AGRONOMIJAS VÄSTIS - Latvijas LauksaimniecÄ«bas universitÄte

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>AGRONOMIJAS</strong> VĒSTIS (Latvian Journal of Agronomy), No.10, LLU, 2008The significant difference of cotyledons length was observed between ‘Honey Dew OrangeFlesh’, ‘Tendral Verde Negro’, ‘Jaune Canaris’ and ‘4(3)!!!’, ‘8!’, ‘Cantaloup de Bellegarde’,‘Gros Pecoud’. For the other variants differences were not significant. The significant differencesof cotyledons width was between ‘Honey Dew Orange Flesh’, ‘Tendral Verde Negro’, ‘JauneCanaris’ and ‘4(3)!!!’, ‘Cantaloup de Bellegarde’, ‘Gros Pecoud’. For the other variants differenceswere not significant.The biggest petiole scar diameter was observed in the Southern European variety ‘GrosPecoud’ (2.1 cm) and Latgale’s melon lines ‘8!’ (1.7 cm), ‘5(2)’ (1.7 cm). (Figure 2) The datamathematical analyses showed that there was a significant difference between the genotypeaccording to petiole scar diameter: F=9.57>F crit =2.31 (with P=95 %). The significant difference ofpetiole scar size was between ‘Jaune Canaris’ and ‘Gros Pecoud’.Jaune CanarisHoney Dew Orange FleshTendral Verde NegroCantaloup de Bellegarde4 (3) !!!8!5 (2)Gros PecoudRS 0,05 petiole scar diameter=0,340 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2 2,2Figure 2. Petiole scar diameter, cmA higher average fruit weight was observed for all of Latgale’s melon lines. Between fruitweight F=18.75>F crit =2.31 (with P=95 %). The mathematical analyses data showed that there wasa significant difference between the genotypes according to fruit weight. (Figure 3) The significantdifference of fruit weight was between lines ‘5(2)’, ‘4(3)!!!’, ‘8!’ and the varieties ‘Jaune Canaris’and ‘Gros Pecoud’.3,53,02,52,01,51,00,50,05 (2)4 (3) !!!RS 0,05 fruit weight=0,398!Cantaloup de BellegardeHoney Dew Orange FleshTendral Verde NegroJaune CanarisGros PecoudFigure 3. Average fruit weight from plant, kg204
<strong>AGRONOMIJAS</strong> VĒSTIS (Latvian Journal of Agronomy), No.10, LLU, 2008Thicker flesh was observed in the Latgale’s melon line ‘5(2)’ (4.4 cm) and the SouthernEuropean variety ‘Tendral Verde Negro’ (3.8 cm). There was a significant difference between thevariety or line, and the thickness of the flesh. Fruit thickness of flesh depends on variety or line.Between fruit weight F=4.76>F crit =2.31 (with P=95 %). On all occasions essential differences werenot observed. (Figure 4)8!Gros PecoudCantaloup de BellegardeJaune Canaris4 (3) !!!Honey Dew Orange FleshTendral Verde Negro5 (2)RS 0,05 fruit thickness=1,190,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0Figure 4. The fruit thickness of flesh, cmThe average fruit length and width was higher in the Latgale’s melon line ‘5(2)’ andSouthern European varieties ‘Honey Dew Orange Flesh’, ‘Jaune Canaris’. The mathematical dataanalyses showed that there was a significant difference between the variety or line, and parametersof fruit. Between fruit length F=75.17>F crit =2.31 and between fruit width F=2.35>F crit =2.31 (withP=95 %). The significant differences of fruit length was between ‘5(2)’, ‘Honey Dew OrangeFlesh’, ‘Jaune Canaris’ and ‘4(3)!!!’, ‘8!’, ‘Cantaloup de Bellegarde’, ‘Gros Pecoud’. In allmeasurements of fruit width significant differences were not observed. (Figure 5)2522,52017,51512,5107,552,505 (2)Honey Dew Orange FleshRS 0,05 fruit lenght=1,89RS 0,05 fruit width=2,14Jaune CanarisTendral Verde Negro4 (3) !!!fruit lengthGros Pecoudfruit width8!Cantaloup de BellegardeFigure 5. The fruit parameters, cmThe experiment used 15 microsattelite markers. The genetic distance between Latgale’smelon lines and the South Europe varieties was determined by the use of these markers. If the205
Page 1 and 2:
LATVIJAS LAUKSAIMNIECĪBAS UNIVERSI
Page 4 and 5:
AGRONOMIJAS VĒSTIS (Latvian Journa
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155: AGRONOMIJAS VĒSTIS (Latvian Journa
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
show all

AGRONOMIJAS VÄSTIS - Latvijas LauksaimniecÄ«bas universitÄte

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?

AGRONOMIJAS VÄSTIS - Latvijas LauksaimniecÄ«bas universitÄte