EVALUATION OF SECOND CYCLE INBRED LINES OF MAIZE By RAMA mm. SINGH AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Farm Crops 1956 kl f"? . , Approved bipewth c] . QMtr¥vk (2!“ (a Banana“ ) -Fn'll" Rama Dayal Singh An‘Abstract Twenty 36 second cycle lines developed by inbreeding and selection in the double cross Ohio M 15 (Oh 51 x Oh 26) x (Ill.A x'W 23) were used to study the degree of relationship with the four parental lines and among themselves. These lines were crossed on ten testers, seven related (four parental inbreds, two single crosses and the double cross Ohio M 15) and three unrelated testers (inbred M 14, single cross M 14 x‘W F 9 and double cross Ia. 4483 (M 14 x W F 9) 1 (Ba x 816). Seven of the second cycle lines, four parental lines and one unrelated line, M 14 were used to produce, 66, single crosses. Actual and predicted performance of double crosses were compared with the parental Ohio M 15. A few of the second cycle lines were more vigorous than and superior to the parental inbreds in combining ability. Second cycle lines were genetically different from some of the parents and from each other. A few double crosses equal to or slightly better than Ohio M 15 were produced by crossing four second cycle lines or by substituting them with one or more of the parental lines in the pedigree of Ohio M 15. Predicted yield, percentage of moisture and stalk lodging of the double crosses from the sin- gle cross data showed significant correlation with the actual yield, percentage of moisture and stalk lodging. These-results indicate that, even the lines of the same origin can be used to produce good hybrids, if they were Rama Dayal Singh extracted from a wide genetic base. Inbred and single-cross testers were very specific in evaluating the lines for yield and lodging. This suggests the use of more than one of these as testers for general com- bining ability. The 'r' value between the two double cross testers was a significant (.46) but low enough to suggest the use of more than one tester for evaluating the lines for general combining ability for yield. A high 'r' value for the mean of the four parental inbred testers with the mean of their two single crosses suggested that either four inbreds or their two single crosses may be used for evaluating general combining ability of the lines for yield. Either the four inbred testers or their two single crosses, or the double cross of the four inbreds could be used to evaluate the lines for resistance to stalk lodging. A similar situation was indicated for resistance to root lodging. Correlation for the two tester groups (related and unrelated) indicates that either related or unrelated testers, as a group, were reliable for estimating relative general combining ability for yield, maturity, and stalk lodging resistance. The correlation coefficients for maturity were signifi- cant in all cases and were generally high, suggesting fewer testers would be needed to evaluate maturity than yield or lodging resistance. JO Rama Dayal Singh For related lines, genes conditioning specific com- bining ability were relatively more important in influencing yield than genes for general combining ability. Analysis of components of varience shows that for yield, line 1 tester interaction decreased with increased genetic variation in the tester. This same relationship did not exist formaturity. EVALUATION OF SECOND CYCLE INBRED LINES OF MAIZE By RAMA DAYAL SINGS A THESIS Submitted to the School of Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Farm Crepe 1956 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Direction and guidance was provided by Dr. E. C. Rossman. The assistance of Dr. I} D. Baten in statistical analysis of the data and helpful suggestions on writing from Dr. K. T. Payne and Dr. S. T. Dexter are acknowledged. Financial support of the Michigan Certified Hybrid Seed Corn Producers Association helped to complete this investigation. TABLE OF CONTENTS AINTRODUCTION ....................................... REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................... MATERIALS AND METHODS .............................. EXPERIMENTAL RESUDTS ............................... Performance of 20 36 second cycle lines ........ Combining ability of second cycle lines compared with parents .................... Genetic similarity of second cycle lines ....... Performances of the single and double crosses of second cycle lines .................. Evaluation of second cycle lines by different types of related and mal‘ted t.’t.r’ eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee DISCUSSION 0.0.0...0.0.0.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 8W! 0.0.0.0..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LITERATURE cum 0.0.0.0...00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO... APPENDH 0......OCOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQ Page 1 4 10 14 14 16 25 42 61 83 89 92 95 O...O'OOIOOQOOOOOIOOCIOC'.I.OIO.OO.O.II Io-QOOOOOOI1.00.00000000000000. 4’ eeeeeeaeoeeeeOeeeee-eeeeooeeee ‘ IOCUOOO. -. ‘. .1 ‘~ I eeeeeee ‘A . '~ ‘ I . . .' I . g e , _ -. r."' -“ IoeeeoeeeeeOOeeeO. ' ~ tr ..‘, ‘ \ l I . ,v ‘ r ‘ i .‘-.s eeeooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoew. ’ .QQOQOOOOOOIooola.IOOOOOOCCOOeOeeoooeaggg... see-eeeeeeoooeeeeeeeeowoeeaee000... Introduction The need of more efficient methods of isolating and evaluating improved inbred lines of corn is paramount if corn breeding is to progress significantly beyond its present status. In the early stages of hybrid corn breeding, inbred lines were produmed solely from open pollinated varieties. Ihile some of these lines were very desirable for hybrid corn production and are still among the more popular lines in commercial production, a very high percentage was dis- carded because of poor plant characteristics or inability to transmit high.yields and other desirable agronomic character- istics to their hybrids. In.more recent years, new lines have been produced from previously developed lines after combining them in crosses. A number of desirable lines have been isolated by second cycle inbreeding, but very few have been superior in com- mercial production to the best lines developed through inbreeding in open pollinated varieties. Several workers have reported that the isolation of second cycle inbred lines from single crosses precludes their use in hybrid combinations with each other or with the parental inbreds due to close genetic similarity. Second cycle inbreeding and selection in double cross hybrids and other crosses involving more than four inbred lines of diverse origin might reduce the dangers of close relationship among the inbreds. .‘ll ,( ~F 2 Continued inbreeding and selection in open pollinated varieties and other broad gene bases is necessary to main- tain or extend genetic diversity among inbred lines. Second and continued cycles of inbreeding and selection among crosses of these lines may lead to further improvement and refinement in the inbreds and their hybrids. Thus far it has been.impossible to isolate inbred lines superior for complexly inherited characteristics such as yield by visual means. Superior lines can be developed only by extensive and expensive testing programs. The top- cross method, using an open pollinated variety or double cross hybrid as a tester to identify lines of superior general combining ability, has been widely used. In 1948, inbreeding and visual selection for desirable agronomic characteristics was started in the double cross hybrid Ohio I 15 (on. 26 x on. 51) x (111.; x v 23). The hybrid was a popular, productive, mediumpearly maturing hybrid, well adapted throughout central lichigan. During the course of routine inbreeding and selection, it became apparent that a group of lines distinctly different from the four parental lines in eppearance was being developed. No evaluation for combining ability in test crosses had been made during the six generations of inbreeding and selection. Since it has become more or less standard procedure in corn breeding to avoid hybrids containing related inbred lines, it appeared desirable to determine the extent of genetic relationship in this material and how detrimental this I . . r o a a e O a ‘ .1 r A x p n ‘ r l . , . e a . a e A . .. . V ' I II I e . u . | n L m 4 I. . .. . a... . , a . rt . . n . y .. ’ a O. a . I i O ’ , 1 U U U o I D ‘ 4 u o v a I I I . _ s . . . o. 1‘ v ' ,a .I m 0 4 . I u l I . a. \ . . .y . I O s - . . vb v I . . a ‘ ‘ s . 4 I .a . u e (1 I e I i e o r v v 0 a e v . . 4.. . . r u . . x o . ._ ... . p b I p I w . I ‘ . . . e . e‘. a ‘ . . . I. e 1 . t I . .. . g . . I . a t r I I x I . . . h . . . 1 . . A. .a\ v i, . . . t . b . . 1 . I v o A! _ - . e , .. . . . . . . . ‘ ~ 0 . .F v . . o a O r s c 0 . v. . . 0 w I": . n ‘ . . . I _ t 1 O x ’ l . . . . . . e . e r 1 v 0 r . . , , . a 7 I . e . . e e u\ . 4 . ., y e . 3 relationship might be in producing improved hybrids in the Ohio I 15 maturity group. The present study has been conducted toward the above end. Review of literature Isolation of second cycle lines has been designated by various names such as 'pedigree system of breeding' and 'cumulative selection'. ‘wa (30), in studying the pedigree method of breeding for improvement of inbred lines isolated from single crosses, measured 11 characters in the progeny inbred lines and in the original parental inbred lines. All of these characters except two showed significant variability. Selection for certain characters by the pedigree method of breeding was effective in isolating inbred lines more desir- able in these characters than either parent. Hayes and Johnson (12) isolated inbred lines from single crosses that ‘were improved in.vigor, lodging resistance and smut resistance. Similar results were reported by Johnson and Hayes (18), Sprague (27) and Green (11) in the improvement of inbred lines by the pedigree method of breeding. Genetic diversity among inbred lines has generally pro- duced higher yielding hybrids than when.the inbreds were closely related. ‘lu (30) showed that related inbred lines produced single cross hybrids that yielded consistantly lower than single crosses composed of inbred lines of diverse genetic origin. Hayes and Johnson (12) reported results from the same type of study. In crosses of unrelated lines, twenty eight of forty-three single crosses were equal to or better than standard double crosses in yielding ability and :1.“ . 5 moisture percentage. Where one parent was common, six out of fifteen crosses and where both parents were common one out of fifteen.were equal or better in yield and moisture percentage than the standard double crosses. Johnson and Heyds (18) presented additional data from crosses between related inbred lines to show that genetic diversity was important to obtain.maximnm.expression of hybrid vigor. Eckhardt and Bryan (8 and 9) and Cowan (5) also confirmed the importance of genetic diversity for the production of high yielding hybrids. Development of inbred lines is comparatively simple compared to problems of evaluating the lines. The importance of this was stressed as early as 1909 by Shull (25). For a time it was customary to make and test as single crosses all possible combinations among the lines. This method was expensive and inefficient, even for the small number of inbreds used. Jenkins (14) reported correlations for the yield of double crosses with: (a) the mean yield of all six possible single crosses from four inbreds, (b) with the mean yield of the four nonparental single-cross combinations, (c) with the mean yield of all single crosses involving the four lines of the double cross, (d) with the mean yield of the inbred x variety top cross results for the four parent inbreds. lethod (b) was more genetically sound and the results agreed better ‘with the actual double cross performance. The'correlations for predicted and actual yields for methods (a), (b) and (c) 6 were 0.75, 0.76 and 0.73 respectively showing little dif- ference for the three methods. The correlations for the inbred variety crosses was 0.61, still significant. lethods (a), (c) and (d) all assume additive gene action. ‘lethod (b) no additive effects arising from dominance, epistatis etc. The effectiveness of predicting the yields of double crosses from the mean yields of the four nonparental single crosses has now been tested at several experiment stations. ‘Doxtator and Johnson (7) compared the predicted and observed yield of seven double crosses and two three way crosses. They reported that by appropriate use of single cross data, the highest yielding double cross combination could be predicted. Anderson (1) compared the actual yield of 15 double crosses with the predicted yield by method (b) of Jenkins and found close agreement between predicted and actual yields. The correlation was 0.9. Hayes, lurphy and Rinke (13) reported a comparison between actual and predicted yield and moisture content of 114 double crosses. There was excellent agreement between the predicted and actual results. Pre- diction of double-cross yields from data of the four non- parental single crosses has become an accepted method in corn breeding. Iillang and Sprague (22), Combs and Zuber (4) have prepared a procedure which facilitates the prediction of the double crosses by use of the punchcard machine method. The ultimate use of the inbred lines in hybrids and their final selection is based on.hybrid performances. In I at. I.-. . I“: 7 earlier days, all the lines were crossed with each other and tested. It was a very tedious and expensive Job. A more efficient method was available in the use of the inbred x variety crosses. Jones (19) reported on.inbred x variety crosses. He was mainly interested in relative performance, rather than as a method of evaluating the lines. Davis (6) used this method of inbred variety crosses for determining the combining ability of 82 lines. Jenkins and Brunson (16) compared the ranking of inbred lines by the inbred x variety crosses and single crosses. Coefficients of correlation for many characters were cal- culated between the mean performance of inbred lines as single crosses and their performance x in crosses with an open pollinated variety. They concluded that open pollinated varieties were effective in the preliminary testing of new lines. Johnson and Hayes (18) reported the relation between top cross yield and single yields for 11 inbred lines derived from the variety "Golden.BantamP. It was found that the inbreds yielding high in top crosses were most likely to pro- duce the high yielding single crosses. They also recommended this method for the preliminary evaluation of inbred lines. The choice of the tester depends upon the useto be made of the lines. A suitable tester should detect inherent dif- ferences in the combining ability of the lines. Beard (2) has compared the use of single crosses and an open pollinated Lu. 8 variety as testers. He concluded that the single crosses were at least equal to the open pollinated variety for evaluating combining ability. rederer and Sprague (10) concluded that increasing the number of testers improved the estimates of combining value more than increasing the number of replications. Keller (20) reported the relationship between the use of a related and an.unre1ated single cross as the tester parent in evaluating a group of selected F2 plants of maize. ‘The results indicate that the two testers did not rank the lines in the same order due to differences in specific combining ability of the testers. Another study was made to determine the asseciation.among the four testers for evaluating the lines. The results suggest that the inbred lines and the variety Krug as testers did not rank the lines similarly; The data suggest the use of a number of testers for evaluating general combining ability. It was also concluded that the use of the tester should be decided by the use to be made of the lines. latisinger (21) used 16 inbred lines, divided at random into two groups.- One of the groups was used as testers and the other as lines to be tested. The testers included eight inbred lines, two double crosses and four component single crosses. The eight lines tested were placed in the same rank when averages were obtained over all testers within a given type. The variance component estimates of the inter- actions involving acre yields of the inbred testers x lines, single cross testers x lines and double cross testers x lines 9 indicate that as the genetic variation within a tester parent increased, the line x tester interaction decreased. This relationship did not hold good in the case of moisture percentage. He concluded that when specific combining ability is of importance the best tester is the opposite single cross parent of the double cross or its component lines. The results indicate that the ranking of lines for general combining ability can be attained the most economical- ly through the use of a tester having a broad gene base. General and specific combining ability were defined by Sprague and Tatum.(29). Variances for these characteristics were obtained from single-cross yield trials. They con- cluded that general combining ability was relatively more important than specific combining ability among untested lines. Specific combining ability was relatively more impor- tant than general combining ability among previously tested lines. Materials and Methods Twenty 86 second cycle inbreds developed by inbreeding and selection in the double cross Ohio I 15 (Oh 51 x Oh 26) x (Ill.A x"’23) were each crossed to ten testers in 1954. Inbreeding and visual selection for desirable agronomic characteristics was started in 1948. None of the lines had been previously evaluated for combining ability. Since visual selection for combining ability for yield among and between inbreds has generally been ineffective (15), the 20 second cycle lines can be considered as a small random sample of the original population with respect to yielding ability. Origin of the four parental inbreds is: Oh 51-Ear1y Clarage open pollinated variety Oh 26-Early Clarage Open pollinated variety Ill.A-Funk Tallow Dent open pollinated variety ‘I 23-Golden Glow open pollinated variety. The seven related testers were the four parental inbred lines, Oh 51, on 26, Ill.A, and‘l 23 and the two parental single cross hybrids: (Oh 51 x on 26) and (Ill.A x‘l23) and the parental double cross, Ohio‘n 15 (0h 51 x Oh 26) x (Ill.A x 'l 23). The three unrelated testers were I14 (an inbred line), (I 14 x'l’F 9) and Ia. 4483 (l 14 x‘W F 9) x (B 8 x B 16). These 200 crosses were tested in 1955 at two locations . (Ingham and Saginaw Counties) in a split plot design with testers as main plots and second cycle lines as sub-plots. Three replications were used at each locatiOn. H‘ _ .V, O .3 . . '- ‘ . I r e 3,. r- ‘ , . e ’\ . . c A . f _ r i . I . a e a ' s A , 6 t I . .’ \ - I . f: ‘ . ‘ I. . . I r ‘ s , ' m : se a " l 4 ' ' ”.. is. e ‘4 { a . _ ' . g l . . . . I’ ‘ r. r a ! ' a 1'fit . ‘ ' v ‘D J - 1 ‘ e . "a ‘ . ___-‘ r ffi ‘ a W - 1‘ ' _ . r s - .l 5 C O'. . I O V 9 O ‘ 11 Seven of the second cycle lines, the four parental lines and the unrelated line I 14 were used to produce the 66 possible single cross combinations in 1954. These were tested in 1955 with two entries of Ohio I 15, Michigan 350, lichigan 480, Michigan 570 and single cross (I 14 x w r 9) in an 8 x 9 rectangular lattice design with three replications at two locations, Saginaw and Ingham.Counties. Each of the five tester inbreds, (Oh 51, Oh 26,-I11.A, ‘I 23, and I 14) was crossed with the other nine testers making 35 crosses. These 35 crosses were tested with the three tester single crosses, (0h 51 x 0h 26), (Ill.A x‘I23) and (I 14 x‘l P 9) and the two double cross testers Ia. 4483 and Ohio?! 15. The experiment was planted at two locations (Ingham.and Saginaw Counties) in a randomised design with three replications at each location. Double-cross seed was produced in Florida during the winter of 1954-55; Twenty seven doable crosses were made in ‘which one of the four parental lines of Ohio I 15 was replaced with a second cycle line and four crosses with I 14. Forty three double crosses were made using only the second cycle lines. All were "guess” combinations since single-cross and test-cross data were not available for predicting the best double crosses that could be produced. These double crosses 'were tested in 1955 with three entries of Ohio ['15,‘lichigan 350, llichigan 430, lichigan 480 and Michigan 570 as standards. The experiment was planted at two locations (Inghmm and Saginaw Counties) in a 9 x 9 triple lattice design with three replications. . e ‘ I \y . O _. a . i. n w 0 r I . . . .. i . . . . . a . . e a .\ . i . . a v r e . . . , f . .D . . t . , n r y . ‘ a O I I 4 , a . a . O . n . . U a . , . . . a . O . e , . s . . \ x. C . . . t a . . A . . a n a v . v r s c H . a m.. e a O . \ 1 (II a . a .. . . 12 The Ingham County location was planted on the lay 7, 1955 at the Far- Crops Field Laboratory of Michigan State 'University and the Saginaw County location was planted on lay 3, 1955 on the farm of‘Ialter Beinbold near Reese, Michigan. Plots were 2 x 5 hills, thinned to three plants per hill. The twenty second cycle inbreds, the four parental in- breds and the unrelated inbred lil4 were compared in a randomized block design with four replications in 1954 and in a simple lattice design with four replications in 1955. Plots were 15 feet long, thinned to 15 plants per plot. ' 1.1.219. him in 1.255 There were five yield trials in 1955 at each of two locations, Ingham.and Saginaw Counties. 1) Test crosses -200 test crosses (20 inbreds x 10 testers) 2) Single crosses - 66 single crosses plus 6 standard I hybrids (72 entries) 3) Tester crosses - 35 test crosses plus 5 standards (40 entries) 4) Double crosses - 74 crosses plus 7 standards hybrids (81 entries) 5) Inbred lines _ - 25 inbreds. ‘Qbssrxslisas. Stand and missing-hill counts were made before harvest at both locations. Counts of stalk lodging (plants broken below the ear) were made. Root lodging counts were made for plants leaning at an angle of 30° or more from vertical. ~.,-, 0"! l u . K . --- -_~ I {V s , . . s .1 q p s A . l 1 L A .r . .1. I . .- '\ , . Ir '- 1 “‘ ' x ‘ I I I i. s . ‘ . l O.”- e e ' a u e D e . , v . e. a , m . . . , .' . . I e . I I . O . y a s m . ' ‘- ~-. .79 . ....-- e . ‘ ' ' .- I . I . i . , , .- l ‘ I'a _‘ - . a '1 '.fi 0.- a ‘ . . .— Cy-‘o—-moa-. -, e ‘. 4 r 4 D ‘ ‘ I. \ ,1. . u a‘ .- '.‘\ I ‘ .- a , , ,. . . . , Q . 13 The Ingham.County experiments were harvested on October 3, and Saginaw County on October 23, 1955. Ten.ears ‘were taken at random from each plot for determination of moisture percentage in the ear at harvest. A one inch section was cut from the center of each ear with a special machine (3). The colposite sample of 10 sections from.each plot was weighed in grams, dried in an oven at about 1609F., re-weighed in grams, and moisture percentage calculated by weight loss. ‘Weight adjustments were made for missing hills but no adjustments were made for missing plants within a hill. Double cross predictions for yield, moisture content and stalk lodging were made from the single-cross data (14). weather conditions in 1955 were generally favorable for good corn production. Stalk lodging was relatively high while root lodging was comparatively low. Correlation coefficients for all combination of testers 'were calculated for yield, percentage of moisture, stalk and root lodging to determine how closely the testers were evaluating the lines in a similar manner. All possible correlations among the 20 second cycle lines were calculated for average yield, percentage of moisture, and stalk lodging to determine the genetic similarity of the second cycle lines with the four parents and with each other. High correlation coefficients indicate a close genetic relationship and low correlation coefficients indicate greater genetic dissimilarity. Experimental Results WW High performance of inbred lines provides an economic advantage in the ultimate production of hybrid corn seed. The results of the yield trials of twenty-five inbred lines (twenty second cycle 86 lines, four parental inbreds and the unrelated inbred line, I 145 (Table 1) show that one second cycle line yielded significantly higher than the two highest yielding parental lines,‘w 23 and on 51, and the unrelated line I 14. Eleven second cycle lines were equal to‘l 23 and fourteen were equal to on 51 andiM 14 in yield. Eight second cycle lines yielded lower than‘w 23 and five were lower than Oh 51 and I 14. The comparison of second cycle lines with the two lowest yielding parental lines (Oh 26 and Ill.A) indicate that nine second cycle lines yielded higher than Oh 26 and eight were better than 111.1. None yielded lower than the two lowest yielding parental lines (Oh 26 and Ill.A). These- results indicate that the chances of obtaining lines more vigorous than the high yielding parental lines were small, but the possibilities were relatively good for isolating lines equal to the high parents and more vigorous than the low yield- ing parents. . Moisture Percentage in the ear (Table 1) at harvest showed that two second cycle lines were earlier and one later in maturity than the parental lines and unrelated line M 14. 15 Table lo. 1 Tield, percentage of moisture stalk and root lodging in the iner lines Av. for 1954 and 1955, two locations Code lo. Pedigree Yield in lloisture Stalk Root Bu. per in ear Lod ing Lod ing Acre at d d 15.5}! Hoisture 1. 397-1-1-1-1 64 .1 25 .3 3 . 5 1 .2 2e 236-1-1.‘-2 30e8 ‘ e Oe9 ‘eé 3e 376-2-1."2 ‘6e1 3 e7 11e8 12e2 4e 376'2‘1'3‘2 “e2 32e6 8.8 11.2 5. 376-2-1-4-1 49.3 29.9 13.5 14.8 60 28'1'1’2’1 5‘s 25e1 1306 1e1 go 82-1.1‘5‘1 39e8 27e8 4e3 lel . 3-1-2-2-1 49. 25.9 12.0 1.2 ’e 3‘2’2’1'7-1 3’e3 37e1 1e3 1.8 10- 58-3-1-1-1 30.3 20. 13. 3.1 110 50-1-1-3‘1 ‘4e4 28e1 0e - 12. 52-2’ZO3.i ‘leé 24e8 8e3 2e4 130 319’1’1’1- 51.6 2i.0 8.4 107 14. 310-1-3-9 4 .4 3 .7 is.) 5.1 150 BIG-1-2-2-; 3 e7 2401 32e5 Oeé 160 12g-1-1-2. ‘le" 22e‘ 16.2 203 1;. 3 -1-3-2-1 51.9 24. 4.2 - 1 - 381-2-1-6-1 43.0 27.6 19.7 18.2 19. 105-1-1-1-2 53 .4 25.7 7.1 - 20. ‘27’1’4‘1’2 37e5 19e7 ‘e‘ O 21. 0h. 51 49.4 25.9 6.8 9.g 22s Oh. 26 36e2 23.3 . 1e 23. 111. A 37.5 3 .2 10.6 2.3 24. I 23 52.2 26. 40.1 2.0 25. I 14 49.2 30. 1.8 3.0 Is. 8. DO 90 hub ‘02 .'(. e .0 ~~m¢x ~¢\.m.—- r . ->- Che-a -‘-- ..- m r 0 e e a. on v----m I w. an”. m:~v~v‘ - m _.‘ O ‘a .. O 0. .b . e — e e ,. e .. o” a. - - -A --- ' nan-— a «ago. «My ”‘4‘ .«r“no--~- 4 ~ ~- ~- a a. r g‘ C. 7 h . r I - e [r . —. 9‘ - um , . . _. ‘l - ~ . l. - O 3 d ‘- - i - , . V \ t O 0' o» one e'OO ”It. A- p e .- so ' O O O I ' 0' e l ‘ ' — O O U i D ' — O C O , . u C - I O O f— . r. e ' I 0 e 0 e a e . ‘ 7‘ «e . x . s , o T, I ' . ‘ x ”-0-... .- --- .~. on - . - - a“ Q '— ~-.--‘. '- ‘w m—. .n- -.4 <6fi-fi . - .- '. --—»- .. . O‘- — '4 o , . a ‘ v ' - I V ,, Q. .m«—~ - m —~—‘--—" '- o. — — up, "— Q n.- .n-fi‘m— p - Q a ‘fimwvw- -ao—cm- -~‘ - n- o -. o - . V ‘ l . A . O . ~”'-~-—...- .. - ---._—.-c .~ee.r .o-oo _ ..- M..- v- .- .. a--. ”on--. -- . - . - . . . fl . m , '- ¢ 0 ' C O Q - ‘ s. .- 0 O I - e. r - ‘ F- '- - — - O I C .- . ' - ' . ' I O V. . O O O I - _ ' '-' "t H - 0 «no. 0- 0‘ O-. O - H m- — am - us.“ 0 - -o 0- - m 0 s u 5.....‘7 g...“ l- a... ~u-‘--~~.-. ‘1 a... ~-- .. no-C‘ . -o-..~-....- - a ' .7 4 . . . . . . -' - . .. a m s . e - .. -..>. I~~aeo 7. l - -fi nae . .g.. ~~C§ I“. - o ."'m..- u-. 7 - 4 ' l . , A . I O O 1 " \ e e e ‘ -.... .. .u..- - —r-. --~- - n...-,.— 0...»...- u.-- . .«AH e ' ' - Ohm-wovoo- . e-A- I. O O O .- o—eb - a :s ‘ r , ‘ . .. ’ -ea-H 17 Teble 2 Average yield, percentage of moisture, atoll: end root lodging in teeter crosses at two locations Yield in bushels per ecre at 15.5% noieture 01151 01126 111.A '23 01151 X 01126 01151 - 72.6 93 .1 84.7 50.4 01126 72.6 - 90.5 81.9 52.5 1110‘ 9301 90.5 " 90.6 80.8 '23 84.7 81.9 90.6 - 90.2 1114 92.0 87.5 87.6 95.1 87.2 II. Se De at 5% 1".)- 1501 bu'h.1' Ioisturo in ear 01151 01126 111.1 '23 01151 X 01126 01151 - 18.5 23.2 19.1 18.6 01126 18.6 - 23.5 18.2 15.2 Ill.‘ 2302 zgflf " 23e‘ 26e° '23 19o]. 1 e2 23e4‘ "’ 1707 I14 19.6 19.4- 27.9 22.5 17.3 L. 8. D. et 5% level 3.7 percent of noietnre Stalk ,1‘odg1ng 01151 01126 111.1 W23 01151 X 0h26 01151 - 12.8 7.8 120‘ 27.9 01126 12.8 - 2311.4 8.9 6.? 1110‘ 37.8 11.4 - 2‘06 310‘ '23 12.4 8.9 24’e6 - 1102 In 2.5 4.0 21.6 5.5 1.3 18 table 2 (Continued) ‘4‘ 111.1 I '23 01110 I15 ‘14 n4 1 m Ie. 4483 Average 87.2 78.2 92.0 93.3 30.6 82.5 76.6 £16 87.5 97.2 3.3 33.4 64.7 7.3 87.6 105.8 97. .7 68.7 6e0 9501 100.6 92.0 86e6 8‘.3 7.1 ‘I’ 68.3 76.0 85.0 111.1 X '23 Ohio 115' 10.4 :14 X m Ie. 4483 Average 20.9 17.8 19.6 - 23.9 1706 19.9 18.3 17.3 19.4 19.6 20.0 18.9 26.0 25.9 27.9 24.1 21.3 24.5 22.8 22.4 22.5 25.2 20.9 21.4 20.‘ 20.8 - 2".1 2101 2105 114 x “'9 In. 4483 Average 111.A X '23 Ohio I15 I14 V— 3606 1°05 2e5 801 16.1 180 31.7 30. 4.0 2.4 4.7 12. 2%: :z-g 2:: 9-2 1.2.; 3: 8:6 9:7 -’ 6:5 7:6 7:5 A. 1 \ v c ‘- - .1- ‘ ~ a . ,.‘.. -.fi- 0 ,. O O n..- . -...V . e AQ-n- ~—. : . . . . \ . - _ . . . a. . ‘ I '. - u...- 0- o-.. . - . . . o . . O-—. Q..- -. v.9, o--o-- “ . - . u..- I b - r -0.“ , . . . -w- . . n .0- .- . — ,. - ‘ud .— r O , oo- ..- . . . .0 . o o u»- v '- _ - -—. —‘~— s u .— O -. .m‘ K \ up-q-a “_ . ° 1 J . . .A .. ~~ . M- uh'nm"--'/ o ‘- ,. -..-.--...- m .-.c- 4... m-..-- . .. . ,. v--.-- n.. -... 4. et— - u- ~I. o uo'n-au- ' ' ' e . . ' ' e u s. .9 -4— —. u -o -. ~ —o - ‘ .— - . .q—o g... - ..-, “ o... '- ,-._.. .. —_—. -...‘...‘. c - -- .0. w o.-- ‘ — .- .- a. *w‘“ r o- - t . O O I O ' 0' I ‘» \ o . . - 4" 4' A - v - o e 0 0 e o A n c. _ _ F . ‘ . . . . . . I - q. . u . I . — - - . O . . I 9 c — -.. 5....- .90 A ' s — - — -<.¢-.m¢ ' fl c.- .v .» r — Hv—u a. *— ---.-— ‘- -,-——--...—.~ g~oah “d “4". H n‘ . fi- 19 table 2 (Continued) Root 10d gin; 01151 01126 111.1 '23 01151 X 01126 01151 '- ‘06 0.6 006 12.1 01126 ‘.6 - 6.9 1.1 0.6 n1.‘ 0.6 6.9 -’ - 1.9 '23 0.6 1.1 - - - n4 1.8 - 305 - - table 2 (Continued) 111.1 x 1123 01110 115 I14 10.4 x m 1.. 4483 Average 203 " 108 ‘.o " 209 2.4 3.5 - " "' 201 ‘06 " 305 1.1 107 203 an e- - c , o 6.2 0.6 2.3 . 0.6 1.7 1.2 OH- I r -' ‘ O . V I . r- . - _ .. .u v ‘ ' ‘ l 't . . O I I ,r ‘ . ,- . . ' _. . .1 . n - _. .1. .. .. - - ..- .. . I n t ‘ . .. -. I o , .- nI——vr ~ - or A. .1.-. o - . - . . u- g----. -. -9 ._~. - .2 .— ,... . ._9 - I I I - 4 ‘ O I O I \ I I - I . . A I I I I . I I I . . \ ‘ u I I I I I , I 4‘ ‘ V I I I .- I I I - .. ’ . r I I I . I I I r ‘ ' l I I I . r .- . I I I \ I I I .f ' ‘ r7 I . o o . , - . \ . I . I ' I . ,- . - Q ‘ - I O '- I I '. .) ' I I I I I I .. _ . o ‘ I o . I . ‘ t I I I 0" ‘. I I o I ...‘ -- . . .- . ..-_ h— .4 .l - 1 . n 2. ‘ -1»... . -. - u—n— , a . - .- -.—I.- .. ..~- 21 Table 3 Average yields of test crosses at two locations (yield in bu. per acre st 15. 5% moisture) Second cycle lines 0h51 0h26 111.1 ‘W23 0h51 x 0h26 1 89.8 84.8 83.8 83.6 70.4 2 7OI9 94.0 87I1 82.5 81.5 3 94.2 90.4 66.9 96.3 91.7 4 86.2 91.9 76.5 90.9 86.7 5 81.9 95.2 58.6 83.1 82.5 6 7 .8 79.3 76.6 68k .6 79.3 g g .0 69.7 91.5 77.2 g.9 82.2 72.2 87.0 76.5 9 8 .1 80.1 74.2 96.0 83.8 10 64.4 66.9 68. 73.2 62.6 11 76.0 66.4 94.1 97.2 71.1 12 81.1 68.9 84.2 82.2 68.3 13 52.4 66.9 90.3 78.4 61.7 14 62.9 82.1 88.4 85.7 70.0 15 70.1 91.7 83.4 86.6 74.2 16 6.9 60.1 78.6 83.4 65.8 17 63.9 78.6 78. 83.3 70.8 18 70.1 88.4 53. 82.0 79.8 19 70.9 62.1 77.4 88.5 83.5 20 59. 91.1 77.6 94.7 84.1 AV. 74m6 790 5 7801 85e8 76e1 Ile 8e D. at 5% Mean of testers 6.3 bu. Meen of inbreds 4.7 bu. Ive inbred at the same level of tester 14.5 bu. Ivo tester at the same level of inbred 14.9 bu. To test diagonally 14.9 bu. 22 reble 3 (Continued) 1110A 1"23 Ohio “15’ “14 '1‘ X 'F9 13. 4483 AVOrag. 78.0 80.‘ 87.8 88e5 8709 8305 87.2 85.9 110.7 101. 102. 6 90.4 76.6 83.0 94.7 101. 100.2 89.6 91.0 4.8 97.6 103,2 89.1 89.4 83.1 0.0 83.4 9 .2 4.2 85.0 33:6 2.7 85. 9 93.7 4.6 9.4 5 8.3 89. 9 94.1 92.8 4.8 5.8 78.4 97.7 99.2 8 .8 84.2 83.0 83.1 103. 6 9a.2 88.0 39.0 .5 74.8 74.4 85.9 7 .9 $2.9 77.3 97.6 5.3 101.3 6.5 81. 0 71.g 86.2 9.4 94.5 80. 7 79. 0 71. 95.9 97.3 87.9 83.4 67.5 86.0 4.2 92.2 1. 2 80.5 77.4 91.1 3.9 88.1 82. 7 77.3 85.4 86.9 1.7 .8 78.7 81.7 6‘.9 8109 802 808 7709 62.6 69.0 87.9 92.7 85. 36 .g 70.3 76.0 91.6 105.5 92.0 1. 84.4 7 .1 82.0 88.8 85.3 82.1 7909 7 05 9°e6 ”e9 9°09 Average 82.7 “ on... 51 .-< \o. o 4 I“- -4!- 23 ‘l 14 yielded more than‘W-23 x‘l 14. Since these two tests were grown as separate tests but in the same field, there is no valid L.S.D. and only general comparisons can be made. Crosses of second cycle lines with the parental testers showed the sale general results. Crosses of 0h 26, Ill.A and 0h 51 with‘w 23 yielded 81.9, 90.6 and 84.7 bushels res- pectively. ‘lhen the second cycle lines were crossed with l’23, five second cycle lines (Table 3) yielded higher than the best yielding parental line crossed with‘w 23. A comparison of performances of second cycle lines and parental lines crossed on a related and unrelated double cross tester was made. Parental lines 0h 26, 111.1, 0h 51 and‘w 23 crossed with Ia. 4483, the unrelated double cross tester, yielded 83.9, 97.8, 90.6 and 92.0 bushels, respectively. Three of the twenty second cycle lines crossed with Is. 4483 yielded more than 97.8 bushels per acre. Crosses of 0h 26, Ill.A, 0h 51 and l 23 with Ohio'l 15, the parental double cross tester, yielded 71.5, 87.3, 78.2 and. 76.0 bushels per acre, respectively. Results for second cycle lines crossed with this sane tester show that one line yields higher than the narilul.yielding test cross of parental lines crossed with 01110 n 15. These results and sililar results with other testers for second cycle lines compared with parental lines show that some second cycle lines were superior to the parental lines for yield in either specific or general combining ability. 24 Percentages of moisture for parental lines on 26, Ill.A, 0h 51 and W'23 (fable 2) crossed on.H 14 were 19.4, 27.9, 19.6 and 22.5 respectively. Results for second cycle lines crossed on these inbred testers (Table 5) show that there ‘were three crosses with a noisture content of 17.1 or 17.25 and the highest moisture content was 26.05. A comparison of the moisture percentage of test crosses (Table 5) with moisture percentage of tester crosses (Table 2) shows that the moisture percentage in some of the second cycle line crosses was lower than the lowest moisture percentage of the parental lines crossed with the sale tester. Likewise, moisture contents for some second cycle test crosses were higher than that of the parental lines crossed with the same tester. Crosses with inbred 20 generally gave the lowest moisture percentage, while inbred 2 produced relatively late crosses. rest cross results for stalk lodging (Table 7) and parental tester cross results (Table 2) indicate that there were no second cycle lines superior in stalk lodging resistance to the best parental line (0h 26), although some of the second cycle lines were superior in stalk lodging resistance to the more lodging susceptible parental lines. tabulation of root lodging (Tables 8 and 2) was comparatively low in both second cycle line crosses and parental line crosses. In one parental line (0h 51) root lodging was 2.9 percent and in second cycle line number 18 it was 6.8 percent. 25 these results indicate that through inbreeding and selection in.a double cross hybrid, a few second cycle lines slightly superior in combining ability and either later or earlier in.maturity than.the parental lines can be obtained. No improvement in lodging resistance over one excellent parent was found. the results show that there was a good chance of improve-ant over highly susceptible parents. a t 8 Yields of the test crosses (table 3) indicate that second cycle lines, when crossed with the parental lines, showed varia- tions in yielding capacity. Ihen crossed to certain parental lines, a second cycle line yielded as high as it did in crosses 'with the unrelated inbred‘l 14, but when crossed to another parent it yielded significantly lower. this was true for all second cycle lines with exception of inbreds 1, 2, 6, 9 and 10. None of the crosses of inbreds l, 6, 9 and 10 with.the parental line yielded higher or lower than with I 14. Inbred 2 yielded significantly lower in crosses with the parental lines than it did in crosses with I 14. these results indicated that except for inbred 2, all the second cycle lines were equal to the une related line l 14 in genetic diversity from some of the parental lines. the difference in performances of second cycle lines with parental inbreds as testers shows variation in their genetic relationship with the four parents. 26 Second cycle lines 3 and 4 were mum in pedigree during the first three years of selfing and 3 and 5 were common for the first four years of selfing. the inbred yield trial (table 1) indicates that the above three iner lines were similar in yield, maturity, and stalk and root lodging. In general combining ability (table 3), the three lines pro- duced similar average yields. the 'r' values for yield (table 4) betnen line 3 and 4, 3 and 5, and 4 and 5 were .659, .899 and .711 respectively. the higher 'r' value between 3 and 5 may be due to one more year of common pedigree for these lines. the three lines had similar maturity (table 5). Stalk lodging percentages ranged from 21.2 to 27.3 which were comparatively similar. Also in root lodging, the three lines were similar (table 8). the 'r' values for maturity and lodging were high in all cases between these three lines, again indicating genetic similarity. there had been little genetic segregation among these three lines after they were separated with three or four years of inbreeding. this indicates that the lines had established their identity very early and, in a small way, confirm the validity of early testing of inbred lines as suggested by Jenkins (15) and Sprague (27). Variation in genetic relationship of secoml cycle lines withthe four parental inbreds was seen in comparisons of yields of their crosses with each of the four parents. All second cycle lines (table 3) with the exception of l, 6, 8 and ’ I U a e - r . . . . 7 >. - . s. ‘ ‘ a e - , «.7 ~<-— F-.. , - l ‘ . J. . . .y- n-.. a.-- a.- - . - —-- - . - 1 o . *.'o — , m c -- 7 . -."-. 1.... _- . w - 1. n. e r .9 . - . a - . . . s . . .. ‘ an. a O O O O O Q . ‘ \ -- .5 ‘ v. e v .- m e e d O O I ' . p . . . - .. ‘ ' a 0 v- 4- . O O O O O O C . ,. . v - - -b c O O O O O O O ‘ . ‘ s . - .- -- u. 5. e e O 0 I e e , .‘ . . . 4" a. .- ' - . O O O , C O O I \ ‘ r , . a .. t ‘ a . u. o. ‘ r ~ - fi .9 O 0 e e e o e \ . .- ~ . ‘ y a. -. O 0 O 0 e e . e ‘ \ . ,- ‘- . v . e l o ‘ ' . . \ - . " a o e ‘9 e e e e ' e C ‘ ' . A ‘ e c. - —o «e - | A . O - C ‘ U C . C O . ‘ ’ Q . . ‘ are . . O . O C . 0 .. : . ‘ . \ D ' | —e I. - .- s - e " e m e e e e . D . 1 . ‘ e _ \ (A . ‘ u " ‘ ‘ \. ‘ I . «w h a ‘ . D e ~ e 7' 4 1 e .. . e e e e e .. 4 . u. t‘ A a - ‘ n . s t e U . . . a C . . ' . ' . . ' 0 m D Q o ’— ~-o' #. O ’ - . — r-. - ~ ~ f g h . ‘Q Q.' ~ ' uVIU- ‘. ' I .5 . O y ’ a 4‘ . r ‘ , v . e ‘ ' ‘ e . . ‘ . . Q n . .— 4 ' l\ - I) "e _-J 27 table 4 Correlation coefficients for yield between second cycle lines in test crosses Second cycle W 2 3 4 5 6 J 8 9 1L 1 - .356 .372 .351 .244 .485‘ .343 7.652 .281 .326 2 .356 - .304 .545 .404 7.670 .467 .593 .175 .594 3 .372 .304 - 7.659 7.679 7.639 .066 7.772 7.766 .215 4 .351 .545 7.659 - 7.711 7.730 .127 7.610 7.685 .533 5 .244 .404 7.679 7.711 - .525 -.133 .611 7.660 .418 6 .485 7.670 7.639 7.730 .525 - .360 7.780 .495 .392 7 .343 .467 .066 .127 -.133 .360 - .358 .398 7.691 8 7.652 .593 7.772 7.810 .611 7.780 .358 - 7.682 .041 9 .281 .175 7.766 7.685 7.660 .495 .398 7.682 - .605 10 .326 .594 .215 .533 .418 .392 .691 .041 .605 - 11 .431 .521 .138 7.665 -.054 .382 7.683 .430 .419 7.660 12 7.655 .486 .272 .401 .107 .499 7.774 .525 .501 7.635 13 .340 7.668 .016 .430 .020 .513 7.653 .445 .246 7.774 14 .345 7.726 .114 .528 .210 .489 .572 .262 .333 7.658 15 .363 7.768 .169 .390 .293 .333 .308 .383 .044 .369 16 .356 .571 .219 .261 .101 .380 7.772 7.711 .513 7.824 17 .303 7.712 .283 7.639 .383 .494 .493 .446 .463 7.674. 18 .285 .565 7.671 7.688 7.666 7.70 .006 7.781 .594 .265 19 .246 .536 .562 .579 .291 7.723 7.761 7.689 7.709 .598 20 -.175' .479 .240 .486 .409 .199 .093 .193 .311 .366 r value to be significant at 5% 0.6 r value to be significant at 1% 0 7 32 degree of freedom 8 . 65 degree of freedom 8 table 4 (Continued) 28 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .431 7.665 .340 .345 .363 .486 7.868 7.776 7.788 .521 .138 .665 -.O54 .382 .272 .401 .107 .499 .016 .430 .020 .513 7.883 7.774 7.833 .114 .528 .210 .489 .572 .169 .390 .293 .333 .356 .303 .285 .571 7.712 .565 .219 .283 7.871 .261 7.639 7.688 .101 .383 7.866 e2‘6 "e175 .536 .562 .579. .291 .380 .308 7.762 .494 7.70 7.723 .493 .006 7.761 .479 .240 .486 .409 .199 .093 .383 7.711 .044 .513 .463 .369 7.874 7.674 .430 .525 .445 .262 .419 .501 .246 .333 7.660 7.655 7.774 7.678 - 7.750 7.831 7.766 .441 7.869 7.724 7.730 - 7.730 7.676 .323 7.736 7.673 7.851 7.760 - 7.872 7.661 7.777 7.787 7.766 7.676 7.872 - 7.779 .571 7.765 .441 .323 7.661 7.779 - .317 7.736 7.829 7.786 7.777 .571 .317 - .541 7.724 7.673 7.787 7.765 7.766 .541 - .076 .134 .195 .312 .484 .173 .442 7.761 7.611 .102 7.811 .229 7.772 .573 .277 .063 .329 7.670 7.710 .193 7.774 .446 7.781 7.689 .193 .311 .366 .277 .594 7.739 .265 .598 t .134 7.621 .063 .195 .102 .329 .312 7.811 7.680 t .484 .229 7.710 .173 7.772 .193 e442 e573 {‘7;‘ " e518 0521 .518 - 0335 .521 .335 - 29 10 yielded significantly higher with one or more parents than with the others. Differences in yield of second cycle lines crossed with the four parents nay be interpreted to be due to the variation in the genetic relationship. For example (Table 3), inbred 20 crossed with the parental line 0h 51 yielded significantly lower then it didwith the other three parents. rm. 111816.642 c162. 2.11.616 31-11221” of inbred 20 with Oh 51 than with the other three parents. Inbred l8, when crossed with 111.1, yielded significantly lower than it did in crosses with the other three parents, indicating that it was genetically nore sinilar to Ill.A for yield factors. Close genetic relationship with one or nore of the parents for yield did not generally show a sinilarly close relationship for other characteristics such as lodging resistance and natnrity, indicating that genetic factors for these characteristics segregated and reconbined. These results suggest that second cycle lines, while seg- regating from the double cross, received varying proportions of genes fron each inbred parent. This produced different degrees of genetic affinity, and was manifested by low yields in cases of genetic similarity and higher yields where genetic diversity fro. the parents was greater. The correlations (Table 4) for yield along all possible comparisons of second cycle lines in test crosses were calculated to determine how closely they were genetically similar. Low coefficients of correlation indicate that there was a tendency ‘ § 1 e O . 0 w 0 1 v V . . C e e . . . . a O Q 0 . ‘ I . O . . . . 0 . . , . . . . C 1n \ .1: e I e. N Vi . . . Y. , e. I ( . . I a . . . e L I, . ‘1 q ‘7 .. I . . . . .. e . on \ . e (D . a O a \ p .u, . 1 ‘ a I . ell: .I e. . a I e I . d a 4 y . Q , . e . 4 7 . v. o .A 4 l 7" ‘ w 4 l 74.7 A . J . 1. e A C e a . a . i . e .. . . a o n w . a a . e , . f I _ e .1 I. u . . .. u 5 . t I. o e e. I e J. . u 5. up w.; e .e 2 o e ‘1. o, . 4 . I o . . .a . . o 30 for the lines to be genetically different from each other. Some lines showed very little genetic relationship, the value of 'r' between line 1 and 20, 8 and 10, 5 and 13 were -.175, .041, and .020, respectively. There were a few of the second cycle lines with high genetic similarity, where 'r' values approached 1.0. For example, the correlations between 17 and 14, 7 and 16, 11 and 12 were .965, .952 and .900, respectively. However, the results indicate that the chances were greater for obtaining second cycle lines that were genetically different from each other than for obtsl ning lines genetically similar to each other. Test cross results (Table 3) indicate that second cycle lines showed variation in average yielding ability when cons pared with the mean of the experiment (82.? bushels). Comp paring average yields of the lines in all test crosses with the experiment average of 82.7 bushels as a measure of general combining ability for yield showed that lines 2, 3, 4 and 9 ‘were the best and lines 10, 17 and 18 were the poorest. Among the rest of the lines, none yielded lower or higher than the mean of the experiment. Results for moisture percentage of test crosses (Table 5) indicate that inbred 20 was the earliest (15.71 moisture) and line 10 was the next earliest line. The latest maturing line was inbred 2 (26.3% moisture) and lines 3, 4 and 9 were nearly as late. - .v‘- ‘0» on.- --- ? OD'HO D "‘ .e O“ l ‘ ‘ 1 " ‘ v I . ,- . '§ I - l 0 -.’~-. n..— - a- ‘7‘ no- ~ . l . . . . . . . . -u- - e ,,., . 4..--.. .- —.. ' fi \ . D . C ’- ,. I .. f .. I . ,. . A o t. 0 II- \. .. G .O‘l‘ 4 ...-en 0 e e I 31 Table 5 Average percentage of moisture for test crosses at two locations (M.S.U. Farm ‘nd SCSin.' County) Second cycle lines 0h51 0h26 111.1 ‘l23 0h5l x 0h26 1 21.1 19.5 29.7 20.3 20.4 2 23.0 24.9 30.5 26.1 23.2 3 24.4 22.7 29.8 21.4 22.3 4 23.5 23.0 32.0 23.2 22. 5 22.9 23.5 30.9 23.4 21.4 6 21e6 20e3 25e1 240% 2003 7 19.0 15.4 24.3 20. 18.g 8 20.5 19.0 26.3 21.9 19. 9 24.9 22.8 29.5 22.5 23.7 10 16.9 15.3 22.9 18. 15.1 11 18.8 16. 24.0 22.3 19.2 12 16.2 17.5 23.3 19.4 17.4 13 18.5 16.9 23.3 20.8 17.7 14 24.2 21. 27.4 22.2 21.4 15 21.9 21. 27.4 23.9 21.2 16 22.4 17.1 29.0 20.3 19.2 1 19.3 15.8 23.4 20.7 16.9 1 18.3 20.0 27.4 23.7 18.4 19 20.5 22.1 27. 22.9 19.4 20 15.5 15.7 14. 17.1 15.1 AV. 20a? 19o 26e4 21e8 1907 L. 8. D. at 5% Average of experiment 21.7 Testers 1.8 Second cycle line 2.4 Table 5 (Continued) 32 111.A X '23 Ohio 115 I14 [14 X m Ia. 4483 Average 22.9 21.4 22.4 19. 7 21.1 21.8 28.5 27.7 26.0 26.4 20.4 26.3 24.3 25.0 21.1 25.3 22.3 23.9 26.2 24.1 21.5 23.1 24.1 24.4 25.1 22.4 21.9 22.9 21.5 23.6 23.0 23.5 ”a 24.0 21. 7 22.8 21.8 20.2 1 21. 17.9 19.8 21.5 19.3 19.122. 26. 21.7 26.0 23 23.8 2g.2 23. 24.8 19.4 17.217.1 1 .4 19.3 18.0 20.1 24.4 21.0 20.6 13.4 20.6 20.8 19.0 18.5 20.0 1 .5 19.0 22.2 17.9 17.2 22.1 19.4 19.6 25.8 23.1 24.3 23.3 21. 8 23.5 25.1 25.4 20.9 23.9 23.6 23.! 21.0 22.1 20.2 22.4 21.3 19.9 20.8 18.3 20.3 19. 7 19.5 24. 20.6 22.3 20.1 21.5 21.7 23.5 24.1 22. 21.9 22.4 22.7 15.2 15.9 17.1 17.0 14.3 15.7 22.8 21.9 20.9 22.1 21.3 . 7. \ . Q. t . ,. . . - - a-u - .. . .e .. I V.— eavh . 7'! w..-- 33 nest of the correlation coefficients for moisture percent- age of test crosses of second cycle lines with different testers (Table 6) were significant indicating that, except for inbred 20 and 8, the second cycle lines were more genetically similar for maturity with each other than for yield. The low percentage of moisture for inbred 20 with different testers (Table 5) indicates its dominant effect for early maturity and it 018 not show relationship for maturity with the rest of the lines. 7 Second cycle lines showed variation among themselves for stalk lodging resistance (Table 7). Inbred 9 had the lowest lodging percentage, 13.6, and inbred 15 had the highest, 34.1. Inbreds 6, l4, and 15 were lowest in resistance to lodging whixi inbreds 9 and 11 had the best resistance. The rest of the lines were nearly alike in lodging resistance and ranged between 20.3 and 27.31. Correlations for stalk lodging among second cycle lines were significantly in.most cases (Table 8). This indicates close genetic similarity of second cycle lines with each other for lodging resistance. Only one of the four parental inbreds, 0h 26, showed any appreciable degree of resistance to lodging and thus there was little opportunity to improve lodging re- sistance in the second cycle lines. The percentages of root lodging were small (Table 9). The maximum lodging was 6.8 percent. In some cases it was nearly nil. Therefore no correlations were calculated. ... L O 1" O. . U I 1 07 . 4 u . I a . . l I ' a. 0 . . 3 .e n . I C v . C O . . . w I .r . I .1 .. 4 . . . . .-3 - . ,, - , , -2 I . . . _ ,_ _ , - O 0 ~ 0 e s e . . O O o .. _ C D o . O 0 e e e o O O O N 0 O O r“ O O O s . . O O O .4 0 e e , . O I O . . ,. O 0 I - '- 0 0 w ‘ 7' O O O ‘ , h N I O O O O O O 0 0 H a- e e e 34 Table 6 Correlation coefficients for the moisture percentage between second cycle lines in test crosses §;cond cycle 11331: 1, _2 23 4 5 6 7 8 9 19. e 44 44 e a 1 - .629 .754 .907 .884 .563 .69 .536 .760 .774 t 2 e 629 - e 632 e 613 e 53 6 e $13 e $43 0 $3 5 e 58" O 524 e as e s at a 3 .754 .832 - .866 .828 .457 .724 .483 .892 .669 4 .737 .613 .886 - .774 .444 .745 .859 .787 .882 #t * t *t t #0 0* 5 .884 .736 .828 .914 - .521 .712 .498 .775 .780 6 .563 .713 .457 .444 .521 - .789 .371 .522 .730 7 .89 .743 .724 .745 .712 .789 - .500 .779 .886 ’ t t 8 .536 .735 .483 .659 .498 .371 .500 - .567 .831 . 4* *9 ee 4 ‘ 9 .760 .584 .892 .787 .775 .522 .779 .567 - .736 * 10 .774 .524 .869 .832 .780 .730 .856 .831 .736 - 44 4 11 .555 .845 .479 .489 .424 .829 .752 .278 .379 .590 *0 12 .781 .770 .702 .877 .873 .757 .839 .600 .787 .895 t * t 0 fit * 4* 0* 13 .548 .553 .637 .703 .696 .649 .866 .711 .775 .856 ** t * t it t it 0* t 14 .864 .724 .727 .753 .790 .645 .791 .336 .832 .735 t 0 it *4 t * 0* t t 15 .665 .694 .791 .832 .754 .648 .770 .628 .649 .834 16 .888 .596 .781 .837 .779 .881 .880 .594 .884 .874 17 .878 .568 .712 .713 .844 .874 .785 .863\ .866 .744 *1! t 0* t I! 18 .799 .895 .414 .736 .778 .740 .679 .528 ..510 .870 as ** as s s e 4e 19 .809 .765 .662 .794 .820 .738 .645 .499 .566 .812 r value to be significant at 5% 0.6 2 degree of freedom 8 r value to be significant at 1% 0.7 5 degree of freedom 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 Table 6 (Continued) 17 18 19 35 20 .555 .625 .479 ‘.489 .424 .879 .772 .278 .379 .590 .687 .786 .495 .710 t .695 .876 .573 t .715 .138 _—L .781 ti e ‘ .702 .877 .813 * .757 .879 .600 $* .767 .875 t .647 .883 t .703 .876‘ 4 e727 .786” .882 .548 .553 t .637 t .703 .676 .689 .886 t .711 it .775 t. .856 .786 .873 -* .637 .789 .684 .0 .775 .678 .884 .563 .884 i .724 * .727 t .753 *fi .790 .685 ** .791 .336 ** .832 t .735 .495 4 .703 .677 .628 .813 .683 .775 fi .714 * significant at 51 ** significant at 15 t .674 ** .791 it .832 * .754 .628 *t .770 .628 . .649 t* .834 .710 .876 .789 .628 Q .751 *¢ .870 e .719 .820 .888 .596 8* .901 it .837 it .799 .681 .880 .594 ** .864 *t .814 .675 a .727 .684 #t .813 t .751 :4 .874 .589 t .712 44 e .568 fi .712 fi .713 .614 .834 .775 a .663 t .666 * .744 .876 .786 4* .775 t .683 .870 it .87‘ .674 t .755 *8 .799 .675 .414 .786 .778 fi .740 .679 .528 .510 ** .850 .573 .882 .678 a .705 ‘ .719 .589 t .674 ** .891 all values positive all values positive ** .809 .785 t .662 ** .794 .870 .778 .685 .499 .566 .812 t .715 .884 .563 . .714 t. .840 t .712 * .755 8* .891 -.124 -.116 -.163 -.295 -.a45 -.096-.1o9 -.148 -.416 .184 -.378 -.559 -.318 .382 .044 .494 -.265 -.281 .138 -.124 -.116 -.163 -.295 -.245 -.096x -.109 -.148 . .1 , . ...._.....-va.- fl-—.-_.—.. .Q‘1a- - I . . I s . .‘fl— ‘1 .I ~--. ‘-‘.---‘--.-> m.' I C " e l I C . r- ..v w -‘ n“ .e— .- -‘a‘en. p—oL,—. . 'v , I ' '- ‘ . _ r. ’ - ' . . ‘ i . - . ' I ' ' n . . a O ' .e e . ' O O C --<.--“-‘~QG.‘I.~-<- .. c. Q. 9 .. M... -§.m-_-\. rug- -hfi ."-A.p.-.‘m- n-.. ya. A - .- -. --\- .-. a. f ' ' r O t i 4 ' C “A e o-»ev--.' m p... u-os'--- ..‘-- -....‘ VA—l‘.-“\b.0r .- . p-00w9-0-pu.‘.-...p. . ..- 4. -- a“ -... . q r 4‘ ' ‘ ’ r, . 0 I I I -. . P ' U U I C . _ - _ . . . ‘ . I I '. O ' O I . .\ ". r . -. e O ' O ° . . ‘, C I ‘ I I O . ' O . '- ‘ \ . C O O . 4 . .- . . c O I O O ‘ .. ‘ \ ‘ \ I I 0 " C . , F a C . I . \ ‘ . 7‘ F - ‘3‘ ‘ I I D\ . O O O ‘ I. '. ‘ > O J O Q g . w -’ ..,,_.,._. ‘_ _. . .4... - .- - .M. .44...“ \Q-.— ~I- >- - ‘— -~ '45- 0--*'—¢"“' ‘-’ ’ " ... ""‘ " ’ ‘ "‘ Agatha-Irv 4 ‘11 , 36 Table lo. 7 Average percentage stalk lodging for test crosses at two locations (ll. 8. II. Far. ad Saginaw County) Second , Eycio 0h 51 Oh 26 111. A ‘l23 0h 51.1 0h.26 11222 1 27.3 11.8 31.0 40.2 29.9 2 27.3 13.7 40.7 52.0 29.1 3 24.1 9.1 87.5 22.7 17.9 4 30.5 11.6 64.0 40.2 9.0 5 40.6 4.7 60.5 27.0 7.7 6 30.9 14.1 74.1 47. 19.6 g 37.1 6. 52.4 43.2 14.4 27.6 7. 40.6 3g.2 24.9 9 10.6 2.5 8.3 1 .6 7.4 10 16.9 13.3 7.0 40.3 15.5 11 2g.2 7.1 41.5 21.0 1 .0 12 2 .5 19.8 55.2 20.0 2 .9 13 24.4 8. 51.2 34.1 22.5 14 47.4 6.6 60.7 49.7 35.0 1 42.2 7.9 69. 49.2 22.8 1 28.3 9.5 40. 2 .7 24.9 1 18.9 3.6 45.5 2 .9 12.9 1 24.4 13.5 66.6 62.7 33.1 19 42.8 7.2 22.9 48.3 21. 20 31.4 16. 32.5 28.4 22.4 Av. 29.3 9.8 52.1 36.9 20.7 37 table He. 7 (Continued) 111. A 1: I23 Ohio I15 I14 I14 I m Ia. 4483 AV. 52.7 32.2 2.9 10.1 20.7 25.9 3306 2603 ‘01 8e 15.]. 2501 54.2 3 .1 7.4 7.4 9.1 27.3 45.5 3 .7 2. 11.9 11.2 25. 53.0 27.3 16. 14.5 14.4 21.2 33.0 11.1 8. 18.4 32.; 2 .8 5e? 6.0 703 240 41.9 . 11.1 3.9 12.9 23.5 23.9 22.0 2.3 5.9 4.6 13.6 42.3 18.5 5.3 9.9 6.3 2 .6 47.5 21.7 0.5 3.7 2. 1.8 47.9 730.4 16.1 .5 11.6 26.7 45.1 23.4 4.1 5.3 6.9 22.6 47.8 39.3 14.8 15.0 18.0. 33.4 64.3 mg 6.1 17.4 18.2 34.1 54.9 15.6 7.8 11.3 25.9 42.0 24.610.1 7.2 9.4 20.3 64.2 49.0 10.2 12.6 36. 5 27.3 48.3 26.5 4. 3.6 12.3 24.4 35.5 25.6 13.6 .3 12.4 23.3 47.6 30.5 .6 9.2 13.0 -.¢. r --m .0..- u -—.-u- -c— u.- A ‘I’- p. .- -.-. _.«~ -- . .u- . . ‘. n.-. w.& — -.-4. .. . O ‘7... a -v .' P C O 0' ‘- O O O I I O r O '- O r «0-... §.u .‘o --.-—... OI... Duo--0-qp .7) . 7' ' 0 Q . | 0 a~ -) 3 ' ' ,I ‘1' .~. - . I - - . f _ o ‘ . ‘ _ a. - 1 . ‘ : ' 4 . , p- .. . 1‘... .. w on »- -. - -— —. - .4 .. o - 5“ o - n. ‘ - .- 00‘- . u .p.-. o.- -. fi- - .--. -w-- 1- -~~--O-'--“ o- .00 m4...‘ “than... ~~vm- —-.ou-o a... 7 ‘ r m.‘ ‘_ . A--- 1‘- .1 . ..-.-—.— u“ -~ ----- .I-' _ . c -.o , o - ‘0... mun-p.-. - o- c-« ~........—A- V-._..~ ...__..-1._. 1 -. 45. g... -.”o I. -H-o .- .1." I \ ' I 4 \ . . ' f 2" 4- . I O . o O O I g o < ‘0 w; . . ' A ‘ r . ‘ 2 ~. 0 .‘ Z ‘ W . - . O O l O O O O 3 0 0 g ' ’ ‘ ~ 4 . ' \ ~ . - . . -\ ' , I - O O O O O o ‘ O 0 0 . . ..- _ .z 4 ~ 2 ‘ ‘9 . . \ .‘ . \ u ' 4' - -~ I ‘- . . ~ ‘ . - r‘ v n . . '4 .— ' Q \ t o o '- x 0 . o . I ‘ o o o o '0 ~ t - ‘ ‘ ‘ .0 I ~ . r '~ '- ‘. ' I .' ‘ ’ ' I r . . .'- : '. -'. ’ . I ~ . O I 0‘ ‘ 'I . r ‘ \ O C O . C I C O C ' C ‘ . A 'w ‘ . . . u ‘ ‘ Q . 4 ‘ ‘ , . 8 '. -v- -. ..—.Q .n" 04- . o -. q- 4- ”‘00. rho-O ..-, -1 a. . .. ”1 .. 2. - ”0‘. . .. . ‘ . ' O ‘ .— -—=-._ - . 38 table 8 Correlation coefficients for stalk lodging between second cycle lines in teat croeeee 2m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 cycle lines 1 - .834 .601 .356 .633 .389 .834 .387 .682 .637 *1! *t 16* t t 44 2 e834 " 0620 e802 e 586 e gio e867 9770 e737 e797 3 .601 .620 - .335 .834 .333 .834 .713 .334 .330 4 .756 .862 .315 - .338 .373 .336 .785 .337 .312 5 06§3 4586 eg§4 9368 - 0360 0560 e7i9 eggs oEEZ 6 .789 .830 .333 .333 .330 - .329 .816 .380 .325 7 .8i4 .867 .834 .336 .330 .339 - .832 .889 .883 * t 4* t *4 44 t t 8 .787 .770 .712 .765 .719 .816 .832 - .635 .727 9 .682 .737 .334 .337 .885 .380 .889 .685 - .356 10 e 6;? e 5;? 0 550 e 6:2 0 £52 0 $18 e§§3 . 757 0336 " 11 .837 .782 .887 .333 .333 .337 .331 .830 .739 .839 12 .670 .589 .381 .884 .838 .730 .880 .782 .838 .83c 13 .839 .880 .336 .338 .881 .389 .333 .831 .337 .336 14 .881 .878 .880 .885 .838 .889 .335 .835 .889 .819 15 .836 .833 .883 .387 .337 .387 .334 .885 .335 .857 16 .881 .632 .833 .737 .838 .834 .839 .836 .882 .753 17 .833 .767 .333 .335 .380 .384 .310 .850 .330 .351 18 .835 .886 .336 .839 .733 .380 .832 .335 .832 .812 4 4 44 44 44 4 , 19 .882 .810 .422 .996 .624 .660 .825 .718 .530 .536 4 4 44 44 44 44 4 4 4 20 .604 .752 .740 . .816 .841 .910 .818 .740 .729 5 value to be eigniflcanf a‘E 3! 5.535 iogree of Treaug I 9 value to be significant at lfi 0.765 degree of freedol.8 J 39 table 8 (Continued) . significant at 5% ‘* significant at 1% All values positive All values positive 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .837 .630 .839 .831 .836 .881 .333 .835 .882 .604 .732 .589 .880 .838 .833 .632 .387 .886 .830 .732 .887 .331 .306 .830 .883 .833 .333 .336 .422 .730 .333 .884 .338 .885 .387 .737 .335 .839 .336 '.334 .333 .838 .881 .838 .337 .838 .330 .733 .624 .836 .387 .380 .389 .889 .387 .834 .384 .330 .880 .831 .331 .830 .333 .335 .334 .839 .330 .832 .825’ .330 .830 .732 .831 .835 .835 .836 .830 .335 .738 .838 4 44 44 44 44 4 44 t .739 .858 .917 .859 .935 .822 .950 -.832 .530 .740 .839 .830 .338 .839 .887 .733 .331 .832 .538 .739 - .384 .335 ‘ .885 .339 .336 .336 .831 .738 .883 .334 .335’ .385 -.838 .882 .837 .636 .489 .831 .335 .335 . 37 .380 .889 .381 .889 .738 .882 .885 .385 .337 - .330 .835 .833 .833 .339 .882 ..339 .838 .380 .330 - .834. .387 .835' .336 .838 .336 .882 .889 .835‘ .834 .» .331 .832 .735 .839 .336 .837 .381 .833 ~.387 .331 - .333 .639 .477 .831 .636 .889 .833 3.835 .832 .333 - .688 .736 .738 .489 .738 .33 .336 .735 .639 .688 4 .883 .883 .831 .882 .882 .838 .839 .477 .736 ‘.833 - a O—.O*'O‘ .no ...no-. O“..VQ-”.*~ .0... .It ---. - .9. a“, .o o. ”-‘u'u’ ,. v- v- ‘, -- .- ~ .‘J—‘-¢ ,_. ..—. \ -~~- ... --‘ cg. ~o-o o-~a .- -ob-Q‘u~.aa ,-....,., . _. . 1; . , "' I ~ ,. o o . o ‘ O 0 J l " c ‘x s . ' - \ 2 O O C Q C . ( . ' o I o O I . ‘. . , . . \ . O I I . O I " u o o o O I ‘ ~ ‘~. . I O O I 0 . Z .' 'x . o 3 x; q 0 o o , O I O Q . Q . . « I ‘V ) C O O I O . \ \ ; '. A ‘ ,. K - ._ ‘0 ‘ l U I C O O ' ". M - . I r O O O I O . , ‘ ‘ . O O I I I o r- “ t 0 I O O O V t ‘2 n ‘ , U 0 O O . : ‘ ,fl . . , ~ . A 9 0 I o o . , . . _ ‘ . ' , I I v 1 a . .. 0 ‘ 0 O - s 8 “ . n . 1. ,. . ' ' . C C . O ' g . 7‘ . '~ - v _ . . o . o u . o . ‘ ‘ V n I I ~ 0 I ' O ' I T" .- f ‘ - ‘ O - C I 0 CD“- 7-.. o. 94.!» ¢~.—- . - v . « ~ - a.-- . h‘o ‘--- . —-— c- . . O ‘ I a... .- s I n r . ; . . Q . ~ ’s o . x t I . n K .—-. _. t.» .— ---- v- -o .4 ‘o-~ ~~— .. “- ' ~-- on "V-. o - a..-.-I‘— h.-. .I-d v“ '- hf - .. -.O .- ah I.- -wo q ~. ‘ . 4 1 . . . . u o D . — 0-0. 0' 1‘ | . A .'~.. .-.-H.,...— ‘0 .. '. .- I . u \ I‘ r O - , . . O . .- .- I f‘. \ O ‘ O .. . 4| oofl.-~"_o'- . ".0 D ‘ s I “a. o-. u f u . .- I ;. .~‘ .. I l o 'A g- c...» O GI...” 40 Table 9 Average percentage of root lodging for test croeeel at two locations (I. 8. U; Fern end Saginaw County) A 332?.“ Oh 51 on 26 In. 1 I23 on 51 x on 26 11ne__ .22 1 506 7e5 1°e8 C 0.6 2 9e8 g.2 208 90‘ 306 3 13.2 .0 7.4 4.5 5.8 4 2.3 5.2 1.7 4.0 7. 5 7. 5.2 15.7 1.2 5.9 6 2e ‘05 208 C C 3 C 204 1.2 C 203 C 1e? 2e8 C 1e? 9 2.9 3.3 0.6 2.5 3.2 10 4.1 - 2.2 0.6 1.2 11 5.2 2.6 - 2.3 1.2 12 C 2e4b 1.2 C C 13 7.3 7.2 0.6 4.1 2.g 14* Be‘ 2.3 C 0e6 20 15 5.2 1.7 1.7 6.8 4.5 16 309 8.2 10. 5 5e4 2e9 1 3.1 1.7 1. 0.6 0.6 1 1 .1 5.7 16. 3.4 10. 19 " - 7e8 2.8 0. 2° 1. C 204 102 30‘ AV. ‘0 3e6 ‘05 2e5 3.0 41 Table 9 (Continued) 111. A X '23 01110 '15 114 114 I m 10. 4483 Av. 107 006 102 C C 208 603 203 C 202 006 ‘00 3.4 6.5 w 2.9 4. 1.2 5.8 202 1001 202 C ‘05 4.0 3.0 2% 2.9 1.7 5.0 5.1 1.8 0. 2.2 1.2 0.6 1. 0.6 0.6 - - 0.6 0. 006 102 C 006 C 008 C C 101 006 C 104 C 102 C C C 00 - 4.2 - 1.1 1.7 1. 108 C 208 C C 008 006 C 502 C 501 302 1.7 4.9 1.2 0.6 4.0 2.1 400 504 303 508 006 30’ 0.6 2.8 1.7 10.6 3.8 5.0 C 006 ‘06 C 006 104 006 304' C 208 702 608 - - - C - 1.1 C C C C 108 100 1.4 2.3 1.5 1.5 1.9 ~ -- - o u L -.. .c.,~ .- _ . . .0 .-. - ".4.- . 4.. 0 0 - e 1"--“ .- 0 9 o - ~ 0 - a.“ a ‘0 .- .- .- -r« \-_. .o o..- o —- .. C—O- - .— ' t . . A . _ .~ Q s ’ . ‘ ' l . ‘ I C - e .9 . .4. . . . . H. o .--O on ..— ..‘ . 0 . 0 G . . I 9. 4 . a . u . _,_.,_ q. Q ~ iv w o.. n .— u- ‘ - a. . g | o- .p. t I - 0 ' . . . ‘ Q .- Q ' O I O O u\ ' - O O ' C O O - . ‘. K ' O 0 ' I Q 0 0 ‘. g t . , » . . U 0 O ‘ O O O .0. 0- O O I O . - .- no 0 O O O . .- ‘ r ‘. - - - . .h. . U , . - ‘ a- el- 0 I f | f P 1“ - - — O . O I O O ‘ — fl 0 O O . r ' . \ . - a. e O - Q 0 O - 0.4 0 ‘ ' . . Q I O O D : .. r - . . 0 0 0 0 O 0 _ \ 0 o 0 . C 0 U ' .. . Q ‘ C- ‘ 0 - 0 O o .3 . Q . O O , .. ' O I 0' I i 0 C C C - -' . - - - - O 2 C l . - y - r ‘ ' 0 O O 0 0 "~— ~...-.- on .. v.0- - v. «o---u—-.. .— fl - ‘- ao .-v"M-v—n .~. ~ ~ , ru-l-o ~o‘-‘~ «on. v. --.v n - c -; 7 — . . —.—_~-‘ 42 Performances of Single and Double Crosses of Second Cycle Lines Single cross performance in all possible combinations, Table 10, indicates that a majority of the second cycle lines crossed with the parental lines yielded as high as the parental line crossed with the unrelated line K 14. Twenty-one single crosses out of 28 crosses of second cycle lines with parental lines, yielded as high as the average yield of two entries of Ohio l’15. These results suggest that a majority of the second cycle lines included in the single crosses were genetically different from.the parents and might be used with the parental lines to produce good yielding hybrids. The twenty-one single crosses (Table 10) among seven second cycle lines indicate that some of the lines were genetically different. The single cross 2 x 3 yielded 105.5 bushels per acre which was better than Ohio H'lS at the 10% level of sig- nificance. Fifteen of these single crosses yielded as high as Ohio I 15. This suggests that some second cycle lines were genetically different from the others and might be used in crosses among themselves to produce commercial hybrids. Determination of the relative importance of general and specific combining ability in the single cross corn hybrids was made using the method given by Sprague and Tatum (29) with a correction in the formula (24). Estimates of general and specific combining ability obtained by the formulae are relative for the particular group of lines involved in the hybrids under test. For related lines (Table 11), the estimates for specific t.- -c—u-s . .— ' e ‘2‘. '0 . l t. ‘ . . " r‘ ' a .1 l C . . O . .. C ' \ . - .' r \ ’ . ‘ . O . h I ’5 . J . . E" e . o P . 9 ..~‘ . - . p I . C . \‘ z i- . h C . . a O . , .‘ . . .. . . . s O _ a \ I . b a . C r a C ‘ _ . . . - ._ ‘. \. ' . J \ A" C ,1 O C O ‘— "\ ”v-“~#-« so - 9-.-. 0 ~--htoo.. -VO'. "\ ~‘o- o. a- “no- tn- «o--~ o-a.~ .- o O o..- 9" . -x .0-0 “-00" ... u I t . l 0 f, ‘ 1 0 _I' ‘ I p l i f \ 's I \_ I , V i i .. V .- f. I V . 0' g. ,' . d -0 5*...2 . . “a. 6 .\ r“! -—. O 0.... II- (9.1-..- ¢ ‘2 43 Table 10 Yield, and percentages of moisture, stalk and root lodging in single crosses were 1411514211412. Hoisture‘in ear H.S.U. Saginaw 1v. 'H.S.U. Saginaw 1v. 8.3. Pedigree Farm County Farm County 1 01151 x 01126 62.9 84.7 73.5 25.9 17.2 21.6 2 01151 x 111.1 g6.0 117.1 95.3 26.7 13.5 23.1 3 01151 x 1123 4.4 103.8 92. 20.2 1 .9 19.6 5 01151 x 1 69. 85.7 77.4 21.2 19.0 20.1 6 01151 x 2 63.0 83.6 72.; 27.4 23.2 25.3 K 01151 I 2 70.6 84.2 77. 27.1 19.0 23.1 01151 x 71.6 85.3 78.1 22.3 19.8 21.1 9 01151 x 9 7%.? 84.5 86.3 30.3 20. 25.3 10 01151 x 11 6 .6 80.6 75.0 22.1 18. 20.4 11 01151 x 14 54.6 84.6 68. 25.1 19.4 22.3 12 01126 x 111.1 77.6 3&9 87.5 29.1 19.4 24.3 13 01126 x '23 68.8 .2 83.3 22.2 19.0 21.1 14 01126 x 114 88.9 94.2 91.1 2 .8 17.2 22.0 1 01:26 1 1 74.3 76.8 76.0 24.4 20.5 22.5 1 01126 x 2 67. 67.0 67.1 . 22.0 25.4 1 01126 x 2 94.9 105.7 9.0 29.1 22.4 25.8 1 01126 x 75.9 82.4 0.3 23.1 18.8 21.0 19 01126 x 9 67.4 69.9 69.1 2 .2 15.9 21.1 20 01126 x 11 90.2 100.0 96.2 23.4 20.3 21.9 21 0h26 1.14 72.0 87.4 76.9 22.5 17.3 19.9 22 111.1 x '23 69.0 95.9 82.7 27.5 22.2 24.9 23 111.1 x '14 80. 10 .7 92.5 30.2 22.7 26.5 24 111.1 x 1 82.5 10 .1 89.6 27.4 20.6 24.0 25 111.1 x 2 80.1 6.5 88.7 32.1 29.9 31.0 26 111.1 x 2 87.1 7.8 78.2 27.2 25.7 26.0 2 111.1 x 48.1 90.4 67. 29.5 24.1 26.8 2 . 111.1 x 9 70.; 95.7 82.9 3g.4 .5 29.0 29 111.1 x 11 67. 93.0 78.4 2 .2 2 .9 25.1 30 111.1 x 14 51.4 119.5 84.3 28.6 24.5 26. 31 v23 1 I14 5.9 102.6 99.4 25.0 19.2 22.1 32 v23 1 1 0.5 106.7 30.6 21.9 20.0 21.0 33 v23 1 2 5.5 93. 4.0 23.1 24.7 23.9 34 v23 1 2 0.0 104. 92.0 27.5 22.9 25.2 35 I23 I 67.5 83.7 75.8 26.8 21.2 24.0 36 '23 x 9 93.1 102.1 37.7 28.3 21.2 24.8 3 '23 x 11 69.0 105.1 7.0 22.7 20.8 21.8 3 v23 1 14 61.9 82.7 72.0 24.1 25.3 24.7 39 114 x 1 80.3 92.9 86.5 23.4 16.3 19.9 Table 10 (Continued) 'IEZIEfIEEgIEg Hoot Iadging .__.__L 1L ‘080U0 sum. A'e leseue 8.‘1m "0 Farm County Farm County 10.0 8.0 9.0 - 5.8 2.9 4809 5008 ‘909 101 10‘ 103 6.0 28.9 17.5 4.8 3.3 4.1 - 1806 902 304' 305 305 13.7 53.4 53‘ - - - .3 53. . 2.2 19.7 11.0 220‘- 5102 3608 ‘05 C 203 11.8 33.1 22.5 - 2. 1.2 9.0 4.0 6.5 2.2 13. 7.; 2206 608 1407 C 1205 60 64.0 72.4 63.2 1.2 .9 4.1 2°09 1608 1809 C C C ‘09 2‘04’ 1‘07 C C C C 204 102 C C C 2.4 17.1 9.8 - 3.7 1.9 210‘ 1201 1608 108 C 009 2.4 10.6 6.5 3.6 2.6 3.1 90‘ 6003 340’ 102 308 205 209 C 1.5 c- h o 305 205 30° C 205 103 3. 19.7 23.1 - 3.5 l. 3,01 ’6. 6707 C o o 3.4 42.9 26.2 - - - 2 0° :70 ‘209 C 402 201 39.1 5.0 52.1 2.6 1.2 1.9 75.9 81.9 78.9 8.8 - 4.4 5000 8103 6503 305 C 108 906 110, 100 C ‘00 20° 13.3] 2.;- $3.: 3.5 4.0 3.8 - 67.5 38.8 - 2.5 103 2901 4000 3‘06 C C C 36.0 33.8 34.3 i.5 2.6 3.1 13.7 9.9 26. 2 .7 3.4 12.6 52.9 1.2 57.1 - 3.5 1.8 C 3209 2°00 C 203 102 2302 5 02 3907 C 102 006 230 ”0g 3202 C 80 401 250 230 2‘08 101 C 006 .a"‘ ' l C I . , « -h..~ p - H. -c. ..-~ - u. . . ‘. -vco-n. .. ‘0. 0 -- Q. .. 0 c- - p .— —--- 0‘ . U l . . ‘ ' --.. .-.............-... . --... . . .. ........ . u. . . w w. . _._-...--_.. -... I . . . O O 0 O 0 .t , \ s. p 0 -- A - ---.0<-- '0 ~ --- O 0 -- 0 "p- .0 A.— p--- ‘—~.4 H. H. _ u, . /_- on. , .- . x . t I. 0 ‘0 Q g ‘. . .- _ . . O O 0 ~ 0 . . . . - . . . O . O O o . . _ . . 3' l-‘s. 0 C. . ‘ -0- . . . _- - .0 ‘ 0’ 0 \0 ~ 1‘ P c- —- a. ‘. .’ - 'F * - - . ‘ f - - C. Q. \ - _ {I ,. 0 ‘0 " O l . ‘ 7 r 0 "’ 0:- 0 ‘- O ,_. - s C I in. 0 D r' “ “ x‘ ‘. - u‘ — O ' -‘ IN - - n O . - . . h I u I. ' r O C -‘ . . ‘ \ - ‘I' ' O O . C ,. - p\ . ! ‘C 0 g ‘ I . . \ - . .- ‘1 r- i - .- . O O I .. O - ‘ - . . r P ' ' ' ' ' a. O O . n - - . ' . ' x C . O O ’ .- ‘ _ I "~ 3 I '0 0 . g 9 f - 1' ‘ - C U . O . . . l C ' . .5 .' . . - P . . . _ I. . I .' u . .‘ . -' g — O ' i... 5“ - ”nu... - ‘ my . Q—ub -‘--_m-ro.-.-O-“O-.n I O 9 ' . ‘ -I I ' ~ I . 2 . ‘ _ ----. o — - ._ « . \-4- O 0‘ .- u- I I . . ,. ‘ 0 0 I 0 . I I ‘ . 0» . I O _ x 0 0 ‘ . . o \ 0 . ' I O . I ‘ I I I . l 0 I O I' r. I C - O ' l I I r. ‘ . I l . O 0 I O . O I 0 . I - I \ . I I . I ' I U u . I I . . I I a 0‘ I 0 ‘ .. . I I I I . . ‘ I I I I . I I D . I ‘ I . I f O I ~ 0. I 0 q 0 \ I I r f- ' . . . . I I C O O I -- r 9 b -00. ”fiwwo. '. s. ‘ o In-.- -h—u... .0»-.-- -‘* -. ‘9'." -..‘ fin»- ‘ 7* v ,. ‘b "' V \ , . \ 3 . 70 K '. .. g . ’ W- n a- I O I " I - 0- 0-0-"o. .. . ’ i . -\ t V \ u 1" § ‘ » \ i \ '— . r 'I I V . Q . . . I .' . n \ \ 1 0 . § ‘ 0 . . I ‘ ‘ f I . I . - . I A . .0. c I o.‘ ‘ -—¢- a o u- ”-o- 3.... I 45 1‘an0 10 (Continued) Heft! IE 33001-0 Yoicfuri In 001- W I080U0 3‘81“. "0 '080U0 8011... ‘V. 8.]. P0611900 Pm County Pm County 40 1114 x 2 91.5 118.3 104.6 29.4 22.4 25.9 41 1114 x g 87.9 100.0 92.2 26.4 18.0 22.2 42 1114 x 66.4 105.1 84. 23.9 20.0 22.0 43 1114 x 9 30.4 105.9 97.9 29.1 19.8 24.5 44 1114 x 11 3.9 109.5 96.4 24.6 16. 20.; 45 1114 x 14 79.1 116.0 96.9 25.2 20. 22. 46 1 x 2 83.6 103.9 92.9 27.5 21. 24.6 :g 1 x 2 6 .3 74.3 70.0 23.3 19.8 21.6 1 x 39.0 77. 77.1 24.7 20.8 22.8 49 1 x 9 9.0 111.4 102.6 27.8 18. 23.2 50 1 x 11 79.5 94.1 89.7 23.3 18. 21.1 51 1 x 14 67.4 92.6 82.6 27.1 22.0 24.6 52 2 x 2 4.6 110.6 105. 29.8 24.4 27.1 53 2 x 4.9 87.2 88. 31.6 .6 29. 54 2 x 9 32.9 73.7 51.5 32.8 2 .5 30.7 5 2 x 11 47.1 77.0 65.3 3 .7 25.3 29. 5 2 x 14 7.0 107.3 93.4 2 .1 24.5 26.3 5 3 x 6 5.8 100. 94.0 27.1 20.7 $2.9 5 3 x 9 102.4 94.4 99.0 30.1 21.9 .0 59 3 x 11 85.3 110.0 6.9 26.7 20. 23.6 60 a x 14 86.2 90.0 7.7 27.0 21. 24.4 61 x 9 82.; 65.1 74.7 29.4 23. 26.7 62 6 x 11 79. 85.3 8 .1 25.9 20. 23.4 63 6 x 14 60. 7 . 6 .7 27.1 21.5 24.3 64 9 x 11 87.5 7 .0 83.5 29.8 23.2 26.5 65 9 x 14 83.1 101.2 94.2 28.1 23.3 25.7 66 11 x 14 81.0 80.8 79.6 26.4 20. 23.4 g m I15 82.3 93. 88.2 21.8 19.2 20.5 Oh I15 78.2 102. 92.5 22.3 19.4 20.9 69 m x 1114 9.4 108.0 93.5 28.2 21.4 24.8 70 men. 3 0.4 91.1 92.4 21.9 17.2 19.6 71 Inch. 0 107.7 95.1 100.8 22.8 22.2 22.5 72 men. 570 94.6 107.9 101.4 24.5 19.4 22.0 12.3.0. 51 22.3 bu 21.01:: 15.20: 4.3 3.0 2.8 tabla 10 (Continuod) 353k lodging 5005 13:11:; A, 1 1.8.0. Saginaw Av. 1.8.0. Saginav Av. Para County rar- County 506 803 70° C 803 ‘02 2.2 3.3 2.8 18.9 3.3 11.1 202 2900 1505 C C C C 60° 30° C 306 108 20g 205 204 C C C 50 1907 1207 C C C 29.9 47.5 38.7 1.3 7.5 4.4 56.6 47.2 51. 7.2 1.2 4.2 1203 ‘100 2607 205 C 103 509 601 600 C C C 130‘ 2304 180‘ ‘05 C 20 41.4 31.9 36.7 2.2 3.5 2. 660; 27.6 ‘702 go‘ C 107 8. 22.5 30.7 1 .9 11.2 1 .1 13'; 14 8 11': 13': 3'3 2'3 29.6 62.6 46.1 - - «- 5000 1506 3208 506 C 208 2.3 20.4 11.4 9.2 1.2 5.2 66.2 9.3 37.8 6.7 8.0 7.4 ‘50 4’00, ‘30]. C 07 10, 10.3 26.4 1 .4 1.1 .0 3.6 2801 3804 3303 307 C 109 64.0 42.3 53.2 - - - C 701 306 C 701 306 901 3708 2 05 C ‘07 20‘ 31.9 45.2 3 .6 2.3 8.3 5.3 18.2 1.7 25.0 - 7.3 3.7 33.0 .8.9 31.0 1.2 - 0.6 C 20‘ 102 C C C 20‘ 2109 1202 C C C 602 80 70" C C C 707 2206 1502 C C C w ~ 0. -. 0—.~0-~-.<*.0 u.- ~~v~ 0m. -0... . .. it~~b0~.-- . ¢m~o num- U—O‘ O-O-W~-—.0.v .. .. n - v- ---~-0vvr~--0\----’ ~.-~... .. -0-. -1. van—.4- - .——- ”-v‘ — O 0 ‘ O - C . - O ' -fi 0‘ “ ' r- . O C ~ 0 U '. . O O 0- -. O .- . O . O C .. x . - - — O ‘. - O O U - . I' I u. - — ~— - ‘ ‘ .1 «cu: ‘-«‘ 4.. -».. ‘0‘- . -. -~~.-...- ~~.- 1 000-0 n.... v. .. .1.-- Hn~ ~--.--—- ._1. 1. -0-- ._..-_.-.-—m- ... ~.. - c u 4 .~—v “I '._v. . .. . -.............---..., -- .. .. .... . ...... --...._.... . . I f . O 0‘ ’ O 0 I . . -. , . . V 0 wuchwh 0 >u-0-c -. - a- .I-O .>.‘.~. - .n O .- 0 h ' a O O O O 0 . 0 .. I - O 0 - C I 0 9 _ 0 O I .‘ \ . .., - Q 0 . 0 - O , , P R‘A ' ‘ 0 Q 0 . . -. .- -‘ 0 o \ ‘. — 0 . r- . .. 0 0 L 0 '- .o I 0 0 0 .~ ‘ p . . ' 0 . .n ' , ‘ . _ a . ' s C O O . A 0 ' 0 . O O 0 0 . . v ' - C O -- O ‘ r . .. . O ‘ O O \ u ' . P I O I . . 0 Q 0 . . - O ' ' 0 O . . . . . 0 0 O u- “ ' - a 0 a O ‘ . \ . _ r x (. r O 0 4 0 - f‘ . ,V ‘ .. . . . I ‘ 0 ' I _ \ » l‘ ‘ f ' ’ ’ ' .u -' . . O O C _ O O . f , .. . ' I . 0 . ‘ . o O 0 ‘ ~ ,‘ .- p . v- . O 0 q - 30 . . 0d . f . .. 0 . O . r‘ -‘ u- . 0 ‘ O ‘ 0 0 0 O 0 . 0 0 ‘ ._ .- .... 0“...- ~70 --.o-m 4? combining ability were higher than those for general combin- ing ability in all cases. Sons combinations did relatively better and other poorer than expected on the basis of general combining ability. The data for the single crosses (Table 11) indicate that the related lines produced high yields in certain combinations and low yields in others. This indicates that genes with doninance and epistatic effects were relatively more conon than genes for additive effect. The estimates for general combining ability for I 14 were higher than those for specific combining ability (Table 11). Large values for general combining ability nay arise because a particular line does much better or much poorer than the re- maining lines with which it is compared (29). The high value for general conbining ability for I 14 was due to its high yield in lost. combinations in which it appeared. The average yield for this line was highest of the lines included. Variance for general combining ability, 620 for inbred 6 was nearly equal to its variance for specific conbining ability, 528. The average yield of inbred 6 was the lowest of the inbreds conpared. A high (20 value is obtained when a line does much better or poorer than the other lines with which it is compared (29). On the other hand, inbred 6 yielded as high as 93.5 bushels per acre in some crosses and as low as 71.8 bushels in others. This variation in yields is due to specific combining ability. The difference between minimum and maximu- yield is not as high as it is for other related lines. Therefore the value of 0’28 is small in comparison to '8“. 48 Table 11 Average yields in bushels per acre for single crosses at two locations and esti ates of general (6 y) and specific s) combining ability Inbred 0h51 0h26 111.1 ‘W23 114 1 OhSl - 74.0 96.3 89.3 89.2 79.6 Oh26 74.0 - 89.5 83.0 92.4 75.5 Ill.A 96.3 89.5 - 81.7 90.3 93.0 W23 89.3 83.0 81.7 - 99.5 92.4 M14 89.2 92.4 90.3 99.5 - 85.1 1 79.6 75.5 93.0 92.4 85.1 - 2 73.3 69.4 88.9 87.4 104.1 92.0 3 76.4 98.0 81.9 94.2 94.7 66.0 6 77.0 75.7 71.8 74.5 82.6 79.0 9 81.0 67.? 81.1 94.1 95.4 101.4 11 74.4 91.2 79.8 86.1 85.8 85.3 14 71.8 77.0 86.9 73.2 94.0 80.9 332831.. Ability 21.1 5.9 -4.57 1.13 65.75 -5.86 Specific ' ‘ fg§§§§;98 44.01 57.24 55.98 34.74 28.35 113.22 Table 11 (Continued) 49 2 3 9 11 14. 166.1 .Av. 73.3 76.4 77.0 81.0 74.4 71.8 80.2 69.4 98.0 75.7 67.7 91.2 77.0 81.2 88.9 81.9 71.8 81.1 79.8 86.9 85.6 87.4 94.2 74.5 94.1 86.1 73.2 86.9 104.1 94.7 82.6 95.4 85.8 94.0 92.1 92.0 66.0 79.0 101.4 85.3 80.9 84.6 - 102.3 88.5 50.4 65.1 96.6 83.5 102.3 - 93.5 98.3 98.3 87.4 90.1 88.5 93.5 - 72.7 80.9 74.1 79.1 50.4 98.3 72.7 - 83.5 93.0 83.5 65.1 98.3 80.9 83.5 - 80.1 82.8 96.6 87.4 74.1 93.0 80.1 - 83.2 1.05 33.13 27.33 ~5.31 -3.08 ~4.48 211.3 120.51 32.94 180.36 53.64 55.35 ... 50 rest of the related lines. 628 was high for inbred 2 because it yielded high in some combinations and low in others. The minimum and maximum yields for this line were 50.4 and 104.1 bushels per acre, respectively, which were the minimum.and maximum.yields for the experiment. This high variation in yields accounts :61- the high 0'28 for this line. The high 6’28 roi- lines 1, 3, and 9 were also due to a wide range in yields for these lines in single crosses. These results suggest that specific combining ability was more important than the general combining ability in influenc- ing the yields of related lines. In maturity, six single crosses out of twenty-one crosses among the seven second cycle lines (Table 10) were equal to the average of two entries of Ohio‘l 15. Ten were equal to the early parental single cross (0h 51 x 0h 26). Sixteen single crosses among second cycle lines, were similar to the late maturing single cross parent (Ill.A x‘l 23), and three crosses ‘were significantly later, and two were earlier. None of the single crosses among second cycle lines was earlier in.matur- ity than Ohio lilfi or the early maturing single cross parent, 0h 51 x 0h 26. lost of the single crosses among second cycle lines were similar in maturity to the late single cross 111.1 x v 23.” while there is no critical evidence for it, a general trend toward late maturity in the single crosses of second cycle lines could be expected due to closer genetic similarity between two second cycle lines than between two unrelated lines 51 combined in a single cross. Pressure of inbreeding would be comparatively higher in single crosses of second cycle lines than in crosses of two unrelated inbreds. Since one of the effects of inbreeding is to delay maturity, the single crosses of second cycle lines with relatively higher pressure of in- breeding might be expected to be generally later in maturity. Single crosses among the seven second cycle lines were generally more resistant to stalk lodging (Table 10) than the lodging susceptible parental single cross, 111.1 x‘l 23. Only four crosses were as resistant as the lodging resistant parental single cross, Oh 51 x on 26. One of the single crosses of second cycle lines (9 x 11) was better than Oh 51 x on 26 in lodging resistance. Root lodging (Table 10) was not high in any of the single crosses, although the cross 2 x 6 had 15.1% root lodging. Nearly 50% of the single crosses among second cycle lines were as resistant to root lodging as the two parental single crosses. Some of the single crosses of the second cycle lines were used to make double cross hybrids. These double crosses 'were ”guess“ combinations made up before any test cross or single cross data were available for prediction. Out of 43 double crosses (Table 12) using bnly second cycle lines, there were only three double crosses that were significantly below the average of 90.6 bushels for the three entries of Ohio I 15. Five double crosses showed small but not significant increases in yield compared to Ohio M 15. The best double cross, Ho. 68 (l x 9)(3 x 14) averaSed 96.0 bushels compared to 90.6 average for Ohio.l 15. . . U .14, -. ‘ 4. 14 L 1 e. ‘ . 'r r . . . ‘ r . ' . ‘1. . I C x ‘ . ; 'r ' . ' w- . ‘ . " . - I .. ‘ ._ . . ' . ,. . . 1.. . 1 h - ' ' " t . 3 A :' -- 1.1 . .v ’ ‘|_ . _ '- . a . D ' . ..\ . \‘ . ' ‘ ‘ ' .- .. .' . 2 . . . .. ‘. . ' r It" ' . 0‘ \ u ’ .\ . C e I' ,. A V i I '3. A . I . ’.A ‘ . . l 0 ~ 0 2*, (fl, - 1 .‘ .- . n n . . O 9. . O s I) .I ’ ‘I . ‘1 v I e .A ' , .— 'r . .- ,4 A, . 1 0 "rr. . . ’5 Q . r » _ _. s . . v ' I I v - 0 ’ h .‘ '-e'[ ' A. e . ' < ' . u e .‘ e. e e V a 4 s ° 2 YI(\. ' fl‘¢~., . f ‘ . . . . r. . ‘ a . 0 1 ' r . «. V I 9 e-‘ . .. l: -. e g . ‘ l‘ ‘4 ‘ ' . . - . ‘ 0 ’ u e 0 I. ‘ ‘ r I . ' A . . e ‘ I i s a C ‘ ‘ s . _ 1 v v- . -. a - a -. - ~ 0‘ - . a- - n c \ ' 0 f r- . . . . . s ' - .. o _- - - - - - .. ._- -- -. ‘-.. 4. ~ 0-.“ a . .-~ —* 9 o 4. 0.... p 0 ~ ‘ “.- .1 -g . — - . -- ‘ o n 0 .q._ A - -«.a~-0- . - 0A¢~-. a ' 0 O V e . . ' . 0 alle— ‘o- m - a- 1.. -I-ce-“e -..-- w‘“ .— c. g. . ,———-__-.. HM" ‘- .0 *- '0 .0“. - ‘. - .- '0 "hr 0“ I." _._ c 0 --.-~. use..- <_- - . . -gu‘aw. . ~ ,. .. - I ,. . .- - e e 0 e ' - . . -- ‘ >4 . , e -- \ ' ‘ v ‘ r ‘ 1 g ‘4 n . , . O . ‘ . . , . . . 7 s' r \ . ‘ a . \ I I ’ Q 0 e 0 . o - - J \ - e . . I '. e I . t . . r . m \ I n . Q g . , . ' . O . “ I K e i !’ \ ‘ : . . 4 0 I C 0 \ m V- 9 ' . l . e . ' . . a \ ' v ‘ - ‘ . ' ' ’ r ' . 1 ' i . . . \ m . . . l ‘ p \ o ‘ 0 ‘ ‘ . . C . . ' O _ p. n ' ’ v [C ' w ‘ f . O 0 a 0 e e " . . . p ’ ‘ l‘ ‘ -' r l 1 o_ - . C O C . - ' . ‘ r . ' _ \ , ' ’4 . " "N ‘0 v V . . O O O . - n - m '0 0~ ' ‘7 ‘ , .— . . a F - ‘ l ‘ I O ‘ 0 x .. . ' .. ’ -- r ; '8 ' ‘ . r ' ' I‘ 0 ' J , . . . . . e ' ' ' \ a- . ‘I ' . . _ I" w a . v ‘ ‘3 ‘ n ' t, ' f" O O O .‘ . . . '2 . . v. - 0. \ y . ' , . f . . . I . ‘ , - a t ‘ V 1’ ‘ ' ‘ 7 . ' . . g . s .) v . . .. '- ‘4‘ .0 _ ‘ ‘ \ . . a O . - Q . ' ' _ . ‘ 1 e _ \ ‘ ‘ ‘ x - 1 ~ 9 ' e- ‘ 5. . w e . e 0 . e ‘ 0 . e ' 3' r ' u . ‘ u C O O .- . ‘ . 0 I ‘ ’ 5 t. ' '1 ‘ C I O C O . ' \ f a 9‘ ‘ ~ A r — ‘ " I C 52 Table 12 [can yield and percentages of moisture stalk and root lodging for double-cross hy rids Wag” S.l. Pedigree I.S.U. Saginaw’ iv. Farm County 1 £01151 1 0h26)(111.a x van 8 .5 5.2 89.4 2 0h51 x 0h26)(111.i 1: I14) 8 .6 1.7 .7 4 01151 x 0h26)(111.i x 2 76.4 85.2 80.8 5 (0h51 x 0h26)(111.a x 2) 80.7 104.0 92.4 6 (0h51 x Oh26)(Ill.A x ) 73.6 86.7 80.2 g (0h51 x 0h26)(111.a x 9) 71.0 81.5 76.3 (0h51 x Oh26)(Ill.A x 11) 71.0 33.5 82.3 9 (0h51 x 0h26)(111.a x 14) 74.5 1.5 78.0 10 (0h51 x 0026mm x 114) 70.4 83.2 6.8 11 (0h51 x Oh26)(W23 x 1) 78.4 83.9 1.2 12 (0h51 x 0h26)(s23 x 2) 81.9 82.9 82.4 13 (0h51 x 0h26)(w23 x 3) 87.9 2.0 90.0 14 (0h51 x 0h26; (W23 1: ) 74.0 9.4 81.7 15 (0h51 x 0h26 (v23 1 9) 73.2 85.1 81.2 16 (0051 x 0h26)(w23 x 11) .5 82.4 75.5 1 (0h51 x 0h26)(v23 x 14) 72.3 82.3 . 1 (0h51 x n4)(111.a x I23) 3.5 96.9 30.2 19 (0h51 x 1)(111.i 1: 1:23 83.7 33.3 1. 20 (0h51 x 2)(111.a x '23 73.2 .4 76. 21 (0h51 x 3)(111.4 x '23 64.6 88.4 76.5 22 (0h51 x ”(111.1 1: I23) 69.4 90. 79.3 23 (0h51 x 11)(111.A 1: I23) 81.9 7. £9. 24 (01151 x 14)(111.a x 7123) 77.7 5.2 1.5 25 (0026 x l14)(111.A.X‘I23) 92.1 85.8 89.0 26 0h26 x 1)(111.a x w23) 78.3 81.6 80.0 2 0026 x 2;(111.a 1 I23) 73.1 95.; 84.2 2 ~0h26 x 2 (111.1 x 1123) 89.4 96. 3.2 29 (0h26 x )(111.1 x 1123) 38.8 85.2 2.0 30 (0h26 x 9)(I11.i x was) 91.8 93. 88.7 31 (0h26 x 11;(111.1 1: I23) .4 93. 95.0 32 (0h26 x 14 (111.1 1 I23) 83.5 87.4 85.3 33 (1 x 2)(3 x 6) 8 .8 87.7 85. 34 (1 x 2) (3 x 9) 7 .3 92.6 85.g 35 (1 x 2)(3 x 11) 76.0 95.5 5. 36 (1 x 2) (2 x 14); 73.8 94.2 .0 3 (1 x 2)( x 9) 3.4 1.9 84.7 3 (1 x 2)“ x 11) .2 9.5 .9 39 (1 x 2) (6 x 14) 81.8 78.2 0.0 53 Table 12 (Continued) ioiefnr. In ear W. k edging Wot gffig 4L L -1: K.8 .80 8'81”. A'e 11.8 .0. Bfi‘ma' ‘70 “080110 8.31“. "0 Farm. County Farm County Farm. County 26.5 18.7 22.6 22.1 52.2 37.2 - 1.2 0.6 27.6 18.2 22.9 13.4 26.2 19.8 2.4 8.3 5.4 2609 1703 2201 1‘06 270]. 2°03 C 704' 30? 28.1 18.7 23.4 23.9 39.6 31. 5.0 3.6 4.3 2909 2006 2503 2‘03 280]. 2602 501 4'09 500 29.6 20.9 25.2 25.2 51.1 38.2 2.g - 1.3 32.1 13.0 25. 13.0 36.9 25.0 3. 4.9 6.4 28.2 1 .4 23.3 17.4 27.1 22.3 .1 4.9 6.5 290 1900 2‘02 2200 4600 3‘00 C 8.0 4’00 270 1903 2305 602 1205 904 C C C 24.5 18.0 21.3 34.2 45.5 39.9 3.4 6.5 5.0 27.4 19. 2345 15.1 40.2 27.7 1.3 6.9 4.1 2503 170‘ 2104 8.3 4209 ' 2506 102 7.0 401 2502 1901 2202 2801 530g 4008 C 305 108 30.5 16.9 23.7 8.3 34. 21.6 - 7.0 3.5 2209 1802 2102 170‘ 310% 2‘04’ C C C 2 .3 18.3 22.3 9.8 28. 24.3 1.2 6.8 4.0 29.5 18.9 24.2 21.2 3.4 42.3 - - - 2609 18.6 2208 1 08 7006 4400 C 102 006 30.0 21.4 25.7 3 .0 72.4 55.2 12.6 5.8 9.2 3006 210? 2602 2‘06 ' 5905 4200 1305 C 608 2602 2102 2307 2700 5109 3X905 C 503 207 2602 2003 2306 2300 ‘70]. 501 60‘ C 202 30. 21.7 26.2 47.2 76.7 2.0 3.5 9.3 .4 2303 2°00 2307 2°09 4803 3‘06 105 C 008 2 O 1809 2305 1702 ‘909 3306 205 C 1.3 27.3 20.8 24.1 33.0 38.1 35.6 2.6 2.4 .5 290‘ 2000 2‘07 1‘03 ‘202 2803 C C C 29.6 21.7 25.7 14. 37.8 26.1 6.0 1.2 3.6 29.3 19.0 24.2 3. 50.6 2 .2 1.2 - 0.6 28.5 20.0 24.2 12.3 65.2 3 .8 2.2 4.5 3.4 29.5 19. 24. 13.1 60.0 36.6 1.2 - 0.6 2902 210 2506 3209 7803 5506 C 06 108 390 2405 3201 1805 4403 310‘ 103 06 500 30;0 22.7 26.4 18. 54.3 36.3 9.1 4.9 7.0 733.0 22.2 26.6 30.3 39.0 34.9 1.3 3.9 2.6 34.1 23.6 28. 19. 34.0 26.9 18.5 2.5 10.5 3004 2305 2 00 3500 ‘606 4008 500 C 205 730.9 25.3 2 .1 31.7 53.2 42.5 6.1 3.8 5.0 .u.o ‘3‘ *- r. -—' 5 --—.0 0 -- . _.- . .0 9-0 A... .- pt 0 O- \ 0 .- 0 I l‘ C y _ . a . ‘ ‘ . I ’ O ‘ " 0 4v¢~5> a." -7 A M000- 0 0|..- _- .-u - 0 O Q .- --.40-.—.‘4-0—. C - . O ' . — <- ch- --—7-- 0. 0. g- o- u'--.-- I‘ u o- .-- , . 0 0 ~- 7 -0 .0... -~--- -——-0 c-. .- .~. -. -‘r—- -n—ow .v .0 0 9 -4- —' '-' ‘0 - 0- a..- r - ‘ ~ 0 .. Q'O-M -- -—- I. o- - o O O — - ‘u-OWO-K-.. \ .1 . O O . . I - l " ‘ 4 O . . . D 4 \‘ O- u . ‘ '- , ‘ ’ P . . O U 0 .. ' p (O. .' '. ' 4 ’ \ 5‘ v x O O . IC " '| - ' - V' ' ' '- ‘ " I ‘ \ . 0 0 . 0 . _ . ~ - 1 . s ' ' A. . ‘ \ . ‘ . | O r ‘ . I ' 4 . C C . ' . ' I . n r - ‘ " ‘ " ' \ O O U - . 0 VI 0 O 1 1‘ ;- ,"-~ .'-- . ‘ . .. . . . - ‘ \r w - ‘ . 1 ~ ‘. . . 4 \ . r .. 0 I - v-r\ ‘ ‘ ‘ . \ . ‘n . 3 I’ 7 r F N ‘i ' ‘ ‘ o - . . u . . ' 0 O 1" C . P "\ ’ ‘ .' - ‘ ! I. \ - - . 2 . , . . . I ‘ . _ ' ' u A \ . 0 . , . .\ '1' 3‘ ‘ ' . n. '. .. ' - -\ H 6' '-f r- . . ~0- ‘0-~ 0 . -' 1 j g 'Pr‘ . ‘ -- . O O 0 . 4 ' ' ' . u, , . . . I ‘I . 4 1301310 12 (Continuod) W00” P“ 1:13.. '0 S 0U0 8.S1M' "0 Far. County (1 x 2) (9 x 11): 82.8 1.3 87.1 (1 x 2)(9 x 14)“ 95.6 5.0 90.3 (1 x 2) (11 x 14) .3 81.1 5.7 (1 x 3)(6 x 9) 1. 83.2 2. (1 x 3)(6 x 11) 78.3 2.7 . (1 x 3)(6 x 14) 72.3 9.6 81.0 (1 x 3)(9 x 11) 84.1 87.3 85.; (1 x 3)(9 x 14) 80.2 91.3 . (1 x gun x 14) 81.8 101.: 1.8 (1 x )(9 x 11) 77.9 100. 9.4 (1 x 6)(9 x 14) 70.2 82.0 6.1 (1 x 6)(11 x 14) 74.g 85.8 0.2 (1 x 9)(11 x 14) 6 . 86.8 7.8 (2 x 3)(6 x 9) 75.8 88.2 2.0 (2 x 3;(6 x 11) .8 86.9 85.4 2 x 3 (6 x 14), 8 .8 82.4 5. (2 x 3)(9 x 11) 89.1 98.6 3.9 (2 x 3) (9 x 14) .8 97.6 7.2 (2 x 2) (11 x 14) 1.7 101.9 91.8 (2 x )(9 x 11) 90.0 91.0 . (2 x 6)(9 x 14) .2 94.7 gd (2 x 6) (11 x 14) 78.5 98.0 8 .i (2 x 9)(11 x 14) 3.3 1.9 82. (3 x 6)(9 x 11) 7.2 1.0 84.1 (3 x 6)(11 x 14) 73.4 89.7 81.6 (a x 9)(11 x 14) 79.7 86.3 8 .0 ( x 9)(11 x 14) 80.3 94.4 8 .4 (1 x 9)(3 x 11; 90.1 87.7 8 .9 (1 x 9)(3 x 14 w. 91.0 100.9 .0 (1 x 9)(2 x 6) 83.8 9g.9 32.9 (1 X 9 ( x 11; 89.2 g .7 .0 (2 x 9) (6 x 14 $0.2 2.9 6.6 (1 x 6) (3 x 11) 2.7 84.6 3.7 (1 x 6) (3 x 14). 68.5 91.4 .0 (2 x 6) (3 x 11) 87.7 83.6 85.7 (2 x 6)(3 x 14) 80.7 92.0 .4 Oh M15 86.6 3.8 .2 55 Table 12 (Continued) fiisfuro in our flak Iodglng ioot Iodflng j .211 :22 1 .2 1.8.0. 82311121 Av. n.8.U. 82311121! 17. Saginaw Av. Furl County Furl County County 32" 23.0 27.7 17.5 2902 2304 4’09 705 33.8 22.3 28.2 23.2 40. 31.9 3.7 3.7 33.2 18. 26.0 39.4 ‘309 41.7 - 2.5 31.9 22.4 27.2 12.0 30.0 21.0 .g 6.9 28.5 18.5 23.5 22.8 42.8 32.8 2. 2.5 30.3 1905 2‘09 2905 6301 4603 00 403 30.9 200‘ 25.7 109‘ 41.6 2600 - 10; 32.7 20.3 26.8 21.6 41. 31.5 2.4 7. 280 18. 230‘ 39.6 210 30.6 ’ - 29.4 21.5 25.5 13.5 16.0 14.8 3.7 1.9 32. 22.9 27.9 35.3 42.2 38.8 2.6 2.0 250% 180% 22.0 00 ‘60‘ 3‘07 102 103 29. 20. 25.3 2 .5 17.1 21.8 2.4 2.5 33.7 27.1 30.4 15.9 29.0 22.5 - 8.5 30.7 23.6 270‘ 22.0 50.0 360° - 301 31. 24.2 23.9 31.2 53.9 42.6 - 5.6 33.8 22.7 2 .3 22.1 31.2 26.7 6.0 4.3 33.7 24.9 29.3 26.5 55.3 40.9 2.4 7.5 31.5 21.2 26.4 27.1 38.0 32.6 13.8 10.5 3101 21.1 26.1 19.8 “04' 32.1 - 6.6 3501 2403 29.7 13.2 72.8 ‘200 " 4'08 27.2 22.2 24.7 20.9 72.7 4 .8 2.3 8.5 33.0 24.1 28.6 19.7 44.1 31.9 11.3 14.9 30.7 22.0 26.4 11.5 47.2 29. 2.2 2.3 330 22.2 2708 32.8 ‘0.3 36.6 - - - 32.7 21. 27.0 15.9 4. 25.4 9.8 9.3 9.6 32.2 23. 27.9 14.3 .2 37.3 6.0 9.1 7.6 3207 21.2 2700 130‘ 3506 2405 '7 " - 31.6 22.4 27.0 21.2 29.0 25.1 1.2 2.5 1.9 29.3 21.8 25.6 15.9 56.1 36.0 8.5 3.4 6.0 30.0 20.5 25.3 9.0 36. 22.8 5.1 2.4 3.8 34.8 27.0 30.9 21.3 59.8 40.6 30.6 10.4 15.5 26.2 20.5 23.4 17.5 43.3 30.4 - 5.7 2.9 29-5 21.3 25.4 13.2 52.4 32.8 9.6 - 4.8 30-7 23.2 2 .0 . 1 .5 6.9 26% 23.6 - 11.8 3 .2 2305 2 04 5801 704 62. 14.8 1106 1202 2 .4 17.6 23.0 13.8 35.7 24.8 3.4 9.5 .5 22-4 16.1 19.3 10.7 18.9 14.8 1.2 - 0.6 27.0 17.3 22.2 14.6 20.7 17.7 3.7 - 1.9 n v- ‘ . - [- v , I ' - ‘ é . -1. a - — -4— —- ma--*~-fi --vv —.- - '- u- - --¢- II..- " I 0 ~ r . Q . ,. ..- o - --_ 4 2 Q . _ - I ' . 4 U.- o.* 7 I- co-I-..~- - .s-o “up-‘0‘ ..‘~ - - . ‘.-.‘ Q «W‘ - o—p- -- ..v~- QM}...- urn-4.".-. nu.--- a-.. -g-.m~ . -.. . .. .~,_..- 0 9 - . - ‘0 , (yo ' - . «an» 4*. . . A . . 0 - o ‘ . . . . . -- .1. D» 0- ..-o—o0m~~ u..- —.—o— ‘0. u. ~oc-.. - en ,,.. .0... at. . O A O .- u - O O O ' T . e ‘ - . 4 . O O ‘ - -. - ~ - v - e h— -> - .— . . H m-. e ~ .— - n - w- . - .- ..-1.. ‘l . -. ~09 O O O O . . -. 58 In 27 double crosses (Table 12), where second cycle lines ‘were substituted for one of the parents Ohio I 15, five double crosses were lower than Ohio I 15 (90.6 average of three entries) and none was better while the remainder yielded as well as Ohio M 15. The perdentage of moisture (Table 12) indicates that five double crosses or second cycle lines were as early in maturity as the three entries of Ohio I 15 which averaged 22.21 Ioisture. Thirty-eight double crosses along second cycle lines were later in maturity and none were earlier than Ohio M 15. The early seturing lines tron the test cross trials were not included in the single or double crosses. The percentage of the stalk lodging in one of the better yielding double crosses of second cycle lines, Re. 49 (1 x 6) 1 (9 x 11) was 14.8% compared to the average of 29.3% for Ohio M 15. Several other double crosses were as resistant to stalk lodging as Ohio H 15. Average root lodging for three entries of Ohio I 15 was 31. Nineteen.double crosses of second cycle lines compared favorably with Ohio?! 15 in root lodging resistance. These results, with."guess" crosses, indicate that a slightly better yielding double cross might be produced by crossing the best second cycle lines along themselves or by substituting in the pedigree of the parental double-cross hybrid. The predicted yields, moisture percentages, and stalk lodging percentages for the best 44 double crosses (Table 13) predicted fro: the single cross data show that some high 59 Table 13 Predicted yield moisture percentage and stdk lodging for 41 best yielding double-crosses predicted tron single-cross data S.l. Pedigree Iield in. ‘Ioisture Stalk Bu/acre in ear led ing at 15.55 i moisture 1 (I14 I 3)(2 x 9) 100.0 25.9 17.2 2 I23 I 2) (I14 1 3) 99.8 25.1 28.7 3 (@126 x 2)(ln4 x 3) 93.5 23.7 17.0 4 £114 1 1) (2 x 9) 9 .5 24. 13. 5 1 X 3) (2 x 9) 98.5 25.3 25. 6 (I14 1 3)(2 x 11) 98.0 24.3 23.6 8 (I14 1 3)(2 x 14) 97.6 25.1 27.5 (2 x 9) 3 x 14) 97.6 26. 32.1 9 (1114 x 2 (3 x 14) 97.5 24. 27.2 10 I14 1: 14) 2 x 9) 97.5 25.6 19.9 11 I23 I: 93(l14 x 1) 97.2 22.8 19.4 12 I23 1: 3 (I14 1: 9; 97.0 23.8 1g.0 13 (I23 I 2) (I14 I 1 96.8 23.4 2 .g 14 (I23 x 2) (I14 x 3) 96.4 24.5 18. 15 (01126 x 14)(3 x 9) 96.4 24.3 31.6 16 (I23 I 14)(I14 x 9) 96.3 23.9 22.5 17 (I23 I 9) (1 x 3) 96.3 23.9 19.7 18 (01126 x 9) (I14 1 3) 96.1 23.1 7.0 19 (I14 1: 3)(2 x 6) 96.0 24.7 23.7 20 (1 x 14 (2 x 9) 96.0 25.0 2 .6 21 (I14 1: 9) (3 x 14) 95.9 24.2 12.6 22 (0h26 x I23)(I14 x 3) 95.9 22. 18.6 23 (I23 1 3) (I14 I: 2) 95.9 23. 29. 24 (I14 1: 14)(2 x 3) 95.8 24.7 24. 25 (01126 x 2)(Ill.i x 3) 95.8 25.6 32.7 26 (I14 1 6) (2 x ) 95.7 25.4 18.3 2 (I23 1: I14)(2 x 9) 95.6 24. 16.2 2 (I23 I I14)(3 x 9) 95.6 24.2 13.2 29 1 X 3)(9 x 11) 95.6 23.5 1 .4 30 '23 X 3) (2 X 9) 95.6 25.5 28.4 31 (I23 I: 2) (1 x 3) 95.4 24.5 36.8 32 (I23 I 1) (I14 I 9) 95.4 22.6 21.2 33 (I14 I: 9) (1 x 3) 95.1 22.9 11.2 34 (111.1 x 9) (I14 1: 1) 95.0 24. 19. 35 (I23 I I14)(2 x 3) 95.0 24.3 1g.9 36 (111.1 x 2) (I14 I 1) 94. 25.3 2 .7 cu». ‘u—n pa. 4- ..‘... - e..- _.'—.- -V 0 re I . . \ F ,. 2 e I I ‘ Table 13 (Continued) 60 m. Wigree m in loisture gtalk Bu/acre in ear 10d ing ‘t 1505‘ g moisture 3; (I14 I )(9 x 11) 94.6 23.7 13.7 3 (1 x 3) 2 x 11) 94.6 24.1 35.5 39 (I23 I 2) (I14 I 6) 94.6 25. 25.5 40 (0h51 x 2)(111.1 1: I14) 94.5 25.4 29.6 41 (0h51 x lll4)(Ill.i x '23) 94.4 22.8 31.9 42 '23 X 11) (1114 X 3) 94.4 22.9 25.2 43 111.1 x )(ll4 X 2) 94.4 26.7 32.1 44 (0h26 x 3 (I14 1: 11) 94.4 22.4 11.2 45 (mic I15 90.9 22.0 25.3 ."‘ -A“I -....”..‘,— ee .- .w.-v—mro -.-.--e.'- e — . v . ». A..-— . ’-. . .2 . ‘- r .. .p e. . -. , .e - . ._. ' ‘u a s- e - u. ._ .e .mv' . .- ~. ~.- .52 .-.. . - . 7‘ .- H.-,, .. -.. .- . . .. r - \ - v ‘a 7' e f g r- \ g . V ‘ J ~ . \ e - I I . I ' I . . ‘. , s ' v‘: r l . O 1 . l I . . \ - I I \ e I v \ . . , 1 ~ . .‘ .. e . {I . . .7 \. 1 .. e I . m. -~v Ono-o ‘2“. a. - ,~,-.. y-ne ...--~.--e.~ r---. h..- r" o r — ~- ~ 61 yielding double crosses say be produced from.sose of the second cycle lines. It is evident frol the results that most of the high yielding double crosses have two or three second cycle lines as their parents. The predicted yield for Ohio I'15 is the lowest of the double crosses listed in the Table 13. Sole of the predicted double crosses, where a second cycle line was one of the parents, Iere as early in maturity as Ohio ll 15. However, none of the double crosses were earlier in naturity than Ohio l’15; The percentages of stalk lodging indicates that some of the predicted double crosses of second cycle lines were better in lodging resistance than Ohio I 15. Correlations were calculated for the actual yield, moisture percentage, and stalk lodging of the double crosses (Table 12) with the predicted yield, moisture percentage, and stalk lodging. In all cases the correlation coefficients were significant indicating that the predicted data of the double crosses gave a good indication of the actual performance of the double crosses. Evaluation of Second Cycle Lines By Different.Types of Related and unrelated Testers A colparison of different types (inbred, single cross, or double-cross) of related and unrelated tester parents to detect inherent differences in combining ability of 20 second cycle lines was made. The two groups of testers, related and unrelated, differed in vigor as expressed by mean yields ; E“ I . O V e l e . a e . 1‘ ‘1 Of A . . 4 .rl . . .\ ‘ 9‘ 1 r, n‘ . II Y 5 v . Ox lw ) . . ll. . 5. IE”- ul '2 r- $ “1‘ b 9‘, 62 in bushels per acre (Table 3). The mean yields of each of the three unrelated tester types was higher than the mean yield of related testers of the same type. This situation could be expected since the related testers had more genetic similarity with the second cycle lines than the unrelated testers. Correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the rank association between different testers for evaluating yielding ability of the lines. The results (Table 14) indicate that there was little correlation between the inbred testers in their ability to evaluate the lines for yield in similar order. This may be due to differences in specific combining ability of the testers with the tested lines. Except in one case, yields with inbred testers were significantly correlated with yields of single cross testers in.which the inbred tester was one of the parents. Correla- tions for inbred testers and double cross testers were generally not significant. The broader gene base of the double cross tester reduced the possibilities of inbred testers evaluating the lines in rank similar to that of the double cross tester. Except in one case, there was no association among single cross testers in their ability to evaluate the lines for yield, Table 14. This indicates that the single cross testers were affected to a great extent by genes for specific dombining ability. lore than one single cross tester would be needed to evaluate these inbred lines for general combining ability. “A e e e e e 0 .w .1 - O O Q ....~.. .4— “ _“.-r 63 Table 14 Correlation coefficients for yield between testers in the test crosses S.N. Testers 0h51 0h26 Ill.A I23 1 0h51 - {.31 -.24 {.38 2 0h26 7.31 - -.05 7.19 3 111.1 -.24 -.05 - 7.12 4 W23 7.38 7.19 7.12 - 5 0h51 x 0h26 7.53 7.61 -.405 .56 6 111.4 1: I23 7.05 7.17 7.50 7.39 7 on. 1115 7.16 7.01 7.10 7.30 8 M14 7.17 7.20 7.35 7.25 9 M14 X WF9 {.40 {.12 -.10 {.40 10 1.. 4483 7.34 7.08 7.33 7.53 Correlation coefficients betIeen - (a) Average of four related inbred testers and M14 the unrelated inbred tester .453 (b) Average of four related inbred testers and average of two related single crosses .583 (c) Average of four related inbred testers and OhioM15 .400 (d) Average of two related single cross tester and Ohio M15 .349 (0) Average of two related single cross tester and M14 X WF9, the unrelated single cross .578 (f) Average of all related testers and average of unrelated testers .623 —. - Table 14 (Continued) 64 01.51 x 0h26 111.1 1: I23 0m. ll5 I14 1114 x m 1.. 4483 7.33 7.05 7.16 7.17 7.40 7.34 7.61 7.17 7.01 7.20 7.12 7.08 -.405 7.50 7.10 7.35 ~10 A33 t .56 7.39 7.30 7.25 7.40 7.53 $ . “.01 {.28 {.26 {.32 ’.32 ’eOI " ‘034 lezo ’016 ‘e‘o 7.28 7.34 - 7.38 7.29 7.26 t 7.26 7.20 7.38 - 7.54 7.202 7.62 7.16 7.29 7.34 - 7.417 t * t {(032 {e40 {e46 {.302 *0“? " * Significant at 5% ** Signigicant at 15 r value to be significant at 51 0.444 degree of freedom 18 r value to be significant at 11 0.561 degree of freedom 18 ~~n~ .. -1 - . - . ‘ .a-~.-. c v. \ I .q .- \ e" 0" ‘ 0" 0" ‘ e \ u .a -p _ - 1 e . . .2- - “-0 -. O .- \ . .- , a , .14- . -v—n . f 4...... a»,- _.2 e . - _-—.~a‘-o 65 Except in one case, single cross testers also did not show any rank association with the double-cross testers. Dif- ferences in rank association may be attributed largely to differences in specific cosbining ability of the testers with the line being tested. Correlation between the two double cross testers, one .parental and the other nonparental, was .46, Ihich was signi- ficant at the 5% level but low for much predictive value. As pointed out by Sprague and Tatum (29), a broad gene base tester, in addition to effecting general combining ability, probably contains factors with strong dominance and epistatic effects. Thus, the evaluation of the tested lines for general combining ability might be more greatly influenced by'dolinant and epistatic factors than would be desirable for evaluating general combining ability. A high 'r' value (.783**) for the means of the four parental inbred testers with the means of the two related single crosses (Table 14) suggests that either four inbreds or their two single crosses may be used as testers to evaluate the lines for yield. These results indicate that the average yield obtained from.crosses with two or more tester parents tends to reduce the effects due to specific combining ability. The 'r' value, .623, for the two tester groups (related and unrelated) indicates that, either related testers or unrelated testers, as a group, were reliable for estimating general cOIblning ability. It ‘bvl. 2...). .Ir Lfi. 4.4: .1.) ‘ - 4; L"! a mm 66 Table 15 Correlation coefficients for percentage of moisture between.testers in test crosses S.N. Testers A 0h51 0h26 Ill.A I23 44 44 e 3 111.1 .828 .771 - .674 ** 4 W23 .612 .776 .674 - 5 0h51 x 0h26 .335 .859 .838 .750 6 Ill.A X W23 .;86 .§;9 .830 .839 7 Ohio M15 .773 .768 .757 .815 til i * * 8 M14 .713 .810 .377 .800 t #* 9 M14 x WF9 .853 .563 .653 .720 4 e4 48 10 180 4483 .374- .332 .723 .606 Correlation coefficients between - (a) Average of four related inbred testers and M14, the unrelated inbred tester r 3 .831** (b) Average of four related inbred testers and average of two related single crosses .970** (0) Average of four related inbred testers and Oh M15 .859** (d) Average of two related single cross tester and 0h M15 .828“I (e) Average of two related single cross tester and Mfl4 X WF9, the unrelated single cross .869“' (f) Average of all related testers and average of unrelated testers .879“ 0h51 X 01126 111.1 I '23 Ohio 115 I14 A 67 Table 15 (Continued) I14 X '19 Ia. 4483 .335 .556 .553 .513 .333 .374 .339 .339 .;38 .310 .333 .332 .858 .330 .557 .357 .333 .353 .750 .839 .315 - .330 .330 .336 - .331 .359 .335 .333 .337 .331 - .330 .538 .334 .330 .359 .350 - .337 .339 .314 .535 .538 .367 - .331 .347 .333 .334 .339 .661 - .339 .337 .330 .314 .347 .339 - * significant at 51 ** significant at 1} r value significant at 5% 0.444 degree of freedcn 18 r value significant at 11 0.561 degree of freedom 18 .oevv‘ no a It.-.» «so--Q-*-u "—-—- I . -.-- u....-.-_. -- "-.u’n~r. .. ~~u - o D . ' .—.. ,. 'U-v' .- '_ l- I <. 68 Correlations were calculated for moisture percentage in the test crosses to assess the ability of different testers to evaluate saturity (Table 15). All the testers, irres- pective of type and relationship with the lines under test, showed significant rank association for evaluating maturity of the lines. Correlations among testers for evaluating maturity (Table 15) were generally high in contrast to those for yield (Table 14). This suggests that fewer testers would be needed to evaluate maturity than for yield. Correlations between inbred testers for stalk lodging ‘were low (Table 16) showing that inbred testers did not rank the lines in the same order. This failure of inbred testers to g1ve the same evaluation may be attributed to differences in specific combining ability for lodging resistance of the testers (19). I Except in one case, where the significant 'r' value, .471, was rather low, single cross testers also did not evalu- ate the lines alike for stalk lodging. Single cross testers were also specific in action for lodging resistance and the evaluation with any one of them did not apply for other testers. Evaluation with single cross testers correlated significantly with that obtained with double cross testers. Related and unrelated double cross testers showed good- aesociation, .805**, for evaluating stalk lodging resistance, suggesting that a double cross tester night be best for evaluating stalk lodging. A high 'r' value, .924**, between " 4L X. 69 Table 16 Correlation coefficients for percentage of stalk lodging between testers in test crosses S.N. Testers 0h51 0h26 111.A ‘123 1 0h51 - -.O43 {.04 {.41 2 0h26 -.O43 - {.127 $.171 3 Ill.A {.04 {.127 - {.149 4 W23 7.41 7.171 7.149 .- 5 0h51 x 0h26 7.279 7.380 -.092 7.390 6 111.1 x W23 7.205 7.277 7.318 7.399 7 Ohio 105 7.411 7.190 7.430 7.350 8 M14 7.315 7.286 7.086 -.110 9 M14 x-m 7.331 7.051 7.376 7.384 10 Ia. 4483 7.279 7.322 7.203 7.530 Correlation coefficients between - (a) Average of four related inbred testers and M14, the unrelated inbred tester 7.143 (b) Average of four related inbred testers and .4 average of two related single crosses .724 (c) Average of four related inbred testers and 44 Oh M15 {.712 (d) Average of two related single cross tester and on 1115 7.354 (e) Average of two related single cross tester 4 and M14 X WF9 the unrelated single cross 4.561 (f) Average of all related testers and average .. of unrelated testers 70 Table 16 (Continued) 61151 X 01126 111.1 I '23 Ohio H15 1114 M14 X m Ia. 4483 7.279 7.205 7.411 7.315 7.331 7.279 7.430 7.277 7.190 7.286 7.051 7.322 -.092 7.518 7.430 7.086 .376 7.203 t 7.430 7.399 7.550 -.110 7.434 7.510 - 7.304 7.335 7.288 7.176 7.317 t t t {030‘ " {0734 le178 {e471 K45§8 . t t ** 7.535 7.734 - 7.309 7.520 7.805 ’e288 {e178 ’e309 " {e190 ’e288 7.176 7.431 .7.550 7.190 - 7.534 7.317 7.338 7.335 7.288 7.534 - * significant at 5% ** significant at 15 r value to be significant at 5’ 0.444 r value to be significant at 1‘ 0.561 degree of freedom 18 degree of freedom 18 a 9-7-..- .7 ’4. .4 “.7 -.~. .q- .. V... 1 . ~- . u . . .- - .47 l. \. ,. e‘. n." ..e"b \ e“: a' x» x ‘ - 1 O \ e" ' fl 0 ' \ ‘ ~. 4 .- \ -‘ .*.- ~n huaua ..-...,_ .-‘a--- .~ ab ,. .‘- \ .6 .‘ ,1 as“ -g... '\ I. . . e O \ .- O \ ~ 0 1 0*- i. .- . . .0- ‘ .- ~ .. e" - e ‘ e \ .. - . a. e e" . e". \ Q -. o ."a 9 ‘I 71 the mean performance of the two related single crosses with their double cross, Ohio l’lS indicated that either a double cross tester or the two single crosses of the double-cross lay be used to evaluate general combining ability of the lines for stalk lodging. Correlations for the mean of the four related inbred testers with the mean of their two single crosses, .724*¢, with the related double cross, .712**, in- dicated that the four inbred testers could be replaced with their two single crosses or the double cross in evaluating general combining ability for resistance to stalk lodging. Mean performances of the related and unrelated testers showed high association, .723**, in evaluating lines for stalk lodging. This suggests that either related or unre- lated testers provided valid information on resistance to stalk lodging. A Four out of ten correlations among inbred testers for root lodging, Table 17, were significant. In general, inbred testers were not very effective in evaluating the lines in similar order. Likewise, correlations among single cross and double cross testers were low, indicating specific reactions between tester and tested lines. It was apparent, that in- bred and single testers could not be depended upon to provide evaluation applicable to other testers. However, the amount of root lodging was generally low and may not present a true picture of the situation if the incidence of the root lodging had been higher. a d 72 Table 1? Correlation coefficients for percentage of root lodging between testers in test crosses S.N. Testers 0h51 0h26 Ill.A ‘l23 1 0851 - 7.335 .353 7.371 2 0h26 7.335 - .385 7.263 t 3 Ill.A 7.353 7.485 - 7.09 e 4 W23 7.471 7.263 7.09 - it 5 0h51 x 0h26 7.702 7.357 7.397 7.433 #1 6 Ill-A X'W23 7.375 7.233 7.085 7.618 7 0h M15 7.337 7.286 7.029 7.414 8 1114 7.069 7.392 7.084 7.088 9 m x m 7.334. 7.260 7.364 7.372 a 10 Ia. 4483 7.349 7.380 7.461 7.198 Correlation coefficients between - (a) Average of four related inbred testers and M14, the unrelated inbred tester 7.101 (b) Average of four related inbred testers . and average of two related single crosses 7.694 (c) Average of four related inbred testers and 0h M15 7.341 (d) Average of two related single cross 44 tester and 0h M15 7.665 (e) Average of two related single cross tester and M14 X WF9, the unrelated single cross 7.368 (f) Average of all related testers and * average of unrelated testers 7.600 73 Table 1? (Continued) I14 1 '39 la. 4483 —‘-— _._.._ 0h51 X 0h26 Ill.AAX'IZB Chic I15 IRA a——— .332 7.375 7.337 7.069 7.334 .539 7.357 7.238 7.286 7.392 .430 7.430 7.437 7.085 7.029 7.084 7.364 7.431 7.433 .338 7.414 7.088 7.532 7.198 - 7.289 7.312 7.025 7.299 7.323 7.289 - 7.404 7.167 7.397 -.011 7.612 7.404 - 7.093 7.32 7.395 7.025 7.167 7.093 - 7.114 7.195 7.299 7.397 7.32 7.114 - 7.310 7.330 -.011 7.395 7.195 7.310 - ‘ Significant at 51 ** Significant at 1‘ r value to be significant at 51 0.444 r value to be significant at 11 0.561 degree of freedo- degree of freedol 18 18 . . . CI.— —.-4— 4- .4. .~ . H a“ 0.4- ... o - - u. u . a» , - . ‘-—- avm- . .4—5- . .-.--~—-a-o~ ,- --~~- -- ~- 4 -. . - - v.4 .- -a-c- —~ ~. -- .- - 3 ‘1' l a ‘ - 1 - 0 0 e- c e- .4 o. a -x-.—- - ,.. - .7 .-.- . -s’s . .~ .— a». . 1- a» -_ —.- a - . 4 ..- 4 .. .. .- 4 . n m- . - - au— I' .4 7 H. - . .. o n...- —4 . . -. ~, .2.- .- .-.- ‘uu.-vo.a1‘O¢O 0.- v — o.» 4 r...‘ ,g o a»... - —o. «cu ,, a o a - -7» 4.. 4. ~..no—-ah - > 4»... m h —.e.--.— I. -~- -‘>» " ru- .0 W 5 ‘ . e 2 a I C , t. '4 A 74 Correlation of average root lodging scores of the four related inbred testers with the averages from the two related single cross testers and with the double cross Ohio I 15, were significant, suggesting that either four inbred testers, or their two single crosses, or the double cross made up from the four tester inbreds would be effective in evaluating root lodging. Correlating the averages for the related and unre- lated testers showed a significant association, suggesting that either related or unrelated testers could be effective for root lodging evaluation. 13W Variance components for "testers“ and "tester 1 line" interaction were compared for yield and maturity percentage. The method of calculating the components of variance is pre- sented in.Tab1e 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and the results are given in Table 23. The mean yields for inbred, single and double cross testers in test crosses were 81.7, 83.6 and 83.7 bushels per acre, respectively. These three means were quite similar. There was no significant tester type x line interaction Table 22 and the variance component was .01 (Table 23), related and unrelated testers evaluated the lines sinilarily for yield. The differences among the five inbred testers, three single cross and two double cross testers were significant as 75 Table 18 lean square expectations for yield and moisture percentage comparing inbred single cross and double cross testers —_ Source of Variation Tester Type Line 1: Tester Type Inbred Testers (a) Error Inbred Tester 1: Line (1:) Error Single Cross Testers (a) Error Tester 1 Line (b) Error Double Cross Tester (a) Error Double Cross Teeter x Line (b) Error *MAL‘ Value of lean Squares 624:, 7 194.4521.r, 7 372 62!, (an, 7 9.8 (21.2,.1. 7 19.9 331,.1. 62.1 7 60 621.21 7 120 (2:1 624, (26, 7 3 621.r1.1. 7 6 (211.1. 62371 624, 7 60 521.2, 7 120 531, 62. 7,20, 7 3 521.2,.1. 7 6 (221.1. 62b, Fad 7 60 52135 7 120 <5sz 6244 6204 7 3 0’21.Td.l. 7 6 «213.1. 620‘ '1 . - . , 7 . O O s .4... -.~- I .4“. a .. 1 . , a- - I -4 -4..- \ l l\ '4 O“ I a «nu. ,. s a. I. C o"...— .......... .,‘J 4*« -..-I~ “‘- .--—.--a. - ,d .._5 .a... 1“.-. .‘ e’ ‘- ’,\ ., . . 1" ' 1 .1 . a‘ 4 3 ' e .' .\l 1 4 (a) 76 Tabla 19 Component of variancc for inbred tcstcra 0.1!. 1.3.8. 11.3.3. Yield Ibis- tnrc total 599 Boplica- 4 53.92 46.3 tiona factor 4 155.72 817.17 62:1 ,4 60 521.11. .¢ 120 5211. Location 1 130.8 1753.8 62ai .1 60 521.11. I 300 (21 Location X'roctcr 4 9.67 40.3 €2ail 60 (21.11. Error 16 15.34 19.77 (4.1 Linc 19 3.72 205.2 «201 .t 3 621.11.!“ x 6 (Qua .4 Lina.x Location 19 11.12 30.78 (2b: .4 3 (2131.1. ,4 30 (21.1. factor x Lino 76 15.71 1?.77 (201 g 3 (21.111 ; 6 531.1. Lin. 1 Tutor x 2 Location. 76 3.42 5.31 6 hi I 3 (‘21.!iJ. Inc: 380 3.90 4.25 ‘zbi ” _._— Notc: 1 8 Location L I Lina Ti 3 Icatcr inbred a: significance at 51 ._ flu: -"' . a. - “'. -P - .0.“ ' . ‘ 0 O ’ . ~ . - _-__ ‘1.--~- “ “ __.—o n- -’ -. O _ . .. . ,r... a..- ---- ’ .. - c... -.-- ..-. . .-- .u..v " 7* --.- -~o“' -'~ -- - «I y 0 O. ‘ - - I .. I' . ' h . . _ .. J‘ ‘ >- 1 ‘ ' I .A V i, 9 <1 . a h \ . . I . . .- . . v § ‘ '7 o ‘ '. . ..'| f ' . o . t ‘ ' . . \n . '1 ' 1 .. . ‘ \ \ .‘ [- . 2 . o - . -0- n-’ "' M - . . - . . v .n '- o o ' - I .- .-. C ‘ ‘ . ‘ .F' ‘ - n O . . (a) (b) 77 table 20 Component of Variance for single cross testers 0.1. l.8.3. 1.8.8. Yield loin- tnre fl total 359 Replica- tion 4 26e8 62e5 IC'tCr 2 333e5 338e3 62" f 60 (21.18. I 126 {&.e Location 1 120.5 1039.3 52., ,4 60 (21.1“ .4 180 (21 Location ‘ x renter 2 9.7 78.9 62a. I 60 621.!“ Error 8 19.51 7.74 62.. Line 19 23.3 11.77 628, .4 3 621.131.. .t 6 (21.1.. J 30 (21.1. I 60(2L. Line I Location 19 8.35 17.85 628, x 3 521.1..1 ,4 30 (21.1.. Line I renter 38 5.38 6.98 62b. .1 3 621381.. I 6 (21:1. Line 1 Location 1: Teeter 38 3.12 5.41 62b, 1‘ 3 621.1'a.L. Error 228 3.72 4.11 62b. L 8 Line 1 3 Location In 8 hater single crou * significance at S! . v r g I ’. ' -\'L ' ‘ v . ' 1 o ' - ' 5 o ,,,. - ---- - »- - e .~ 0 ,, op— .. - .. e v. -, I~- . -4~~~— -- .o 9 . e an , o o - e . o... - . -.. -_ .- A.- . 4 .~ e O O a o g g I 0 . e n. a‘... a4--»\-w ~e-s e .. n... ., -..o~.«»-o~cpe¢ o., ,.....y.., -...Q r U'. .-- ~o . -- -o-— - -¢ ..- - . .-~.o~._v on. .—--. a. a“... ~. .. -2 4....-- . . .. . .. .-‘ -e . . . ' . , . . ‘ .- «N ‘ ‘ . L . .5 . ‘ 0 o .1 O C O “ ‘ ’fl r l ' r- . n ‘ . x . * pa 5 \ O o .. 0 . - o . Q C .. . . . e - O . ~‘--O—_-— - -‘_.. -.......a. - -«d. . ‘ -r..-..._ a“.... 4.. c a... - u v a-..“ - .-.a. . an a. H,- c--..- w...” - . . .. o - ~ -“ a , . - -e . .- 0 J - v (i . . .- .. . .1 .(‘ .3 r. . ., - ‘ -. . o ' '_ , ‘ .- (a) (b) 78 table 21 Components of Variance of double cross testers DJ. 11.8.8. l.8.8. Yield Hois- tnre total 239 Replica- tion 4 22o95 3‘055 IOTtOr 1 234e8 ‘ 22e6 (23‘ I 60 larde I 120 (21d. Location 1 51.0 709.3 gzad I 60 (21.14. I 120 421 Location 1: tutor 1 86.0 22.8 72.6 I 60 (21.26. nrror 4 8.05 4.88 a)...l Line 19 15.70 63.89 628‘ I 3 621.10.!” I 6 (814.1. I 30 $1.1. I 60 0°21. Line 1 , Location 19 3.40 47.5 5211‘! I 3 02154.1" I 301.1. Line I tutor 19 2.35 13.98 {and I 3 «2130.1. I 6 {BILL Line I - tester I 2 2 Location 19 8.26 8.67 0’ ha I 3 6 1.td.1. Error, 152 3.76 5 .12 (2th l 8 Location L = Line 24 = tester double cross It significance at 55 -A- u-v-ov e M"< _ . , . 4 . - . . .I . ' _ -h \D 1. a ‘ n 1 Ir. I-r - .- -- y » - h‘ '0 e -. '-' "COW’VIV‘ ‘. "-< ——‘—a.-- D v0.05 -" -- 'v > -' ' .' "-‘~ 0 O « O O a e 5 C ' O .. . - -- .. ,‘ . A .o.. on... . s d‘fl‘finh- ..- ..,«.. u . J”... »- -OOO ~-—- o .L.... m.-'. .o. 0 so s u..- o a... .. .. . _... c. . . - t O I _ r \ I o ' . i ‘ r u. ‘ ‘ .~ , O C O O O V e W ' ' - , . . . . ‘ A O C C O x‘ . \ ‘ v . . ° 0 O - O O . Q \ O O \ p ' ‘ 1 4 . o ‘ 4 r ' I -h -. Q . O - . 6 . ' . . O 1 . \ . ' u- I O . . . . 1 _ . .V ~. . ~ v I I . e e ~ e e '- '1 1‘ 1 e . e I \I ‘ ‘ or » , \ I , o I ~ I * ‘ O - O I - O — ‘ . o . Q g . I -‘ . ‘ x. ‘ a , O O I O . c- - , . Q Q . -.u... . -. . .w _... --._-... _~.-.. ..¢~ . .. “.fi‘, -_-‘ o. ~— anmo‘" < o‘- .....-. -. -_.....’- - 9-- -. . o. I. , 0. . —e.--. 04‘ e . f l o o o u 7’. .- (a) (b) 79 Table 22 Components of variance of type of testers 0.1!. I.8.8. 11.8.8. ;::ld {gis- tnre toto1 359 :2::‘°'* Location 1 . typo 2 11.2 12.8 flat, I 194.41.521.11}, I 372 6213’ $333” 2 2.95 0.05 (28!, I 194.4 0,215, Error 13.71 10.85 (28!, Line 19 66.9 39.4 628:, I 9.8 521.51. I 19.9 (31,1. I 30 21.1. I 6052!. Line I Location 19 19.9 57.7 6211!, I 9.8 621a,; I 30 621.L :3: I 38 4.39 9.46 0’21)!y I 9.8 o’zld'yJ: 4‘ 19.9 635.1. Linelx £623.. 38 1.75 9.06 628:, I 9.8 (213,1 Error 228 4.08 5.22 (an, L 2 Line =6Location 11': Type . . . p on -o—ooc- ... - - a - ~7-—.o-o.o.-. — - ~. . ~ A o ... r .. .o. ..o. _.r . : o ‘ . ' a w‘ . G 1" . ._ . .3. ' - . ..,_.. ,n . nu.- -. v -— .o. . . tul. .. - . . .. 4 ...--n “on.- ‘n.--.... v-7 o.‘ -. ”0.4. ~. —. gov-“do.- . _. -. on, ~ ’4'... o i e a. v I Q ' t I o \ .. o - ‘ 7‘ - ' O O . o O . O . F - . —~ 0 ~ I O Q o v r-. - r‘ I v ' I O O r ‘ ' ' a ‘.4 A o o , c. - ' ‘ ’ " - I - O - C O . O O ‘ . ' ‘ I v' . I O . '9 t \ . . r . ,— o ‘7 o >. , 4 ,, I O O O I I - .. V . '4 I ’ I o. 6.. u. .0 .— -.. 2 u may ~—.—.. § - . $.41. . ..~4~.”~'.> - . .. . .. . u. u . — on ‘ .4- .0... o. —— - h. . ,7..--. h o .— 80 Table 23 Variance components for yield and moisture Variance componp W “rm" W e 018 ure Conponents e no s are Source of Variation. n.r. tester typoo 2 11.2 12.8 (3! .022 .005 (a) Error 8 13.71 10.85 c 8.! 13.71 10.85 Line I Tester typo 38 4.39 9.46 428t.L 0.01 .02 (b) Error 228 4.08 5.22 (an! 4.08 5.22 Inbred tootor 4 125.72 847.17 <21 .93 6.72 (o) Error 16 15.34 19.77 «2.1 15.34 19.77 Inbred Tester (5) Error 380 3.90 4.25 (2111 3.90 4.25 Single Cross tootor 2 353.5 328.3 (as 2.86 2.1 (a) Error 8 19.51 7.74 (ass 19.51 7.74 Single Cross Tester 1 Line 38 5.88 6.98 62s.L .46 0.26 (b) Error 228 3.72 4.11 (ab. 3.72 4.11 Double Cross tootor 1 264.8 22.6 <20 1.49 .002 (‘) Brrfir ‘ 8o05 4.088 (2“ 3o05 ‘088 Double Cross §’£§;: 19 2 35 16 98 r28 L 1 58 Correlation between inbred and single cross testers .398 Degree of freedol 18 Correlation between inbred and double cross testers .324 Degree of freedoa 18 Correlation betseen single and double testers .§29 Degree of freedoa 18 ‘4 o —... - .. i s -—..— -« - fly . ‘ \ 0 f' ‘ e , ,. 0 ‘. ' x O 2.4 onov\--~.w--‘o u—u. - _ s .- . 'u -. o l .,. C O O . , I _. a - : ’ a “ o‘ v o .4... I..." s—..-e- o .. . so--- . - . . » -. ... . . e- ,. I e e I . . ‘ a O I '0 r .. . 4 "1’ '0'- . _ . .4. - .<-. ,.--. .. .. 8H. .-. . ' 4 a . "‘ . O o .. l. , ‘ H o. .- -- ..- a 4 .. . . _.. . I \ x ,. .‘ . - s r- . l . .. . . . \ -0 o \ f ,» .. A I a o . r ,~_ I 4 3 . "I .\ ‘ ¥ .4 , it u ' . . o 1 . , .\ . A ' v r - u‘ce-— .‘-. o- o.. .u. ,4__ ‘ e o o N . I e I ‘O‘ \ 81 Judged by the 'F' test, (Table 19, 20, and 21). The dif- ference in the yield due to the different testers within a group may be due to the variation in the amount of genetic similarity of the testers with the lines being tested. Testers more similar genetically to the tested lines would be expected to give lower average yields than testers which ‘were different genetically from the tested lines. Correlation coefficients showed that the three groups of testers ranked the lines for the yield similarily. Table 23. Interactions for inbred tester x lines and single cross tester 1 lines were significant but not for the double cross tester 1 line, Table 19, 20 and 21. Components of variance estimates for the interactions inbred testers 1 lines, single- cross testers 1 lines and double - cross testers x lines were 1.22, .46 and -.23 respectively. The decrease in relative size of these interaction components indicate that performances with inbred and single cross testers.were more specific than those with double cross testers. The relative size of the interaction coaponent for tester 1 line decreased as the gene base became broader. This same relationship for tester types ‘was shown by Matsinger (21). lean moisture percentages for inbred, single and double cross testers were 21.9, 21.5 and 21.6 respectively. There were no differences for type of testers or for line 1 type interactions as Judged by 'F' tests (Table 22). The component of variance for line I type interaction was .02 again indic- ating no interaction. 82 The data for different testers x line interaction in- dicate that there was no significant line x single cross tester interaction for moisture (Table 22). This suggests that the three single cross testers were evaluating the lines similarily for maturity. Interactions for inbred testers 1 lines and double cross testers x lines were sig- nificant as Judged by 'F' test (Tables 19 and 21) and the W. 1 ,- .1 i components of variance were 1.74 and 1.58 respectively. Like yield, these interactions components were small com- - mg.» '1 or pared to the error components indicating that factors contributing to error components were more effective than the components for interactions. Discussion The results reported in this investigation.have in» dicated that some second cycle lines, more vigorous and better in combining ability than the parental lines, were produced by inbreeding and selection in a double cross corn hybrid. Since only the better lines were used to produce the initial double cross hybrid, Ohio I 15, the desirable factors from each of the parental inbreds were concentrated in one variety. Thus the chances of obtaining a higher percentage of usable lines from such sources are likely to be better than from the older open pollinated varieties. The isol- ation of some superior lines from double cross hybrids may be due to the cumulative effect of large number of factors affecting yield (28). Similar results were reported by ‘lu (30), Hayes and Johnson (12) and Johnson and Hayes (18) who worked with single cross hybrids. Sprague (20) suggests that continued cycles of isolating new lines may be repeated as long as improved lines are obtained. The pro- duction of vigorous lines is an economic factor in production of hybrid seed corn from inbred lines whereas lines superior in combining ability lead to better hybrids. Through inbreeding and selection in a double-cross hybrid, second cycle lines genetically different from.the parents and with each other were produced. The results from single and double cross tests among second cycle lines in- dicated that selected lines produced some hybrids equal or 84 slightly better yielding than Ohio I 15, fro-.uhich they were extracted. Since yield is controlled by a large number of genetic factors, there is little possibility of similar yield factors recombining in second cycle lines to produce lines similar to the parental lines. The chances of recombining all of the parental characters in one recovered line exactly or even close to the parental genotype are relatively remote. Thus, recovered lines varying in genetic relationship with each other and also with the four parental inbreds were produced. Several hybrids using second cycle lines were superior to the parental double cross, Ohio M 15, in lodging resistance. Resistance to lodging is very important from the standpoint of ease and thoroughness of mechanical harvest. Any improvement in lodging resistance represents an important contribution to corn production and increases corn yields by reducing harvest losses. These results show that lines from.the same genetic back- ground can be used to produce good hybrids, if they were extracted from a wide genetic base equivalent at least to a double-cross hybrid as source material for extraction. Close genetic similarity with the parents and among the second cycle lines has been reported (30, 12) for lines isolated from single crosses. In addition to improving combining ability, lines earlier or later in maturity than the parents and equal to the best parent and better than the other parents in root and stalk lodging resistance were isolated. 85 The results were encouraging in that some lines gen- etically different from the parent and with each other were produced. Previous workers, using single crosses as source material, isolated some superior lines, but closer genetic relationship largely precluded the use of the second cycle lines with their parental lines in double cross com- binations. These results have shown that there are chances r“““ to isolate genetically divergent lines in second cycle selection from a double cross. is a feature of routine corn breeding program, the ‘4... 1”“.— .d‘- n... .‘n Inna A-uu‘ o extensive evaluation of a group of second cycle lines from the same source as was done here would probably be less effective in developing improved hybrids than the same effort devoted to evaluating apoup of lines from several sources. However, the present study does serve to point out the possibilities of improvement where it is desired to improve a highly popular double-cross hybrid using it as inbreeding source material. Evaluation of second cycle lines for yield, maturity and lodging using different types of related and unrelated testers was compared. Inbred testers irrespective of the relationship with the lines under test were Specific in evaluating the lines for yield. Also single and double cross testers (related and unrelated) either showed little or no similarity in evaluating yield. These results support the view of Sprague and Tatum (29) who suggest more than one single or double cross tester for evaluating lines for general combining ability. lltlslllll. 86 The specific action of these testers for yield has been indicated by the analyses of components of variance. The line I tester interaction for yield indicated that as genetic variation within testers increased (inbred to single cross to double cross), the line x tester interaction component decreased. These results concur with the findings of Matzinger (21) and suggest that the inbred or single cross j testers be selected according to the use which is to be made : of the new lines. For example if the new lines were to be used as a substitute for one of the parents in the pedigree of a double cross the best tester will be the opposite single cross. There was no interaction for the yields due to line I double cross testers and the correlation was significant..46. ‘While the correlation between the two double cross testers was not high, they did identify most of the sen inbreds as being high in general combining ability. The comparison between the two tester groups (related and unrelated) indicated that either related testers or unp related testers, as a group were reliable for estimating general combining ability. The two groups of testers showed signifi- cant association for all the characteristics under study indicating that the relationship of the tester parents to the tested lines did not affect the ranking of the lines. The analyses for types of testers suggests that the evaluation of the lines for general combining ability can be {Pitta 8? clone most economically with two or more double cross testers :irrespective of relationship with the lines under test. If other types of testers (inbreds and single crosses) are to be used, the number of testers should be increased. Correlations of the mean performances of four inbred testers with the means of their two single crosses suggest that the two types of testers within a group ranked the lime similarily for all the characters under study. This suggests 'C‘ A.- C H an 0 1 » ‘5. unfolds-fl An. either four parental inbreds or their two single crosses as testers for approximately equal precision. FJ‘ GmsuAa‘e—a 1 - Correlations among testers for maturity were generally thigh, suggesting fewer testers would be needed for evaluating :maturity. Closer association among testers in the evaluation of maturity might be due to fewer genes affecting the expression of maturity than yield and stalk lodging resistance. Yield is highly multi-genic. Resistance to stalk lodging is det- ermined by resistance to both corn borer and stalk rotting fungi coupled with stiffness of stalk and, as such, becomes relatively multi-genic. The results for stalk and root lodging showed that inbred and single cross testers, regardless of relationship with the tested lines, did not evaluate the lines in similar order. The two double cross testers did evaluate the lines for stalk lodging in similar order but not for root lodging where the use of more than one double cross tester was needed. The amount of root lodging was relatively low and these results 88 may not apply in tests where root lodging is high. It should be emphasized that in a cam breeding program, the evaluation for maturity and lodging is done in con- Junction with yield. The results have suggested the use of more than one tester irrespective of the relation for evaluating the lines for yield. On the other hand, for all characters under study, the use of more than one tester has -'_1 .t " Luna: ..I ' produced a high precision. This suggests that with the evaluation of lines for yield, other characters will also i be evaluated with a relatively high degree of accuracy. Summary Twenty 86 second cycle lines developed by inbreeding and selection in the double cross Ohio M 15 (Oh 51 x Oh 26) x (Ill.A x'w 23) were used to study the degree of relationship with the four parental lines and among themselves. These lines were crossed on ten testers, seven related (four parental inbreds, two single crosses and the double cross Ohio M 15) and three unrelated testers (inbred M 14, single cross H.14 x‘l’F 9 and double cross Ia. 4483 (I 14 x‘W F 9) x (38 x 316). Seven of the second cycle lines, four parental lines and one unrelated line, M 14 were used to produce, 66, single crosses. Actual and predicted performance of double crosses 'were compared with the parental Ohio I 15. l. A few of the second cycle lines were more vigorous than and superior to the parental inbreds in combining ability. 2. Second cycle lines were genetically different from.some of the parents and from each other. 3. A few double crosses equal to or slightly better than Ohio If15 were produced by crossing four second cycle lines or by substituting them with one or more of the parental lines in the pedigree of Ohio I 15. 4. Predicted yield, percentage of moisture and stalk lodging of the double crosses from the single cross data showed significant correlation with the actual yield, percentage of moisture and stalk lodging. These results indicate that, even.the lines of the same 9O origin can be used to produce good hybrids, if they were extracted from a wide genetic base. 5. Inbred and single-cross testers were very specific in evaluating the lines for yield and lodging. This suggests the use of more than one of these as testers for general com- bining ability. The 'r' value between the two double cross testers was a significant (.46) but low enough to suggest the use of more than one tester for evaluating the lines for general combining ability for yield. 1 high 'r' value for the mean of the four parental inbred testers with the mean of their two single crosses suggested that either four inbreds or their two single crosses may be used for evaluating general combining ability of the lines for yield. 6. Either the four inbred testers or their two single crosses, or the double cross of the four inbreds could be used to evaluate the - lines for resistance to stalk lodging. A similar situation was indicated for resistance to root lodging. 7. Correlation for the two tester groups (related and unp related) indicates that either related or unrelated testers, as a group, were reliable for estimating relative general combining ability for yield, maturity, and stalk lodging resistance. 8. The correlation coefficients for maturity were signifi- cant in all cases and were generally high, suggesting fewer testers would be needed to evaluate maturity than yield or lodging resistance. L i (3 91 9. For related lines, genes conditioning specific com- bining ability were relatively more important in influencing yield than genes for general combining ability. 10. Analysis of components of variance shows that for yield, line x tester interaction decreased with increased genetic variation in the tester. This same relationship did not exist for maturity. 1o 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. Literature Cited Anderson, D. C. The relation between single and double cross yields in corn. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 3O 3209-211e 1938a Beard, D. F. Relative values of unrelated single crosses and an open pollinated variety as testers of inbred lines of corn. Doctoral Dissertations No. 333 9-16. Ohio State University Press: Abs. 1940. Brown, Sr.C. E. and Rossman, E. C. A. Machine for the ear corn moisture samples. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 4634-0e 195‘e Combs, J. B. and Zuber, H. S. Further use of punch card equipment in predicting the erformance of double-cross hybrids. Agron. Jour., 41:4 5-485. 1949. Cowan J. R. The value of double cross hybrids inyoiving inbreds of similar and diverse genetic origin. Sci. Agri. 287-296. 1943. . Davis R. L. Report of the plant breeder. Rep. Puerto Rico lgrio. Ext. Ste. (1927) p. 14. Doxtator, C.‘W. and Johnson, I. J. Prediction of double cross yields in corn. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 28:460- 462, 1936. Eckhardt, Robert C. and Bryan, A. A. Effect of method of combining the four inbred lines of a double cross of maize upon the yield and variability of the resulting hybrid. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 32:347-353. 1940. Eckhardt, Robert C. and Bryan, A. A. Effect of the method of combining two early and two late inbred lines of corn upon the yield and variability of the resulting double crosses. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 32:645-656. 1940. Federer, w. T. and Sprague, G. F. A comparison.of variance components in corn yield trials: I Error, tester x line, and line components in top-cross experiments. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 39:453-463. 1947. Green, G. M. The inheritance of combining ability in maize hybrids. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 58-63. 1948. Hayes. H. K. and Johnson, I. J. The breeding of improved selfed ggges of corn. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 31: 710- 724. l . ‘i 13. 141 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 93 Hayes, H. K., Murphy R. P. and Rinke, E. H. A com- parison of the actual yield of double crosses of maize with their predicted yield from single crosses. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 35:60-65. 1943. Jenkins M; T. methods of estimating the performance of double crosses in corn. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 26:199-204. 1934. Jenkins M; T. The effect of inbreeding and selection within inbred lines of maize upon the hybrids made after successive generations of selfing. Iowa State College Jour. Sci., 9:429-450. 1935. Jenkins M. T. and Brunson, A. I. Methods of testing inbred lines of maize in cross bred combinations. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 24:523-530. 1932. Johnson, I. J. and Hayes, H. K. The combining ability of inbred lines of Golden Bantam.sweet corn. Jour. Alere SOCe Agron., 283246’252e 1936e Johnson I. J. and Hayes, H. K. The value in hybrid combinations of inbred lines of corn selected from single crosses by the pedigree method of breeding. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 32:479-485. 1940. Jones, D. R; The productiveness of single and double first generation corn hybrids. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 14, 241.252. 1922. Keller, K. R. A comparison involving the number of and relationship between testers in evaluating inbred lines of maize. Agron. Jour. 41:323-331. 1949. Matzinger, D. F. Comparison of three types of testers for the evaluation of inbred?lines of corn. Agron. Jour., 4’5’4’93"'4’95e 1953e Millang, Amy and Sprague . F. The use of punch card equipment in predicting the performance of corn double crosses. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 32:815-816. 1940. Richey, F. D. Isolating better foundation inbreds for use in corn hybrids. Genetics 30:455-471. 1945. Rojas, Basilio A. and Sprague G. F. A comparison of variance components in corn yield trials: III. General and specific combining ability and their interaction with locations and years. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 44:462-466. 1952. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 94 Shull, G. H. Methods of plant breeding by Hayes and Immer. pp. 192-193. First Edition, 9th impression. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York. Singleton, W. Ralph. Hybrid vigour and its utilization in sweet corn breeding. Amer. Nat., 75:48-60. 1941. Sprague, G. F. Early testing of inbred lines of corn. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 38:108-117. 1946. Sprague, G. F. The experimental basis for hybrid maize. Biological reviews, Vol. 21, 101-120. 1946. Sprague, G. F. and Tatum, L. A. General vs. specific combining ability in single crosses of corn. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 34:923-932. 1942. we Shao-Kwei. The relationship between the origin of selfed lines of corn and their value in hybrid combin- ation. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 31:131-140. 1939. i (N a... Appendix Table I Yield and percentage of moisture in the inbred lines at one location in 1954 and two locations in 1955 95 w Iields of grain in O fiis'aumle‘. 11.3.0. Sag w lloisture in ear e e e eSe e 8.8 .' Inbred Farm Farm County Farm Farm County lines 1954 1955 1955 1954 1955 1955 1 3.04 3.37 3.36 A as“ .8 23. 5 19.5 2 1.37 - 1.71 31.0 3 2.47 2.17 2.1 39.7 33. 6 21.7 4 2.12 2.46 2.15 41.7 35.6 20.5 5 2.67 2.50 2.06 40.5 30. 2 18.9 6 2.84 2.97 2.71 33.7 24.4 17.2 7 1.82 2.29 2.03 35.6 23.8 24.0 8 2.11 2.86 2.81 37.7 25.1 14.9 9 1.99 1.82 2.05 45. 45.0 21.0 10 1.74 1.30 1.27 29. 18.2 14.7 112.gg 2. 57 2.17 42.4 21.3 20.6 12 2.68 2.4 37. 8 21.7 15.0 13 2.51 2.26.5 25.4 17.0 14 2.12 2.67 2.92 39.2 32. 7 23.3 15 1.68 2.14 2. 25 31.8 25. 6 15.0 16 1.85 2.22 fig 29.5 . 23.6 14.1 17 2.g6 2.96 9 30.3 24.3 19.3 18 1. 2.27 2.72 37.3 29.1 16 5 19 2.31 2.89 3.17 41.5 21.5 14.2 20 2.03 1.68 1.76 28.2 18.4 12.6 21 2.62 2.03 2.60 30.0 29.3 18.3 22 1.48 2.37 1.91 40.7 20.4 14.9 23 1. 65 2.15 2.07 46.7 40. 2g.5 24 2. 63 2.49 2.69 34.1 26. 1 .1 25 2. 29 2.59 2.77 41.4 33. 17.2 0.44 0.42 4.4 4. 2.8 L.S.D. 5% .58 o . _ .. v r . a O 1 . l . . e . e p o c _ . . , . . . . F . . . _ e a e e e e e . e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e . .at. O: a' . 4 . i C . . . s . I I . . _ . . e 0 . A _ . o . . . . . .. Lb . . a e _ e e e e e a e e e e e e e e e e e e e a o e e e a P \ 4. v m . . - . . . A . w . e g . . a n _ e a . . . w 0 O O O O O O I s I O O O O O 0 I e O O 0 m 0 e O O .. . . c . . u . . .., . . . w . U . n .. . . .. . ... a . . ~ _ A a . . \, 0 e . . n s. - . . . u . 4 . . . e e e e e e e a e e e . e e o e e e e e e e e e e a . , _- . e . x v . . . . ’ a .e .. _ .. . v ‘ i V . A 4 u c v. — ‘5 e a . . e e 0 O a e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e _ . . .. . _ _ . . I _ . I A a 1 e . , . _ 4 r a - . z . . I u ‘5 e . . . . . _. .. . . e a a e e e e e e e a e e e o e e e e e e e e e e a . — a . ,H a . . Appendix Table II 96 Percentage of stalk and root lodging in the inbred lines at one location in 1954 and at two locations in 1955 Stalk lodging Root lodging ll. . . .S. . Saginaw H. .0. 11.8.0. Sag aw Inbred Farm. Farm County Farm, Farm. County lines 1954 1955 1955 1954 1955 1955 1 6.7 2.0 1.8 1.7 2.0 2 "’ - 2e9 " 1307 3 10.0 16.1 9.4 11.6 2302 O9 4 10.0 9.6 6.7 10.0 13.5 0 5 16.7 12.0 10.9 16.7 22.2 .5 6 8.6 1 .7 13.5 304 - g 10? 2e]. e1 3e‘ " 12.3 14.8 8.8 - - 3.5 9 - 1.8 2.1 - 5.4 10 10.3 3.8 26.9 1.7 7.5 11 1. O - - C - 12 3.2 ‘el 17e6 3e3 " 3e, 13 11. 7e0 6.7 3.3 109 - 14 10.0 5.5 30.5 3.3 1.8 10.2 15 16e7 49.0 31e7 "’ - 107 16 31.6 7.0 10.0 5.0 1.8 1 5e]. 7e4 - O D e- 1 15.3 27.8 15.9 13.6 20.4 20.5 19 " 7e 13.4 " " - 20 - 12.1 1.7 - - 21 6.7 8.6 5.0 15.0 10.3 3.3 22 C o u u C 5.3 23 8.3 3.8 19.6 107 502 - 2‘ 63e3 15e7 41oz " 509 25 1e? 3e? ' 303 507 —.-u—. 9 Q.— A . . . , - I i ‘l I, ll.“ ‘.!5.‘a€l~it no... 97 Appendix III Yield, percentage of moisture, stall: and root lodging in tester crosses at two locations (1955) field in bu. per acre at I S. l. Pedigree vers ty ag w Farm 1 0h26 x 111.1 93.7 87.3 2 01126 X '23 73.5 90.3 3 0h26 x (0h51 x 01126) 50.0 54.9 4 0h26 x (111.1 1 I23) 79.8 7 .4 5 0h26 X Ohio 1115 66.7 g .g 6 0h26 x 1114 85.2 9. 7 01126 x (1114 x "9) 89.5 104.9 8 0h26 x Ia. 4483 78. 89.6 9 111.1 x 1123 99.2 82.0 10 111.1 x (0h51 x 0h26) 80.6 80.9 11 111.11 x (111.A x '23) 55.7 73.7 12 111.1 1: Ohio n15 96.7 77.8 13 111.1 x 1114 80.5 94.7 14 . 111.1 x (ll4 x m) 114.2 97.2 1’ 1110A X 1.. ‘483 ~ 1020 9300 16 lll4 x (0h51 x 0h26) 80.7 93.6 1 ll4 x (111.1 x '23) 88.9 79.6 1 '1‘ X Ohio ‘15) 8306 9°06 19 1114 x (1114 x m) 64.0 72.6 20 I14 1: Ia. 4483 82.6 69.4 21 0h51 x 0h26 72.6 72.; 22 0h51 x 111.1 96.4 89. 23 0h51 x l23 84.0 85.4 24 0h51 x (0h51 x 0h26) 45.0 55.7 25 0h51 x (111.1 1 up 89.7 84.7 26 0h51 1: Ohio 1115 72.7 83.7 27 0h51 x ll4 90.5 93 .4 28 01151 x (1114 x "9) 95.0 99.5 29 0h51 x 1.. 4483 81.9 99.3 30 W23 1: (0h51 x 0h26) 80.9 99.4 31 W23 x (111.1 x 1:23) 69.2 68.1 32 W23 1 Ohio 1115 70.2 .8 33 W33 x M14 100. 9.5 34 '23 110114 1: W9) 97.1 104.0 35 'W23 X 1.0 “83 94.1 890, 36 0h51 x 0h26 47.8 6.6 37 111.1 x 1123 67.4 2.5 38 Ohio 1:15 71.2 87.7 4'0 1.. “83 8207 10500 L. 8e De at 5% 2003 2007 98 Appendix (Continued) Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Egigt 1%.“ gag. Fftglk ;ggg%gg fog; 19931?! Fn vers y vers ty ag new I”n versity aginaw 3—4 29.6 17.3 6.; 16.1 1.1 12.6 21.2 15.2 7. 10.0 1.1 1.1 18. 11.9 6.9 6.4 1.2 - 22. 13.9 14.6 48.7 - 4.8 21.6 13.0 14.6 17.2 3.4 6.9 2500 13. 7 608 102 - " 23-5 15. 7 2.2 2.3 - - 2205 was 801 102 - - 2 09 1909 1102 38.0 - - 310° 2°09 1509 ‘608 307 - 29.7 22.3 24.7 61.1 9.1 - 2901 2207 10.4 2°01 - - 32.0 23.8 17.7 25.5 4.7 2.3 29.0 19.2 9.1 6.8 1.1 1.1 24.9 17.7 11.1 5.8 - 2.3 21.1 12.4 2.6 - - - 2‘05 0 10.‘ 6.7 102 - 25.4 16.2 9.0 10.4 1.1 3.5 28.8 190‘ 1109 1.1 102 - 2502 1609 701 800 " 304 21.g 15.7 9.4 16.2 1.2 .0 25. 2°05 2 .5 50.0 1.1 - 210 16e6 e 1605 102 - 20.2 17.0 8. 47.1 1.2 23.0 23.8 17.3 23.2 50.0 4.6 - 2007 14. 12.6 8.3 'l' '- 2 07 1505 ‘19 C' 102 204' 2 .9 20.0 4.7 11.5 1.2 6.9 2102 1400 1702 1500 - " 2°03 1g01 ‘06 1708 " - 27.0 1 .5 9.2 33. 8 - - 25.3 19.4 24.0 24.6 - - 2701 1708 9e8 102 " "' 28. 4 22.0 4.8 10.1 - - 24.3 17.4' 2.5 ‘2.9 " " 20.0 15.0 20.5 - - 26.4 20.0 15. 3 62.6 2.8! - 22. 3 1603 1101 1501 106 " 3105 180 g 705 102 - - 23.4 1708'10‘ ‘00 - " 3.94 3. 66 L "“mm.fl ' 0.- Q'- ~.o -- -. . C 9‘ Q 0- C C u- - - ~ -- c — C C O — n C .- C ‘ I u— .- . .- — . . C - .0 0‘ - «o 6. 0— — .- .- .- - 07. .- .-.. -c... o O -b—o-.-*~ 0 0 . I 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 O . O 0 0 O I I . 0 0 0 0 0 0 '- ,' ~ 0 0 " f 0 0 0 0 r 0 e O ' . ' 0 0 0 0 ( a O - ' O . ‘- 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 I' 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . I O 0 O 0 O O r [' - O 0 I O . O ' O O ' I I ' - I I . ' v- n " - ' . ‘ ’ ' ~ . 1 ' , ' , .v ' ' ' O . -- u .- » -- . -> - - A, . - -v - —» — o. - ‘. . .I 00‘ o - - 4. u “n . _ -r-hv"' --.--~ ’ I '-. I f P . n o 7 0 o w Q ~ --A~- — 0 o 0 ..n - 0 b .- 4 ~ -. ~ -- o. ‘- M“ u o ‘u .. o - .0 0 n q 0. - u A--- —~H 0 _ ‘ u A . ’ O . I . O ,. .. r ‘ a ’ S O O O 0 g — \ -. \ . 0 , O O 0 O . ' I . O O ' C O O . ,. ,_ . . '. . 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 ‘ . - ‘. . \ I O i 0 C O \ \ f .. O O O C O . w \ - I. -. . . 0 O O O C O '- ‘ i- . ‘ '4 ’ . a 0 0 0 O 0 '- . O O C O C ‘ y 0 O C O . 0 w-- ¢ ~ - v--*- u h —-- t- - d----:~~» -- ~0 , — c .-40 —«- «0;..- ‘0:- .. . .. .‘n ‘. 0 >.---. .- 0- -..¢- — 0. hl . .— aw- 99 Appendix IV Average yield of test crosses at University Per- (yield in bu per acre at 15.5! moisture) 0h51 0h26 111.1 ‘I23 0h51 x 0h26 1 87.9 80.5 84.2 84.8 76.8 2 70.3 90.1 88.1 65.1 76.5 3 99.9 94.4 64.3 105.7 96.9 4 101.5 101.5 86.3 92.9 97.6 5 83.1 100.1 73.1 90.9 32.0 6 84. 73.2 71.4 72.9 0.5 g 79.9 $7.3 90.8 90.8 76.5 1.0 0. 95.1 80.5 3.2 9 5.4 72.4 70.9 101.0 4.4 10 72.6 65.1 74.5 73.6 61.9 11 8.1 70.9 101.2 94.8 68.4 12 7.8 70.7 79.4 77.4 68.7 13 50.0 6.5 93.8 79.6 53.2 8; 20'7 84.2 3§‘§ 38': $§'§ 16 63:4 58:2 82:4 83:9 64:8 17 71.6 73.5 86.2 84.0 67.1 i? 33‘? 3'15'3 33'“? 36°“? 873'? 20 7122 86:8 129 88:9 82:6 77.9 78.0 0.4 85.0 76.2 190 80 D0 .t 5’ “0“ of tCStCI. 1104 he lean of inbreds 6.2 bu. Two inbreds at one level of tester 19.6 bu. two tester at one level of inbred 20.8 bu. To test diagonally 20.8 in. 100 Appendix (Continued) 111.1 I W23 1115 I14 114 x m Ie. 4483 Average 75.5 87.5 89,0 82.4 91.3 84.0 90.8 86.4 116.8 99.2 102.1 88.5 78.2 84.4 97.5 110.3 97.3 92.9 102.2 92.3 99.9 118.5 87. 98.1 94.3 97.9 103.9 107.5 91.4 9 .4 67.3 g6.6 81.5 96.9 81.0 .6 88. 9.0 84.6 95.7 34.4 6.8 1.4 80.8 96.0 111.9 3.7 86.4 0.9 8 .9 105.0 9. 90.9 87.6 85.2 .g 80.2 4.3 79.6 75.6 88. 710 505 32e9 9903 86o 80.8 77.2 8.1 6.0 . 81.1 81.8 70. 5.5 99.2 3.8 76.4 93.2 70.0 4.1 96.3 82.7 7 .6 g . 6.5 85.6 86.9 $5.1 7 .2 1.0 3.4 81.6 38.1 6.8 8.9 95.2 75.6 83.3 8.3 91.0 1.4 .0 75.3 4.5 87. 76.9 7.7 75.7 5.3 86.8 110.7 30.5 0.1 .2 8.1 94.7 87.4 3.9 84.1 820‘ 81.2 9]»? 970° 8 02 ;--.n. a». I \ r 1 I r: t “"3 ‘.‘ _\ r. -o...t >9“-.. . -g- - - ,, q -- -4 . _ . ., - n ,. — -0. . -. - .- — -.-. . . “'1 x V‘ ' (x "’ ‘ 3‘ r' 9 0 e _. o o e O - . .- O O O O 2‘ r f‘ 2 . . O o o '0 ‘ .V V ’ " C - .4 .0-0 . -x 2. 1.. so v. ‘ Al‘l .. o- - _‘-,, >7 < . . -~ - .- e~ -- -a. -‘ .~ I . ~O-o-—u-~n 0 v --’I ‘ o _‘ ' 1 1 C r n . t - > . Q C r -~ . , '“l u r '7. D 101 Appendix V Average yield of test crosses at Se inav County (yield in bu per acre 0h51 01126 111.1 '23 0h51 I 0h26 1 91.7 89.0 8 .3 82.3 6 .9 2 71.5 97.8 86.0 99.9 86.5 3 880‘ 8694' 690‘ 86.4 860 4‘ 70.8 82e3 6607 8808 750 5 80.6 90.3 44.0 75.3 gg.0 6 71.0 85.4 81.8 74.3 .0 g 76.1 62.1 92.2 85.6 77.8 9 33'? 33'; 33‘? 31'?» 3'8 O O O O . .2 10 56.2 68.7 62.7 72.8 63.2 11 74.0 61.9 86.9 9.8 73.8 12 74. .g 67.0 88.9 7.0 67.9 13 54. 3.2 86.7 7.2 70.2 14 65.2 0.0 90.9 g.1 74.5 15 76e4 98.3 83e‘ g e1 76e6 16 65.3 61.6 74.7 2.9 66.8 17 56 .2 83.7 70.3 82.5 74.4 18 60.6 91.1 52.0 81.6 74.1 19 71.3 72.8 84.7 86.4 87.6 20 43.0 95.4 83.3 100.5 85.5 AV. 71.2 8101 75e7 8606 76.0 L. 8. D. at 5% lean of testers 6.5 bu lean of inbreds Two inbreds at one level of tester 21.5 bu. rvo tester at one level of inbreds 21.? bu. To test diagonally 21.7 bn. 102 Appendix (Continued) ‘t‘ 111.A x '23 1115 1114 1114 1 “9 la. 4483 Average 80.4 73.2 86.5 94.5 84.4 82.9 83.5 85.4 104.6 104.3 103.1 92.3 74.9 81.6 91.9 93. 103.1m6 79.7 57.2 5.2 99. 90.3 80. 7 71.8 62.0 2.9 88.9 96.9 76 6 7 .9 68.7 90.3 90.5 88.2 80. 2 g& 77.5 95.2 32.5 93.1 82.8 5.9 99.4 6.5 89.9 81.9 8827 0.0 81.1 107.5 9 .4 88.3 73.6 70.8 68.5 87.4 7 .2 30.2 87.3 82.8 9.7 97.6 102.7 6.7 81.2 65.4 4.2 92.7 94.1 80. .g 76.1 72.7 96.2 95.3 91.9 79. 83. 6 64.9 87.9 92.0 101.7 28 8224 8.3 96.6 80.8 101.1 §§22 73:1 ‘5 ,7e‘ 202 85e2 9‘08 .4 6 54.2 0.5 87.5 86.5 74.4 61. 2 62. 91.2 97.5 93.7 g .6 83.6 58.0 69.3 90.1 8 .6 80.0 77.3 71.8 89.5 92. 7 93.5 ‘1. , ,. b-. «‘9... -.-. -—e ..-. n .- -. -0 ...... 0v h4l-‘ .« - to... ~—-.‘ ‘ '3 —-o~. 4-- w- .— 0...- -, - up go... o.-— c- ----I n.- H. a-—.- . . .- -. - fl ‘ . ¢ - - e- .- 2 )1". :91. 4 . g j \ a i . l V‘ ‘ L " I 1 , .. . .1 U i“ f" v- 4 r | I 9' - 9 e 4 f _ . 2 ,_ r‘ " i O‘ . I . ‘7 C v ‘d e pa-»- 103 Appendix VI Average percentage of moisture for test crosses at University Far. I1 12 r3 r4 15 I6 1 21.6 22.5 31.3 20.9 23.0 24.9 2 23.9 28.4 33.0 27.6 24.0 30.5 3 27.7 26.6 31.5 24.4 25.9 2 .5 4 27.2 26.5 33.1 25.7 25.4 2 .5 5 25.8 27.1 31.7 26.8 24.0 27.9 6 2 .5 22.2 26.0 25.7 20.7 23.1 7 1 .7 15.0 26.9 21.3 20.1 22.5 8 20.6 21.0 27.7 22.5 21.5 22.7 9 27e9 26e8 32o? 25e1 26e3 28e3 10 15.6 15.4 24.1 19.0 16.0 19.2 11 19.8 16.0 25.0 24.7 21.1 20.4 12 14.9 17.7 23. 20.5 15% 21.0 13 18.6 17.9 24.5 21. 17. 22. 14 24.4 24.8 30.4 22. 23.3 26. 15 22.9 25. 29.2 26.6 23.7 27.7 16 24.6 17. 30.4 22.3 20.0 20.8 1 21.2 16.1 23.6 22.8 16.5 19.8 1 19.6 20.7 27.4 25.9 19.0 24.7 19 21.7 25.1 29.7 25.1 21. 25.3 20 14.8 15.9 13. 16.5 15.2 14.7 Aye 21.8 21e4 27e8 23.4 21.0 23e9 L. s. D. L. s. D. Tester 1% - 2.16 Inbred 15 - 1.68 5% - 1057 x - 1e28 lean or the apt. 3 23.4 32:1 3‘2’6-RC N 11’. '33. T‘v’. "€‘ 1' -~-A--‘--t —---‘---.- as Appendix (Continued) 104 - 0h 51 x 0h 26 110 - Ia. 4483 T7 138 1'9 :10 Total Av. 24.1 24.9 21. 20.9 3 8 280 29.5 29.9 28. 28.6 2 .4 2 .2 23. 28. 6 24.7 27.0 2 .5 25.5 2725 25.4 27 3 22.8 24.8 25.7 22.4 25.9 26.2 26.7 26.4 23.2 24.4 21.2 20.5 24.0 1 .2 20.8 21.0 20e7 25e6 29e8 2%03 27.0 28.2 32. 6 27. 3 2 .2 19.2 17.7 19.5 20.9 18.7 2 .7 2 .7 21.7 20.7 22.3 1 .7 l .5 22.1 19.6 19.2 19.5 19.5 27.3 20.6 21.0 25.5 27.0 25.9 22.2 25.3 29.1 23.6 26. 7 25.9 26.1 23.3 23.8 25.0 21.4 22.9 20.4 19.9 22.9 20.0 20.3 2 .3 27.2 22.8 23.6 23.4 2 e9 2603 2305 25.2 250° 13.3 18.0 17.9 13.2 15.3 23.9 23 5 24.8 22.7 11 - 0h 51 T6 - 111.A x W23 T2 - Oh 26 T7 - Ohio M15 T3 - Ill.A T8 - M14 T4 - W23 T9 - “14 x WF9 —. r~v~ . . o - “a. (l‘ .‘ 2“, 2.1111 . . . .- I. ‘ 4 O O O 2 I . r 2 '0 u... . C I . ... r. . _ r I . . C ' 0 O o O I. p.l .v - O O O \ .. .0.‘ .D- . O U-. .i.‘ .L 105 Appendix VII Average percentage of moisture for test crosses at Saginaw County T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 1 20.5 16.4 28. 2 19.6 17.8 20.8 2 22.0 21.4 233 24.6 22.3 26.5 3 21.1 18. 8 18.8 18.7 21.1 4 19.9 19.6 30. 8 20. 20.2 23.9 5 19.9 20.0 30.0 20.0 18.9 22. 6 19.7 18.5 24.2 23.0 19.9 22. g 19.2 15.7 21. 20.2 1 .4 21.2 20.3 1 .1 24. 21.3 1 .1 20. 9 ' 21.9 1 .8 26. 20.0 21.2 23. 10 18.2 15.3 21. 18.4 14.3 19.7 11 17.8 16.9 23.0 19.8 17.3 19.8 12 17. 5 17.3 22.9 18.2 19.5 20. 13 18.4 15. 22.1 20.1 17.6 21.8 14 24. 1 1 .9 24.4 21.7 19.5 24.8 15 20.9 1 .0 25.5 21.1 18. 22.5 16 20.2 16.4 27.5 18.3 18.4 21.2 1 17.3 15.5 23.3 18.7 17.4 20.0 1 16.9 19.3 27.5 21.5 17.7 24.4 19 19.3 19.1 24.9 20.6- 17.1 21.6 20 16.2 15.6 1509 17e6 15o]. 15e6 19.6 17.7 25.0 20.2 18.3 21.7 L. 8. D. L. 3. D. Testers 11 - 1.661 Inbred: If - 1.09 5% ' 1.2 5% e829 Average noisture = 20.0 , Appendix (Continued) 106 r7 :8 I9 210 Av. 18.7 19.9 18.1 21. 2 20.1 25.9 22.0 24.1 25.4 24.2 m.9 18.6 21.9 19.8 20.7 19.6 17.5 18.7 22.8 21.4 21. 19.0 20.1 20.5 21.2 20. 21.2 21.6 20.2 21.2 1 .1 16.3 18.7 17.6 18.7 1 .0 17.4 19. 23.1 20.0 20.5 19.4 21. 20. 2 21.4 15.3 16.4 17.2 1.7 1 .4 19.1 18.3 19.4 1 .o 1%.9 19.3 18.4 17.9 1 .3 1 .9 16.2 14.9 16. 1 .1 18.2 20.7 21.6 20. 21.3 21.7 21.6 18.1 21.0 21.3 20. 20.9 16.6 19. 9 19.0 19. 21.2 16.7 17.8 19.3 18.7 17.8 18.1 17.3 19.4 20.0 21.3 19. 3 20.4 19. 6 m.3 18.5 16.2 16.0 15.4 16. 2 19.9 13.3 19.5 19.9 T1.- on 51 16 - 111.1 x W23 12 - on 26 T7 - Ohio M15 13 - 111.1 T8 - M14 1‘4—W23 T9-M14xWF9 135 - Ch 51 x Oh 26 T10'- Ia. 4483 Q miimfimfii m 4.: I” T h 5 . . . ' I C e O ' I e e e e . f ,e r 1 .:e e . e e e _ e O ‘. ‘ n e r- -9 2t.“ 2 - . . . ._---. . . . . - . . I b O I w O t D ' » Acu' I O h . O - 0 O 1 ‘ ' O O O a I O . v- ‘ r‘ O I I 7‘ ' O O I f u I O I O V O O I \ " . I' r O O I O C O O I “ . I Q .. . u q. _ ‘ ,- . i I I C e‘ .. P n O O O . . ~ r ' I O . I - e- ‘. \ I I O 3 V‘ O I , e . I" ‘ ‘ . O r D‘ \ 0‘ C . . . . . \‘ .— 0 . C I . . r. : . O . . O I O O O O O ‘ o- . - \ 0 0 ~ 0 C —- -- e m - -- .- ,- nd- .-. .. - p .— -. - -_~ .. .— Ch. -. . .. -.. 4.“. 53:23.4. .Pn. 4121....‘P2fié. Um. F... . . _ Finn . . . Q . . s a . . ~ O I O O O O a O . Q 1r e _ . x. . e e e e e e e e . . ... o . o . _ . . - C e e e o e e e O _ ... — e O . n . n r .. . o . . . e 0 e e 0 e e O . .~ | C e r- . A n .. r, . e e e e e e e e . . . . -- 6-... ‘0 ~-- 107 Appendix ‘VIII Peroentage stalk lodging in test croseee at M. 8. U. Fern Second cycle lines 01151 01126 111.A I23 01151 x 01126 1 16.8 9.8 9.0 16.2 20.7 2 20.7 .4 12.3 45.2 20.1 3 6.7 .7 78.4 11.1 9.1 4 4.6 .1 39.9 10.1 9.0 5 26.2 4.8 26.7 21.8 9.4 6 19.6 4.6 50.6 13.4 14.6 g 12.6 5.7 23.0 12. . 7.8 .0 7.2 10.3 1 .6 9 9.6 4.3 7.8 809 70 10 8. . 42.2 12.0 15.0 11 10.4 12.8 6.7 6.7 13.4 12 9.5 3.6 16.0 4.4 10.1 13 41.4 1g.1 4.6 6.9 29.8 14 30.7 .5 21.3 21.1 23.3 15 1 . 8.9 46.0 37.0 10.1 16 15.1 7.5 10.4 9.0 15.5 1 10.1 3.7 8.0 5.6 9.1 1 14.6 .1 39.9 35.3 23.2 19 12.6 6.8 21.3 1g.5 11.1 20 11.3 9.1 10.7 .0 12.5 Tester 300. 1‘5e9 482e2 311.1 288.0 Average 15e0 7e3 24e1 15e6 1‘.‘ A Appendix (Continued) 108 111.1 1 I23 Ohio 1115 I14 114 x m 1.. 4483 Av. 33.1 14.4 - 9.4. 10.1 139.5 14.0 11.5 8.0 3.4 9.1 10.6 144.3 14.4 32.6 13.2 5.6 6.7 7.1 178.2 17.8 14.4 2.4 7.8 112.9 11. 25.3 ‘ 7.8 1.2 4.5 10.3 138.0 1 . 34.5 1g.8 7.8 4.4 12.2 179.5 1 .o 17.9 .1 4.6 4.6 6.7 101.4 10.1 17.4 6.9 8.9 8.0 96.7 9.7 3.6 2.3 3.3 4. ég 5.8 58.7 5.9 .4 9.1 4.4 9.1 124.1 12.4 14.8 12.5 1.1 6.71.% 86.2 8.6 14.4 10.7 3.3 2.2 8. 82.8.3 7.8 8.0 3.5 4.7 7.0 126.12.7 21.1 20.7 7.8 7.015.; 177.217.7 41.0 11.6 2.; 11.5 13. 194. 8 19.5 20.2 13.3 . 3.4 5.6 106. 7 10.7 8.0 9.2 4.6 1.2 4.4 63. 9 6.4 34.2 27.4 10.3 9.0 12.2 215.2 21.5 17.4 11.2 1.1 3.4 .4 103.8 10.4 11.114.4 5.8 9.1 .7 99.3 9.9 391.9 241.0 86.7 116.4 165.9 0 12.0 ‘03 5.8 8.3 _ O... » . . eOee o . . O. 1. > eeee n a r . o *r' .Oe. — ~ .r.r'l.. . been. .O-OI .eOee 1" lrllllr. .---a -v. 4.4- <-—--.. ,1 _. 109 Appendix 11 Percentage stalk lodging in teet crosses at Beginee County Second cycle lines 0h51 0h26 Ill.A '23 01151 X01126 1 7.7 13.7 53.0 64.1 3 .1 2 2.7 23.9 69.1 58.8 3 .1 3 ‘104 11e4 606 3402 26.7 4 56.3 15.0 8.0 70.2 8.9 5 550° ‘0 9‘02 2.2 5.9 6 42.2 23.5 7. 1.8 24.6 g 61. 7.2 1.8 73.8 23.2 47. 9.2 73.9 60.0 31.1 9 11o ' 6 e 28e2 7.0 10 25.5 17.8 9.1 68. 16.0 11 39.9 1.3 76.3 35.3 16.5 12 47.5 36.0 94.4 25.5 47.7 13 7. 4.4 97.8 1.2 15.1 14 64.0 4.6 100.0 78.2 46. 15 72.7 6.9 92.6 61.4 35.5 16 41.4 11.5 30.9 46.4 34.2 1 27o? 3e4 3eo 52e2 16o 1 34.2 17.9 93.3 .0 43.0 19 73.0 7.7 24.4 1.1 31.9 20 50.8 24.0 54.g 48.8 12.2 899.8 244.0 1601. 1162.1 519.9 Appendix (Continued) 110 111.1 x v23 Ohio n5 n4 114 x m 4483 72.2 50.0 5.8 10.7 31. 3 7.6 37.8 5507 “05 ‘e? 800 19.2 5.1 38.5 74.7 52.9 9.2 8.0 11.1 366.2 36.6 74.4 48.3 4.5 21.3 14. 402.1 40.2 80.7 46. 31.9 24.4 18.5 394.3 39.4 88.2 60.2 14.4 12.8 24.6 469.9 46. 74.4 49.4 6.7 7.3 7.8 393.2 39.3 66.3 51.113.3 2.2 17.7 372.1 37.2 44.1 41. 6 1. 2 7.1 3.4 213.0 21.3 6.1 27.8 10.1 13.0 4.6 3 .3 35.1 002 30e8 ‘eé ‘e‘ 2 903 2809 1.4 50.0 28.9 14.8 14.8 441.0 44.1 2.4 38.8 4. 5.8 6.7 324.1 32.4 4.4 57.8 21.7 23.0 20.2 430.5 49.0 7.5 75.0 8.9 23. 2 22.6 6.3 48.0 89.5 62. 24.4 12.216.9 410.2 41.0 75.9 39.9 15.5 12314.4 341.7 34.2 94.2 70. 11.5 60.7 5 1.4 5 .1 79.1 41.8 8.0 15.7 21.1 3 3.8 3 .4 59.8 36.8 3 .2 7. 18.0 345.5 34.6 1501.2 977.4 25 . 250. 353.0 75.1 48. 12.9 12.5 17.7 lira: 'vg 1.“... . "-.- ..-. ,. .4... .. - - ..... ...._.. _ .._ . n - - .. . . _ .5 - , - .. .‘ ,_. _. . . _ . _ .. . a . -. -- ..-....._‘-2 .. c -. .- ,. - -. - -......-._ s. . v» . . —_ . ... A. a . _ .. , - . ._.. . 4.. -. -.... ~-. .-.—.- -- .~. -- -.-...-.. . . , . ‘ _ r ' ‘ I O O C . O C O ' . -. r r 3 1 _ . L . C U C I . . ’ ‘ . b " . . ’ O I O I O O C ‘ \ X \ ' .. . r . r \. \ a 0 O 1 :' ’ O ' O I O O ' ‘ - \ r .' ' . 2 v- 3' I' \ . . ‘ 4 ‘ 1 ' . . 1 . . . n, - O O - o O . Q Q ~ 0 I" f. \ 4 ‘ ) -‘ \ o . o o O I O C . ' x ‘ ‘ ' ‘ ‘ I‘ ' I O O O O C C I . '. t. i . _ . I‘! ‘ .4 ' O C ' O C ‘ O O C . I" 9‘ s r - ’ 4 v u ' , . C ‘ O I O O O O . ‘ '. .- ‘ .~ ‘ . o fi‘ ‘ r 1 - 4' 0 . . O I -- O -- O . O O . _ .. ’ .. .- . ,. ' \ 4‘ I I . ‘ o o ' o o 4 o o o I I‘ - ‘ I '- . o— 4 '- a. ‘ - .5 u . ‘ . 1 O O 0 ~ I Q Q 0 « ~ n r . x‘ ‘ r . r O O O I O . O. ‘4‘ — .. ‘ ,- u».. ,- - - . u- a . . - 4.....- a.“ - .41. ~-.‘ -4 .-».~ v --~ g o a .-»«o b ‘0'- —r-r-o a . --- - '7 a. - 4u—o- ‘ 4..- .. - ~4. ... - .__. --. ~..- . .- < 4 r -0... v4 - -~.--v-I-- .4 ~- -- .- U-ov 7.5»...4 *- .- . . u 1. -m‘ .- -M-~.u-o-—--o ..- --.—.o- ~O~0v «IO-'4. . . . .. ' ~ o > . g I. l 7‘ ._ , \ . . ~O~0v — --.— — --— - ”-.- -4--- m - 9-- u n .- .c—n-~—~— o...— ‘c-G-o —-. , . ....-. .0 .- r-‘o--< 1.- 1.... o. o-.. fl‘--._—J——u.a- - ‘ ‘ .- . p Q - . r - — w- . I . O o 0 ~ "h“ \ - v v. a . - . . . . a.‘ - a- t - - o .0- , .. ‘ A e- E - - I I - . - — ‘ 9- ‘ . 1.— - r P - 3 u . O O '. p . n or. Q " .0 T . ..,- . - - o o. . . . r - . - - . . - r . .4 ‘ ‘ -o-d-- v.4. -- . .-.—a.- .7 .........-—....‘n . .- cg”-.. .9. u a- .... - .- ‘- ¢*-. .yln- . — a"-.. - ”Hr—n...” -. -A - - ,. --— 111 Appendix X Percentage of root lodging for test crosses at I.S.U. Perl Second cycle lines 0h51 0h26 n14 '23 01151 I 26 1 lea 102 6.7 - 1.2 2 9.2 2.3 .6 11.6 3.5 3 2.2 30" 108 2.2 - 4- 1e]. - 3.4 5e6 5.6 5 lel ' 31.2 203 7e]. 6 - 102 e - - g - - 2e3 - - - - 1.2 - 1.2 9 O 204 1e). - 2e2 1° 7e1 - ‘1‘ 102 C 11 10.4 - - 1.1 - 12 - - 2e3 - - 13 " "’ 1e]. 5.3 - 14' 1.2 "' - 1.1 - 15 508 - 3.4 6.7 2.2 16 - 2.5 102 - - 1 1e1 - 3.4 - lol- 1 20.2 8.0 30.8 6.8 4.6 19 " P 5e6 1e]. 1e]. 20 1.2 - 4.8 Zeg 1e]. 61.8 21.0 129.0 47. 30.9 3.1 1.0 6.5 2.4 1.5 112 “Appendix (Continued) f 111.1 x '23 01:10 n5 1114 I14 1: m Is. 4483 v 2.3 - - - - 12.6 1.3 1.2 4.6 " 101 1.2 40.3 4.0 3e4’ 6e0 lel lel 2e‘ 36. e7 40‘ 13.3 2e2 - 2e2 37e8 3e8 1.2 2.2 1.2 - 3.4 49.8 5.0 3.6 1.1 1.1 - - 12.6 1.3 1.1 1.2 - - - 4.6 .4 1.2 2e3 - 1e]. " 7e0 e7 " "' 202 1.2 " 9.1 09 . 2e; " - " 15.0 lei - 50 " 2.2 1e1 2005 2e1- - ’ " "' " 203 02 101 - - " - Sea 08 1e]. 6e]. - 1.2 5.6 16.3 1.6 5.7 10.8 3.3 2.; 1.2 41.4 4.1 lo]. 393 - 10 1.1 10.3 1.0 - 1.2 9.1 - 1.1 17.0 1.? 1e]. 5.? - 506 12.2 9;.3 go; - - - - D 9“ . 28.5 65.8 20.2 16. 31.z 1.4 3.3 . 1.0 0. 1. o-pouomw -‘ .~..- '. .D-Dv -. .0...» .0.-. -....‘ 7.... c -— ' .vw—n ‘ -. o—. my...” - .u..--¢»- ne'e-mm ”-nn-» <-.--—co .- H—n—~.- -.,_- y 0 ._ . ‘. .- . . . 1 - . . - ,e " I t ‘\ o 4 I . _ ' 1 -‘ ‘ 4 '~ ‘ '1 l“ . > ‘I V131. ' 2‘ ' - 0" J I do 0 0". n—ne-o n- -‘P- A I one . W e”. “9.4.5 -v --.-o- -o - on...» .e. - , a. -..-e Q-971-e- —. ”~qu - -u w... .-2&.. ,_ _ o... . . . . 4.-.... g . . . t I I - ‘ 7 r' ' 5 ., ' ' ' ‘ . ' . D J , L 4 . e O . A H.-.~ - .nqo— v..- '- ; c» -. <.---~. - - -- .0. -. s-~ w—‘n-w‘ r-.- e.»-—.. d-. u “04..., - - '1-.." , n71.” . -. . A. . -1 — a- H o'.‘_ .J‘K'Ck . '\ ' ' I - 4 - ‘ . O O C Q — - . C - O . .‘ f" ‘ e - ~ ‘ . Q o . e '3 e r . p. r . . - O O C C ‘ " r .' l' ‘ .- a. _ O O , '4 " e y f' - - , e e . - 4'. Q. ‘ c. an. - I \ F ‘ '- 9 u ‘ . \ ‘ O O . ‘ O . . . ‘ \ " - . \ I ‘ » ' . . I 0 e e - o . e . . a . - . O C O O - O “m ..-. 04- .- .-. - « “~--I- ---—‘- u up. ecf .0. b- . ~ "W e. N -...- ~~. . ‘ M “, g. .. .‘v.~~_,. ..~~1 *,—-.__- “u-sr .fi 113 Appendix x1 Percentage of root lodging for test crosses st Bums County Second cycle lines 0h51 0h26 111.1 I23 01151 x 26 1 10.0 1307 1‘08 ‘- ‘ 2 100‘ 4.0 - e 3.6 3 24.2 12e5 " e8 11.6 ‘ 4'06 100‘ - 0‘ 8.9 5 14.4 10.4 - - 4.7 6 5.6 7.8 C C - g .- 4. - c. 4.6 - 3.4 4.4 - 2.2 9 sea ‘el " ‘e, 4.2 10 1e]. "’ - "' 2e3 11 - 502 " 30‘ 204' 13 14.6 14.4 - 2.4 4.6 14 5e6 4e " " 5e6 1 ‘06 304' - 6.8 6.7 1 7.8 13.8 19.7 10.7 5.7 17 5.0 3.4 - 1.1 - 18 16.0 3e4 2e? -' 16.0 19 - - 100° ‘0‘ - 20 131'? 204-1 516 50.0 83'; 6.6 10.2 2.6 2.5 4.4 Appendix (Continued) 114 111.A I '23 Ohio I15 114 [14 I m Ia. 4483 lo]. 1.2 2e3 " - 43e1 ‘e3 11.3 "’ " ge4 " 39e8 4.0 3e‘| 6.9 ‘e6 e0 "’ 78.0 7e8 " 6e8 2e2 - 6e? ‘2eo 4.2 4.8 2.4 4.6 3.3 6.6 131.2 13.1 " - 3e 2e3 lel 20e1 2.0 - - - - 1.1 10.5 1.1 - - " - - 10.0 1.0 a n - O O 19.0 1.9 - 2e5 " " 2e2 15e7 1e 3.6 - 5.6 - - 14.0 1.4 - - 100‘ - 10o]. 56.5 5.7 2.2 3.6 2e3 - Ze‘ 26e3 2e6 2e3 - 3e3 9e3 - 6e‘ Bel - 2e3 3e3 2°00 6e§ 9e8 9e° " " " " " 905 09 - 1.1 "' " 202 ‘le" ‘91 O - - - " 14w" 1e4 - - - - 3.6 10.6 1.1 28.7 26.8 41.9 46.3 42.5 1.4 1.3 2.1 2.3 2.1 I . . . 5: _. ’ .1 ,7 -ve- 0“ u-.. "hu- osm "-.Oy—n—c. O . I I -. g . _ - .._.. .-. .- u... .og—o— .. 0. ~— -~.. . .0 C. Q \ O .-. . ---_.I!¢- *- M um”..- —..,-.-- u- y.-. -.» - e..- au- .e-n --.>~..*’. a... ,. p Q- .me ....Q - . 9 MICHIGAN STATE umvenslrv LIBRARIES ilHlWHllllllHIIIIUHIIWIII||H|H|1IIIUIIIWIHIIH 3 1193 03174 9348