The Flat Pod Rogue in Snap Beans (Phaseolus Vulgaris L.)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-1971 The Flat Pod Rogue in Snap Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Lynn B. Kerr Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Plant Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Kerr, Lynn B., "The Flat Pod Rogue in Snap Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)" (1971). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 3778. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/3778 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FLAT POD ROGUE IN SNAP BEANS (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) by Lynn B. Kerr A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Plant Science UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 1971 TABLF. OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ... ... LITERA TUBE REVIEW . 4 MATERIALS AND METHODS . 13 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . 17 CONCLUSION .. .. ...•..... ........... .. .. .. 44 LITERATURE CITE D . 66 VITA . 68 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Analysis of variance for the weight in grams of 100 seeds each of normal, off-round, and flat-podded White Seeded Tendercrop . 18 2. Analysis of variance for the weight in grams of 100 seeds of normal, off-round, and fl at;:>odded Dark Seeded Tendercrop . 18 3. Ana lysis of variance for seed width of 100 seeds each of normal and flat;:>odded Dark Seeded Tendercrop . 19 4 . Analysis of variance fo r seed depth of 100 seeds each of normal and flat;:>odded Dark Seeded Tendercrop . 19 5. Analysis of variance for seed length of 100 seeds each of norma l and flat-podded Dark Seeded Tendercrop . 20 6. Analysis of variance for the difference between seed depth and width of normal and flat-podded Dark Seeded Tendercrop 20 7. Comparison of means for length , width, depth, and the clif ference between depth and width of norma l and flat-podded Dark Seeded Tendercrop . 21 8. Ana lysis of variance for seed width of 100 seeds of normal and fl at-podded White Seeded Tendercrop . 21 9. Ana lysis of variance fo r seed depth of 100 seeds each of normal and flat-podded White Seeded Tendercrop . 22 10. Analysis of variance for seed length of 100 seeds each of normal and flat-podded White Seeded Tendercrop . 22 11. Analysis of variance for the difference between s eed depth and width of 100 seeds each of normal and flat-podded White Seeded Te ndercrop . 23 12. Comparison of means for depth, width, length, and the dif ference between depth and width of normal and flat-podded White Seeded Tendercrop (unit of measure = 1/ 128 in.) . 23 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table Page 13. Effect of milling on the percent of flat-podded seed in a sample of White Seeded Tendercrop . 25 14. Effect of milling on the percent of flat-podded seed in a sample of Dark Seeded Tendercrop . 25 15. Analysis of variance for the percent of flat podded seed held by each of three screen sizes . 26 16. Analysis of variance of seed color and pod type for field emergence in 1967 26 17. Analysis of variance of seed color, pod type and their interaction for the percent of dry, mature pods at harvest in 1967 . 30 18. Analysis of variance of seed color, pod type and their interaction for the percent of dry, mature pods at harvest in 1968 . 30 19 . Comparison of pod type means for the percent of dry, mature pods at harvest in 1968 . 31 20. Analysis of variance of seed color, pod type and their interaction for the percent of dry seed at harvest in 1968 . 31 21. Pod type mean comparisons for the percent of dry seed at harvest in 1968 . 32 22. Analysis of variance of seed color, pod type and their interaction for the average number of seeds per dry, mature pods in 1967 . 32 23. Analysis of variance of seed color, pod types and their interaction for the average number of pods per plant in 1967 34 24. Analysis of variance of seed color, pod type and their interaction for the average number of pods per plant in 1968 34 25. Analysis of variance of seed color, pod type and their interaction for the average number of beans per pod in 1968 35 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table Page 26. Comparison of seed color means by date for emergence and percent stand at harvest following a June planting in 1968 35 27. Comparison of pod type means by date for emergence and percent stand at harvest following a June planting in 1968. 38 28 . Analysis of variance of seed color, pod type and their interaction for emergence on June 11 , 1968 . 38 29. Analysis of variance of seed color, pod type and their interaction for e mergence on June 13, 1968 . 39 30. Analysis of variance of seed color, pod type and their interaction for em ergence on June 15, 1968 ..... .. 39 31. Analysis of variance of seed color, pod type and their interaction for emergence on June 17, 1968 40 32. Analysis of variance of seed color, pod type and their interaction for emergence on June 19, 1968 .. .... 40 33. Analysis of variance of seed color, pod type and their interaction for emergence on June 21, 1968 .. ... 41 34. Analysis of variance of seed color, pod type and their interaction for the percent stand at harvest in 1968 41 35. Comparison of emergence means for the pod type x seed color interaction for June 19, 1968 . .. ... 42 36. Comparison of emergence means for the pod type x seed color interaction for June 21, 1968 ... .. .. 42 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. A comparative view of flat and normal pods. Top from left to right flat pod-size view, normal pod-side view (depth), normal pod-suture view, flat pod -suture view (width). Bottom-rross section cut through the seed of the above pods ............... ........ 3 2. Progeny pod types through each of three selfed genera- tions from selected parent plant number four ....... 47 3. Progeny pod types through each of t hree selfed genera- tions from selected parent plant number five . ..... 48 4. Progeny pod types through each of three selfed genera- tions from selected parent plant number six ... 49 5. Progeny pod types through each of three selfed genera- tions from selected parent plant number eight ...... 50 6. Progeny pod types through each of three selfed genera- tions from selected parent plant number 15 ....... 51 7. Progeny pod types through each of four selfed genera tions from selected parent plants 39, 45, and 64 .. 52 8. Progeny pod types through each of three selfed genera- tions from selected parent plant number 48 ........ 53 9. Progeny pod types through each of three selfed genera- tions from selected parent plants 52 and 55 . ..... 54 10. Progeny pod types through each of three selfed genera- tions from selected parent plant number 71 . 55 11. Progeny pod !}pes through each of three selfed generations from selected parent plant number 72 . 56 12. Progeny pod types through each of three selfed gener ations from selected parent plant number 76 (note three original pod types) . 57 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure Page 13. The effect of seed color on field emergence in 1967 58 14. The effect of pod type on field emergence in 1967 . 58 15. Comparison of the percent of dry mature pods and the percent of dry beans at harvest as influenced by pod type in 1967 and 1968 . .. 59 16. The effect of seed color on several plants and yield characteristics in 1967 and 1968 . ...... 60 17. Comparison of maturity due to pod type. The row on the left is flat podded, while the row on the right is normal or crop. Both rows are of the variety, White Seeded Tendercrop . ......................... 61 18. Closeup of two rows shown in Figure 17. The closest row is normal podded. Note the number of leaves still on the plants as compared to the further row which is flat podded .. ........ .... .... .... 62 19. Comparison of the number of pods per plant and the number of beans per pod as influenced by pod type in 1967 and 1968 . ...... .. .. 63 20. The effect of seed color on field emergence in 1968 64 21. The effect of pod type on field emergence in 1968 .. 65 ABSTRACT The Flat Pod Rogue in Snap Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L. ) by Lynn B. Kerr, Doctor of Philosophy Utah State University, 1971 Major Professor: Dr. William F. Campbell Department: P lant Science Segregation patterns of several pod shapes of Phaseolus vulgaris L. cv Tendercrop, were studied. The causes of build-up of off-type pods in a seed stock were examined as were possible means of reversing the build- up. Natural selection factors such as germination, vigor, earliness, and ease of threshing, favored the off-types. Careful, selective milling was found to be an aid to roguing in keeping stock seed as free as possible of the off-type pods. (76 pages) INTRODUCTION A frequent and often serious problem in the production of many vege tables is the occurrence of off-type plants, commonly called "rogue, " "sports" or "tares." Rogues are not limited to vegetable crops . However, they are more of a proble m in vegetables than in other crops because of the ir erratic inheritance patterns. They seem to obey no genetic laws , and, therefore, can not be segregated out in the purification of a variety.