Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai - Cucurbit Breeding ...
Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai - Cucurbit Breeding ... Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai - Cucurbit Breeding ...
Table 1. Continued. Pedigree σ 2 (P a) σ 2 (P b) σ 2 (F 1) σ 2 (F 2) σ 2 (BC 1P a) σ 2 (BC 1P b) Kinston 'Carolina Cross #183' × 'Petite Sweet' 23.23 3.57 8.21 15.27 8.25 9.82 'Carolina Cross #183' × 'Minilee' 6.34 0.62 14.49 14.24 28.31 8.10 'Carolina Cross #183' × 'NH Midget' 8.29 0.05 8.12 10.62 13.95 2.58 'Cobbs Gem' × 'Petite Sweet' 2.44 2.29 11.22 13.68 9.32 10.58 'Cobbs Gem' × 'Minilee' 6.70 0.29 8.41 9.13 3.27 17.86 'Cobbs Gem' × 'NH Midget' 9.31 0.14 5.31 7.15 7.93 2.73 'Weeks NC Giant' × 'Petite Sweet' 22.08 2.52 12.01 14.63 17.02 7.03 'Weeks NC Giant' × 'Minilee' 24.96 0.69 12.79 9.17 6.40 18.29 'Weeks NC Giant' × 'NH Midget' 1.65 0.05 8.70 6.49 22.77 2.69 Mean y 10.01 1.19 9.56 11.40 13.85 7.67 Overall mean 13.15 1.16 9.88 14.93 16.83 7.70 z Data are single-fruit weights (kg) from nine families of giant- by mini-fruited cultivars of Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus. Single plants were transplanted as follows: P aS 1, (20), P bS 1 (20), F 1 (40), BC 1P a, (60) BC 1P b (60), and F 2 (210) y Not including 'Weeks NC Giant' × 'Minilee' 91
Table 2. Variance and heritability estimates for the watermelon families tested for fruit weight in 2004 at Clinton and Kinston, North Carolina z . Pedigree σ 2 (P) y σ 2 (E) x σ 2 (G) w σ 2 (A) v H 2 B u h 2 n t Clinton 'Carolina Cross #183' × 'Petite Sweet' 28.62 13.33 15.29 37.83 0.53 1.32 'Carolina Cross #183' × 'Minilee' 22.89 10.24 12.65 1.33 0.55 0.06 'Carolina Cross #183' × 'NH Midget' 12.80 5.97 6.83 5.15 0.53 0.40 'Cobbs Gem' × 'Petite Sweet' 23.52 20.84 2.68 19.50 0.11 0.83 'Cobbs Gem' × 'Minilee' 11.22 4.39 6.83 -21.99 0.61 -- r 'Cobbs Gem' × 'NH Midget' 13.09 11.08 2.01 10.33 0.15 0.79 'Weeks NC Giant' × 'Petite Sweet' 24.32 10.62 13.70 18.46 0.56 0.76 'Weeks NC Giant' × 'Minilee' 17.86 3.82 14.04 7.82 0.79 0.44 'Weeks NC Giant' × 'NH Midget' 11.70 4.78 6.92 5.90 0.59 0.50 Mean 18.45 9.45 8.99 9.37 0.49 0.64 92
- Page 55 and 56: Names and symbols for new genes pro
- Page 57 and 58: Salmon Yellow and Red Flesh During
- Page 59 and 60: During our experiments we did not f
- Page 61 and 62: Poole, C.F. and P.C. Grimball. 1945
- Page 63 and 64: Table 2. Single locus goodness-of-f
- Page 65 and 66: Table 3. Single locus goodness-of-f
- Page 67 and 68: Table 5. Single locus goodness-of-f
- Page 69 and 70: Table 6. Continued. z Generation To
- Page 71 and 72: Figure 1. Intermittent stripes in '
- Page 73 and 74: Figure 3. Moons and stars induced o
- Page 75 and 76: Figure 5. Examples of unexpected fl
- Page 77 and 78: Abstract High yield is a major goal
- Page 79 and 80: States appears to be narrow, with m
- Page 81 and 82: y using only two replications from
- Page 83 and 84: value=0.0001), indicating that cult
- Page 85 and 86: Levi, A., C.E. Thomas, A.P. Keinath
- Page 87 and 88: Table 1. Analysis of variance (degr
- Page 89 and 90: Table 2. Continued. Yield z Fruit s
- Page 91 and 92: Table 2. Continued. Yield z Fruit s
- Page 93 and 94: w L/D = length/diameter ratio measu
- Page 95 and 96: Abstract The cultivated watermelon
- Page 97 and 98: dominance, and epistatic effects we
- Page 99 and 100: thumped (Maynard, 2001). Weights we
- Page 101 and 102: The giant-fruited parents had a lar
- Page 103 and 104: Literature Cited Brar, J.S. and K.S
- Page 105: Table 1. Phenotypic variances by ge
- Page 109 and 110: t h 2 n = narrow-sense heritability
- Page 111 and 112: Table 3. Continued. Effective Facto
- Page 113 and 114: Figure 1. Each of the three cultiva
- Page 115 and 116: CHAPTER FIVE HERITABILITY AND GENET
- Page 117 and 118: fungus that is seed-borne (Lee et a
- Page 119 and 120: the technique described herein. Pyc
- Page 121 and 122: 9 = plant dead. Plants with a disea
- Page 123 and 124: The possible gain from selection pe
- Page 125 and 126: Based on our data, Norton may not h
- Page 127 and 128: Gusmini, G., T.C. Wehner, and G.J.
- Page 129 and 130: Sherbakoff, C.C. 1917. Some importa
- Page 131 and 132: Table 1. Single locus goodness-of-f
- Page 133 and 134: Table 1. Continued. z Generation To
- Page 135 and 136: w Expected was the hypothesized seg
- Page 137 and 138: on leaves only; 5 = some leaves dea
- Page 139 and 140: on leaves only; 5 = some leaves dea
- Page 141 and 142: z Data are ratings from four famili
- Page 143 and 144: CHAPTER SIX PRELIMINARY STUDY OF MO
- Page 145 and 146: fungus that is seed-borne (Lee et a
- Page 147 and 148: approach was successful in assembli
- Page 149 and 150: subculture on artificial medium bas
- Page 151 and 152: We extracted DNA using an extractio
- Page 153 and 154: products using the Genescan ® -500
- Page 155 and 156: (DNA/Polysaccharides) and 260/280 (
Table 2. Variance and heritability estimates for the watermelon families tested for fruit weight in 2004 at<br />
Clinton and Kinston, North Carolina z .<br />
Pedigree σ 2 (P) y σ 2 (E) x σ 2 (G) w σ 2 (A) v H 2 B u h 2 n t<br />
Clinton<br />
'Carolina Cross #183' × 'Petite Sweet' 28.62 13.33 15.29 37.83 0.53 1.32<br />
'Carolina Cross #183' × 'Minilee' 22.89 10.24 12.65 1.33 0.55 0.06<br />
'Carolina Cross #183' × 'NH Midget' 12.80 5.97 6.83 5.15 0.53 0.40<br />
'Cobbs Gem' × 'Petite Sweet' 23.52 20.84 2.68 19.50 0.11 0.83<br />
'Cobbs Gem' × 'Minilee' 11.22 4.39 6.83 -21.99 0.61 -- r<br />
'Cobbs Gem' × 'NH Midget' 13.09 11.08 2.01 10.33 0.15 0.79<br />
'Weeks NC Giant' × 'Petite Sweet' 24.32 10.62 13.70 18.46 0.56 0.76<br />
'Weeks NC Giant' × 'Minilee' 17.86 3.82 14.04 7.82 0.79 0.44<br />
'Weeks NC Giant' × 'NH Midget' 11.70 4.78 6.92 5.90 0.59 0.50<br />
Mean 18.45 9.45 8.99 9.37 0.49 0.64<br />
92
Change language