'BIOMETBICAL STUDIES OF_ GREENHOUSE STRAINS -_OF TOMATOES THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF M. 8,, William Grant Hastings ‘ ’ 19,32 , ¥ THESIS BIOMETRICAL STUDIES OF GREENHOUSE STRAINS OF TOMATOES by WILLIAM GRMET HASTINGS A THESIS Submitted to the Faculty of the Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the require- ments for the degree of Master of Science Department of Horticulture East Lansing, Michigan 1932 Wflaya’é/FJL /W/ag TH ESlS >i¢>$*:t********** The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to those who have aided in the preparation of this paper: To Professors V. R. Gardner and C. S. Mahoney and to \ \ \ L - Foreword Mr. H. L. Seaton special acknowledgements ‘\ /\ are due . 96521 INTRODUCTION Since the tomato belongs to that group of plants in which only a small amount of cross pollination occurs, the question arises as to the practicability of selection within a so-called pure line. Some plants in the spring crop of 1931 in the greenhouse at Michigan State College appeared to be superior to the average of all the plants for such characters as total yield, fruit size, fruit color and early maturity of the first fruit clusters. It is the purpose of this study to determine by biometri— cal studies of the progeny of these selections whether or not the variation of certain of the above characters are heritable or are due purely to environmental condi- tions. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Several investigators of the tomato plant have employed biometrical analysis. myers (6) with common garden tomato made comparisons between certain parental forms of tomatoes and what seemed from ordinary methods of observation to be pure recessives of a cross between two varieties of tomatoes having pronounced contrasting characters. The characters studied were the number of fruits per plant, the average weight of fruits per plant, -2- and the total weight of fruit per plant. A significant difference between the parent strain and the pure recessives was found for average weight of fruits. This difference was not distinguishable by the usual means of observation. A significant difference between the total weight of fruit produced by the two strains was found. There was no essential difference between the strains of the pure line parent. Brown and Hoffman (l) with canning type of tomato in the field took measurements of the greatest equatorial and polar diameter of the fruits. These were divided into classes according to type of basin, and on the amount of skin cracking around the cavity. The mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variability with their probable errors were calculated for each set of measure- ments. They found that diameter measurements have a direct value in determining size of fruit and also of fruit shape. Their correlations showed that large fruits are more susceptible than small to blossom end rot. Knott, (3) working with tomatoes in the field, found a negative correlation between total yield and the production of early fruit, that is, the first third of the actual picking of marketable and unmarketable fruits. This involves the relationship between the growth of the first fruits and their effect on the vegetative development of the plant. Lindstrom (4) in a report -3- on crosses of large oblate x small ovate; or large round x small ovate type, presented evidence of a high positive correlation between shape of fruit and size. He also found (5) by use of multiple correlations that the number of seed locules had practically no influence on fruit weight. The polar and equatorial diameter determined the weight to a considerable extent, although the polar diameter was surprisingly small in comparison with the equatorial diameter. The specific gravity of tomato fruits was variable, with a tendency for the smaller fruits to have a higher specific gravity. Burk and Roberts (2) suggested that strains of tomatoes be selected for the fall crop and others for the spring crop to meet the conditions prevailing at these seasons. MATERIALS AND METHODS Seeds of the Grand Rapids forcing variety were obtained from Hart and Vicks Seed Company and the Grand Rapids Growers Association. Individual plant selections for unifOrmity and type under greenhouse conditions were made from 600 plants at the Michigan State College greenhouse in the spring of 1931. The individual plant selections were grown in two rows of six plants each, side by side, with presumably uniform -4- conditions for all selections. Comparison of nine different characters of the plants were made, these being: (1) weight of each fruit, (2) number of fruits per plant, (3) total leaf area per plant, (4) depth of fruit, (5) diameter of fruit, (6) number of leaves per plant, (7) distance between fruit clusters, (8 & 9) height on December 5 and December 12, and (9) the number of fruits per cluster. Data for the total number of fruits per plant included ripe fruit only. The leaf area was determined from an equation developed by Porter (’7), (y -..-. 45.16 4. .4175: + .507x2. xl- leaf length from first leaflet). Since some of the lower leaves had dropped before their measurements were taken, the mean of those measured was used to calculate the area of those missing. Each plant was trained to a single stem, and the terminal bud pinched out after the second set of measurements were taken. In determining the biometrical constants, and correla- tion coefficients, standard short cut methods were used. In comparing the different values, a difference of less than three times its probable error was not considered significant. PRESENTATION OF DATA The data for the average weight of fruit for each selec- tion and the number of fruits per plant are presented for the 13 selections, in tables (1) and (2). Data for the selections eliminated because of lack of accentuation in the characteris- tics showing in tables (1) and (2) are presented in the appendix. H on ma.ao m.m H on ao.om H.m "o H op om.ao o.» H on ooo.awe am.o H op am.mm a sense oHpmnonm an oooHpHo apHHHpoanop no soapsH>om memo opesHNonnmd ¢N.H fl¢¢.m¢ m¢.H.flmn.o¢ Hd.H1flb~..Hw Hm.HflN¢.mm ooHflnmAfi nN.HHmn.m¢ mm.H.flN¢.m¢ uwH.m floo.muv mo...” flmm.mw mm.Hflmo.ouv mn.Hn_u. $7?” oo.H flm¢.wn on.Hflb.on nN.HH meow H op Hem.H H op Hen.H H on ooa.mH H on ooo.ooa.eH H on oom.mH mddo usoHoHHMooo opeaHMonmaw mQOHpooHom «in o.m mmpm Him : = z c : = = e z = z z n swap mmoH Hm.m aoaao oHpmnoaa an oooa>Ho mH Mo macaw 31H fiom.om n>.H...unm.om ©.Hu_n mmjvm mm.H HmH.n¢ H¢.H.flom.m¢ oo.Hoo.muv so. Hoodm nH.Nflmn.mm mb.Hn.uoo.&m mn.Hflnb.mm H.mHom.om mm.H Hmoém mo.H Hootmw o.Hnfinn.¢m pansy Mom sowpmfiboa psmwos_qmma Amsmam QHV QOHpooHom gone now pHchm mo pnmaos mmmaoad. oep now * mmm NmH bmH mmH mH NH HH OH m mom mmH SH SH *fid OE” HOHpooHom . H mema msOHpooHom mH Mo macaw one now * z .. Hmewmodm .. - o Swami: 0mm ._ = = mo.Hw$.Hm H 8 SSH o Since;~ SH 2 i. : mHSfimmSm H 8 Hanna m Ewan: SH : = emanates H 8 mega Tn mm.Hoo.eH an i. ._ z emanates. .. .. m. eons $2 3. floodH mH = _. .. ooéhoodm H on Himm m on. 1.30.3 NH ._ = ._ Sandman H op «gem To omwoJH HH n can» mmoH améwomgm H 8. 89.2.. o Snood OH m. was 32 modifies H on roman a modem; m o Sawmmém .. .. a gas $3 83435 mom : __ __ «magmas H op Hen; mod Samoa mmH ._ _. z SH ”3us .. - a more 33 om. Heme oHH - .. m eon» 32 SH womHm H op m8; Hats 3. «8.3 5H Swim www.mm as. .3de *aooa sense oHnmpoaq posse memponm sOHpoonm mooo an oooa>Ho apHHHooHno> so mooo an oooH>Ho pagan Ho opmstonmgq sOHueH>oQ psoHOHMmooo opmsHaonmq< soHpsH>om senses mama psmam Mom mpfldam mo Mopedz .m oHpma I III‘J Table 1 shows that as to the average weight of fruit, Sela. 17, 11, 12, 18, and 123 were far below the mean for the group and, of these, only Sels. l7 and 123 showed greater variation than the mean, indicating that the weight of fruit was uniformly low in Sels. ll, 12, and 18, and variable in Sels. l7 and 123. Sel. 116 was outstanding in having low variability, with the weight of fruit greater than the group average, indicating this selection to be the most uniform in weight of the group. Sel. 128 had the highest average weight of fruit per plant and also low variability. Sel. 209 was similar, having slightly lower weight and slightly higher variability. The numbers of fruits per plant, as shown in table 2, varied considerably around 10.25, the mean. Sels. 17, 11, 12 and 123 had uniformly more fruit per plant, Sel. 17 having 15 and Sel. 11 having 14.9. Sel. 8 had a small number of fruits per plant, not far from the group mean, as did Sale. 10, 137, and 152. The number of fruits per plant did not vary extensively from the selection mean, indicating a uniformity in this character within the selections. An increase in number of fruits was accompanied by greater variability. quHpomHow mH Mo macaw on» now * = = ._ mm.Hnuoa.m - - = = n __ no..wma.mm mom n snap mmoH em.Humn.HH I u z : : mm. MHm.bm mmH H on e.omm m.e mo.H«ueH.mH n u = = : mo.H «mm.mm mHH m were mmoH om.musm.m u u m sen» mmoH we. «he.>m 5H H.H«Hmo.w mm. Hoe.am *seoa posse erwpoam scape oHpmnoam QOHpomHom mooo an oooHeHo apHHapoHnos ao mooo an eooH>He mo>ooH Ho opmsHaonmma QOHpeH>oo psoHoHMMooo opmaonamq< sOprH>om mopeds new: psmHm Mom mm>moH Mo sopadz .e oHpma : u z = = HH.HnflmmueH u n n sens mmoH mm. 40H.>H mom n u n seep mmoH om.nmmm.mH H on mam ne.e on. noo.mH mmH H on was in mm. www.mH .. s o = : mo. .HmNéH oHH u n a snap mmOH mH.Hhfino.mH s u m sane mmoH on. «ab.mH sH mo.Huwow.eH Ho. «om.mH *smofi House oHnmnona mouse oHpmpoam soHpooHom mooo an oooa>ao apHHapoHao> mo meoo an oooH>Ho some opmaHNonmmH sOHpsH>oQ psoHonwooo opmsHNoAmmH sOHpmHson mmoH sees mampmaHono madden OOH we mpHQd sH psmHm mom moan wmoH Hmpoa .m oHnma Table 3 gives the leaf areas for Sels. 17, 116, 128, 209. The total leaf area was generally grouped uniformly around the mean. Only two selections, 8 and 128, were significantly different from the group mean, both having greater leaf area, and neither showed variability essentially different from that of the group mean. Sels. 116 and 12, with greater, and 10, with less, variation than the group variability had means not appreciably different from that of the group. These data show that the leaf areas of the selections studied differed little from selection to selection. The number of leaves per plant, table 4, was uniform for all selections except 123, which had significantly more leaves per plant than the mean for the group with no greater variability than that of the group. Sel. 116 was the most, and Sel. 10 was the least, variable of all selections; these varia- bilities correspond to those found for leaf area (cf. Table 3). The number of leaves and the leaf area seem to be closely related. H op am.mm H.m om.nnmm.eH H on ooo.ame m.o oe.nflmn.mH I I = z : 0P... flfiwoflfl a u m sen» mmoH Hm.numo.aH mm. Hm.oH mouse oHnmpoam mooo an oooHpao apHHHpoHeoo no oneusoammH soHpmH>om psoHoHaaooo u I m snap mon we.numm.aH H op Hem.H n me.ufiom.mH I I = z = "3V. fimoobfi I a a swap mmoH mm. flme.aH m. HQHSH Moshe oHpsponm mooo an oooH>ao apHHHooaeoe so opoaHNonmmd :oprHbom psoHonwooo msoHpooHom mH Mo adonm esp sow * H op oom.mH o H op ooo.ame 0.0 H 0p oo&.mH o u u a swap mmOH House oHneponm oooo an oooH>ao oemaonsqu soHpmH>on mo.nl..nm.a. mom. oo.Hmm.¢ wNH mo.n_Hmm:v mHH $0.“...nmu3v bH mo.n+mo.o *eooe soHpooHom soposoHo smog whopoaHpsmo sH pHdsw mo soposmHm .o oHnma H on soHHHHp no 0H wo.auao.m mom H on ooo.ooa.aH o.m mo.«noo.o mmH H on ooo.ooa.aH m.m no.4umo.e oHH I I m deep mmoH so.“ oo.m eH monu.am.m *seoa sonno oHpmnonm . soHpooHom mooo an oooHoHo pHeae eooo no oposHMoamaH soHppoon named smog whopoaHono sH pHdm% wo gamma .m oHpma -11- The depth of fruit, table 5, varied extensively from the mean for the group but only Sels. 128 and 152 were greater in depth and in uniformity while Sel. 225 was more variable in depth. Only Sels. 209 and 10 had significantly less depth per fruit with no pronounced departure from the group variability. Depth, although variable among the various selections, was fairly uniform within each selection. Table 6 gives data for fruit diameter. This characteristic varied considerably within the selections. Sels. 128 and 209, though they had greater diameter per fruit, showed less variation than the group. Sels. 11 and 12, with smaller diameter than the group mean, were no more variable than the group mean, nor were those grouped nearer the mean. The selections seem rather uniform within themselves for fruit diameter. The distance between fruit clusters, as shown in table 7, was variable. Sel. 116, with clusters nearest together, was most variable of all selections and Sel. 18, with the greatest distance between clusters, was consistent- ly more uniform for this character. Although Sels. 17, 11, and 12 were less variable then the group mean and Sels. 209, 8 and 137 more variable, they were not significantly different from the mean. .ssogm mH »Hdsw msHodeoam mho»msHo on» go sees one .hHe>H»fioom:oo Homepads ones who»deo on» use .»maHm on» doHHeo mes ne»deo »moBOH 0:» ** msoH»ooHom mH Mo adonm on» you a I I z : : wot—n finbomfl I I : : : mH. Homon GON I I Ho... dumflp mWOH bmomflmbomm I I = t s 5H. fiH¢.& ®NH H 0» mm.nm m.n Hm.mufioo.mm I I n sen» mmoH NH..H%H.m oHH I I n sen» mmoH mH.HHoH.me H 0» mm a so. Heme 5H EZH Luanda HH. Hand anemia Mouse mHneponm soH»ooHem mouse oHQenonm a»HHHpeHae> Mo redo an doeHbHe who»deo mddo an doeH>He »seHoHMMooo o»esHNosqu soH»eH>oQ »Heny Mo new: o»esHHoaqm4 soH»eH>on mno»deo msHoseonm »Hdam** .m erea . 2 l . H o» $43 as oeH names I ,. = .. __ Ho. smoéH oom I I m sea» mmoH mm.»nnn.&m I I m sea» mmeH mn.uneH.nH mmH H 0» «.0Nn o.e mm.HiflaH.n¢ H 0» e.am m.m an.nuo¢.mH oHH o»HsHHsH s.HH mm.4uom.mm I I m sen» mmoH mm.nw>s.mH pH ooHflSém we. www.mH *seoa nonno oHnepoam House oHneponm m9o»deo soH»ooHom mddo an dodeHd h»HHHneHne> Ho mddo an doeHbHu soos»on o»eaHHonqm< soH»eH>on »quoHHwooo o»eusosqu soH»eH>om oose»mHo neofi mso»eaH»soo qH mso»deo »Hdhw sees»on eose»mHm .b eHneB -15- m sea» mmoH .. I o l I = 3 t m sea» mmeH m fififl$ WWOH .. I o I I = : z m sea» mmoH posse oHpeposm meeo an doeH>He e»eaHNonmm4 QOH»eH>oQ NH HTHoee .3. range mo.HH_uHo.a HTHHSS so. Home on. ”Town mm..fimm.m so. unboé mm.HIfibN.m mm. flame a»HHHpeHne> no neoHoneooo H on» Hem .H .H o» man H o» ooe.oH H 0» 0mm mddo e»eSHHoammd msoH»ooHom nH Mo mdoam 9 men» mmoH om.HHo.onH and om.mH¢o.moH m HMeg» mmoH om.mfimm.mmH ow mw.mHmH.moH mm...“ ”mew.an o mm.H mumH.NuvH mm.m om...” fiNmAIEH n neg» mmmH Hm.H floH.mMH o.¢ mm.m Luoo.bmH eeH weHeeH aoaao meeposm an dopoHd »seHm Hem soH»eH>on »£mHo£ seem sensooom one D sepamoon I mam»esH»soo QH »seHm Ho »smwom one mom * mom eeH oHH aH seea mom - mNH mHH SH *qeom soH»omHom . m mHQmB -14- The mean locus of greatest fruit-production, table 8, was the third cluster in all selections with the exception of Sel. 17, in which it was the second. Sel. 116 was the only selection with significant variation from the group mean, but no selection was both variable and different from the group mean to any extent. Most of the fruit from the fall crop is produced on the lower clusters and for the plants studied the third was the most frequently and most highly productive, with the first and second clusters each more productive than the fourth or subsequent clusters. The measurements of plant height appear in table 9. These for the first measurement, Sels. 10, 11, 12, 17, 116, 128 and 225 were uniformly taller than the mean for the group. No selections were essentially shorter than the mean, but Sol. 18 was most variable and Sel. 8 was least variable. Only Sels. 128, 17 and 12, were uni- formly taller at the time the second measurement was taken and Sel. 18 was still the most variable. The change in the number of tall plants indicates an unequal growth during the last week before the bud was pinched out, the greatest growth being made by shorter plants. Table 10. Weight of fruit in grams 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 weight of fruit is indicated by the data in Table 10. l-JQODH Correlation between depth and weight of fruit for selection 116 Depth of fruit in centimeters 12 21 A high correlation between the depth of fruit and 03014!“ IPN Is 51.5 54.5 57.5 40.5 45.5 46.5 49.5 f 15 12 19 21 14 105 -16- Table 11. Correlation between the diameter and weight of the tomato fruit for Sel. 16 weight of Diameter in centimeters fruit in grams 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 f 15 I l _ 1 25 1 2 4 7 35 l 7 5 13 45 12 12 55 3 19 22 65 14 2 1 17 75 7 6 l 15 85 4 4 8 95 3 3 l 7 105 115 l 1 f 3 3 ll 20 4O 15 9 2 103 :- -_-. 1:687 1:035 A high correlation between diameter of fruit and weight of fruit is indicated by the correlation coefficient found in Table 11. -17- Table 12. Correlation between leaf area and total yield of fruit for all strains combined weight of Leaf area (in 1000 sq. cm.) fruit in grams 9 10 11 12 13 l4 l5 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 f 50 l 1 150 l 1 2 1 l 6 250 1 l 1 6 2 2 15 350 2 2 2 2 6 4 2 l 21 450 l l l 5 3 3 6 3 1 1 1 l 27 550 l 1 3 2 2 5 4 4 1 1 2 26 650 1 2 l 3 2 4 4 2 2 1 22 750 l l 5 l l l l 9 850 l 1 3 2 7 950 l 1 1050 1150 l l f l 1 4 8 15 11 11 26 25 14 5 5 2 5 l 134 r 2 —.0936 £057? The data presented in Table 12, representing all strains combined, indicate a lack of relationship between leaf area per plant and total yield of fruit per plant, within the conditions of this experiment. -18.... DISCUSSION OF DATA One of the outstanding characteristics shown in’ this study was that the plants with the largest fruits had comparatively few fruits per plant. The number of fruits on a plant, rather than leaf area, seems to determine the size per fruit for the conditions under which the crop was grown. This is indicated also by the fact that Sel. 17 with the most fruits per plant had the lowest average weight per fruit. The distance between fruit clusters gave no indica- tion as to the number of fruits per plant. Lany of the clusters had no fruit and some only one or two. The weight of fruit and depth of fruit were found to have a correlation of4-.7265i:.03l3, which indicates that the depth has a great deal of influence on the weight of a fruit. Ieasurements of depth could be substituted for weight determinations with small sacri- fice of accuracy. This fact opens possibilities for studying fruit development by stages. Though variability in diameter and in depth of fruit did not differ materially (Tables 5 a 6), the correlation between diameter and weight of fruit (+-.687:h.035) was somewhat lower than that of weight with depth. It is, however, still rather high, as both were over six times their probable error. Brown and Hoffman (2) also have found diameter measurements to have a direct value for determining the size of .rb. -19- fruit. They found, however, that the diameter was of greater value for determining shape than for determining size of fruit. This seems to be the case in the present study although depth might be a more accurate indicator in other studies of tomato. There was no correlation between total leaf area and yield (-.0936:|:.0577), for the conditions under which the plants were grown. Porter (5) in unpublished pruning experiments found, however, that a larger leaf area was required in the fall to produce a fruit of a certain size than for one of the same size in the spring crop, indicating possibly a more active leaf metabolism under spring conditions. Shading of the lower leaves 'and fruit possibly has some effect on size of fruit. The leaf area and number of leaves per plant were both rather uniform for all selections, which gives a good indication that they were closely related; i.e., each leaf had essentially the same leaf area. The height of the plant and the number of leaves per plant were rather uniform, whereas, the distance between fruit clusters varied considerably. Rarely was a fruit developed above the sixth cluster, production being centered around the third cluster. From these data, the indications are that height of plant does not determine the size-of fruit unless the increased leaf area is necessary for the conditions during the time the crop is growing. It is a question as to just how much leaf area is required for the production of fruit for -20- the fall crop in which the fruit above the sixth cluster is negligible, the bulk of fruit being on the first three clusters. In selecting plants for size of fruits and production, apparently less consideration need be given to total leaf area, height of plant, depth and diameter of fruit, number of leaves per plant and distance between fruit clusters than to weight of fruit and number of fruit per cluster. The weight and number of fruit per cluster are the main characters for which selection is made in breeding, whereas, the other characters although they may have importance in special cases are not directly correlated with yield and weight of fruits for the fall crop. -21- SUIT‘LMZY Selection 17 had a higher number of fruit per plant, but they were smaller. The fruits were also rather variable in size, showing the selection did not possess the homogeneity desired. Selection 116 showed the least variation in number of fruits per plant, with the number of fruit per plant not significantly different from the mean. Selection 128 had the greatest weight per fruit, although not significantly greater than the group mean, and also a low number of fruits per plant. Selection 209 had the greatest number of large fruits per plant with no significant difference from the group mean and it was identical with the mean in variation. Selection 225 was high in number of fruits per plant, although not significantly different from the group mean, for either number or variability. Sels. 152, 137, and 8 showed a greater degree of homogeneity than the average for the group. -22- BIBLIOGRAPHY Brown, H. D. and I. C. Hoffman, 1924. Statistical data in tomato breeding. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1923: 215-218 Burk, E. F. and R. H. Roberts, 1931. Growing greenhouse tomatoes. Wis. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bul. 418 Knott, J. E., 1928. The effect of apical pruning of tomato seedlings on growth and early yield. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1927: 21-24. Lindstrom, E. W., 1927. The inheritance of ovate and related shapes of tomato fruits. Jour. Agric. Res. 34: 961-985. Lindstrom, E. W., 1926. Hereditary correlation of size and color characters in tomatoes. Ia. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bul. 93. Myers, C. E., 1926. Statistical studies of inheritance in the tomato. Penn. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bul. 189. Sel. v - H - M... SD CY -25- APPE NDIX Biometrical constants and data of the 13 selections -8 5-125 84 53.011.79 24.511.29 45.8511.69 Sel.-l8 v - N _ M - SD QV. Sel. V - N... M - SD- QT 5-110 118 45.20tl.14 *22.75£1.0 50.55£1.66 -l37 5-115 91 54.5541.6 22.7041.15 41.7741.41 V ,7, range of individuals Weight of each fruit in grams 10 11 12 17 5-110 5-105 5-90 5-150 65 164 156 180 52.5542.15 58.004.97 45.1041.06 42.941.09 25.7541.52 18.404.68 19.654.75 21.754.77 49.0012.14 48.4241.32 45.5941.25 50.7011.56 116 125 128 15-110 5-110 15-125 103 155 56 57.65t1.52 45.15tl.25 60.9042.10 19.854.95 25.054.88 25.5541.49 54.4541.00 55.4241.61 38.5411.58 152 209 225 10-110 15-135 10-110 77 101 123 56.5541.75 587841.58 56.2041.45 22.8041.54 25.5541.12 25.8541.02 40.5241.45 40.0841.25 42.44kl.24 . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . v . . ._ o o I o o o o o H I I a .. I . I a I _ o . .. . .I . .. . I o I M ,. . . .. T p , n a . a . _ I l I I O o o a . .. G O a . . 7 9 . n .. . x i I a I u I 0 o o . . u . I . I n I _ I . n 1 _ O O I I U l , o a I f I . Sel.-8 V - 2-12 N - 11 M - 7.64:.52 any 2.56i.37 cv- 53.5112.95 Sel.-18 V - 3-16 H - 11 H — 10.90:.74 SD? 3.651.52 dv- 33.49i2.95 V - 2-15 N - 12 It: - 70581055 SD.“ 2.75i058 -24- Number of fruitsper plant 10 2-10 12 5.17t.36 1.86:.25 37.2013.27 116 6-12 12 8.581.36 1.841.25 21.44i1.61 152 4-9 11 7.0:.30 1.50:.21 21.43il.68 11 8-22 11 14.901.80 3.92;.56 26.31i2.15 125 5-20 11 14.093.93 4.61.66 32.65t2.84 209 5-14 11 9.18i.55 2.601.57 28.52i2.56 12 17 9-19 10-21 12 12 13.00:.56 15.001.63 2.861.39 5.271.45 22.0011.66 21.80:1.64 128 1-9 11 5.09i.34 1.66:.24 32.61i2.84 225 6-17 12 1o.25£.73 5.76:,52 36.68i3.211 ~25- , Total leaf area in units of 1000 square centimeters 361..“8 V - 16-24 N - 11 L1“ 19.10io59 SD QT 2.881.41 15.0811.l5 331.“:18 V - 12-19 N - ll 14.75i.41 sp 2.004.29 QM 15.58i1.01 Sel.-137 V - 14-20 N - 11 M - 17.6£.49 SD- 2.41f.55 CY 15.6611.02 10 16-22 12 16.85:.51 1.57t.22 9.55i1.28 116 11-22 12 17.25i.62 5.20t.44 18.55i.55 152 12-17 11 15.181.52 1.58r.25 10.411.76 11 12 17 10-17 9-19 12-21 10 12 11 14.501.55 15.5i.61 15.743.50 2.58:.59 5.16i.45 2.46:.55 17.79i1.45 20.59t1.52 15.6511.18 123 128 12-19 14-25 11 11 15.0t.44 l9.00i.5O 2.17:.51 2.45:.55 14.4611.08 12.89£.96 209 225 12-23 15-22 11 12 17.10:.52 16.851.40 2.54i.56 2.07£.28 l4.85i1.11 12.5Q£.87 -25- Number of leaves per plant Sel.-8 10 11 12 17 v.- 55-41 36-42 50-40 55-45 54-41 5 -'11 12 10 12 11 n - 37.091.65 38.081.33 35.9t.69 58.75:.60 57.454.48 sn- 3.201.46 1.70:.25 5.24:.49 3.111.43 2.55:.54 cv- 8.63i1.24 4.46:.61 9.02:1.36 8.0241.1 6.27£.90 Sel.-l8 116 125 128 v - 51-42 25-41 57-45 28-44 N - 11 12 11 11 n - 35.82i.64 35.92:l.06 39-551-41 37.91:.88 sn- 3.16i.45 5.451.75 2.02:.29 4.32:.62 ov- 8.82i1.27 15.14p1.09 5.111.75 ll.39i.84 Sel.-137 152 209 225 v - 55-45 51-40 51-41 52-40 N - 11 11 11 12 n - 57.45i.59 35.91£.48 35.73i.65 36.58i.45 sn- 2.904.42 2.55:.54 3.20:.46 2.551.52 dv- 7.74i1.1l 6.54:.94 8.96:1.29 6.37:.88 Depth of fruit in centimeters 3610-8 V "’ 202-502 N - 84 M " 5088i004 3D- 058i003 0v 14.954.41 8610"].8 -27- V Q N - M 3.11 CT 1 Sel. 2.2-5.0 118 5.70:.04 .65i.05 19.67i.46 -157 2.2-5.2 91 5.954.04 .56i.05 14.504.57 10 11 12 2.2-5.0 2.0-52 2.2-4.8 65 164 156 5.861.05 5.524.05 4.06i.03 .62*.04 .59£.02 .561202 16.164.5 16.704.52 15.851.29 116 125 2.6-5.0 2.2-5.0 105 155 4.oe£.05 5.57:.05 .721.05 .63£.02 17.654.44 17.70i.46 152 209 2.4-4.8 2.8-5.4 77 101 5.954.04 5.074.04 .541.05 .544.02 15.501.58 17.554.44 17 2.0-6.0 180 5.66i.05 .64h.02 17.484.55 128 2.6-5.0 56 4.09:.04 .55i.05 12.86:.42 225 2.2-5.2 125 5.954.04 .72t.05 18.154.41 -28- Diameter of fruit in centimeters Sel.-8 V - 206-602 N - 84 III - 4067i005 SD- O70ioo4 ov- 14.99:.41 8610-18 V “ 204-600 N - 118 It: " 4043:005 3.1).. 0791 005 07- 17.85i.42 Sel.-137 v - 2.4-6.4 N - 91 M - 4.71.05 85- .72¢.04 qv- 15.52:.40 10 2.6-6.4 65 4.70:.07 .80l.05 16.98:.56 116 3.0-6.2 105 4.85:.05 .724.05 14.841.36 152 2.6-6.2 77 4.7941.0 .63i.03 15.071.57 11 12 17 2.4-6.0 2.6—5.8 2.0-6.0 164 156 180 4.201.01 4.0:,04 4.551.04 .754.05 .73i.03 .744.05 l7~4Vi-54 18.351.37 17.09:.51 125 128 2.4-6.2 5.6-6.2 155 56 4.541.04 4.963.06 .83i.03 .61t.04 19.121.59 12.58i.4o 209 225 3.2-6.8 2.6-6.2 101 125 4.851.05 4.794.05 .70}.05 .78L.03 14.56:.36 l6.20i.38 -29- Distance between fruit internodes in centimeters selo‘a V - 5-55 N - 109 II: - 12 o 151:. 48 SD.‘ 7 045i. 54 or 61.32i2.44 Sel.-17 V - 7-59 N - 106 M - l6.77§.25 SD qv 3.84i.18 22.90:.58 Selo‘lz'z V - 5-41 N - 112 M 15.45i.46 an 7.244.52 QV 46.9212.l5 10 5-45 127 14.511.55 5.56i.25 58.85jl.06 18 4-44 87 17.494.58 5.20:.27 29.751.90 152 5-45 104 14.514.48 7.521.54 51.15i1.82 11 12 11-44 8-55 95 118 16.89i,32 17.091.26 4.59;.22 4.201.18 27.171.76 24.571.60 116 125 128 4-44 15-49 7-45 119 97 112 15.461.37 16.40;.42 15.141.52 6.081.26 6.08;.29 5.08i.23 45.17il.38 37.07:1.16 55.55§.92 209 225 4-40 6-30 105 121 14.494.41 17.761.29 6.28:.29 4.621.20 455411.59 26.01i.64 -'-.| -30- Mean of the fruit clusters selo‘lv V - 1-6 N - 180 M - 2.97i.07 8.1).“ 1046:005 ov- 49.1641.19 3610-128 V - 1-8 N - 56 IE: " 3041:0117 SJ).- 10901012 qv- 55.72i2.87 116 1-9 105 5.14t.12 1.84:.09 58.6Qi2.51 137 1-7 91 5.57i.11 1.631.09 48.3711.75 125 1-7 155 5.191.07 1.411.05 44.20i1.10 '209 1-8 101 5.65i.15 1.991.09 54.5212.06 . . . .- o .. I .i l '- . ' t ' ' -. . .‘I . I l i .o I ,- . . .' i ' I I ' . . n I ' .I -51... First measurement of plant height in centimeters Sel.-8 V - 132-146 N - 11 MI- 139.00:.85 - SD- 4.18t.60 QV- 5.01t.45 Sel.-l7 V - 132-180 N - 12 M - 157.00t2.83 SD,- 14.563300 qv- 9.27:1.28 Sel.-137 V - 128-146 N - 12 n - 159.511.22 SD- 6.281.86 qv- 4.51.62 10 142-160 12 149.923..l.16 5.96£,82 5.974.55 18 110-180 11 140.4514.09 20.1f2.89 14-3111-09 152 128-146 11 136.54il.39 6.821.98 4.991.72 11 12 126-172 142-176 11 12 146.54i2.54 l46.54i2.54 12.5041.79 12.5t1.79 8.5311.23 8.5311.23 116 125 128 116-152 152-148 152-170 12 11 11 l59.l6i1.91 l40.91i1.24 155.8211.96 9.84i1.35 6.08:.87 9.66:1.39 7-071397 4.31i.62 6.2i.89 209 225 126-154 136-156 11 12 142.1811.58 147.83i1.28 7.78:1.12 6.56i.90 5-471-79 4.44:.61 -52- Plant height in centimeters - second measurement 3910-8 V - 114-164 N - 11 M - 152.55i1.22 SD“ 6002i086 COVE. 3095*057 Sel.-l7 V - 144-190 N - 12 H - 168.1612.89 CV- 8.82tl.21 Sel.-128 V - 148-188 N - 11 H - 169.6412.26 SD: 11.10il.60 C..V."' 6054i094 10 148-172 12 165.0Qil.55 6.821.94 4.181.57 18 128-198 11 157.54i4.27 21.0015.02 15.55il.00 157 142-162 11 l55.64j1.32 6 .481 . 95 4.164.60 11 152-180 11 149.8112.60 12.8011.84 8.5411.25 116 124-166 12 l52.5212.26 11.6Qt1.60 7.6lil.05 152 144-162 11 209 146-172 12 156-190 11 172.46g2.29 11.2811.62 6.544.94 125 146-164 11 l56.56i1.22 6.021.86 5.851.55 225 150-170 11 150.5511.57 156.60j1.80 160.00i1.22 6.761.97 5.091.75 8.44:1.27 50592081 6.02:.86 5.764.54 'nvv W9 no Ull- Ul‘LI‘ ”'TIWITHEWLTIMLVflfljflflflflflfliflfifi's