South Dakota State UniversityOpen PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access InstitutionalRepository and Information ExchangeAgricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletins SDSU Agricultural Experiment Station1970Predicting Seed Yield of Alfalfa ClonesM.D. RumbaughW.R. KehrJ.D. AxtellL.J. EllingFollow this and additional works at: http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/agexperimentsta_tbThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the SDSU Agricultural Experiment Station at Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research AccessInstitutional Repository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletins by anauthorized administrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For more information,please contact michael.biondo@sdstate.edu.Recommended CitationRumbaugh, M.D.; Kehr, W.R.; Axtell, J.D.; and Elling, L.J., "Predicting Seed Yield of Alfalfa Clones" (1970). Agricultural ExperimentStation Technical Bulletins. 46.http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/agexperimentsta_tb/46North Central Regional Research Publication No. 207, June 1971 Predicting Seed Yield of Alfa If a Clones Agricultural Experiment Stations of Alaska , Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas , Michigan , Minnesota , Missouri, Nebraska , North Da-kota , Ohio, South Dakota , and Wisconsin , and the U. S. Department of Agriculture co-operating. I " I ... I \ _I Technical Bulletfn 38, June 1971 Agricultural Experiment Station South Dakota State University, Brookings CONTENTS Summary Introduction Review of Literature Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Character Means and Variation Correlation of North Central Region Characters with 3 5 5 12 17 17 Seed Yields __ ________________________ 17 Correlation of California and Idaho Characters with Seed Yields _ _ __________________________ _ Terminal Multiple Regression Coefficients ______________________ _ Influence of Medicago falcata Clones ------------------------------Literature Cited 29 35 44 47 PROJECT: NC-83 Seed Production of Breeding Line of Insect-Pollinated Legumes COOPERATI G AGENCIE AND PRINCIPAL LEADERS: State Experiment Stations Abb Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Michigan Minneota Missouri Tebra ka Ohio . Torth Dakota South Dakota Wiscon in Admini trative Adviser U.S. Department of Agriculture Coopcrati, c State Rcsc:uch Scn·ice Agricultural Research Sen·icc Primary tation, Nebraska Representatives * R. L. Taylor *D. A. Miller (for C. N. Hittle) *J. D. Axtell *T. T. Carlson *E. L. Sorensen *F. C. Elliott *L. J. lling *R. D. Horrocks *W. R. Kehr *M. H. Niehaus *P. C. Sandal *M. D. Rumbaugh *E. T. Bingham F. W. Smith I I. J. Ilodgson *C. I I. I bnson W.R. Kehr *Voting members of :\'C-83 Regional Technical Committee Sponsored by the agricultural experiment stations of South Dakota, Nebraska, Indiana, Minnesota, Kansas, Iowa, and the Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture under the auspices of the NC-83 Technical Committee "Seed Production of Breeding Lines of Insect Pollinated Legumes." SUMMARY Five alfalfa clones from each of the breeding pro-grams at the Agricultural Experiment Stations of Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota were vegetative! y propagated and rep-licated in space-planted nur eries established in the six North Central states and in California and Idaho. The relationships among 1 plant characteristics measured in the North Central te ts and seed yields in the western planting were evaluated by correlation and regre sion procedure . The objective of the exper-iment was to determine if associations among charac-ters existed to a degree which would permit predic-tion of seed yiel ls in the Western States' commercial seed producing regions from knowledge of plant mor-phology in the orth Central seed consuming area. Traits measured in the first year of growth which correlated consistently and highly with seed yields were: date of initial bloom, number of racemes per plant, flower color core, and number of coils per pod. The average magnitude of the correlat1on with econd year data for the independent variables tend-ed to be lower, and some characters shifted in rela-tive importance. Characters that tended to exhibit consi tent and relatively high correlations with first-and econd-year eed yields in California and Idaho were in de cending order of r: (a) number of coils per pod, (b) flower color score, ( c) number of seeds per pod, and ( d) North Central state eed weight per plant. The highe t imple correlation coefficient of the 505 computed between attributes measured in the North Central trials and California and Idaho was r==.81 for first year number of coil per pod and sec-3 ond year California seed yields. No single independ-ent North Central variable was sufficiently associated with seed yields to serve satisfactorily for prediction of eed yield potential in the western tests. Multiple correlations based on all available infor-mation for each North Central state in each year re-sulted in values ranging from .53 to .94. Because independent variables were themselves mutually intercorrelated, several frequently could be deleted from the multiple regression equations with slight loss of predictive value. Thi was accomplished by backward stepwise regression in which the variable generating the tandardized partial regression coef-ficient of lowest absolute magnitude was deleted from the function. The process was stopped at the arbitrarily elected end point of R==. 0. The independent variable which generated rela-tively high standardized coefficient rather con is-tently were: (a) number of racemes per plant, (b) Aowcr color score, ( c) number of stems per plant, (d) wet forage weight per plant, (e) percent fertile selfed florets, (f) number of open pollinated seeds per pod, and (g) number of coils per pod. Some vari-ables in equations for predicting second year seed yields differed from those for the first year. Informa-tion from the Nebra ka experiments, more than that from any other one station , eemed to represent the region as a whole. Future research should be directed toward dis-covering other traits strongly associated with seed yieid potential in the Western Region but not highly correlated with the independent variable measured in this study. Predicting Seed Yield of Alfalfa Clones By M. D. Rt·r-rnAt·c11, W.R. KEHR, J. D. Axn.LL, L. ]. ELLING, E. L. SoR1:. SE , and C. P. WtLSIE:i INTRODUCTION Approximately two-thirds of the 30 million acres of alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L., M. falcata L., and their hybrid ) in the United States i grown in the 12 states compri ing the North Central Region. Additional cxten. ive but unreported planting of alfalfa-grass mixture arc utilized for pa ture an.1ko t.1 St.1tc Uni\'cnity. fo r co n-tri huting to the ,t.1ti , ti r. tl .1n .tl y~c, . Figure 1. Alfalfa seed and forage producing regions in the United States. (Seed data based on S. Dak. Crop and Live-stock Rept. Service Annual Seed Crop Summary, Dec. 26, quently occurs on the inflore cence, where it is parti-cularly de tructive to eele 6 . (Con inu d) Dr rerti Le . umber Coil \veigbt per O. P. uf c:eeds per \,wight per 12 l2rnt ~ :32 nor t ~ 4} per QUd (5 } 1200 (l} 12Lant ~4 2 Clone Man Range Mean Range ~1cc.m Rang 1ean Mean Rm1g Ind . 6 2- 235 71 34 3 5 89 3 . 1 97 L. 2 . 8 188 Ind . 6 2- 237 6 65 37 81 2. 6 96 1.6 2. l 205 Incl . 62-'.239 39 2 23 0 2. 6 188 • 2 150 Ind . 6 2- 247 82 56 54 107 3 . 0 137 L. 6 1.8 195 Ind . 6 2- 267 55 82 23 122 J..8 206 1.1 1.0 280 Ia . 9 L - 2 104 L06 27 l04 2. 3 130 l. 2 . 6 2 L 7 Ic1 . 91 - 3 119 88 •) ,.) 1 26 2. 9 138 l. 4 . 5 207 Ia . 46- l 69 55 51 49 3 . 3 167 1.4 3 . 2 1 l Ia . L3 L 7 88 56 5 2 133 3 . 9 149 2. 9 3 . 1 223 I a . 1516 69 101 40 120 2. 8 179 . 8 . 5 267 Ki.IDS , 2313 62 61 23 100 2. 3 243 1.1 . 8 218 Kans . 23L4 9 69 25 104 2. 8 107 2. 2 1.6 245 Kerne: . 2315 7 90 30 97 2. 9 176 2 . 6 2. 3 171 Kerns . 2316 72 60 31 129 4 . 1 141 2. 6 1.4 240 Kans . 23lL 49 12 53 109 3. 2 81 2. 5 2. 0 127 ~1irin . 247 67 90 43 93 2. 2 177 . 4 1. 2 278 ;viinn . 559 61 67 42 107 3 . 1 132 2. 0 1. 8 192 ~1inn . 589 53 68 42 117 3 . 3 139 2. 4 3 . 5 204 ~!inn . 1166 45 107 34 91 2. 9 148 1. 4 2. 2 2·0 Minn . 1221 47 140 49 149 2. 9 121 1. 2 2. 3 275 6b L 7 62 41 122 3 . 3 139 2. 1 2. 4 202 662 83 84 30 123 3 . 6 217 l. 9 4 .6 212 663 47 100 42 136 . 3. 3 106 1.6 3 . 0 134 Nebr . 664 91 107 2 93 2. 3 165 1..1 1. 2 200 br . 665 61 46 25 20 2. 5 144 . 7 1.4 218 . D. 110 67 7 46 150 3 . 7 116 l. 3 2. 2 162 . Do 1!2- 8 b8 L38 45 LOO 2. 6 181 . 5 1.0 176 . D. H2- 7 67 115 56 75 3 . 3 115 1.0 2. 2 170 S.D. CK 25- L 57 125 40 102 3 . 5 120 1.1 2. 7 268 S. Do CK 27- 1 36 10 32 16 9 2 • . s 184 . 3 233 A. erag 68 80 3 L04 3 . 0 148 1. 4 1.8 209 20 Tab l e 7 . Clona l gr and means and r ange of test means in t he North Central sta t es in 1967 . Q~!e bloom_l.~l}/No . racemes ( 5) Raceme length( 5 )_!3.~ceme width ( 5 ) Clone Mean Range _ ! Meun Range Mean Range Mean Range Ind . 6 2- 235 183 27 675 85 19 26 15 40 Ind . 6 2- 237 181 29 1979 282 19 26 15 33 Ind . 6 2- 239 194 13 855 169 19 11 14 21 Ind . 62- 247 184 16 1416 149 21 14 15 27 Ind . 62- 267 181 27 980 57 23 35 15 40 Ia . 918- 2 184 29 860 115 22 18 15 40 Ia . 918- 3 181 29 1016 128 21 24 16 38 Ia . 46- 1 177 28 935 84 27 7 17 24 Ia . 1317 183 27 753 73 21 19 17 18 Ia . 1516 179 32 650 100 21 29 15 73 Kans . 2313 181 27 745 110 22 41 15 13 Kans . 2314 178 27 829 99 19 21 15 20 Kans . 2315 179 25 1132 .98 21 43 16 31 Kans . 2316 178 27 813 128 27 30 15 33 Kans . 2311 180 28 667 124 22 18 15 33 Minn . 247 180 34 740 221 24 50 15 40 Minn . 559 178 26 1268 88 23 47 16 31 Minn . 589 179 26 806 46 17 76 14 29 Minn . 1166 184 28 728 148 18 61 15 46 Minn . 1221 184 26 734 162 20 25 15 46 ebr . 661 178 26 985 105 21 28 17 41 Nebr . 662 181 26 868 209 18 39 14 36 Nebr . 663 179 26 767 145 21 43 17 35 Nebr . 664 184 29 546 58 18 72 14 29 Nebr . 665 180 25 1061 109 23 30 15 20 S. D. ll08 176 30 1509 130 18 28 15 47 S. D. H2- 8 181 28 823 118 17 24 15 40 S. D. H2- 7 184 27 752 203 22 18 15 33 S. D. CK 25- 1 186 30 1094 164 19 42 14 29 S. D. CK 27- 1 184 28 890 166 20 35 14 36 Average 181 27 929 126 21 33 15 34 l/Figures in parenthese s indicate the number of test s in which the trait was mea s ured . 1/All rang es are expre ssed as percentag es o f the correspo nding means . 21 Table 7 . (Continued) Flower colorp) o . stems~6 2 Stem length.{6) Clone Mean Range Mean Range Mean Rang Ind . 62- 235 17 41 2 . 2 5 45 120 1046 96 Ind . 6 2-237 15 47 2. 2 9 48 90 844 35 Ind . 6 2- 239 15 60 1.0 0 23 230 504 146 Ind . 6 2-247 16 31 2. 8 64 56 84 886 41 Ind . 62- 267 16 31 3 . 5 51 47 119 933 47 Ia . 918- 2 16 50 4 . 1 39 46 76 1143 94 Ia . 918- 3 17 53 4 . 5 16 47 85 879 39 Ia . 46- 1 19 26 4 . 3 2 57 81 938 22 Ia . 1317 17 65 · 2. 9 62 36 114 956 47 Ia . 1516 12 33 5 . 2 2 47 100 523 130 Kans . 2313 17 71 2. 3 4 37 108 363 81 Kans . 2314 18 44 2. 2 0 46 124 369 60 Kans . 2315 19 26 2. 3 9 44 89 838 43 Kans . 2316 18 39 2. 2 0 39 113 921 52 Kan .... . 2311 1 33 2. 3 0 32 106 629 138 Minn . 247 17 59 5 . 2 2 51 92 896 57 Minn . 559 19 53 3 . 6 28 78 69 907 32 Minn . 589 18 33 2. 1 0 74 93 811 27 Minn . 1166 17 70 2. 2 5 47 115 887 40 Minn . 1221 18 44 2. 2 0 46 139 706 151 br . 661 25 48 2. 1 0 57 L25 980 34 br . 662 18 100 3 . 0 83 36 169 716 72 br . 663 20 45 2. 7 70 33 127 774 21 br . 664 17 35 3 . 7 24 44 127 861 41 br . 665 24 33 2. 2 0 68 87 865 18 S. D. 110 17 35 4 . 9 2 47 111 911 40 S. D. H2- 8 15 53 2. 7 79 48 10 857 48 S. D. H2-7 21 29 3 . 7 59 63 97 804 46 S. D. CK 25-1 20 45 4 . 1 15 54 9 829 41 S.D. CK 27- 1 17 41 3 . 9 51 61 110 766 75 Averag 18 45 3 . 1 23 49 110 811 60 22 Table 7 . (Continued ) Wet weight per Dry weight perFertile O. P. Fertile selfed plant ( 4 ) plan!._W florets ( 6 ) florets ( 2) Clone Mean Range Mean Mean Range Mean Range Ind . 6 2- 235 1002 47 192 42 160 53 42 Ind . 62- 237 1082 29 211 41 251 39 87 Ind . 6 2- 239 306 166 80 23 261 28 107 Ind . 62- 247 983 68 248 27 200 40 48 Ind . 62- 267 726 111 216 19 153 10 0 Ia . 918- 2 1093 73 202 24 200 18 139 Ia . 918- 3 1284 66 246 35 203 33 24 Ia . 46- 1 1221 41 200 41 93 54 37 Ia . 1317 716 141 228 34 218 38 92 Ia . 1516 581 106 81 25 188 30 70 Kans . 2313 513 74 136 25 160 7 200 Kans . 2314 831 41 140 17 212 12 108 Kans . 2315 806 96 196 20 215 29 179 Kans . 2316 748 10 94 21 162 17 118 Kans . 2311 343 34 198 33 118 44 25 Minn . 247 1191 60 237 27 200 28 186 Minn . 559 1296 78 246 19 226 12 92 Minn . 589 930 70 186 25 164 14 57 Minn . 1166 768 86 218 24 208 19 11 Minn . 1221 711 103 227 26 192 22 73 Nebr . 661 1172 51 160 25 120 39 87 Nebr . 662 682 141 190 18 200 13 108 Nebr . 663 685 121 120 20 230 10 27 ebr . 664 1018 79 215 19 205 4 125 Nebr . 665 968 69 274 20 240 26 4 S. D. 1108 1135 84 210 20 135 14 21 S. D. H2- 8 937 121 176 26 135 38 24 S. D. H2- 7 907 19 180 32 153 62 76 S. D. CK 25- 1 1350 98 156 19 153 20 40 S. D. CK 27- 1 696 82 343 20 145 54 13 Average 889 79 194 26 183 28 74 23 Table 7 . (continued) r of seeds Number of Seed weight eer eod ( 6 2 2er J20d 2er 2Lmt ( 5 2 Clone Mean Range Mean Mean R~-Ind . 62- 235 ~L 5 74 1. 2 8 3 . 30.S Ind . 6 2- 237 .1 . 2 97 1.6 25 3 . 9 308 Ind . 6 ~- :2:_;9 2 . 6 273 2. 0 30 4 . 2 150 Ind . 6:2- :247 3 . 3 82 1. 9 42 3 . 1 190 Ind . 6 2- 267 2. 2 109 l ') . ,.) 85 1. 239 I a . 91 - 2 3 . J. 142 L. 2 25 3 . 8 234 Ia . 918- ·1 3 . 1 132 L. 4 21 4 . 4 200 I a . 46- 1 4 . 0 .so l. S) 21 8 . 8 119 I u . 1:317 4 . 0 158 2 . 7 33 6 . 0 183 Ia . 15 L6 2. 3 161 LO 110 1.1 245 l C:111S . 23 L3 2. 5 64 1. 5 13 2. 9 203 l"ans . 2314 3 . 5 51 l. 8 78 4 . 3 153 Kans . 2315 2. 9 6 2. 4 29 5 . 5 160 Kan..., . 23 L6 4 . 7 72 2. 5 60 2. 7 152 Kan 2311 3 . 5 63 2. 2 41 3 . 1 155 Minn . 247 2. 6 8 0 . 7 71 1. 5 233 Minn . 559 3 . 6 111 2. 2 20 4 . 1 171 Minn . 589 4 . 4 68 2. 3 26 7 .7 213 Minn . 1166 3 . 3 139 L. 9 11 4 . 2 171 1inn . 1221 3 . 6 122 1.9 47 4 . 5 191 Nebr . 66l 3 . 7 70 2. 1 24 4. 0 5 ebr . 662 3 . 2 128 l. 7 35 2. 9 272 1 ebr. 66' 4 . 2 90 1. 7 18 2. 4 154 ebr . 664 3 . 0 53 l.8 22 1. 5 207 1 cbr . 665 3 . 1 126 1.6 44 3 . 0 217 SoD . 1108 3 . 6 92 1. 2 33 4 . 0 110 S. D. II2- 8 3 . 3 88 1. 7 29 3 . 1 174 S. D. II2- 7 4 . 0 90 l. 4 14 4 . 1 207 S . D. CK 25- 1 3 . 7 81 l. 3 23 5 . 2 179 S. D. CK 27- 1 3 . 2 69 Ll 55 1. 5 233 Average 3 . 4 101 1. 7 36 3 . 8 193 24 Table 8 . Summary of coefficients of vari ation (percent ) of traits measured in the 8 states . Indiana Iowa Kansas Minn . Nebr . {~ • D • Calif . Idaho Character 1966 1967 1966 1967 1966 1967 1966 1967 1966 1967 1966 1967 1966 1967 1967 1.968 X1 Date initial bloom 2 1 1 1 2 l 4 3 x2 No . racemes/ plant 46 84 25 53 13 42 24 32 53 55 X3 Raceme length (mm ) 17 11 10 11 11 9 J_ 2 12 14 x4 Raceme width (mm) 14 11 11 25 7 6 8 12 7 X5 No . florets/raceme 19 16 12 18 9 24 16 17 15 22 17 x6 Flower color score 10 23 10 27 12 X 7 No . stems/plant 41 46 15 15 10 26 21 22 18 38 49 X 8 Stem length (mm ) 12 34 15 6 9 8 17 10 8 8 14 82 X9 Growth habit score 10 12 21 19 14 x10 Vigor score 42 X11 I · alfalfae score 15 x 12 Wet forage weight (g ) 17 11 13 19 54 x13 Dry forage weight (g ) 27 40 20 35 30 XL4 Fertile O. P. florets(% ) 56 21 25 18 38 42 40 45 105 x{5 Fertile selfed florets (%) 52 80 50 x16 No . O. P . seeds/pod 17 16 14 10 28 28 23 18 96 85 23 17 12 15 x 17 No . coils/pod 11 21 16 31 27 28 14 9 20 x18 Seed weight (g )/plant 122 65 25 59 53 32 45 200 128 35 39 18 33 Table 9 . Clonal mean of characters measured in the first year of grow h in California and Idaho . Clone Ind . 62- 235 Ind . 62- 237 Ind . 62- 239 Ind . 62- 247 Ind . 62- 267 Ia . 91 - 2 Ia . 918- 3 Ia . 46- 1 Ia . 1317 Ia . 1516 Kans . 2313 Kans . 2314 Kans . 2315 Kans . 2316 Kans . 2311 Minn . 247 Minn . 559 Minn . 589 Minn . 1166 Mi nn . 1221 ebr . 661 br . 662 br . 663 664 665 S. D. 1108 S. D. H2- 8 S. D. H2- 7 S . D. CK 25- 1 S . D. CK 27- 1 umber of seeds per pod Calif . Idaho 4 . 4 3 . 6 4. 4 3 . 0 2. 6 5 . 3 4 . 2 2. 8 1.6 4. 0 3 . 6 5 . 9 4 . 6 2. 0 3 . 6 3 . 4 4 . 1 3 . 0 4. 4 3 . 4 4. 1 2. 6 3 . 8 4 . 7 3 . 2 2. 2 3 . 4 3 . 4 3 . 2 3 . 3 3 . 7 3 . 4 1.0 3 . 2 3 . 2 4 . 2 4 . 2 2. 2 1.6 2. 9 2. 8 3 . 0 3 . 2 2. 0 3 . 1 3 . 3 3 . 2 2. 6 3 . 2 2. 9 2. 8 2. 4 2. 2 3 . 4 2 . 8 3 . 2 3 . 8 3 . 0 Average 3 . 6 3 . 0 1. 4 w. 05 2. 2 C. V. (per ent) 23 12 Number o coils pr pod Calif . Idaho L 4 L6 L 5 L 2 0 . 8 1.6 1.6 0 . 5 1.4 2. 1 2 . 2 2. 4 2. 5 0 . 5 1.6 1. 5 L8 1.4 1. 2 L 5 1.4 L6 L 4 LO L 7 0 . 9 LO 1.0 1. 4 LO 28 26 0 . 8 0 . 8 2. 0 1.9 0 . 9 0 . 8 0 . 8 1.6 2. 3 0 . 5 1.4 2. 2 2. 2 1. 9 2. 2 0 . 5 1.8 2. 0 1.6 1.6 2. 0 L5 1.4 1.6 L6 0 . 9 1. 7 0 . 9 0 . 8 0 . 8 L4 0 . 5 9 S ed wight ~~ant( g ) Calif . Idaho 23 . l 22 . 7 48 . 5 10 . 6 8 . 0 2L 2 24 . 3 22 . 2 1.6 9 . 5 26 . 5 31.8 21.8 34 . 6 7 . 4 16 . 4 35 . 7 23 . 3 13 . 0 40 . 0 32 . 9 41.6 13 . 1 32 . 1 6 . 8 10 . 5 6 . 6 12 . 2 5 . 4 19 . 7 18 . 2 35 36 . 2 35 . 8 34 . 5 42 . 0 8 . 5 14. 8 36 . 0 45 . 5 41. 2 14 . 5 18 . 0 23 . 0 33 . 5 33 . 0 37 . 2 21. 2 27 .o 53 . 0 31. 5 23 . 0 35 . 5 33 . 8 34 . 2 15 . 8 27 . 2 22 . 5 20 . 2 27 . 2 29 . 2 16 . 5 29 . 1 13 . 6 18 Tabl 10 . Clo nal mans of hara t rs measured in hes cond year of grow h in California and Idaho . umber of seeds umber of oils Seed we i ght eer eod eer eod _£er elant (g) -Clon Calif . Idaho Calif. Idaho Calif . Idaho Ind . 62- 235 4 . 6 2. 9 1.8 0 . 7 12 . 0 25 . 5 Ind . 6 2- 237 4 . 4 2. 6 0 . 7 1.0 14 . 8 26 . 8 Ind . 6 2- 239 4 . 0 2. 2 1.9 1. 7 8 . 6 14. 7 Ind . 62- 247 4 . 0 2. 2 1.6 1.8 24 . 8 20 . 0 Ind . 6 2- 267 2. 9 1. 6 1.4 1.1 3. 7 9 . 2 Ia . 918- 2 3 . 7 2. 2 0 . 7 1.0 15 . 0 11. 2 Ia . 918- 3 3 . 4 2. 6 0 . 7 0 . 8 21.0 22 . 1 Ia . 46- 1 4 . 2 4 . 0 1. 4 1.6 40 . 8 34 . 7 Ia . 1317 6 . 1 3 . 3 1. 8 2. 2 32 . 7 30 . 1 Ia . 1516 2. 4 2. 3 0 . 5 0 . 5 7 . 9 4 . 4 Kans . 2313 1. 9 1. 9 1.0 l. 5 14 . 8 14. 3 Kans . 2314 3. 8 2. 6 2. 0 2. 0 32 . 1 25 . 8 Kans . 2315 2. 8 2. 4 1. 6 2. 2 46 . 8 26 . 5 Kans . 2316 5 . 3 3 . 5 1. 9 2. 1 39 . 3 27 . 2 Kans . 2311 3. 0 2. 5 1. 8 2. 4 61.9 20 . 4 Minn . 247 2. 4 2. 2 0 . 5 0 . 5 15 . 1 13 . 7 Mi nn . 559 4 . 8 2. 0 1.8 1. 4 40 . 2 25 . 8 Minn. 589 4 . 8 2. 6 1. 7 2. 0 47 . 8 36 . 0 Minn . 1166 5 . 6 2. 8 1.4 1.8 18 . 4 20 . 6 Minn . 1221 3 . 4 2. 2 1.0 1. 2 15 . 3 17 . 9 Nebr . 661 4 . 2 2. 8 1. 4 1.8 24 . 8 21. 5 Nebr . 662 3 . 2 2. 2 1. 3 1. 2 32 . 7 23 . 4 ebr . 663 4 . 3 1. 8 1. 3 1. 3 38 . 2 13 . 0 ebr . 664 3 . 4 2. 0 1.4 1.8 10 . 8 9 . 7 Nebr . 665 4 . 0 2. 4 1. 5 1.0 16 . 9 24 . 2 S. D" 1108 4 . 0 2. 8 0 . 8 0 . 8 6 . 1 12 . 3 S. D. H2- 8 4 . 2 1. 9 1.4 1. 3 16 . 8 12 . 8 S. D. H2- 7 4 . 2 2. 4 1.0 0 . 8 12 . 6 15 . 0 S. D. CK 25- 1 4 . 8 3 . 8 0 . 9 1.0 15 . 0 15 . 4 S. D. CK 27- 1 4 . 6 2. 8 1.0 0 . 6 5 . 9 9 . 4 Average 3 . 9 2. 5 1. 3 1.4 23 . 1 19 . 5 w. 05 2. 6 1. 5 0 . 7 1.1 23 . 7 16 . 9 c.v. (percent ) 17 15 14 20 39 33 27 pendent variables on a regional basis ( Table 11). Not all traits were measured in all states in 1966, therefore the mean simple correlations arc heterogeneous in that respect. The table shows the number of states with data contributing to each average correlation. Well over half the value were statistically signifi-cant, although the magnitude of many that were significant was too low to be of practical benefit in a breeding program. The coefficient of determination, r', expres es the proportion of observed variation in a dependent variable accountable to variation in the in-dependent trait. The same type of relationship holds for the r values. Although number of coils per pod showed the highest correlation , Table 11, it is clear that no one independent variable adequately explain-ed the variation in seed yields among the clones when grown in alifornia and Idaho. The relative magni-tudes of the average coefficient for California and Idaho were similar for most of the independent traits. Number of racemes per plant and number of coils p~r pod generated slightly higher mean correlations with California than with Idaho data. Similarly, Table 11 . Average correlation (r) of traits measured in the North Central Region in 1966 with seed yields in California (1966-67) and Idaho (1967-68). Number of California Idaho 1966 North Central trait values averaged 1966 1967 1967 1968 x1 Date initial bloom 4 -. 55-lHf -. 59-lHf _. 45-iH~ - .49-irn X2 No . racemes/plant 5 . 50-irn .41 -)Hf . 26-lHf .J2-lHf X3 Raceme length (mm) 4 . 02 .27-irn . 11 . 14 x4 Raceme width (mm) 4 . 13 . 25 1~ . 15 . 16 X5 No . florets/raceme 5 . 21 -lf . 18-lf . 20-lf .19-lf X6 Flower color score 4 - • 58-JHf -.45-lHf -.40-lHf -. 52-lHf X7 No . stems/plant 5 . 42-lH~ .J2-lHf . 26 ?~?} .JO 7}?~ x 8 Length of longest stem (mm) 6 .13 .19-lf . 22-irn . 30-lHf X11 ~-alfalfae score 1 .33 .31 -. 04 .06 X12 Wet forage weight (g ) 1 .05 - . 25 -.09 -.04 X13 Dry forage weight (g.) 3 . 10 .04 . 06 .15 X14 Fertile 0 .P . florets (%) 4 . 08 . 21 -lf .41 -lH~ . 22-lf X15 Fertile selfed florets (%) 1 -.06 -.10 . 26 . 08 X16 No . 0 .P . seeds/pod 5 . 21 -lf . 25-lHf .41 -irn .36-JHf X17 No . coils/pod 1 .601rn • 81 -lHf . 57-irn • 71 -JH} X18 Seed weight/plant (g ) 4 . 44~u~ .41 -lH~ . 52 ~f7} .411}7~ -l~ P <.05 -lH~ p <::'. 01 28 length of longest stem and percentage of fertile open pollinated floret provided omewhat greater correla-tion for 1

Alfalfa Plant Population Data Collection

Abstract

Extracted data

Alfalfa Plant Population Data Collection

Abstract

Extracted data

Related items

Related items