Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Growth and flowering of cranberry in relation to photoperiod and growth regulators Lenhardt, Peter John 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A6_7 L45.pdf [ 6.1MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093870.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093870-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093870-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093870-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093870-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093870-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093870-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093870-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093870.ris

Full Text

GROWTH AND FLOWERING OF CRANBERRY IN RELATION TO PHOTOPERIOD AND GROWTH REGULATORS PETEB JOHN LENHARDT B.Sc.(Agr.) U n i v e r s i t y o f Guelph, 1974 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE .DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF PLANT SCIENCE We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as co n f o r m i n g to the r e g u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March, 1976 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r ee t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r ag ree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y pu rpo se s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f PLANT SCIENCE The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co l umb i a 2 0 7 5 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada ".. :--V(JT 1W5 Date MARCH 3, 1976 ABSTRACT The r e l a t i o n of photoperiod and growth r e g u l a t o r s to growth and the i n d u c t i o n o f f l o w e r i n g i n c r a n b e r r y , Vaccinium macrocarpgn A i t . was s t u d i e d . The v a r i o u s a r t i f i c i a l day-l e n g t h s employed were provided i n growth chambers or photoper-i o d c a b i n e t s i n the greenhouse. S u c c i n i c a c i d 2,2-diraethylhydrazide (SADH) was a p p l i e d both i n the green-house and on a commercial bog. SADH was the primary growth r e g u l a t o r employed but o t h e r s , namely g i b b e r e l l i c a c i d , c y c o c e l , ancymidol and 6-benzylaminopurine were t e s t e d b r i e f l y . P a r a f f i n s e c t i o n s of cr a n b e r r y growing t i p s and t e r -minal buds were employed to study flower i n i t i a t i o n . V e g e t a t i v e growth was found to be d i r e c t l y r esponsive to changes i n daylength but no p h o t o p e r i o d i c treatment was found t h a t produced s u b s t a n t i a l i n i t i a t i o n of f l o r a l p a r t s . The flo w e r i n i t i a l s t h a t were found, occurred only under short day treatments of 9 or 12,hr. Probably they were a r t e f a c t s of the a l t e r a t i o n of some other p h y s i o l o g i c a l system and not d i r e c t r e s u l t s of photoperiod c o n t r o l . The normal t i m i n g of i n d u c t i o n of f l o w e r i n g i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s s i m i l a r to other areas where i n d u c t i o n has been r e p o r t e d to occur d u r i n g f u l l bloom. SADH a p p l i e d during f u l l bloom on the bog i n c r e a s e d flower i n d u c t i o n . While SADH caused some r e t a r d a t i o n of growth, no important l i m i t a t i o n s of growth were found. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract . . . i i L i s t of Tables ...v L i s t of Figures v i i Acknowledge ment s v i i i Introduction 1 Materials and Methods ....7 Anatomy of the Terminal Bud ..7 Controlled Environment Experiments .....8 Experiment 1 8 Experiment 2 .....11 Experiment 3 .................14 Experiment 4 ......16 F i e l d Experiment 17 Results 20 Anatomy of the Terminal Bud 20 Controlled Environment Experiments ........20 Experiment 1 ... 20 Experiment 2 23 Experiment 3 34 Experiment 4 37 F i e l d Experiment 37 Discussion ..............44 Summary 50 Literature Cited .......................................... 52 Appendix I Construction of Photoperiod Cabinets 55 i v Appendix II Lighting i n Controlled Environment Systems .................60 Appendix III Analysis of Variance Tables 62 LIST OF TABLES v Table Page 1 Cranberry nutrient solution modified after Ingestad (1973) 10 2 Sequence and duration of photoperiods in Experiment 3 15 3 Experiment 1. The percentage of buds breaking dormancy in response to chilling and GA 22 4 Experiment 1. Effect of growth regulators on terminal shoot growth of cranberry uprights 22 5 Experiment 2. The effect of photoperiod on the growth and flowering of rooted 'McFarlin' upright cuttings grown in the greenhouse 25 6 Experiment 2. The effect of changing photoperiod on the growth and flowering of rooted 'McFarlin' upright cuttings grown in the greenhouse 29 7 Experiment 2. The effect of SADH pretreatment at 2 photoperiods on the terminal growth rate of 'McFarlin' upright cuttings grown in the greenhouse 30 8 Experiment 2. The effect of SADH pretreatments at 2 photoperiods on growth and flowering of 'McFarlin' upright cuttings grown in the greenhouse 31 9 Experiment 2. The effect of SADH applications during bloom on the rate of terminal shoot growth of 'McFarlin' upright cuttings grown in the greenhouse (cm/wk) 32 10 Experiment 2. The effect of SADH applications during bloom on the growth and flowering of 'McFarlin' upright cuttings grown in the greenhouse 33 LIST OF TABLES (CONT.) vi Table Page 11 Experiment 3. Effects of changing photoperiod on cranberry growth 35 12 Experiment 4. The adjusted mean number of branches associated with 6-benzylaminopurine applications to 2 cultivars of cranberry 38 13 Field Experiment. The effect of SADH on the growth, flowering and fruiting of producing 'McFarlin' cranberry 41 14 Field Experiment. The effect of SADH on the flowering and fruiting of producing 'McFarlin1 cranberry 42 15 The biennial flowering habit of individual uprights, Field Experiment 43 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Terminal bud (l.s.) collected July 29, 1975 showing flower-bud initiation 2i 2 Effect of photoperiod on rate of terminal shoot growth in cranberry, Experiment 24 3 Response of rate of terminal shoot growth in cranberry uprights to a short day, long day, short day photoperiodic sequence, Experiment 2 26 4 Response of rate of terminal shoot growth in cranberry uprights to a long day, short day, long day photoperiodic sequence, Experiment 2 27 5 Response of rate of terminal shoot growth in uprights of cranberry to various daylength combinations 36 6a Effect of SADH pretreatments on the rate of terminal shoot growth in cranberry uprights, Field Experiment, 1975 39 6b Effect of SADH bloom treatments on the rate of terminal shoot growth in cranberry uprights, Field Experiment, 1975 39 7 Front view of a single cabinet showing the cart (c), lighting arrangement, and fan (f) and timeswitch (t) mounted on top 58 8 Structure of photoperiod cabinet 59 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to thank my r e s e a r c h s u p e r v i s o r , Dr. G. H. Eaton f o r h i s wholehearted support of t h i s study. I was pleased to accept the d i r e c t i o n and encouragement of the other members of ray committee. Dr. V. C. Runeckles and Dr. P. A. J o . l l . i f f e . The t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e provided by B. Mahrt, A. MacPherson, I . D e r i c s , C. McConnell and the greenhouse s t a f f i s g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged. I would l i k e to express my a p p r e c i a t i o n to Mr, Jim Thomas of Western Peat L t d . who k i n d l y s u p p l i e d the p l a n t m a t e r i a l and p l o t space. I wish a l s o to thank my wife and c h i l d r e n f o r t h e i r p a t i e n c e and encouragement throughout ray years as a student. The f i n a n c i a l support by the N a t i o n a l Research C o u n c i l of Canada i n the form of a 1967 Science S c h o l a r s h i p to the author and an op e r a t i n g grant t o Dr. Eaton are g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged. A grant from the B. C. Cranberry Marketing Board was s i n c e r e l y a p p r e c i a t e d . 1 INTRODUCTION The cranberry, Vaccinium niacrocar^on A i t . i s a t r a i l i n g woody vine. It i s often described as an evergreen since i t retains i t s leaves for about 2 years before they are shed. Short, v e r t i c a l l y growing branches, known h o r t i c u l t u r a l l y as uprights, develop from the horizontal vines or runners. The runners may grow year after year, pausing only for the winter season u n t i l they become several meters long. The uprights on the other hand display very shortened internodes and usually grow 5 to 7 cm each year. Variations i n habit occur but an upright may be produced from a l a t e r a l apex of a runner or i t may be a continued extension of a previously formed upright (Tallmann and Eaton, in press). It i s the uprights that normally produce the flowers and f r u i t , though flowers occur occasionally on runners i n a x i l l a r y positions (Warrington 1968). The terminal bud of the upright may be either mixed or completely vegetative. Generally a mixed bud exhibits d e f i n i t i v e morphological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that separate i t from nonflowering or vegetative buds. The mixed bud i s r e l a t i v e l y large and rounded, often almost spherical, and covered with t i g h t l y f i t t i n g scales whereas the vegetative bud i s often very small, elongate and sharp-pointed (Lacroix, 1926). The mixed bud begins to develop in late July and continues development u n t i l dormancy sets i n (Bergman, 1950). Flower i n i t i a t i o n i s v i s i b l e by late July i n Nova Scotia (Hall v and Newberry, 1972) and Wisconsin (Roberts and Struckraeyer, 1943), In Massachusetts august 10 was the e a r l i e s t date that i n i t i a t i o n was noticeable (Lacroix, 1926). In Washington, Crowley has simply stated that the f r u i t buds "become d i f f e r e n t i a t e d d u r i n g l a t e summer or f a l l p r i o r to the dormant season" (1 954) . Because the upright i s the flower-bearing structure and because one purpose of this study was to examine the induction of flowering, upright cuttings were chosen as the experimental material for controlled environment studies. However two problems were recognized i n growing upright cuttings i n the greenhouse. F i r s t l y , the mixed terminal buds of cranberry up-rights c o l l e c t e d from the f i e l d i n the f a l l are dormant. Dormancy must be broken to permit growth (Chandler and Demoranville, 1964; Eady and Eaton, 1969, 1972a). Secondly, cranberry growth i n the greenhouse does not resemble growth of uprights i n the f i e l d , except perhaps under short days (Eaton and Crmrod,. 1968; Rigby and Dana, 1972). The cuttings generally display extended internodes and a rapid rate of continuous growth. The r e s u l t i n g structures produced in the greenhouse probably also d i f f e r markedly in th e i r response to inductive conditions from uprights produced i n the f i e l d . Therefore i t i s necessary to find p r a c t i c a l methods of growing normal uprights i n the greenhouse to overcome these problems. Eady and Eaton (1972b) and Rigby and Dana (1972) demonstrated that either g i b b e r e l l i c acid (GA) or c h i l l i n g were capable of f u l f i l l i n g the rest reguirement of the dormant 3 terminal bud. C h i l l i n g as a means of breaking dormancy in cranberry had been investigated e a r l i e r by Chandler and Demoranville (1964). Cranberry responds strongly to photoperiod (Eaton and Ormrod, 1968; Rigby and Dana, 1972). Daylength of 15 hr ,or more promoted extensive vegetative growth whereas a photoperi-od of 12 hr or less strongly limited or even stopped growth. However very few flower primordia were produced. Those that were i n i t i a t e d appeared only in Short Day (SD) treatments. Eaton and Ormrod grew their runner cuttings at six daylengths i n i t i a l l y . They were 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 and 24 hr. The plants from each of these daylengths were transferred to each of three subsequent daylengths, namely 9, 15 and 21 hr. None of the combinations resulted in appreciable flower induction other than the few mentioned above. Doughty (1962) had reported that p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid was capable of increasing flower induction i f applied during bloom. That report supported evidence presented by Roberts and Struckmeyer (1943) that induction takes place during bloom since d e f o l i a t i o n on July 8 permitted no flower i n i t i a t i o n . (The blossom period extends approximately from mid June to mid July.) GA applied during bloom apparently decreased flower i n i t i a t i o n (Mainland and Eck, 1968). In an analogous s i t u a t i o n , succinic acid 2,2-dimethylhydrazide (SADH) applied to apple approximately 14 days after bloom at 1,000 to 2,000 ppm was able to increase the flowering response the following year (Batjer et a l . , 4 1964; L u c k w i l l , 1970 and W i l l i a m s , 1973). Pear f l o w e r i n i t i -a t i o n can a l s o be c h e m i c a l l y enhanced (Huet, 1973). J u s t as i n a p p l e and pear t h e g r e a t e s t response t o f l o w e r promoting c h e m i c a l s o c c u r s a s h o r t time a f t e r bloom, a c e r t a i n s t a g e may a l s o e x i s t i n c r a n b e r r y when t h e p l a n t i s most s u s c e p t i b l e t o f l o r a l i n d u c t i o n . T h e r e f o r e i t was one purpose o f t h e p r e s e n t study t o s u p p l y both p h o t o p e r i o d i c and SADH t r e a t m e n t s d u r i n g the blossom p e r i o d and t o r e c o r d the f l o w e r i n g r e s p o n s e . F u r t h e r m o r e , i t has been r e p o r t e d t h a t SADH can reduce a p i c a l dominance i n ap p l e ( W i l l i a m s 1973). I n c r a n b e r r y SADH may a l s o i n c r e a s e l a t e r a l b r a n c h i n g (Eaton, 1970). SADH causes a r e d u c t i o n i n the r a t e o f m i t o t i c d i v i s o n s i n the a p i c a l meristem (Wilde and E d g e r t o n , 1969). The r e s u l t a n t d e c r e a s e i n growth has been w e l l documented ( L u c k w i l l , 1970; Weaver, 1972; W e l l e n s i e k , 1973). By a p p l y i n g SADH at the o u t s e t of growth f o l l o w i n g the b r e a k i n g o f dormancy i t was hoped t h a t an u p r i g h t h a b i t c o u l d be m a i n t a i n e d and t h a t an i n c r e a s e i n b r a n c h i n g would be a c h i e v e d , t h e r e b y i n c r e a s i n g t h e p o t e n t i a l number o f u p r i g h t s . SADH has been a p p l i e d t o c r a n b e r r y i n the p a s t . Doughty and Scheer (1969) a p p l i e d SADH a t 2,500 ppm 2 weeks b e f o r e f u l l bloom, at f u l l bloom and 2 weeks a f t e r f u l l bloom. They r e p o r t e d t h a t bud break, growth o f new shoots f o l l o w i n g the r e s t p e r i o d , and blossom development were s t i m u l a t e d depending upon t h e ti m e o f a p p l i c a t i o n o f SADH. When a p p l i e d i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h GA, SADH i n c r e a s e d the f r u i t s e t and y i e l d over GA alone in some cases, though i t did not overcome the GA-induced increase in growth. No work on cranberry has sought a flowering response such as that obtained on other woody species due to application of chemical growth i n h i b i t o r s . Eck (1968, 1969, 1972) described preharvest ap-p l i c a t i o n s of SADH to cranberry that either had an adverse or no a f f e c t on berry color. In no case did i t adversely affect y i e l d or berry s i z e . Flower induction in cranberry occurs during or shortly aft e r f u l l bloom when daylength in North temperate lat i t u d e s has recently peaked and i s declining. These facts suggest that flower induction i n cranberry may be a response to a change i n daylength i n some p a r t i c u l a r combination, e. g. short to long, long to short or short to long to short. I t was proposed to examine that speculation further i n t h i s study. The flowering and f r u i t i n g habit of the cranberry has been surveyed i n Massachusetts (Bergman, 1949, 1950) , New Jersey (Bergman, 1954; Filmer, 1955), Wisconsin (Bain, 1946) and B r i t i s h Columbia (Garlick, 1966). Counts of uprights, flowers and f r u i t were reported. Occasionally a commercial bog exists that does not produce well. The condition i s apparently due to d e f i c i e n t growth which r e s u l t s in a poor stand of uprights. Not a l l the causes are known but poor stands often r e s u l t from inadeguate n u t r i t i o n a l l e v e l s i n the bog. Multiple spray applications of cytokinin have been used with some success i n promoting 6 branching in other woody species as a re s u l t of l a t e r a l buds being released from apical dominance. (Boswell and Storey, 1974; Render and Carpenter, 1972; Williams and Stahly, 1968). An increase i n the number of uprights i n cranberry as a resu l t of cytokinin-induced branching would be of commercial i n t e r e s t . The overa l l objectives of this study were, therefore: 1. to examine further the r e l a t i o n of photoperiod to growth and flower induction in the cranberry, 2. to establish a r e l a t i o n between SADH applications and growth and the induc-tion of flower i n i t i a t i o n i n the cranberry, and 3. to study the e f f e c t of multiple spray applications of the cytokinin, 6-benzylaminopurine on branching. 7 MATERIALS AND METHODS The p l a n t m a t e r i a l , l a c c i n i u m macrocarpon A i t A used throughout t h i s study o r i g i n a t e d from a commercial p l a n t i n g 1 i n Richmond, B r i t i s h Columbia. M c F a r l i n i s the major c u l t i v a r on the west coast and was used i n a l l experiments whereas Bergman was used o n l y i n Experiments 1 and 4. Anatomy of the Terminal Bud Bud samples were c o l l e c t e d from the f i e l d throughout the year and were f i x e d i n f o r m a l i n - a c e t i c a c i d , s e c t i o n e d l o n g i -t u d i n a l l y and s t a i n e d with a s a f r a n i n - c r y s t a l v i o l e t - l i g h t green s t a i n i n g seguence (Gerlach 1969) t o provide permanent microscope s l i d e s f o r examination. From September 1974 to A p r i l 1975, the buds were maintained i n two groups: apparent mixed buds and v e g e t a t i v e buds. S i x t y t h r e e apparent mixed buds and 36 v e g e t a t i v e buds were s e c t i o n e d and examined. Beginning i n May 1975, random c o l l e c t i o n s of buds were made at i n t e r v a l s and a l s o prepared f o r microscopic examination. T h i s l a t t e r group was s t u d i e d f o r the f i r s t appearance of f l o r a l i n i t i a l s t h a t would develop e v e n t u a l l y i n t o the f l o w e r s f o r the 1976 season. 1. Western Peat L t d . , Richmond, B r i t i s h Columbia. 8 C o n t r o l l e d Environment Experiments Jx£eriment jl T h i s experiment was designed to eva l u a t e the u s e f u l n e s s of g i b b e r e l l i c a c i d and c h i l l i n g i n breaking the dormancy of the t e r m i n a l bud f o r growth i n c o n t r o l l e d environments i n the study o f flower i n d u c t i o n . Three growth r e t a r d a n t s were a p p l i e d i n an attempt to maintain i n a c o n t r o l l e d environment the c o n s e r v a t i v e growth h a b i t of the f i e l d grown u p r i g h t . Upright c u t t i n g s o f the two c u l t i v a r s M c F a r l i n and Bergman were c o l l e c t e d from the f i e l d Sept. 15, 1974. They were s t o r e d i n a r e f r i g e r a t o r at 4.5°C u n t i l Oct. 18 when they were placed i n a greenhouse i n commercial sphagnum peat moss to r o o t under m i s t . The c u t t i n g s remained under the mist u n t i l Nov. 17, 1974 when they were t r a n s p l a n t e d i n t o 10 cm p l a s t i c pots, t h r e e p l a n t s per pot. These remained on a greenhouse bench u n t i l Nov. 29 when they were placed i n f o u r P e r c i v a l Model PGC-78 growth chambers eguipped with Partlow Model EC-15 thermal c o n t r o l l e r s . The daylength i n a l l f o u r chambers was 16 h r . Two chambers were programmed t o maintain a c h i l l i n g treatment of 4±1°C except f o r a 10 hr midday period d u r i n g which they were allowed t o warm up t o 8±1°C. The other two chambers s u p p l i e d n o n c h i l l i n g c o n d i t i o n s of 21±1°C midday maxima and 18±1°C minima at midnight. The c h i l l i n g treatment was maintained u n t i l December 19, 1974 (a p e r i o d of only 20 days) when the two chambers were reprogrammed t o provide con-d i t i o n s e g u i v a l e n t to the n o n c h i l l i n g treatment. During t h i s 9 i n i t i a l 20-day p e r i o d an aqueous s o l u t i o n of 1,000 ppm (mg/1) g i b b e r e l l i c a c i d (GA3 and GA7) was a p p l i e d t o one f i f t h of the p l a n t s t h r i c e at weekly i n t e r v a l s by p l a c i n g three drops (approximately 0.0375 ml) i n t o the r o s e t t e of l e a v e s surrounding the t e r m i n a l bud. A f t e r the c h i l l i n g treatments were terminated t h r e e other growth r e g u l a t o r s , SADH 1,500 ppm, c y c o c e l (CCC) 3,000 ppm and ancymidol 50 ppm, were a p p l i e d as aqueous sprays. The f i v e growth r e g u l a t o r treatments were c o n t r o l , GA, SADH, CCC and ancymidol. The experimental design employed was a 2X2X2x5 f a c t o r i a l with two a d d i t i o n a l l e v e l s of n e s t i n g . The f o u r chambers, then, were run with two chambers at each of two temperatures. Within each chamber 20 pots were arranged i n a completely randomized design p r o v i d i n g two pots of each c u l t i v a r - g r o w t h r e g u l a t o r treatment combination. The p l a n t s were watered d a i l y with tap water and f e r t i l i z e d weekly with 100 ml of an agueous n u t r i e n t s o l u t i o n m o d ified a f t e r Ingestad (1973) (Table 1) . The number of buds breaking dormancy i n each treatment was recorded. A r a t e of growth was c a l c u l a t e d from weekly measurements of t e r m i n a l shoot growth. A b r i e f r e p o r t of the r e s u l t s i s presented but because many of the p l a n t s d i e d , there were i n s u f f i c i e n t o b s e r v a t i o n s to perform a v a l i d s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . 10 Table 1. Cranberry n u t r i e n t s o l u t i o n modified a f t e r Ingestad (1973). N u t r i e n t P r o p o r t i o n by weight F i n a l C o n c e n t r a t i o n mg/1 Sources(s) N 100 60 KN03 Ca (N03) 2 NH4N03 P 13 7.8 NaH2P04.H20 K 50 30 KN03 Ca 7. 0 4.2 Ca (N03) 2. 4H20 Mg 8.5 5. 1 MgS04.7H20 S 12 7.2 MgS04.7H20 MnS04.H20 CuS04.5H20 ZnS04.7H20 Fe 0.7 0.42 Fe EDTA Mn 0.4 0.24 MnS04.H20 B 0.2 0.12 H3B03 Cu 0.03 0.18 CUS04.5H20 Zn 0.03 0.18 ZnS04.7H20 Mo 0.07 0.0042 Na2flo04.2H20 11 Ex£ej : i jTj_nt 2 Experiment 2 was designed to study the e f f e c t o f SADH a p p l i e d at the beginning of growth f o l l o w i n g c h i l l i n g and again during bloom, a t two photoperiods. A d d i t i o n a l photoperiod treatments were designed t o c o i n c i d e with the p e r i o d of s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to flower i n d u c t i o n . M c F a r l i n c u t t i n g s were again c o l l e c t e d from the f i e l d on November 21, 1974 and s e t i n peat to roo t the f o l l o w i n g day. On December 27, 1974, 200 of these c u t t i n g s were c h i l l e d i n a c o l d room at 4.5±1°C f o r 54 days (1,300 hr) with l i g h t i n g t h a t provided 16 hr l i g h t per day. At the end of the c h i l l i n g p e r i o d (February 19, 1975) 120 uniform c u t t i n g s were potted i n 7.62 cm square p l a s t i c pots, one per pot. Twenty p l a n t s were placed i n random p o s i t i o n s on each of s i x c a r t s . Each morning at 08:15 ( l o c a l time) the p l a n t s on the c a r t s were r o l l e d out of l i g h t - t i g h t wooden photoperiod c a b i n e t s (see Appendix I) s i t u a t e d on a greenhouse bench. Again each a f t e r n o o n a t 16:30 the c a r t s and p l a n t s were returned t o the c a b i n e t s and c l o s e d t o prevent l i g h t leakage. T h i s r o u t i n e was e s t a b l i s h e d to supply e q u i v a l e n t amounts of high i n t e n s i t y l i g h t f o r pho t o s y n t h e s i s t o a l l p l a n t s and, by s u p p l y i n g timed supplementary l i g h t i n g i n s i d e the c a b i n e t s i t was p o s s i b l e t o vary the photoperiod. The two daylengths chosen were 9 hr (SD) and 16 hr (ID). The t i m e c l o c k s were adju s t e d i n each case so that approximately one h a l f of the a d d i t i o n a l l i g h t i n g r e g u i r e d to make up the e n t i r e photoperiod was provided before and a f t e r 12 the d a y l i g h t exposure. F e r t i l i z a t i o n was c a r r i e d out using the n u t r i e n t s o l u t i o n d e f i n e d f o r Experiment 1. F i f t y ml were added bi-weekly. SADH was a p p l i e d a t two stages of p l a n t growth, the f i r s t stage (pretreatment) immediately f o l l o w i n g c h i l l i n g and p o t t i n g and the second during bloom (bloom treatment). At both stages an aqueous spray of 1,500 ppm SADH was a p p l i e d z e r o , one, two, or three times. S u c c e s s i v e a p p l i c a t i o n s were made at 2.-week i n t e r v a l s . However the t i m i n g of the second stage was somewhat a r b i t r a r y because very few of the p l a n t s a c t u a l l y developed f l o w e r s that opened (Tables 7, 9 and 10). The spray was d i r e c t e d onto the main a x i s of the rooted c u t -t i n g u n t i l the t e r m i n a l bud or growing p o i n t , stem and le a v e s were thoroughly wetted. A s u r f a c t a n t was not added to the spray. In a d d i t i o n t o the SADH treatments at bloom a p h o t o p e r i -odi c treatment was s u p p l i e d . F i v e p l a n t s from each of the three SD c a b i n e t s were interchanged i n random seguence with f i v e p l a n t s from each of the three LD c a b i n e t s . The 30 p l a n t s i n v o l v e d were allowed to remain i n the new arrangement f o r 14 days and then a l l p l a n t s were returned to t h e i r o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n s . In e f f e c t , then two treatments were p r o v i d e d . One s u p p l i e d SD c o n t i n u o u s l y except f o r a 2-week pe r i o d during bloom when i t s u p p l i e d LD, and co n v e r s e l y the other treatment s u p p l i e d LD c o n t i n u o u s l y except f o r the same 2-week period when i t provided SD. The temperature i n the greenhouse was maintained above 13 18°C throughout the growing period which extended to May 29, 1975. Weekly measurements of terminal growth were made. Below the dormant terminal bud a d i s t i n c t l i n e i s v i s i b l e that separates woody stem tissue from the more succulent bud t i s s u e . Growth measurement was taken from that l i n e to the t i p s of the extended leaves surrounding the bud or growing point. A growth rate per upright was calculated as the simple difference i n the length of terminal growth between successive weeks. However growth measurements were not taken for a p a r t i c u l a r upright u n t i l the bud had broken dormancy and was v i s i b l y elongating. Because the number of days to bud break was variable, incomplete sets of length measurements for the f i r s t 2 weeks of growth were not included in the analysis. The f i r s t growth rate calculated was for the 4th week. Length measurements were carried out weekly u n t i l the end of the 14th week when the terminal portion of the main axis of each plant was fixed and prepared for microscopic examination as outlined above. They were examined for presence of f l o r a l i n i t i a l s . The experiment was set up, c a r r i e d out and analyzed as a 2X3X4X5 f a c t o r i a l . The cabinets were set up to provide a completely random arrangement of the two photoperiods with three cabinets per photoperiod. The 4 l e v e l s of pretreatment and the f i v e l e v e l s of bloom treatment were arranged completely at random within each cabinet. Experiments 2 and 3 and the F i e l d Experiment ware analyzed by the Analysis of Variance and Student-Neuman-Keuls multiple range te s t (SNK). 14 I_£_£____t 3 The t h i r d experiment was s e t up to simulate i n a c o n t r o l l e d environment the change i n daylength experienced i n the f i e l d . Booted u p r i g h t c u t t i n g s f o r t h i s experiment were taken from the same c o l l e c t i o n as f o r Experiment 2. They were allowed to remain under mist from November 22, 1974 u n t i l A p r i l 28, 1975, when they were c h i l l e d at 4.5°C i n 1 of the P e r c i v a l growth chambers. The daylength was 16 hr. The c u t -t i n g s were maintained i n two groups i n the chamber f o r a 6 week p e r i o d . Twenty fo u r uniform buds from each of the groups were chosen to enter the s i x photoperiod c a b i n e t s i n the greenhouse. The greenhouse was again maintained above 18°C. I h i l e i n the c a b i n e t s , the c u t t i n g s were r e t a i n e d i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l groupings so t h a t there were two groups of f o u r buds i n each c a b i n e t . Six photoperiod treatments were assigned a t random, one to each c a b i n e t . The treatments are l i s t e d i n Table 2. The experiment ran u n t i l October 30, 1975 f o r a growing p e r i o d of 20 weeks. Approximately 50 ml of the n u t r i e n t s o l u t i o n were added per p l a n t bi-weekly. Terminal growth measurements analogous to those d e s c r i b e d f o r Experiment 2 were made du r i n g the f i r s t 15 weeks. Complete r e c o r d s were not a v a i l a b l e u n t i l the 4th week. A n a l y s i s f o r the 14th and 15th weeks was c a r r i e d out s e p a r a t e l y because of damage to some p l a n t s . 15 Table 2. Seguence and d u r a t i o n of photoperiods i n Experiment 3. Duration Treatment. Photoperiod (weeks) 1 9 20 2 9 2 12 18 3 9 2 12 2 14 16 4 9 2 12 2 14 2 16 14 5 9 2 12 2 14 2 16 2 13 12 6 9 2 12 2 14 2 16 2 13 2 9 10 16 At the end of the 20th week the growth that had been produced during the experiment was harvested to permit f i n a l measurements i n the laboratory. Each terminal growing point or bud was subjectively c l a s s i f i e d as either having mixed or vegetative bud morphology. The number of a c t i v e l y growing apices was also recorded. A f i n a l length measurement was taken and the internodes were counted. F i n a l l y the terminal buds or growing points were fixed and sectioned as i n Experiment 2. Experiment 4 The ef f e c t of multiple spray applications on branch i n i t i a t i o n was studied in t h i s experiment. Runner cuttings of the two c u l t i v a r s McFarlin and Bergman were co l l e c t e d from the f i e l d May 27 and 29, 19 75, They were trimmed such that the 10 youngest a x i l l a r y buds of the growth produced in 1974 remained. They were rooted in peat under mist i n the greenhouse. The cuttings were transplanted into 7.62 cm sguare p l a s t i c pots and placed on a Conviron Model GB48 growth bench. The a i r temperature was maintained at 23±1°C. F e r t i l i z a t i o n was carried out as i n Experiment 2. Applications of the cytokinin 6-benzylaminopurine (BA) were made zero, one, two, three, and four times at three concentrations 250, 500 and 750 ppm. The i n t e r v a l between ap-pl i c a t i o n s was one week with the f i r s t application being made on June 26, 1975, The BA was made up in acid aqueous solution 17 (pH=2.2) to which Tween 20, a commercial surfactant, had been added at the rate of 1 ml/1 (1,000 ppm). Spraying was carried out so that the entire cutting, including a l l of the a x i l l a r y buds, was thoroughly wetted. A number of buds had assumed active elongation when the f i r s t application was made. Therefore the number of branches per cutting was recorded on that date (June 26) . The number of branches was counted again on August 7, August 22 and September 5. The 90 pots were arranged in a completely randomized design on the growth bench providing three pots per c u l t i v a r , concentration and application combination. Analysis was carried out by the Analysis of Covariance and the Student-Neuman-Keuls Test (SNK) • F i e l d Experiment SADH was applied in the f i e l d to study i t s ef f e c t s on growth and flowering. This experiment was carried out in the summer of 1975 on the commercial planting from which the cut-tings for the controlled environment experiments had been co l l e c t e d . Two bogs of producing McFarlin vines were chosen. They were separated i n lo c a t i o n and probably d i f f e r e d in age and perhaps i n culture. Within each bog, a 7x7 m block was chosen that was r e l a t i v e l y free of weeds and uniform i n density of uprights. Nine 1 m square plots were set out in each block such that there were three rows of three plots with each i n d i v i d u a l plot separated from i t s neighbour or from the adjacent bog area by a 1 m border area. 18 SADH was a p p l i e d at two stages of growth i n each block. Zero, one or two a p p l i c a t i o n s were made a t each stage and a randomized 3X3 f a c t o r i a l arrangement was used t o a s s i g n the treatments to the p l o t s i n each b l o c k . There was a 2-week i n t e r v a l between the f i r s t and second a p p l i c a t i o n s . The f i r s t stage (pretreatment) was chosen to c o i n c i d e with the i n i t i a l s w e l l i n g of the o v e r w i n t e r i n g t e r m i n a l and a x i l l a r y buds. The second stage (bloom) began when the f i r s t f l o w e r s had opened. A p p l i c a t i o n s were made on May 7 and 21 during the pretreatment stage and June 17 and J u l y 2 during bloom. The SADH was made up i n agueous s o l u t i o n to a c o n c e n t r a t i o n of 1,500 ppm. The s u r f a c t a n t Tween 20 was added to the s o l u t i o n a t the r a t e of 1 ml/1 (1,000 ppm). Spray ap-p l i c a t i o n was c a r r i e d out using a hand operated 9.1 1 (2 gal) sprayer u n t i l the f o l i a g e was thoroughly wetted. This r e q u i r e d approximately 0.42 l/m 2 (4,200 1/ha). Terminal growth measurements as d e t a i l e d i n Experiment 2 were taken on f i v e tagged u p r i g h t s i n each p l o t each week u n t i l growth ceased. Two samples from each p l o t were c o l l e c t e d on September 30 and October 1 and 2, s h o r t l y before commercial h a r v e s t . Each sample was c a r e f u l l y c u t out of the mat of growth from within a randomly placed square frame, 400 cm 2 i n area. Each sample then i n c l u d e d u p r i g h t s , f l o w e r p e d i c e l s , runners and f r u i t . In the l a b o r a t o r y , measurements were made of u p r i g h t l e n g t h and runner l e n g t h per sample. Counts were made of the number of p e d i c e l s , f r u i t , t o t a l up-r i g h t s , f l o w e r i n g and nonflowering u p r i g h t s , i n t e r n o d e s , and the number of f l o w e r i n g and nonflowering u p r i g h t s t h a t produced mixed and v e g e t a t i v e t e r m i n a l buds. The weight of f r u i t per sample was a l s o recorded. 20 RESULTS Anatomy of the Terminal Bud A l l 63 of the a p p a r e n t l y mixed buds c o l l e c t e d between Sept. 1974 and A p r i l 1975 c o n t a i n e d f l o r a l a p i c e s i n l a t e r a l p o s i t i o n s i n the dormant buds. Only one of the 36 a p p a r e n t l y v e g e t a t i v e buds had a c t u a l l y developed any f l o r a l i n i t i a l s . I n i t i a t i o n of f l o r a l p a r t s was f i r s t m i c r o s c o p i c a l l y v i s i b l e i n the developing t e r m i n a l bud by J u l y 29, 1975 ( F i g . 1). The bud c o l l e c t i o n of J u l y 15, 1975 d i d not show any f l o r a l i n i t i a t i o n . C o n t r o l l e d Environment ExEerimgnts Experiment 1_ Because of the d i f f e r e n c e i n a p p l i c a t i o n procedure the GA treatment should not be compared with the other growth r e g u l a t o r treaments. Only a s m a l l percentage fewer buds broke dormancy i n the absence of both GA and c h i l l i n g than t r e a t e d buds (Table 3). Growth was i n c r e a s e d by GA over c o n t r o l but a decrease from c o n t r o l was a s s o c i a t e d with a l l three growth r e t a r d a n t s (Table 4 ) . 21 Fig. 1. Terminal bud (1-s.) collected July 29, 1975 showing flower-bud initiation. Initials were not found in earlier collections. 480X. (f - floral apex, v - vegetative apex, 1 - leaf primordium) 21a 22 Table 3. Experiment 1. The percent buds breaking dormancy i n response to c h i l l i n g and GA. No c h i l l i n g +GA 100% No c h i l l i n g -GA 89.5 C h i l l i n g +GA 100 C h i l l i n g -GA 100 Table 4. Experiment 1. Effect of growth regulators on terminal shoot growth of cranberry uprights. Final length Rate of terminal of growth (cm) (cm/day) Control 20.33 0.51 GA 25.76 0.62 SADH 16.26 0.41 Cycocel 14.23 0.4 2 Ancymidol 18.38 0.47 23 J f X^eriment 2 Rate o f t e r m i n a l shoot growth was much g r e a t e r under LD than SD {Fig. 2). leek 4, the e a r l i e s t date f o r which a r a t e c o u l d be c a l c u l a t e d demonstrated a f a s t e r r a t e of growth under LD than under SD. T h i s d i f f e r e n c e was maintained throughout the experiment. By the 8th week growth was e s s e n t i a l l y 0.0 cm/wk f o r p l a n t s under SD, Growth i n LD was c o n t i n u i n g even at the t e r m i n a t i o n of the experiment when the r a t e was n e a r l y one h a l f t h a t observed e a r l y i n the experiment f o r the same p l a n t s . The mean len g t h of t e r m i n a l growth c a l c u l a t e d over the l a s t 12 weeks was s u b s t a n t i a l l y g r e a t e r f o r p l a n t s growing under ID than under SD (Table 5) . A f t e r the end of c h i l l i n g , bud break occurred i n fewer days f o r u p r i g h t s grown under LD than f o r those under SD. The number and l e n g t h of branches were g r e a t e r under LD than under SD. While there was no e f f e c t on the number of open f l o w e r s , more f l o w e r s i n t o t a l ( i . e . opened and unopened) developed from i n i t i a l s a l r e a d y present before c o l l e c t i o n from the f i e l d under LD than under SD (Table 5). Growth c o u l d e f f e c t i v e l y be turned o f f and on by s w i t c h i n g photoperiod ( F i g . 3 and 4). P l a n t s grown i n SD stopped growth by the 7th week but had resumed measureable e l o n g a t i o n by the end of the second week f o l l o w i n g the change to LD. When the p l a n t s were r e t u r n e d to SD growth again ceased. The converse s i t u a t i o n (LD-SD-LD) produced p l a n t s 24 Fig. 2. Effect of photoperiod on rate of terminal shoot growth in cranberry, Experiment 2. (SD - 9hr, LD - 16 hr) IV) 25 T a b l e 5. Experiment 2. The e f f e c t of photoperiod on the growth and f l o w e r i n g of rooted ' M c F a r l i n * u p r i g h t c u t t i n g s grown i n the greenhouse. Photoperiod »9 hr 16 hr Days to bud break 9.5a 7.8b No. of branches 2.4b 3.8a T o t a l l e n g t h of branches (cm) 13.7b 62.2a No. of open f l o w e r s 0.1a 0.3a T o t a l no. of flowers 0.4b 2.0a Mean l e n g t h of t e r m i n a l (cm) 7.3b 17.1a s e p a r a t i o n w i t h i n row by F t e s t . 26 Fig. 3. Response of rate of terminal shoot growth in cranberry uprights to a short day, long day, short day photoperiodic sequence, Experiment 2. SD-LD-LD indicates plants grown in 9 hr for 7 weeks, 16 hr for weeks 8 and 9 and 9 hr for the remainder of the period. SD plants were in 9 hr throughout. Growth rate (cm/week) 27 Fig. 4. Response of rate of terminal shoot growth in cranberry uprights to a long day, short day, long day photoperiodic sequence, Experiment 2. LD-SD-LD indicates plants grown in 16 hr for 7 weeks, 9 hr for weeks 8 and 9 and 16 hr for the remainder of the period. LD plants were in 16 hr throughout. Growth rate (cm/week) 28 t h a t grew c o n t i n u o u s l y under LD, stopped under SD but grew again when returned to LD. Of the v a r i a b l e s r e p o r t e d i n Table 6 a change i n photo-p e r i o d i n e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n a f f e c t e d o n l y the l e n g t h of branches. SD-LD-SD i n c r e a s e d t h e i r l e n g t h over c o n t r o l whereas LD-SD-LD decreased the t o t a l . I t should be noted that the number of open flowers and the t o t a l number of flowers i n Tables 6, 8 and 10 r e f e r to f l o w e r s developed from i n i t i a l s induced i n the f i e l d p r i o r to c o l l e c t i o n . I t was i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t growth under SD had r e s t a r t e d before the end of the experiment, and t h a t the r a t e of growth f o r week 14 was g r e a t e r than f o r the weeks immediately preceding i t ( F i g . 2). The e f f e c t s of SADH a p p l i c a t i o n were f a r l e s s dramatic than those of photoperiod. For p l a n t s grown under LD, more than 1 SADH pretreatment a p p l i c a t i o n reduced the growth r a t e during the f i r s t 6 weeks of growth (Table 7 ) . A r e d u c t i o n i n the mean length of t e r m i n a l was a s s o c i a t e d with t h r e e pre-treatment a p p l i c a t i o n s of SADH (Table 8). The o n l y SADH bloom treatment e f f e c t under LD was an i n h i b i t i o n of e l o n g a t i o n i n the branches (Table 9). There were no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s of SADH treatment under SD (Tables 7, 8, 9 and 10). M i c r o s c o p i c examination of the buds or growing p o i n t s r e v e a l e d t h a t o n l y 4 out of 119 buds had developed f l o r a l primordia„ However, these occurred only under SD. There was 29 Table 6. Experiment 2. The e f f e c t of changing photoperiod on growth and f l o w e r i n g of r o o t e d ' M c F a r l i n ' u p r i g h t c u t t i n g s grown i n the greenhouse. •SD* and 'LD' i n d i c a t e 9 hr and 16 hr photoperiod r e s p e c t i v e l y throughout the experiment. 'SD-LD-SD' i n d i c a t e s those p l a n t s r e c e i v i n g 9 hr d a i l y except f o r a 2 week p e r i o d a t 16 hr durin g weeks 8 and 9. *LD-SD-LD* i n d i c a t e s p l a n t s r e c e i v i n g 16 hr d a i l y except f o r a 2 week p e r i o d at 9 hr during weeks 8 and 9. 1 2 3 4 SD SD-LD-SD LD LD-SD-LD No. of 2.2a 2.4a 4.2a 3.8a branches T o t a l length of branches (cm) 13.0b 22.3a 73.5a 44.1c No. of open fl o w e r s 0.0a 0.2a 0.1a 0.1a T o t a l no. Of f l o w e r s 0.2a 1.1a 1.8a 1.9a Mean l e n g t h of t e r m i n a l (cm) 7.0a . 8.3a 18.1a 15.3a Mean s e p a r a t i o n w i t h i n row f o r the p a i r s of columns 1 and 2 or 3 and 4 by SNK t e s t , 5% l e v e l , based on ANOVfl t h a t i n c l u d e d a l l 5 l e v e l s of f a c t o r 'bloom'. Table 7. Experiment 2. The e f f e c t of SADH pretreatment at 2 photoperiods on the t e r m i n a l growth r a t e of 'McFarlin* u p r i g h t c u t t i n g s grown i n the greenhouse(cm/wk). SADH was a p p l i e d at the beginning of week 1, at the end of week 2 and again at the end of week 4. Photoperiod 9 hr Treatment 1 2 SADH a p p l i c . 0 1 Week 4 1.3a 1.6a 5 1.0ab 1.3a 6 0.3a 0.4a 7 0.1a 0.1a 8 0.0a 0.0a 9 0.0a 0.1a 10 0.0a 0.0a 11 0.0a 0.0a 12 0.0a 0.0a 13 0.1a 0.0a 14 0.2a 0.3a 16 hr 3 4 1 2 3 0 0.8a 1.6a 2.4a 0.6b 0.6b 2.9a 0.3a 0.2a 2.5a 0.0a 0.0a 1.9a 0.0a 0.0a 2.1a 0.0a 0.0a 1.5a 0.0a 0.0a 0.7a 0.0a 0.0a 1.1a 0.0a 0.0a 1.1a 0.2a 0.0a 0.7a 0.4a 0.2a 0.8a 2 3 4 1 2 3 2.2a 1.6b 1.4b 2.6a 2.1b 1.3c 2.4a 2.3a 1.3b 1.7a 2.2a 1.2a 1.6a 1.8a 1.5a 1.4a 2.0a 1.0a 0.7a 1.2a 0.8a 0.6a 1.3a 0.9a 0.6a 1.3a 0.9a 0.9a 1.2a 0.8a 0.5a 1.2a 0.5a Mean s e p a r a t i o n w i t h i n row f o r a s i n g l e photoperiod by SNK t e s t , 5% l e v e l . Changing photoperiod data are not i n c l u d e d and the a n a l y s i s i s based on t a b l e s s i m i l a r to those i n Appendix I I I . Table 8. Experiment 2. The e f f e c t of SADH pretreatments at 2 photoperiods on growth and f l o w e r i n g of 'McFarlin* u p r i g h t c u t t i n g s grown i n the greenhouse. Photoperiod 9 hr 16 hr Treatment 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 SADH a p p l i c . 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 Days to bud break 9.4a 8.9a 8.3a 10.7a 7.6a 7.5a 8.5a 8.1a No. of branches 2.4a 2.6a 2.3a 2.4a 3.4a 3.7a 4.0a 4.3a T o t a l l e n g t h of branches (cm) 17.2a 17.2a 13.4a 14.1a 57.7a 49.7a 60.5a 66.6a No. of open fl o w e r s 0.1a 0.3a 0.0a 0.0a 0.6a 0.2a 0.1a 0.2a T o t a l no. of f l o w e r s 0.3a 0.5a 0.6a 0.7a 2.2a 1.9a 2.2a 1.8a Mean l e n g t h of t e r m i n a l (cm) (weeks 3-14) 8.0ab 8.2a 7.0b 6.8b 18.6a. 17.8a 16.6a 13.9b Mean s e p a r a t i o n w i t h i n row f o r a s i n g l e photoperiod by SNK t e s t , 5% l e v e l . Changing photoperiod data are not i n c l u d e d and the a n a l y s i s i s based on t a b l e s s i m i l a r t c those i n Appendix I I I . Table 9. Experiment 2. The ef f e c t of SADH applications durinq bloom on the rate of terminal shoot growth of 'McFarlin* upriqht cuttings grown i n the greenhouse (cm/wk) . Photoperiod 9 hr 16 hr Treatment 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 SADH applic. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 Week 4 1. ,7 1. 3 1. 5 0. ,9 1. 9 2. 0 1. 9 1. 8 5 0, ,5 1. 0 1. 0 1. ,0 2. 3 2. 2 2. 3 2. 2 6 0. , 2 0. 3 0. 5 0. ,3 2. 3 2. 1 2. 0 2. 2 7* 0. ,1 0. 1 0. 1 0. , 1 2. 1 1. 6 1. 6 1. 6 8 0. ,0 0. 0 0. 0 0. ,0 2. 2 1. 7 1. 5 1. 6 9* 0, , 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. ,0 1. 8 1. 4 1. 3 1. 4 10 0, .0 0. 0 0. 0 0. ,0 1. 2 0. 9 0. 7 0. 8 11* 0. ,0 0. 0 0. 0 0, ,0 1. 4 0. 9 0. 8 1. 0 12 0. ,0 0. 0 0. 0 0. ,0 1. 3 1. 0 0. 8 0. 8 13 0. . 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. .0 0. 9 1. 0 0. 9 0. 8 14 0. , 3 0. 2 0. 4 0, .2 0. 8 1. 0 0. 7 0. 6 * - indicates SADH applications. Means within row for a single photoperiod were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , SNK test, 5% l e v e l . These data were analyzed without the 5th treatment shown i n Appendix I I I . Table 10. Experiment 2. The e f f e c t of SADH a p p l i c a t i o n s during bloom on growth and f l o w e r i n g of ' M c F a r l i n ' u p r i g h t c u t t i n g s grown i n the greenhouse. Photoperiod 9 hr 16 hr Treatment 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 SADH a p p l i c . 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 No. of branches 2.2a 2.5a 2.8a 2.2a 4.2a 3.7a 3.7a 3.8a T o t a l l e n g t h of branches (cm) 13.0a 15.2a 14.2a 12.6a 73.5a 68.0ab 57.1abc 50.4bc No. of open f l o w e r s 0.0a 0.1a 0.1a 0.1a 0.1a 0.5a 0.2a 0.5a T o t a l no. Of f l o w e r s 0.2a 0.5a 0.5a 0.3a 1.8a 2.3a 1.8a 1.9a Mean l e n g t h of t e r m i n a l (cm) 7.0a 7.2a 8.0a 7.0a 18.1a 16.9a 16.7a 16.7a Mean s e p a r a t i o n w i t h i n row f o r a s i n g l e photoperiod by SNK t e s t , 5% l e v e l . These data were analyzed with the 5th treatment shown i n Appendix I I I . 34 no apparent r e l a t i o n of i n i t i a t i o n to SADH a p p l i c a t i o n . The data from t h i s experiment are summarized i n Table 11 and F i g . 5. I t should be noted t h a t the treatments are u n r e p l i c a t e d and t h e r e f o r e , are confounded with l o c a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , the data must be i n t e r p r e t e d with c a u t i o n . They are presented on the assumption that l o c a t i o n e f f e c t s on the v a r i a b l e s s t u d i e d are minor. P l a n t s given only 9 hr days showed a very low r a t e of growth (Tr. 1, F i g . 5). Indeed by the end of Seek 11 a l l p l a n t s of Treatment 1 had stopped growing. Treatment 2, given 9 hr f o r 2 weeks and 12 hr t h e r e a f t e r grew very s l o w l y as w e l l ( F i g . 5), but i t was not u n t i l some time a f t e r Week 15 t h a t a l l p l a n t s had ceased growing. Treatments 3 and 4 e x h i b i t e d r a p i d r a t e s of growth throughout. Each of them had r e c e i v e d 2 weeks at each of 9 and 12 hr, but f o r the p e r i o d shown i n F i g . 5 they were under 14 or 16 hr days. Treatment 5 r e c e i v e d 9, 12, 14, 16 and 13 hr. The 13 hr photoperiod began at Week 8 but i t was not u n t i l Week 13 th a t growth f i n a l l y slowed. At the end of the experiment only two out of e i g h t a p i c e s were s t i l l a c t i v e l y growing. Treatment 6 r e c e i v e d 9, 12, 14, 16, 13, and 9 hr days c o n s e c u t i v e l y . , Growth i n Treatment 6 d i d not subside u n t i l a f t e r the f i n a l 9 hr photoperiod was i n i t i -ated i n Week 10. Growth stopped g u i c k l y i n a l l 8 p l a n t s . F i n a l l e n g t h and i n t e r n o d e number and l e n g t h a re shown i n Table 11. Table 11. Experiment 3. E f f e c t s of changing photoperiod on cranberry growth. Treatment 1 . 2 3 4 5 6 Photoperiod(hr) 9 9 12 9 12 14 9 12 1U 16 9 12 14 16 13 9 12 14 16 13 9 Duration 20 2 18 2 2 16 2 2 2 14 2 2 2 2 12 2 2 2 2 2 10 (wks) Growth rate i n weeks 5-13(cm/wk) 0.1a 0.4a 1.9a 1.8a 1.8a 1.2a Growth rate in weeks 14-15 (cm/wk) 0.0c 0.3bc 1.0ab 1.3a 0.4bc 0.0c Length aft e r 15 weeks (cm) 3.2c 7.5bc 22.6a 22.2a 16.4ab 13.5ab Length aft e r 20 weeks (cm) 2.7b 7„5ab 28.8a 28.8a 20.6ab 12.8ab No. of internodes after 20 weeks 29d 46cd 100a 106a 74b 57bc Mean internode length af t e r 20 weeks (cm) 0.09a 0.16a 0.28a 0.27a 0.26a 0.22a No. of apparent mixed buds(out of 8) la 5a 0a 0a 5a 0a No. of apices (out of 8) growing a f t e r 20 weeks 0b 0b 7a 7a 2b 0b Mean separation within a row by SNK test, 5% l e v e l . cn 36 Fig. 5. Response of rate of terminal shoot growth in uprights of cranberry to various daylength combinations. Labels indicate treatment number. See text for explanation of photoperiod sequence. Growth rate (cm/week) 37 E l e v e n t e r m i n a l buds r e s e m b l e d i n a l l e x t e r n a l r e s p e c t s mixed buds c o l l e c t e d f r o m t h e f i e l d ( T a b l e 1 1 ) , b u t upon d i s s e c t i o n o n l y two buds i n T r e a t m e n t 2 showed any f l o r a l p a r t i n i t i a l s . Thus w h i l e m a c r o s c o p i c e x a m i n a t i o n has been shown a d e q u a t e t o c l a s s i f y f i e l d grown buds a s i n i t i a t e d o r n o t , t h e same i s not n e c e s s a r i l y t r u e f o r buds p r o d u c e d i n c o n t r o l l e d e n v i r o n m e n t s . l2E_____nt it T h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between a d j u s t e d t r e a t m e n t means ( T a b l e 12) . F i e l d E x p e r i m e n t The e f f e c t o f SADH t r e a t m e n t on t h e r a t e o f u p r i g h t g r o w t h i s shown i n F i g . 6. E a c h c u r v e i s l a b e l l e d t o i n d i c a t e t h e number o f a p p l i c a t i o n s . U p r i g h t s t r e a t e d t w i c e w i t h SADH a t t h e p r e t r e a t m e n t s t a g e e x h i b i t e d a s l o w e r r a t e o f g r o w t h t h a n u n t r e a t e d p l a n t s d u r i n g t h e weeks o f May 27 and June 3, 1975 o n l y ( F i g . 6 a ) . S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s a l s o showed a d e c r e a s e i n r a t e o f growth from c o n t r o l p l a n t s on J u n e .3 f o r u p r i g h t s t r e a t e d o nce d u r i n g bloom ( F i g . 6b) . Two a p p l i c a t i o n s d u r i n g bloom r e s u l t e d i n a growth r a t e d e c r e a s e d u r i n g t h e week o f J u l y 2. E i t h e r one o r two bloom a p p l i c a -t i o n s d e c r e a s e d g r o w t h J u l y 15. Growth i n a l l t r e a t m e n t s had e s s e n t i a l l y c e a s e d by t h e end o f J u l y . However i s o l a t e d up-r i g h t s c o n t i n u e d t o grow i n t o August and p r e v e n t e d t h e mean Table 12. Experiment 4. The adjusted mean number of branches associated with 6-benzylaminopurine applications to 2 c u l t i v a r s of cranberry. Cone. NO. of August 7 August 22 Sept. 5 (ppm) applic. Bergman McFarlin Bergman McFarlin Bergman McFi 250 0 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.6 3.3 3.9 1 1.8 3.4 2. 2 3.5 3.5 4. 1 2 3. 3 2.7 3.2 3.4 4.3 4.4 3 2.3 2.4 3.6 3.5 4.6 4. 8 4 1.8 4.3 2.5 4. 3 4.1 ' 4.3 500 0 3.0 3.0 3.6 3. 1 4.3 3.7 1 2.4 2.4 2.8 3.5 5. 1 3.4 2 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.6 3 2.5 2.6 3. 2 2. 9 5.5 3.2 4 2. 1 2. 4 2.1 2. 4 4.4 3.4 750 0 3.5 2.3 3.5 3.0 4.8 3.6 1 3.4 2.0 3.7 2.3 4.0 3. 0 2 2.5 2. 3 3.2 3.3 3.8 3.6 3 2.3 3.4 3.3 4.0 4.3 4. 7 4 1.9 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.4 Data are means of 3 observations each. Dates were analysed separately. COVAR indicated no s i g n i f i c a n t main effects or in t e r a c t i o n s . 39 Fig. 6a. Effect of SADH pretreatments on the rate of terminal shoot growth in cranberry uprights, Field Experiment, 1975. Labels indicate number of applications. Fig. 6b. Effect of SADH bloom treatments on the rate of terminal shoot growth in cranberry uprights, Field Experiment, 1975. Labels indicate number of applications. 40 r a t e of growth from f a l l i n g completely t o 0,0 cra/wk, SADH a p p l i c a t i o n s d i d not a l t e r the t o t a l number cf up-r i g h t s , the number of f l o w e r i n g u p r i g h t s , the number of f r u i t , the weight of the f r u i t nor the len g t h of runners produced i n 1975 on a per guadrat b a s i s (400 cm 2) (Table 13). Indeed SADH pretreatments produced a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on only one v a r i a b l e . The number of p e d i c e l s per f l o w e r i n g u p r i g h t was i n c r e a s e d by e i t h e r 1 or 2 sprays (Tables 13 and 14). Howe-ver , SADH a p p l i c a t i o n during bloom decreased the l e n g t h of up-r i g h t produced without producing a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the number of i n t e r n o d e s or the mean int e r n o d e l e n g t h . Otherwise bloom treatments caused no e f f e c t on f l o w e r i n g and f r u i t i n g d u r i n g the 1975 season (Table 14). The bloom treatments d i d i n f l u e n c e the p r o p o r t i o n of mixed buds developed out of the t o t a l number of u p r i g h t s . A gr e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of u p r i g h t s produced mixed buds i f sprayed twice with SADH during bloom than i f unsprayed. When the u p r i g h t s were d i v i d e d i n t o two groups (those f l o w e r i n g i n 1975 and those not f l o w e r i n g i n 1975) i t was found i n both groups that the r a t i o of mixed buds produced to the t o t a l number of u p r i g h t s was i n c r e a s e d by two a p p l i c a t i o n s of SADH during bloom. At the same time, a s i g n i -f i c a n t decrease i n the r a t i o was recorded f o r f l o w e r i n g up-r i g h t s t r e a t e d once with SADH. I t was a l s o i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t there was a strong tendency to b i e n n i a l bearing f o r i n d i v i d u a l u p r i g h t s (Table 15) . Table 13. F i e l d Experiment. The e f f e c t of SADH on the growth , flowerinq and f r u i t i n g of producing 'McFarlin' cranberry. Data are based on samples c o l l e c t e d from 2 400cm2 quadrats randomly positioned i n each plot. Pretreatment Bloom SACH app l i c . 0 1 2 0 1 2 No. of upriqhts 210a 214a 227a 226a 205a 220a No. of flowering uprights 96a 86a 99a 102a 80a 99a No. of f r u i t 119a 111a 116a 126a 103a 118a F r u i t weight (gm) 89a 89a 84a 97a 80a 85a Runner length (cm) (produced in 1975) 123a 112a 158a 150a 111a 132a Current season upright: Length (cm) 7.2a 6.5a 7.2a 7.7a 6.7b 6.4b No. of internodes 45a 42a 43a 45a 43a 42a Internode length (cm) 0. 16a 0.15a 0.17a 0. 17a 0.16a 0. 16a Mean separation within row for a single photoperiod by SNK test, 5% l e v e l . Table 14. F i e l d Experiment. The e f f e c t of SADH on the f l o w e r i n g and f r u i t i n g of producing ' M c F a r l i n 1 c r a n b e r r y . Data are based on samples c o l l e c t e d from 2 400cm 2 guadrats randomly p o s i t i o n e d i n each p l o t . SADH a p p l i c . No. of p e d i c e l s per f l o w e r i n g u p r i g h t No. of f r u i t per f l o w e r i n g u p r i g h t Weight per f r u i t (gm) % f r u i t s e t No. f l o w e r i n g u p r i g h t s per t o t a l u p r i g h t s No. mixed buds per t o t a l u p r i g h t s No. f l o w e r i n g u p r i g h t s with mixed buds per f l o w e r i n g u p r i g h t s No. of nonflowering u p r i g h t s with mixed buds per non-f l o w e r i n g u p r i g h t s Pretreatment 0 1 2 3.1b 3.4a 3.4a 1.2a 1.3a 1.2a 0.74b 0.82a 0.74b 40.3a 38.4a 35.7a 0.46a 0.40a 0.43a 0.48a 0.50a 0.54a 0.36a 0.33a 0.38a 0.58a 0.61a 0.65a Bloom 0 1 2 3.3a 3.2a 3.3a 1.2a 1.3a 1.2a 0.77ab 0.80a 0.72b 37.5a 40.7a 36.2a 0.45a 0.38b 0.45a 0.46b 0.47b 0.57a 0.36b 0.25c 0.46a 0.55b 0.63a 0.66a Mean s e p a r a t i o n w i t h i n row f o r a s i n g l e stage by SNK t e s t , 5% l e v e l . 4 3 Table 15. The b i e n n i a l f l o w e r i n g h a b i t of i n d i v i d u a l u p r i g h t s , F i e l d Experiment. The data r e p o r t the number of u p r i g h t s bearing mixed buds as a percent of the t o t a l u p r i g h t s i n each category. Flowering u p r i g h t s (1975) 37.36b±2.15* Nonflowering u p r i g h t s (1975) 61.04a±1.89* Mean s e p a r a t i o n by F t e s t , p<0.01. * i n d i c a t e s a 99% confidence i n t e r v a l . 44 DISCUSSION I t i s true that GA w i l l break dormancy of the t e r m i n a l bud (Eady and Eaton, 1972; Rigby and Dana, 1972), thereby making s u b s t a n t i a l savings i n time. However i t was apparent upon completion of Experiment 1 t h a t GA was u n s u i t a b l e f o r t h i s study because i t c o n t r i b u t e d to the e x c e s s i v e growth of the u p r i g h t i n c o n t r o l l e d environments. The p e r i o d of s t o r a g e i n the r e f r i g e r a t o r before the s t a r t of the experiment was s u f f i c i e n t to f u l f i l l the r e s t p e r i o d requirements of the t e r m i n a l bud, s i n c e there was very l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between GA-treated and c h i l l e d p l a n t s with r e s p e c t to budbreak. C h i l l i n g was accepted as the more u s e f u l means of breaking dormancy. The growth r e t a r d a n t s were unable to c o n t r o l growth. I t i s t r u e t h a t a r e d u c t i o n i n growth r a t e probably occurred, but s t i l l the c o n s e r v a t i v e growth h a b i t of the f i e l d - g r o w n u p r i g h t was not achieved. Perhaps a more expedient method of growth c o n t r o l i s by manipulation of the photoperiod. Photoperiod has a s t r o n g e f f e c t on v e g e t a t i v e growth i n c o n t r o l l e d e n v i -ronments. Daylengths of 14 hr or more s t i m u l a t e d growth and e l o n g a t i o n whereas a photoperiod of 13 hr or l e s s i n h i b i t e d growth to the p o i n t of t e r m i n a t i n g i t . I t i s apparent t h a t the c r i t i c a l daylength f o r v e g e t a t i v e growth l i e s between 13 and 14 hr. Yet t h e r e appears to be something , of a q u a n t i t a t i v e response f o r v a r i o u s SD daylengths as there i s f o r LD photoperiods (Eaton and Ormrod 1968). P l a n t s placed under 9 hr ceased growing q u i c k l y , whereas i n 12 and 13 hr the 45 p e r i o d r e q u i r e d to terminate growth was p r o g r e s s i v e l y l e n g e r . Perhaps, the q u a n t i t a t i v e response i n c l u d e s both s h o r t and long daylengths under a s i n g l e q u a n t i t a t i v e response. Growth under 8 hr days ceased q u i c k l y (Rigby and Dana 1972) as i t d i d under 9 hr i n t h i s study. As daylength i n c r e a s e d from 15 to 24 hr the s t i m u l a t i n g e f f e c t a l s o i n c r e a s e d up to a maximum a t 21 hr (Eaton and Ormrod 1968). Perhaps, the s t i m u l a t o r y s i g n a l i n c r e a s e s i n s t r e n g t h so t h a t i t takes p r o g r e s s i v e l y l o n g e r to stop growth as the photoperiod i s i n c r e a s e d from 8 hr u n t i l a p a r t i c u l a r daylength i s surpassed where growth does not stop. Perhaps too, the r a t e of growth i n c r e a s e s over the e n t i r e range from 8 to 21 hr. Regardless of what the c o n t r o l mechanism i s , i t was amply demonstrated i n t h i s study t h a t the growth of a c u t t i n g can be turned on or o f f by simply a l t e r i n g the e x i s t i n g photoperiod. P l a n t s i n h i b i t e d from growing by SD began growing again when t r a n s f e r r e d to LD and then stopped growing when r e - s u b j e c t e d to SD. The converse was a l s o t r u e . M c F a r l i n c r a n b e r r y simply responds to the p a r t i c u l a r photoperiod t h a t i t i s exposed t o , provided the bud i s not dormant. Dormant m a t e r i a l c o l l e c t e d from the f i e l d must have the r e s t requirements met to permit growth. However i t i s apparent that 9 hr days, while they w i l l stop t e r m i n a l growth, w i l l not render the buds dormant s i n c e a LD treatment s t i m u l a t e d growth i n 9 hr p l a n t s i n the absence of c h i l l i n g . Furthermore, i n Experiment 2, 9 hr p l a n t s had resumed growth before the end of the experiment, a l s o without c h i l l i n g . 46 The daylength e f f e c t s extend to branch i n i t i a t i o n and elongation as well. Indeed a 2-week period at 16 hr was able to increase the t o t a l amount of l a t e r a l growth in plants subjected to 9 hr (Experiment 2). Two weeks at SD i n the middle of a long period of LD reduced the l a t e r a l growth. The number of days after c h i l l i n g required to obtain measureable growth was reduced by LD, That LD promotes flower development had been reported by Rigby and Dana (1972). That observation i s supported here. Differences in external morphology of terminal buds of uprights were s u f f i c i e n t to distinguish mixed buds from vege-ta t i v e buds, on f i e l d produced uprights. Therefore in the Fi e l d Experiment flower induction was measured by counting the number of buds with external mixed bud morphology. SADH increased the amount of flower induction when applied in the f i e l d during bloom, especially at f u l l bloom (July 2). This was true for both flowering and nonflowering uprights. There was a pronounced tendency to biennial bearing. SADH acted to suppress that tendency. In general i t did not reduce flowering, y i e l d or growth, except for a s l i g h t reduction i n the length of uprights, but there was no reason to assume any harmful e f f e c t of that reduction. Indeed pretreatment a p p l i -cation of SADH enhanced flower development. In one case, one application of SADH during blocm did re s u l t i n a reduction i n the r a t i o of flowering uprights to t o t a l uprights and i n the proportion of flowering uprights which set mixed buds. It must also be noted that a reduced 47 growth rate on June 3 was associated with the same treatment, but the SADH application was not made u n t i l June 17- I t must, therefore, be assumed that the reduction i n growth rate was a random variation which apparently also affected flower development and flower induction. Timing of SADH sprays i s probably more c r u c i a l than the number of sprays. The ef f e c t s of one and two sprays were not l i n e a r . Probably the 2nd application of growth ratardant was made at the stage susceptible to induction when i t was able to int e r a c t with the natural stimuli to enhance flower induction. SADH could be a valuable t o o l i n promoting high y i e l d in cranberry. The greenhouse SADH experiment (Experiment 2) did not support the f i e l d data. This was not surprising because growth of cranberry cuttings i n a r t i f i c i a l conditions i n general do not resemble f i e l d growth. Growth was altered and flowering was very much in h i b i t e d . Perhaps, as Eady and Eaton (1972a, b) suggested, the release of flower buds from dormancy i s under a d i f f e r e n t control mechanism from vegetative growth. In any case the type of growth in a r t i f i c i a l conditions i s s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t from growth in the f i e l d to preclude any suggestion that greenhouse grown uprights must respond i d e n t i c a l l y to those i n the f i e l d . Indeed i n the greenhouse i t was not even possible to ide n t i f y a proper blossom period. Therefore the stage of growth susceptible to flower induction could not be i d e n t i f i e d either. In the greenhouse, a stage responsive to SADH application 48 may or may not occur. I f i t d i d occur i t would not n e c e s s a r i l y be i d e n t i f i a b l e by a f l o w e r i n g p e r i o d . Perhaps, i f and when the r e s t requirement of the f l o w e r s i s understood, then more normal flower development may be achieved, p e r m i t t i n g or perhaps l e a d i n g t o a stage that i s s u s c e p t i b l e t o i n d u c t i o n i n the greenhouse. The observed time of flower i n d u c t i o n was s i m i l a r to that of other areas (Crowley, 1954; H a l l and Newberry, 1973; L a c r o i x , 1926; Roberts and Struckmeyer, 1943). Richmond, B r i t i s h Columbia i s s i t u a t e d between the 49th and 50th p a r a l l e l s of l a t i t u d e . The daylength of l i g h t of p h o t o p e r i -o d i c i n t e n s i t y on the l o n g e s t day o f the year a t the 50th p a r a l l e l i s very n e a r l y 18 hr. At f u l l bloom (about J u l y 1) i t i s only a few minutes s h o r t e r ( L i s t 1971). 2 Upright growth i n the f i e l d e s s e n t i a l l y ceased by the end of J u l y when the photoperiod was s t i l l more than 16 1/2 hr. Flower i n i t i a l s were a l s o v i s i b l e a t the end of J u l y . In the greenhouse a daylength of 14 hr or more s t i m u l a t e d and s u s t a i n e d v e g e t a t i v e growth. Furthermore, no flower i n d u c t i o n occurred i n a r t i f i -c i a l environments at 14 hr or more. Very few i n i t i a l s have been found at any c o n t r o l l e d daylength, but the ones t h a t d i d develop were i n daylengths of 12 hr or l e s s . I t i s t r u e t h a t t y p i c a l mixed bud e x t e r n a l morphology was produced by 12 and 13 hr days. An involvement of photoperiod c o u l d by dismissed as being non e x i s t e n t on the b a s i s of the f i e l d phenomena 2. C a l c u l a t e d by adding morning and evening c i v i l t w i l i g h t to the d u r a t i o n of daylength. 49 e x c e p t f o r t h e v e r y p r o n o u n c e d e f f e c t o f p h o t o p e r i o d i n a r t i -f i c i a l c o n d i t i o n s . I t i s a p p a r e n t , t h o u g h , t h a t c r a n b e r r y i s n o t under p h o t o p e r i o d i c c o n t r o l i n t h e c l a s s i c , q u a l i t a t i v e s e n s e . P r o b a b l y p h o t o p e r i o d i s not t h e p r i m a r y e n v i r o n m e n t a l p a r a m e t e r f o r t h e c o n t r o l o f f l o w e r i n d u c t i o n i n c r a n b e r r y . The few f l o w e r buds t h a t d i d d e v e l o p under SD p r o b a b l y d i d so b e c a u s e p h o t o p e r i o d a l t e r e d some o t h e r p h y s i o l o g i c a l system t h a t r e s u l t e d i n o c c a s i o n a l f l o w e r i n g . N e i t h e r SADH n o r BA c o n t r i b u t e d t o an i n c r e a s e i n b r a n c h i n g . V a r i o u s s u g g e s t i o n s c o u l d be made t o e x p l a i n t h e l a c k o f r e s p o n s e . The t i m i n g o r c o n c e n t r a t i o n may n o t have been a p p r o p r i a t e . P e r h a p s l a t e r a l buds i n c r a n b e r r y a r e s i m p l y n ot r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e s e compounds. Of c o u r s e i n t h e c a s e o f BA, t r a n s l o c a t i o n o f t h e c h e m i c a l may have been i n s u f f i c i e n t . 50 SUMMARY 1. V e g e t a t i v e growth i n cranberry i s s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by photoperiod i n a r t i f i c i a l c o n d i t i o n s . The growth response f o l l o w s any change i n photoperiod once dormancy i s broken. In the f i e l d , u p r i g h t growth stops when the days are s t i l l long. Flower i n d u c t i o n i n the f i e l d occurs d u r i n g f u l l bloom at the time of year when the days are the l o n g e s t , y e t , i n the greenhouse, the only time any i n d u c t i o n of f l o w e r i n i t i a l s o ccurs i s under s h o r t days. I t must be concluded t h a t c o n t r o l of growth and f l o w e r i n g i n c r a n b e r r y i s not yet understood. 2. A p p l i c a t i o n of SADH at f u l l bloom to a producing M c F a r l i n bog i n c r e a s e d the number of u p r i g h t s which set f r u i t i n g buds. No apparent harmful e f f e c t s were recorded. F u r t h e r s t u d i e s should be c a r r i e d out to determine r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y , t i m i n g , r a t e s and p o t e n t i a l hazards to p r o d u c t i o n . 3. GA can break the dormancy of t e r m i n a l buds of up-r i g h t s , but i t was u n s u i t a b l e f o r use on c r a n b e r r y u p r i g h t s grown i n a r t i f i c i a l c o n d i t i o n s under LD because i t c o n t r i b u t e d to e x c e s s i v e growth. 4. Growth r e t a r d a n t s were unable to maintain the c o n s e r v a t i v e h a b i t p e c u l i a r to f i e l d - g r o w n u p r i g h t s when c u t -t i n g s of them were grown i n a r t i f i c i a l environments. Photo-p e r i o d appeared to be more s u i t a b l e f o r a c h i e v i n g growth 51 c o n t r o l . 5, Branching i n c r a n b e r r y responded t o daylength but not t o SADH or BA. 52 LITERAIORE CITED BAIN, H. F. 1946. Blooming and f r u i t i n g h a b i t s of the cr a n b e r r y i n Wisconsin. C r a n b e r r i e s 10(9):1, 11, 14. BATJER, L. P., fi. W. WILLIAMS and G. C. MARTIN. 1964. E f f e c t s of N-dimethyl amino succinamic a c i d (B-Nine) on v e g e t a t i v e and f r u i t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of apples, pears and sweet c h e r r i e s . Proc.. Amer. Soc. Hort_. Sci_. 85:11-16. BERGMAN, H. F. 1949. Winter c o n d i t i o n s on cr a n b e r r y bogs i n r e l a t i o n to fl o w e r and f r u i t p r o d u c t i o n . C r a n b e r r i e s 14(8):6-10. BERGMAN, H. F. 1950. Cranberry f l o w e r and f r u i t production i n Masschusetts. C r a n b e r r i e s 15(4):6-10. BERGMAN, H. F. 1954. Flowering and f r u i t i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the cranberry i n New Je r s e y . Amer., Cranbj. Growers.! Assgcj. Procj. 84th AnnUi Mt£^ Pp. 17-2 7. BOSWELL, S. B. and W. B, STOREY. 1974. C y t o k i n i n induced a x i l l a r y bud s p r o u t i n g i n Macadamia. HortScience 9 (2):115-116. CHANDLER, F. B. and I. E. DEMORANVILLE. 1964. Rest p e r i o d f o r c r a n b e r r i e s . Proc. Amer.. Soc. Hort.. Sci,. 85:307-311 . CROWLEY, D. J . 1954. Cranberry growing i n Washington, Wash.. ISEA i M i B u l l . P. 554. DOUGHTY, C. C. 1962. The e f f e c t of c e r t a i n growth r e g u l a t o r s on the f r u i t i n g of c r a n b e r r i e s , Vaccinium maerocarjjon.. Proc. Amer.. Soc^. Hort.. S c i . 80: 340-349. DOUGHTY, C. C. and P. A. SCHEER. 1969. E f f e c t of A l a r on growth and dormancy of cra n b e r r y . C r a n b e r r i e s 34(6):1,18. EADY, F. and G. W. EATON. 1969. Reduced c h i l l i n g requirement of M c F a r l i n c r a n b e r r y . Can.. J., P l a n t Sci.. 49:637-638. EADY, F. and G. W. EATON. 1972a. E f f e c t s o f c h i l l i n g during dormancy on development of the t e r m i n a l bud of the c r a n b e r r y c a n A J i P l a n t Sci.. 52:273-279. EADY, F. and G. W. EATON. 1972b. The r o l e of g i b b e r e l l i c a c i d and g i b b e r e l l i n l i k e substances i n the dormancy of the cr a n b e r r y . Can.. J.. P l a n t Sci.. 52: 263-271. EATON, G. W. 1970. Cranberry r e s e a r c h a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. C r a n b e r r i e s 34(9):6, 7, 1.2. 53 EATON, G. ¥. and D. P. ORMROD. 1968. Photoperiod e f f e c t on p l a n t growth i n c r a n b e r r y . Can A J,. P l a n t s Sci.. 48:447-450. ECK, P. 1968. Chemical c o l o r enhancement of cranberry f r u i t . H o rtScience 3 (2):70-72. ECK, P. 1969. E f f e c t of preharvest sprays of e t h r e l , a l a r , and malathion on anthocyanin content of E a r l y Black c r a n b e r r y IVjaccinium macxocarjoon A i t . ) . H ortScience 4: 224-226. ECK, P. 1972. Cranberry y i e l d and anthocyanin content as i n f l u e n c e d by ethephon, SADH and malathion. J._ Amer.. Soc r i r H o r t i S c i ^ 97 (2) :213-214. FILMER, 8. S. 1955. The blooming and f r u i t i n g h a b i t s of E a r l y Black c r a n b e r r i e s i n New J e r s e y . Proc. Amer^ Cranberry Gr.o wersj. Assoc.. 85th AnnUj, Mtcj.. 3 4-35. GARLICK, D. H. 1966. The growth, f l o w e r i n g and f r u i t i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the c r a n b e r r y . Unpublished B.Sc. (Agr.) T h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. GERLACH, D. 1969. A r a p i d s a f r a n i n - c r y s t a l v i o l e t - l i g h t green s t a i n i n g sequence f o r p a r a f f i n s e c t i o n s of p l a n t m a t e r i a l s s t a i n Technology 44 (4) : 2 10-211. HALL, I. V. and R. J. NEWBERRY. 1972. F l o r a l development i n normal and f r o s t - i n j u r e d c r a n b e r r i e s . HortScience 7:269-271. HDET, J . 1973. F l o r a l i n i t i a t i o n i n pear t r e e s . Acta H o r t i c u l t u r a e ed. by S. J . Wellensiek. 34 (1): 193-198. INGESTAD, T. 1973. M i n e r a l n u t r i e n t requirements of Vaccinium v i t i s idaea and V^ , l i r t i l l u s ^ P h y s i o l . Plant.. 29:239-246. RENDER, W. J . and S. CARPENTER. 1972. S t i m u l a t i o n of l a t e r a l bud qrowth of apple t r e e s by 6-benzylamino purine. J . Amer.. Soc. Hort^ Scij, 97: 377-380. LACROIX, D. S. 1926. Cranberry flower-bud i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . J A 4S£i EeSi 33 (4):355-363. LIST, R. J . 1971. Smithsonian M e t e o r o l o g i c a l Sables^. Smithsonian I n s t i t u t i o n P r e s s . 527 pp. LUCKWILL, L. C. 1970. C o n t r o l of qrowth and f r u i t f u l n e s s of apple t r e e s . In Physiolocj.y of Tree C r o £ s A L. C. L u c k w i l l and C. V. C u t t i n g , eds, London and New York. 382 pp. MAINLAND, C. M. and P. ECK. 1968. Cranberry f r u i t s e t growth and y i e l d as i n f l u e n c e d by g i b b e r e l l i c a c i d alone and i n combination with a l a r . Proc.. Amer. Socj, H o r t S c i . . 92:296-300. OBMROD, D. P. 1963. Photoperiodic s e n s i t i v i t y of head i n i t i a t i o n , culm elongation, and heading i n some spring wheat and barley v a r i e t i e s . Caru J.. Plant Sci.. 43:323:329. RIGBY, B. and M. N. DANA. 1972. Best period and flower development i n cranberry. J.., Amer.. Soc. Hort.. Sci.. 97: 145- 148. BQBEETS, B. H. and B. E. STRUCKMEYEB. 1943. Blossom induction of the cranberry. Plant EhlsioJU 18: 534-536. TALLMANN, K. S. and G. W. EATON. 1976. A comparison of the growth habit of Bergman and McFarlin cranberry c u l t i v a r s on commercial bogs in B r i t i s h Columbia. F r u i t V a r i e t i e s J.. 30(2): i n press. WABRINGTON, P. and G. W. EATON. 1968. A novel inflorescence in Vaccinium sacrocarjjon c v. Beaver. Can*. 46:1162-1163. HEAVER, B. J . 1972. Plant Growth Substances, w. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. 594 pp. WELLENSIEK, S. J . EDITOR. 1973. Symposium on Growth Begulators i n F r u i t Production. Acta H o r t i c u l t u r a l no. 34. 507 pp. WILDE, M. H. and L. J . EDGESTON. 1969. Some e f f e c t s of a growth retardant on shoot meristems of apple. Js.hES.S~s. _°£i. Horti. Scij, 94:118-122. WILLIAMS, H. ¥. 1973. Chemical control of vegetative growth and flowering of apple trees. In Acta Horticulturae ed. by S. J . Wellensiek. 34:167-174. WILLIAMS, M. W. and E. A. STAHLY. 1968. Eff e c t of cytokinins on apple shoot development from a x i l l a r y buds. HortScience 3:68-69. APPENDIX I CONSTRUCTION OF PHOTOPERIOD CABINETS 5 6 Six wooden c a b i n e t s , each equipped with timeswitch c o n t r o l l e d l i g h t i n g , were c o n s t r u c t e d f o r t h i s study t o pr o v i d e a f a c i l i t y capable of c o n t r o l l i n g photoperiod. The l i g h t i n g i n each cab i n e t c o n s i s t e d of two F20T12-CW-HO (General E l e c t r i c ) f l u o r e s c e n t lamps and a s i n g l e UO w. i n c a n -descent bulb. The lamps were mounted on a Dexion frame f a s t e n e d t o the i n s i d e top of each c a b i n e t . The lamp b a l l a s t s and t i m e c l o c k s were p o s i t i o n e d on the o u t s i d e top of the c a b i n e t s . Small fans a l s o mounted on the o u t s i d e top o f each c a b i n e t were provided t o c i r c u l a t e a i r through the c a b i n e t s when c l o s e d . Wooden b a f f l e s were p l a c e d over the a i r i n l e t h o les and fan exhaust t o prevent l i q h t leakage. The c a b i n e t s were placed on a bench i n the greenhouse. The f l o o r of each c a b i n e t extended out the f r o n t beyond the door. Plywood c a r t s mounted on c a s t e r s were placed on the f l o o r . Potted p l a n t s were placed on the c a r t s which could be drawn i n t o and out of the c a b i n e t s on the f l o o r proper and i t s e x t e n s i o n , fieraoveable doors were placed over the openings when the p l a n t s were i n s i d e and were held i n place by hook and eye f a s t e n e r s . In p r a c t i c e the p l a n t s remained i n s i d e the c a b i n e t s a l l n i q h t . At approximately 08:15 every morning the c a b i n e t s were opened and the c a r t s b e a r i n q the p l a n t s were r o l l e d out to provide the p l a n t s with higher i n t e n s i t y l i g h t i n g f o r ph o t o s y n t h e s i s . Then a t 16:30 each afternoon the p l a n t s were pushed back i n t o the c a b i n e t s and the doors were r e p l a c e d . The t i m e c l o c k s were set so that the l i g h t s came on before the 57 boxes were opened i n the morning and remained on u n t i l a f t e r they were c l o s e d a t n i g h t . By v a r y i n g the l e n g t h of time t h a t the l i g h t s remained on, the photoperiod i n each c a b i n e t was e f f e c t i v e l y c o n t r o l l e d while the amount of p h o t o s y n t h a t i c l i g h t remained r e l a t i v e l y constant from c a b i n e t t o c a b i n e t . The l i g h t i n t e n s i t y was s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower i n the c a b i n e t s than i n the greenhouse d u r i n g the day. These c a b i n e t s were s i m i l a r to but s m a l l e r than those used but not d e s c r i b e d by Ormrod (1963) and Eaton and Ormrod (1968). F i g u r e s 7 and 8 show f u r t h e r d e t a i l s of c o n s t r u c t i o n . 58 Fig. 7. Front view of a single cabinet showing the cart (c), l i g h t i n g arrangement, and fan (f) and timeswitch (t) mounted on top. Ballast for the fluorescent tubes i s mounted behind the timeclock. Air i n l e t holes are v i s i b l e behind the cart. The potted strawberry plants are on the cart which i s pulled part way out of the cabinet. 59 F i g , 8, Structure of photoperiod cabinet: a, 3,8 cm x 3.8 cm wooden framing; B, 1.3 cm f i r plywood bottom; C, 0.6 cm plywood sides, top, and end; D, a i r i n l e t holes. The 1.3 cm plywood door and cart are not shown. 60 A P P E N D I X I I L I G H T I N G I N C O N T R O L L E D E N V I R O N M E N T S Y S T E M S Percival growth chambers PGC-78 Fluorescent lamps No. Lamp type 16 F72T12-CW-VH0 Incandescent lamps No. Power (w./lamp) 10 40 Radiant Flux Density _, (micro Einsteins m sec" ) 170-245 Luminous Flux Density (klux) 1.83-2.64 Experiment No. Chilling chamber Photoperiod cabinets Conviron growth bench GB48 8 2 28 FR48T12-CW-VH0 F20T12-CW-H0 FR96T12-CW-VH0 5 1 48 40 40 40 45 300 1.94 12.91 2 2, 3 4 62 APPENDIX I I I ANALYSIS OF VAfilANCE TABLES A EXPERIMENT 2 SHORT DAY PLANTS GROWTH RATE (CM/WK) A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , Week 4 Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Prob P r e t r t 3 0.56979 0.18993 0. 25 0.8601 Bloom 4 3.8319 0.95798 1. 27 0.2997 P * B 12 19.961 1.6634 2. 20 0.0317 E r r o r 39 2 9.505 0.75654 T o t a l 58 53.867 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 5 Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Prob P r e t r t 3 5.4 035 1.8012 2. 80 0.0529 Bloom 4 3.764 5 0.94113 1. 46 0,2328 P * B 12 1.8017 0. 15014 0. 23 0.9953 E r r o r 39 25.132 0.64440 T o t a l 58 36.101 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 6 Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Prob P r e t r t 3 0.87180e -01 0.29060e-01 0. 23 0.8744 Bloom 4 0.77016 0. 19254 1 . 53 0.2128 P * B 12 1.0961 ' 0.91340e-01 0. 73 0.7183 E r r o r 39 4.9117 0.12594 T o t a l 58 6.8651 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 7 Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Prob P r e t r t 3 0.62921e -01 0.20974e-01 1. 56 0.2150 Bloom 4 0. 14724e -01 0.36810e-02 0. 27 0.8933 P * B 12 0. 13261 0.11051e- 01 0. 82 0.6284 E r r o r 39 0.52500 0. 134626-01 T o t a l 58 0.73525 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 8 Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Prob P r e t r t 3 0.21885e -01 0.72951e-02 2. 03 0.1252 Bloom ' 4 0.18210e -01 0.45525e-02 1. 27 0.2989 P * B 12 0.41599e -01 0.34666e-02 0. 97 0.4963 E r r o r 39 0.14000 0.35897e- 02 T o t a l 58 0.22169 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 9 Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg F Prob P r e t r t 3 0.27782 0.92608e- 01 0. 35 0.7879 Bloom 4 11.886 2.9714 11 .29 0.0000 P * B 12 0.71437 0.59531e- 01 0. 23 0.9959 E r r o r 39 10.260 0.26308 T o t a l 58 23. 138 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 10 Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg F Prob P r e t r t 3 0. 15810 0.52699e- 01 6.85 0.0008 Bloom 4 17.419 4.3547 566.12 0.0000 P * B 12 0.4859S 0.40499e- 01 5.26 0.0000 E r r o r 39 0.30000 0.76923e- 02 T o t a l 58 18.363 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 11 Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg F Prob P r e t r t 3 0.43648e-01 0.14 54 9e-01 0. 83 0.4831 Bloom 4 4.3059 1.0765 61 .74 0.0000 P * B 12 0.97S43e-01 0.81619e- 02 0. 47 0.9213 E r r o r 39 0.68000 0.17436e- 01 T o t a l 58 5.1275 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , week 12 Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg F Prob P r e t r t 3 0.30101e-01 0.10034e-01 0. 72 0.5485 Bloom 4 0.31451 0.78626e-01 5. 61 0.0012 P * B 12 0.10907 0.90888e-02 0. 65 0.7878 E r r o r 39 0.54667 0.14017e-01 T o t a l 58 1.0003 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 13 Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sg F Prob P r e t r t 3 0.18242 0.60807e- 01 2. 29 0.0929 Bloom 4 0.91918e-01 0.22980e- 01 0. 87 0.4922 P * B 12 0.67470 0.56225e- 01 2. 12 0.0382 E r r o r 39 1.0333 0.26496e- 01 T o t a l 58 1.9 824 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , Seek 14 S o u r c e Df Sum Sg Mean Sq F P r o b P r e t r t 3 0.67480e -01 0.22493e-01 0. 16 0.9253 Bloom 4 1.0697 0.26743 1 . 85 0.1382 P * B 12 2.7049 0.22541 1. 56 0.1438 E r r o r 39 5.6267 0.14427 T o t a l 58 9.4688 EXPERIMENT 2 LONG DAY PLANTS GROWTH RATE (CM/WK) A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , Week 4 S o u r c e Df Sum Sg Mean Sg F Prob P r e t r t 3 6.8227 2.2742 11 .34 0.0000 Bloom 4 0.38767 0.96917e- 01 0. 48 0.7478 P * B 12 2.5390 0.21158 1 . 06 0.4212 E r r o r 40 8.0200 0.20050 T o t a l 59 17.769 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , Week 5 S o u r c e Df Sum Sg Mean Sq F P r o b P r e t r t 3 13.242 4.4139 8. 39 0.0002 Bloom 4 0.29333 0.73333e- 01 0. 14 0.9666 P * B 12 7.0573 0.58811 1. 12 0.3729 E r r o r 40 21.033 0.52583 T o t a l 59 41.626 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , Week 6 S o u r c e Df Sum Sg Mean Sq F Prob P r e t r t 3 12.727 4.2422 10.66 0.0000 Bloom 4 0.67900 0.16975 0. 43 0.7886 P * B 12 2.7917 0.23264 0. 58 0.8414 E r r o r 40 15.920 0.39800 T o t a l 59 3.2. 117 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , Week 7 S o u r c e Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F P r o b P r e t r t 3 4.8912 1.6.304 1 . 74 0.1743 Bloom 4 4.3560 1.0890 1. 16 0.3420 P * B 12 6.3147 0.52622 0. 56 0.8592 E r r o r 40 37.487 0.93717 T o t a l 59 53.048 a n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , Week 8 S o u r c e Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Prob P r e t r t 3 2.6098 0.86994 1. 17 0.3332 Bloom 4 6.9140 1.7285 2. 32 0.0730 P * B 12 6.4260 0.53550 0. 72 0.7231 E r r o r 40 29.740 0.74350 T o t a l 59 45.690 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 9 S o u r c e Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F P r o b P r e t r t 3 5.0832 1.6944 2. 07 0.1190 Bloom 4 6.9833 1.7458 2. 14 0.0940 P * B 12 4.9593 0.41328 0. 51 0.8985 E r r o r 40 32.680 0.81700 T o t a l 59 49.706 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 10 S o u r c e Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F P r o b P r e t r t 3 1.7045 0.56817 0. 99 0.4063 Bloom 4 6.8057 1.7014 2. 97 0.0307 P * B 12 3.9197 0.32664 0. 57 0.8525 E r r o r 40 22.907 0.57267 T o t a l 59 3 5.3 36 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 11 S o u r c e Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Prob P r e t r t 3 2.7072 0.90239 1 . 09 0.3626 Bloom 4 11.027 2.7567 3. 34 0.0188 P * B 12 8.6187 0.71822 0. 87 0.5814 E r r o r 40 32.980 0.82450 * T o t a l 59 55.332 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , Week 12 S o u r c e Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Prob P r e t r t 3 3.8352 1.. 2784 1 . 13 0.3470 Bloom 4 2.0343 0.50858 0. 45 0.7710 P * B 12 14,132 1.1777 1 . 04 0.4298 E r r o r 40 45.100 1.1275 T o t a l 59 65.102 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 13 Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg F Prob P r e t r t 3 1.7578 0.58594 1. 15 0.3423 Bloom 4 1.3057 0.32642 0. 64 0.6382 P * B 12 5.0930 0.42442 0. 83 0.6198 E r r o r 40 20.453 0.51133 T o t a l 59 28.610 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 14 Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg F Prob P r e t r t 3 3.9605 1.3202 2.96' 0.0438 Bloom 4 1.1793 0.29483 0.66 0.6232 P * B 12 3.3820 0.28183 0.63 0.8029 E r r o r 40 17.860 0.44650 T o t a l 59 26.382 EXPERIMENT 2 SHORT DAY PLANTS A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Days To Bud Break Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg F Prob P r e t r t 3 44.192 14.731 1. 58 0.2094 Bloom 4 43.501 10.875 1. 17 0.3401 P * B 12 168.19 14.016 1. 50 0.1641 E r r o r 39 363.33 9.3162 T o t a l 58 619.22 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Number of Branches Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg F Prob P r e t r t 3 0.84487 0.28162 0.15 0.9281 Bloom 4 3.7628 0.94071 0.51 0.7315 P * B 12 9.2991 0.77492 0.42 0.9477 E r r o r 3 9 72.500 1.8590 T o t a l 58 86.407 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , T o t a l Length of Branches (cm) Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Prob P r e t r t 3 182.03 60.677 0.93 0.4377 Bloom 4 750.55 187.64 2.86 0.0359 P * B 12 728.94 60.745 0. 93 0.5313 E r r o r 39 2558.1 65.593 T o t a l 58 4219.6 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Number of Open Flowers Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sg F Prob P r e t r t 3 0.71437 0.23812 2. 06 0.1208 Bloom 4 0.16718 0.41795e -01 0.36 0.8340 P * B 12 1.1947 0.99560e -01 0.86 0.5891 E r r o r 39 4.5000 0.11538 T o t a l 58 6.5763 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , T o t a l Number of Flowers Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg F Prob P r e t r t 3 1.5203 0.50675 0.53 0.6632 Bloom 4 5.0835 1.2709 1.33 0.2747 P * B 12 2.8737 0.23947 0.25 0.9934 E r r o r 39 37.167 0.95299 T o t a l 58 46.644 EXPERIMENT : 2 LONG DAY PLANTS A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Bays To Bud Break Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Prob P r e t r t 3 10.583 3.5278 0.35 0.7903 Bloom 4 24.667 6.1667 0.61 0.6581 P * B 12 164.67 13.722 1. 36 0.2270 E r r o r 40 404.67 10.117 T o t a l 59 604.58 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Number of Branches Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Prob P r e t r t 3 6.1833 2.0611 1.39 0.2600 Bloom 4 2.7333 0.68333 0.46 0.7641 P * B 12 11.400 0.95000 0.64 0.7950 E r r o r 40 59.333 1.4833 T o t a l 59 79.650 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , T o t a l Length of Branches (cm) Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Prob P r e t r t 3 2224.7 741. 56 1. 83 0.1565 Bloom 4 7074.2 1768.6 4.37 0.0050 P * B 12 2914.0 242.84 0.60 0.8285 E r r o r 40 16172. 404.29 T o t a l 59 28385. 69 Analysis of Variance, Number of Open Flowers Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sg F Prob Pretrt 3 2.4000 0.80000 1.85 0.1543 Bloom 4 2.2333 0.55833 1.29 0.2908 P * B 12 3.7667 0.31389 0.72 0.7193 Error 40 17.333 0.43333 Total 59 25.733 Analysis of Variance, Total Number of Flowers Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sq F Prob Pretrt 3 2.0500 0.68333 0.31 0.8209 Bloom 4 4.2333 1.0583 0.47 0.7546 P * B 12 37.367 3.1139 1.39 0.2088 Error 40 89.333 2.2333 Total 59 132.98 EXPERIMENT 2 ! ALL PLANTS Analysis of Variance, Days To Bud Break Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sq Error F Prob Photop 1 68.515 68.515 Cab/ph 24.92 0.0075 Cab/ph 4 10.998 2.74 95 0. 34 0.8508 Pretrt 3 6.9078 2.3026 0.28 0.8370 Bloom 3 14.658 4.8859 0.60 0.6164 Pr* B 9 79.685 8.8539 1.09 0.3836 Ph*Pr 3 102.53 34.176 4.21 0.0091 Ph * B 3 43.241 14.414 1.78 0. 1617 PhPrBl 9 67.3 47 7.4830 0.92 0.5131 Error 59 479.00 8.1187 Total 94 872.88 Analysis of Variance, Number of Branches Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sq Error F Prob Photop 1 48.468 48.468 Cab/ph 135.48 0.0003 Cab/ph 4 1.4310 0.35776 0.22 0.9285 Pretrt 3 0.85532 0.28511 0. 17 0. 9148 Bloom 3 0.86981 0.28994 0.18 0.9129 Pr* B 9 11.245 1.2494 0.75 0.6582 Ph*Pr 3 4.9693 1.6564 1.00 0.3993 Ph * B 3 5.6214 1.8738 1.13 0.3439 PhPrBl 9 6.7410 0.74900 0.45 0.9003 Error 59 97.736 1.6565 Total 94 177.94 70 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , T o t a l Length of Branches (cm) Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Photop 1 55921. 55921. Cab/ph 173.85 0.0002 Cab/ph 4 1286.7 321.67 1.18 0.3294 P r e t r t 3 865.93 288.64 1.06 0.3739 Bloom 3 2316.5 772.17 2.83 0.0460 Pr* B 9 1535.9 170.66 0.63 0.7706 Ph*Pr 3 2260.0 753.34 2.76 0.0500 Ph * B 3 1657.5 552.50 2.03 0. 1202 PhPrBl 9 1193.7 132.63 0.49 0.8782 E r r o r 59 16097. 272.83 T o t a l 94 83135. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Number of Open Flowers Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sq E r r o r F Prob Photop 1 1.4685 1.4685 Cab/ph 2. 14 0.2174 Cab/ph 4 2.7460 0.68650 2.57 0.0470 P r e t r t 3 1.5695 0.52318 1.96 0. 1299 Bloom 3 1.1782 0.39275 1.47 0.2317 Pr* B 9 2.1417 0.23797 0.89 0.5387 Ph*Pr 3 0.89237 0.29746 1.11 0.3507 Ph * B 3 0.61701 0.20567 0. 77 0.5153 PhPrBl 9 2.2222 0.24691 0.92 0.5106 E r r o r 59 15.754 0.26702 T o t a l 94 2 8.5 89 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , T o t a l Number of Flowers Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq E r r o r F Prob Photop 1 63.669 63.669 Cab/ph 14.21 0.0196 Cab/ph 4 17.923 4.4808 3.03 0.0243 P r e t r t 3 0.45055 0. 15018 0.10 0.9588 Bloom 3 3.2078 1.0693 0.72 0.5422 Pr* B 9 24.380 2,7089 1.83 0.0812 Ph*Pr 3 1.3989 0.46630 0. 32 0.8142 Ph * B 3 1.5507 0.51691 0.35 0.7896 PhPrBl 9 13.081 1.45 34 0.98 0.4636 E r r o r 59 87.243 1. 4787 T o t a l 94 212.91 71 EXPERIMENT 2 GROWTH RATE OVER WEEKS 4 TO 14 (CM/WK) A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 4 Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq E r r o r F Prob Photop 1 7.5957 7.5957 Cab/ph 28. 19 0.0060 Cab/ph 4 1.0778 0.26945 0.72 0.5787 P r e t r t 3 7.1820 2.3940 6. 44 0.0008 Bloom 3 2.2502 0.75006 2.02 0.1213 Pr* B 9 3.4900 0.38778 1.04 0.4179 Ph*Pr 3 5.28 32 1.7611 4. 74 0.0050 Ph * B 3 1.6786 0.55954 1. 50 0.2227 PhPrBl 9 3.1478 0.34975 0.94 0.4976 E r r o r 59 21.941 0.37187 T o t a l 94 53.646 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 5 Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq E r r o r F Prob Photop 1 43.192 43.192 Cab/ph 212.38 0. 0001 Cab/ph 4 0.81349 0.20337 0.55 0.7028 P r e t r t 3 16.774 5.5912 15.00 0.0000 Bloom 3 0.83936 0.27979 0.75 0.5262 Pr* B 9 1.1992 0. 13324 0. 36 0.9505 Ph*Pr 3 3.5479 1.1826 3.17 0.0306 Ph * B 3 1.2533 0.41777 1.12 0.3479 PhPrBl 9 1.4536 0.16151 0.43 0.9116 E r r o r 59 21.985 0.37262 T o t a l 94 91.057 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 6 Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq E r r o r F Prob Photop 1 77.610 77.610 Cab/ph 17179.79 0.0000 Cab/ph 4 0.18070e-01 0.45175e-02 0.02 0.9995 P r e t r t 3 7.1385 2.3795 8. 63 0.0001 Bloom 3 0.63032e-01 0,.21011e-01 0.08 0.9726 Pr* B 9 1.4763 0. 16404 0.59 0. 7962 Ph*Pr 3 3.8727 1.2909 4.68 0.0053 Ph * B 3 1.2097 0.40325 1.46 0.2341 PhPrBl 9 2.0240 0.22489, 0.82 0.6042 E r r o r 59 16.274 0.27582 T o t a l 94 109.69 72 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 7 Source Df Sum Sg ( Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Photop 1 66.676 66.676 Cab/ph 1317.01 G.0000 Cab/ph 4 0.20251 0.50627e-01 0.09 0.9837 P r e t r t 3 3.4349 1.1450 2. 15 0. 1039 Bloom 3 0.82738 0.27579 0.52 0.6721 Pr* B 9 1.9457 0.21619 0.41 0.9274 Ph*Pr 3 3.0104 1.00 35 1.88 0.1426 Ph * B 3 1.0954 0.36513 0.68 0.5650 PhPrBl 9 2.7320 0.30355 0.57 0.8168 E r r o r 59 31.469 0.53338 T o t a l 94 111.39 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 8 Source ' Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Photop 1 73.409 73.409 Cab/ph 846.72 0.0000 Cab/ph 4 0.34679 0.86698e-01 0.19 0.9439 P r e t r t 3 1.3141 0.43802 0.95 0.4232 Bloom 3 1.6347 0.54491 1.18 0.3 252 Pr* B . 9 3.1366 0.34851 0.75 0.6580 Ph*Pr 3 0.82381 0.27460 0.59 0.6211 Ph * B 3 2.0472 0.68238 1.48 0.2300 PhPrBl 9 2.3416 0.26017 0.56 0.8215 E r r o r 59 27.253 0.46192 T o t a l 94 112.31 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 9 Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Photop 1 51.031 51.031 Cab/ph 849.30 0.0000 Cab/ph 4 0.24034 0.6O086e-01 0.11 0.9782 P r e t r t 3 3.0675 1.0225 1.89 0.1412 Bloom 3 1.1971 0.39903 0.74 0.5339 Pr* B 9 1.3398 0.14886 0.28 0.9790 Ph*Pr 3 2.8620 0.95399 1.76 0.1641 Ph * B 3 0.85319 0.28440 0.53 0.6664 PhPrBl 9 1.5521 0.17245 0. 32 0.9657 E r r o r 59 31.926 0.54112 T o t a l 94 94.069 73 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 10 Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sq E r r o r F Prob Photop 1 17.319 17.319 Cab/ph 56.76 0.0017 Cab/ph 4 1.2205 0.30513 0.84 0.5075 P r e t r t 3 1,0058 0.33526 0.92 0.4372 Bloom 3 0.84405 0.28135 0.77 0.5146 Pr* B 9 1,8312 0.20346 0.56 0.8257 Ph*Pr 3 1.1084 0.36946 1.01 0.3935 Ph * B 3 0.74179 0.24726 0.68 0.5690 PhPrBl 9 1.6579 0.18421 0.51 0.8650 E r r o r 59 21.519 0.36474 T o t a l 94 47.248 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 11 Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Photop 1 23.636 23.636 Cab/ph 64.25 0.0013 Cab/ph 4 1.4715 0.36789 0.69 0.6002 P r e t r t 3 1.6535 0.55116 1. 04 0.3828 Bloom 3 1.4490 0.48301 0.91 0.4422 Pr* B 9 3.8702 0.43002 0.81 0.6095 Ph*Pr 3 1.6462 0.54875 1.03 0.3847 Ph * B 3 1.3340 0.44467 0. 84 0.4790 PhPrBl 9 4.1242 0.45824 0. 86 0.5632 E r r o r 59 31.348 0.53133 T o t a l 94 70.533 a n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 12 Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Photop 1 22.766 22.766 Cab/ph 67.25 0.0012 Cab/ph 4 1.3542 0.33855 0.52 0.7 246 P r e t r t 3 1.5318 0.51061 0.78 0.5112 Bloom 3 1.0290 0.34299 0.52 0.6686 Pr* B 9 6.3582 0.70647 1,08 0.3940 Ph*Pr 3 1.4427 0.48091 0.73 0.5369 Ph * B 3 1.0040 0.33465 0. 51 0,6772 PhPrBl 9 6.6572 0.73969 1.13 0.3591 E r r o r 59 38.746 0.65671 T o t a l 94 80.889 74 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Seek 13 Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq E r r o r F Prob Photop 1 16.851 16.851 Cab/ph 1595.74 0.0000 Cab/ph 4 0.42240e-01 0. 10560e-01 0.03 0.9979 P r e t r t 3 1.2015 0.40049 1.23 0.3063 Bloom 3 0.45234 0.15078 0.46 0.7087 Pr* B 9 2.1775 0.24194 0.74 0.6672 Ph*Pr 3 0.83770 0.27923 0.86 0.4676 Ph * B 3 0.71071e-01 0.23690e- 01 0.07 0.974 3 PhPrBl 9 2.3155 0.25728 0.79 0.6254 E r r o r 59 19.184 0.32516 T o t a l 94 43.133 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Week 14 Source Df Sura Sg Mean Sq E r r o r F Prob Photop 1 5.2714 5.2714 Cab/ph 27.26 0.0064 Cab/ph 4 0.77357 0.19339 0.53 0.7106 P r e t r t 3 2.7449 0.91498 2.53 0.0658 Bloom 3 0.54032 0.18011 0.50 0.6850 Pr* B 9 3.1218 0.34687 0.96 0.4824 Ph*Pr, 3 1.7780 0.59266 1.64 0.1900 Ph * B 3 0.94495 0.31498 0.87 0.4612 PhPrBl 9 2.1610 0.24012 0.66 0.7376 E r r o r 59 21.333 0.36158 T o t a l 94 38.669 EXPERIMENT 2 - ANOVA - TERMINAL LENGTH OVER WEEKS 3 TO 14 (MM) Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq E r r o r F Prob Photop 1 0.27354e+07 0.27354e+07 Cab/ph 411,82 0.0000 Cab/ph 4 26570. 6642.4 16.47 0.0000 P r e t r t 3 0.17477e+06 58255. 144.45 0.0000 Bloom 3 6721.5 2240.5 5.56 0.0009 Pr* B 9 57496. 6388.5 E r r (a) 0.67 0.7328 Ph*Pr 3 32339. 10780. 26.73 0.0000 Ph * B 3 22297. 7432,3 18.43 0.0000 PhPrBl 9 0.11627e+06 12919. E r r (a) 1. 35 0.2298 Er r (a) 59 0.56288e+06 9540.4 23.66 0.0 Weeks 11 0.94638e+06 86035. 213.33 0. 0 Ph* W 11 0.54983e+06 49985. 123.94 0.0 Pr * H 33 28295. 857.43 2.13 0.0003 B * W 33 8522.9 258.27 0.64 0.9425 Phpr W 33 20630. 625.16 1.55 0.0 266 Ph B 1 33 11300. 342.43 0.85 0.7111 Pr B W 99 22565. 227.93 0.57 0.9997 Phprbw 99 25058. 253.12 0.63 0.9978 E r r o r 693 0.27948e+06 40 3.29 T o t a l 1139 0.56269e+07 75 EXPERIMENT 3 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , Growth R a t e Over Weeks 5 To 13 (mm/wk) S o u r c e Df Sum Sq Mean Sg E r r o r F P r o b P h o t o p 5 21816. 4363.2 Grp (A) 5.52 0.0301 Grp (A) 6 4740.8 790. 13 E r r (a) 1.98 0.0946 E r r (a) 36 14379. 399.42 12.06 0.0 Weeks 8 1912.3 239.03 E r r (b) 12. 92 0.0000 P * W 40 4510.1 112.75 E r r (b) 6.09 0.0000 E r r (b) 48 888.19 18.504 0.56 0.9918 E r r o r 288 9535.2 33.108 T o t a l 431 57782. A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , Growth S a t e Over Weeks 14 And 15 S o u r c e Df Sum Sg Mean Sq E r r o r F Prob P h o t o p 5 2306.8 461.36 Grp (A) 10.43 0.0064 Grp (A) 6 265.33 44.221 E r r (a) 0.93 0.4881 E r r (a) 34 1621.8 47.701 2.72 0.0023 Weeks 1 5.2609 5.2609 E r r (b) 0.28 0.6170 P * w 5 72.507 14.501 E r r (b) 0,77 0.6061 E r r (b) 6 113.57 18.928 1.08 0.3946 E r r o r 34 596.67 17.549 T o t a l 91 4982.0 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , T e r m i n a l Bud M o r p h o l o g y S o u r c e Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob P h o t o p 5 3.8542 0.77083 Grp (A) 3.36 0.0859 Grp (A) 6 1.3750 0.22917 2.54 0.0375 E r r o r 36 3.2500 0.90278e-•01 T o t a l 47 8.4792 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , Number o f I n t e r n o d e s S o u r c e Df Sum Sq Mean Sq E r r o r F P r o b P h o t o p 5 37118. 7423.7 Grp (A) 28. 18 0.0004 Grp (A) 6 1580.9 263.48 1.28 0.2895 E r r o r 36 7390.7 205. 30 T o t a l 47 4 6090. 76 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Terminal Length A f t e r 20 Weeks (mm) Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Photop 5 0.46810e+06 93621. Grp (A) 5.77 0.0 273 Grp (A) 6 97426. 16238. 2.55 0.0366 E r r o r 36 0.22898e+06 6360.5 T o t a l 47 0.79451e+06 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Number of Apices Growing A f t e r 20 Weeks Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Photop 5 7.4167 1.4833 Grp (A) 11.87 0. 0046 Grp (A) 6 0.75000 0.12500 1.80 0.1268 E r r o r 36 2.5000 0.69444e-01 T o t a l 47 10.667 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Lenqth of Internode A f t e r 20 Weeks (mm) Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq E r r o r F Prob Photop 5 22.655 4.5311 Grp (A) 3. 75 0.0694 Grp (A) 6 7.2534 1.2089 2. 24 0.0617 E r r o r 36 19.462 0.54060 T o t a l 47 49.370 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Length of Terminal A f t e r 15 Weeks (mm) Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Photop 5 0.2 3745e+06 47490. Grp (A) 12 .05 0.0044 Grp (A) 6 23640. 3940.0 1. 49 0.2116 E r r o r 34 89984. 2646.6 T o t a l 45 0.35107e+06 EXPERIMENT 4 COVARIANCE ANALYSIS, NO. BRANCHES A n a l y s i s of Covariance, August 7 Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sq F Prob Var 1 0.83249 0.83249 0.78 0.3801 Concn 2 0.44123 0.22061 0.21 0.8134 v*c 2 3.6487 1.8243 1.71 0.1891 A p p l i c 4 0.50922 0.12730 0.12 0.9750 V*A 4 5.5616 1.3904 1.31 0.2783 C*A 8 4.8031 0.60039 0.56 0.8030 V*C*A 8 8.5770 1.0721 1.01 0.4407 E r r o r 59 62.816 1.0647 A n a l y s i s of Covariance, August 22 Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sq F Prob Var 1 1.0614 1.0614 0.67 0.4157 Concn 2 2.0444 1.02 22 0.65 0.5272 v*c 2 3.9445 1.9723 1.25 0.2944 A p p l i c 4 4.6900 1.1725 0.74 0.5670 V*A 4 1.7025 0.42563 0. 27 0.8965 C*A 8 5.6941 0.71176 0.45 0.8853 V*C*A 8 6.9867 0.87334 0.55 0.8116 E r r o r 59 93.193 1.5795 A n a l y s i s of Covariance, Sept. 5 Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg F Prob Var 1 3.5421 3.5421 1. 54 0.2194 Concn 2 2.9206 1.4603 0.64 0.5335 v*c 2 8.1960 4.0980 1.78 0.1772 A p p l i c 4 11.457 2.8642 1.25 0.3016 V*A 4 0.92 34 2 0.23085 0.10 0.9819 C*A 8 19.158 2.3948 1.04 0.4160 V*C*A 8 5.9626 0.74532 0.32 0.9536 E r r o r 59 135.65 2.2992 78 FIELD EXPERIMENT, 1975. RATE OF TERMINAL SHOOT GBOWTH (MM/WK) A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , May 20 S o u r c e Df Sum Sq Mean Sg E r r o r F P r o b B l o c k 1 0.87754e-01 0.87754e- 01 0. 16 0.6859 P r e t r t 2 1.4423 0.72115 1.36 0.2646 Bloom 2 0.10831 0.54157e- 01 0.10 0.9033 P*£lm 4 1.6282 0.40705 E r r (A) 2.05 0.1802 E r r (A) 8 1.5900 0.19875 0.37 0.9310 E r r o r 68 36.167 0.53186 T o t a l 85 41.023 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , May 27 S o u r c e Df Sum Sg Mean Sq E r r o r F Prob B l o c k 1 0.24211 0.24211 0. 18 0.6750 P r e t r t 2 11.918 5.9592 4. 37 0.0164 Bloom 2 7.1680 3.5840 2. 63 0.0797 P*Blm 4 9.7864 2.4466 E r r (A) 1. 88 0. 2069 E r r (A) 8 10.394 1.2992 0. 95 0.4807 E r r o r 6 8 92.817 1.3650 T o t a l 85 132.33 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , Jun 3 S o u r c e Df Sum Sq Mean Sq E r r o r F P r o b B l o c k 1 27.293 27.293 1.68 0.1987 P r e t r t 2 182.44 91.220 5.63 0.0055 Bloom 2 129.56 64.781 4.00 0.0228 P*Blm 4 151.58 37.895 E r r (A) 1.66 0.2505 E r r (A) 8 182.39 22.799 1.41 0.2095 E r r o r 68 1101.8 16.202 T o t a l 85 1775.0 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , Jun 10 S o u r c e Df Sum Sq Mean Sg E r r o r F P r o b B l o c k 1 16.930 16.930 1. 45 0.2334 P r e t r t 2 38.174 19.087 1. 63 0.2035 Bloom 2 50.000 25.000 2. 14 0.1261 P*Blm 4 137.42 34.354 E r r (A) 2. 45 0.1304 E r r (A) 8 112.08 14.0 10 1. 20 0.314 3 E r r o r 68 796.20 11.709 T o t a l 85 1150.8 79 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , Jun 17 S o u r c e Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob B l o c k 1 4.5107 4.5107 0.30 0.5856 P r e t r t 2 2.2850 1.1425 0.08 0.9269 Bloom 2 3 2.375 16. 188 1.08 0. 3463 P*Blm 4 42.659 10.665 E r r (A) 0.94 0.4899 E r r ( A ) 8 91.150 11.394 0.76 0.6404 E r r o r 68 1021.9 15.029 T o t a l 85 1194.9 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , Jun 24 S o u r c e Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob B l o c k 1 44.660 44.660 5. 19 0.0258 P r e t r t 2 2.4321 1.2160 0.14 0.8684 Bloom 2 14.282 7.1412 0. 83 0.4404 P*Blm 4 68.420 17.105 E r r (A) 1. 15 0.4004 E r r ( A ) 8 119. 14 14.893 1.73 0.1069 E r r o r 68 585.02 8.6032 T o t a l 85 833.95 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , J u l 2 S o u r c e Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob B l o c k 1 22.015 22.015 4. 46 0.0384 P r e t r t 2 2.1729 1.0865 0.22 0.8031 Bloom 2 38.166 19.083 3.86 0.0257 P*Blm 4 8.1206 2.0301 E r r (A) 0.81 0.5524 E r r (A) 8 20.046 2.5057 0.51 0.8467 E r r o r 68 335.82 4.9385 T o t a l 85 426.34 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , J u l 8 S o u r c e Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob B l o c k 1 6.2521 6.2521 0.94 0.3354 P r e t r t 2 6.95 87 3.4794 0.52 0.5947 Bloom 2 2.8087 1.4043 0.21 0.8100 P*Blm 4 10.476 2.6191 E r r (A) 0. 23 0.9152 E r r (A) 8 91.970 11.496 1.73 0.1071 E r r o r 68 451.77 6.6436 T o t a l 85 570.23 80 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , J u l 15 Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Block 1 6.7,905 6.7905 1.06 0.3072 P r e t r t 2 4.5501 2. 2751 0.35 0.7027 Bloom 2 83.763 41.881 6.53 0.0025 P*Blm 4 35.060 8.7651 E r r (A) 1.27 0.3562 Err(A) 8 55.065 6.8831 1.07 0.3923 E r r o r 68 436.17 6.4142 T o t a l 85 621.40 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , J u l 22 Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq E r r o r F Prob Block 1 21.060 21.060 7.91 0.0064 P r e t r t 2 12.941 6.4703 2.43 0.0955 Bloom 2 10.269 5. 1346 1.93 0. 1531 P*Blm 4 14.886 3.7215 E r r (A) 0.99 0.4638 E r r (A) 8 29.971 3.7463 1.41 0.2092 E r r o r 68 180.97 2.6613 T o t a l 85 270.09 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , J u l 29 Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Block 1 0.22992 0.22992 0.06 0.8072 P r e t r t 2 4.7399 2.3699 0.62 0.5418 Bloom 2 18.054 9.0272 2.36 0.1026 P*Blm 4 18.043 4.5106 E r r (A) 0.60 0.6733 Err(A) 8 60.142 7.5178 1.96 0.0647 E r r o r 68 260.62 3.8326 T o t a l 85 361.83 FIELD EXPERIMENT, 1975, RAW DATA FROM SAMPLES. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , No. Flowering Uprights Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Block 1 3287. 1 3287.1 7. 35 0.0143 P r e t r t 2 1038.7 519.36 1.16 0. 3356 Bloom 2 3345. 1 1672.5 3.74 0.04 39 P*Blm 4 4 041.3 1010.3 E r r (A) 1.51 0.2871 Err (A) 8 5357.4 669.67 1.50 0.2264 E r r o r 18 8053.0 447.39 T o t a l 35 25123. 81 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , F r u i t No. Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Block 1 4096.0 4096.0 4. 96 0.0389 P r e t r t 2 363.50 181.75 0.22 0.8044 Bloom 2 3348.2 1674.1 2.03 0. 1604 P*Blm 4 8550.3 2137.6 E r r (A) 1. 88 0.2070 Err(A) 8 9085.0 1135.6 1.38 0.2714 E r r o r 18 14850. 825.00 T o t a l 35 40293. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , F r u i t Height (gm) Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Block 1 420.25 420.25 0.84 0.3728 P r e t r t 2 174,22 87.111 0. 17 0. 8424 Bloom 2 1713.7 856.86 1.70 0.2101 P*Blm 4 4341.6 1085.4 E r r (A) 1.57 0.2709 Err(A) 8 5518.0 689.75 1.37 0.2736 E r r o r 18 9054.5 503.03 T o t a l 35 21222. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , T o t a l No.uprights Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Block 1 1640.3 1640.3 1. 53 0.2327 P r e t r t 2 1894.4 947. 19 0.88 0.4316 Bloom 2 2689.4 1344.7 1.25 0.3101 P*Blm 4 9456.1 23 64.0 E r r (A) 1.76 0.2295 Err (A) 8 10733. 1341.6' 1.25 0.3288 E r r o r 18 19358. 1075.5 T o t a l 35 45772; A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Runner Length (mm) Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Block 1 0.234G9e+06 0.23409e+06 0. 86 0.3654 P r e t r t 2 0.13618e+07 0.68088e+06 2.51 0. 1094 Bloom 2 0.93784e+06 0.46892e+06 1.73 0.2060 P*Blm 4 0.10517e+07 0.26292e+06 Err(A) 0. 30 0.8671 Err(A) 8 0.69066e+07 0.86333e+06 3.18 0.0197 E r r o r 18 0.48867e+07 0.27148e+06 T o t a l 35 0.15379e+08 82 FIELD EXPERIMENT, 1975. RATIOS. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , No. P e d i c e l s / Flowering Upright Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Block 1 0.14360e-01 0.14360e- 01 0.22 0.6454 P r e t r t 2 0.72439 0.36220 5.52 0.0135 Bloom 2 0.54962e-01 0.27481e-•01 0.42 0.6639 P*Blm 4 1.1010 0.27526 E r r (A) 1. 94 0.1967 E r r (A) 8 1. 13 33 0.14167 2. 16 0.0834 E r r o r 18 1.1804 0.65580e-•01 T o t a l 35 4.2085 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , N o . f r u i t / Flowering U p r i g h t s Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq E r r o r F Prob Block 1 0.19360e-02 0. 19360e-02 0. 04 0. 8477 P r e t r t 2 0.10659 0.53297e- 01 1. 05 0.3718 Bloom 2 0.66863e-01 0.33431e- 01 0. 66 0.5309 P*Blm 4 0.19073 . 0.47681e~ 01 E r r (A) 3. 99 0.0455 E r r (A) 8 •0.95581e-01 0.11948e- 01 0. 23 0.9789 E r r o r 18 0.91736 0.50965e- 01 T o t a l 35 1.3791 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Wt / F r u i t Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sq E r r o r F Prob Block 1 0.40468e-01 0.40468e- 01 12.96 0.0020 P r e t r t 2 0.45985e-01 0.22993e- 01 7. 37 0.0046 Bloom 2 0.38588e-01 0.19294e- 01 6. 18 0.0090 P*Blm 4 0.54096e-01 0.13524e-•01 E r r (A) 2. 16 0.1650 E r r (A) 8 0.50189e-01 0.62736e- 02 2. 01 0.1043 E r r o r 18 0.56186e-01 0.31214e- 02 T o t a l 35 0.28551 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , ' % F r u i t Set Source Df Sum Sq Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Block 1 2.5680 2.5680 0. 08 0.7867 P r e t r t 2 128.98 64.492 1. 90 0.1790 Bloom 2 128.63 64.315 1. 89 0.1798 P*Blm 4 127.25 31.812 E r r (A) 1. 40 0.3179 E r r (A) 8 182,22 22.778 0. 67 0.7117 E r r o r 18 612.44 34.024 T o t a l 35 1182.1 83 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Flowering U p r i g h t s / T o t a l U p rights Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Block 1 0.26569e-01 0.26569e-01 6.71 0.0185 P r e t r t 2 0.21665e-01 0.10833e-01 2.73 0.0918 Bloom 2 0.40401e-01 0.20201e-01 5.10 0.0176 P*Blm 4 0.24342e-01 0.60856e-02 Err(A) 0.56 0.6996 E r r (A) 8 0.87214e-01 0.10902e-01 2.75 0.0355 E r r o r 18 0.71296e-01 0.39609e-02 T o t a l 35 0.27149 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Mixed Buds / T o t a l U p r i g h t s Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Block 1 0.46225e-03 0.46225e-03 0. 08 0.7799 P r e t r t 2 0.25891e-01 0.12946e-01 2. 25 0.1338 Bloom 2 0.67780e-01 0.33890e-•01 5. 90 0.0107 P*Blm 4 0.34977e-01 0.87442e-02 E r r (A) 0. 45 0.7671 E r r (A) 8 0.15380 0.19225e-01 3. 35 0.0158 E r r o r 18 0.10338 0.57431e- 02 T o t a l 35 0.38628 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , N O . Flowering Mixed / Flowering Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Block 1 0.14823e -02 0. 14823e-02 0.17 0.6835 P r e t r t 2 0.15314e -01 0.76570e- 02 0. 89 0.4292 Bloom 2 0.25224 0.12612 14.61 0.0002 P*Blm 4 0.22087e -01 0.55216e- 0 2 E r r (A) 0.21 0.9257 Err (A) 8 0.21043 0.26304e- 01 3.05 0.0236 E r r o r 18 0.15542 0.86344e- 02 T o t a l 35 0.65697 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , No. Nonflowering Mixed Buds / Nonflowering Source Df, Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Block 1 0.34810e-02 0.34810e-02 0. 46 0.5043 P r e t r t 2 0.32629e-01 0. 16314e-01 2. 18 0.1424 Bloom 2 0.78335e-01 0.39168e-01 5. 23 0. 0162 P*Blm 4 0.29363e-01 0.73408e-02 Err(A) 0. 28 0.8828 Err (A) 8 0.20955 0.26194e-01 3. 49 0.0131 E r r o r 18 0.13493 0.74960e-02 T o t a l 35 0.48828 84 FIELD EXPERIMENT, 1975. UPRIGHT LENGTH, NO. INTERNODES, LENGTH PER INTERNODE A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , Length (mm) Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Block 1 224 0.1 2240. 1 E r r (B) 3. 75 0.0685 P r e t r t 2 1668.6 834.31 Err(B) 1. 40 0.2726 Bloom 2 5914.8 2 957.4 E r r (B) 4. 96 0.0193 P*Blm 4 1656.5 414.12 E r r (A) 0. 43 0.7839 Err (A) 8 7711.0 963.88 E r r (B) 1. 62 0.1892 Er r (B) 18 1074 0. 596.68 1. 73 0.0407 E r r o r 144 49738. 345.40 T o t a l 179 79669. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e , No. of Internodes Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Block 1 84.050 84.050 E r r (B) 0.70 0.4137 P r e t r t 2 260.28 130. 14 E r r (B) 1. 08 0.3593 Bloom 2 299.68 149.84 E r r (B) 1. 25 0.3107 P*Blm 4 135.76 33*939 E r r (A) 1. 15 0.3982 Err(A) 8 235.20 29.400 E r r (B) 0. 24 0.9759 E r r (B) 18 2160.7 120.04 1. 83 0.0264 E r r o r 144 9427.2 65.467 T o t a l 179 12603. A n a l y s i s of ' Variance, Internode Length (mm) Source Df Sum Sg Mean Sg E r r o r F Prob Block 1 0.67345 0.67345 E r r (B) 2. 87 0.1074 P r e t r t 2 0.7551 1 0.37756 Err(B) 1. 61 0.2274 Bloom 2 1.0628 0.53140 E r r (B) 2. 27 0.1325 P*Blm 4 0.99818 0.24954 E r r (A) 0. 51 0.7287 Err (A) 8 3.8900 0.48625 E r r (B) 2. 07 0.0948 E r r <B) 18 4.2213 0.23451 1. 10 0.3612 E r r o r 144 30.792 0.21383 T o t a l 179 42.393 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093870/manifest

Comment

Related Items