. .'
.
a‘ -
.
v
'3
o . .
I
v
. u
.
I
. ‘
V -
o
,o
a
o
‘
‘
_ .
_ o
.
. ‘
."
,.

‘

s

v

 

 

 

 

SOM

' ‘féTfl‘ISiil‘:

Ex

\“

s; an Tmmmor

‘Nn
‘

NS?!

\

k

. . § ‘
'\.“,‘ X...“-

9

.~
'-
K
s‘
'0-

 

1H1

. s
. \‘S
l " .4

“‘9.

-.'.'
to. '
.
'..'
‘-
.‘
.-.

.O
’1.
.
‘u

. h
0 . -

 

 

 

      

V WA ‘ ,
wag; nvotdd. Yo.
pawn” afar puma".

1’. ~( -

     

’4,

 

 

 

’3‘!" I
‘no.

. saw... m....%wi....

£501.33 FACTORS INELUELCCIRG TIES YILLD

CF SOLE VARIETIZSS OF

1:3.— ‘ Yvfi‘ "-‘|‘.~~
I‘lll‘ffl i“ 1 :1. B... IIQI

I N LII C RI GLYN

o ‘13 r1137: “fi~ mm “7.4-.“
QO‘A—J OF 1.4.4.4 fizxLLOlLrJ

CF

Respectfully
for the
Hichigan

I“;J. int-u J:

‘ 1? -~.1'-‘-1—f- w,‘

IKFLUlKCILG T33 YIELD CE J L3 ‘nn allgb

mm “a“ 313153 IN moi-1mm
@3315

submitted in partial fulfillment
degree of Kaster of Science
at

State College of Agriculture

and Applied Science

Judson A. Thompson

M

1930

'1 HF‘NS

 

:1)1‘.* 1" ~71 3* -r:rw‘.".i1 1
.1.-.”le (,4! CCU» 1-41.19.

 

I. STRODU‘TION. -----------------------------------------
A. Importance of bean production in Richigun --------
Bo Hethods of harvest used by fgrhers ———————————————

C. Problem ------------------------------------------

I I o LLTJRIAL. ---------------------------------------------
A. Source -------------------------------------------
3. Variety abbreviations ----------------------------
III. LBIEODJ UJLD TC Ellyn: SJ; Egg;upg, ------------------
A. LSthOds used in the field --------- ______________
l. Terminolooy --------------------------- _-__
2. Planting ...................................
5 . c; t and -------------------------------
4. Harvest -----------------------------------
5. Shelling ----------- - ______________________
6. Weight of vine ---------------------------
7. Threshing and cleaning ------ - --------------

8. Yield --------- ' - -------------------------

9. Pick ---------- - ---------- - ----------------

B. Methods used in handling data ------------------
1. 1.:ean --------------- --- --------------- ----

2. Probable errors ---------------------------

5. Correlations --- --------------------------

e. Liugonal method -------------------

b. Super-irposing-the-meuns-method --'-

c. Corrections ------------------------

10395:}

H

(.1

f‘

U

C.)

L; 1

(.0

10
11
13
13
14
14
15
15
15
16
17
17
18

18

d. Coefficient of yield. .......................

IV. Obstacles encountered. ........................... -----
A. Veather. ------------- - ...........................

B. Soil fertility and available moisture. -----------

C. Baldhead. ........................ - ...............

D. Soil. ............................................

E. Other limiting factors. ...................... ----

V. RESULTS. ----------------------------------------------
A. Factors influencing yield. ----------------- - .....

1. Variety yield. ..............................

2. Weight of vine. ............................

3. Stand. --------------------------- - ..........

4. Shelling. ---------------- - ..................

5. Pick. .......................................

B. Relationships. ........................... --------

1. General observations. ...... - ......... - ......

2. Discussion of relationships. ................

a. Shelling -------- to - weight of vine. --

b. Height of vine -- to - yield. -----------

0. Stand ----------- to - yield. ...........

d. Pick ------------ to - weight of vine. --

VI. CONCLUSIONS. ------ - ................................. ---
ACKNONLRDGEKEHT. ---- - ........... - ...... ---------------

LIEERATURE CITVD. --------- I .............................

20
20
2O
22
23
23
24
34
24
24
29
29
37
41
41
45
45
51
56
65
75
76

T7"I"|‘_‘: \' .1 "(V 171T h‘: T
I. .L.\J.-LCL’L2\J.L.LUJH.

 

A. Importance of been production in Lichigan.

Since Lichigan is the leading pea bean state in the
United States, producing beans of high quality and flavor for
use as dried beans, it is very important that a study of the
factors influencing yield in this state be made. Iichigan
grows over 600,000 acres of pea beans annually and produces
nearly 5,000,000 bushels of shelled beans each year. (Agri-
cultural Year Book 1927). New York state is second in the
production of pea beans and only produces about one tenth as
many as Michigan, which ranks first in the production and
acreage of all beans, including kidney beans, followed close-

‘

1y by California with her n ge yields of lima beans.

B. Methods of harvesting used by farmers.

The early method of harvest used by farmers was to
pull the mature bean plants by hand, cure in stack or pile in
the field, and thresh with a flail.

At present the bean harvester is used, which great-
ly lessens the labor of bean pulling. This implement carries
two knives or blades, which slip along under-ground Just be-
neath the surface, pulling and throwing together two rows of
beans at a time. The harvesting should be done when the plants

are mature, and not delayed until the pods are too ripe, as

shattering results. After pulling, the beans are forked into
piles, or, if the field is free from straw and trash, a side-
delivery rake may be used for windrowing. After several hours'
drying, the crop is forked into small cocks, built high and of
narrow diameter at the bottom so as to allow rapid drying.

When the beans are dry they are threshed or hauled from the
field and stored in a dry place.

Growers with a large acreage of beans, increase the
risk from weather damage by pulling the entire crop at once.
It is a much safer practice, to pull units of four to five
acres at a time, cure on the ground, and then store under roof
or in stack. Beans on the standing plants are injured less by
periods of wet weather than when the crop is rained on after
pulling. When beans in the cock are rained on, they should
be opened up and turned to stimulate the drying. (Cox and
Pettigrove 1924).

Bad weather conditions during the harvest period
materially influence the quality and quantity of beans thresh-

ed. Even with the greatest care the percentage of discolored

beans increases rapidly with continued rains. The bean pos-

aesses a dehiscent pod and the handling increases the percent-

age of shelling thus decreasing the threshable amount.
Recently a method of harvesting designed and used

by hr. 0. J. Kcflaughton of Mulliken, Lichigan, to overcome

some of the evils of the old system has been advanced by

members of the Farm Crops Department. While the "KcNaughton

Flats No.

 

A well made bean stack.

System.of Curing Beans.”
H. R. Pettigrove 1v37).

I.

"The McNaughton

(Courtesy of Mr.

System" should eventually prove of great success and value to
the bean grower, only a few of the more progressive farmers
are using it at the present time. (Plate No.1)(Pett grove

1927).

C. Problem.

While the discussion so far has emphasized the im-
portance of the method of harvesting, many other factors are
also important. Several varieties of beans are grown in the
state and usually two to three of them are grown in the same
locality because of individual preference. A grower may be-
lieve his variety yieldsmore, looks better, has a larger
vine which holds its pods off the ground thereby reducing
pick, shells less at harvest, or stands bad weather condi-
tions with less discoloration hen the other varieties in his
locality. All of these points are vital to the ultimate re-
turns that a gr wer receives from his crop, especially during
a wet season.

There is practically no literature available on va-
rietal factors influencing yield of white pea beans. To supply
this need, the pre ant experiment was outlined in 1026 by mem-
bers of the Farm CrOps Section of the Hichigan Experiment Sta-
tion, which aimed to study the question of yield, as influenc-
ed by size of vine, stand, quality (pick), and shelling from a
variety standpoint.

The problem was carried on by Ir. R. B. Carr for

the two-year period preceeding 1928, but he has not submit-

ted a report of his resul

(1'

s as yet. Th problem was contin-

ued by the author.

The material used was

II T'-I’1‘1‘{‘.' .1»
Q laJ..L-La.4n\ JL—L‘.

Department of hichigan “tate College. Thirteen varieties

were chosen as typical of those grown in the state.

A. Source.

The original sources of the varieties used in this

experiment were as follows:

1.

4.

1000-1. Sel. ho. oBSSoS, no 197.

Received in 1913 and entered the nursery that
year. It is not known where the seed was secured.
hexican Tree. Sel. Io. 850205, no 210.

Received of George Wise of Hart, hich., in 1913.
Eight plants were received and the seed planted
in the nursery in 1:13.

hexican Tree. Sel. No. 850206, no 210.

Received of George Wise of Hart, Hich., in 1818.
flight plants were received and the sezd planted
in the nursery in 1919.

Robust Selection. Sel. No. 850506, no 213.
Received as Early wonder (reclassified and called
Robust Selection) from Sebastian Greene of Hart,

Kich., in 1913. Kine plants were received and

5.

7.

8.

10.

the seed planted in the nursery in 1919.
Greiner. Sel. he. 85060s, no 21%.

Received of Sebastian Greene of Hart, Iich., as a
commercial navy bean in 1918. Tive plants were
received and the seed planted in 1319.

Canter. Sel. No. 851502, Ac 221.

Received of O. E. Canter, Shelby, Kich., as a
commercial navy bean in 1918. Thirty-six plants
were received and the seed planted in the nursery
in 1919.

Early Wonder. Sel. No. 851505, Ac 225.

Received of Uatson Billings of Davison, hich.,
in 1918. Five plants were received and the seed
planted in the nursery in 1919.

Pliter. Ac 254.

Received as a commercial navy bean from U. C.
Pliter of Clio, Kich., and planted in variety
series of 1921.

1200-1. Sel. No. 518001, Ac 265.

Received of J. C. Waleott of St. Johns, Kich.,
and was planted in the nursery of 1922.

Alaska Parish. Ac 575.

Received of Frank Parish of East Lansing, Hich.,
in 1926, as Alaska Giant. Kr Parish received
his seed from William stock of Standish, Kich.,

two years before.

11. Early Wonder. Ac 585.
Received of John Simms, County Agent of Tuscola
County, may, 1925.

12. Vermont. Ac 585.
Received of H. R. Pettigrove of the Farm Crops
Department Kichigan State College in 1925.

15. Robust. Sel. No. 40520, Ac 15.
Selected in 1908 by Professor F. A. Spragg. The
strain 40520 is a reselection made in 1914. This
is the strain known as Improved Robust today. It

was used as the check in these studies.

B. Variety abbreviations.
An abbreviation is given to each variety as shown
in Table 1. in order to simplify reference to it and to econ-

omize in table space.

Table 1.

Table 10

gives the variety name,

and the simplified abbreviation.

10.
11.
12.

13.
14.
15.

Variety.

1000-1
Mexican Tree
Mexican Tree
Robust Selection
Greiner
Canter

Early Wonder
Pliter

1200-1

Alaska Parish
Early Wonder

Vermont

Robust (Check)
Total population
Correlations with means

superimposed

525805
850205
850206
850506
850604
851502
851505
Ac 254
518001
A0 575
Ac 585

110 385

40520

selection or accession number,

Abbreviations.

10

Cr
E2
P1
12

E5
Vt

Ck

Plate N0. II.

 

a

.P. ' ‘ '17 "» , _ I- I
" --.‘;‘ ' - 2 ,' '- P . . _‘
. ‘O .‘——.1 - ‘L: kw-1 \- _

 

General view of the plant breeding pea bean
area, 1929.

A. Methods used in the field.

1. Terminology.

In order to have a mutual understanding of the terms
used, they are interpreted as follows:

a. First stand - the number of healthy plants per
plot in the second leaf stage, about three weeks after plant-
ing.

b. Second stand - the number of plants producing
pods per plot. The count was made when the pods were ripe
a few days before harvest.

0. Yield - the weight in grams of threshed and fan-
ned beans obtained from each plot.

d. Weight of vine - the weight in grams of the entire
plot less the weight of the threshed beans grown on the same
area.

e. Shelling - the actual number of beans that are
shelled out and left on the ground in the field. Special
pains were taken to carefully count all of the shelled beans,
as this was one of the main objects of the experiment.

f. Pick - the p r cent of discolored, moldy, unmar-
ketable beans, not including split beans. This percentage was
obtained by averaging the weight of discolored, moldy, unmar*
ketable beans found in each of two lOO-gram samples taken from

the fanned beans of each plot. Split beans were not included

because they resulted from the type of small thresher used.

2. Planting.

The beans for planting were graded by discarding
all beans that would not go through a 5/4 x 15/64 of an inch
mesh sieve, and all that would go through a 5/4 x 15/84 of
an inch mesh sieve. This did away with all under-sized and
over-sized beans, and made a more uniform lot. It also made
the number of beans planted in each replication about equal.
All cracked and diseased beans were picked out. Equal amounts
by weight (55 grams) of each variety were planted.

The soil was prepared in the usual way and nine 50
foot series of the varieties planted end to end in rows (28
inches apart), running north and south, with a check every
fourth plot, as shown in the planting plan. This planting was
repeated three times which caused each variety and the check
to appear four and 17 times to a series or 56 and 155 times in
all, respectively. Border effect was taken care of by either
planting three rows of edge (Robust) or planting other variety
experimental plots adjacent to the first and last checks of
each series.

The plantings were made on June 2, 1928, and June
5, 1929. The beans were planted on different fields each year,
but followed a crop of corn both years. Fertility was added
the first year to the extent of 500 pounds of acid phosphate
per acre and the second year there was added an application of

500 pounds of a complete fertilizer (4-16-4) per acre.

-10..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J. as

52...? 8338383 no c0383... . J . . .5
.mmflnom nomapmp mafia .pm .J .IIIIIIJ .llllll. IIIIIIJ .nm

03» hasnhmaad .ppwmw .:H mm .mson . . .J . . .md
393m a3 mag A; on EOE . . I . IIIIJ IIIIJ as
.hmm . . . . .ma

. . . . . .Hm

Illlllla . . . . . . . H .mm
J . i . . . . . . as
Illllll. . . . . . . . . .Ho
IIIIIIIJ 4 w . . . J a a .90
lllIJ . . . . . . u . .mm
. . . . . . . . IIIIIIIJ .Mo

. 1. 'IIIIII. :llllllu . . . . a .02
lint... . . . . . lullJ . 1. .ma
. J. . . . . . . . .3

H . m . o . a . m . a . o . m . . 38
.muoam no pcmaomuwnh< .hpmanw>

.«nsonm pom mmnfipamam ownnp nmgpo anal .mmflnom some :H moSHp Hmom omnwmmmw

.qsonm mm .mxomno hnwmmmomn map dew weapofinwp no pom engage may .4 a“ axon»

.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.fl
.3
.a
.m
.s
.o
.m
J
.n
.m
.H
.o

no meanom node dd nacho mean 0:» 3H moHpOHHo> .moahom mafia on» I H 0» 4 "noam wmapndflm

-11-

5. Stand.

In 1923, only one stand count was taken which con-
sisted of counting the number of healthy plants when about
three weeks old. The purpose of this count was to find the
relationship between stand and yield.

In 1928, it was noticed that many of the mature
plants did not produce pods, so in 1929 a count was made of
the pod producing plants, referred to as "second stand", to
determine Just how much of a factor this was. The second
stand did not include plants that had been damaged by bald-
head or bean maggots, or other non-productive plants as those
attacked with mosaic or blight, therefore the second count

was more representative of the plot than the first.

4. Harvesting.

The nine series were divided into five different

treatments as follows:

Treatment. Series.
I A
II B-C
III D-E
IV F-G
V H-I

The treatments aimed to study the response of the
varieties to different conditions of harvest. The first

series was unweathered while the harvest of the remaining

-12—

series was delayed. A description of each treatment follows:

When the bean plots:nre ready for harvest each fall
sufficient help was provided so that the first seven series
(A'G) could be pulled the same day. This part of the harvest
was done September 6th. in 1928, and September 16, in 1929.
The remaining two series (H-I) were pulled and taken in three
weeks later. Burlap bags were provided both years for each
plot of beans.

Treatment I (A) was sacked and taken into the barn
immediately in order to have a comparison betweenall the va-
:rrties in regard to pick and shelling uninfluenced by delayed
harvest. The sacked beans were hung overhead in the field
barn to dry.

Treatment II (B-C) remained in the field for a
veek before being taken to the barn and stored as treatment I.
To prevent accidental mixing a systematic method of piling the
varieties was used as shown in Plate No. III. These bunches
were turned with a fork after each rain or every other day
when it did not rain to prevent mold and discoloration. An-
other object of this procedure was to determine how many
beans would be shelled out by this method.

Treatment III (D-Z) was treated the same as treat-
ment II, except that it remained in the field one week longer.

Treatment IV (F-G) was treated the same as treat-
ment III, except that it remained in the field one week longer.

Treatment V (H-I) was ripe the same time as the

Plate No. III.

 

The diagonal method of arranging beans to avoid mixture.
With this system, if the wind blows a bunch off the row, it

can be told at once which pile has been moved.

other beans, but it was .leru standing for three weeks and
then treated exactly as treatment I (A) had been treated
three weeks before. The primary purpose of letting treatment
‘V (H-I) stand was to study the influence of weathering upon
the different varieties by delaying the harvest and to see
whether it was more practical for the average bea: grower to
pull the beans and handle them as in treatments II-IV (3-3)
or to let them stand until the weather and other conditions

would permit their harvest.

5. Shelling.

Immediately after each series Was sacked up a shell-
ing count was made for each plot. To obtain the shelling count
each bean that had shelled out and fallen to the ground was
counted, also any pods left behind were shelled out and counted.
This made the shelling count in actual number of shelled beans
per plot. The counting was a long and laborious process but

shelling
the shelling data were of great value, as . is'a factor direct~
1y influencing yield. During harvest, special care was taken,
when turning the bunches or placing them in their container,
not to spread the beans onto an adjacent row. Care was taken
not to walk near where the bunches had been located, because

once the beans were tramped into the ground it was hard to

make an accurate count.

6. Weight of vine.

This factor was obtained by subtracting the weight

-14—

of the threshed cleaned, beans from the weight of the unthresh-
ed V1183 grown on each plot. To reduce the amount of calcula-
tion all naterial was removed from its respective container

for weighing.

7. Threshing and cleaning.

The beans were dried thoroughly in the field barn
and were then ready for threshing. The bean thresher used was
hand made, without any arrangement for wind cleaning. The
machine breaks up the pods and vines. The beans with all
dockage fall through a 1/2 inch screen and are then cleaned
with a fanning mill. The thresher cylinder was rotated at
the rate of about 900 R.P.M. Unfortunately the machine crack-
ed quite a number of beans.

When the beans were cleaned care was taken to use
a top screen large enough so that all beans would go through
and a lower screen so small that only the dirt and very small
pieces of cracked beans could escape. The wind was increased

so that all pieces of chaff and broken pods were blown over.

8. Yield.
The yield was obtained in grams by the use of a
Toledo no-springs gram balance. The beans were weighed as
they were cleaned, before they were resacked. There was a
great variation in yield throughout the field and between
varieties both years. Plate No. IV. shows the very produc-

tive area (Series H-I), 929. The yield was much above the

Plate No. IV.

 

The very productive area (Series H-I), 1929.

Notice how thickly the pods are set.

average in this area.

9. Pick.

This factor could only be obtained in 1928. The
abnormally dry fall of 1929 was so favorable for harvest
that no mold or discoloration appeared that year. Pick was
obtained by averaging the weight of discolored, moldy, un-
marketable beans, not including split beans, found in each
of two lOO-gram samples taken from the fanned beans from

each plot.
B. hethods used in handling data.

1. mean.

The arithmetic mean is used throughout the thesis,
because it is the most usual mathematical constant obtained.
All means were computed to three places beyond the decimal
point and the last two places were disregarded, if less than
.050. If equal to or greater than .050, it was considered
as .100 and added to the mean.

In the different field treatments the varietal mean
was obtained from four plots in treatment I and from eight
plots in treatments II, III, IV, and V. The check mean in
treatment I was obtained from 1? plots, while in the other
treatments it was from 54 plots.

When the mean was computed on the basis of all the

replications in the field it was taken from the correlation

-1 0-

surface, and computed from classes, (Hayes and Garber I927)
(Babcock and Clausen 1927) rather than from actual summation.

In 1928, due to the extr me soil variation in the
northeast corner of the area, it was necessary to eliminate
one entire replication for a part of the work. With one reps
lication out of the first series it left only three plantings
of each variety and 15 checks on which to base the mean in

treatment I.

2. Probable errors.

All probable errors were computed in the usual man-
ner, and these formulae may be found in any good book on ele-
mentary statistics. When N was less than 30 then N~l was used
in obtaining the standard deviations from which the probable
errors were computed. All probable errors were computed three
places beyond the decimal point and the last two places omit-
ted when less han .050, but when equal to or greater than
.050 it was considered as .100 and added.

The probable error of the difference was used to
determine whether or not the difference between any two means
was signifiCant. When there is no correlation between a and

o O A.
b, P.E.dif.3i(a“+b“)“, and it was considered that there was
no correlation between varietal means. If the difference is
greater than 5.2 times its probable error, the difference is
considered significant. (The odds are then over thirty to one

that the difference is not due to chance. This limit is used

very frequently and is quite reliable).

-17-

5. Correlations.

When dealing with those characters which are not
perfectly correlated, it is necessary to know the degree of
correlation which is actually shown. When there is a high
degree of association, it Can usually be estimated by inspec-
tion, but judgement is often faulty, and an exact statistical
calculation of the amount of correlation is the only sure
means by which we Can definitely determine the amount of re-
lationship. pIt' may be interpreted as follows:

1. If "r" is less than the probable error there is
no evidence of correlation.

2. In those cas:s in which "r" is less than 0.5 the
correlation cannot be said to be at all marked.

5. If "r" is more than six times the probable error

the correlation is a practical certain y.

b

4. I' "r" is greater than 0.5 and greater than six

*—

times the probable error there is a decided correlation.
all correlation coefficients were computed to five

places but only three are given for clearness and brevity.

a. The diagonal method.

The diagonal method of computing correlation coef-
ficients as outlined by Crum and Patton (1925, p. 258) and
modified by the plant breeding staff of the Farm Crops Depart-
ment of Michigan State College Was used for the correlation
computations. In addition to the ordinary way of combining

the varieties into one population, method b was used to ob-

-18-

ain the correlation surface, and the coefficient computed as

in a.

b. Super-imposing-the-means-method.

The average Value of relationship of the twelve
varieties and the check Was also determined by the super-
imposing-the-means-method. This method was recently worked
out by the plant breeding staff of the Farm Crops Department
of Michigan state College, and in its application requires:

1. That the tables to be combined must involve the
same characters and must give a logically homogeneous popu-
lation.

2. That the mid‘class values of the dependent var-
iable in all of the populations combined must be equal or
pertain to the same series, with a similar condition holding
for the independent variable.

‘ This method consists of combining two or more groups
of data by transferfing the frequencies from the different
tables onto a single table by putting the classes containing
the means at the same point and from the combined table comput-

ing the value of "r" in the usual manner.

0. Corrections.
Due to soil heterogeneity and other environmental
factors some plots were not representative of the field. It

was necessary to use some method to throw out any plots far

erent from the average. This was acconglished by throwing

.4."

'\ 4‘ a“ ,r ' .‘Q .\ VA ‘.—. ,‘ ‘. ~ 4. - «. -,-
out all the plots icon he Correlati.;

(’
F

L
3....
H
t b
t
O
(u
d
.4”
f
d
C;
H
p.
:3
0
:1-

fall in the limits set by adding or subtractinr from the mean
".2 times the standard deviation. That is, any frequency that
did not fall within the classes containing these limits would be
disefirded or omitted from the calculations.

In the correlation surface wher a number is faund
in rarenthesis as (1) it indicates that it is thrown out by
the method Just described. If a number is found, such as (3)1,
it indicates that in two barieties a frequency this far from

the mean was thrown out but in ona case it was not this was
I 3

due to differences in size of means and standard deviations.

4. Coefficient of Yield.
This is known as the "P over C" method of comparing

9
v

y elds, when P equals the actual yield of the plot and C is
the interpolated yield of the plot between the two nearest
checks. "The coefficient of yield is the quotient obtained

by dividing the yield of a variety by the calculated yield

of the standard or check variety, growing on the same plat

the same year. This is a ratio that becomes unity when the
yield of the variety it represents equals that of the standard.
It is greater or less than unity when the yield of the variety

it represents is greater or less than the yield of the stand-

ard." Spragg 1920, p. 168.

Iv. ossricnss EHCCUITEIZY.

 

A. Weather.

One of the greatest obstacles encountered in this
work was the variation in the weather conditions from year
to year. The rainfall for the growing and harvest period of
1923 and 1929 (June let. to last harvest) may be found in
.Table 2. Rain during this period in 1923 made it possible to
obtain a small pick. A large pick under :ichigan conditions
is not uncommon, but due to another extremely dry year in
1929 no pick could e obtained. This was very unfortunate be-

cause pick is a very important factor with Kichigan producers.

B. Soil fertility and available moisture.

The natural fertility of he two areas where the
beans were planted was about the same. Three hundred pounds
per acre of acid phosphate were added in 1928 and 500 pounds
of a 4-16-4 fertilizer in 1929. Because of weather conditions
the results obtained were quite different.

A comparison of the field average on yield and
weight of vine gives some idea of the influence of soil fer~

tility and available moisture:

1928. 1929.
Yield of beans in grams 505.214.8 é15.9té.0
Weight of vine in grams 333.6:3.5 420.512.8

It is interesting to note that in 1928 there was a

Table 2.

Daily precipitation during the sumner months of 1923

and 1929.

Data from

States Department of

22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

31.

Total

June

(32 ()3 O3

O
0430*]OCHC‘COOCOOC?OSCDQW'OC‘FJFfi
N

UN

{71

local Weather Bureau Office, United

Agriculture.

Precipitation.

July Aug. Sept.

{'1

.L
.06
o 54
.13
.02
0
T
0
0

\3

OCCJ—‘NOOOCCOCC‘OHHIO

Ht?»
0

.03
T

o 0
NH
C30)
0

.0 .06
m .40

y.

.44

o
C)

OCCUOC'

(J10

OCOP—‘l—‘O-BOO

.50
.84
0

1.89 2.79

9.94

0
1.12

.04

0000000

0 4
.Ba

.02

.21
T
.05
.01
0
Q

.02
.05
.15
.18
.10
.01

C)

Q

'2214

00000

.\n

.00
.42
.24
.03

HOC'HO

o
{‘0

F5

0
CMJf3CWC
q

.19
. :35
r
o
. 37

2.17

Total for season.

July Aug. Sept.

T 0 O
0 0 O
.01 .06 0
.09 0 0
0 .08 O
.09 0 .10
.10 0 T
0 0 O
.01 0 .03
0 0 .03
T 0 .02
.12 0 0
.59 T .11
0 T T
0 T .07
0 0 O
O 0 .04
.63 O .47
0 0 C
0 O o
0 0 o
0 .15 O
.17 T o
0 L14 0 O
T 0 T
0 0 O
T 0 o
O O .ce
0 T .BC
0 0 o

0 0

1.90 .27 1.27

5.61

.04

marked increase in yield over weight of vine, while in 1929
the weight of vine exceeded the yield. The greater yield of
beans in 192“ was probably due to the greater supply of mois-
ture during the month of August. The application of 500 pounds
per acre of a 4-10-4 fertilizer was added hoping to increase
the size of vine and net weight of beans. With this increased
nitrogen in the soil and plenty of available moisture in the
early part of the season a large vine was produced. This vine
was so large that it apparently took most of the limited amount
of moisture in the late growing season to maintain its growth,
and only a moderate number of partially filled pods were pro-

duced.

C. Baldhead.

Baldhead of beans, sometimes called snakehead, for
a number of years has attracted the attention of the seed
growers and farmers. It shows up early in the season and as
the other beans close in over the baldheads the farmer thinks
the injured plants have recovered, but they only die or merely
produce few or no normal pods. Experiments (Barter 1950)
Show that baldhead may be caused by insects, by thresher in-
jury or by the crusting over of the soil just before the bean
seedlings come through the ground.

In 1929, the bean maggot (Hylemyia cilicrura) was a
very serious pest. This type of injury may be seen from plate
No. V. (Pettit 1929). The Weather was cold and damp after

planting and the beans were slow to push above the surface of

Plate No. V.

 

The work of the bean maggot (Hvlemyia oilicrura).

 

This injury was such a serious factor in 1339 that six series,

(D-I), had to be replanted. (Courtesy of Ir. R.H.Iettit, 1929).

-26-

the ground. The south side of the area was so seriously dam-

".

aged that it was necessary to replant six seri 3 (0-1). Three

CD

series (a-C) were ripe several days before that part of the
field where replanting was necessary (L-I), hence there was a
greater shelling n hese over-ripe beans than in the other
series. Uith this condition in mind one should not place too
much emphasis on the large shelling Counts taken on treatment

II in 1929.

D. Soil.

The general classification of the soil in both areas
is a fine sandy loam. Kithin these sections are small areas
of heavier soils. Part of (A) series in 1928 and part of
( I ) series in 1929 are good examples of the heavier soils, and
are noticeably different from the general area. (Figures 20.1
and HO.II.) These extremely different areas made vast differ-
ences in yield and weight of vine. Since either yield or
weight of vine was used in nearly all of the correlations

'4—4—
V

computed extreme variations were omi b l as described under

(0

corrections.

3. Other limiting factors.
Diseased and noneproducing plants (Plate No. VI a, b)

appeared in all the varieties and reduced the yield.

 

 

IIIIIII'II. 1 III ‘

 

-111 a 311.1 31,111, 1a 11.1“ 1.1111

. _?_.1.

vwv—y—v—v.

‘—.I:’—.“.

‘ 000‘
-:.I
I

I,
.01-*1
I

19.;

.fi

MICHIGAN STATE COL LEGE

..
'Oooo'-»

b-‘von
I“:

O

'I..,

0....

 

 

'lli‘l il.‘i I1.l.l ‘ll'l

& .m. . 1H. ,1.

. ..II .1 ./

 

              

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

.. 1.1,»...1.-__.1t. 3 113.1. in -....as a1 sea. 1.1111111... an .1- M. .__ . _ ._
.H - 1 . . ..u... 3..-... ...,1 .....1.._u., .1.. ..1 ... .1I_ .1. .H." 1.1.. .. _1...1.....L.......1...,9fl.1.,;..111 . .1 . -1 . flags" .1. .11 .H
an“, 1

 

 

\11

-0“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

‘
. Iv
>by9 m-

etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o"
)H
.4.
’.
‘I.I
\\
‘1
‘11
I
O

> 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. I111 .. - 1w
_ .......m1.-...:...31.:u.moe
. . .6... .1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.0 < .39. l' m:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
. -9. .
O I I I I I ,I I.. t
v I o I I _ . I» V II
II II . n$1 ..I a
I .. r. . a .I.. . Ire. I .0 I v.1. I
OI ; I I I .... ,u I 0.. .M_y.. _ 0 -
I I _II - . 4 I I ... 01... . 4.1-. 0
{I III-k. or II”....II.II.. .. II... I . V “.1... .fi
1 I 1' I III 1 A I , .
I 1 v I I I .. 1 H
1 I I I . I I n
I I I I II 1 .9. 1.
I I o . I I I .1 L a.
I I I o o «I I I I .1 1 -
I D O I I 1
I I . I _ . I . a
v . I .1 I I
II I III .1 .l 1 . i..|.|.l IIB . I I
o . I . oow .
. ._ ./ I
I I I _ 1 ....-. ._ .
. a I . . o . 1 —:.. .
o .I. o o I.- I u 1. -
o I I I I I u
. II I I o 1 -
A I I I I I\1 I
I o ...
I I .8 I II
. . 9191.. _
I 1 1. I —
I I _ . .~1.U . I
I I . 1, -
1 . . .. _
9 I . . I , 4 U A
_ . . . .nn .
. . I . . .111 .l.‘ 1
I . . O O I II I ‘ . ,. I .. 1}. II... ,I .I
1. I. I 1 . I . . ,. ”‘1 . a saga . .. . _ . -
_ . . . mm... a _ , , . _
. . . . . .1 1 1 . 1 .. . 1.
Q. U C .1 I . . -
I 1 1 O I
I A , o 1....1111., 1 . 1 -
. . .1 . hpwoqewOHeeqm Hfiem map menmm _
.. . .v." 1 I .1. 1
o I. I I .11 .. ...»0 I....1. .u\. .1. J
I. I .r I III. I II .1. I In I I1 .I, .....II. _I. 1 I v-
. . . 1 1- 1. I I . I1.—
I 1 I . . _ I 1. .-
. . 1 1 I. . . ..
... .. . . _ .H .oa_maamum . ; . _
I . I. .I I 1 . r +1 . A .111.Iv. I
I , . o . .1 lb. 1 . .I.I I‘ ,
I. I I I . I o 1. . 1 1 —
o. u. I . . 1 o . .. . ... 1, I o .
o1 . I I 1. I I .1
.III I I I I II II III I II I II III'bI1.'II .5—
I I 1 .
O. A I I .
I .I I I\ Q C l
1 I 1. 1. u .I . 1 I .1 ... .I . I
o 1. I I o . r I I o I _ II _ .I u r a _ 1
.4 F. C I _ . O I D I i I ... —
I I II . I _._ I I I I I I I III I I .I I
I. .11. ._ ,q I. . .\, __,1 I I . . a-ofll1: I .I,1 ...m
1 u . I . 1 I . . I I . .. . ...I .III. 4 V.-.
I I r I 1. ..1 I II I I IIOICPQI L'.’: I I I l I I '4 I I I I I I II II .I I I C a I\ 1.. . III!”1I..IIIIIV OIIII AHFII1|III I I
III .+%,IIIII o. I o- o I r1 . .I ..rI 1I.¢.,1r 1.I .I1_II1 II I
II . .... I III. 5 fi. In1. I I." III 9 . 11.... I. I akh 1....VUIII I ... . I; . I I I
a 1.. 1.... 1. Wow... I. I. v .1 I . 4.. I .IIIII. O ‘I .... .. .11. .JII ...-1.1.11.7“ a 1. .1
I .. ..I . 9.... 1.4. 1 .....I..._._ a .1... . 1.- .1- 1... . I .“4..,1..«- c.0:1. .— ‘1 s —
.011 .I .. .... ...._ . oc.I_~ .0. II . o I I o .I .I o 1. II .. III-1.11AII ... . II
I 1I m _I nae. .1III I. II I l I u I 1!. . ..II ..v I I.I Io ......LI I” I . .1
-. o. I . . ... ..111. .. I. I .1 "1 «INI- 1...rII.I ._._ I,1,1 PI 1 . I,. v.
1 o- . . III .I . ... . II. W . ..q- ...“.M-1 . ..r. .. u ..1-_ 0., ... .IIIT.”1II_.. .1 .H w . 1 .IIII.II1III'“
hpIIb Il .Iblh‘ot'II'IDI|IPh-QIIII I. IIFI'DIIIII hul'ul . III DIIIII'II III-D... .Dl Il-I I'IIIII I '[II'IIIIo i. vII’IIl'El'IIr-IIIIII'IIIIIII I II. II II I-IIIIIIIl't'III

 

“IIIILMI'I

ll.ll.I.'-IIII ‘1' r--

MICHIGAN STATE CF-LL EGE

 

 

 

111K} 4-.--

   

 
 

gynfifi

Jdt. 1.14.... IIIII. II». III.

.mmgmgz_huw I-

 

LHLH. .

. 4

 

1
I5. ..LI I.Ir.1I _
..- 1.1 _ 1 I
_ _ .
a .I I II.
III ..C. _ I
1 r
. . .I.
1. . .1
.I.
I .
.I II...» I
.I II ,II.
1| .. 1, I. r .
11 II

 

I
I
_ _ .
1 1
_ I o
.u L O
.J_ . F
"u o _ I
'- I I. III
I I ....
.I
F 1 II
F .11 .

.- -I'.-II plug 'I—I—u. 7
. ‘ .'
._ .
‘ I
I .—I
'_ L
I I II

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

I I
I I II
I11... _
I. _ I
.I .
.I 1 1
H 1. I I I I
I. ;.I
1.
II. I
1 1
fl 1
I
1 I. I
. r ,.|I
.11.
I I I I I v
o 1 1
1 I. I . . I11 I .H I _ I _
I . _ _ I 1 1 L . .11 A1. I __ 1 I11 __ J...
1 . I 1... I . .1. . I I I1 I II
. I I I . _ .11 11 I I 1 .. _ 1 L
, _ I 1 .. 1 .1 1, I _ .1 1 _
1 I 1.» .r 1 1. . . . .I. _ . r». I I .1. I
1...... I ._ .1 . - 1 1 . I. _. In I 1 1- - _ .111. ..1 .
I 1 _ _ _ . 1 _ .1 1 1 _ “I .1 1I I 1. 1 II I 111
. I I 1 1 1. 1 _ _ 11 _ _ _ I .. . I _
. . 1. 1 1 . I I _ I. _ _ _
v 4 I I .1 _ I 1 I 1 .
I 1 _ _ I .1 I _ 1 11 1 .1 I .
I I . l . I I _ 1 1 1 . 1 _ _ .I
. . I - 1V 1 - . I. . .1 _ . _ _ .1 ._
I . I I I 1 1 1.. _ 1 _ 1 I
I o I I I I _ I I 1 I .1 _ . ...—1 H
I I _ I I . . II. _ I I 1 1 _ 11
_ 1 . _ . I I. . II I . . I J. |
I _ II I . I II ._ . . N 1. .I.... I .1... . .1 1 11
I I I a 1 _ I I I _ .1 1 It. ..I . I u o 0 II _ _ I _
I
1 1 . v ..
1 I I I I. I I
1. I 1 I . _ I . _ 11 1
I . 1 I . _ 1. _
_ O . . . . . .V 1 _. _ p _
1 . 11 I .II.I J I
. . . V - . . 3 he mammomag V 1 _ _
_ I _ _ ._ 1 1 I. Iii. _ ..l. I. I 1. r _
c.I 1 o _ _ _ .— 1 . . . _ . 1.1. I 1.. .1. _ 1 .I.. 1 .1 _ I I
..1 V. .. . 1 1 . 1 _ .. IIr 1. .. .II__._ ... I III.I. LIIII. I) I 1 .II I II I
1.0] [III .1I .II.I II. .I. 1 h I ,l . . I . _ I. . I ....II.. .I . I . I. III11..¢ I .11. 1III I I_I.II_[.H\.IH . . [H1 1. 1 . .1 I1 I.” 1
.I. . .1. 1 . I . .. I I 1 .I. . v . .I I I I . . .1 1 1
1 _ 1 1. _ 1 II I 1 A 1
I 1 . .. I... I I ..I I v. . I I .1 1 . . 1 I . . | . . .1 I. _ ._. _ .1 1 .
1... .I _ .. . 1 1 . 1. : 1 _
I 1 I II 1. r I.I . 1. .I
1 O 1 I I I — Yrs. 1 I 1 I I. .. I I .
._ .1 I.“ v I I I 1” I I r? I I I _ I I III I ..._I I11w5I I 1
O o I. . I I I I r. 1 _
_ _ __ 5. I I VI I
IQ+I I .1 I I I .1 I. 1. II1I I _ I I I'll I I I 1 I I I
-I.. I* I II 1.. .1 I — I. 1 1 I 1. 1 1 _. _
_ _ 1. I... . _
141.1... . . _ .1 1 _ 1 I L. I I... 1 1.. IV! I I u
YluoL. .IIIII. I ... .1 nu III ..I1n..r_ . I . . _ . . . I 1 1 1.l1 1 I
Y...... I . 1 L I . _ 1 _ I, . . 1 1 1
. — 1 1 I 1 I _ _ l
wYI. I I1 . . ,1 I I 1. . .L 1 1 .I _ .
. 1 I n 1 _
I . 1 1 I 1 1 1 .I.
. 1 _ 1 _ 11 _ 1 _ 11.. . __ _ . 1 . 1111 _ 1. . 1
...1.-_ ..-. _ 1.1 -1 .1. - . 1 1. . . 1 -I .1 .1 1
-1; _ . . . . . . 1. 1 _ 1. 1.. 1 . 1 .
I o I A I o I 1 I 1 I .1 1 .1 . I .1 a .
on. 1 _ _ . 1 _ ..r 1 I I I F — l'tl I II I I III I
o I. I . I I I I' I
I II I .| I I I' I I II IIIII II II I I I I l

I I 1
1. 1 . i
1... .II 1
1 I II I
.III ._ 1-
. 1 I h
_ 1 ..
I 1
I. . _ 1 _I
_ 'I I
. 'I .
_ 1
_ 1
1 1
_
.11 .I.-

: 1
. Ix:
1, ,I
1—1I
L I

a»;

I

5.

m-

l
’

.I.

\

ma-

I
|

.L

5Féwfii

Plate NO. VIC.

 

 

a. Diseased and non-productive area (H-II 1929.

 

b. Late maturity may be due to disease.

The dark areas are the unripe vines.

Gr " 1 TTT ‘
. . -LHJL'NJ :13.
mw

A. factors influencing yield.

1. Variety yield.

:he yield results are given in Tables 5 and a.
Table 3 gives the results as calculated by the coe ficient
of yield method. Table 4 gives the nean yield of each variety
as calculated from the correlation surface. Robust Selection
and Early Wonder (32) are the only varieties that exceeu:
the check in yield both years. The significance of the year-
ly differences (calculated from the means and their nrobable
errors) is shown in Table 5. Here we find the 1923 results
of these two varieties (33 and 22) significantly different
from the check but this is not true in 192 9. This is easily
seen in Table 5. Three varieties; lOCO-l, Pliter, and 1200-1
averaged less than the check both years. The significance of

their inferiority may be seen in Table 5.

2. Weight of Vine.
The Wei ht of vine results are also shown in Table
4. This table shows that hexican Tree (:6) had the heaviest
vine in 1928 and was only exceeded by: JG :ican Tree (LS) in
1929. Early Wonder (E2) and Robust Selection were much high-
er in 1928, comparatively, than in 1929. Greiner was lower
both years than any other variety. The si-g nificance of the

differences may be seen in Table 6.

Plate No. VII.

 

Varietal differences are noticed here in the size

of vine, and in the number of adhering leaves.

Variety

1.

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
12.

15.

14.

10

Table 3.

Average coefficients of yield.

1929

.913

Two-year
average

.902

...26-

boo.u¢ow.

nao.hmmn.
neo.umma.
smo.uaem.
amo.«aan.
aao.umam.
meo.eaem.
Hmo.waem.
aao.uamw.
Mao.unmm.
mHo.Honm.
nmo.Hsam.
sHo.HHon.
mmo.uaom.
2.mm new:
mmaa
roam

m.m Mm.om¢

N.o no.0nv
N.Hth.mH¢
N.OHHm.me
H.m MH.wmn
H.0HHh.¢m¢
o.HaMH.omn
O.NHhm.Hn¢
m.oaho.oww
N.m Mm.¢mw
o.3H«H.mmw
9.0H%m.wm¢
n.0HHm.mm¢
0.0HH®.NQ¢
2

.mm mam:

mNoH

’

n.n 40.nmn

«.0 um.omn
s.oaun.emm
HoHHHNobmfl
m.oaue.mmn
m.manm.een
m.w H¢.Hsn
momHHH.bw¢
s.m He.amn
m.aaum.amn
H.mahs.mna
m.nauo.mmw
m.mauo.oee
a.eawa.snn
2.nm new:

mmmH

mew» mo pnmam:

o.e «m.mae

0.5 wo.¢¢¢
m.maua.wmn
N.OHMH.mmm
m.&a«¢.¢mm
m.waflm.am¢
m.nHHo.nbw
m.mamn.mm¢
N.HHHN.an
m.HHuo.omn
H.mdfim.mmw
O.HH«o.va
H.meb.on

m.maum.me

.4.

s.mm new:

mNmH

.mmma Mafia ems .mmaa one wmma

0.6 «N.nom

e.s «0.0me
n.ea«m.mmm
m.maan.eom
m.men.¢Hm
m.HHuo.om¢
e.oaho.ooe
o.maua.smm
a.maue.mme
m.HHwe.Hme
a.oans.mao
o.mahs.mem
H.mHu¢.Hmm
m.maum.mee
m.mm new:

mmma

dHan

so
as
we

.wa

.na
.ma
.HH
.oa
.m
.m
.s
.a
.m
.e
.m
.m
.H

hpmflpm>

maH> Ho pnmfima was camflh you mpoppm manwnonm use mamas one “a mange

 

Table 5: The significance between varieties on the basis of
yield in grams, 1923 results above diagonal, 1929

below.

“ Vt 33 AP 12 Pl

(‘0

Cr Gr RS H6 KS 10

H

C)

 

3 significant by more than five times the P.E;. s - sig-
nificant by 5.2 to five times the P.E. . - n0 SignifiCance.

-s or -3 indicate that the variety indicated in the left
hand margin is significantly inferior to the corresponding
variety above.

Example K5 is significantly inferior to 32, or 32 is

significantly superior to K5.

M6 is significantly superior to 12 but inferior to R3.

-28...

Table 6. The significance between varieties on the basis of
weight of vine in grams. The results above the line

are for 1928, and below for 1929.

Ck Vt ES AP 12 Pl T2 Ca Gr RS H6 £5 10

E3
Vt

 

Ck

See notes for interpretation Table 5 p. 27.

f,

a. Stand.

The data on stand may be seen in Table 7. This
table gives the average stand for each variety in 1928 and
1929, and the average number of productive plants (second
stand) in 1929. Figure Kc. III gives a good comparative pic-
ture of the average stand of each variety. This figure shows
that Early Wonder (32) and Robust Selection had the best stand
in 1928 and were near the top in 1929. Table 4 and Figure No.
III also show that while elaska Parish, Greiner, and Pliter
were quite low on the average of both years, 1000-1 was very
low in 1928.

The significance of differences between varieties may be
seen in Table 8. This table shows that in 1928, Early Wonder
(32) was significantly higher than all varieties but Robust
Selection,and the latter'wzafsignificantly higher than all but
Early Wonder (E2). The same year all varieties were signif-
icantly better than 1000-1. In 1929 Greiner was significantly

poorer than all varieties except Pliter.

4. Shelling.

Table 7 also gives the average shelling of each va-
riety for 1928 and 1929. This table for the 1928 results in-
cludes a little different average than the 1929 results because
of a different outlook on Treatment V in 1928. Due to a wet
fall some second growth occured on the fifth treatment (H-I),

and at harvest time there were several all green plants with a

a. mo.aoa m. Hm.naa a. «m.moa m.aum.ma m. w¢.mn as .ea
m. “a.moa m. us.maa s..HH.m0H o.dum.om o.fluo.an so .na
m.aun.ooa m.H«m.AHH m.HnH.so m.e«e.em m.m«s.mn p> .ma
m.Hwe.Hoa s.ame.baa o.a«s.eoa e.e«o.om e.e«o.ae mm .HH
m.auo.nm s.Hflm.soa m.a«o.moa m.wuo.mm H.awm.ma m4 .oa
m.a«n.moa m.awa.saa e.Hwb.moa b.e«e.mm m.mwa.an NH .0
m.d«s.mm e.Hum.Hoa ¢.Hwn.am a.ewe.es m.m«m.en .Hm .m
H.Huo.moa o.Hmm.eHH a.a+n.mma a.naa.ae m.nwa.mm mm .s
m.Hum.om H.mwm.naa s.Hwe.mHH m.mun.me o.mum.mn no .o
o.H«m.om n.m«m.ma o.aye.eoa m.sum.nma o.nuo.ae no .m
m.aum.eoa o.mwa.maa e.amm.ama o.num.ae n.mus.ew mm .e
a.H«H.mm m.Hun.aoa m.HHo.HHH m.n«m.mm m.mno.en as .m
m.Huo.ma s.Hum.oHH o.HuH.mHH o.awm.mea a.¢«>.>e mu .m
m.HwH.noa s.Hum.eHH s.amo.mm H.awe.em n.nwm.en OH .H

m.am neon a.mm new: 3.mm mama :.mm new: a.mm swan apmfipap

mama mama mama mmma mmmu
eases .eam eeapm maHHHmam

..mmma eaapm eaoomm one .mmma

use mama caspm was waaaaonm Hon whonho manmnonm can magma one .boanca

M'CHIGAN STATE COLLEGE

 

 

 

.w r1 T' ' v f - I— Ivy-cw h ‘ vrw ,. 1 fl ,
I ‘;-_ I . 1: . . I. _ . 1. -FE- . . v1, ... , V. . ' j_ , F ,5! ,
..Ivrv-t ‘¢“ ‘ I -‘ Icon ..... 3" ,.
I .. , .- l . . ... _,. .y r
‘ ' I I
I 0' - i C' O
p- u -

ti.‘

: 3.2

iE.Tandér

851595

Thebuat159

. 5331269101’1'

J E. dander .
1.539 385

1200~l "

'.‘ 512001

5.

Robu_st'

. 'ChQQKS’

3 ‘ a.
if.

'8.

(*flis.

:3131§.:1

‘—. —.iI—' — I- a - u I

”1090*11
*328893‘

can...”

.351392:

'Yfifimont»
”110‘? 355

‘1... was. '
‘350805~

‘ 2‘62. Tree
,WBSQBUB

‘7htsstept
fPafiiShu‘

spartan‘**'
18599945 I

QPliter

.nc 859
oval

W Phpulation

 

.L._... . -...

 

 

.::3..33_.3333 3; 333.
33334.33333333

vAA AL .
r v‘ “w“uWW-vfi wwv—vr-Vw rw;~,'.w 1 ir'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9
' l
l‘
—- 3 '4'. 0—4-‘AJ—A:A ."
1 .1-4 47 111111 AAAAA $1,? 4 4 4 014 o 9 . 4 b .' ~
*7” . v T‘ .,_, _._ . ., ,
'0 I
.L-
y .-

 

 

 

 

 

{1mm a... 1.3 ;

 

(Tf~jti§?31'fstamd 1aae.
(555797' f1-~rrbauat1véur1aats- .i~1329.

 

 

|-n@n:pronuativeifilants 1929.

 

_II—‘I'd- ‘- Ii- I ——I -I I ._.“ .I I ‘I- .- “ — l- I I I ‘ l“- I I

Figure No. III.

I .l\.—I 'I'i’.‘ "' “I: I-‘A'

‘ 33"
a I, - '
unhi-

. _ : < , _" ‘ . ‘.
‘ . , ,. l ‘ ' - , '-
_- ~ - _, 4 ~ ,, .I- " — - Q'I .-
| .
no. I-I.—-I--_-u- ...-.....I nan-._. ...-Jr‘s- .fi-I I.- L

,,. 1 : t .0 . ...
I I Hutu—J... III—._....u‘ .l-I ...-

 

 

L.;._ .. ._.. .__;- .1 -. .

 

Table 8. The significance between varieties on the basis of

stand, 1923 results above diagonal, 1929 below.

lo

M
H
m
0
m
G
H
:U
(u
hi
6

Ck Vt 33 AP 2
10
M5

M6

Gr
Cr
E2
P1
12

ES
Vt

 

Ck

See Table 5 (p.27) for interpretation.

few green pods on most plots. These plants were not harvested
with the mature plants but the beans were shelled out by hand,
counted, and added to the shelling counts. The first column of
Table 7, and all of the shelling ate for correlation coeffici-
ents for 1928 were comeuted on this basis. All data on the
weathering (Tables 10, 11, and 12) are computed on the actual
number of shelled beans. The difference is very small except
that it made non-comparable values for Treatment V.

Table 7 shows that Xexican,Tree (M5) shelled more
both years than any other variety. It was not so much above
the average in 1928, but in 1929 it and Greiner shelled very
heavily. Table 9 gives the significance of differences between
varieties. In 1929, fiexican Tree (K5) and Greiner are signifi-
cantly different from all other varieties, but are not significant-
ly different from each other.

Tables 10 and 11 show the effect of different field
treatments on the amount of shelling. In Treatment I all the
varieties shelled very little both years in com‘arison to the
other plots, while in III and Iv shelling counts were especi-
ally high. Table 12 gives the significance of differences be-
tween treatments. With some of the varieties Treatment I gave
results that were quite signifiCantly different from those ob-
tained with the other treatments in 1323, but in 1929 it was
significantly different from all the other treatnents, except
Treatment II with Robust Selection. The fourth treatnent was not

significantly superior to any other.

of shelling,

Table 9. The significance between varieties on the basis

1929 results are given.

\

Cr Ch Vt RS 10 Pl EB Gr 2 E M5

 

There was no significance between varieties in 1928

on account of the low shelling counts.

See Table 5 (p. 27) for interpretation.

o.awm.om o.dwe.nm o.awm.nm m. we.nm m.a wH.mH ma .ea
s.a«m.mm H.mwm.mm m.mme.mm n.mvn.om e.m we.ma so .na
e.an.Hm H.0we.en o.maa.ae m.n«m.sa m.H an.e p> .ma
H.ewe.em m.mue.ee e.nuo.bn s.m«o.mm e.H Hm.n mm .HH
H.5um.mm m.owm.me H.ewe.om H.ewm.on m.m mm.e m4 .oa
o.mum.em o.mwa.me m.euo.sn o.mmm.ma e.oaam.aa ma .m
e.me.nm 0.0«n.om e.mfin.em n.nwn.ma m.aaflo.nn Hm .m
b.mwo.em e.oaam.ao n.eua.en o.eam.on o.maun.mm mm .m
m.mfia.mn m.ewa.ee m.awo.em n.mflo.sa a.» «n.HH mo .0
m.mum.mm e.ohn.se o.eao.ae o.mwo.mm n.o an.ma no .m
o.ewo.mm m.ehm.@m o.mem.mm n.mae.em n.n um.o me .e
H.nua.mm m.eva.ee m.mme.an H.efiH.mH e.m «n.ea as .n
o.oafl.mn m.eum.sm e.mmo.me m.H+m.nH e.o «m.mm ms .m
H.nae.mm n.mwn.sn e.HflH.Hm m.n«o.nm m.e am.am OH .H
:.mm neon a.am new: a.am came e.mm mama a.mm neon apmane>
.Hnm .eum .aao .o-m .2 mmfinmm
.> .>H .HHH .HH .H paoepeona

.mmmH .mpmoapwopp UHQHH pcoaoMHHu pound hpoapop mono Mo mafiaaonm doom .QH oanmfi

rd
70

e.H Ho.me
e.m we.ae

(O

ue.ooa

m.
m.m +m.eb
m.m “H.nm
m.m we.em
e.s “0.02
H.m Hm.oe
H.o nm.me
H.maeo.oma
H.e um.mn
o.a um.em
m.eauo.ema
o.m ao.mm

04.4..
hr

o a?

H.N Mn.©oa

o.n “n.5e

0.2 um.oma
m.HHuo.mmH
H.2Hhe.maa
m.> he.mma
m.mHHm.HHH
H.e Hm.mo
m.eHm.me
H.0Hnm.mmm
a.» Ho.ee
o.e um.ee
o.mamm.ema
w.e ao.eHH
.x.mm same
.e-a

.PH

m.H we.ms

H.n Hm.am

o.maum.em
m.m “H.ms
e.mauo.moa
.H.m He.oe
0.5 Hm.me
o.> um.me
m.m Hm.ee
e.m wa.mma
m.s He.mm
a.m ua.me
m.m He.oea

b.m Mm.®®

. «.4

:.mm meme
0 m'a

I.

.HHH

.HH sagas

o.H Mm.ee

o.m “H.me

a.saum.nm
e.oahn.oe
m.mauo.sa
e.s um.mm
m.e an.ae
m.e “m.Hm
e.m ue.mo
a.mahe.mma
o.m He.en
n.e um.mm
«.0Hun.oom
m.e an.eoa

.-.4

L.mm mama

.HH

e.H He.mn

a.m Ho.mm

e.m wo.em
m.H am.om
m.n um.en
o.H Ho.ea
o. «m.em
e. no.0a
m.m Mm.ma
H.m wo.me
o.a H .mm
m.a Ho.wa
e.mmum.em
m.e vo.mn

‘41fi

r.mm seen

.4

r

.H paoapmone

OH

.m
.H

hpmapo>

moanmm

.mmmH .mpaoapmonp daoam paoaommfio Amend humane» none mo mqflaaonm comm

V.

II-Io

III.-
D-Ti‘o

II.
3-0.

A.

Table 12. Shelling count significance between each field treatment.
I.

Treatment.

Series.

‘4

1933
no
:
4
no
no
,
4
n
4
n
4

1'1 0

O
‘1‘ 'J‘ C. t sh

1928
1'10
9!

H
l
4
I10

0. O. O. .0 0. O. .0 O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. C. O. O. .0 O. I. O. O. O. O. O.

J
I10
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n

Cr)
C} O t
s :1 t t : t : z z t = = =

O. O. .0 O. O. 0. O. 0. no .0 O. O. O. 0. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. C. O. O. O. O.

' :5
123

no
:1
1
no
i
4
‘t

o
g z

n
i
no
4

J88
o
10

O O
m :' t t -$ 5: : <fl a 5) fi' -e

12k
EO
no

0 O
S: 'J‘ V." ‘d‘ C V" ‘i‘

'9
H
4

3”
EC
4
4
4
4
4
no
4

C. O. O. O. .0 O. O. I. O. O. O. O. O. .0 .0 O. O. O. O. O. on O“ 0“ 0. 0. 0. 0.

rm [0
m r4 ~ r4
'9 r4 2 : ~$ r4 = t : : : = : =
r1 3 a d
EC

1928

O
E :

’11
n
4

all

0 e
G a a)

Y!

4

1

.
3,4,5

t»

p o

0) <3 <0 (0 L« h 01 .4 01 N) -P A:
-H r4 2: i: .‘ z :3 n1 {A r1 ‘3 :1 :> L)
:3 I o 0 o I O 0 a3 a; 5 F; (6 N3
*> an N) a) co D~ , L
’ '4 e r1 r4 .4 r‘

2,5,4

page.

no

next

table see

118

I

i

‘

or exnlanation of t

"“l

I t

‘

. all

mP

J-

14.

Description of symbols used in Tables 12 and 15.

The treatments represented by the numbers at the
heads of the columns are considered to be superior (1.6.,
shelled less beans per plot) to the treatments whose numbers
appear in the body of the table.

Thus:under I in l928 for variety H5 is found a "4"
(arabic numbers used for simplicity) and it is interpreted to
mean that I shelled significantly less beans than IV but the
differenceswith the other treatments were not significant.
In 1929, under I for KS is found "all" and it indicates that
I shelled significantly less beans than all the other treat-
ments. A "no" indicates that the treatment at the head of
the column is not significantly superior (shelled less beans)

to the other treatments.

Shelling counts may be interpreted in pounds per
acre by considering hat ten beans per plot is approximately
3.25 pounds per acre, or 100 beans per plot is approximately
32.5 pounds per acre. Then, the average (TP) loss under
Treatment I is 1323 (Table 10) was 4.2 lbs. per acre, while
in 929, (fable 11) it was 10.5 lbs. Hexican Tree (x5) and
Greiner lost 7.6 and d.O lbs.,respectively, in 1923, and 31.8
and 22.3 lbs., respectively, in 1929, with the same treatment.
The losses occuring in these two varieties under Treatments
II, III, IV, V in 1929 were very high, while in Robust Selection,
Kexican Tree (M5) and Early Uonder (32) they were not very
large. These differences are in all probability due to in-

herited varietal characteristics.

5. Pick.

Table 4 also shows the average pick of each variety
for 1928. No pick was obtained in 1323 because of reasons al-
ready mentioned. This table shows that Greiner, Pliter, and
Vermont picked much heavier than the other varieties. The
significance of differences between varieties, on the percent-
age pick, may be seen 'n Table 13. Greiner, Pliter, and Ver-
mont are significantly different from all other varieties, but
are not significantly d ffcrent from each other.

Table 14 gives the mean pick of each field treatment.
The first three treatments picked much lower than the first two.
Table 15 shows that the significance of differences between
treatments. ho variety in Treatment IV or V is significantly

better than in any of the other treatments.

-\J‘;)-

Table 13. The significance betueen varieties on the basis or

pick, 1923 results above diagonal, 1929 below.

-

Ck Vt 33 hp 12 Fl 22 Cr Er as he

33
T; t
Ck

See Table 5 (p. 27) for interpretation.

..5

55 10

 

NH

0H3.“

mno.uoam.

NbO.HQQo.
moo .+oon.
mwo.hmow.

030.+omm.

LII.

mso.womo.

omo.wamm
mmo.uoon.
oeo.momm.
mso.uoow.
.mp awe:
.Hum

.>

E

wso.uonm.
mmo.wwam.
03 .33.
poa.wonm.
mac. man.

m i0 +o:.

®¢O.wmm

[Q
o

eno.ummo.
.mm new;
.oua

.>H

oao.nmmm.

mao.wmma.

mmo.womn.
mao.uemm.
mm..«awm.

owo.umam.

bbo .+wmm
omg.mon..
on .fl mm.

000. a)».

a
so».-ama.

baa..moa.
mac .+oma.
omo.wmaa.
mmo.umna.
noo.noom.
on o. +omH.
soo.umam.
noo.wamm.
Hmo.flooa.
.mg.umaa.

.«moa.
mac.«maa.

4:4

LpoflinH gamma

.0!@

.HH

.mmma mpqmapwmgp damam pcopmmmfio mound mpofips> Sumo mo Moan smog mam

moo.maba. m8 .wa

wmo.wmma. Mo .mH

bmo.womm. P> .NH
®¢Q.Moma.
omo.wbHH. m4 .OH
wNQ.HQOm. NH .0
Hmo.wmba. an .m
HHO.M>©H. mm .§
mwo.HmHH. H0 .0

oo.fimmfl. Hm .m

LC

in .«ooa. mm .a
oao.ubmo. 02 .n
smo.«bam. mu .m
omo.unmm. OH .H

H.mm coma hpmflnw>

.fl weapon

.H psospmmpe

.«H mange

-40..

Table 15.

Table of significance between field trestments on tnc

basis of pencentsge jick for eich variety, 1323.
Treatment I. II. III. IV. V.
Series A. B‘C. D'”. F-G. H-I.

Variety 1928 192- IJBG 1323 1983
1. 10 4 4,5 4 no no
2. 255 no 4 no " "
5. IKE 5,4,5 ‘4,5 " " "
4. RS 4,5 4,5 4 " "
5. Gr 5,4,5 4,5 fl " ”
0. Cr 4,5 4 no ” ”
7o 32 42,5 5,5 A“: n u
3. Pl ”,4,5 4,5 4,5 " "
9. l2 4 4 no " "
10. AP 4,5 4,5 4 " "
11.3 4 4 4 " "
12. Vt 4,5 1,5,4,5 4 " ”
13. Ck 4, 5 4, 5 4, 5 no no
.14. 1? 5,4,5 5,4,5 4,5 n0 4
The weather was so dry in the fall of 1929 that it

'was impossible to obtain a percentgge pick.

An example for interpretation of this table may be

found with Table 12.(p.58n.)

3. Relationships.

l.Genera1 observations.

In general, the correlation surfaces were about
the srue both years. A few typical Scatter surfaces have
been selected from the 1ar;e number actuallyconputed in
order to give some idea of the distributions obtained, and
they are given along with the diScussion of the characters
concerned.

The sugerinposing-the-means method (Table 16) of
combining all varieties to obtain a total pogulation was used
in all Cases, because it was though to be the more desirable
method of obtaining combined results. It gives coefficients
which are not significantly different fvon those obtained by
combining the varieties by the ordinary method (Table 17),

h wever as shown in Tigures Io. IV. and 30. V., when the means
of each Variety are so different it may cause the reader to
wonder whether such unlike groups of frequencies may be com-
bined in the usual manner into a total population correlation.
Both of the correlation coefficients may be found at the bot-
tom of'Tables 18, 22, 26, and 55 so that any one not fully
.convinced that the super-imposing method is a superior method
for combining unlike populations may compare the two results
and take either m thod for what it is worth.

All plots of a Varie y, unless omitted for soil var-
iability as mentioxed previous y, regardless of treatment, were

used to obtain the varietal correlations.

The correlation coefficients for the total popula-
tion as obtained by the ordinary method of combining tables
(TP) and by the super-injesing-the-means method (3) were not
computed for the 1923 data in Tables 13, 2d, and 55.

If no "r" values are found under the columns designated
as "corrected, as descr’bed in text", in Tables 13, 22, 26,
and 55, there was no change made in the "r" value over these

coefficients found in the first column to the left of the one

under consideration.

Q.
11 -
‘13

w a: v3 cu m
m
H

<9 01 0-1 0‘0 C0
C3 <14 b”)

L’)
C \2
H

OH

.mm»

m

omHo.« omen." Hempooanoov p mmHo.m area." a

...I

"

‘3
V
(“2

Hlmv H “H1
ANVHH
H
m b 0

NH HH on mw no HHH mHH HOH «d 0H

H1
“Ha
H
my H H
H1 H H H H
a e n a m m H n
no n n e o o o m H
H H o 0 DH mH Hm s n a
H 5 NH am mm H: OH n H
a o om mm an no mH
H a H 9H mm 0H m.
H m n HH m m
H

m w n m H 3 HI MI at w:

.mzsos one bznmomqupoadm Hp moHpsHjnom HspoH

.va cHlo on

«My ozH> mo pzmHos mooapoo moHpsHoppoo

H

bad?

(0

r—{Nt’D'd‘LQ

.OH oHnaB

‘r

x) and yield (Y), 1929.

J

(

1118

t of v'

‘A
e
A-

Wei;

,-
.‘

'88

Q
I

bet\

T1
. ‘

tio

Table 17, Carrel;

131821113.

4- 1q
dd‘

. Sing

her-inno

..

ation by not su

h

otal penal

m
1

LO

LO
C3

5

75

01
LO

2

CI

175

.r
1

53:3!-
>48}

02

L’)

.4

LG
L\
0,]

7

3o 29 13

“1
{.4

r’?
L)

[D
N
L")

7

13

37

L0
L0

t")

t’)
a}

(‘1

E?

l
A

l;‘.

1 15

LC)

<14

{'3

18 14

17

9

(:4

F)

LO

‘4'!

(‘3

[’3

L0

Li)

[0

C?

L")
L\
ID

10

l :3
03
LC)

(‘7-

,'\

CI

(1)

(1)

L0

D-
2’.)

/‘

\J

r"

\J

9“"

\.J

LO
LO

V4

9

2 116

94 114

L0

37

-.C153

.t

vtr‘v'2'r:
‘/~.Ju

a. shelling to weipht of vine. ‘

The reM tionslni33betuee1 shelling and r ht oi
vine was not so strong as 't possibly Wo1"d be over a period
of years. Table 18 gives hie 31111 of the "r" values “or
1993 and 13... Tywicii sarfnce" are Tables 1;, Jo, and 2 .
The tendency has for a negative Cori eM tion, the creator the
weight of vine the lee: the Sh‘111n3, “n 1323, but the follow-
in; year the reverse w.s true. Unfortunately none of the cor-
relations gave a si gni: ic -nt coefficient. It i’ interesting
to note that, if the p:int3 of inters;etion of the two means
of each variety are plot d for sgelling and weight of vine,
there is a ,uite stronb reJative relati~nsiin in 1929. The
smallness of the 1:2; counts may ~xnluin the lean of correla-
thJIC1f these inrberectic;;s .Ln that ;Vair.\;i mums; 0.17, oft
1).

If the four varieties (M5, M5, no,.and L2) which are

“rarertly aoo e the

(TF) both years are

average weight 0i vine of all Var i'ties
Contaie‘ for shelling, it is noticed that

with the e"ee;tion of 115 he; tend to he below the avre_:_.~e (T?
in shelling, especially :6 and no. ‘If the four varieties(£3,

10, Gr ‘16. '51) which are appresciably baled the average ’.'.’—‘i;;ht

of vine (T2) bot1: years are con med for snelling, it is noti-
eed that two of tuna; L3? in” er) shelled.rrnx3 ooth 5 are than

the average (If) V-ile the other two ;o:e LLU consistent in

their reactions.

«V "'
- -
‘3 U

While h5 has a larger vine Tet it is undesirable
on account of its hi;h shelling counts Io sum up the indi-
vidual variety relations ins and the intsi

" . ‘1’ -"“ "‘ "W’0I‘ "31' —‘ .2." ‘0" V" I "4'" '1'“,- ) "" f “ . 3" N‘ ‘ .f—f . :‘
Sill-133 bile Dent}; ell tbilhvslb‘)’ , .-1 ya]. U119 (3-10:3;th h l

the larger viies to have the snaller

‘ . ,. . . ‘ r. _‘ u", H 1 - ~, I“
amount oi shelling

\v

1;)

smo.wmmH.
mmo.w0ss.

o.wm H.

LC)
CD

L

A.

wHH.wbmo.

[17
F ’4
F4

1'11

.H

mmo.waeH.
mmo.wmmo.

mm3.mooH.

aoH.wHam.
aOH.ume.
mHH.woao.
moH.woom.
QHH.HHeH.
mHH.Mooo.u
soH.ummm.
maH.“eaH.
moH.ummm.n
aoH.Hmsm.
HHH.«onH.
HHH.umHH.
.mm a

..Q

oopHpomoe ma .eopoonnoo he use 0

aoHpaOHHan manao ego um "emaoHocH mQOHm HHa-m was 4

r!

mpHodo

f0 (‘0
OJ C \1
Q 2)

O O
«H 4 |
a] m
D- t D
O L)

O O

l I

L!)
if?
Q

o
+ C
L\
01
J

o

I

aOH.moam.n

aHH.«omo.

a.mm p
.o

11

OHH.HHmH.s
mHH.uamH.u
aHH.«mua.
HHH.aoaH.
eHH.Haao.-
eHH.«aso.-
mHH.HaaH.
mOH.HHmm.-
OHH.Hsom.-
aHH.amoo.
HHH.haaH.-
mHH.HneH.a
p.mm a

.m

emo.ummo.n

OHH.wmmH.u
QHH.HewH.u
mHH.Hm;o.u
moH.usom.
moH.wamz.
QHH.wmmH.
mHH.ummo.
aoH.Haom.u
bQH.HnHm.u
mHH.Hmao.
QHH.HamH.u
aoH.HmmH.u
.H.mm .H

0d.

.pxop uH

nonopon HHom mo pedoooe no woppHao

.Aa.av ammH eaa

Ho.m.4v mmmH pom qu> go pgmHme aha neHHHozm amospop mooHa> aoHpaHonpoo

. m .mH

mU.¢H

pp .NH
mm .HH
m4 .OH

mm .0
mp .w
02 .n
mu” .m
OH .H

hpoHHnb

.aH OHpae

Table 19. Cofblation between shelling (X) and Weight of vine

(Y), 1929.

Total population by super-inposing the means.

1
-7 1
-6 2
-s 1 2
-4 2 s 2 1
‘3 2 o 8 4 5
-2 11 2o 19 11 e
-1 5 22 41 as 19
M 1 5 1e 26 :26 15
1 s 7 21 29 11
2 13 12 10 6
3 5 6 12' u 4
4 2 5 s
5 1 2 1 5
6 1 2 1
7
e 1
9 1

1 52 93 151 150 76

r =.l441.028

15
15

I‘D

{O

43

4 1 (l)
5 1 3 2 (2)
9 4 1 1
5 2 2 (1)
s 1 2 s
2 (l)
1
29 e 9 6 2 s

r (corrected) - .123t.027

-49..

Table 200
Correlation between weight of vine (K) and Shelling (Y). in 1929,

on Robust (Check).

X 275 525 575 425 475 525 575 625 575 725 775 825 875
10 5 5 5 1 2 16
5O 2 8 17 16 5 l 1 1 (2) (1‘) 54
5O 1 5 6 9 2 6 5 5 55
7O 1 1 5 6 7 2 (1) (1) 24
90 5 2 5 1 2 15
110 5 1 1 (1) 6
150 1 2 5
1 1 2

150
1 7 24 4o 55 19 9 7 4 1 o 2 2 2 155

r =.1601.055 r (corrected) =.199:.055

-50-

Table 21.

Correlation between weight of vine (X) and shelling (Y),

in 1929, on Early Wonder (23).

X 225 275 525
Y

10
50 5
50 2 2
70
90
110 1
150 1
150
170
190 1

575 425 475 525
1 2
2 1 1
2 1 1
1
1
1 1
7 4 4

r ..1833.109

575 625

56

-51v

b. Yeight of vine to yield.

From the correlation studies on weight of vine
to yield very significant relationships were observed for
both years (Table 22), in spite of the differences in weather
conditions.

The highest "r" obtained was on Early Honder
(22) in 1929 (Table 22) and was .855-.030 which is 28 times
its probable error. The smallest "r" was .435-.093 On Robust
Selection In 1928. Tables 23, 24, and 25 tend to show the
strong relationship of weight of vine to yield. When the
lleans of each variety were plotted as to weight of vine to
yield there was also a noted tendency toward a positive rela-
tionship.(Figure No. qujpart 2). Therefore, there is not
only a strong coefficient of correlation on each separate
variety, but there is also a marked relationship between
varieties, that is, a variety with a small vine will be ex-
,pected to produce low yields, while a variety with a large

'vine will be expected to produce greater yields.

MICHIGAN sTATE COLLFGF.’ '

 

 

ET A :t v 3 1 ~-—~.,-—,...._..._..
kt : ~neahs r1httee,
I

EH-

éf 1&55729221‘553TEPV5'1'

~11

3‘ ”$2.
:0”
F3

1111

' _1. 31111111111 to, 391nm; of vhhe 1938 am 1929

Weight Of V138 1928.

l

snail-1:13; 191251;?” ~.—. ‘
' “b 115?»'
5’ ;¢?“g

§»‘
on

.101
Q

l

1.1..

121

 

'03
. I :19

.,w
5%

..53‘.

 

:350 515  1Qa ~1111,1hp_

.11

r
- I6 1‘“

51'?

:5? £3

 

hf‘b‘

4* _ ‘ 9”

.MI'

, u"

. I E;

Figure No.

'3 .

‘ tfl
CD

mam—re. mas.

{..J
m _
p

H
(:1
D

II ' m‘w

E.

 

~ 170:

, _. . .. , ,1.
1 1 :‘ll ‘ ' ’
V . .
.L__A . .. . .
113 z,. 9 ',
I '. , - _
7. , -< . :e
I V ‘ O

ht 11:! vi

425;

l
’W ’

e111» o1: 11111:: to ”field 1921 aha was
" ”1616 1928.

 

coo ‘_

 

,jneig

11%
1%

1V2.

 

L"

‘ . Vvvfi 'Tfi ., Y
Q o- . - bvo~-.-1i‘ I.
,. .

o—-—‘ - I O

 

EBIghi'of Vine 1929;

 

p
5%
uh-mu —.—_-‘- -"‘- -

‘1 O V . '1
”—--I -——~———-u-..— a...

a
\.L_. ,;

_-—“‘ .I.—- u.-

Yield less. .__

"‘n,

“111'

 

.-.“-J
)l- MA' "EMAIL -.

U- I‘AIH'IH M!

 

 

 

Illa

 

 

eHo.Haee.
mao.wmmm.

Heo.+enm.

eoa.«eem.

who.momm.

O
O
O
+ I
O
m
JO
0

uaoo poo once mQOprHmpnoo
m Meeehaoae meoan Has - o

mmmd use «n.4v mmma camflh was maH> mo anHoB 2058909

cad .HmB
nao.weao.
Hmo.H08
om .vmnm.
aeo.ymae.

mmo.wmow.

oeo.+ame.
Heo.weae.
oma.wamo.
aea.wene.
oao.weae.

.H .HnH .H

.pqomohs

mae.wmaw.

EH00“ WHO.

omo.uoam.

.m

.pHmp esp QH wopfiaomou mu

mae.HeHe.
eao.weeo.
emo.wmae.

who.»omm.

(D
4-:

00. moo.

. mom.

2’)
O

b

moh.weme.
who.»emn.
aeo.-aet.
moo .wono.

who.Hhme.
hoo.wamo.
mmo.ummm.
Hmo.uoha.

PH . .I-
.n.» ML. 1H

*1

.4

mzoflphofianma Had you @mma aw wanna
.wmpommnoonxm one
.wmppfiao coHpaOfiHmmn epflpuo 0:0 I 4 .An.ov

mosah> coapwaopnoo

p> .NH
H .HH
m4 .OH
NH .0
am .m
NH .5
.HO .0
Ha .m

5m .6

>pmaph>

.mm mange

Table 25.
Correlation between weight of vine (X) and yield (Y), in 1929,
on Early Vonder,(E2).

X 275 525 575 425 475 525 575 625 675 725 775 825
525 l 5 5
375 2 3 2
425 l 2 2
475 2 l

P' 5‘ to 94

525 1
575 . 1 1

525

575 1
735 '

775

3:5 (1)

HOOHONNOQCDO

r ;.855+.050 r (corrected) :.8293.056

This correlation is more than twenty times its

probable error and is very significant.

-54-

Table 24.

Correlation between yield (X) and weight of vine (Y).

in 1929, on Robust (Check).

X
I
275

525
375
425
475
525
575
625
675
725
775
825
875

225 525 42
175 275 575

1 1 5
2 8 7 7

5

01
F3

475

5 11 15 10

1 10 12

1 2 3 4
1

2

1

NMU‘

.4 P1 :5 Id 9. +4

625 725 825 925
575 675 775 875

1 (l)(2)
(l) (1)
(l)(1)
(1)

(1)(1)
(l) (1)
(1)(l)

l 1 5 21 31 4O 27 10 6 O 4 5 O 1 2 1

2 3065610051

r (corrected) ;.554t.04l

ea :5 m. an
{DOOPQ

NNNOI—‘IPQKO

155

Table 250

Correlation between yield (X) and weight of vine (Y),
in 1929, on 1500-1 (10).

1' 225 275 525 375 425 475

‘Y
275

325
375
425
.75
525
575
625
675

1

1
2

1

1
1
2
1
2

1

1 3

2

4 1 3
1 1
9 5 3

r ..6141.070

525 575 625 675 725 775 825

(l)

r(correoted) :.37lg.098

01

11

gHOI—‘Gu

0. Stand to yield.

Bus to the fact that Two years with
diverse weather conditions were the basis of this work,
very different results were obtained (Table 26). In
1928 the correlations were small but most of that ind-
icated that the greater the stand the larger the yield.
Vermont, in 1025, showed a .4lOt.CS4 correlation, which
is over four times its e ror, but all of the other cor-
relations in this group are small and not significant.
In 1929 nest of the coefficients were negative. (Tables
2;, 27, 23, and 23). This would tend to show that the
fever the olants, within limits, the Qreater the yield.
Since but 0.27 of an inch of rain fell in August 1523,
(Table 2), the fewer plants there were the greater was
the yield because a Elant required a larger V“ea than
i: 1923 to obtain enough moisture to nature beans. In
1223, lurinv‘ the sane 1.;ont11 2.7.; inches or
tion fell.(Table 2). These amounts of rainfall probably
account for the positive correlations in 1328 and neg-
ative correlations in 1929. In 1923, it was noticed that

many plants were unproductive.(Figure No. IV). The

questions then arose, how much of a factor is this, and

.4

low much does it effect the relationshi.s? The number of
productive plants(second stand)was correlated witn yield and
but little relationship w s noticed within the variety.

itself. (Tables 30, 51, and 32).

-57-

Although little relationship exists between stand
and yield in e variety, when the means were plotted for
eech variety, e positive relationship is noted (Figure No.
7. part 4). This shows that those varieties with the larger
number of plants per row give the highest yield. This is
emphasized still further when the second stand is considered.

(Figure No. v. part 4 ).

-58-

omo.emna.-

mmo.wmao.- moo.wmoo.

«mo.woma.- me.Wmoa.u

moo.wooe.- moa.wnom.u
HHH.umoa.-

soa.nmnm. ooa.umem.

aoa.umem moa.»oom.u
soa.weam.-
moH.HnoH.u
HHH.wsmo.u
maa.waos..
moo. +mnm.
maa.wmao.u

52H. .mno maa.wemo.

soa.wemm.u moa.wooa.u

p.mm H H.Hm a

U h

.pxop esp ea wonfiaomou mo oopoeppoo 6.5 r.o mxpao

qofiprHHmon onapcm

.mmma no.9

moo.snaa.-

moa.wn>o.l
omo.wmmn.l

moH.wsmn.a

oaa.waaa.
«59.25Ha.-
5.md n

a”.
ft

moa.wmem.
was.»Oso.

sea.»msm.u
moa.umon.-

©0H.Howm.l

omo.wemn.
maa.uano

moo.wooe.
moa.
oaa.yswa.u

boa.wa
n

.114
Ruhr .H

D

ago m mooodaocfi mpoan Haw 2.9.4

3 0
man” I

L‘
”I
x.)
0
+4
,4
‘3
(3}
0

L0
CG
0
e
+l
L‘
r (j
t")
o

N
U)
O
O
+ .-
‘14
t”)
N
O

«Ha.weaa.

.Hnm .H

0

.He].

mo.wmaa.
umO .+Nmmo

mmo.woflm.

mao.woae.

eaa.wmwo.-

eaa.meso.
«Ha.wmno.

naa.wmso.u

mod .+DH2.
moa.wman.

omo.ummm.

nfla.wsmo.-

ooa.wmmm.
moa.wmam.
soa.wnam.

.H

54

'7.-

m

n .ma

my .ea
meo.ymen. so .mH
emo.woaw. p> .ma
mHH. usmo. mm ..2
maa.ummo.u as .oa
maa.wmao. ma .m
maa.uamo.- an .m
oaa.weea. mm .a
soa.wsam. no .5
ooa.umem. no .5
soa.woam. mm .5
HHH.weoa. on .n
maa.ummo. mm .m
maa.eoao. OH .H
5.nm 5 apmsns>

4

5wonmpoa Haom mo pedoooo so umppaao

V was «o.m.4v mmmH oaowh was endpm pmnfim somspop modam> nofipmaonpoo .m

.mmmH no.mv anon» ens eqepm eeoomm omaa

m magma

'59-
Table 2?.

Correlation between yield (X) and first stand (Y). in 1989.

Vermont.
X 225 275 325 375 425 475 525 575 625 675 725 775

as 2
90 1
95 1
100 1 2
105 1 1 1

110 1 3. 1 1
115

120 1
125 V

130 1
135 1 1

to to ya la
(0 Ik N! (D IF 0’ Oi (8 N’ F‘ (fl

.5
0’
p.
‘8
pa
C)
.9.
t0
._.
pl
Ci
C>
pa
(3
O)

r 3039910095

Correlation between yield (X) and first stand (Y) in 1929.

{fltP-UNH

O.)

Table 28.

Total Population (3).

'5 '4 -3 ‘2 -l H l 2 5 é 5 6 7 8 9

1
1
2
1 (1) 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 l (l)
1 1 2 3 3 1 2 3
1 3 1 1 1 1
1 4 6 2 3 6 1 2 1
1 3 5 3 5 4 5 3 1 1 2
1 9 7 9 9 4 1 1 1 1
1 6 9 12 1010 7 6 3 1 1
1 3 8 15 8 12 5 1 1 1 (1)
3 10 12 10 6 6 2 2 3 1 (1) 2
2 5 14 21 18 9 1 2 3 1 (1)
2 8 16 19 19 7 V 3 1 1
2 7 13 10 9 7 2 1 1 (2) (1;
2 3 6 ll 4 2 (l)
1 2 1 1
1 1
1

10 é4 103 115 111 85 42 28 ll 12 9 6 6 3 l

r ;.2151.027 r (corrected; =.2601.UBQ

NOHH

<10“!

-61—

Table 29.

Correlation between yield (X) and first stand (Y) in 1929.
Robust (Check)

225 525 425 525 625 725 825 925
X 175 275 575 475 575 675 775 875

70 1 1
75 1 1
20 1 (1) 2
85 1 1 2
9o 1 1 1 3
95 1 3 4

100 1 1 1 3

105 1 1 2 1 5

110 1 2 4 3 2 2 1 1 16

115 1 1 2 2 1 (1) a

120 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 15

125 1 3 8 6 4 23

130 1 5 9 10 5 2 2 1 35

135 1 1 6 2 4 6 2 (1) 23

140 1 3 7 (1) 12

1 l 5 21 31 40 27 10 6 O 4 5 O 1 2 1 153

r -.195t.053 r (corrected) :.266t.051

Correlation between yield (X) and second stand (Y), in

-52-

Zablo 30.

Vermont

X 225 275 325 375 425 475 525 575 625 675 725 775

‘Y
80

85
90
95
7100
1051
111)
1151
12K)

1

3
1

3

1 2
1 1

1 1
1 1

4 3 10

r u.195t.053

1
1

1 1 (1)

r (corrected) 3026610051

1929.

-63-

Table 3]..

Correlation between gield (X) and second stand IY),.1n 1929.
Bobult (Check).
225 325 425 525 625 725 825 925

I 175 275 375 475 575 675 775 875
'Y

70 1 1 1 (1) 4
75 0
80 1 1 2 1 5
85 0
90 1 2 1 4 1 1 10
95 1 5 2 5 1 1 11
100 1 1 2 1 4 3 4 1 17
105 3 5 5 1 1 1 (1) 1 7
110 1 4 5 4 2 1 1 3 1 22
115 8 3 5 3 2 16
120 1 4 6 9 6 2 28
125 2 4 8 1 15
130 1 1 2 (1)(1) 5
135 1 1 2

1 132131402710604501 21153

r . -.1103.052 r (corrected) : -.1551.054

Table

~r-

fl

0

0
“0

Correlation between yield (A) and second stand (Y), in 1329.

X '5 '4 “5 '2

Y
-a
-7
-6 2
-5 2 2
-4 1 1 2
-3 2 4 '7
-2 2 3 14
-1 1 6 11
o 2 9 17
1 2 10 17
2 6 l3
:5 1 1 12
4 2 1
5 :5
6 2
7
8

1 10 44 103

13
22
18
21
16

115

r =‘109I0052

Total Population (3)

O 1
1
2 4,
l 3
3 5
6 8
14 15
10 11
15 7
16 8
16 12
16 5
7 5
1 2
3
111 83

r (corrected) -.l561.054

COCDKBCROJ

m

[0

42

1430307103!“

(A

CO CR ()3

Nil-4

4 5
1
1
1

l 1

2

3 4

2 2

3 1

1

1

11 12

O)

F‘ +4

(O
O

95

100

1.4
0
(11

Stand 1928.
H
I...)
c»

115

120

.40

Pick 1928.

.45

.50

o
(7
(,1

Keans Plotted.
3. Stand to Yield 1928 and 1929.

Yield 1928.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

figure Io. v.'

250 500 550 600 050 375 400 425 450
.I0
100 .5,
H
.105 W‘
yr .9
:3
47 H 110
:MS
'3 .vr
C! “5 'a lo
1F 00"
.E3 .11 -51
0R5
41 lPO
-M6 .1
_chr
4. Other Relationships.
Weight of Vine 1928. Yield 1929.
11135Q 5751 46D 425 450 375 4C0 425 450
3? 1
.35
M6 $7
J1
. :5 90 -H
.33
Jr Mr _3 .me
13 F1 AF
53 35
"’° .0: .TP '2 '0'
mp S
’3 100 .w mr
'd .53 .TP
g .m
0 f"
9% 100 la. .51
.VT ‘ J"
110 'c“
If)
I

d. Pick to weight of vine.

fi’)

Some interesting coeiiicients of correlation
were computed in 923 on pick to weight of vine. (Table BBL
This relationship could only be secured in 1923 as there

was no pick in 1929 due to sraall aznounts o1 prec pitation
during‘harvest. On individual varieties all but two of the
"r - values" were nerative and 302 e quite significant

results were conputed. This indicates that with an a erage
amount of rainfall during ha vest, varieties with lar e

vines will have the less pick. Small vines are not so strong
and the pods are more likely to be on the ground before and
after pulling, whereas the large vines would tend to hold

the pods up and prevent mold and discoloration. Three sig-
nificant correlations all greater than four times their
probable error, were obtained frog loco-1, lexican Tree(x5)
and Early Wonder (33), as shown by Tables 34, 35, and 36,
respectively. The r-values for tie check and total popul-
ation, although not significant, tend to show that a neg-
ative relationship is present. (Tables 37 and 58). When the
f
means of each rariet by 1or the one vear were plo ed as to
weight of vine and pick (Fig. XoV'part 4) there is negative
trend, which shows that a large vined variety is more cap-
able of h lding its pods 01f the ground, and the beans are

cured fre er of mold and discoloratiol. such Varieties, as

Fliter, areiner, and Vermont, had he hi hest pick, and phey

had relatively small vines; while Robust Selection and Hex-

ican Tree inc) were anon; the large vined varieties and had

he least pick.

-67-

Table 35 . Correlation values between pick and weight of
vine 1928(2, B, C.) A-all plots included; B-one entire
peplication onitted on adount of soil hetero;eneity; C-

corrected as described in the text.

A. B. C.

Variety r-PE.r r-PE.r r-PE.r

1. 10 *.dl3t.070 -.630t.069

2. 25 -.153t.llO “.4421.092 -;422t.094

3. M6 -.159t.110 -.220t.109 -.222f.108

4. RS -.214f.107 -.0541.114 -.O781.113

5. Gr. *.2502.105 -.244t.107

6. Ct. ‘.115f.111 -.541f.101 -.235I.105

7. E2 -.219t.107 “.060f.114 -.0971.113

8. Pl “.05513112 -.0401.114

9. 12 “.0713.112 -.334f.101 -.299:.104
10. AB -.2861.103 “.317t.103
11. E3 -.472I.087 9.475+.O9O -.473:.OB9
12. Vt -.247f.106 -.276f.106 -.305t.105
13. OK -.1021.049 -.2cOf.033 -.188t.054
14. Tp -.280t.026 -.286:.026

15. s. -.224t.o27 -.2263.027

4‘

_68-

Table 340

Correlation between weight of vine (K) and pick (Y), in 1928.

1000-1.

X 50 1C0 150 2CD 250 550 350 455 450 500 550

F‘
03

.05

O3

.15 1

CO

2

2 1

.25 1 2 1
1

I3

.55 1

F‘ ID 53 EU

.45 2
.55 1 1 1
.65. 1 1

53 IV N) (R (N 03 CD

H
C)
9:
14
C)
D.
G)
19
C)
01
CR
CR
(51

Correlation between weight of vine(X) and pick (Y), in 1928.

..69-

Table 35 o

Kexican Tree (£5)

260 250 sec 350 160 460 sec 550 600 cso’voo 750

1
2
1
5 1

1 5 5 2 1
1 5 1 2 1
5 1 1

l

r : -. 4421.092

r (corrected) = -.122:.094

1 2
10

8

9

5

O

5

1 55

-70-

Table 56.

Correlation between weight of vine (X) and Pick (Y), in 1923.

Early Wonder (E3).

X 150 200 250 500 550 400 450 500 550 600

Y
.05 ' 2 1 3
.15 3 1 5 1 1 9
.25 2 1 1 1 5
.35 a 1 2 6
.45 1 1 2 1 1 6
.55 1 1
.65 2 1 a
.75 1 1
.85 1
.95 o
1.05 o
1.15 O
1.25 (1) m
1 o 2 7 7 4 a 2 4 35

r :-.475-.090

r (corrected) = -.4781.089

-71-

Table 37.

Correlation between weight of vine (X) and pick (Y), in 1928

150 _ 260 550 460 __550 _ 650 760 '

Y
.05 1 2 1 s 2 1 5 13
.15 2 5 1 a e 6 4 1 1 1 27
.25 1 2 1 s a 5 4 2 1 1 1 27
.35 s s 2 2 1 1 2 14
.46 2 6 6 4 4 2 1 1 26
. 55 1 4 3 5 2 2 1 16
.66 2 1 5
.75 5 1 1 1 1 7
.85 1 1 2
.95 1 1
105 1 1
1.15 o
1.25 o
1.35 (1; 1
1.46 (1) 1

1 O 6 24 22 27 25 19 12 8 2 O 4 1 149

r : -0200-0055

r (corrected) = -.183t.054

(OGJQOEUIVP‘OJNH

F‘ +4 I4 2- rd
2 on to be 0

Correlation between weight of vine (X) and pick (Y), in

K '6
l
2
1
4 7
1‘

-4 -6 -2
1 1
2 5
6 b 9
6 5 16
2 4 12
5 a 11
5 5 10
5 6
2 6 6
6 2 2
1 1 1
1
1 l
1 (l)
(l)
26 42
-.2243.027

..72-

Total Population (3).

-1 0 1 2 5
1
4 2 4 1
9 5 7 2 5
17 21 22 ll 5
26 25 16 15 5
17A 17 26 15 8
25 15 5 5 1
4 5 8 4 2
4 5 4 1
2 5 2 l
1 l 2 1
2
l 1
1 1
(l)

(l)

78 110 105 86 52 29 19

2 P‘ 24

r (corrected) 3 ‘

Cl
C‘.

928.

14
57
104
117

92

(33 IV)

:4 H

..‘73—

VII 00 ICLUSI L3

 

1. Since Kichigan leads in the production and

acreage of white pea beans, anv information that contributes

L:

J.

to the gen :al kn wledge of tie factors influencing yield

is of i portance.

q

2. An investigation was outline" to deternine

r

some of tie varietal factors inflaencing yield of white pea
beans in xichigan.

5. Thirteen varieties were chosen as represent-
ative of those 3rown in the state.

4. The factor sdealt with in this lIMfGS i3ation
were variety, stand, weiJ t 01 vine, shelling, pick, disease,
soil, fertility, and precipitation.

3. Such obstacles as weather, s.il icrt111.,, and

bean ma33ot, made it very inconvenient to put the two year's
data on an equal ‘asis. and were found to have quite an
e1 feet on t.e character 3 studied.

6. Cnly 220 of these varieties Hobast Q ele ctioh
and Larly Tender (351305) were better in }ield,both by F/C
metgod and in avera3e nixber of grams per plat than the check,
both years. The average dii “fa renee between these two 246 n t

+-;"". “‘7'. " M‘. u".‘:‘)‘./ l 7‘4. mr‘ A t‘ . “ ‘1 fl '1’ ‘ ~1 .’ . “: “
SUqblbclcallw cijulllcddw. .mlree VarldtLGb tmnxa statisticallm'

poorer, 1060-1, Iliter, and 1260-1.

-74-

CJ

min / P1 ’3‘ .‘ ‘\ r3, 4 'fi 1 1"." -'\ n -| r ., “I“ - .' ‘3 1 r ‘1 (w . — .5 'dlr 0--
7. lie D'éhu oi deans oer lot veiled Gonol'pldblgo

If? , g“ L”. 1'. w. _6 . '1', 1 “" 'y -\ «'L.-".'- [y “‘ - ‘V'. ". 1 . I" Vl‘ . ‘1’
no relation 3.1 LOLRQ be.neeL stand ail ileld Wltuln a Earlet;1

.m.

-‘

‘3 I? 'v ‘ I .q" ' "0‘ “4 . _J ‘ . r“ ’l" . -L I - ‘ u I " - "~ ‘ '\‘ f‘. ,“" ‘ ‘." 1 4' “ ’v“
lLO‘dG’JeI' TaitC‘oU VallCTJICS alibi the 111338.? 1-71.3.1)le ‘ _liAnbo L-C’JI’

i
0
F1.)

'3' “.fl ‘7 I“ ' ‘1“ " ‘7. a “I. r‘
plot 3a.e tne glfluUr ,1elus.
C" I".~ v *‘ -“"r‘ ‘1 75' “‘1‘ --f‘ ‘-.“. ‘ ‘. r ‘3 r "a
u. Ine SGCOLQ stanc.(n1neer ii LlouhCLlVe Vlants)

was not a“ VmTlablB and is gore eleselr re utea to yield tLan
the first stand.

” Knee it is neegssuiy to leave beans in the field

U. -1.
‘ ~-.. '-~. ... -,. .. 43' --, J- .. - '1 . 1" 1 ._. ": ' ,
LOTS tian tto Leeks alter UneJ are ripe, ijss :10“ and Slull“

o 3 ., I N. 1 “_3 I ”4. ‘ ,- ' 3“ _ _,".JI.. ’_‘ -, "e" '1; -1 ‘ _ ,- .L 2 .2-‘ _,.’ .' '1‘ 1, ‘
ing LIJHL.1€bult, 1”. tne. are 1Ah.u st exudr3 uflbll. MAh' cl“ ae
P. “-4 1
harvested.
‘| r "V . IV .../K 'v- 4 ‘ ..‘4 J" .—‘1 ‘ -.“ - 3: r 4- - '- - — -. ~ ~. 3"

l o It ‘. .b IvLLnU. c-1411 Swine VLAJ. l3 ties, Gfl 8118.0 {Lia
7'-—r~' w-fi, {77115 "':‘-. ‘1": l d ""1 .-"".r .r, -n 1,\/3r_-4~.« t‘.r~~,‘ I}, 4‘I~f_,- 1‘,“-
;.‘CJLlCd.L .L.L‘v8\1..u , b1-§/.L e $.Jel. ...OLG bullb LLQll U.‘Le OUlbr V“;
. "V . V‘fi ’~_ ‘4' "_ . ‘x I“ v-w -"' ins , ’ ‘ r~ 4“ . ,‘r“ -n- ' --
ieties 11 the teSt unile etners , neoust leGCUlOJ, Canter,
U H I 1“" I‘l‘r ' ‘3‘ II 3“ if“) “I,“ all 3 ' ' '7‘»: ”'3 t . " 31’. “i‘ "v 'r‘. 3‘ ' 'n ’3 w—
MLLQ a—JdL J in-lU.CJ. uh! ’ Al'v {du 00‘. 5;:qu 1V9 J .LeJ ‘JCdllS, l; Eds-‘4‘

Treatments I and V

cf-
, .
p.
(D
(
Pd
('0
|,.’
c %-
y—r
',_.
(D
:3
(.1.
:1
03
L?)
p:
I

’-
[._J
Cl"
y a
._.
Q
,9
r."

ective of

gave the least counts.

ll. It was found that varieties with lar3er wei3gts

of vine rave tne greater yields.

13. Correlations snowed Lnap lar e vined varieties

tended to have less pick tl‘n tge smaller Vineu sorts, and also

\

K

tnat witiin a variet; tne plots wit; tne larger vines na‘

the s aller 310g yer enta3es.

15. Shelling had a tendency to be less on the larger
vined varieties, with the exception of Mexican Tree (850205),
and on these plots with large vines.

14. In order to increase yield it is necessary,in
addition to having as good environmental conditions as poéible,
to obtain a variety which has a large proportion of productive

plants, a large vine, a low shelling count and a low percentage

pick together with the intrinsic characters for high yield.

.076:

- nvn'nw r “‘7‘ "-T - “n”:

hUlM-‘\,-IVWU31Q.VWAJ ‘ A .

 

The author is greatly izdebted to Professor
E. E. Down and Kr. H. L. Brown for outlining th's problem
and makin3 it rossiole for him to early it out. The Writer
also Wishes to thank Professor E. E. Down, fir. H. K. Brown,
and Er. F. H. Clark for their help and suggestions. Ap-
preciation is also due these men for constructive criticism

and the final review of this thesis.

-77;

LI-furzi-m33 CITE“

 

Agricultural Year Book. United states Department of
Agriculture, 1254 pp., Government
Printing Office, Washington. 1927.

Babcock, E. B., and Clausen, R. 3., Genetics in Bel-
ation to A5riculture. 675 pp., fie Graw
Hill Book Co. Ind., N. Y. 1927

Cox, J. F. , and Pettigrove, E. 3., Bean Growing in
michigan. Rich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Spec.
Bull. 129; l~2l, 1924

Crum W. L. and Patton, A. 0., Economic Statistics.
536 pp., A. W. Shaw Co., London. 1925

Down, E. 3., and Brown, H. fi., Investigations with
strains of Bea s. Kich. Agr. Sta. Spec.
Bull. 156: 1-9, l926

Harter, L. L. Thresher Injury Cause of Baldhead In
Beans. Jour. Agr. Res. 40: (4) 571-584,
1950.

Hayes, H. K., and Garber, R. J., Breeding Crop Plants.

45: pp., Kc Grew Hill Book Co. Inc.,

(.1)

1:. Yo 19270
Pettigrove, H. R. "The Kchaughton System of Curing Beans."
Llich. A;_-;r. Sta. guar. Bull. 9: (5)

115-116. 1927.

Fettit, R. H.

S:raggg I: O A.

Common Tests of Field an”

. ~m

Th. “' I.‘ 7‘ 31—- W-
tale)... A‘QL‘. h‘I:F/O Qua. .‘Q'Jeco

1'77. 1329.

The Coefficient of Yield.

fq. '1 _ I
garden Crops.

B11110 1‘38:

3' 0 ur . Ame r .

Soc. Agron. Vol. 12: (5( 153- 174. 1920.

 

‘ .V
r ' atmv . ..
' .9?“ ‘4. *‘v y" I‘\ 1

STATE UNIVERSITY LIBF‘AF L':

27

;,1h;‘,-¢:\'3Ar. ‘ ‘ ‘ ,_ 7
H WWW
‘ M ‘\ j" ‘1‘Ihl‘.
3 1293‘ 03177 38