Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T10:37:39.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soyabeans in Tanzania: II. Seasonal variation and homeostasis in soyabeans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. K. Auckland
A. K. Auckland
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Wildlife, dar-es-Salaam, United republic of tanzania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Investigations of individual soyabean families over a 5-year period showed in some famines that the strain compounded in the F5 generation had a more stable environment × genotype interaction than the daughter strains compounded in the F6 generation.

2. Regression of each strain yield on an ‘environmental’ mean gave values for the slope of the regression line (bi), and the mean square of the regression (s2d) gave a value of deviations from the regression line. The values bi and s2d were used as estimates of stability.

3. Groups of F5 and F6 compounded strains were compared. Analysis of variance for yield over 5 years for twenty-four F5 compounded strains and twentyfour F6 compounded strains gave s2d value of 166·4 for the former and 289·1 for the latter. With 72 degrees of freedom for each group they differed from each other at the 1 % level of P.

4. Multiple correlation analyses were also done on the two groups of strains. It was concluded, all else being equal, that the F5 strains over a period of years would be less liable to give low yields in a bad year than the F6 strains.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 69 , Issue 3 , December 1967 , pp. 455 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allard, R. W. (1961). Relationship between genetic diversity and consistency of performance in different environments. Crop. Sci. 1, 127–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allard, R. W. & Hansche, P. E. (1964). Some parameters of population variability and their implications in plant breeding. Adv. Agron. 16, 281–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auckland, A. K. (1966). Soyabeans In Tanzania. I. The exploitation of hybridization for the improvement of soyabeans. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 67, 109–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auckland, A. K. (in preparation). Soyabeans in Tanzania. III. The performance of, and natural selection in, soya-bean varietal blends.Google Scholar
Eberhart, S. A. & Russell, W. A. (1966). Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop. Sci. 6, 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, A. C. (1955). A study of crop production in relation to rainfall reliability. E. Afr. agric. J. 20, 263–67.Google Scholar
Finlay, K. W. (1964). Adaptation—its measurement and significance in barley breeding. Proc. 1st int. Barley Genet. Symp, Wageningen 1963, pp. 351–9.Google Scholar
Finlay, K. W. & Wilkinson, G. N. (1963). The analysis of adaptation in a plant-breeding programme. Am. J. agric. Res. 14, 742–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goulden, C. H. (1939). Methods of Statistical Analysis, pp. 215. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Harris, D. L. (1964). Biometrical parameters of selffertilizing diploid populations. Genetics 50, 931–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, H. W., Robinson, H. F. & Comstock, R. E. (1955). Estimates of genetic and environmental variability in soyabeans. Agron. J. 47, 314–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, I. M. (1954). Genetic Homeostasis. London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Mumaw, C. R. & Weber, C. R. (1957). Competition and natural selection in soyabean varietal composites. Agron. J. 49, 154–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Probst, A. J. (1957). Performance of variety blends in soyabeans. Agron. J. 49, 148–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmonds, N. W. (1962). Variability in crop plants, its use and conservation. Biol. Rev. 37, 422–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar