‘w‘ ;

-.'.~,

44.

I I:

:')'3"" 33-':135.‘:

. 3
.W:!: I 3 x: 3 ‘z‘flj. I
II I

I
I
I9 lll'
”2:.I‘UII

-
19.31333
3333333533333.“
O".)a‘“.:ll'“‘.l"
44‘
3

“3

. 3 9'1”.“ 3 3
"I""I‘ICO‘”’II:'I“I 14' I
CIIIIIHOIJIQOmI'V:.33|I‘”“‘!III
3.3. 3W3313333331 3333

"3 "'31" '
'333""':':"
'3’ 3 '3'
'JJ.I,‘:':':‘:';','. 3 i ::1..:‘I:1:;:::1:
'“"‘
'3'3'f'3 3 3 3 3'3:a'3'3:::::3:;" 3 3 '3'”
a 3:333 4.333.:391"! ”3'
'3 3:3' ":':':«' :' i':"':;;.'::':'v 33'3'3'33 .33 3:533:32:
.
, .
b.."..'¢.!R‘I.l"l"‘..‘.§'l“' ‘.'.l""““lfi“"'.§..

"333:3'3""33'3 7 ~ . . ‘ ' ‘
m‘a: 'l‘li" 33:! V. ' ' ‘ '7
33 r";

‘4
I."}“I‘l I 3
a I I I. ::a

H” t .3“:
3
.4.

3'!“ 3,3}: "K.
M

I I‘U iI
l4 1. i Y '0 1153
1",1'1 Il'mi! ”I“. I‘l‘ldldl‘fll

”a 1‘ a 3.103%; I‘M if:
.il'l! Eli-i” ludiflla'l \(ani 91““. .l

3 ‘ .3. 1.3 3"”! ”13' 1‘ '

l:: r ..A"‘.!2¢I-
9:231: 3%..
'egéd'rdg

”Alexi.”

'fl
{,3~<-

.~‘II:.
”any.” 1:I33.

‘
II a 333
, "313,43 1“. r.-
3333'}! 33 13.4333!
'31:! ' 3333 -"|-3 -
. - 3-!
2L 3" ‘ 'w-n '31 1 o
.

1:- 1. ‘3 u
1 .MIGWG STATE. gga " ’“‘ E; .:. ::.:«...=.a:‘;2;. ‘
‘ ". ('- 1 A .1 D I, I '1! .8

3‘3133243.
._ '3‘5'
3: 33
:‘33'3 313'9'3“ 3 3 ”on of. ”33 gig: "333
3-33-1'13ri445313'33':m314 {3“
1331;3313321 I!
3 3 .7 ,. ‘H‘E'Sil
, 3 21:39:21.7!!!3“

Ulwl’llilil 323
S£OIO’.OI‘Wii:d!IU
!' a“. 1

1! I '3'1’15'3'13‘“! I
33531: ‘153333333"

3"
2 3.3131}:
(3333131333333
3 33113L33333333
3:1:V’611111wai i a v"!
"1"":"3'

'0 354377.51 a". '3 "6'
3'31 :gqgfiajnqyi 2%}‘: s.
#:323333331'3’35‘3' *'
3-3 . '31]
.
I: 3':'§'.
ddflfliiii‘ Q
IH‘

333 3H3
. i'iii'iiiltxfilli
a: . 4.313! $."
. 3 . 3:4: ”3 3""
‘gzi‘iuli’fi“
'1 'i‘{‘

 

I
“I y3izié , w. I" .
. N .
~3,..3;."3m 3.1333233'513-sfla23onaa-yntn
i“. ”:,‘~.g ,‘,33€; '1: 'V" 1.913 as'!!!“¢93
3 a 4:: 3_)yu_ e'w _3a-'.3h 3‘33 IJ .i

I. I ISHO4 $t’t‘mnl: "

 

1111111111111111111111

29

111

 

      

  

—l

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE

 

301m MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERS OF HELIANTHUS ANNUUS 1...,
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE YIELD OF SEED AND OIL.

son]: MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERS or HELIANTHUS ANNUUS L.,
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP To THE YIELD OF SEED AND OIL.

A Thesis
Respectfully Submitted
in Partial Fulfullment of
the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science.

at
Michigan State College
of
Agriculture and Applied Science.

Alfred.M. Ross
9”
1938

2&5. r fie‘.‘ ‘._ ares ‘3
1;?2111fi111‘111 fig:
£1>1‘ ; 5 915 1% 'fi%'
U. i baafiuiJ15Ob3‘ 9i 1;

c o N T Eiu T s 3

IN‘IIRODIJC'TIOI\I O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O I I O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O
OBJECT OF PROBLEIM O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
REVIng O F LITFAR AT IRE O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O C

LOCATION AI‘ID PLAN OF I'leEI-RIIVIEN OOOOOCCOOOOOOOOOOOO.

CLIMATE ............................................

METHOD..............................................

RESULTS
Yield of Seed per Plant .....................
Height of Plants ............................
Number or Branches per Plant ................
Number of‘Heads per Plant ...................
Number of Days from Seeding till Blooming ...
Diameter of Nain Heads ......................
Number of Leaves per Plant .......;..........
Area of Leaf Surface per Plant ..............
Per Cent of Oil in'Whole Seed ...............
Coefficients of Total Correlation ...........

DISCUSSION

 

Discussion of Varieties .....................
Factors Affecting the Oil Percentage ........

Factors Affecting the Yield of Seed .........

SUMIAARY 0.000o.0000000000000000000000000000000...000

CONCI’USION 0.00.0.0...OOOOOOOCOOOOOOOIOOOO0.00.0.0...

 

Fun
the
ram
“f
L)
‘2

(DQCDNH

10
12
15
14
15
16
17
19
2O

21

22
26
28
50

31

Contents jCont'd)
Pane

ACKNO‘erGL-EJLTTS 0..00.0.00...0..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 51

 

BIBLIOQAWY 0.00.0.0...000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 32
APPENDIX

Tables I - IX

SOME MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERS OF HELIANTHUS ANNUUS L.,
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE YIELD OF SEED AND OIL.

INTRODUCTION

Sunflower seed contains an extremely high percentage
of vegetable oil which is used extensively in the manufacture
of various food products. After the oil has been extracted,
the remainder of the seed is utilized as a cattle feed and for
this purpose is comparable with linseed cake both in nutritive
value and in palatability. Unfortunately, no statistics are
available to show the amount of sunflower oil which is annually
imported into Canada, but it is significant that, according to
Sievers (17), the United States imported twenty-seven million
pounds of this commodity from Soviet Russia in 1951.

Climatic conditions in Western Canada are very similar
to certain large areas in Russia where sunflowers are a staple
and extensively grown crop. Mennonite farmers in certain sect-
ions of the Canadian west, notably in Rosthern and Morden dist-
ricts, have been growing this crop successfully for many years
and have demonstrated that good seed yields can be obtained
consistently in these areas. It is therefore only logical that
the possibilities of sunflowers as a field crop for the Prairie
Provinces should be thoroughly investigated.

OBJECT 0F PROBLEM

Russian plant breeders have originated several varie-
ties of sunflowers each of which is specially adapted to a
'particular climatic zone. In Canada no variety for seed product-

:10n has so far been evolved and little is known as to what type

 

{her

-2-

of plant should be selected for this purpose. The object of the
experiment described in this thesis is to show whether or not
certain habits of growth are indicative of high yields of either
seed or oil.

The data presented in this paper were made available
through the c00peration of the Division of Forage Plants,

Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Canada.

REVIEW OF‘LITERATURE

 

The review of literature herewith presented does not
include any of the numerous articles relating to sunflower sil-
age, but only those contributions which might prove of‘assist-
ance to one engaged in breeding sunflowers for seed production.

Cardon (5) selected different types within the variety
"Mammoth.Russian“ and tried to isolate these by the method of
inbreeding. It was found that when the heads were covered with
selfing bags all the flowers in each head Opened simultaneously
instead of in zones from the periphery to the centre as is
normally the case. ‘When harvested the self-fertilized heads
looked perfect but although the seed looked plump, normally
coloured, and apparently well-formed, no kernels were present.
From these results it was concluded that it was not possible to
inbreed sunflowers.

An entirely different result was obtained by MdRostie
(12), who found that sunflowers were not totally self sterile.

Iie found it necessary to isolate the heads with a material which

 

D1 .wTF-fiE-».§‘

....

_.

-3-

would prevent wind pollination. By using this method it was
possible to produce uniform pure line strains of many different
types.

Hamilton (10) also reported that in 1920 several
hundred sunflower heads were selfed by covering them with Manilla
bags. These selfed heads yielded from 15 to 50 per cent of the
normal amount of seed and even better results were obtained in
instances where the heads had been agitated.

As is the case with corn, inbreeding sunflowers for
three generations resulted in a marked increase in the uniform-
ity of the strains concerned, and a corresponding decrease in
the size of plants. Some of these sunflower strains, however,
although becoming extremely uniform, retained their former vigour.
These results indicated that it is possible to retain a larger
number of desirable factors in an inbred strain than are present
in the average of the open fertilized material.

In a later report MCRostie (13) stated that after five
generations of inbreeding, the sunflower lines were comparatively
pure and the various strains showed striking differences in their
reaction to climatic conditions and disease producing organisms.
Some of these inbred lines showed a marked resistance to sun-
flower rust, Puccinia helianthi, Schw.

Platchek (14) also found that individual sunflower
plants differed one from another in their immunity to attacks
by various diseases and insects. He built up strains by straight
selection which were highly immune to injury from Broomerape,

Orobanche cumana,'wallr. ‘When plants from these strains were

 

-4-

crossed with susceptible ones the F1 progeny was almost one
hundred per cent immune to this disease. The immunity appeared
to be due to the nature of the pericarp.

Arnoldova (2), reported the results of a detailed study
of the successive development of the different parts of the flower
with special reference to itssignificance for artificial pollina-
tion. A method of crossing sunflowers is described which allows
one person to emasculate eight or nine plants (about lOOO
flowers) per hour. An eXperiment was also reported which showed
that sunflower pollen stored for one year in paper packets at
ordinary room temperatures was almost as viable as fresh pollen.
This prolonged vitality of pollen affords a great Opportunity
to make crosses between plants which differ considerably in
their time of blooming.

Platchek (15) described direct and reciprocal crosses
between Helianthus annuus L., (edible form) and Helianthus

cucumerifolius, Torr et Gray. The F1 of the direct cross showed

 

complete dominance of the g.'annuus characters, but the reciprocal
cross showed both full and partial dominance of E, cucumerifolius.
In the F2 generation segregation did not give a regular Mendelian
ratio, but many interesting types evolved.

Cockerell (4) found that the primrose rayed varieties
were recessive to the ordinary orange rayed types. The "coronatus"
(red on ray petals) character also is a typical Mendelian dominant.
A type of sunflower is described in which the ray flowers are
missing, and crossing eXperiments seemed to indicate that this

condition depended on several factors.

-5-

In further studies Cookerell (5) described a red
rayed variety and offered some suggestions as to the cause of
this pigmentation. He postulates the Operation Of a factor
inhibiting yellow, the loss of a dioxidizing factor and the
presence of a dilution factor as possible explanations.

Cookerell (6) also crossed red rayed sunflowers with
several yellow rayed species. The hybrids from one of these
crosses carried red only on the tips of the ray petals. A
group Of hybrids from other species carried the red only on
the base of the petals, whereas those from.a third species
showed red only on the centre portion Of the petals. It is
evident that sunflowers possess colour patterns, although these
are generally masked.

Crosses were made by Cookerell (7) between different
species and varieties of Helianthus to determine their fertility.
The results showed that the progeny from.these crosses were not
as a rule very fertile and would be useful only for ornamental
purposes.

In another experiment Cockerell (8) demonstrated that
when several different Species were crossed the progenies varied
considerably. He claimed that it is quite possible that these
crosses occur naturally and that a botanical study of the genus
helianthus should make allowance fOr these hybrids.

watson (20) published a key and description Of 108
species Of'Helianthus. Great variations were found to occur
within these Species and the author explained that this unstable

condition was due at least in part to the morphological response

to edaphic conditions.

A statistical study was made by Reed (16) to determine
if short sunflowers are shorter than average height all through
their growth period, or whether they merely mature more rapidly.
The experiment showed that the plants which were short in the
seedling stage remained below average all through their develop-
ment up to maturity. It was therefore assumed that the relative
height of sunflower plants is dependent upon internal genetic
factors rather than upon external casual ones.

Thornber (18) reports yields Of from eight hundred to
one thousand pounds of sunflower seed per acre grown under field
conditions in the State of Washington. Only single types proved
to be useful for seed production and rigid selection was necess—

ary as otherwise the multiple plants soon became numerous.
LOCATION 5ND PLAN OF EXPERIMLNT

The area selected for this test was located on the
Central EXperimental Farm, Ottawa. The soil was a good clay
loam, well drained, and reasonably uniform. The area was ferti-
lized a few days previous to seeding, a 4-8-4 fertilizer being
applied at the rate of 720 pounds per acre. Eighteen strains
Of sunflowers were studied in the eXperiment,each Of which
had been inbred for at least eight generations, thus being
extremely uniform. 1

As may be seen in Plan 1, a fourfold replication of
each strain was sown and controlled randomization was resorted
to in order to Offset the effects of shading. The lines were

therefore divided into three groups - tall (501-503), medium

I

PLAN NO.

 

Method of Controlled Randomization Used in Experiment

 

 

Check
502
503

301
505
307
506
Check

 

 

A.paoov s soaaseaaaom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

k k
c 9 5 4 2 5 5 1 8 6 7 7 l 6 5 2 4 8 5 O 8 9 M c
O O l l l l l l l 1 l l l .1— 1 l l 1 1 O 0 e
Apfloov mu GOHpQOHHQOm IIIIIIIIIIIIII V _ A IIIIIIIII IIII av GOdPNOHHQOm I IIIIIIII .V
k .K
c .O 4. "1 RV Au 1. .O as so 1. no no .9 no “O O. .O v. .O no so u. c
e O O O O l O O O O O O O O l O O O O 1 1 l .l— e
snnv no 3 n0 ".0 5 5 5 n0 3 n0 5 3 no 5 3 70 3 5 3 n0 3 5 mm
—1 1
A IIIIIIIIIII m... Gowpwofifiamm A IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII AHGOUV m Goapwoddaom
k .K
C .1. 3 2 O 9 4 6 7 5 8 6 8 7 5 4. l 3 2 8 1 4. 2 C
e O O O l O O O O O O l l l l l 1 l l l 1 1 l 6
NW. 3 3 no no 3 5 5 n0 n0 3 3 n0 n0 n0 n0 n0 3 n0 5 5 3 3 mm

 

 

 

 

A ...................... H so3rdSa§111121..-.....:..1...:.!v

Aim soapseflaam

 

 

(304-310), and short (311-318) - and randomized within each group.
The rows were 36 inches apart and the seed was sown by hand at

18 inch intervals, one row constituting a plot. Sowing was done
on May 18, 1937, which is a later date than is usually the case
in this district. This delay was unavoidable as frequent showers
prevented the necessary cultivation to prepare the seed bed for
this crop. The rows were 34 feet 6 inches long and thus twenty-
three plants constituted a perfect stand and provided a suffic-
iently large population so that the end plants could be entirely
disregarded. Guard rows of ”Mennonite"variety were sown at

both sides of the ranges in order to minimize the border effect.
W

The data contained in Table I were furnished by the
Dominion Of Canada meteorological Service from.the Station at
Ottawa. In addition to reporting the weather conditions for
the period when the crop was actually growing, figures are also
included for the month of April, as these had a direct bearing
on soil conditions at the time when the crop was sown.

Tab; I. ___gmeteorolo cal Dgta

 

 

 

 

 

Mean HIgfiest Lowest TOtal TOEal Hours
Month. Tempera- Tempera- Tempera- Precipi- of Bright
tugg ture ture_g tation g§pnshine
1937 0F 6F 0F Inches Hours
April 40.9 68 19 2.63 185.9
May 56.3 89 31 2.22 212.2
June 64.7 84 46 3.64 273.5
July 69.6 93 49 3.99 299.8
August 70.7 92 48 3.52 260.3
September 57.3 90 34 3.54 171.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

METHOD

Ten plants in each replication were selected at random
and numbered from one to ten. Careful records were kept for each
individual by marked plants. When the majority of the plants in)
any one replication was in bloom, one of the unmarked plants was
picked at random and this plant was taken to be representative
of that replication in regard to the leaf area and the number
of leaves per plant. It was not possible to use the method of
measuring leaf area as described by Kramer (11), as a photo-
electric cell was not available. Watson (19) outlined a method
_and presented mathematical formulae whereby leaf areas might be
calculated from the weight Of the fresh green leaves. In order
. to apply this method it is first necessary to obtain the mean
weight per leaf by large sampling which.was not possible in this
eXperiment. The manner in which the leaf area per plant was
calculated in this case was by stripping the leaves one at a
time from the plant and tracing their outlines on brown paper.
The paper replicas of the leaves were cut out and weighed,as
was also a section of the paper with a known area of one hundred '
square inches. The weight of the leaves was then converted into
area by simple proportion. A hundred square inch portion of
paper was obtained as a check for each and every plant, but the
paper was so uniform that the greatest difference between the
weights of any two Of these sections was less than one fifth
of one per cent. The date upon which the main head Of each

marked plant Opened was recorded. When the seed in the main

heads of any replication was in the dough stage the following
notes were taken for each marked plant in that row:- diameter
of the main head, height of plant, number of branches per plant,
number of heads per plant. Immediately following this note-
taking the heads were all covered by Manilla bags to ensure
against loss of grain by the birds or by shattering. When the
heads were fully ripened they were harvested and transported
to a barn.where they were threshed out by hand rubbing. The
seed from each plant was then placed in a tray and set in a
drying rack. After two weeks of air drying the seed was cleaned
in a small Clipper machine and weighed to one-tenth of a gram
on agate-bearing trip scales. After the weights had been record-
ed the seed from every marked plant in a replication was bulked
together and sent to the grain laboratory where it was tested
to determine the percentage of oil in the whole seed. One var-
iety gave insufficient seed for an oil test, and in another
variety one of the four replications gave insufficient seed for
the test. In the latter case the missing result was filled
by using Allan and Wishart's (1) method.

The procedure for determining the oil percentage is
as follows:- The sunflower seed is finely ground on a Hobart
burr mill, using the closest possible setting which will permit
a free running meal. The ground material is then thoroughly
mixed and dried in a DeKhotinsky Vacuum Oven for 18 hours at
98°— lOOOc. Five grams of the dried material are extracted
on an electrically heated water bath for 16 hours with Skelly-

solve F (a low boiling petroleum ether) in a Soxhlet extractor,

-10-

using‘Jhatman double thickness extraction thimbles and a siphon-
ing rate of one per minute. The ether extract is carefully trans-
ferred to a tared 125 cc Erlenmeyer flask by suction, the extract-
ion flask being washed with fresh solvent. The excess ether is
distilled off on a water bath maintained at approximately 70° -
80° c, the extract dried in vacuo for approximately two hours

at 98° - 1000 c at a pressure not exceeding 25m. mercury and

the oil content computed on a dry matter basis.
RESULTS

The results of the study of each factor are first
presented separately, these later being correlated with the
yield of seed and the percentage of oil. After all the data
are presented the discussion and general conclusions are sub-
mitted.

The complete data for each factor for each of the 40
plants which constituted the pOpulation of a variety are cont-

ained in Appendix tables 1 - 9.

YIELD OF swap gas PLAyT

 

In Table 2 are presented the Analysis of Variance

and Standard error test of the Yield of Seed per Plant.

-11..

 

 

 

 

Table 2
D. F. M. s. F Value 5% 1%

Varieties l7 1256.7104 24.5275 1.77 2.22
Replications 5 555.7528 10.5708 2.62 5.82
Plants 9 17.6499 2.9268 2.71 4.51
Vars. x Reps. 51 584.5546 7.4442 1.06 1.08
Vars. x Plants 155 65.5428 1.2501 1.06 1.08
Reps. x Plants 27 58.4579 1.1516 1.54 1.85
Error 459 51.6580 __

variance for a single observation : 51.6580

Standard error of a single observation = 7.1874

Standard error of a single difference = 10.1644

Standard error of’the difference between

two variety means - 1.6071
Necessary difference for significance (P.05) 5.1499
Necessary difference for significance (P.01) 4.1596

In Table 5 are presented the Mean Yields of Varieties.

 

 

Table 3. L_
Variety Number Weight of Seed First Differences
in Grams

505 69.57

504 65.22 4.15
501 41.65 25.57
516 58.08 5.57
511 57.05 1.05
509 56.18 .85
508 52.85 5.55
518 29.94 2.89
514 27.02 2.92
507 26.66 .56
505 22.75 5.91
515 19.29 5.46
502 18.54 .75
506 18.21 .55
517 12.27 5.94
510 11.98 .29
512 9.17 2.81
515 2.64 6.55

A11 differences or sums of contiguous differences
greater than 5.15 are significant and greater than 4.14 are

1a.! "$51” An" mYfl‘p-lnn'r‘

4..

A

__k‘___

4. U .. , t4m|iiilfib3r show.5.l|§llu.ll...
l .-

 

-12-

HEIGHT OF PLANTS

 

In Table 4 are presented the Analysis of Variance

and Standard Error Test for the Height of Plants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4 _fi __ _f _f
__ D. F. M. s. F. Value 553 12.;
Varieties 17 5519.95 200.50 1.77 2.22
Replications 5 1772.67 66.74 2.62 5.82
Plants 9 4.28 6.21 2.71 4.51
Vars. x Rep. 51 246.54 9.27 1.06 1.08
Vars. x Plants 155 8.55 5.18 1.18 1.27
Reps. x Plants 27 22.08 1.20 1.67 2.10
Error 459 26.56
Variance for a single observation = 26.56
Standard error of a single observation - 5.1556
Standard error of a single difference - 7.2882
Standard error of the difference between
two Variety means = 1.1524
Necessary difference for significance(P.05) = 2.2587
Necessary difference for significance(P.01) a 2.9684
In Table 5 are presented the Mean Heights of
Varieties.
Table 5 TP
Height 0 lants —First
Variety Number in Inches Differgnces
505 89.7
501 85.5 4.4
502 80.9 4.4
504 75.2 5.7
505 74.5 .7
510 72.9 1.6
508 72.1 .8
515 70.7 1.4
506 68.5 2.4
507 68.0 .5
509 66.4 1.6
515 65.2 5.2
511 61.9 1.5
517 57.5 4.6
514 57.2 .1
512 55.8 5.4
518 50.2 5.6
5%? _i _p_' _4846 ___g 145
erences or sums ofrcontiguous differences greater—than

 

 

' ‘ :‘LF DI\~. I11 .
.D.| ‘I'

-13-

NUMBER OF BRANCHES PER PLANT

 

In Table 6 are presented the Analysis of Variance

and the Standard Error Test for the Number of Branches per Plant.

 

 

 

Table 6
D.F. 11.3. F. Value 55% 1%

Varieties 17 10055.59 1546.71 1.77 2.22
Replications 5 45.05 6.62 2.62 5.82
Plants 9 2.24 2.90 2.71 4.51
Vars. x Reps. 51 56.48 7.15 1.06 1.08
Vars. x Plants 155. 5.50 1.18 1.18 1.27
Reps..x Plants 27 5.65 1.78 1.67 2.10
Error _. _459‘_ 6.50 __

Variance for a single observation 2 6.50

Standard error of a single observation . 2.5495

Standard error of a single difference . 5.6055

Standard error of the difference between

two variety means - .5701

Necessary difference for significance(P.05)=1.1174
Necessary difference for significance(P.01)-1.4685

In Table 7 are presented the Mean Number of Branches

per Plant of Varieties.

Table 7

Variety Number

Number of Branches

First Differences

515 59.125

505 41.725 17.400
502 56.500 5.425
517 28.700 7.600
508 27.525 1.175
512 24.925 2.600
510 24.550 .575
511 25.550 1.200
506 20.850 2.500
515 18.875 1.975
514 15.700 5.175
516 14.100 1.600
507 12.500 1.800
518 9.925 2.575
501 0.000 9.925
504 0.000 0.000
505 0.000 0.000
509 0.000 0.000

 

111 differences or sums of contiguous differences greater than
1.117 are significant, and greater than 1.469 are highly

:14 "”4 P5 Anni”

-14-
NUMBER OF HEADS PER PLANT

In Table 8 are presented the Analysis of Variance

and Standard Error Test of Number of Heads per Plant.

 

 

 

Table 8 ___L_
D. F. its. - F.Va1ue 5% 1%

Varieties 17 7458.81 760.55 1.77 2.22
Replications 5 590.69 60.21 2.62 5.82
Plants 9 4.50 2.28 2.71 4.51
Vars. x Reps. 51 191.14 19.48 1.06 1.08
Vars. x Plants 155 7.75 1.27 1.18 1.27
Reps. x Plants 27 7.42 1.52 1.67 2.10
Error 459 9.81 _____

Variance for a single observation 3 9.81

Standard error of a single observation = 5.1521

Standard error of a single difference . 4.4294

Standard error of the difference between

two variety means = .7005
Necessary difference for significance(P.05) - 1.5726
Necessary difference for significance(P.01) : 1.8058

In Table 9 are presented the Mean Number of Heads per

Plant of Varieties.

Table 9

Variety_Number

Number of Heads

First Differences

515 55.650

505 54.725 18.925
502 27.850 6.875
510 22.225 5.625
514 21.925 .500
517 21.775 .150
516 21.450 .525
508 19.975 1.475
512 19.825 .150
511 18.975 .850
515 14.200 4.775
506 12.600 1.600
507 7.825 4.775
518 4.975 2.850
501 1.000 5.975
504 1.000 0.000
505 1.000 0.000
50§__ 1.000 0.000

 

A11 differgnces 6;;Eums of contiguous differences greater
than 1.575 are significant,and greater than 1.804 are highly

31 gnifi Cant.

J. u“ I w‘tllllllclrvr ELEE.‘§1.

-15-

NUMBER OF‘DAYS FROM SENDINE TILL BLOOMING

In Table 10 are presented the Analysis of Variance

and Standard Error Test of the number of days from seeding till

 

 

 

. blooming.

Table 10 _‘ __._

_ D. F. M. s. F_.Va1ue 5% _1%_

Varieties 17 1545.04 2809.16 1.77 2.22

Replications 5 99.68 181.24 2.62 5.82

Plants 9 0.59 1.07 1.96 2.55

Vars. x Reps. 51 25.79 45.25 1.06 1.08

Vars. x Plants 155 0.48 1.15 1.18 1.27

Reps. x Plants 27 .61 1.11 1.54 1.85

Error 459 _,55 _g

Variance for a single observation = .55
Standard error of a single observation - .7416
Standard error of a single difference - 1.0488
Standard error of the difference between
two variety means - .1658

Necessary difference for significance(P.05) - .5250
Necessary difference for significance(P.01) = .4271

In Table 11 are presented the Means of Number of Days

from Seeding to Blooming of Varieties.

Table 11

Number of Vagietiea

Number of Days

First Differences

505 85.85

515 85.70 .15
506 81.85 1.87
507 81.05 .80
502 80.58 .65
517 79.55 .85
505 79.25 .50
501 78.80 .45
515 78.45 .55
510 78.00 .45
509 76.75 1.27
508 75.75 5.00
512 71.75 2.00
514 71.60 .15
511 71.40 .20
504 71.08 .52
518 71.08 .00
516 58.55 12.55

 

I11 diffgrences or_sums of contiguous differences greater than

.55 are significant, and greater than .45 are highly signifiCant.

u
n
.
y . v - a 0
r a I .. A A
c t . r I
o r v r o x

   

as ‘rl’ullrblvilg... .l 4....1 1L u>

~16-
DIAMETER OF MAIN HEADS IN INCHES.

In Table 12 are presented the Analysis of Variance

and Standard Error Test of Diameter of Heads.

 

 

 

Table 12
D. F. 14.8. F. Value 5% 1% __
Varieties 17 50.5929 598.6780 1.77 2.22
Replications 5 1.1595 9.1717 2.62 5.82
Plants 9 .2021 1.5989 1.96 2.55
Vars. x Reps. 51 .9881 7.8172 1.06 1.08
Vars. 1 Plants 155 .1554 1.2294 1.06 1.08
Reps. x Plants 27 .2028 1.6044 1.54 1.83
Error 459 .1264
Variance for a single observation = .1264
Standard error of single observation = .5555
Standard error of a single difference = .5027
Standard error of the difference between
two variety means . = .0795
Necessary difference for significance EP.05; = .1558
Necessary difference for significance P.01 I .2048

In Table 15 are presented the Means of Diameter of
Main Heads of Varieties.

 

 

Table 15
Number of Variety Diameter of Head First Difference

504 7.64

505 7.20 .44
501 6.68 .52
509 6.66 .02
506 6.54 .52
508 6.52 .02
514 5.69 .65
515 5.68 .01
517 a 5.60 .08
518 5.48 .12
507 5.51 .17
510 4.80 .51
505 4.58 .22
502 4.45 .15
515 4.40 .05
512 4.26 .14
511 4.15 .11
516 5.85 .50

 

Alldifferences or sums of contiguous differences greater than
.16 are significant, and greater than .20 are highly significant.

o I A .- v
c . ~ v I
O A I I o
e V t t \

 

4, ‘39..n\r7.111)lllbu a7...

-17-

The data on the number and area of the leaves is
based on only one plant oer replication as was previously
explained in the "Method". From an examination of Tables 2, 4,
6, 8, 10 and 12, it may be seen that in no case was there any
significant difference between plants which would indicate that
the procedure is reasonably accurate.

EMBER_OF LEAVES PER PLANT

 

In Table 14 are presented the Analysis of Variance

and Standard Error Test for the Number of Leaves per Plant.

 

 

 

Table 14 .____ 1_
_4 D. F. M.S. * F. Value _ 5;; if:
Varieties l7 4896.455 59.878 1.87 2.40
Replications 5 162.940 1.995 2.79 4.20
Err9£_ __ 51 81.775 ___

Variance for a single observation = 81.775

Standard error of a single mean = 4.5214

Standard error of the difference between

any two means - 6.5942

Necessary difference fbr significance(P.05)- 12.5524
Necessary difference for significance(P.Ol)= 16.4705

_18_

In Table 15 are presented the Neans of Number of

Leaves oer Plant of Varieties.

Table 15

vagiety Number

310
317
311
312
314
306
318
316
315
313
307
302
305
303
308
304
309
301

Number of Leaves

134.50
120.50

94.25
90.00
88.00
66.75
64.25
62.00
58.50
57.50
38.25
34.00
32.75
30.25
29.00
22.25
18.50
17.50

First Differences

14.00
26.25
4.25
2.00
21.25
2.50
2.25
3.50
1.00
19.25
4.25
1.25
2.50
1.25
6.75
3.75
1.00

 

All differences or sums of contiguous differences greater

than 12.55 are significant,and greater than 16.47 are highly

significant.

-19-
AREA OF LEAFjLfliFACE PER PLANT.

In Table 16 are presented the Analysis of Variance

and Standard Error Test for the Area of Leaves.

 

 

 

Table 16 __
D. F. M. s. F. Value 5;; y:
Varieties 17 . 209.840. 21.077 1.87 2.40
Replications 3 17.605 1.768 2.79 4.20
Error 51 42:956
Variance for a single observation - 9.956
Standard error of a single mean = 1.5757
Standard error of a difference between
any two means = 2.2255
Necessary difference for significance(P.05) = 4.5619
Necessary difference for significance(P.Ol) - 5.7525

In Table 17 are oresented the Means of Leaf Area per

Plant of Varieties .

 

 

Table 17 fi_
Variety Number Area of Leaves First Differences

510 56.2

514 55.6 2.6
505 28.7 4.9
508 ‘ 27.5 1.4
511 25.2 2.1
517 22.6 2.6
506 20.4 2.2
504 19.0 1.4
515 18.9 .1
502 17.5 1.4
501 16.7 .8
516 15.5 1.2
505 15.1 .4
518 14.8 .5
515 14.2 .6
507 15.7 .5
509 15.1 .6
512 11.6 1.5

 

A11 differences or sums of contiguous differences greater
than 4.4 are significant, and greater than 5.7 are highly
significant.

-20-

PER CINT OF‘OIL IN‘ iHOLE SFTD
In Table 18 are presented the Analysis of Variance
and Standard Error Test of Per Cent of Oil in'Jhole Seed.

Table 18

 

 

D. F. M. s. F. Value 5% 1%
Varieties 16 90.505 22.587 1.90 2.45
Replications 5 1.990 2.009 8.58 26.55
Error 47* 5.998
Variance of a Single Observation - 5.998
Standard error of single mean - .9998
Standard error of a difference between any
two means a 1.4159
Necessary difference for significance(P.05) - 2.7712

_Nep§ssary difference for sigpifipangeLRLOI) - 5.6420

—__.—__—-

In Table 19 are presented the Means of Per Cent Oil

of Varieties.

 

 

Tab1e_19 __ ,fi_fi

Variety_Number Per Cent Oil First Differences
511 52.7
505 51.6 1.1
304 30.0 1.6
302 28.3 1.7
305 27.4 .9
317 25.7 1.7
309 25.1 .6
301 24.9 .2
310 23.4 1.5
516 21.2 2.2
512 21.1 .1
307 21.0 .1
306 20.8 .2
313 19.7 1.1
308 19.0 .7
314 17.9 1.1
318 417.6 .3

 

All differences of‘Eums of contiguous differences greater
than 2.8 are significant, and greater than 5. 6 are highly
significant.

1 , .

 

‘ One degree of freedom lost, due to the missing plot supplied
by Allan and Wishart's Method.

-21-

In Table 20 are presented the Coefficients of Total
Correlation obtained between the Per centage of Oil in the Seed
and the various factors studied.

 

Table 20 __ __r
Per Cent Oil vs. Area of Leaves -.017
Per Cent Oil vs. Number of Leaves -.159
Per Cent Cil vs. Diamter of Kain Heads .001
Per Cent Oil vs. Height of Plants .448
Per Cent Oil vs. Number of Branches -.109
Per Cent Oil vs. Number of Days from

Seeding to blooming .224
Per Cent Oil vs. Number of Heads .105
Per Cent Oil vs. Yield of Seed .520

Correlation coefficient necessary fbr significance P.05 = .241
(P.01 - .313
Number of degrees of freedom - 65.

In Table 21 are presented the Coefficients of Total
Correlation between the Yield of Seed and the various factors
studied.

 

Tabl§f21 __ P
Yield of Seed vs. Area of Leaves .lOO
Yield of Seed vs. Number of Leaves -.485
Yield of Seed vs. Diameter of Main Heads .127
Yield of Seed vs. Height of Plants .476
Yield of Seed vs. Number of Branches -.709
Yield of Seed vs. Number of Days from seeding
to blooming -.517
Yield of Seed vs. Number of Heads -.615
Correlation coefficient necessary for significance P.05 = .252

(P001 - .502)
Number of degrees of freedom - 7O

‘Efln—u—m— w.»

 

 

 

PLATE I

 

301 I see ' ‘ 1 ”503?.

 

PLATE II

 

312

311

310

PLATE III

0" .1 I.
_ T'v $3.3“ 3"». ‘ . . ...
313 514 515

 

 

 

 

. fii.fl§qig.‘

DISCUSSION

 

In Plates I, II and III are submitted photographs
of all of the varieties discussed in this paper. These photo-
graphs were taken when each Variety was in full bloom, and
are merely to illustrate the differences in types and thus
supplement the more detailed statistical study. The sheet
which.was utilized in every case as a background is approximately
seven feet high.

As may be seen from Table 5, the highest yielding
variety in the test was 505. This was a tall, non-branching,
single headed type, fairly late in maturity, but possessing
large heads. These plants bore comparatively few leaves but
the area of these was large, only being surpassed by two other
varieties. The seed from this lot contained a high percentage
of oil and the grain from only two other varieties proved to
contain a significantly greater amount.

It is interesting to note that 504, the second highest
yielder, was very similar to 505 in regard to several characters.
Like 505 it was of the tall, non—branching, single headed type,
also having very large heads and seed high in oil content. On
the other hand this variety was earlier, produced fewer leaves
and a smaller area of leaves. As may be seen in Plate 1, 504
was much more inclined towards a nodding form of growth, and
in general appearance differed from 505 quite considerably.

The third highest yielder was 501, which was also one
of the two tallest varieties. Like 505 and 504, this strain

’belonged to the non-branching, single, large headed type. In

maturity it was slightly later than average, and produced very
few though large leaves. The oil content of the grain was only
of about average, and in general appearance this strain closely
resembled 304.

Number 516 produced a large quantity of seed, being
significantly superior in this respect to all other multiple
varieties except 511. It also was one of the shortest lots, had
few branches and a medium number of heads. The number of leaves'
produced approached the average of the test, but the leaf area
was small and the percentage of oil in the seed low.

In many reapects 511 was similar to 516, as it was
also a good yielder, short, with few branches and about an aver-
age number of heads. These two varieties were also alike as
regards their time of blooming and the size of their main heads,
but 511 had considerably more leaves and a larger leaf area.
This strain produced seed which was significantly higher in
oil content than all others with the exception of 505 and 504.

Although 509 was the poorest yielder of the four
single lines in the test it produced a comparatively large
quantity of seed. It also differed from these other single
varieties in that the plants were shorter and not quite so
vigorous. It is probable that this variety had suffered more
from the constant inbreeding than had the other strains of the
same type.

Variety 508 produced more than the average amount of
grain, was tall, many branched, and had more than the mean

number of heads for this test. It was medium early, had large

main heads, very few leaves but a large leaf surface. The seed
from this line was very poor when viewed from the standpoint of
oil production.

Number 514 also yielded about the average weight of
seed and in type was short with few branches but more than the
average number of heads. Other characteristics of this variety
were, early maturity, medium sized main heads, a large number
of leaves and a very large leaf area. The oil content of the
seed was low.

Strain number 507 yielded about an average weight of
seed and grew to about average height . It had very few branches
and heads, and was inclined to be rather late in maturing. The
main heads were of average diameter, but the number of leaves
produced was few, and the leaf area small. The oil content of
the seed was below the average for the test.

Although 505 was significantly taller than all other
varieties in this experiment, its yield of seed was less than
the average. It also produced a significantly greater number
of both branches and heads than did any other variety except
515. Number 505 was significantly later in maturity than all
others except 515, and produced fairly small heads, few leaves
and a small leaf area. The oil content of the seed was very
high, being significantly greater than all other varieties with
the exception of 511 and 504.

A comparatively poor yield of seed was obtained from
515. This strain was very close to average, not only in height

but also in regards to number of branches, number of heads,

-25-

date of maturity, size of main heads and the number of leaves.
The leaf area and the percentage of oil in the seed were both
represented by low figures.

Number 502 was a poor yielding variety and was very
tall, having also a large number of branches and heads. Bloom-
ing did not commence until quite late in the season and the
main heads were small in size. The number of leaves was quite
small, but their area was about average, whereas the oil cont-
ent of the seed was higher than most of the other varieties.

Strain 506 gave but a poor yield of seed and attained
about medium height. The plants were branching but produced
only a few heads which were late in appearing. The main heads
were fairly large and the leaves were about the average both
in number and area. The seed from this line was low in oil
content.

A poor yield was also obtained from 517, which was
of the short type with many branches and heads. The main heads
were fairly late in maturing and were of medium size. This
strain, although having only an average leaf area, had a signifi-
cantly greater number of leaves than all other strains. The
oil content of the seed was very close to the average of all
varieties.

Another poor yielding variety was 510, which was a
little taller than medium height, branched and had a medium
number of heads. The most outstanding characteristics of this
strain were significantly more leaves than all others, and a
significantly larger leaf area than all other strains except

514. The oil percentage of the seed produced by 510 was only

 

'Iwmm. m.‘ mar—C!“ A

 

"‘.-....... . .-.
a .0 '6 (0:, ‘9’. 'a ‘. '«°.' °." ‘
' v C .
O a p O ‘ ’11 .. .4 o
4.; .y. “0" o o 0 t...-
““2”. ‘v _ ‘ ,._,ooo.o.o

.0
Q
4‘45"
A n!

n c (h A. ‘0 .Q g
C . I . C . U C
o. c.— oq—av-Q.—-.. .
'07-. o~ 9 a .-
."“3‘,..'. -;'-.
- 4 .‘_

v...

‘0 .I '4 .0 .C

"O I O .

'h -3” t
.:..',.._r:.71.
. - . .

'v‘c‘0A. c o
_o’-.éfjo - g

Q I U C “ T.
Q— U .— O
- .,a._

. O o
_... _ I
..0._..........._..-, z... ...

1*-

a
. 3311:! £7 - ’1- '

A..‘
”-

.3..'~o
..

.:,-‘

-25-

about average for this test.

A very poor weight of seed was produced by 512, which
was another short, branching variety with a medium number of
heads. It had small heads, many leaves, a very small leaf area,
and the oil percentage was low. I

A significantly lower yield than from any other variety
was produced by 315. This strain was of average height but had
a significantly greater number of both heads and branches than
any other variety. The main heads were small and late, and the
number and area of the leaves was approximately average. No
figures on the percentage of oil in the seed are available as

the amount of seed oroduced was insufficient for testing purposes.

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

 

Factors affectinggthe oil pegcentage.

A considerable amount of time, material and laboratory
equipment is necessary if every strain in a large sunflower nurs-
ery must be tested to determine the amount of oil in the seed
of that strain. Should a correlation exist between some morpho-
logical factor and the ability to produce seed high in oil cont-
ent, it would then be possible to eliminate at least the poorest
lines without actual testing, and thus cut down the amount of
laboratory work considerably. 'hith this object in mind, several
coefficients of total correlation were obtained and have been
presented in Table 20.

The results of this study showed that there was

evidently no correlation between the oil percentage of the seed

and the area of the leaves, the number of leaves, the diameter
of the main heads, the number of branches, the number of days
from seeding to blooming, or the number of heads per plant.

It would appear from Table 20, however, that the
taller plants produced seed which was rich in oil as there was
a highly significant positive correlation between the amount
of oil in the seed and the height per plant. As pointed out
by Goulden (9), it is quite possible that this correlation,
although statistically highly significant, may not prove to
be of practical significance. The reason for this supposition
is that some third causal factor, such as the greater opportun—
ity afforded the taller plants to utilize sunlight, may also
influence this apparent relationship between the height of
plants and the percentage of oil. It would therefore seem that
although this presented evidence is impressive from the statisti-
cal standpoint, it should be further substantiated before being
applied to actual plant breeding practices.

A highly significant positive correlation was obtained
between the percentage of oil in the seed and the yield of seed.
As the oil content was based on the analysis of the whole seed,
and not on the kernels alone, it is logical to expect a higher
yield of oil from the heavy, plump seed which would probably
have a higher ratio of kernel to hull. This correlation would
be affected by environmental conditions and, as it is based on

only one years results, cannot be regardej as being conclusive.

 

 

..‘.'.‘......
. ...
mfi-*€ ‘v

-' —4’ 3 - — 5 .11-4“. on...
Jsi‘FJH- . . ... -1. ..
....... _ . . -, s

I I C d - J 4 A I. . Q A... .
C‘C‘v 9— - ‘ a. -o
Q "9:0.9215303‘. ‘ fi‘cro

h "H‘

. ,
‘V'.
‘1‘1"\. ‘.‘ ' J 0"
I. -r..- o--.-'.'—t.v.
._. 1-.... u .... -...:
.. . .

'résé
- ‘ Q I

-_..'):: . ‘, ._7‘

. 0‘. u ’
2"!
' I;
~ «.—

. . .
0
L44. ...
‘0‘.“ to -'~Ou
..--.-.A.I‘p'.
. . . ~

.E‘k - “is; n“

I .
I I‘T'

.-

"fr";
'- L‘ “a .‘o

-28-

Factors affecting yield of seed.

A group of coefficients of total correlation involving
yield of seed as the dependent variable were presented in Table
21. The object of this study was to determine whether or not it
is possible to identify high yielding strains of sunflowers by
observation in the field.

From the results presented in Table 21 it would appear
that the area of the leaf surface of any line had no direct
bearing on the yield of seed.

A very significant negative correlation was found to
exist between the number of leaves and the yield of grain. It
is not probable that a large number of leaves were actually
detrimental to the seed bearing qualities of the plant, but
rather that the varieties which had many leaves were generally
of the branching multiple headed type which yielded poorly.

Contrary to general belief there appeared to be no
significant correlation between the yield of seed and the
diameter of the main heads. It may be seen from Tables 5 and
12 that variety 516 possessed very small-main heads and yielded
well, whereas 317 had fairly large heads and produced a very
small quanity of seed. The weight of seed produced in a head
depends not only on the diameter of the head but also on the
number of flower zones which are fertile and on the length of
the kernels.

It may be observed in Table 21 that a very significant
positive correlation exists between the yield of seed and the

height of plants. An examination of the varieties in this test

 

'0.‘ a”,

.... 7‘.

' '9', .
‘v -|
h».
n

.

O0-
.‘1

v .‘ u -
x13! 3;

.. ,.
" n45..-

shows that most of the high yielding varieties were tall and,
as a rule, the poor yielders were short. It is questionable
if this statistical result is sufficiently conclusive to be
used as the sole basis for selecting breeding material.

A very strikingly significant negative correlation
coefficient was obtained between the yield of seed and the
number of branches. By observing Tables 3 and 7 it may be
seen that had all the varieties possessing a large number of
branches been discarded as breeding material, very few good
yielding strains would have been eliminated by the use of
this method of selection.

There was found to be a highly significant negative]
correlation between the yield of seed and the number of days
from seeding to blooming. Heather conditions would influence
this factor very considerably and, as this test was conducted
for only one season, this can not be said to be conclusive
evidence.

I From Table 21 it may also be observed that there
is a very significant negative correlation between the yield
of seed and the number of heads. It was thought that this
result might be influenced unduly by the fact that four single,
high yielding varieties were included in this test. Another
statistical method was applied, this time including all the
fourteen multiple headed strains but no single variety. The
result of this calculation was as follows:- Correlation
coefficient obtained - -.402, with necessary difference of

P.05 - .246 and P.Ol - .342. It is therefore obvious that even

-50-

when the single headed varieties were excluded a highly
significant negative correlation is obtained. This result
conflicts with the statement, "Contrary to common belief the
better multi-headed types give more grain than the single
headed sorts" made by Hamilton (10). This author, however,
was evidently basing his conclusions solely on observations,
as his inference was not supported by any figures.

A study of sunflower yields in Washington State
convinced Thornber (18) that single headed plants outyielded
multiple ones, and that it was advisable to constantly rogue
out all multiple headed plants when producing sunflower grain

for seed purposes.

SUMMARY

Between the inbred lines of sunflowers studied in
this thesis, significent differences were found to exist in
regards to each and every morphological character considered.

The uniformity of the data for each plant within a
line proved that these characters were heredflary and bred true.

It was shown that these lines varied greatly both
in their ability to produce a high yield of seed and also in
the quality of that seed when considered as a source of vegetable
oil.

A statistically significant positive correlation was
found to exist between the percentage of oil in the seed and the
height of the plants,and similarly between the percentage of

oil and the yield of seed produced.

 

-31-

A very significant negative correlation between the
yield of seed and the number of leaves was observed. A very
significant positive correlation was noted between the yield
of seed and the height of plants. It was also observed that
highly significant negative correlations existed between the
yield of seed and the factors for number of branches, number

of days from seeding to blooming and number of heads.

CONCLUSIQE
In a sunflower breeding project to originate a
variety which.will produce a large yield of seed with high

oil content, only tall, non-branching plants should be considered

as being of suitable type.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTs

The writer wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness
to Dr. L. E. Kirk and Mr. F. Dimmock for putting the facilities
of the Division of Fbrage Plants at his disposal; to Dr. w. F.
Geddes and staff forrmflcing the oil analysis; and to Mr. F. S.
Nowosad, Dr. J. M. Armstrong, and Professor H. M. Brown for their
assistance and constructive criticism in the preparation of this

paper.

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

-52..

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

 

Allan, F. E., Wishart, J. A method of estimating the yield
of a missing plot in field eXperimental work.
Jour. Agr. Sci. 20 p 3; 399-406, 1930.

Arnoldova, 0. N., To the biology of sunflower blooming in
connection with the technics of its crossing.
J. Exp. Landw. Sudost. Eur-Russ. 3: 131-143, 1926.

Cardon, P. V. Sunflower studies. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron.
14: 69-72, 1922.

Cookerell, T. D. A. Suppression and loss of characters in
sunflowers. Sci. n.s. 40: 283-285, 1914.

Sunflower problems. Sci. n.s. 40:708-709,

 

1914.

wThe marking factor in sunflowers. Jour. of
Heredity, 6: 542-545, 1915.

 

Hybrid sunflowers. Nature, 102:25-26,1918.

 

Hybrid sunflowers. Amer. Nat. 63: 470-475,
1929.

 

Goulden, C. H. Methods of statistical analysis, Minneapolis,
Burgess Publishing 00., p. 30-35, 1936.

Hamilton, R. I. Improving sunflowers by inbreeding. Sc.Agr.
6:6: 190-192, 1926.

Kramer, P. J. An improved photoelectric apparatus for
measuring leaf areas. Amer. Jour. Bot. V 24,
June 1957.

McRostie, G. P. Sunflowers. Canadian Cent. Exp. Farm Rep.
1925.

Sunflowers. Canadian Cent. Exp. Farm Rep.

 

‘—I927.
Platchek, E. Breeding sunflowers for resistance to
disease and insect attack. Rep. 3rd All-Russian
Cong. of Breeding and Seed Control, 10-11, 1920.

Form originating processes in the sunflower

 

under the influence of hybridization and inbreeding.
Proc. U. S. S. R. Cong. Gen. Plant and Animal
Breed. 2:395-396, 1930.

-35-

Bibliogaaphy (Cont'd)

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Reed, H. S. Growth and variability in Helianthus. Amer.

Sievers, A. F. The sunflower: Its culture and use.
U.S.D.A., B. P. I. Pamphlet, 1932.

Thornber, W. S. Sunflower culture, State Col. of Wash.,
Ext. Dept. Bul. Series 1: 18, 1916.

'natson, D. J. The estimation of leaf area in field crOps.
Jour. Agr. Sci. 27 p.3: 474-483, 1937.

fiatson, E. E. Contributions to a monograph of the genus
Helianthus. Mich. Acad. Sci. 9: 305-475, 1929.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lifiéfi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Height of Plints in inches
Totals by Reps. Totals by Plants vga'91 flag-"1L2, , '15 Means of
Replies Replicate 3 Replicate i'“"63«’ ‘p ‘
, 33,5... , i 9‘“ 'Jarie ., I: s Varieties
Variety 1 2 3 4 6 7 10 1 2 3 5 6 7 B 9 - 10 l 2 3 4 5‘ :6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 75 6 7 8 g 10 1 2 5 2 3 5 6 8 9
301 78 78 78 L. 81 81 96 100 90 96 96 93 96 94 87 92 93 96 98 96 95 91 9O 92 74 73 75 71 72 7O 75 75 78 800 947 930 343 339 340 345 340 339 5411 85.275
302 73 '74 '72 75 73 vs 93 as oil 87 as 87 a"; so 95 87 so so as 84 85 so a? 86 69 72 67 65 66 68 '71 76 76 750 913 are 326 325 £517 310 321 325 3236 80.900
303 84 82 01 80 84 87 102 02 109 102 105 100 103 02 91 96 98 99 96 99 93 93 95 90 78 79 81 77 76 74 73 73 78 830 1037 959 359 364 362 361 350 355 3586 89.650
304 72 68 72 78 76 78 . 81 84 77 81 75 78 77 72 81 81 76 81 80 79 81 78 78 77 66 66 71 59 67 7O 71 66 67 749 7 82 792 299 297 303 303 302 299 3007 76.175
305 73 75 76 79 78 79 75 78 80 84 81 79 79 72 76 75 72 69 72 74 78 77 78 79 67 68 69 67 69 66 67 66 69 764 790 750 926 298 296 305 296 300 2980 74.500
306 66 67 72 67 70 73 74 74 72 73 V5 72 71 69 71 71 71 72 72 73 69 7O 68 66 59 63 6O 62 59 60 62 59 61 689 736 703 275 280 272 275 274 268 2731 68.275
07 70 72 66 66 64 72 72 71 71 71 72 70 70 70 75 75 69 72 72 72 72 72 73 72 61 59 6O 63 62 6O 61 61 6" 678 710 724 277 267 272 269 272 271 2720 68.050
308 66 67 68 69 69 71 75 78 81 79 79 67 68 66 75 79 84 79 81 76 74 75 68 64 74 72 71 71 70 69 69 66 65 690 744 755 296 297 504 294 283 275 2884 72.100
309 63 66 66 69 7O 73 62 66 72 74 69 69 73 7O 6O 63 63 63 64 63 61. 64 68 65 65 65 6. 62 66 63 67 66 65 682 696 634 260 260 268 273 266 278 2655 65.573
31. 66 60 69 63 69 73 7B 81 81 80 72 81 78 75 73 81 84 85 82 72 78 75 74 72 67 70 72 72 71 66 65 66 66 666 788 776 292 305 298 292 290 289 2917 72.925
311 55 56 60 60 62 65 51 54 57 60 56 56 54 58 66 66 65 63 63 61 65 66 66 69 68 63 66 67 67 67 67 68 69 604 555 650 239 245 246 250 253 250 2474 61.85.
312 52 54 55 59 57 52 51 49 ‘3 55 53 52 49 51 54 54 54 55 51 49‘ 51 55 55 5O 54 57 56 57 59 55 54 55 53 556 514 528 214 218 217 22. 219 215 2155 53,825
313 54 63 62 6O 63 60 62 61 63 65 65 58 63 63 67 65 66 67 63 64 65 62 59 63 67 61 62 67 68 66 66 65 71 609 622 641 950 252 252 260 249 248 2529 63.225
314 51 5:5 56 5‘7 as so 52 51 54 49 49 54 53 55 61 63 62 58 65 as 61 so so 59 65 61 so 60 5a 59 57 58 5., 361 520 612 228 23. 234 22% 228 22,, 2286 5745 o
315 67 50 64 67 67 70 69 71 72 70 71 74 71 69 78 76 72 73 73 74 74 75 76 79 71 68 68 66 70 68 69 68 66 685 708 750 275 274 279 281 293 280 2826 70.651.
316 48 49 4.7 48 4s 4.: so 49 4'7 45 51. 4a 51 48 4e 48 4s 46 48 44 45 47 4e 47 as .52 54 49 50 4., 4,8 51 49 488 488 46., 198 199 195 18,, 195 203 1944 48.6 00
31'? 51 55 51 54 6O 54 54 5'7 54 53 54 as 54 55 62 62 61 57 so 62 s? 64 so 65 62 6. be 55 54 5., 56 6. 52 551 542 616 254 223 229 229 231 23,, 2293 57.5 25
318 50 48‘ 47 53 52 so 50 4s 47 45 45 51 51 5:5 as 54 54 56 51 51 51 55 51 54 48 52 45 45 47 51 5. 5. 4., .304 4.9. 53. 202 195 194 195 20,, 204 2008 50.2 00
,1142 1147 1164 1184 1200 1224 1247‘ 1267 1271 1269 262 1243 1248 1234 1269 1288 1282 1281 1279 1256 1255 1265 1260 1249 £168 1161 1155 1149 1151 1136 1148 1149 1159 11856 12582 12684 4863 4868 4878 4876 4869 4873 48640 67.555

 

 

 

 

 

Number of branches

 

 

 

 

 

 

Replicate l ' Replicate 2 Replicate 3 Replicate 4 T°tals by Repsv 1é3jifzgf§gif‘¥§§?§}f TOtcls 3’ whgnSQOf
\ 2' 4 $4 grad 93,; Var-15 ties
Variety 1 2 3 4 5 s 7 a 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1o 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 a 9 10 1 2 a 4 5 e 7
8 97 10 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10
301 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 o o 0 o 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0
502 34 37 55 33 36 as 45 42 40 40 4 o 42 4o 55 39 38 40 55 4o 39 36 35 37 53 52 36 24 32 52 as 34 38 37 57 57 38 34 34 38 35 375 386 331 360 144 153 149 138 144 117 141 141 150 145 1452 56.300
305 42 42 43 40 43 45 45 4s 47 44 41 42 40 40 43 45 41 45 40 37 5? 41 41 42 39 41 41 41 39 as 43 43 45 44 43 41 41 44 44 37 .34 412 398 425 163 168 169 166 168 170 168 173 170 154 1669 41.725
304 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0
305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 ' 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o o 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 O
306 1a 21 20 21 19 21 17 20 2; 1e 22 24 22 1s 25 21 22 24 20 22 15 22 20 20 19 19 15 23 20 22 20 24 22 25 25 25 21 22 21 21 197 218 195 224 75 91 e4 82 as 86 75 89 as 83 834 20.850
307 12 13 11 13 5 10 9 10 10 12 e 17 12 11 15 14 11 10 13 1o 19 12 12 15 11 16 14 20 12 17 7 10 15 e 15 7 12 15 1o 15 115 119 148 112 46 52 so 4? 52 47 4e 55 45 52 492 12.500
308 27 27 50 30 32 32 26 28 28 25 27 28 so 25 29 2? 26 28 27 29 22 23 24 24 25 26 25 21 20 22 27 30 so 33 33 34 35 50 27 so 286 276 250 500 105 108 114 112 117 119 112 107 102 107 1101 27.525
309 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 o o 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0
, 310 24 22 20 23 18 23 21 24 26 19 22 22 1o 22 25 29 24 18 20 22 24 27 25 20 26 22 25 27 25 26 28 53 28 35 28 54 53 29 32 25 220 214 245 303 98 104 83 98 97 108 105 98 101 92 982 24.55
511 20 23 24 23 22 25 i 22 26 22 22 21 22 23 24 23 24 25 23 20 23 25 24 21 24 20 24 23 23 as 24 27 24 26 25 25 24 26 24 25 23 227 228 231 24a 93 93 94 94 91 95 96 96 90 92 954 23.350
312 24 26 25 9 25 25 20 26 25 as 27 24 23 25 26 24 27 27 24 24 25 25 25 23 17 20 22 22 26 23 24 27 28 25 27 25 26 36 .24 28 258 251 228 25° 100 103 101 102 95 94 101 101 99 101 997 24’925
313 19 23 17 21 1? 21 21 21 18 14 17 18 20 17 19 23 18 17 19 21 19 15 20 15 16 17 18 12 16 17 20 19 22 20 22 21 24 20 22 21 192 189 153 211 75 75 79 71 74 32 81 7° 75 73 755 13‘875
314 15 15 15 16 16 15 14 17 16 15 17 14 14 11 11 12 15 12 14 13 20 21 16 17 14 18 1e 17 15 18 17 17 18 16 18 17 16 1e 1e 15 154 135 175 166 69 67 ea 60 59 62 as 62 62 61 628 15.700
315 72 49 58 51 60 4e 51 57 52 56 59 56 56 66 63 60 51 64 -51 61 66 63 66 63 57 63 68 56 66 a3 63 56 52 54 55 54 48 61 60 62 554 587 641 553 250 234 333 254 343 335 228 238 259 242 2355 59'135
316 15 19 11 16 10 11 16 15 11 17 1s 12 15 16 15 14 12 13 17 16 12 14 19 1e 15 11 14 15 15 15 12 12 13 15 12 12 17 15 16 10 141 14:5 146 134 52 57 58 53 52 48 59 58 59 58 564 14'100
317 26 32 26 51 25 35 23 31 53 21 25 31 27 so 31 29 31 25 so 28 29 29 31 23 51 27 51 25 29 29 51 27 28 33 24 as 27 28 31 31 285 387 280 293 111 119 112 117 111 124 113 110 123 109 1148 28‘700
318 9 ‘8 7 10 7 8 8 8 10 11 12 13 16 15 8 10 10 10 7 10 9 7 10 12 10 10 q 12 13 10 11 10 9 11 g 12 10 -9 11 8 86 111 100 100 41 38 42 48 54 4O 35 39 41 59 397 9.925
E AAJH
: 357 557 542 357 544 352 552 368 360 341 351 365 348 355 368 368 553 349 552 355 358 359 367 345 540 350 345 547 550 355 564 570 373 575 372 377 70 577 557 3550 3564 3516 3708 1450 1451 1430 1432 1424 1447 1420 1437 1439 1408 14318 19.saag_j{

 

 

 

 

 

3.318281%; .
Maggy-m Tu"? MAB-Wain

“in” (“A ‘MAJ YEAH

 

‘ 373

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of 118262 , per plant ‘ ~ . . ”"'
Totals by Reps Totals by Plants ‘17.".- 7'1: 1‘09" 3 , 1: $81118 of
Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3 Replicate 4 p u A in 0 655-1 A 7:- 5
Variety l 2 5 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10 l 2 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
8 9 10 l 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 5 6 '7 : 5 10
501 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 4 4 4 4 4 ~—- H4 4 4 4 4 4 5 1 .00 0
502 21 20 1:3 18 18 19 20 21 19 19 44 45 :30 27 :54 41 45 :56 :55 69 51 50 41 ‘53 37 51 35 4O :57 52 19 22 20 21 21 19 18 20 22 20 195 374 .345 202 11:) 117 109 99 11V 118 1 14. 117 1 15 110 1114 27 .85 O
505 28 27 24 29 59 28 27 24 28 28 47 59 48 45 56 48 47 41 49 45 55 46 51 48 45 45 41 58 41 45 50 51 29 51 28 25 24 24 25 22 272 445 409 265 138 143 152 152 139 142 139 127 141 155 1389 54,735
304 l 1 l l 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 l 1 l l l l 1 1 l 1 1 l 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 10 10 10 lo 4 4 4 4 4 4 .4 4 4 4 40 1.003
2505') l 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l l l l l 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 4 4 4 4: 4 4 4 4 4 4 4o 1 .000
306 ll 15 12 13 ' ll . 14 12 10 10 ll 12 14 .14 12 1.4 16 l4 14 12 14 12 1? 16 15 lb 12 11 14 12 14 1.1 11 12 1.1 13 12 ll 11 9 10 119 136 158 111 46 57 54 51 53 5 4 45 4g 45 A g 504 12 , 600
507 7 7 7 7 8 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 6 7 7 5 6 6 12 12 11 14 11 12 11 12 8 9 6 6 9 5 9 5 7 7 7 6 71 65 112 67 50 32 34 33 54 31 32 31 ab 26 3 5 7_825
508 16 16 17 19 18 19 20 19 17 18 25 25 25 25 21 16 20 19 18 18 22 22 21 20 21 24 25 19 21 22 25 20 20 25 22 22 18 L3 17 18 179 204 215 201 84 81 81 85 82 81 81 75 75 7b 799 19,975
309 l 1 l 1 l l l l l 1 1 l l 1 l 1 l 1 l l l l l l 1 l 1 1 1 l 1 1 l l l l l 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 40 1 .000
510 19 20 18 21 18 19 19 21 20 19 25 28 25 24 50 55 18 24 21 28 14 18 51 27 51 21 21 50 52 25 20 16 21 19 21 26 19 18 16 16 194 252 251 192 75 82 93 91 100 99 80 95 59 5% 589 22,225
31.1 19 19 21 19 19 18 19 21 19 22 15 ll 15 17 16 13 12 13 1.4 l? 22 19 23 20 25 1.9 20 20 24 21 25 21 19 21 1.9 24 20 19 33 20 196 141 211 211 81 70 7 5 77 77' 74 71 73 80 {.33 759 18 , 9'75
312 22 20 22 21 18 19 22 22 233 23 20 18 25 19 18 21 17 21 1.9 19 21 lb 19 l7 15 16 16 lb 15 20 22 26 19 22 21 19 19 19 22 28 212 195 159 217 85 79 83 79 73 75 ,4 77 7g 90 793 19 .825
{513 13 1'7 14 15 10 15 13 17 18 15' 1.2 14 15 15 14 15 14 14 13 1:) 13 15 12 14 lb 13 1.2 15 15 15 12 15 12 16 13 16 14 15 14 15 149 139 157 14:3 50 6]. 5:5 58 55 59 5:5 61. 58 62 568 14 .200
514 20 25 19 22 21 25 20 25 20 22 21 19 21 19 17 18 24 16 21 24 26 25 21 19 19 24 25 19 25 26 24 25 22 22 25 25 26 26 24 22 213 200 227 257 91 90 85 82 83 as 95 84 88 94 877 21.925
515 41 36 31 53 35 35 I60 45 38 62 61 5'? 61 6‘7 49 62 51 36 61 :56 71 68 71 68 ’74 68 '73 61 72 68 68 48 56 41 40 5'7 51 55 66 54 384 52,1 694 547 241 209 219 209 198 222 195 206 257 210 2146 55 . 650
316 19 20 24 20 / 19 23 22’ 19 20 2. 22 19 2% 25 23 20 2 3 19 24 19 2? 29 23 29 18 22 26 25 23 25 16 l? 20 23 1'7 16 24 20 21 15 206 2 16 24 '7 189 84 85 88 9 ‘7 78 81 95 85 88 7 9 858 21 .450
7 517 20 24 20 25 22 26 22 25 26 20 18 22 18 19 19 19 21 20 18 19 22 25 25 17 25 19 22 20 21 21 22 21 22 22 28 28 21 22 25 25 228 195 215 237 82 go 85 83 92 93 86 85 go as 871 21.775
I 518 8 6 5 5 5 5 b b b 5 5 5 b 9 a 8 8 a 8 5 5 5 5 8 5 6 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 51 50 51 47 19 21 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 199 4 . 9'79
265 274 256 270 256 274 27? 279 274 287 552 525 526 526 507 558 500 87 520 506 555 548 554 550 556 554 546 557 551 548 506 286 289 286 287 298 81 294 298 38; 2707 3157 3459 2906 1238 1233 1225 1232 1306 124; 1199 1197 1245 1222 12259 16.999

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3:361?
Wam'x’lmfi 37MB MAE))H;;M ‘
6pm 5932 m “HIEMA j ’95:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nmuber of days from seeding to blooming

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Replicate. 1 Replicate 2 Replicate S Replicate 4 Totals by Reps. Totals by Plants T‘Tfls bf! 3’59?“ 01'

Variety 1 2 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 49 10 1 2 5 '4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 ' 10 ' 1 2 ' 5 4 1 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 76r152165 vsrietk s
501 77 77 77 77 78 78 77 78 77 77 81 81 81 81 . 81 89 81 81 81 81 77 77 78 78 78 78 77 77 78 78 80 80 79 80 80 80 78 79 79 79 773 809 776 794 515 515 315 516 517 315 315 515 3 5 31” 5153 78‘800
502 75 74 74 75 75 75 76 76 75 75 85 85 85 84 88 84 85 88 88 84 82 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 82 82 81 82 81 81 81 82 82 790 859 811 815 525 520 822 821 521 521 725 821 821 522 5215 50.375
808 85 82 82 82 82 85 82 88 88 88 85 85 86 88 85 88 84 85 85 85 82 82 84 85 85 88 85 85 88 85 85 84 84 87 85 84 84 85- 85 85 825 848 553 848 335 555 355 557 537 553 33: 335 3&5 335 5‘54 83'890
804 70 69 70 69 70 70 69 69 71 71 74 74 74 75 75 74 78 75 74 78 70 69 70 70 69 70 ' 7o 69 70 69 71 72 71 72 72 71 72 71' 70 73 698 755 595 714 285 384 285 284 384 385 352 252 335 285 2843 71’075
505 77 77 78 79 78 79 79 79 79 79 81 81 82 82 81 81 81 81 81 81 78 79 79 79 78 78 79 79 79 79 79 78 79 78 78 79 78 79' 78 80 784 813 787 785 515 315 318 518 315 517 317 31“ 317 519 3169 79°225
806 82 82 85 82 88 5 82 82 82 82 85 82 82 82 81 81 82 88 81 81 81 85 81 81 82 82 81 81 80 81 81 81 82 81 81 82 82 85 = 83 83 835 818 513 819 327 525 525 525 527 528 327 $39 536 537 3275 51'825
807 78 79 77 78 78 80 80 79 79 79‘ 85 84 88 81 81 82 82 88 88 85 81 81 81 84 80 88 81 84 81 81 81 81 81 81 80 82 81 82 80 81 787 827 81? 810 525 525 822 524 519 827 52. 528 528 524 8241 81.025
508 78 72 72 75 78 75 72 5 78 72 74 75 74 74 75 75 74 74 74 74 75 74 75 75 74 75 74 78 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 75 74» 74 74 726 745 739 741 294 285 295 296 296 295 295 '94 295 294 2949 75.725
809 74 75 75 76 76 75 74 75 76 76 78 79 79 79 78 78 78 78 79 78 77 75 76 76 76 76 75 76 76 76 78 79 78 78 78 78 77 77' 77 77 752 784 759 776 507 507 308 309 308 507 304 505 308 507 3071 76.895
$10 75 74 75 74 75 76 75 75 75 73 as 82 81 81 81 84 81 81 51 81 80 76 79 77 78 77 77 77 78 76 78 79 78 75 78 78 75 78 , 78 79 747 816 775 782 516 811 815 810 512 515 811 811 812 509 3120 78-000
511 71 71 72 72 78 72 75 78 75 78 70 71 71 70 70 71 70 71 71 70 72 72 70 70 70 70 71 71 71 72 72 71 72 71 72 72 72 73, 72 72 723 705 709 7&9 285 285 285 285 285 285 285 288 28” 387 2856 71‘400
512 74 74 75 75 74 74 75 75 75 74 70 70 70 70 70 79 70 70 70 70 71 71 70 70 71 70 71 71 79 70 78 72 78 71 75 72 71 72- 72 72 745 700 705 721 29‘ 287 385 286 288 286 287 285 287 286 2871 71.975
,515 77 78 78 77 77 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 77 78 79 77 79 78 77 78 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 76 82 81 82 81 81 82 80 81 - 81 80 777 780 770 811 514 315 315 315 312 315 514 515 515 512 3138 78°55.
514 71 71 72. 73 71 72 72 I72 I72 72 '70 71 70 71 71 71 70 72 72 71 I72 72 72 '72 '72 72 71 71 71 '71 75 7:5 72 72 '22 '72 '72 72 , '72 '72 7.17 709 716 722 286 287 286 28'? 286 287 285 287 287 286 3854 71-500
815 87 86 87 84 85 84 85 84 84 85 88 88 88 88 84 88 84 85 84 88 88 88 84 88 83 85 85 85 84 85 85 88 85 84 85 88 85 88= 88 84 851 855 852 882 586 855 857 854 555 858 555 858 585 555 3348 85-700
516 58 58 61 58 6O 59 59 I 58 59 58 58 58 58 58 58 60 58 88 58 58 59 59 58 58 58 58 59 59 58 58 60 59 58 58 59 60 58 61 . 58 58 588 582 585 589 255 254 255 282 255 287 254 255 255 252 2542 58.550
817 77 78 778 78 78 78 77 78 78 77 79 79 79 79 77 76 79 78 79 79 81 81 81 80 81 82 81 82 82 82 81 81 82 81 80 80 80 80 x 81 81 777 784 815 807 818 819 520 518 516 816 817 818 520 819 5181 79.525
518 72 70 70 71 70 70 70 72 70 72 70 70 72 72 - 70 70 69 7o 72 70 72 71 71 71 7o 71 70 72 70 ‘ 71 72 78 71 75 72 75 78 72! 72 71 707 .705 709 722 286 284 284 287 282 284 262 286 284 284 2843 71.D75
{ 1851 1847 1556 1852 1556 1559 1555 1589 1859 1556 1587 1886 1588 1585 1576 1881 1880 1581 1587 1580 1568 1864 1867 1865 1865 1864 1565 1565 1865 1561 1584 1882 1881 1881 1580 1585 1875 1888 1877 1582 18550 18829 15645 15808 5490 5479 5492 5481 5475 5487 5475 5488 5486 5479 54850 76.152

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'mamwih? 9741:? $14-57er
706789364 ROW 81428394175: 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Numter of Leaves per Pla nt
7. .;‘« A M M
Vari ‘33:,” N0 6 Rep: 1 Pep o 2 Rep :5 Rep . 6: Tots ls by Varieti es Mews of Varietie a
11:1 19 16 15 19 '70 17 .DO
002 c .35 :2 '55 15:3 :4 any _<
(.1 . 7 1 _ - _, g
am, J :35 2:7 .53 21, fu o ~ 3
k "'
$04: 19 $ '34 2:; :9 22 .23 55 E
$35 :57 :51 :55 :50 1:31 $2 :75 g E
) L..
306 '70 67 64 66 20’? 30.3713 {.0
3:“
3‘7 :55 42 45 51 152‘: LE 925
(\3
308 28 29 I50 29 116 29 o 3
509 18 19 18 19 74 18.499
310 121 152 146 119 5.38 154 .50
311 105 64 QC 130 25?"? 94 ...5
312 108 ‘78 91 8'5 360 9C) .00
315 58 65 53 54 23 5'7 «50
514 86 86 96 84 352 88°00
-J
315 84 74 :56 40 234 58950
316 66 6'7 59 56 248 62:00
317 124 109 1:50 119 ' 482 120 050
518 84 51 51 51 257 64.25
Tots ls 1124 1066 10133 992 4235 58 .82
7""7 ~¢w< 775733” 831m
' : ;_,t } 241' M 3m: momma
’ ' mm mm HON mam:

 

. Y 1
" ”3“" 7) E-gQ‘K‘x

1:251,36 632%

Leaf area per plant in hundreds of square inches

 

 

 

 

Variety No. Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 3 Rep.4 Totpls. by Varieties Means 9f V2riet185
301 16.2 18.6 19.2 12.6 66.6 16.660
302 18.0 20.1 15.2 16.8 70.1 17.325
303 15.2 15.0 15.9 14.1 60.2 13.050 :f)
304 20.8 17.2 19.8 18.1 76.9 18.976 ...:E
305 25.8 31.2 32.2 25.7 114.9 28.725 3%
306 16.7 23.8 18.7 20.3 81.3 20.375 ޤ

"I 307 14.0 13.5 14.6 12.4 64.6 13.650 :43
308 7 26.8 30.5 27.9 25.0 109.2 27.300 8
309 13.7 12.1 14.5 12.1 52.4 13.100
310 36.6 42.7 42.4 23.0 144.7 36.173

,
311 25.5 22.5 23.3 29.3 100.6 25.130 I
312 13.8 10.1 11.9 10.6 46.4 11.600 :
313 14.8 14.4 13.1 1 14.5 56.8 14.200 \
314 30.1 31.8 35.9 36.5 134.3 33.375
315 21.8 22.1 15.9 15.9 75.7 18.925
316 16 .1 17.6 14 .0 14.3 62.0 15 .500
317 23.7 21.4 22.0 23.2 , 90.3 22.573
318 19.7 12.1 13.6 13.6 59.0 14.730
Tots, 13 368.3 378.8 370.1 338.0 1450.2 20.211

 

 

 

 

 

 

31' “EDWIN
W) A
”km m OHM“ TEA?

 

Percent 011 in Whole Seed

 

 

 

 

Variety No. Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 3 Rep. 4 Totals by Varieties Means of Varieties
301 29.5 20.5 24.1 25.6 99.7 24,925

302 26.5 30.2 27.2 22.1 113.0 25.250 E

303 31.1 30.5 33.2 31.6 126.4 31.600 #2;

22::

304 29.4 28.6 50.8 31.0 119.5 29.950 Eli-1

\: 305 27.4 28.1 27.3 26.8 109.6 27.400 ;'

506 20.5 23.2 20.0 19.5 85.0 20.75 g;

307 18.7 22.7 22.6 20.1 85.8 20.950 8
508 17.8 16.4 19.9 21.9 76.0 19.000
309 22.1. 22.2 29.9 36.0 100.2 25.050
510 22.9 22.4 ~22 1 25.3 95.7 23.425
1511 35.7 {52.6 32.4 32.0 150.7 32.675
‘ 3112 20.5 20.6 18.5 it 24 .9 84.5 21.125
‘ 315 20.8 19.2 19.5 19.8 78.8 9.700
1 514 16.2 22.0 16.5 16.8 71.5 17.875
516 21.5 21.4 20.6 21.4 84.9 21.225
317 26.9 25.5 94.6 25.9 102.7 25.675
318 17.1 17.2 18.2 17.8 70.3 17.575
402.4 403.1 408.1 415.0 1628.6 23.950

 

 

 

 

 

r

 

. ,4.» . f -1”1é a. b 1411‘ n: “a: W h WWW 31'ka
5’ ._ II 3 IS (11
i mwzméfim 52'; .... m" ”m" ”

 

Totals by ’
2

 

‘_‘

 

"‘wzmflmfimHymnflmgr