpness of grain
and yield in spring wheat and a correlation of +.6228 in
winter wheat. They also found that bearded selections
produced plumper kernels on the average than did the
swnless selections.

Work to date is well summarized by E. B. Babcock
and R. E. Clausen (1). |"Correlation between yield and
certain morphological characters in small grains has
been thoroughly 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 morph010gica1 character."

MATERIAL AND METHODS USED
To carry out the present experiment seven varieties

were chosen. The six-row varieties were: Wisconsin

Pedigree No. 9, Michigan Black Barbless, and Minnesota

-4-

No. 450. The two-row varieties were: Alpha, Spartan,
Selection 04103, and michigan 2-row. The latter was used
as a check. These varieties were the more desirable

two and six-row barleys grown at this station.

Wisconsin Pedigree so. 9 was used because it was
a variety commonly grown by the farmers of this state.

It is medium early, six-row, very attractive in appear-
ance having large heads, and is vigorous in growth. It
does, however, have the disadvantages of having rough
awns, small kernels, and the heads break off readily
very soon after maturity. This last character is a large
factor in reducing the yield of this variety, if it isn't
harvested immediately when mature.

Michigan Black Barbless is a short, stiff-strawed
variety which matures later than Jisconsin Pedigree No. 9.
It is a six-row, black kernel, smooth awn barley which
yields well under Michigan conditions.

Michigan 2-row, as its name indicates, is a two-row
variety, which does not have same of the disadvantages
of Uisconsin Pedigree Ho. 9. The awns, though rough,
break off readily at threshing time. The kernels are
large, the heads are not easily broken off, and it ma-

tures a little later than does Jisconsin Pedigree No. 9.
In the variety tests conducted at this station, Michigan
two-row excels Wisconsin Pedigree No. 9 in yield by a

significant margin.

Michigan Black Barbless and Michigan 2-row are the
parents of Selection 04103 and Spartan. The latter two
are very much alike. They are two-row, smooth awn varie-
ties which mature early. Ihe kernels are large and plump
and the heads do not break off easily after maturity.
Spartan is the higher yielding one of the two and has sig-
nificantly out-yielded aisconsin Pedigree he. 9 at this
station.

alpha is a tall, late maturing, two-row variety which
yields well under hichigan conditions. It is not favored
by Michigan farmers because or its late maturity and rough
awns.

Minnesota No. 450 is a six-row barley which yields
well, has smooth but persistant awns, and the heads do not
break off readily at maturity. It is medium early.

Two different methods of seeding were used, drilled
and spaced. fhe drilled material was sown in 18 foot rows
at the ordinary rate of 17 grams per row. a check was
sown every fourth row and each variety was replicated four
times. Ihe same was true of the Spaced material except
that the kernels were Spaced two inches apart in the row
instead of being drilled.

In 1927 all the barley was harvested on the same
date as all varieties appeared to mature at the same time.

However, in 1928 there was considerable difference in the

date of maturity of the different varieties and for that

reason each row was harvested when it was mature.

The date planted and dates harvested of both the
drilled and Spaced material were taken in 1927 and 1928.
In 1928 the dates of first heading and dates of maturity
were taken. In the drilled material, in 1927 and 1928,
the data consisted of the weight of straw and grain per
row, number of culms and heads per row, weight per kernel,
length of head, and weight per bushel. In the Spaced
material, the following were taken in addition to those
mentioned for the drilled material: Height of plant,
number of culms and heads per plant, average length of
head per plant, average weight per kernel per plant, and
number of kernels per plant.

In interpreting the data the commonly known formulae
were used in practically all cases. The formulas were:

3. D. = t ( 3x3: - Mzm)/w)%'in which 3 indicates
summation,

X is the magnitude of
the variable,

f is the frequency,
M is the mean,

and N equals the number
of individuals

P. Es. : £0.6745 S. D.

P. Em. . §O.6745 s. D. /m%

P. E. of a difference : i (agi b3)%

P. E. of an average 3 5 (82} b2) + ~ ------ --n3)%/N

 

YTI

——-—--———--~

-7-

The comparative yield is the ratio, expressed de-
cimally, of the actual yield of a plat to the theoretical
yield of that plat, multiplied by 100. The theoretical
yield is obtained by direct, or straight-line, interpola-
tion between the actual yields of the two nearest check
plate. The computation of the correlation coefficients
was made by the diagonal method described by Crum and
Patton (5) with modifications made by the Farm CrOps De-
partment of the Michigan State College. However, the
formula

3. mi: 1» s. 1).;- s. 13.3

 

2 S. Dex S. I).y

was not changed.
In the following discussion Michigan two-row is in-

cluded in the two-row type.

DATA OBTAINED
Comparative Yields
The comparative yielding abilities of the two-row
and Six-row types, as shown in Table I, were variable.
In the drilled material, in 1927, the two-row excelled
the six-row type by 12.53 i 1.77 per cent, but in the

Spaced material in the same year the comparative yields

W010 98-80 1 4.08 per cent and 94.00 i 3.55 per cent re-

Spectively with the higher yield in favor of the six-row.

Imaaspmm wamflm

.thHSPsS pm momma mo mmoa was Soap

 

 

 

 

 

 

sea mew mo padoooe no camp moanwfim one we Hecamzp no: on 0p om>maaemw

 

 

 

 

me.ae me.m. mm.as mm.ae so.m« om.e4 no.Ha .0: meanness
mm.ooH ea.eoa sm.em oe.am mm.am Ha.oaa me.em cameoomaz escapae soauaan
mummw ma.mw mo.H« mm.Hw me.aa mo.e« mn.H« eonuaam
sm.oo He.em mn.sm me.om mm.em om.mm os.ms

oo.a« oo.H« ee.« an.H« as.H« mm.n« ea.aa soa-ose
mm.ee ma.mm so.eo mm.sm mm.mm oo.em nm.mo

Ha.me as.m« sm.aa ms.ma ne.m. oo.s. Hm.ma .oz omamaema enmeooman
Hm.ms me.es we.me am.ms ee.em mm.es am.me

Ha.m« as.ms ae.Hs as.m« mm.m« eo.a« an.ma .oa spommeeas
no.Hoa mm.soa me.ae mm.ee ma.aoa me.maa mm.sm

Ha.m« as.n« sm.a« ms.m« ne.m« so.aw Hm.m* mmmapaem aoeam semaeoam
em.ma na.moa om.ea em.me em.sm om.moa oo.moa

Ha.mw ms.m« am.aw ms.mw mm.mw eo.s« Hm.m« Moshe
oo.ooa oo.ooa oo.ooa oo.ooa oo.ooa oo.ooa oo.ooa

Ha.ma ma.n« am.a« na.m« ne.me eo.aq Hm.m« .o: eoHpoeHen
as.em em.em mm.mm so.em om.mm ee.mm ee.ss

Ha.ma as.s. sm.ae ms.ma mm.ma ao.sa am.m« espaeam
es.am no.0m mm.mm oa.em on.ne mo.am be.em

Ha.m« ma.mw sm.Hw ms.m« ne.m« eo.a« an.mw sagas
ma.aoa mm.maa ao.moa HH.@HH mo.am as.eoa mm.eoa

meamm>r omommm emaafiam umommm cmaaflnm coommww coaaflpm
among ommae>< owmao>< mama bmma

omhp no mumfiam> mo msmz

.m .02 ommbflwew camcoomflh presume soausfim map
was .mommp soanwflm one oep .hpoaam> some you Sepfim one meamaa m>HpsamQSOQ .H manna

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heao.a Hmao.« emoo.« emoo.« oeoo.« eaoo.« a .0; moa,aeep
mean. Hmoe. scam. Heme. meme. poem. mango omah prompfls soanwan
baao.m wofio.w. nmoo.« Hmoo.q oooo.« maoo.« soauMHm
mmen. name. Home. memo. mods. ommm.
meoo.« emoo.« eaooqw seooqe mneo.« «wooqm, soauoea
mnem.. moan. omoe. mmma. omam. mono.
msoo.a meoo.a mmoo.« eeoo.« ancess mooo.« meanest
omen. pump. wave. owes. moms. mama.
somo.e Haao.4 maHo.q soao.e meao.e Hmoo.e m .03 em maeom mamzooma:
moon. came. oaae. Aosm. some. smmm.
w»as.« spas.«. maao.« suao.a soao.«. smoo.« one .on eponmeeaa
meow. Hmae. a we. mama. seas. anew.
somo.w pnao.w «was.« a.) J.« smoo.« mmoo.« mmoapac. soda ms area
nmmm. Haas. Mama. mama. mama. Hamm.
muao.« snab.w Hugo.w neos.« nmss.« naoo.w modem
omen. omom. mafia. mama. ooaw. scam.
moao.w Hmao.w mmao.w mmoa.w onoo.w 2200. m moaeo .om moapoeamw
mmmm. moms. oobe. owes. nmom. comm.
Hamo.w oaao.« msao.« HHHO.« meoo.« mmoo.a assuage
mama. momm. mmme. mama. comm. omem.
amao.w meao.« n-ao.« mmoo.« meoo.« smoo.« sedan
soon. omen. scam. Hmobo omam. maem.
Hamper omen mo nmmam mo msHSO muse: maemnmx hwoanm>
hem .pa upmmew, ummflem .Mo .oz Ame .02 no .02
.0 .oz eoamaoom
mammoomam. pdompae sonawfim .cnw .omhp use hpofinm> more now .Honaem Hem pnmflos
one .wmom so mpmSeH. panda mo pawfiea .pmeac Hem wears mo pagans .pneam
Hem muse: so Messrs .panm you maompex mo Manama one pumam Hog caoam some»
Ion mmma was smma you am>Hm one mosam> pmofloaumeoo soapsaoaaoo ommae>m one .HH edema

O

b .

ft

-10-

In 1928 there was practically no difference between the
two types when drilled, but in the Spaced material the
two-row excelled by 7.56 f 2.08 per cent. Over the two-
year period in the drilled material the two-row out-yield-
ed the six-row by a difference that was 4.72 times its
error. However, in the spaced material the difference was
not significant. also, in the grand average the differ-
ence was not significant. when Wisconsin Pedigree No. 9
was omitted from the six-row type, for reasons discussed
later, the six-row did not significantly out-yield the

two-row over the two-year period.
Correlation Coefficients

In comparing correlation coefficients in Table II, it
was found that some characters were associated more closely
with high yield than were other characters. The average r
value of yield with the number of kernels per plant for all
varieties in 1927 and 1928 was +.9516 i.0008, indicating
that the number of kernels per plant was closely associated
with yield per plant. High correlation coefficients of 4.7865
i.0034 and $.7089 §.0044 were obtained between yield and
number of heads per plant, and yield and number of culms per

plant, reSpectively. It is interesting to note that height

was more closely associated with yield than either length

of head or weight per kernel. The r value of weight

2+

-11-

per kernel with yield was +.3430 §.0073. The association

was not marked, but was considered significant. From the

data, it would follow that the number of kernels per head

and the number of heads per plant are the main factors in-
fluencing yield in barley.

In comparing two and Six-row types there is no signi-
ficant difference between the two when correlating yield
with number of kernels per plant. In the two-row type a
correlation between yield and number of heads per plant of
6.8150 1.0032 was obtained. The same characters in the
six-row type were correlated to the extent of $.7485 ££D06.
The difference is significant, as it is over 28 times its
error. Ehe r values for two and six-row types when corre-
lating yield with number of culms are +.7622 i.0047 and
c.6378 §.0081, reapectively. The difference of .1244 is
over 42 times its error and is very significant. When
correlating length of'head with yield the six-row has the
advantage of .0661 and this difference is significant.
When correlating height of plant and weight per kernel
with yield the differences between the two types are not
significant. The number of heads and culms are more close-
ly associated with yield in the two-row type than in the
six-row type. In the latter, yield is correlated with

length of head more closely than in the two-row type.

-12-
Percentage of Heads Retained

The percentage of heads retained at threshing time
indicates one reason why one variety or type may yield
more than another. In Table III, in the drilled material
for 1927, all varieties retained over 95.0 per cent of
their heads at threshing time except Wisconsin.2edigree
No. 9. This variety retained less than 80.0 per cent of
its heads. In 1928, Uisconsin.Pedigree No. 9 was again
low with 84.14 £1.01 per cent and the next lowest was
Alpha with 92.92 {1.63 per cent of its heads retained.
All other varieties ranged from 96 to over 99 per cent.
The data, as obtained, gave Wisconsin Pedigree No. 9 a
two-year average of 81.65 £1.19 per cent while Alpha was
second lowest with 94.44 1.95 per cent. The other vari-
eties retained a very high percentage of their heads.

The data, obtained from the spaced material, Show
that Wisconsin-Pedigree No. 9 nearly equalled the check
and Spartan in 1927 with 91.43 1.90 per cent of its heads
retained. In general however, percentages were much low-
er in the Spaced material. Over the two-year period, the
varieties averaged over 90 per cent of heads retained, ex-
cept Wisconsin Pedigree No. 9 which retained an average of

82e49 tle 14 Per cent 0f its headSe

In comparing types, the two-row retained a significant-

ly higher percentage of its heads than did the six-row, the

-13-

difference was 7.72 times its error in the drilled grain
over the two-year period. The same was not true of the
Space planted material, the difference being but 1.65
times the probable error. when disconsin Pedigree No. 9
was omitted from the six-row type, there was no signifi-
cant difference between the two types in their ability

to retain their heads in the drilled plantings but, in
the spaced material and in the grand average, the six-row
retained a Significantly higher percentage of its heads

at threshing time.
Length of Head

The two-row has a longer head than the Six-row type
as is shown in Table IV. The difference of 0.95 c. m. is
22.39 times its error over the two-year period in the drill-
ed material, while in the Spaced material the difference is
2.06 and is 68.67 times its error. However, some varieties.
of the six-row type may have longer heads than some of the
two-row varieties. Jisconsin Pedigree No. 9 excelled Se-
lection No. 04103 and Spartan in this character in all
cases except in the drilled material of 1928. Here Se-
lection No. 04103 had an average length of head of 7.88 c.
m. as compared to 7.64 c. m. in disconsin Pedigree No. 9.
3he difference of 0.24 c. m. is not considered significant

as it is only 2.26 times its error.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

em.w en.w bmqe anew mm.« mmqw .oz omnmfioom
mm.om as.bm mH.mm sm.@m ww.mm 0H.bm mammoomflk pdozpfih sonlxam
Nn.m @d.« $5.4 mn.« bw.« mm.« BOHIMHm
Hs.am oe.mm mm.bm no.nm mo.em ma.am
mm.« mm.« Hm.e mm.« em.« mm.« aonlosB
mn.¢m 0m.mo om.m® om.mo em.¢m >m.oa
mm.e mH.H« o .m« Ho.H« 0m.m eaqmw .om meanness camsoomas
mo.mm mo.am em.nb ea.em ne.am ma.ms
mn.« ob.« om.« Hm.“ ow.« OH.H« .oZ mpommmafiu
em.om Om.om oc.om mm.bm Ha.mm mm.om
mm.e om.w me.« ao.H« oo.a« em.« mmmapaem Sufism newaaoan
os.mm no.mm om.mm mm.mm Ab.mm o>.>m
no.« mo.“ me.a« mo.H« mm.« Om.«- Momma
Oo.nm mo.om mm.sm mm.wm am.mm ma.mo
sm.e- oe.e mm.e mn.e em.a mb.e .oz moapomaoo
mH.mm mm.bm ma.am Hw.wm ms.mm nm.bm
mm.«. em.« mm.« ea.« mm.« we.« assumed
oa.mm mm.mm nm.mm mm.mm H¢.nm «b.bm
as.» we.« mm.« ne.H« Ha.w as.“ sense
05.nm em.em an.am mm.mm mm.ea mm.mm
ommao>d o eoHHHaQ wooemd woaaaam woosmo cmaaaha maze ao.HpmHamp no osoz
cameo ma 0 mwsao>r mama
. moamwwem mammoom pronpfla.sopusfim who «own» was mumflasp
nose a m ;>Hm mH mean mafinmmanp no oomaepea memos mo omepsoonom may .HHH magma

l

q
C
'2.
Q
71
.-
‘ a
a.
‘ v
:1.
.

.
e
4.
e
‘C.
O

w

”0

b

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo.« mo.w no-« mo.« so.w no.a eo.m, soauaan
oa.o oo.a mo.o mm.s mo.o mm.a sa.m
m .« mo.« mo.« so.« so.« no.« so.« soauoea
om.o mo.o mo.o ma.o oe.m oo.oa sm.m
no.« so.« oo.« oo.« so.w mo.« so.“ o .02 monmaoom enmeooman
om.a os.o em.o em.m eo.s so.o mo.o
mo.« much so.« oeww so.« so.« oo.a ooe.om spomoseau
so.o oc.a so.m om.a sm.o ne.s em.e
,r no.4 no.4 wo.4 oo.« oo.« eo.« oo.+ mmoshaen a.san asuaaoaw
41 Ho.@ ne.o oe.m mo.o ea.o en.e mo.e
so.« oo.a oo.w mouw oo.« so.« ao.«ti. woman
mm. o .oH em.o Ho.oa sa.o mm.aa om.s
no.“ eo.a mo.« oo.w mo.“ mo.“ so.“ :oaeo .om soapooaou
Hm.s mo.o os.o om.o mo.s as.m mm.m
no.« eo.« mo.« oo.« so.« eo.w ao.« nephews
mo.s ma.a ow.o mm.s oe.o Ho.a mm.m
eo.a mo.« so.« mo.« oo.w oo.a oa.« sagas
Ho.oH ne.HH oo.m oe.oa ma.o m .mH oo.o
mmsao>4 omoomc ooaflfiam oooomc ooaawam oooomm ooaaasa omMu no Hpofiaos go @852
lloqoaw owdam>4 omoao>w mama omma

 

hpoaoo> some you whopoafipmoo SH mo>Hm ma one: no mpmama creamer one

.omhp one
.>H canon

-

.--

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WQQDufl 0.030 WM HQOO.« wooafim WQOJJ q..OOJ 9% 0000.“ 0 .OJ. omhflfldwa
oono. memo. ammo. onno. omno. oao o. ammo. camsoomaa seasons soauwan
Hooo.« :ooo. « mooo.a nooo.«. mooo.« mooo.« cooo.q coauwaa
mono. ammo. mono. Hano. coo. memo. oaoo.
Hooo.« moo..« mspo.« moso.« mooo.« mooo.« eooo.» soauosw
moeo. saeo. ooeo. onto. ooeo. oaao. eono.x
moo;.«. oooo.« nooo.a mroo.a mooo.« mooo.« mooo.m o .om meanness camooomam
mono. oamo. memo. mono. oono. oomo. ammo.
mooo.« mooo.« eooo.a mooo.a. eooo.u eooo o.« oooo.« owe .oa epomoeoau
mono. memo. omno. mono. memo. osmo. mono.
nooo.« eooo.« eooo.4 oooo.« eooo.q mooo.q sooo.e mmoahaem Madam senanoau
ammo. ammo. asoo. memo. eamo.. ooeo. oono.
nooo.« mooo.« eooo.w mooo.u sooo.« eooo.« oooo.« noono
mono. oono. memo. onno. ammo. oemo. emoo.e
mooo.« eooo-« mooo.« oooo.« eooo.« oooo.« oooo.« noaeo .om censuses
aeeo. mmeo. oneo. omeo. omeo. soeo. eeeo.
mooo.« eooo.a oooo.« oooo.« mooo.w oooo.« oooo.« oopaeon
oeco. Hoeo. oneo. emeo. emeo. moeo. oneo.
nooo.a sooo.a eooo.« oooo.« sooo.« sooo.« sooo.u anode
osmo. moeo. mono. beeo. moeo. oomo. mono.

auopoaw oooomi ooaafiam oooomm ooaaflaa oooomw ooHHHaQ QMH.E no apoa ob so osmz

wanna aweso>w mumao>d m.: and

.0 .0H moawfioom mflmzoomflfi pdompfls soanxam our

.omhp one hpofiawp zoom pom mo>Hm ma madam ma Hoaaox pom pamflo: omeno>m one .> magma

1‘

It"

;..

f...—

Height per Kernel

In Table V, giving the average weight per kernel, it
is noted that there is a great variation among the varie-
ties. The two-row varieties, as a whole, have heavier
kernels than the six-row varieties. Michigan Black Barb-
less, however, has heavier kernels than Michigan 2-row.

In the drilled material over the two-year period Michigan
Black darbless kernels weighed significantly more than

the kernels of Alpha and were about equal to them in the
spaced material. Wisconsin Pedigree No. 9, has very small
kernels even when the plants have plenty of room to de-
velop, while Spartan and Selection No. 04103 have very
large kernels. As discussed on page>24, Wisconsin Pedi-
gree No. 9 produced less plants per row than the other
varieties. Possibly the low number of plants per row was
due to the small amount of reserve food in the kernels
planted. Consequently, some of the seedlings died while
the remaining seedlings got a poor start as compared to
the other varieties. If the kernels planted of Wisconsin
Pedigree No. 9 were as large as the kernels of the other
varieties, it possibly would have as many plants per row.
The difference between the two and six-row types in weight
per kernel over the two-year period is very significant in
both the drilled and spaced material, even if Wisconsin
Pedigree is omitted from the six-row type.

-18-

Number of Kernels per Head

In comparing the average number of kernels-per head,
as shown in Table VI, the Six-row type produced signifi-
cantly more kernels per head than did the two-row type.
This was true in both the drilled and Spaced material
over the two-year period. All varieties produced more
kernels per head in 1928 than in 1927. The 1928 results
are consistent with those of 1927 as each variety main-
tained the same relative position in the order of the
number of kernels produced per head. In no case did a
two-row variety excel a six-row variety in the average

number of kernels per head.
Yield per Head

As the number of kernels per plant is apparently very
closely correlated with yield, it would follow that the
six-row type would yield more per head than the two-row
type. The table on the average yield per head, Table VII,
shows this proved to be the case. In the drilled material
the difference of .1654 was over 15 times its probable
error, over the two-year period, in favor of the six-row
type. In the Spaced material, the difference of .4855
was even more Significant, it being over 32 times its
error. However, it was noted that Alpha yielded about

as much per head, on the two-year average, as did Wis-

-19-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oe.« oo.a oouw os.aa owes Ho.a omaw scenaan
He.om so.mn on.m mo.ce mo.em so.mm oa.om

as. c.“ on. on. as.“ ea.“ ow.» bounces
oo. oo.H: mo.m mo.mm mo.oa oo.oa oa.na

so.e w-.a as.« au.n m.« no.4 SH.H. mmamaeom sameooman
o.oo om.om oo.nm em.:m Ho.sm os.oe oa.om

ma.« ee.a« no.“ no.ma no.“ mo. mH.H« mesa:

oo.om ca. an mo.mm as .He oe.mm os.mo om.om

oo.« oo.a« Ho.m o>.m m¢.« av.« eH.Hd mmmaptmm zomam uw.asoaj
o.om oo.no om.om om.oe me.om mo.mm oo.om

oe.« no.« mo.«. mH.H« on.« mm.« oo.« soono

Ho.om oa.em oe.aa oo.am mo.oH oe.om oH.oH

He.a we.“ on.« oe.aa sm.« oH.a oo.« .03 soapooaon
Ho.ea mm.ea ao.aa mo.am oo.ma mo.ma He.oa

me.« ma.« so.a em.Hw sm.« mm.« mo.« assoc

HH.mH om.mH mo.aa ae.mm ma.na oa.ea mo.oH

He.«. mo.H« em.« ma.m oe.« mn.« so. am shoes
oo.mm Hm.om Hm.oa om.on on.oa mo.om as. ea

 

AMHsmo>w ooosrm ooaaflaa ooommn omaaaam oooomn ooHHHHQ camp sclwpmflao> no ofioz
owned omoao>d owsao>t mama omoa

593 one So Esp some now 53m 3 one: mom maooaoa oo amp-«.8: owed-6 9? .H> magma

*-,.

Ice

..1

 

 

 

 

 

 

c.20-

 

 

 

 

 

mooo.« mmao.« omoo.u moao.« omoo.q mode.“ neao.n Soauxflm
weoo.a momn.a omen. om¢@.H mowm. mmmH.H odeo..
owoo.« Hooo.« mmoo.w Hmooau nooo.« .oaao.« aoao.« soatosw
comb. wmom.. omen. osHH.H Home. Name. ommm.
moao.«.mamm.w mnao.w mamo.«u moao.« ammo.« mmao.« omamfloom mammoomflh
moHH.H wamn.a mafia. 60mm.a HHHm. woom.H swans
mmao.« mmmo.« omao.w oom0.« ooao.« somo.« osmo.w one .02 opomommfim
mono.a oomm.a mmmo. naom.a Naom. moma.a Howe.
onao.w oamo.m ono.u memo.“ Hmao.« mmno.« Homodm. mmoapamm Mosam domflmoafl
mmnO.H mmam.a some. mmmm.a memo. oamo.a ammo.
woao.« emao.« moao.« oaao.« mao.« mamo.« oomo.« Moomo
ammo. Homw. harm. ommO.H oooo. macs. down.
Hmoo.« mmao.w ooao.« Ooao.« moao.s mmao.e ooao.s moaeo .om moapooaon
eoeo. owes. moom. mama. ammo. moon. Hmow.
Smoo.« mmao.« ooHo.« mode.“ made.“ name.“ nmao.« nephews
sumo. noem. mwmm. m®HO.H moon. same. wane.
eaao.« ssHo.« seao.» eemo.a moao.« ammo.» memo.« shade
moon. mmoa.a moao. amoe.a womb. some. ammo.

.omsao>4 mooomn ooaaflmm oooomw ooaawmn oooomn ooaawam camp so Npoaam> no osmz
(bursa ommao>w earnest mod .mma

 

 

.ommp one mpofiam> one new mason ma mobfim o odes mom‘oaoflm‘amoaoso can .HH> magma

-21-

consin Pedigree No. 9 in the drilled material and ex-
ceeded it in the drilled material in 1927. The high
yield per head was apparently one factor which greatly

increased the yielding ability of the six-row type.
Number of Heads per how

Table VIII, giving the average number of heads per
row, shows a great variation between the different varie-
ties and also within a variety, from year to year. In
the Spaced material, in 1927, the check produced an aver-
age of 342.1 f4.l heads per row, while in 1928 it pro-
duced 531.8 19.6 heads per row. In the drilled material
the same variety was high again in 1927 with 567.8 16.3
heads per row. But, in 1928, Selection No. 04103 produced
818.0 126.5 as compared to 790.2 425.6 heads per row of
Michigan 2-row. In 1927 and 1928 in both the drilled and
Spaced material, disconsin Pedigree No. 9 produced the
lowest number of heads per row. 0n the two-year average
the check was the highest, followed closely by Selection
No. 04103 and Spartan. disconsin Pedigree No. 9 was much
below the other varieties. The two-row type produced sig-
nificantly more heads per row in all cases than did the
six-row type. The average difference in the drilled mater-
ial in the two-year period was over 18 times its error and

in the Spaced material it was over 53 times its error.

 

o.n* m.m* hues o.e* o.mAw A.m« 4.m* o .om omammomu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o.aon m.oom o.ome o.oon m.emo «.mnm n.ene sameoomaw psohpfia :0 wan
same qua A.ma n.m«. oquw o.A« oqmw newness
o.oon A.mmm o.moe e.AAm m.omm o.eom A.som
e.m« m.m« e.o«- A.e« o.mAa o.m« s.m« soauoeo
4.4Ao a.moe o.omo o.oo4 o.mes o.mAm e.Aoe
o.ew m.m s.s« o.m« o.eA« o.A« o.m« o .om omaoaoom sameoomaa
o.oom o.moA m.Aon A.eAm o.Aoe o.oeA o.mmn
A.m« 4.na o.oAa o.o« s.oA« A.n« o.e« one .om epomoeoau
n.4on o.eom o.nom m.mnm o.msm o.anm m.ome
o.m« m.na n.o« o.s« o.sA« o.m o.4« mmoAhaem aoeAm esmHaOSu
m.Aoe m.som m.moe m.amm o.Amm m. smm «.mme
A.a« m.m« m..A« 9:.o« e .oza A.e«. n.o« romeo
o.omm o.sme o. oso m.A m m.oos A.meo m.aom
m.s« .mm m.nA« A.o« m.mm« A.e« n.m« mo eA o .oH noflxovoc
s.omm n.AAe A.oeo o.som o.mAm o.mAn m.oa4
o.o o.m« ;.mA« A.o« m.mo« o.e« m.m« sepeeop
o.oAm o.ooe A.omo o.4om m. sea m.oom e.ooe
o.ma m.ea m.oA« .ma a.oAa o.4« o.ea enko
s.Ame m.oam s.nm m.mme .ooo e.aom m.one

 

1 J1
oriao>a omens) ooHH4:g wmomrm
wanna majao>t mw5.Ho>t mm
.m .0: m
m

.oaep on: HumAS3> nose mom Sm>Am

oaaaam ooomom ooaawam mane so mpmflam> Ho oasz
>2mH

o .AooH aAmmoozA: promo A: osnwA. 7m;

A son Hot more; no Moots: oasho>o muH .HHHb oHou4

\a
I;
r.

Pi'r‘ld

Even when Wisconsin.Pedigree No. 9 was omitted from the
six-row type, the two-row produced significantly more
heads per row in both the drilled and Spaced material.
Apparently it was characteristic of these two-row varie-

ties to produce a large number of heads.
weight per Bushel

In all cases, the weight per bushel is greater in
the drilled material than it is for the same variety in
the Spaced material, as is shown in Table IX. In the
drilled material, on the two-year average, all the two-
row varieties weighed more per bushel than did the
heaviest six-row, Michigan Black Barbless. This variety,
however, equals the lowest two-row, Michigan Z-row, in
the Space-planted material. Wisconsin Pedigree,No. 9
weighs less per bushel than all the other varieties in
all the tests made except in the drilled material in
1928 where it is equal to Michigan Black Barbless. The
comparatively low test weight of the six-row type, parti-
cularly Wisconsin Pedigree No. 9 would cause it to sell
at a disadvantage on a market where barley is graded.
According to the U. S. Official Grain Standards the two-
row drilled material over the two-year period would
grade No. 2, while the six-row would grade No. 5. This
is also true in the grand average but not in the spaced

xnaterial. Spartan shows a comparatively high test

-24-

weight. It is interesting to note that this variety
weighs more per bushel in the Spaced and drilled mater-
ial over the two-year period and in the grand average
than either of its parents, michigan 2-row and Michigan
Black Barbless. fhe weight per bushel is of great com-

mercial importance.
Number of Plants Per how

Table X shows that all the varieties had about the
same number of plants per row, except Wisconsin Pedigree
Ho. 9. This variety had about 18 plants less per row,
in 1927, than did Kichigan Black Barbless which was se-
cond lowest for that season. In 1928, Hisconsin Pedigree
No. 9 had 12 plants less per row than the lowest of the
other varieties. Over the two-year period, Wisconsin
Pedigree No. 9 had an average of 75.2 plants per row as
compared to Michigan Black Barbless which had 90.4 plants
per row. Considering the two and six-row types, the two-
row varieties averaged 92.21 plants per row, while the six-
row varieties averaged 86.24 plants per row. the differ-
ence is 7.1 times its error and is significant. If Wis-
consin Pedigree No. 9 is left out of the six-row type, the
difference between the two types is only 0.47 times the
probable error. This indicates that diseonsin Pedigree

No. 9 does not have as high a field germination or as

I

 

 

 

 

I‘m-s
I.)

-‘_:J

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.ee n.0e m.mo a.ne m.me m.me m.ee soanaAn
e.me e.me m.ee m.ge e.ae e.ee n.5e soanosa
o.ne m.Ae m.ee m.mn o.oe m.oe o.ne m .om meamHemm :HmeoomAm
n.ee m.me m.ee o.ee n.1e m.:e o.me owe .om seemoeeAn
e.me m.ww m.ee m.4A c.1e m.ew m.ee mmmApuem aoeAm hemHaOAu
A.ne m.ue 40.5e 0.0m. m.ee onMw m.oe r. J4 Moose
A.ee o.me m.ae m.me ommw m.me m.ee nero .on eoHpomAmn
o.oe o.ee n.ee m.me m.oe m.ee o.me eepasmn
m.ee m.me m.ee o.me m.mw m.me o.ae aaaAh

 

m names omoamfi.meHHHm omowmn GOHHHHA voodmw coHHHHQ snap Ho HpmHHs> mo msdz
-QwHw mummm>t onwam>4 .mma mama

.9Epwgw
HpmHHw> norm HOH mwszom QH ao>Hm mH Hoamdp Hem pgmHmB mmsHmbm mQH .MH mHQmH

The average number of
given 30? each Varizty
row Yibthcut ‘ visin
(i3;ocd nut:

.4
I‘u

:1]. l.

I
~
.
#11
.L.

- 'J

;lants
L; I} u. "C :4
59.3

‘5 .2“. .‘3
n. a} \-.J
‘J

—‘I :—J
J v

figs, ‘fllh

\—

-O.

r row is

.
441.3-"

9.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:" “:3 O:— 'Ji-I‘I' . .2: ti' CI‘ htél": ltuj.3'7 1.4:ij A-VCI' ’ :2
‘) \"\_-‘- ." f" ’ ."
.3th .11.). .J \tq. 37
alpha 11.? $1.5 $1.1
09.0 92.4 41.0
igirtgn 11.7 il.5 il.l
90.4 92.2 91.3
galaction Io. 0&106 11.7 $1.5 il.l
94.8 92.5 95.6
enact $1.8 ctl,5 51,?
33.8 92.0 9F.i
Lichi an also; farbluss il.6 $1.5 il.l
94.8 91.4 95.1
lhzeuCea Co. 250 $1.6 $1.5 $1.1
"1 o ”0 4 7? 9
..a. I .2. v. u
.LSCL-311 Sedi'rse To. a $1.3 $1.3 i;,g
34—.7 :3.7 32.:3
:n 1"3'4, £30: i0.§ *C.‘:
32.9 97.6 no.2
-' .. - . . n ' ' v:
~.ix-1Kfi! ‘9rEL- *V'-3 *0.“
L‘TOE . ho“t aisocualn 91.8 91.7 91.8

fl

--' .‘4

-27-
vigorous seedlings as the other varieties tested.
Laboratory Germination

In the laboratory, aisconsin Pedigree No. 9 is equal
to the other varieties tested, as is shown in flable XI.
The lowest average is 97.0 per cent for michigan Black
Barbless in 1928. Ehe grand average for this variety is
98.25 per cent, the lowest for all varieties and types.
Ihe grand average for the two and six-row types is 99.07
and 99.09 per cent, reapectively, a very close average.
The laboratory germination for all varieties and types
is very high.

Yield per Plant

The yield per plant of the two-row type is 3.12 grams
as compared to 5.25 grams in the six-row type for the two-
year average. This difference of .15 grams is over 4.5
times the error and.is considered significant. As shown
in fable XII, Selection No. 04105, Spartan, and disconsin
Pedigree No. 9 are the three lowest varieties in order
named. The low yielding ability per plant of Wisconsin
Pedigree No. 9 is, at least in part, due to the low per-
centage of heads retained at threshing time. The differ-
ence between the two types when Wisconsin Pedigree No. 9
is not included is 8.5 times the probable error in favor

of the six-row type.

 

 

 

00.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200-000
00.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000-030
00.00 0.0 0.00H 0.00 0.00 0.00H 0.00 0.0m 000:000m 00000000»

 

 

0b.®@ 0.99 0.3m 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 30v .oa Spommamflfl
m

 

mm.m0 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00H mmmapmwm Megan mswflAOflH
_ 00.00 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00a 0.00 00000
0.0

 

 

.mo o.mu O.@m m.m 0.00H 0.00 dprsmn

Id:

.mm 0.00H o.®o m.o® 0.00a 0.00 wQQH4

©.mm

 

0
00 0.00 0.00 0.00H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00H00 .ou :oHpomamo

0

0

0.09

 

0H000>4 .004 m 4 .0>q m 0 000 no 000000> 00 0803
02:93 mun mama

.mmsp.0qd apofiawb £000 90% co>flm‘mfl moflpasfleflmm pmmo Hem age .HN macaw

"fir' 1‘_ ..’-'7 I. ‘-‘ -’, -‘ ‘.' " .' '4'“ *"I . s ‘. ‘1' 4 -"l - . - ’ ‘ - .

.1313 A11. 1_3 1.011,: ”1311 :3: jl1L. 10 01704 13
..-.,.. . .‘ ,- :; 1..-“- .‘ .. .._ .‘ A ' _
#1. ~-I¢.'.O C11 I; as 1.1 V :A::‘i .J Lilfir C3101- U 1 C), 1__ILU. bl ‘IL-

“on 1.1V 315 -1030h011 [331j13e no. a.

( 4y1333 111233131).

 

 

 

 

 

1101883

Linnesota Io

Jisconsin Eedi;ree

i Y” -
LII O-I‘O‘d.’

without Jisoonsin

O 0
CU}
01H

O
01?-
{JF‘

(DOD CTQ
(.4 Mb (:3 C23

H'N CON Ill-N DID.)

£00“:

4“} '3
Q U L)

1.06

(W

0.0

$.03

3.46
$.03

3.83
*0 C3

5.77
$.04

3.92

3.01

"3 __j:§1;t‘ 3 1.37 128 Ave.
2.64 4.62 5.65

1.04 1.071.01

2.28 3.42 2.85

to ‘5 i005 1‘00].

2.20 3.56 2.78

Jelection Ho. i.04 *.OS $.01
2051- 93.2)?) :31. 22

i.Ol

3.39
1.01

0.1. «56

$.01

2.99
$.01

3.12
$.02
3.25
$.02

5.53
1.05

-30-
Length of Fruiting Period

In the length of fruiting period a great variation
was found between some varieties, as shown in Table XIII.
In 1928 in the drilled material, michigan 2-row had an
average fruiting period, number of days from first head-
ing to maturity, of 24.6 days, while that of Selection
No. 04103 was 35.2 days. In the Spaced material, the
length of fruiting period was 23.1 and 38.0 days, re-
spectively, for the two varieties named. The difference
between the two and six-row types was 0.86 and 0.80 times
the error for the drilled and Spaced material, respective-

1y.

Estimated Number of Plants er Row and
Yield per Plant (Drills )

When a definite weight of seed is sown.on a given
area, 17 grams per 18-foot row, the varieties with small
kernels receive more kernels per row. He would expect
more plants per row from these small seeded varieties.
This is clearly brought out in Table XIV. The varieties
and types that have the most kernels planted per row also
have the most plants per row. But the high yield per row
and the high yield per plant do no necessarily come from
varieties with a large number of plants per row. Nor do

the rows with a high yield per row necessarily have a

fable XIII. The lenjth of fruiting period is
for each variety and

given in days
type in 1828.

 

van—3. ..'h -.1 ' ._ - 4......
\c1e 0. Variety or type

selection :0. 04105

rave .

32.2
‘.9

35.9
11.0

36.6
tl.O

 

«11., o ‘1
Ull'vcn

Iich'31n Slack Larbless

N
WW
0 o
'QQD

G!
P 01

 

‘—

Linhesota no. 450

()3

 

Iisconsin Pedigree Lo, 9

35.8
£,6
33.0
£,5
28.0
1.4

 

r71... _- ..
$010 £.Oc‘?

Six-row

..
4

1‘3
H'I‘O H-(D I-I‘D
o
gal—J (UN (.003 (001

r?

C
[.4
O
H

H.
O
01

I
.1“ 1!.1 c. .1 1
.1
O ‘ 9 O C O O I ‘ D O I
x i
I I c a i I I 0 D I o t
c
J
{A v- .) . *
i n I O o s G I v 0 Q

..'70—

UN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0V 00.00 0.000 .00 0000.0 0 .0w 00000000
QMH.H n.000 n.0ow ma.0® Hmn0.0amcoom0: pdonp0fl 300|H0m
0.00 00.00 0.000 .00 0000.0 000-000

000.0 0.000 0.000 00.00 0000.
0.00 00.00 0.000 .00 0000.0 000-000

000.0 0.000 0.000 00.00 0000.
0.000 . 00.00. 0.000 .00 0000.00 .00 00000000 00000000:

000.0 0.000 0.000 00.00 0000.
0.000 00.00 0.000 .00 0000.0 000 .0: 000000000

000.0 0.000 0.000 00.00 0000.
0.0001 00.00. 0.000 .00 000000100000000 0 000 0000000u

000.0 0.000 0.000 00.00 0000.
0.000 00.00 0.000 .00 0000.0 00000

000.0 0.000 0.000 00.00 0000.
0.000 00.00 0.000 .00 0000.0 00000 .00 000000000

000.0 0.000 0.000 00.00 0000.
0.000 00.0011 0.000 .00 0000.0 0000000

000.0 0.000 0.000 00.00 0000.
0.000 00.0. 0.000 .00 0000.0 00000

000.0 0.000 0.000 00.00 0000.
p0009 000 00m, 300 00m1000p0z0m00w 300 000. c300.0m1 Hockox mammvno hp0000> mo 0002

00m 00000 000009 00000 a 0000000 Mo .03 000 .0;

.00000 00 .00 00 .00 0000

 

mmmfl HQHHOPMNE UGOSWW .50pr QOHPSQHM..0.H®W

00000 000 .00000000 0000000 0000
00000 00 p0009 009 00000 0:0 300 009 0002000 000:000 no 009852 0000awpmm

.mono

.000 0000.

E

-33-

high yield per plant. Alpha has 23 plants less per row
than the check but it yielded about the same per row.
Alpha yielded 1.172 grams per plant as compared to 1.111
grams per plant of check. Spartan and Selection No.
04103 have the fewest plants per row but yielded the most
per plant. disconsin Pedigree No. 9 has the highest
number of plants per row yet it produced the smallest
.number of grams per row and the smallest yield per plant.
The six-row has more plants per row than the two-row yet
it yielded less per row and less per plant. This is also
true of the six-row type without Wisconsin Pedigree No. 9.
To yield the most; a variety must have a large number of

plants per row and a high yield per plant.
Discussion

The results obtained are greatly influenced by Wis-
consianedigree No. 9. This variety is possibly not typi-
cal of the six-row type. as previously pointed out in this
paper, it is very low yielding when compared with the other
varieties. The low yielding ability is apparently due large-
ly to its poor field germination or lack of vigor in the
seedlings and its loss of heads very soon after maturity.

If Wisconsin Pedigree is not included in the six-row type
when comparing the two types, the results are more nearly
what would be expected. The six-row type shows the higher

comparative yield but not significantly so in the drilled

v-o

-04-

material. The same is true of the percentage of heads re-
tained at threshing time. The number of heads per row,
number of plants per row, and the weight per Kernel are
greatly increased when Aisconsin Pedigree No. 9 is omit-
ted.

Spartan out-yielded Wisconsin Pedigree Ho. 9 by a
difference that was 5.23 times its error in the grand
average. Its correlation of yield with number of heads
and culms was significantly greater than that of the six-
row variety. She latter variety emphasized the relation-
ships of the yield to the number of kernels and length of
head more than did the former. Spartan obtained its great-
er yield by its number of heads per row, percentage of
heads retained at threshing, weight per kernel, number of
plants per row (spaced) and its field germination. Wiscon-

sin Pedigree No. 9 had the advantage in length of head,
yield per head, number of kernels per head, and yield per
plant (Spaced). But these advantages were not great enough
to off-set its low field germination and low percentage of

heads retained at threshing time.
Summary

Michigan 2-row and Spartan, two two-row barleys deve10p-
ed at this station, have out-yielded Wisconsin Pedigree No. 9,

the variety commonly grown by the farmers of midiigan. The

two-row barleys appear to yield less when growing in the
field than the six-row varieties. for that reason it seem-
ed advisable to undertake an investigation to determine,

if possible, some of the factors that influence the yield
in the two and six-row types of barley under Michigan con-
ditions.

The varieties used in this experiment were the more de-
sirable two and six-row varieties grown at this station.
Wisconsin Pedigree No. 9, Michigan Black darbless, and
Minnesota No. 450 were the six-row varieties used. The two-
row barleys were: Michigan 2-row, used as check, Alpha,
Spartan, and Selection No. 04103.

Each variety was planted in two different groups. In
the first group, each variety was sown at the rate of 17
grams per 18-foot row. In the second group, the kernels
were spaced two inches apart in the row.

Complete notes were taken and the data thus obtained
were interpreted by the commonly known formulae.

As shown in fable XV; over a two-year period, in the
drilled material, the two-row out-yielded the six-row type
by a difference that was 4.72 times the probable error.

In the spaced material the difference was not significant.

Yield showed a high positive correlation with the

number of Kernels per plant, number of heads per plant, and

number of culms per plant. Jhe r value of'height of plant,

-35-

length of head, and weight per kernel were significant

and positive, but not nearly as high as the three named
above. fihe two-row types exhibited significantly stronger
correlations between yield and number of heads and number
of culms than the six-row types. The correlation of the
length of head to yield was significantly more in the six-
row than in the two-row type.

The two-row varieties retained a significantly higher
percentage of their heads at threshing time than did the six-
row varieties, the difference being 7.72 times the error in
the drilled material, over the two-year period. Ihe same
was not true, of the Spaced material, the difference being
1.65 times the probable error. when misconsin fedigree so.
9 was omitted from the six-row type there was no signifi-
cant difference in either the drilled or Spaced material in
their ability to retain their heads at threshing time.

the two-row type usually has longer heads than the six-
row type but some varieties are exceptions. disconsin Pedi-
gree ho. 9 may have longer heads than Spartan and Selection
04103.

rhe kernels of the two-row varieties usually weigh
more than those of the six-row varieties. hichigan slack

Barbless is an exception to this as it has large plump ker-
{1918.

p“ O 0 0
ins six-row produced Significantly more kernels-per

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0000.0 0000.0 0000.0 0000.0 0000.0 0000.0 0 .000 000000 000 00000:
0000. 0000. 0000. 0000. 0000. 0000.
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00 .0 .0 0000 00 000000
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0
00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00000000000 00000 00 0000000000
00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00
0000.0 0000.0 0000.0 00 000000 000 000000 .0000» a
0000. 0000. 0000.
0000.0 0000.0 0000.0 00 0000 00 000000 .0000» a
0000. 0000. 0000.
0000.0 0000.0 0000.0 00 00000 00 000000 .00000 0
0000. 0-00. 0000.
0000.0 0000.0 0000.0 00 00000 00 .00 00000 0
0000. 0000. 0000.
0000.0 0000.0 0000.0 00 00000 00 .00 0000> 0
0000. 0000. 0000.
0000.0 0000.0 000000 00 0000000 00 .00
0000. 0000. 0000. 0000 00000 00 00000 a
00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 000000000000000000
00.000 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00
0000mm 0000000 0000mm 0000000 0000mm 0000003 .05 00p0m Hop0000no
0 0.3.. 0 gm rm. 0 mm H...“ s...rOcH-um H m. arc-H..- 05...“.
950000; sopum0m r
1:- .00000 050000>
000 m0 mo>0m 0000m000>0 esp Op mm0000000 momkp cap 030 no mom000maoo .>N00090a

-38-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000.0 000.0 000.0 >00 0000000000000000000 000 00000
0.000 0.000 0.000 >00 000000000000 000 000000 00 .02
0000 .0000 0000‘ >00 00000000000 00000 0000 000
00.00 00.00 00.00
0.000 0.000 0.000 >00 00000000. >00 000
0000000 0000000 no .02
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0000 0000 000000 00000000 00 000000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
no.0 no.0 00.0 wmw aaanw 0q00m mom 0000M
00.0 00.0 00.0
00.00 0.00 “MW “.000. no0pun0anow aqua 00m
$.00 00.0 o.www N kirkon Ham 000000 no .02
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 000000 000000 000 .00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000> .rluon 000 00000 00 .02
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0000.0 0000.0 0000.0 0000.0 0> 03000 0000 000 00000
0000.0 0000. 0000. 0000.
00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 ‘Im> 0000 non 0000000 00 .02
00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00

 

voownm voaa0hn .oz canda
nonnozs

doommm dOHHHHQ
.honaH0m

cooamm uoHH0HQ
m 002 .com .u0B
naonp0: bonuw0m

000000000

.uofiqudoo bN OHQUB

 

. ..r

,1

head than did the two-row type in both the drilled and.#-
spaced material. This was also true of the yield of grain
per head.

The two-row varieties produced significantly more
heads per row than did the six-row varieties. the average
difference in the drilled material was over 18 times the
error and in the spaced material it was over 55 times the

error.

In weight per bushel the two-row exceeded the six-row
type. In all cases the weight per bushel was greater in
the drilled material than it was in the spaced material for
the same variety.

Over the two-year period, Misconsin Pedigree Ho. 9 had
an average of 75.2 plants per row. Michigan elack Barbless,
which was second lowest, had 90.4 plants per row. a signi-
ficant difference was obtained between the two and six-row
types, but, if Wisconsin Pedigree No. 9 is excluded, the
difference is not significant.

The six-row type yielded significantly more per plant
than the two-row. The significance is greatly increased
when Wisconsin.Pedigree No. 9 is omitted.

No significant difference was found between the two

types in the length of fruiting period. However, much

variation was observed between varieties.

-40-
Conclusions

1. Two-row types of barley usually out-yield six-row
types under Michigan conditions because the two-row varie-
ties are generally compared with Wisconsin Pedigree No. 9.
If this six-row variety is omitted the difference between
the two types is not significant.

2. Yield is correlated positively with number of ker-
nels per plant, number of heads per plant, and number of culms
per plant. Yield is also positively correlated with height
of plant, length of head, and weight per kernel, but to a
less degree.

5. The two-row types exhibit significantly stronger
correlations between yield and number of heads and number
of culms than the six-row types. fhe correlation of yield
to length of head was significantly more in the latter than
in the former type.

4. Six-row barley has the advantage over the two-row
in producing more kernels per head, a greater yield of
grain per head, and more grain per plant in the Spaced mater-
ial. The two-row produces more heads per row, the heads
are usually longer, and the weight per bushel and the weight
per kernel is usually greater.

5. Wisconsin Pedigree No. 9 has a very low field
germination, as deterxnned by the number of plants per row,

and a high percentage of its heads break off very soon after

-41-

maturity. These are two factors that contribute a great
deal toward reducing the yield of this variety under Michi-

gan conditions.

l.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

-42-
Bibliography

dabcock, d. B., and Clausen, h. a. Genetics in he-
lation to agriculture. (Second edition) MoGraw-
hill Book Company, Inc., P. 590-591. 1927.

Clark, J. Allen and Hooker, John H. Segregation and
Correlated Inheritance in Marquis and Hard
Federation Crosses, With Factors for Yield and
Quality of Spring Wheat in Montana. United
States Department Bulletin No. 1403. 1926.

Crum, H. L., and fatton,.a. C. economic Statistics.
A. U. Shaw and Company, P. 238-239. 1925.

Goulden, C. H. and elders, A. T. A Statistical
Study of the Characters of Xheat Varieties In-
fluencing Yield. Sci. agri. 6:357-545. 1926.

Hayes, H. K.,.Aamodt, O. 8., and Stevenson, F. J.
Correlation Between Yielding Ability, neaction
to Certain Diseases, and Other Characters of
Spring and fiinter Wheats in nod-row Trials.
Jour. of amer. Soc. of Agron. 19:896-910.
1927.

Hayes, H. K., and Barber, R. J. Breeding Crop Plants.
McGraw - Hill Book Company, Inc., 1927

Immer, F. R. and dtevenson, F. J. A Biometrical Study

-43-

of Factors Affecting Yield in Oats. Jour. amer.
Soc. of agron. 20:1108-1119. Oct. 1928

8. Martin, John H. Factors Influencing nesults from
Rate and date-of Seeding dapsriments with Jheat
in Jestern United States.. Jour. Amer. Soc. of
agron. 18:193-225. 1926.

9. auisenberry, Karl S. Some Plant Characters Determin-
ing Yields in Fields of Winter and Spring Wheat
in 1926. Jour. Amer. Soc. of agron. 20:492-499.
May 1928.

10. Sprague, H. B. Correlations and Yields in Bread
Jheats. Jour. Amer. Soc. of agron. 18:971-96.

N CV. 1926.

 

  
  
          
   
 
  
    
  
    
   
        
     

I.

113'“-
a."
sf“ /
.‘
fix
I l‘
J

a

* I
a...
S EWQ
. ' r p [‘4
i
’93.“

.‘ J".

. ‘E

,d'r).

.‘JL’L"

  

”4-
.‘ r '<
-
‘4'
,-

. ._ . '. , ~|
v' ‘ P" » l. .-
‘ I . -~. . O" .‘ . _'
"u '53, ‘ N I :qk'i ’6'; "..i,.."~*,. ‘ .
. 0. ' l ‘<\ , . 7V .: l ‘ ‘ -'
. O, . ..,.- .-I ‘I .t‘- _,I_ f- Ir" I .
l',.' ,-.‘ 1 ’ .‘\ " i"-‘ ’,'n _
“‘C" . r' » “": “v '5 'v '91. ':\‘. affix.- ’7 I$
. , ‘ I “- 1"”.h‘ o. I \ ‘ b .‘t . ' ". .' 11..
‘. ' «..‘; ”3.. ~v‘;. .-.,
w ‘1. f" "L 53'. :‘f -‘¥‘-'t.-:: “ls-3‘ ’r‘ g _
k“ l u "a I.‘ ‘ t' at J W"-;"_""34?W’:£ ". “1" .
'. I; , -. v ‘I {5 ‘ L .- ‘1' 1“." q.
7 “ ‘u 'i' I ~ \V ~ " th'l' ly' :VQ? ‘P. n '
> .. "*3 ’- , “ ‘3, ' r t - -'.. .
= ‘ -' \ rt MM ..3 . m.’ we“ the...
S 3, . ‘7‘ g h \l_\ ..133, f3..." ”..'.z'va’.
. H51" V." 5. - ‘1"I "5' TF4; ‘“ ‘ ' (If:
' ‘J?’ \"01'|r$1.‘\ y \‘ :"}""“:.t.hl 1‘11“
' ‘ -' - ' '. .‘ . .I '
Hr," r ". ~ I» tans r .- _~,.w“‘-J,.. . .. ,y,.,._ .
. a: .. -., -. up: w .‘v
' ~~.‘ ‘ - .4 by $': , . ¢ ‘3 ‘3‘... ..‘:j: _“ Y‘ .
' .0. \ -." ' .. I 5 - v. I ‘-l
" . I ‘. ‘ _ _‘ ‘ In. I— a" ,v v v
f l. ' Irr. l "V J h 1' xi ‘
t \I n ‘5 ‘_ . It :7 r \1. .a ‘ \ -‘ ~-
‘. 5'4 . ~t. ’.. ).-‘ "w! w».
, -.L. ‘ ’.L ' \\.' ‘ f4
1! . -1..'.\ ‘ - ,‘ J.‘ . {‘3 "a
o o ' M ‘r . ‘ ‘ ‘.-- . _. '
‘ . ‘I" . y 14'4 -. fly x - \ .v . 1;.»
\ ‘ I- 5 - '~ a .1. ‘ g . . :JbOL
‘ ‘V‘ '. ".7 I. i- If ' ' W.“ '2‘ S \
m .‘ ‘ . ~. 1 -‘. ._1 v: "- l""- ‘4. A. '3 ‘.
. r . , '. _
" - - 'I " ‘- - ’ -‘.X. '
' " 1' ‘ ' t"! -‘ ‘-.‘ “I J‘I“
“' t " . ' “. “"- \ “I ‘ ,Vr
'4. In." . '. . a: - . .
'~ .',- ‘. J. ' ' ." _-..-A . u.
' " ‘1». ‘1 "‘3' it? .. ".J¥{ c‘. . .‘ v. r -. .b( I“.
" ' ‘ ' ' ..‘. \.; I . .5 \ “I“ ‘ ‘g‘ ’3' x =1. - - *3; ‘kId-ng
‘1‘ L“ ‘ 3 .“n’ r '7 ,v. ' ' -"" ~ "‘9 . 4. , ‘ - $4.519:
‘ 'V' ‘ "”91”“ 4 “admin i' “it are . '3‘! ., - fl “heft-«Q
. ‘ | . . "'l .‘ "'\ u i ‘-l H | i a. u ‘ ‘. -- I “I. i {3‘3 89 «4&3 M \gil- ‘ ”3“. ‘r‘
I I \‘ 1 . _. I c
I ‘ V7>"“> “ ' ~' "‘“r o ""x‘ " \‘ ' ‘r ' 1’!“ M") LIN-3“? .
I ‘ ‘ “‘zl '. I, {I . 1'F\ "r" ..- t... ‘-:\‘\ ’ ‘\ ‘-' i-L':.‘ 3!". ’w.’ l"\‘('|r"§
v _ ., - 'I . ,_o.w.. - ..4 .'. A _‘ ..'.
I I. . ‘ , , . \ ).I No". 3 .l‘ ’l""'.5\ .N'T.
. - “‘x‘.‘ (5.}; F U _ l . . L31”
1975*" "if-f- ‘~""‘. . ..': "
. A. .. . . . ' .‘
633%. k' 30’ (
>1. I \ ..‘.
. ‘ , .2: ";‘~"
NJ '_ ‘ I.‘

'4‘-
m
‘0'

f ". -
"v‘f‘v'. o
—.s. .
a: ‘

.-

A‘ .. . W
25953-2
' 23.."
‘A‘EV‘ .' a
£1.21?
‘5 ’ .’

: 3 ”35‘

‘ ' "It
. ” .h
.1

‘ - ., _ . ‘ ~. g _ __’. .- ‘ ,_ .- _. ‘ . .I ' 7.. 2 ' . ;* J" \:.\";;.n\l “ 'i 71
L .' '."'W.-~ ' ' '.' ‘ ‘ 'A‘ ‘ ' ..‘. " ‘. ._ _“ ,‘ ' ‘ . ..'7‘ f‘\ , . ‘Ht ( ~‘; .
- ' n‘_ “ ‘ 1 Sr ‘r '. . .V . ‘11! {iff‘l . p ' .r 1'\' i. “y.“ ‘I' :'~' $1 . s ’ . ,._ ”r- " u ‘ (:41 #1,." Li M f-‘""‘..' ‘3 ‘f .‘ "n J . ' ‘ L; J) .
' . . .- - ' g '\ u “ v'.'- i 1‘. ‘ \“. ." \' ' . _‘Jv ' " ‘ "-' *' I . 1" W. '
‘ >A "‘ \ ' “i ' 0 ‘ 1’- ' 'l. s'!-‘ ‘. ‘— A - k ~|\’\‘ I'M; A 1.)») v 33‘ - \i " ~" .' . I
. . F‘i' . " ‘ KL 1 “W V » .7' 3' ' '~‘ ‘3'?" 3 ‘ ..'. 7 ‘ 3‘ $0.”. "‘19“
. A t h t‘ 0‘} ‘ A. -‘ 'l l ’ ' f '5 3) “' .V : " ..’ . E" 1 .15.“?!
“‘- I“ '“I- ' ' i ‘. ' ‘7" ‘ ‘.'- .L' - Q' "‘ 3 - '2‘ , . ,-"$ .' U... .“
I f:' ‘ . . '- fl 5' ' ‘ .|.\ ‘__,.‘ ‘ ’ .‘T‘ " _ ‘ ‘,:.”. 1"1'5‘! V. l 5" '. . ..‘ ‘f XE ‘ ‘ I d ' “v ‘ '. 4‘. -’ .L. .‘ 5‘ " v.5“ v I‘, I. b. .)“"7 :1
[\_.. ., - | . ‘I , .0“... ..v4 .\ . .. - ‘ i. , (..' 1.51 '..4.. .4. '3 I. x _
-. in: -- .-. u 2. . . r. a . , a i a.“ :9 ’n.’ ,. “Vi-J . *4 0'“? 'it"'$'”" ' 'e ' ”W
I .. il-‘r.’ .-'. . .- ..' . g, "u .’ ‘. --‘ -~- " . film ' . . ‘j v r .‘ ' 'rg, ‘ ..‘...3. 3.-‘ '- ~_ - . ..' .
\ ' ‘-:- . I I" " - A " 3..-M“. .J-‘(N “7"...‘4 . I v‘ “’3‘ I! ['1’ I‘ fix - -.. I I fw‘WL’A f ‘81“. Y \‘EV’ ".fi‘ri‘gfi‘ll‘r‘w‘l {$L. ".4“ ) fl";- 1““, "‘"'b“\'
‘,~ .‘4 __. ~ J ..‘ . - x. .' -. h .' . . - ,( .. ‘ -.__ , .t- . -. . ., ‘u . .'- ‘- . ,3 .-" ‘ ‘ IV .' n -' ".‘ -.
' "~ 3 ‘54)? ‘4‘ ‘ -' ”7‘ L" .‘L'zn‘t ‘. x +15 ~» ;' 15;".- .. '.’t" :. x": r. 4‘s» 441' '..~:~'.'~f;"1..".'.u'1 “fel‘
5'," -"— . ‘ J'IQ "" ‘ '\ l .‘i‘AW‘Jl’Jl‘ -'- I" L1 ‘ .fo LI“; VI 3' ¥lair-“1' “ l." . ' " 3:".‘ L Q " 3‘“ Vi. 1' I‘“\ .
. i ." ' “ '..‘ ”e...“ .".~.’T. if». .5”; .Y‘.- 4W 7 -‘ ' ""S'li‘hf Zinc} 9" 9’ ‘ (""75" I u}.‘1.""- "311+ 1311‘ h". .3.- -
..I‘ '| . '{'.'~‘ I? .' ‘., I. . ‘ '. . '. «'3' , _ ..VIII L3} .\;.. 59"”. ..‘, .I. I. —. e... ., I ‘. " .. >0 .. :f ..' ..' ‘L
1. ‘ " -‘ ‘ " f“? ‘3 fit "-" “ 3 JV}, I" "I? ‘I’;. ‘1" ,':\‘_'”.S.."{_f ‘ X." I“ ‘1'" "k "3.. { ". "fiyyg'yfififfi‘ ' ‘1 _}¥_‘.‘Y;’“~., .4'\
l . Q ._ ‘ , ‘ - _ _, .' ~|-~' ' ‘ "' ' ' ' . h ‘ . - g ‘ a .‘ " L. o , I .I‘ '- - _ ' ‘I ~
.’ ”.I ‘ ' . . . MbifP'd) ..‘ "-"1?".) VH4 ,‘ ‘1;_-(.”,,_\. . .Il.‘ ti) .' .- k t L Vi‘-‘h“"i}" H.
"5" vu“ \ . V1,“)... ,S‘ A"" {..1.‘ ‘ I 'J. 1“]; '\L 7 I f ..’3“; 5. 53“.” 1' . 1“; )fé'" " . ‘1‘. .V I‘ ‘ ‘" i‘ HI Jl‘; ‘ . y‘“: }.; "'.'I“I‘:\
' v ‘ " ‘~ : | ’ ..‘ - ’ ‘. - ' .‘ 'vnfl . , a ‘ 3 \' H. ' L \':.‘ ”h. 1“ .V .. ..’ -tn . ( I I. '
I a I .‘ -(‘P *_ . u , v J1! ‘ .I\_ ' I" " Ag, ‘l (““’: I .3 y ‘4‘ 9 ‘V t‘ I -. L I! . a . .. . '1' k' 1‘ I
A _ . ‘V‘. ‘ , . I ..‘ |_ .3. _ ,7 _ 5‘ -. 1“]_ J 4. II a _ :1 .
' ' ." ‘ \ " g. n -~'.; ‘0'} € (J“( Zita! ““ .» "¥x‘ ,./;"4',I_ ‘ 1,35 ‘-.";.}'2.‘ A" "I_.,J '-. i.) v r . § .4317‘“; " 3t~.'..‘}'l‘
.. a -: ' - .. 1: .v .'-- "'- . ’ . ‘ ‘ I h. v-" '.r ‘3" "i: '. ‘ ‘T
\ I. * ‘ ~' ' .-k v“. , r .'l‘ ' \‘Pl 1 5"“ 1“ , ' " ‘.‘. r‘ ' 1.1 ‘ ‘ ..‘f. '1, ~ .‘ ..&’ ‘ql &" .H : v‘
‘ - “ ~ - ‘ r . w r :'-3\-'-~2*-«‘i+“' e1; ~"- «*5 ci- '- 3'1"; serum Mung-1' ...s~-.’.¢‘-a= a...“
I .x l .y ‘ ~_ -, 1‘ ‘ l ,4 , .‘ I | ,' -" -- 'l ' ‘ ‘h ‘,|'I .' 9" r .«I L ”‘ " ‘ . o 0’ 4 .‘ I:
> -I . \Lm .‘ "_ ', ... J‘-.\ . {1. ..,..\, J ..‘. 1,) ‘* . .fv .({ t ”4.5 h- «‘ \
1' - . . ‘:. . _ . " a q u l ..‘ ... , f . . t ‘ . . S
if.“ ‘ ' ,7" »‘ ilk" .1: x t . i W "“’ *3. I “t ." ’72 "J’ 1.x” ”‘1 f‘. if! d u“ 3‘1““ .‘7- " |$.::"v"“ ,‘“‘.L‘\ r "ix-3:51 «‘"'
. r '- .‘ "- .: '~ ‘ {at " r it“ ,'\5'§’3'“"' ”‘— P‘-"'7‘r:‘>r‘.<‘-.“i""~5‘ 3". ‘.
O . _ . l . ' " 1" ‘.. ‘ - -' ' . ' . - .‘ u" ‘ ‘ ..‘ .- 'u. " l _ ." ' ,~ g '
’ «f; . . 8: J‘ at" , 4 Mr .99 s' fix» 3’, 3L. ‘,‘ » sun-"‘1. . . ‘*-}"-,:I,.._;.,.l-. ,1. 2; -, “up .
. f: . \ I . \ '3‘. ‘ :fl.‘ 1‘, k‘ ' { AV. ‘J‘ Vi” 4". ‘(W I‘d “:14. 4 . L3 if: r‘fi ; 1‘ ”'53 ;, 1‘ '79 “k.:~"“‘.“";‘. .13! 3‘.— f."
. ’ .. . ' ~ . ‘.. . < l' . i ‘ . I- '. '7 , ‘ ' 1 ' . ’
‘ ‘ " a- \e. N” ..‘ ‘ “kw.“ iv” ‘-'-\ i...-u>.* u mt; . ‘N‘a- "”‘~-' A, ~ w “335' 1 . 3..-W F‘:
\ .' "O .' 1' ";‘ ‘- I. ’ ’ 3r" " >\ " — l. ‘ ‘ - . . I~' ‘ .. " " .' )4“ ‘ . " L; 4 . u': 5‘~‘v \
’ 3 l r J 9 _' ‘0' I \ f ‘ 'J‘ . A ' . . - ‘o . ‘ L 5." ' \.‘1 I, V , . ’ ‘. ,'_“
K . L ‘h ' ' } ,1 r} .4 I. it ‘5 ~ ”if 1 4., ' P _ Y“A).- '7 . :1 IL. , 1 ‘ 1'1.I‘1 o 5‘ a .“ Vt. ( 1"”: f, (l ‘N : "_ ’t\ {\J. ) " V. {“3“
.. L , . ~ ~ I‘ .L.‘ -. . 1', ‘-_-‘i.q 1'. w -2 .hi ”tip '1 A.“ ~ , 4% fir... ..- ‘..“.A_."LJ;‘ ‘~'. “‘0 ‘id1-.(~‘\O§ \
l ' . " , '. - I l I ‘ " . .’ .- - ' , ' . . c - ~ "
‘A ~ -‘ a. .1 2‘ ‘ > vs. waif: i . .‘ a e m:- “s. :5 :' '2'» w i‘ 43" .- -. ' s invader.»
..- , . ' ' .:.- -- ‘3‘ -. "*1." "'5- .- "'t‘ '-' Nut." 5:“. ‘ v- ~ " ~*.,:~, - a '7)" ""‘ 71": ‘ 'L'
‘ V ‘ ‘. V , , ' \ O. _ f, 1‘ ' ‘..J ' .' L. ”f ’( ":| -‘ ’ g. " .6: ' l I "/"f' ‘ ‘ H '-
' p . . ‘ ’5‘ ‘~ ‘ ~' N - .. ' ' 5 '. .‘i- h t . n J '7- |‘~I lb
"- 3 (11%? no T " .“v '. ‘I‘ .' l A .‘fii ' 4 o ‘1»- 3": EK‘VV 3‘ 5'135-1‘ " IJIZ'J' {R \ . mil}. "3"».er ”\fi‘fii'
, k --.+ " ‘ j. yaw?" - -. may M" . est-‘61. 2 M ‘15 H, A)", a”; "It swim-hp: *— W- .J's‘W'J
‘ ‘3‘" T~ 0 "' ‘ ‘-" .-‘ d "‘ . ‘.' "I" "' " ' .' ‘ “ ‘5 'I :.< ‘ "'. (”Q'-
, ‘ . "‘1 . 1 — ’ 7 .' 3"" -“."..§‘,-\ -. ‘ h. " .u I". — ~ .‘fi :-' asp I" ‘ ‘ iv
‘ _\.', . j 5‘: 'v '5: ‘ ' . .. 1).."')u.‘§' .. r “.1147“ f'i.<‘3‘ifa";{~tl'5j. . fly 1’ ,. r!“ #4” -, 315‘ 4‘, “B 2:53“?!
.. . \\'.' ' ‘ .H ‘. I '- I ¢~_'- ‘. .-‘ ~-" w . 3:. ‘- . .'.. —.‘- - . ' . - I
n. e \ 4 -‘. I _ _ . .1; '¢. , , . 0 . - A ' .'i~-,“!\ .3.” ‘ "' ' . \ _ \ V r. “ ‘. ‘2 ‘ '
.‘ ‘V . ‘ u'I . : I. '- ‘9 \"‘ D g .‘ .9“ '7 .',~ f.‘,,,,'; ‘ ‘ ‘ ..’" 5‘“ ..’-u... ’1‘... :‘-";‘(‘(-'l'; '3' 54-9 '3 (tgfk "K ..‘? I."
' f” v. ‘ , t' r... 7.‘ 't' -‘ " .~ ‘ ' J‘YAII-t':‘ f‘ '\‘ -" c‘. b.‘ §‘§‘ ‘A “7‘ 1‘ ‘1‘: 3|. ~I.~ I ' n 4 (4‘) 2‘ 1 " ' r H c. ‘
' « x .7 - v‘ 4 . ‘-.,i““’;* ~17 '1' ' 4w” Vim ‘ ran?“ “a“ , «s:- ‘u‘a ~ 4 - . 4-9.5“. '
‘I. - .: . .~ '1 '.-I .' ~r‘ - . “LN-1."? K '.~ .i'- . - .-‘ . ' .'-\‘..‘ l. .v “..‘ . I' ." '
“ .‘ I" X“\ ‘ f ~ I‘ ’1 "5‘.“ N. I v ‘—‘ \. 1 f t‘ 3‘ ‘33". 1.‘ fi‘ 3". ‘tt: "JJQ " . -‘_,3 L\-‘. find“ ' H ‘-. h. 1" 3...: 32“. ." ‘H' ‘ ‘-
.~‘» .. . ' . ' " -’\ ’ ‘ “7’“ ‘ ""4" mum... . “ “ 3km. WNW)“: tut-5.}
. ,-r . 1 _‘ ‘ ~I . . 1 "1’0 " ',_'\ 'm. ' . ";'l W". - ‘ 4“." ‘- . \ .“ '."AH ‘ ;V‘ . "i' ..i "
2?. .- ' s." ‘ ‘ -.., . ".5 . '75- . . , » .~ : mf. 1‘ .""41“r""*. 1.»,
'U‘ i ' H fiy‘ ; . ~ “"4: '. ‘ 'g “ .'). "I It". 0“ Q .- : 1"-2 '1‘.’ I ' 1’3 ‘erL .‘r'.‘_.("‘. 'r‘f'a .
" L :(r g ‘ h “ L “ I V I: . 7‘ ' " " . Q ..'“ {I L. Is I ‘1’ “ ‘ k -' ‘ _'f M". | "‘ ““ I ‘4": P“' ' . . ..v‘l \" “O ‘-’ \;.-x
.;1 ‘ '1‘ ‘ p5". . '1' I . "21". N." l“. I ._| ‘r. .5. 3,1,. ‘1, '1‘ ‘w’1 ‘.\"' .‘ _ \p , | L“, A' u . 1; ”ti. .. \ | '1-
. . . . '. ‘ _ , v 1‘ < . ' .1 ~ . ' V . ‘ . .. . . _ .
,' '. . Vs ' _?..,“ ‘.‘.U-. . " ‘l H “ \l:‘-..',' .' ‘3 ’1.""{.' ' ‘ 3;"). (Mi ,3 ', ‘ EM 3" .“t' 1' ' , . , 9 ‘2‘ ‘ 1" “("5 ‘ A pf ‘36”. .‘\ .-
' ' I . .- ..‘. .. ..' , 1’ \‘.T «'19- h ' ‘ I .. g. . ,' . . . r- I ~ “ o -_ ‘ _,_;_c v I.
"f"..- .. ~~€~ 32.3031. ~ 1 .~.,~-’::.« “as“ W at": .- 2 ~i'~ ” ‘3 an? a- Jr‘i‘ .. :2»- 'fi
”..'“. A“? {(9}. “,‘9 «\- w‘ I'V «:1 a" ’ Ti *',.~'1(‘ '1’.“ . ' "'5' n ' Abrwhi‘ ' W ‘ “fi‘KWfi " “ "‘3 L»
I”. J‘ -I I ' r- _’ (El., Al". J M \V..\ (‘1‘. ‘ " I] '| ‘ ‘1.I"' 1\ .I V ,L '1' ‘.'.\ . rLJ ’ 'F. .‘ \-."fifl“ . - - _ m

 

flied

 

      
      
   

.._—'I_~ v
#1.“; pr: 97

. 3 ..'}? . '..._ ;_ >3 ‘

\

‘3.

a" . .
‘MV',

  
  

 

  

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

IH llllHlllll

3 1293 03144 9428

!