Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Some effects of cool temperatures on flower production, fruit set and growth of four tomato varieties… Li, Shin Chai 1969

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1969_A6_7 L5.pdf [ 8.02MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0103967.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0103967-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0103967-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0103967-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0103967-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0103967-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0103967-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0103967-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0103967.ris

Full Text

SOME EFFECTS OF COOL TEMPERATURES ON FLOWER PRODUCTION, FRUIT SET AND GROWTH OF FOURi TOMATO VARIETIES AND THEIR. F l HYBRIDS by SHIN CHAI LI B.S.A., Un i v e r s i t y of Taiwan, 1 9 6 5 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT, OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE JZBE£&mgm&&£E i n the Department; of PLANT SCIENCE We accept this, thesis as- conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1 9 ^ 9 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n 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 a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o lumbia, I a g r e e t h a t t h e 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 agree t h a 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 purposes 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 The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The writer wishes to express his thanks to Dr. C.A.Hornby, Associate Professor of Ho r t i c u l t u r e and Chairman of the Thesis Committee, f o r supervision of: the experimental work and f o r valuable assistance i n the preparation of the th e s i s . Acknowledgement i s given to the other members of the thesis committee; Dr. G.W.Eaton, Associate Professor of Horticulture?, f o r h i s invaluable help i n the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis i n this= t h e s i s ; Dr. V.C.Brink, Professor of Agronomy and chairman of the D i v i s i o n of Plant Science; Dr. K.Cole, Associate Professor of Botany, Dr. D.P.Ormrod, Professor of Plant Science; Dr. C. W.Roberts, Associate Professor of Poirl.tryi Genetics, Department; of Poultry Science, f o r t h e i r i n t e r e s t and concern with the: project and preparation of the th e s i s . ABSTRACT. It i s desirable to develop tomato v a r i e t i e s which have the.* character of being able to set f r u i t at r e l a t i v e l y cool temp-erature between 10°C to 15.5°C f o r commercial production,in Canada. The tomato v a r i e t i e s Puck, Bonny Best, Immur, P r i o r Beta, Cold Set and some of t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l F l hybrids were grown.-both i n greenhouses and in> growth chambers under two d i f f e r e n t temperature l e v e l s , experiments were c a r r i e d out to study f r u i t , set and the e f f e c t s of s e l f and c r o s s - p o l l i n a t i o n on. f r u i t development i n four v a r i e t i e s and the F l hybrids of PxBB, BBxP, IPBxBB, BBxIPB, CSxBB, and BBxCS. Under both cool and warm temperatures, the percentage of f r u i t set and also s i z e of f r u i t were increased when cross-p o l l i n a t i o n was used i n contrast to s e l f - p o l l i n a t i o n . Under cool temperature, a l l F l hybrid l i n e s had a higher percentage of f r u i t set than t h e i r tivo parents, but i n warm temperature the F l hybrid l i n e s had a intermediate percentage between those of the two parents. Under both temperature regimes there were d i s t i n c t d i f f e -rences among l i n e s i n the time i n t e r v a l s f o r d i f f e r e n t component stages i n the l i f e cycle. Cool temperatures increased lengths of these i n t e r v a l s , but r e l a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e -i n lengths of i n t e r v a l was c l e a r l y evident. Among the ten l i n e s , IPB was notably the e a r l i e s t v a r i e t y to ripe f i r s t f r u i t . In the f i r s t component i n t e r v a l from seeding to flower opening, IPB was the e a r l i e s t and Bonny Best the l a t e s t ; however, fo r the two succeeding i n t e r v a l s , namely flowering to f r u i t set and f r u i t set to ripening, IPB did not have the shortest; i n t e r v a l s or most rapid growth. In fac t Puck v a r i e t y was better than IPB f o r the second component i n t e r v a l , and i n the t h i r d i n t e r v a l , (BBxIPB)Fl and the r e c i p r o c a l cross were the e a r l i e s t . This sort of v a r i a b i l i t y suggests recombination to put tlie e a r l i e s t component stages together to synthesize a very early l i n e . i v L I S T OF T A B L E S T a b l e 1 P e r c e n t a g e o f f r u i t s e t o f P u c k , B o n n y B e s t a n d t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l h y b r i d s i n c o o l g r e e n h o u s e . T a b l e 2 P e r c e n t a g e o f f r u i t s e t o f P u c k , B o n n y B e s t a n d t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l h y b r i d s i n warm g r e e n h o u s e . T a b l e 3 P e r c e n t a g e o f f r u i t s e t o f C o l d S e t . Iraraur P r i o r B e t a a n d t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l w i t h B o n n y B e s t i n c o o l g r e e n h o u s e . T a b l e k P e r c e n t a g e o f f r u i t s e t o f C o l d S e t , Immur P r i o r B e t a a n d t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l w i t h B o n n y B e s t i n warm g r e e n h o u s e . T a b l e 5 M e a n f r u i t w e i g h t (g ) o f P u c k , B o n n y B e s t a n d t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l h y b r i d s i n c o o l g r e e n h o u s e . T a b l e 6 Mean f r u i t w e i g h t (g ) o f P u c k , B o n n y B e s t a n d t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l h y b r i d s i n warm g r e e n h o u s e . T a b l e 7 M e a n f r u i t w e i g h t (g ) o f C o l d S e t , Immur P r i o r B e t a a n d t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l w i t h B o n n y B e s t i n c o o l g r e e n h o u s e . T a b l e 8 M e a n f r u i t w e i g h t ( g ) o f C o l d S e t , Immur P r i o r B e t a arid t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l w i t h B o n n y B e s t i n warm g r e e n h o u s e . T a b l e 9 S e e d n u m b e r a n d p e r c e n t a g e o f p a r t h e n o c a r p i c f r u i t i n t h e t e n l i n e s a t two d i f f e r e n t t e m p e r a t u r e s . T a b l e 10 S e e d n u m b e r n u m bo r p e r f r u i t o f P u c k , B o n n y B e s t a n d t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l h y b r i d s i n c o o l g r e e n h o u s e . T a b l e 11 S e e d n u m b e r p e r f r u i t o f P u c k , B o n n y B e s t a n d t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l h y b r i d s i n warm g r e e n h o u s e . Table 12 Seed number per f r u i t of Cold Set, Immur P r i o r Beta and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids with Bonny Best i n cool greenhouse. Table 13 Seed number per f r u i t of Cold Set, Immur P r i o r Beta and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids with Bonny Best i n warm greenhouse. Table ik Percentage of seed germination i n four v a r i e t i e s and si x F l hybrid l i n e s at two d i f f e r e n t temperaturelevels. Table 15 Number of flower buds formed on f i r s t four clu s t e r s of four v a r i e t i e s and s i x hybrid l i n e s i n warm greenhouse. Table 16 Number of flower buds formed on f i r s t four clu s t e r s of four v a r i e t i e s and s i x hybrid l i n e s i n cool greenhouse. Table 17 Number of f r u i t formed on f i r s t four clu s t e r s ©f four v a r i e t i e s and s i x hybrid l i n e s i n warm greenhouse. Table 18 Number of f r u i t formed on f i r s t four c l u s t e r s of four v a r i e t i e s and s i x hybrid l i n e s i n cool greenhouse. Table 19 F i r s t flower, f r u i t set and ripe f r u i t i n a l l l i n e s , compared with IPB & i n warm greenhouse. Table 20 F i r s t flower, f r u i t set and ripe f r u i t i n a l l l i n e s , compared with IPB ® i n cool greenhouse. Table 21 Percentage of f r u i t set of four v a r i e t i e s and s i x F l hybrid l i n e s i n warm greenhouse. Table 22 Percentage of f r u i t set of four v a r i e t i e s and s i x F l hybrid l i n e s i n cool greenhouse. v i T a b l e 2 3 Growth days from s e e d i n g to r i p e f r u i t o f f o u r v a r i e t i e s and s i x PI h y b r i d l i n e s i n warm greenhouse. T a b l e 2k Growth days from s e e d i n g to r i p e f r u i t 6f3 f o u r v a r i e t i e s and s i x F l h y b r i d l i n e s i n c o o l greenhouse. T a b l e 2 5 Mean f r u i t weight (g) of f o u r v a r i e t i e s and six-h y b r i d l i n e s i n warm greenhouse. T a b l e 26 Mean f r u i t weight (g) of f o u r v a r i e t i e s and s i x h y b r i d l i n e s i n c o o l greenhouse. T a b l e 27 P a r t h e n o c a r p i c f r u i t o f f o u r v a r i e t i e s and s i x h y b r i d l i n e s i n two d i f f e r e n t temperatures i n the greenhouse. T a b l e 28 Percentage o f f r u i t s e t on Puck, Bonny Best and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l h y b r i d s i n a warm growth chamber. T a b l e 2 9 Percentage o f f r u i t s e t on Puck, Bonny Best and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l h y b r i d s i n e c o o l growth chamber. T a b l e 3 0 Percentage o f f r u i t s e t on C o l d Set, Immur P r i o r Beta and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l h y b r i d s w i t h Bonny Best i n a warm growth chamber. T a b l e 3 1 Percentage o f f r u i t s e t on C o l d Set, Immur P r i o r Beta and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l h y b r i d s w i t h Binny Best i n a c o o l growth chamber. T a b l e 3 2 Mean f r u i t weight (g) of Puck, Bonny Best and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l h y b r i d s i n a warm growth chamber. T a b l e 3 3 Mean f r u i t weight (g) o f Puck, Bonny Best and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l h y b r i d s i n a c o o l growth chamber. T a b l e 34 Mean f r u i t weight (g) of C o l d Set and Immur P r i o r Beta and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l h y b r i d s w i t h Bonny Best i n a warm growth chamber. V l l Table 3 5 Mean f r u i t weight (g) of Cold Set and Immur P r i o r Beta and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids with Bonny Best i n a cool growth chamber. Table 3 6 Seed number of Puck, Bonny Best and therLi r e c i p r o c a l hybrids i n a warm growth chamber. Table 3 7 Seed number of Puck, Bonny Best and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids i n a cool growth chamber. Table 3 8 Seed number of Cold Set, Immur P r i o r Beta and their. r e c i p r o c a l hybrids with Bonny Best i n a warm growth chamber. Table 3 9 Seed number of Cold Set, Immur P r i o r Beta and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids with Bonny Best i n a cool growth chamber. Table kO Percentage of f r u i t set, growth days from seeding to ri p e f r u i t and f r u i t weight fo four v a r i e t i e s and six hybrid l i n e s imia warm growth chamber. Table 4 l Percentage of f r u i t set, growth days from seeding to rip e f r u i t and f r u i t weight of four v a r i e t i e s and six hybrid l i n e s i n a cool growth chamber. Table 42 Percentage of pollen germination i n v i t r o f o r four v a r i e t i e s grown under cool temperatures. Table Percentage of pollen germination i n v i t r o f o r four v a r i e t i e s grown under warm temperatures. Table kk Pollen germination i n vivo. v i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS page INTRODUCTION 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 1,3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 2 0 A. Materials 2 0 B. Methods 2 3 1 . Greenhouse experiments 2 3 a. 1 9 6 7 - 1 9 6 8 experiment 2 3 b. I 9 6 8 - I 9 6 9 experiment 26 2 . Growth chamber experiments 27 a. experiment 1 27 b. experiment 2 28 3 . Pollen experiments 28 a. po l l e n germination i n v i t r o 28 b. pollen germination i n vivo 2 9 RESULTS 1 . Greenhouse experiments 32 a. 1 9 6 7 - 1 9 6 8 experiment 32 b. 1 9 6 8 - 1 9 6 9 experiment 48 2 . Growth chamber experiments 6 8 a. exfjeriment 1 . . . . . . 6 8 b. experiment 2 82 3 . Pollen experiments 8 5 a. p o l l e n germination i n v i t r o 8 5 b. po l l e n germination i n vivo 8 5 ix DISCUSSION 89 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 98 LITERATURE CITED 100 APPENDIX , 108 1 INTRODUCTION The tomato i s a warm temperature crop and unfavorably cool temperatures r e s u l t i n comparatively slow plant growth and l a t e f r u i t ripening. This crop has two basic temperature requirements: a f r o s t free period of about 110 days from seeding and a r e l a t i v e l y warm temperature during that period. When the ordinary commercial v a r i e t i e s are exposed to outside f i e l d temperatures between 10°C and 15.5°C, the f i r s t and second inflorescences frequently f a i l to set f r u i t . The r e l a t i v e l y low temperatures have been shown to r e s u l t i n poor f r u i t set of flowers which open about two weeks a f t e r exposure to a cold temperature treatment, although such temperatures did not a f f e c t f r u i t set of open flowers. (46 ) Tomato growers would l i k e to have consistent f r u i t set during the period of r e l a t i v e l y cool, low temperatures, i n order to supply the early, more l u c r a t i v e market, and also increase t o t a l y i e l d s . For these purposes i t i s necessary to increase the range of temperature tolerance f o r economic tomato growing. Thus i n Canada, w h e r e the season i s short and somewhat cool, i t i s very important to breed new v a r i e t i e s for s e t t i n g f r u i t s u c c e s s f u l l y i n the early spring season. F r u i t s e t t i n g i s a r e s u l t of a complex sequence of develop-ments, therefore i t i s necessary to know what constitutes the character of s e t t i n g f r u i t at cool temperatures, and as c e r t a i n the mechanisms which control these characters. 2 This knowledge would enable plant breeders to incorporate temperature tolerance i n breeding programmes. The purpose of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s to determine the characters c o n t r o l l i n g the a b i l i t y to set f r u i t at cool temperatures around 10°C to 12.8°C. Present studies were confined to the temperature e f f e c t on flower, f r u i t and seed development a f t e r s e l f - and c r o s s - p o l l i n a t i o n t r e a t -ments of four tomato v a r i e t i e s , Puck, Bonny Best, Immur Pr i o r Beta and Cold Set, and of t h e i r F l hybrids. 3 LITERATURE REVIEW There are several reports i n d i c a t i n g that poor f r u i t set of tomato plants at cool temperature could be due to i n t e r a c -tions between the genetic c o n s i t u t i o n and environment which may influence development from seeding to f r u i t maturation. It i s convenient to review the l i t e r a t u r e concerned with each step which may be affected d i f f e r e n t l y by v a r i a t i o n i n growing conditions. Seed germination and seedling growth In e a r l i e r studies, v a r i a t i o n i n the rate of seed germina-t i o n at d i f f e r e n t temperatures has been observed i n many vegetable crops. Kotowski (2k) reported that speed of germina-t i o n f o r 17 d i f f e r e n t kinds of vegetables increased as the temperature rose. The optimum temperature f o r tomato was 18°C and the minimum was between 11°C and 18°C, lettuce 25°C, etc. Metcalf (35) tested 53 v a r i e t i e s and l i n e s of tomato f o r a b i l i t y to germinate at cool temperatures. He found that differences i n germination depended on v a r i e t y , but germina-t i o n took longer at the cooler temperature. Went (56) found the time required f o r tomato seed germination depended on temperature, and lower temperatures required longer periods. Kemp (21) suggested that the a b i l i t y of some tomato v a r i e t i e s l i k e E a r l i n o r t h and Rocket, to germinate at low temperatures may be in h e r i t e d ; and at 10°C or lower, the percentage of germination i s reduced s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Whittington (59) reported that time f o r germination showed a genetic component, but the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between d i f f e r e n t genotypes was much influenced by environmental f a c t o r s . The e f f e c t of tempera-ture on seed germination was highly s i g n i f i c a n t , the time required f o r germination being greatest at the lower temperatures. F l o r a l induction and i n i t i a t i o n There are several reports about the influence of tempera-ture and l i g h t on f l o r a l induction and i n i t i a t i o n i n the tomato. Phatak ( 3 7 ) reported that temperatures of 10°C to 12,8* s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced the number of nodes below the f i r s t i nflorescence when compared to 1 5 . 5°C to 1 8 . 5°C or 18 .5°C to 2 1 . 1°C. At 10°C to 12.8°C root temperature, the number of flowers was s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased as compared to 15.5°C to 18.5°C or 18 .5°C to 2 1 . 1°C during the period from the seedling to the appearance of the f i r s t inflorescence. Went ( 5 7 ) how-ever, stated that when tomato plants were grown at a constant temperature,,the optimum was 2 6 . 5°C, and plants grown at lower temperatures had a c o n s i s t e n t l y lower growth rate. However, optimum temperature by day and a lower night temperature did not m a t e r i a l l y increase or decrease thernumber of flowers i n i t i a t e d per inflorescence. He concluded that thermo-p e r i o d i c i t y i n tomatoes i s due to the predominance of two d i f f e r e n t processes at day and at night, of which the dark process has a much lower temperature optimum than the l i g h t process. He emphasized that thermoperiodicity i s a general phenomenon i n higher plants. Lewis ( 3 1 ) reported that environment, e s p e c i a l l y temperature, i s one of the main f a c t o r s which a f f e c t the size of the inflorescence i n tomato. A low temperature ( l 4 ° C ) during the growing period, from the expansion of cotyledons to the appearance of the f i r s t , i n f lorescence, r e s u l t e d i n an increase i n flower production as compared with plants r a i s e d at 25°C to 3 0°C. He also i n -dicated that a l t e r n a t i o n of warm days and cool nights, and vice versa, as opposed to a uniform temperature, had no ef f e c t on flo\>rer number i n plants grown under natural l i g h t , but both temperature combinations had a depressing e f f e c t on flower production under a r t i f i c i a l l i g h t . Regarding the temperature e f f e c t on the f i r s t inflorescence, the s e n s i t i v e period was between the 8 t h to 1 2 t h day a f t e r cotyledon expansion to the emergence of the f i r s t inflorescence. This e f f e c t may sometimes l a s t to the f i f t h inflorescence. Wittwer ( 6 3 ) and Calvert ( 4 ) observed s i m i l a r r e s u l t s . They also reported that e a r l i e s t flowering was i n i t i a t e d when the day and night temperatures were equal (constant temperature). Lake ( 2 5 ) suggested that various plant processes such as vegetative growth, flower i n i t i a t i o n , f l o r a l growth and f r u i t growth may have d i f f e r e n t temperature requirements. For exampl both the mean number of branches per inflorescence and the : . number of flowers per plant were le a s t at the highest mean d a i l y temperature ( 2 3 . 3°C day, l 6 . 6 ° C night ) and were greatest at the lowest temperature regime ( day 18 .3°C, night 1 3 « 3°C ). Again, Lake ( 2 6 ) indicated that the tomato plant l i f e can be divided into four periods, as follows: 1 . emergence to flower i n i t i a t i o n 6 2. flower i n i t i a t i o n to anthesis of the f i r s t flower 3. anthesis of f i r s t flower to s e t t i n g of the l a s t f r u i t 4. s e t t i n g of the l a s t f r u i t to the end of harvesting. The mean number of branches i n each inflorescence depended on the day temperature applied during period 1, before flower i n i t i a t i o n , and was l e a s t at the highest temperature. The number of flowers per plant appeared to be affected by the treatments applied i n period 2 as well as i n period 1, being l e a s t at the highest temperature. F l o r a l development A. Development of the perianth Z i e l i n s k i (64) reported that unfavourable environmental factors influenced perianth development i n the tomato, and that a low temperature of 7.2°C to 12.8°C resulted i n f a s c i a -t i o n of perianth components. Sometimes sepals may not be present i n f a s c i a t e d flowers, but i f present, they may ex i s t i n numbers as high as eight, and often become p e t a l o i d . B. Development of the stamens Unfavourable environmental factors i n t e r a c t i n g with d i f f e r e n t genotypes may cause abnormal stamen development. Z i e l i n s k i (64) reported that flower f a s c i a t i o n may a f f e c t the stamens, sometimes r e s u l t i n g i n adhesion of stamens to the c o r o l l a or calyx, and cohesion of the a n t h e r i d i a l filaments. Rudimentary anther sacs with aborted p o l l e n occurred frequently. Some gene mutations respond to temperature change and influence normal p o l l e n development. Rick and Boynton (45) 7 obtained a spontaneous mutant of L. esculentum i n which differences i n temperature account for the varied response of a single recessive gene, v a r i a b l e - m a l e - s t e r i l e (vms), to the environment. Minimal temperatures of 30°C i n the f i e l d and of 32°C i n the greenhouse were required to allow ex-pression of the s t e r i l e phenotype. Soost ( 5 2 ) reported on f i v e tomato mutants, each of which shotted s t e r i l i t y due to one of f i v e n o n - a l l e l i c , asynaptic genes. And the action of these genes could be influenced by temperature. Poole ( 3 8 ) suggested f l u c t u a t i o n i n the percentages of fun c t i o n a l p o l l e n i n pure species i s probably influenced by the p h y s i o l o g i c a l adjustments made to flowering and senescence. Robinson e_t a l (46) indicated that when plants were kept at 10°C from p o l l i n a t i o n u n t i l f e r t i l i z a t i o n , p o llen tubes penetrated the complete length of the s t y l e s i n less than 4 8 hours. The removal of s t y l e s from flowers a few days a f t e r they were p o l l i n a t e d and the plants kept at 10°C did not reduce f r u i t set or seed production. Thus cold tempera-ture did not seem to a f f e c t f r u i t set during or a f t e r p o l l i n a t i o n . The undesirable influence of low temperature seems to be e f f e c t i v e p r i o r to p o l l i n a t i o n . They also suggested that low temperature did not a f f e c t f r u i t set of open flowers but did cause poor f r u i t set of flowers that opened about 2 weeks a f t e r the cold treatment. Flowers p o l l i n a t e d during the u n f r u i t f u l period 2 weeks a f t e r the cold treatment had very l i t t l e p ollen, most of which was not v i a b l e . These plants were more f e r t i l e when used as female parents than when used 8 as male parents i n crosses with plants not exposed to low temperature. They concluded that low temperature reduces f r u i t set of tomatoes p r i m a r i l y through i t s influence on gametogenesis, and e s p e c i a l l y on pol l e n formation. Shannon ( 4 8 ) made a s i m i l a r report and claimed that during the u n f r u i t f u l period, flowers were abnormal and looked very much l i k e those of some male s t e r i l e mutants. He observed that petals were shortened, stamens were green to pale yellow and shrunken, and pollen production was c u r t a i l e d . He concluded that there was genetic v a r i a t i o n i n response to cold temperature during microsporogenesis. Hornby and Daubeny ( 1 7 ) investigated two tomato v a r i e t i e s , Puck and Bonny Best, at two d i f f e r e n t temperature l e v e l s ( 10°C to 1 2 . 8°C and 1 8 . 5°C to 2 1 . 1 ° c ) . They found nearly 2 5 $ of the Bonny Best flowers had a small amount of pollen, and the remainder had none; whereas nearly 8 5 % of Puck flowers had abundant p o l l e n and the remainder had none. Two samples of pol l e n produced at the cool temperature averaged 2 4 . 9 $ v i a b l i t y f o r Puck and only 2 . 5 $ f o r Bonny Best. Those data suggested genetic differences between Puck and Bonny Best i n production of via b l e pollen, germination of pol l e n and f e r t i l i z a t i o n at r e l a t i v e l y cool temperature. Daubeny ( 8 ) reported that lack of vi a b l e p o l l e n might be an important f a c t o r l i m i t i n g f r u i t set. He found that two v a r i e t i e s , Puck and Bonny Best growing under f i e l d conditions when night temperatures were lower than 1 2 . 8°C and l i g h t i n -t e n s i t i e s were high, produced c o n s i s t e n t l y high amount of 9 66$ to' 88$ v i a b l e p o l l e n per flower. Pollen can be produced normally, but may not be released from the anthers due to morphological abnormalities. Larson and Paur (27.) studied t h i s f u n c t i o n a l male s t e r i l e tomato, and reported that the connate form of the petals resulted i n considerable c o n s t r i c t i o n of the anthers and tended to hold them i n close contact with the p i s t i l , thus preventing rupture of the stromium and the subsequent release of the po l l e n . C. Development of the p i s t i l Unfavourable environmental factors l i k e extreme temperature, i n t e r a c t i n g with d i f f e r e n t genotypes, may cause abnormal p i s t i l development i n the tomato flower. Under cool temperature, to-mato flowers often drop without s e t t i n g f r u i t , and one of. the main factors may be abortion of the p i s t i l . Rick (hk) reported that i n tomato lower nutrient l e v e l s may cause two types of female s t e r i l i t y . In the f i r s t type, the megaspores degenerated immediately after- meiosis. In the second type, an embryo sac mother c e l l was not formed and the nucellus remained u n d i f f e -r e n t i a t e d . Variable environment s i g n i f i c a n t l y influences s t y l a r deve-lopment. Short photoperiod, low l i g h t i n t e n s i t y , extra carbo-hydrates, i n t e r a c t i o n of high temperature with low hummidity, etc., a l l may cause s t y l a r elongation. This abnormal development i n d i r e c t l y influences the f r u i t set. Daubeny (9) investigated 36 flowers of the tomato v a r i e t y Bonny Best, uder cool temp-erature (10°C to 12.8°C), and found only 4 l . 7 $ flowers were normal, and i n the remainder, 58.3$ of the s t y l e s were elongated. The long s t y l e was one of the factors causing tomato plants to 10 be u n f r u i t f u l under cool temperature culture. Also under cool temperature, tomato flowers may show f a s c i a t e d ovaries. The locules are often increased i n number and the ovules may be rudimentary or aborted (56). Smith (5°) found that tomato flowering seemed to be l a r g e l y dependent upon s o i l moisture and temperature. The temperature e x i s t i n g approximately three days before anthesis appeared to have the greatest influence upon flowering. During periods of hot dry winds and low s o i l moisture, the s t y l e s elongated abnormally s i m i l a r to the e f f e c t s of extreme temperatures. Pollen germination and growth Germination of p o l l e n and growth of the p o l l e n tubes down the s t y l a r tissue are influenced by environmental f a c t o r s . Bonn ( l ) suggested that the c r i t i c a l temperature d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g p o l l e n germination, tube growth and f e r t i l i z a t i o n i n the tomato was between 12.8 C and 18.5 C. Hornby and Charles (18) found, reason to question the e f f e c t s of d i f f e r e n t amounts of p o l l e n p e i r l i g m a y and reported the need f o r a minimum size of p o l l e n a p p l i c a t i o n , and noted v a r i e t a l differences i n the minima. Koot; (23) found that the germination of tomato pollen on the stigma was influenced by temperature. At high temperature the germination spe-ed was much greater (optimum at about 30°C) . At high temperatures the germination of the p o l l e n seeded to have suffered s l i g h t l y from low a i r humidity. The pollen germination was poor i n dark, humid weather and when virus 11 was present. Both the percentage and speed of germination were l a r g e l y dependent on the temperature. Dempsey and Boynton ( 1 2 ) reported both p o l l e n germination and p o l l e n tube growth were g r e a t l y reduced by cool night temperatures, which was r e f l e c t e d i n reduced f r u i t and seed set. Smith ( 5 0 ) observed that tomato flowers remained open f o r several days, depending l a r g e l y on the temperature. Tomato plants d i d not have a d e f i n i t e flowering peak; and anthesis appeared to be correlated with temperature. Extremely high temperatures caused the styles- to elongate abnormally, and exceptionally early, r e s u l t i n g i n lack of f e r t i l i z a t i o n , and then ab s c i s s i o n of flowers. Pollen germina-t i o n on tomato stigmas at 3 7 « 7°C was- extremely poor, and the p o l l e n tubes v/ere a l l very short. Optimum germination wa& obtained at 2 9 . 4°C, although at 2 1 . 1°C the germination was only a t r i f l e l e s s , whereas at 10°C i t was. poor even though somewhat better than at 3 7 . 7°C. Again, Smith and Cochran ( 5 1 ) indicated that temperatures of 2 1 . 1°C to 2 9 . 4°C permitted the highest percentage of p o l l e n germination; and 2 1 . 1°C allowed! the maximum rate of growth of the p o l l e n tube. F e r t i l i z a t i o n and f r u i t maturation Successful f e r t i l i z a t i o n requires; that p o l l e n be i n contact with the stigmatic surface and germinate, and the male gametes should be c a r r i e d by the p o l l e n tube to the ovule and discharged near the egg. Smith ( 5 0 ) reported that f e r t i l i z a t i o n occurred between 82 and 9^ hours a f t e r p o l l i n a t i o n at a temperature between 1 5 . 5°C and 2 3 . 5°C. Dempsey and Boynton ( 1 3 ) found the 12 number of seed per f r u i t was s i g n i f i c a n t l y c orrelated with f r u i t weight. They thought that ovule number determined f r u i t s i z e ; and a large many seeded f r u i t would originate from a large ovary containing many ovules. Also they found differences? a t t r i b u t e d to p o l l e n source. Davis ejt a l (10) stated that f r u i t set i n the tomato i s considered to be dependent on successful attainment of f e r t i l i t y i n i n d i v i d u a l flowers and successful p o l l i n a t i o n . They also indicated that environmental conditionsr have a quantitative e f f e c t upon the chain of generative events and the number of seeds produced i s a quantitative index of f l o r a l f e r t i l i t y . Most v a r i e t i e s of tomatoes w i l l produce parthenocarpic f r u i t at a r e l a t i v e l y low temperature, but not at the warm temperatures. Osborne and Went (58) found parthenocarpic f r u i t at a low/ temperature with a high l i g h t i n t e n s i t y . Daubeny (9) also found that poor p o l l e n germination and/or growth may explain the parthenocarpic f r u i t produced by tomato v a r i e t y Bonny Best at the cool temperature (lO°C to 12.8°C) despite hand p o l l i n a -t i o n s . Both v:arieties9lBonny Be strand Puck, were able to produce parthenocarpic f r u i t at the cool temperature, but Puck would produce f r u i t with seed \tfhen there was pollen a v a i l a b l e . There are a number of reports on the i n t e r a c t i o n of environ-ment and genotype of f r u i t set. Lake (25) studying the temp-erature e f f e c t on f r u i t s e t t i n g , claimed that day temperature appeared more important than night temperature. When the day and night values were r e s p e c t i v e l y l6.6°C and 13.3°C, the v a r i e t y " C r a i g e l l a " set p r a c t i c a l l y no f r u i t during the spring 13 and early summer. Raising the night temperature 3 . 3 C resulted i n only a small improvement, but r a i s i n g the day temperature by the same amount caused a marked improvement and nearly a l l the flowers produced marketable f r u i t s . Robinson et a l ( 4 5 ) reported that cold temperature appears to a f f e c t f r u i t s e t t i n g of tomato p r i m a r i l y through i t s influence on microsporogenesis. They also reported that high temperatures had a s i m i l a r e f f e c t , suggesting that the same genetic system determines f r u i t s e t t i n g response to both high and low temperatures. Wedding and Vines ( 5 7 ) pointed out that although f i e l d observations may indicate that a period of poor plant growth, inadequate f r u i t set or abnormally shaped f r u i t coincide with a period of low temperature, i t i s impossible to be c e r t a i n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p under f i e l d conditions. Other fact o r s such as sunlight, humidity, nutrient supply, or water may also be changing at the same time. Walkof ( 5 4 ) reported that the most important single environmental fa c t o r c o n t r o l l i n g the maturity of tomatoes i s probably temperature-. When tomatoes were grown under d i f f e r e n t temperatures, 7 . 2°C to 10°C, 1 2 . 8°C to 1 5 . 5°C and 1 5 . 5 ° to 2 1 . 1°C, good f r u i t set and early ripening were obtained i n the highest temperature. Plant growth was retarded i n the 1 2 . 8°C to 1 5 . 5 ° C In the lowest temperature, maturity was delayed i n a l l characters, and i n extreme cases, flower s t e r i l i t y developed regardless of v a r i e t y . Lake ( 2 6 ) reported that as a r e s u l t of the separate e f f e c t s of temperature on the number offlowers and on the rate of s e t t i n g , an increase of day temperature at any stage reduced the time elapsing- between anthesis of the f i r s t flower and the s e t t i n g of the l a s t one. He also found that the f i r s t -harvest was delayed s l i g h t l y by high day temperatures i n the period before flower i n i t i a t i o n , but i n subsequent periods high day temperature gr e a t l y advanced the date of harvest. Schaible (^7) reported the commercial v a r i e t i e s , Rutgers, Improved Garden State, Ace and Sioux set f r u i t f r e e l y at night temperatures of 1 3 . 9°C and l 6 . 6 ° C , but set very few f r u i t s at night temperatures of 2 2 . 8°C and 2 6 . 6°C. He also pointed out that f r u i t size decreased as night temperatures were increased, and seed content i n f r u i t of each v a r i e t y was r e l a t e d to i t s degree of heat tolerance. Learner ( 2 9 ) reported the i n t e n s i t y of the f r u i t i n g response was d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to each increase i n temperatures. Went ( 5 6 ) reported the following. 1 . At high night temperature tomato f r u i t set i s very poor, and i s strongly i n h i b i t e d by vegetative growth. When tomato plants grown at 26°C during night were decapitated, immediatedly a few f r u i t did set at the highest inflorescence. This response showed that at high temperature there was a strong competition between vegetative and f r u i t growth which may be explained on the basis of simple competition f o r sugar. 2 . At low night temperature f r u i t i n g i s also poor, but cannot be increased by decapitation. At 10°C and l 4°C night tempera-ture, auxin sprays strongly stimulated f r u i t set, whereas at 2 6 ° c night temperature, auxin applications were i n e f f e c t i v e . This response also indicated that at low but not at high temperature, auxin supplies are l i m i t i n g . 3« Not only f r u i t , 1 5 but also flower development i s strongly reduced at high night temperatures, and excessive abscission occurs. Sugar sprayed on the plants at 26°C night temperature prevented flower a b s c i s s i o n and allowed the flowers to develop normal s i z e . This response shows that the poor flower development at high temperature was due to i n s u f f i c i e n t sugar supply to the growing region, k. The e f f e c t s of night temperature could be expected to be greatest on the root system, which i s f a r t h e s t removed from the photosynthetic region. Hybrid vigor "The expressions 'hybrid v i g o r 1 and 'heterosis' are used to describe a v a r i e t y of phenomena \tfhich may appear i n the progeny of a cross between inbred parents" ( Gowen, 1 9 5 1 ) • The hybrids are often bigger than eit h e r parent, they may germinate better, flower e a r l i e r and give a higher y i e l d etc. Hatcher ( 1 5 ) reported with constant seed number there i s high p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between f r u i t and seed weight. Seed and embryo size are l a r g e l y determined by the number of seeds i n a f r u i t , and thus by the effectiveness of p o l l i n a t i o n . Cross p o l l i n a t i o n by hand i s less e f f e c t i v e than natural s e l f -p o l l i n a t i o n , leading to hybrid f r u i t s with fewer seeds and thusllarrger embryos. C o r b e i l and Bulter (6) and K h e i r a l l a and W i l l i n g t o n (22), using the same crosses with L. p i m p i n e l l i f o l i u m and L. esculentum, and doing genetic analyses of the F l hybrid vigor, found heterosis apparently due to gene recombina-t i o n and i n t e r a c t i o n which showed as responses i n seed s i z e , 16 growth rate, f r u i t weight, dry weight and l e a f area. A. Germination of seed and seedling growth Luckwill ( 3 2 ) reported tomato hybrid seed did not germinate more quickly than t h e i r parents. No plant size d i f ferences between r e c i p r o c a l hybrids from seed of d i f f e r e n t weight at 16 or 1^5 days a f t e r seeding. In c e r t a i n hybrids heterosis was already established i n the young shoot p r i -mordium by the l 6 t h day and was maintained on a r e l a t i v e basis u n t i l the 1 ^ 5 t h day. Several hybrids of tomato which exhibited plant weight heterosis did not show height heterosis and vice versa. Hatcher ( 1 5 ) indicated a f t e r germination of hybrid tomato seed, that the heterosis of the cotyledons temporarily masked during dormancy, reappeared and was re-f l e c t e d i n t h e i r f i n a l s i z e . The plumule showed no s i z e heterosis during the vegetative stage of growth before flowering, but heterosis became very evident a f t e r the onset, of flowering. B. F l o r a l stage and f r u i t set Williams ( 6 2 ) investigated several characters of tomato F l hybrids i n c l u d i n g number of f r u i t , average weight per f r u i t , f r u i t weight per plant, flower number and flowering date. He found the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l e v e l s of v a r i a b i l i t y of c e r t a i n parents which vreve found to be transmitted to the F l hybrids. Generally, the v a r i a b i l i t y of F l hybrids fluctuated around the mid parental value, but with respect to flowering date, low v a r i a b i l i t y was transmitted as a dominant character. 17 Burdick ( 3 ) and Luckwill ( 3 3 ) both, claimed the time of flowering i n most hybrids i s approximately intermediate betxveen the flowering dates of the two parents. Powers ( 3 9 ) reported with respect to number of r i p e f r u i t per tomato plant, that there was a range i n expression of dominance and i n heterosis f o r the number of f r u i t s per plant. With regard to weight of r i p e f r u i t , the F l hybrids varied from no dominance and i n heterosis f o r the number of f r u i t s per plant. With regard to weight of ripe f r u i t , the F l hybrids varied from no dominance—or at most, s l i g h t p a r t i a l dominance—of larger f r u i t to s l i g h t p a r t i a l dominance of smaller f r u i t to marked p a r t i a l dominance of smaller f r u i t and l a t t e r i s nonbeneficial h e t e r o s i s . Larson (28) reported that the inheritance of f r u i t s i z e i s intermediate i n the F l hybrid with a tendency toward the smaller f r u i t e d parent. There was a close r e l a t i o n s h i p between F l f r u i t size and the geometrical average of parents. Luckwill ( 3 3 ) claimed the tomato F l plants exhibited very marked hybrid vigor during the flowering stage, which was manifested i n an increase i n the dry weight of both stems and leaves, i n t o t a l l e a f area and i n the s i z e of the i n d i v i d u a l leaves. The l a r g e r size of the leaves of the hybrid compared with those of the t a l l parent was shown to be due to differences i n c e l l number and not to any increase i n c e l l » s i z e . C. Y i e l d Williams and G i l b e r t (60) reported the greater part of the average heterosis f o r y i e l d i n the tomato i s due simply to the 18 r e l a t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the l e v e l s of the recombination of genetic components of y i e l d i n the parents of a given cross. Heterosis i n tomato was l a r g e l y confined to crosses between parents which were below observed maxima i n the range of v a r i a t i o n f o r a p a r t i c u l a r character. Near maximal l e v e l s have been f i x e d i n the pure breeding v a r i e t i e s which f a l l i n the upper ranges of v a r i a t i o n , and these are not exceeded by h e t e r o t i c hybrids between poorer parents. The behaviour of the en t i r e range of hybrids i s consistent with a c o n t r o l l i n g genetic system that i s based on complementary gene action: with an unJcnown, and possibly v a r i a b l e , degree of dominance. Burdick ( 3 ) found that greater early y i e l d i s one of the p r i n c i p a l manifestations of heterosis i n the tomato but that t h i s heterosis i s not evident, as a r u l e , u n t i l the time of the f i r s t r i p e f r u i t . Larson (28) studied the extent of hybrid vigor i n F l and F2 generations of tomato crosses and the r e s u l t s indicated that early y i e l d i s intermediately i n h e r i t e d i n the F l with a tendency toward the larger early y i e l d i n g parent. The average increase i n early y i e l d of the F l over the parental average was ^7$; the F2 increase was 8$. The cumula- :. v. t i v e e f f e c t of genes f o r y i e l d o ccasionally gave r i s e to a superior y i e l d i n g F l l i n e . The increase i n t o t a l y i e l d over the parental l i n e s was 3 9 $ f o r the F l and 2 3 $ f o r the F2. It was noted that c e r t a i n hybrids responded d i f f e r e n t l y i n the d i f f e r e n t generations. Most F2 generations were s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower y i e l d i n g than t h e i r F l l i n e s . This was assumed to be due i n part to y i e l d reduction incurred as homozygosity was 19 approached. W i l l i a m s (6l) i n v e s t i g a t i n g s e v e r a l c h a r a c t e r s , found none of the h y b r i d s exceeded the b e t t e r parent i f any o f the c h a r a c t e r s w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of y i e l d per p l a n t . He emphasized t h a t h e t e r o s i s was c l e a r l y e v i d e n t i n the phenotype which i s c o n d i t i o n e d by the genes from the p a r e n t s . R i c k (4-2) r e p o r t e d t h a t when comparing a number o f tomato F l ' s w i t h t h e i r p a r e n t s , the F l was not i n t e r m e d i a t e i n m a t u r i t y but c l o s e r to the e a r l i e s t p a r e n t , and sometimes even surpassed i t . F l tomato p l a n t s o r d i n a r i l y showed the marked v e g e t a t i v e v i g o r of h e t e r o s i s , but the F l tomato f r u i t s were c h a r a c -t e r i s t i c a l l y s m a l l e r than the p a r e n t a l average, thus ex-h i b i t i n g no h e t e r o s i s f o r f r u i t s i z e . Quinones (40) emphasized t h a t g e n e t i c d i v e r s i t y of parents i s c o n s i d e r e d v e r y important i n the p r o d u c t i o n of crop h y b r i d s . H i s tomato c r o s s e s showed h e t e r o s i s over the average of the p a r e n t a l v a r i e t i e s foe t o t a l y i e l d , e a r l y and grade one f r u i t y i e l d s , as 2 5 . 1 , 1 5 • 3 and 1 7 . 8 per cent r e s p e c t i v e l y . F r u i t s i z e showed a 2 . 1 per cent de-c r e a s e i n the h y b r i d s as compared w i t h the p a r e n t s . 20 MATERIALS AND METHODS A. Materials The following tomato v a r i e t i e s were used i n the experiments: Puck, Bonny Best, Immur P r i o r Beta, Cold Set and the r e c i p r o c a l hybrids between Bonny Best and the other three v a r i e t i e s . Puck Puck (p) was introduced from England i n 1948 by M. B. Crane who described i t as a dwarf bush v a r i e t y that produced an early and heavy crop. Puck was selected from segregating progenies of crosses between the American v a r i e t y , V i c t o r and an u n i d e n t i f i e d v a r i e t y released from Russia at the end of the.' World War I I . ( 9 ) Puck has a determinate growth habit and i s characterized by a woody stem, strong enough to bear the weight of the f r u i t s i n the early period of growth. The main stem terminates i n a l e a f and c a r r i e s a double inflorescence i n the l a s t internode. A x i l l a r y side-shoots develop from buds and have determinate growth as well, they may carry single c l u s t e r s , but i n the l a s t internode double ones usually occur. The determinate habit of growth i s conditioned by a single recessive gene sp (for s e l f pruning), located i n the s i x t h chromosome, and belonging to the fcourth linkage group. Leaves are dark green and thick, with a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c roughness of surface. The f r u i t s i z e i s medium, color i s uniform, and shape i s sometimes i r r e g u l a r . The f r u i t wall lacks the f l e s h y character of commercial v a r i e t i e s . ( 9 ) 21 Puck, described as an early producer, has been shown to require a greater number of days between blossming and ri p e n i n g when compared to other v a r i e t i e s under B r i t i s h Columbia growing conditions. Puck has been found to be d e f i n i t e l y i n f e r i o r to commercial v a r i e t i e s already grown i n the province of B.C., despite i t s acknowledged character of being able to se f r u i t s at low temperature. On the other, hand, i t i s t h i s character that makes i t a p o t e n t i a l source of valuable germ plasm f o r improvement of v a r i e t i e s otherwise acceptable f o r commercial production. ( 9 ) Bonny Best Bonny Best (BB-) i s one of the well known v a r i e t i e s on the North American continent, where i t has been c u l t i v a t e d since the early years of t h i s century, following introduction by the firm of Johnson and Stokes of Philadelphia. Bonny Best has indeterminate growth; round, fleshy, uniformly coloured f r u i t s . It i s r e l a t i v e l y early, but very s e n s i t i v e to the e f f e c t s of low temperatures on f r u i t s e t t i n g . Bonny Best was chosen to represent the commercial v a r i e t i e s because i n the past t h i r t y years a considerable amount of research has been done, i n which t h i s popular v a r i e t y was the test plant. Boswell (2) stated that during maturation of Bonny Best, f r u i t was elongated considerably under cool temperatures or other unfavorable conditions. T y p i c a l l y , there are four or f i v e flowers per c l u s t e r with two or three f r u i t s being set per c l u s t e r . 22 Cold Set Cold Set (CS) i s a new type of tomato v a r i e t y f o r direct, seeding, introduced by Professor T.O.Graham at the U n i v e r s i t y of Guelph i n 1962. It came from a cross between F i r e b a l l and F i l i p i n o #2. Both the parents are r e s i s t a n t to heat and c o l d s t e r i l i t y . This v a r i e t y has been tested by P.A.Young i n Eastern Texas, and proved that CS i s r e s i s t a n t to cold s t e r i l i t y and w i l l set f r u i t at night temperature 7.2°C. CS also can set i t s flowers under both cold and warm conditions, but i t may not possess the a d d i t i o n a l a b i l i t y of being highly r e s i s t a n t to fre e z i n g i n the seedling stage. CS has indeterminate growth, and uniformly colored f r u i t of medium s i z e . Immur P r i o r Beta The o r i g i n of Immur P r i o r Beta (IPB) i s not known. Curme (7) and Reynard ( 4 l ) believed that t h i s v a r i e t y was developed by Dr. A . K a l l i o , Unxversity of Alaska at Fairbanks. But K a l l i o (.20) said he obtained the seed i n 1951 from the Ho r t i c u l t u r e Department of the Un i v e r s i t y of North Dakota, and he also indicated that t h i s v a r i e t y may have come from Europe. This v a r i e t y has the potato-leaf gene, i s not very determinate i n growth habit, and very tolerant of low temperatures with regard to f r u i t set and vine growth. The f r u i t i s f l a t , angular and rough v/ith green shoulders. Dinkel ( l 4 ) reported that I.P.B. was lea s t affected by the higher f e r t i l i z a t i o n rate and showed no appreciable damage from l e a f mold. Tests i n Alaska confirmed that I.P.B. has the a b i l i t y to set f r u i t at low 2 3 temperature and i t i s also one of the best v a r i e t i e s f o r summer production i n heated glass houses for the Alaska l a t i t u d e s . Average f r u i t size was 3.5 ounces. F l hybrids F l hybrids of the r e c i p r o c a l s of Bonny Best with Puck, Immur P r i o r Beta, Cold Set xirere produced i n the winter of 19^7 at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. The following crosses are to be designated by the symbols shown below. symbols 1. (Bonny Best x Puck) (BBxP) 2 . (Puck x Bonny Best) (PxBB) 3 . (immur P r i o r Beta x Bonny Best) (iPBxBB) k. (Bonny Best x Immur P r i o r Beta) ( B B X I P B ) 5. ((Cold Set x Bonny Best) (CSxBB) 6 . (Bonny Best x Cold Set) (BBxCS) B. Methods 1 . Greenhouse experiments a. 1 9 6 7-I968 experiment The experiments were conducted i n the greenhouses at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia i n the winter of 1 9 6 7 -1 9 6 8 to contrast the response of the plant materials at the r e l a t i v e l y cool temperature of 10°C to 12.8°C with the more optimum range of 18 .3°C to 2 1 . 1°C f o r tomatoes. Seeds of the four v a r i e t i e s were sown on Oct. 18, 1 9 6 7 » and seedlings were pricked out and set i n 2 x 2 " venner bands i n f l a t s two weeks l a t e r . Temperature were kept 2h as c l o s e l y as possible between 10°C to 12.8°C for,.-the cool house and 18.3°C to 21.1°C f o r the warm house. Temperature records were obtained f o r the duration of the experiments by means of thermographs. A l l seedlings v/ere kept i n the warm house u n t i l transplanting time. On Nov. 29, 1967 a l l the plants were placed under the d i f f e r e n t i a l temperature conditions- i n a randomized block esperimental design. Both cool and warm houses have two benches. Puck and Bonny Best were grown i n bench 1, Immur. P r i o r Beta, Cold Set and Bonny Best were grown i n bench 2. Bench 1 consisted of s i x blocks, with four plants: i n each block. Bench 2 consisted of four blocks, with s i x plants i n each block, (experimental design shown i n appendix, page 108) The plants- were 12" apart within the row and 18" between the rows. Supplementary l i g h t was. provided by four 300-Watt fluorescent tubes i n s t a l l e d i n pairs over each bench to insure a fourteen-hour photoperiod. A l l plants except v a r i e t y Puck were pruned to a sin g l e stem, and staked. The p o l l i n a t i o n treatments are l i s t e d as follows, and w i l l be hereafter r e f e r r e d to by the symbols. symbols 1. P s e l f - p o l l i n a t e d f a P 0 2. B B . s e l f - p o l l i n a t e d BB 8 3. P c r o s s - p o l l i n a t e d with BB PxBB' 25 k. BB c r o s s - p o l l i n a t e d with P BBxP 5. IPB s e l f - p o l l i n a t e d IPB © 6. IPB c r o s s - p o l l i n a t e d with BB IPBxBB 7. BB cross-pollinatedrwith. IPB BBxIPB 8. CS s e l f - p o l l i n a t e d CS & 9 . CS c r o s s - p o l l i n a t e d with BB CSxBB* 10. BB c r o s s - p o l l i n a t e d with CS BBxCS Second, t h i r d and four inflorescences were p o l l i n a t e d on each plant. F i r s t c l u s t e r s were discarded because they were well developed at the time of transplanting to benches, and flowers opened i n both houses a few days l a t e r , thusdevelopment of those flowers would not have been influenced by the contrasting temperatures. The following procedure was used i n making c o n t r o l l e d c r o s s - p o l l i n a t i o n s . The flowers wer emasculated one days before anthesis by taking away petals and anthers \tfith a pair, of tweezers. Pollen was.oollected on microscope s l i d e s , and transfered to the stigmas by needle. Applications of po l l e n were repeated twice on each flower at one day i n t e r v a l s . A l l pollen used was produced i n the warm house. The s e l f - p o l l i n a t i o n treatments were allowed to occur n a t u r a l l y . At. the end of Marclr/. the following data were obtained. 1. percentage of f r u i t set 2. weight of f r u i t 3. number of seed, inclu d i n g percentage of parthenocar-pic f r u i t . 26 v:': When the f r u i t wasr r i p e , i t was- opened and seed counts were made. I f there was no seed i n the f r u i t , i t was par-thenocarpic:. b. I968-I969 experiment The temperature and l i g h t regimes were s i m i l a r to the previous experiment. Seeds of ten PI lines: P &, BB 0, PxBB, BBxP, IPB ©, IPBxBBS, BBxIPB, CS ®, CSxBB, and BBxCS were sown on Oct. 1, 1968 and seedlings were pricked out and set i n 2x2" veneer bands i n f l a t s two weeks l a t e r . A l l seedlings were kept i n the warm house u n t i l transp-l a n t i n g time. On Nov. 6,1968 a l l plants were placed under the d i f f e r e n t i a l temperature conditions i n a randomized block experiment. Both cool and warm houses have two benches, and each bench was divided into four blocks, and each block con-tained ten plants, (experiment design shown i n appendix, P.1Q9) The plants were 16" apart within the row and 18," apart between rows. A l l plants except Pc.uk 8 were pruned to a si n g l e stem, and staked. The following data were taken: 1. f i r s t flower production. . 2. f i r s t f r u i t set (when, f r u i t was, 0.5-cm diameter) . 3. f i r s t r i p e f r u i t . 4. number of flower buds formed on f i r s t four c l u s t e r s . 5. number of f r u i t set on f i r s t four c l u s t e r s . 6. percentage of f r u i t set. 27 7 . f r u i t weight. 8 . number of parthenocarpic frui&;. 9 . number of days from seeding to r i p e f r u i t . The purpose of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was to compare the responses of the above nine items to d i f f e r e n t i a l tempera-tures, and to as c e r t a i n whether any of the l i n e s was s u i t -able f o r cool temperature culture. V a r i a b i l i t y i n greenhouse conditions could a f f e c t r e s u l t s , therefore, the two foregoing experiments were e s s e n t i a l l y repeated using c o n t r o l l e d environment chambers. 2 . Growth Chamber experiments Experiment 1 Because of l i m i t e d space i n grox^th chambers, i t was nece-ssary to divide t h i s experiment into two s e r i e s . The f i r s t s e r i e s Puck and Bonny Best were sown on Jan. 1 0 , 1 9 6 8 and the second s e r i e s , IPB and CS were sown on June 2 1 , 1 9 6 8 . On Feb. 2 1 , 1 9 6 8 and J u l y 28, 1 9 6 8 , each series was trans-planted to 9 " clay pots and placed under the d i f f e r e n t i a l temperature condition i n growth chambers. The temperature ranges were kept as constant as possible using 1 0 ° + 1 . 1 ° C fo r the cool chamber and 2 1 . 1 ° + 1 . 1 ° C f o r the warm one. Each chamber consisted of two blocks, each with four pots with one plant per pot. Except f o r Puck, a l l plants were pruned to three stems and staked. The series of p o l l i n a t i o n treatments was the same as i n the I967-I968 greenhouse experiment. Experiment 2 28 Experiment 2 Seeds of Puck, Bonny Best, Immur P r i o r Beta, Cold Set and (PxBB)Fl, (BBxP)Fl, (iPBxBB)Fl, (BBxIPB)Fl, (CSxBB)Fl, (BBxIPB)Fl were sown on O c t . 1 , 1 9 6 8 . The same temperatures and l i g h t regimes were used as i n part 1 . A l l seedlings were pricked out and set i n 2x2" vaneer bands i n f l a t s two weeks l a t e r . A l l seedlings were kept i n the warm house u n t i l transplanting time. On Nov. 6 , 1 9 6 8 a l l plants? were placed under the d i f f e r e n t i a l temperature groxvth chambers i n 9 " clay pots. Each chamber contained one pot of each of ten d i f f e r e n t v a r i e t i e s and hybrid l i n e s . The l i m i t e d space d i d not a l i o s r e p l i c a t i o n t h i s experiment. Except f o r Puck v a r i e t y , a l l plants were pruned to three stems and staked. Observation were made f o r the same items as: the 1 9 6 8 - 1 9 6 9 greenhouse experiment. Experiment 3 A seed germination experiment using the same 1 0 lines, as employed i n experiment 2, was c a r r i e d out i n growth chambers to observe the e f f e c t s of constant temperature at the two l e v e l s used i n experiments 1 and 2. The seeds were sown i n compost i n p l a s t i c pots on May 1 1 , using 1 0 0 seeds of each l i n e . 3 . Pollen experiments a. p o l l e n germination i n v i t r o It was. considered desirable to compare the germination percentages of po l l e n i n v i t r o , because as Howlett ( 2 1 ) 29 reported, tomato po l l e n grains which appear normal i n shape and external appearance are often nonviable. The medium used f o r germinating p o l l e n grains contained 10$ sugar, 0.5$ agar, and 30 ppm boron (Charles, 1962). A small drop of medium was placed on a s l i d e at room temperature, and the sample of pollen was s t i r r e d into the drop. The s l i d e was then inverted over w e l l - s l i d e s contain-ing two drops of water, and then incubated i n an oven at a. temperature of 20°C. A f t e r ten hours, counts were made of the two classes: v i a b l e and empty grains. Pollen of four v a r i e t i e s was c o l l e c t e d from several blossoms from the cool and warm greenhouses ( the source plants were grown i n pots as the same time as the I967-I968 greenhouse experiment plants ). A f t e r c o l l e c t i o n , the po l l e n samples were mixed and dusted on microscope s l i d e s . bb>. po l l e n germination i n v i v d Pollen gran be applied to the stigma and subsequent ger-mination can be observed. This determination of po l l e n v i a b i l i t y i n vivo i s d i f f i c u l t with the tomato because the stigma i s r e l a t i v e l y small. Quite a few reports indicated success with p o l l e n germi-nation i n vivo. The Martin (3*0 quantitative procedure of observing pollen tubes by fluorescence was adopted f o r these experiments. The procedure developed was as follows: 1. Flowers were emasculated and tagged before the petals were re f l e x e d . 30 Pollen grains were counted under a d i s s e c t i n g microscope and then picked up by means of a single camel h a i r . The p o l l e n grains were transferred to the stigmatic suirface of the emasculated flowers at the time when the; petals-became ref l e x e d and f l u i d was noticeable on the- stigmatic: surface. A f t e r p o l l e n transfer, to the stigmatic surface, the. camel h a i r was inspected under the microscope again to ensure that there was. no po l l e n remaining on the h a i r . Pollen grains were allowed to germinate f o r 48 hours-, a f t e r which time the stigmas were removed. The s t y l e s were f i x e d i n formalin-acetic-acid--80$, alcohol (1:1:8) f o r 48 hours.. The f i x e d s t y l e s were washed f o r 1.5 hours then softened and cleared, i n a strong 8N sodium hydroxide S:Olution f o r 24 hours. Then the s t y l e s were washed again f o r 2 hours and stained with a 0.1$ s o l u t i o n of water soluble a n i l i n e blue dye dissolve d i n 0.1N> K^PO^. Stain was allowed to penetrate over a 4-hour period. Styles were smeared by pressing them between a c o v e r s l i p and a microscope s l i d e , and examined under a d i s s c e t i n g microscope of 4 0 X , using d i r e c t i l l u m i n a t i o n with u l t r a -v i o l e t l i g h t or blue l i g h t of a wavelength of about 35.0mu. Under these conditions, the ca l l o s e i n germinated po l l e n tubes appeared fluorescent with a bright; yellow green color which contrasted strongly with the greyish color of. 31 the s t y l a r t i s s u e . 11. The number of grains which had germinated) were counted i n a darkroom. The i n vivo studies were done on four v a r i e t i e s — P , B B , C S , and I P B . Seeds were sown i n a f l a t on A p r i l 27, 1968. A l l young plants were transplanted to the bench on May 31> i n the warm greenhouse where the temperature was kept around 2 3 ! ° ! ° C to 23.9 C . There were two blocks each containing ten single plant p l o t s . The four l i n e s were planted i n the ten plots as, shown i n Table 5 i n the appendix. Plants, were l 6 l , : apart. Each plant was trained to a single stem and staked. Each plant was-allowed to produce f i v e c l u s t e r s , and two flowers from each c l u s t e r were used f o r the i n vivo studies. Data was- evaluated wliere j u s t i f i e d by applying analysis of variance, and Duncan's new multiple range test was, employed to test the s i g n i f i c a n c e of differences between means.. The datai from the warm and cool house were not consolidated f o r analysis: of variance because there was no r e p l i c a t i o n of houses. Again, the data from successive series of growth chamber that wasino consolidated f o r analysis of variance because there was no assurance that the successive series were produced under i d e n t i c a l conditions, the data from each chamber and each serie s were analyzed separately. 32 RESULTS Greenhouse experiments .. 1 9 6 7 - 1 9 6 8 experiment a) percentage of" f r u i t set The percentage of f r u i t set on P, BB, IPB, CS and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids was influenced by temperature as shown by data i n tables 1 , 2 , 3 and k. Inspection of the data i n tables 1 and 2 , makes i t evide that P had a higher percent set than BB under both cool and warm temperatures. The difference i n favour of P was s i g n i f i c a n t i n the warm house, but the difference i n the cool house only approached s i g n i f i c a n c e . Regarding the r e c i p r o c a l hybrids, PxBB was better than BBxP and the dif f e r e n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t . In tables 3 and k, i t can be seen that IPB was better than CS under both cool and warm temperatures, but the means were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . Comparing the mean of percentage f r u i t set, IPBxBB was better than IPB St and BExTPB, and CSxBB was better than CS & and BBxCS under both temperatures. 3 3 Table 1 Percentage of f r u i t set of Puck, Bonny Best and their, r e c i p r o c a l hybrids i n cool greenhouse. Block Cluster Treatment Puck 6 h B.. B. 8 Puck x B. B, B.B.x, Puck I 24; 3 4 40.00 2 6 . 6 6 6 . 6 6 14.28; 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 42.8;5 7 5 . 0 0 66.66, 5 0 . 0 0 4 4 . 4 4 2 5 . 0 0 II 2 3 4 3 0 . 0 0 2 5 . 0 0 1 2 . 50 0 . 0 0 28.57 0 . 0 0 8 0 . 0 0 3 3 . 3 3 50.00 3 3 . 3 3 3 3 . 3 3 4 0 . 0 0 III 2 3 4. 5 6 . 2 5 8 0 . 0 0 2 1 . 4 2 5 0 . 0 0 1 8 . 6 7 0 . 0 0 6 9 . 2 3 6 0 . 0 0 66.66. 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 IV 2 3 4 3 5 . 2 9 4 2 . 8 5 2 2 . 22 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 V 2 3 4 3 3 . 3 3 6 . 6 6 , 2 3 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 7 0 . 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 3 3 . 3 3 3 3 . 3 3 0 . 0 0 VI 2 3 4 1 2 . 5 0 1 6 . 6 6 28.57 4o.oo 2 2 . 2 2 0 . 0 0 7 5 . 0 0 4o.oo 57.14 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 6 6 . 6 6 . Ave. 28.87 9.64 57.55 2 7 . 7 5 Analysis of variance Source D.: F. S.S • Mi's. F. Prob. Treatment Cluste r C-T. Error T o t a l 3 2 6 6 0 7 1 1 8 8 5 9 2 7 6 2 1 7 3 4 2 3 5 0 8 46864 . 0 . 5 . 1 . 0 6 2 8 5 . 5 0 1 3 8 1 . 3 0 2 8 9 . 0 2 391.80 1 6 . 3 . 0 . 0 5 53 74 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 3 4 9 0 . 6 2 3 1 Duncan's test ( P = 0 . 0 l ) Treatments PxBB P & BBxP BB ® Mean 5 7 . 55 28.87 2 7 . 7 5 9.64 34 Table 2 Percentage of f r u i t set of Puck, Bonny r e c i p r o c a l hybrids i n warm greenhouse. Best and t h e i r Treatment D i o c K i i u s t e r Puck a B.B.St PuckxB.B. B .B.xPuck I 2 3 k 3 3 . 3 3 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 4 . 5 4 0 . 0 0 5 5 . 5 5 3 3 . 3 3 4 0 . 0 0 1 6 . 6 6 5 0 . 0 0 2 8 . 5 7 II 2 3 k 2 1 . 4 2 5 0 . 0 0 4 2 . 8 5 0 . 0 0 28 .57 2 0 . 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 4o.oo 2 0 . 0 0 7 5 . 0 0 III 2 3 k 3 3 . 3 3 2 5 . 0 0 66.66 1 6 . 6 6 3 3 . 3 3 1 6 . 6 6 3 8 . 4 6 2 5 . 0 0 6 6 . 6 6 3 3 . 3 3 5 0 . 0 0 66.66 IV 2 3 k 5 0 . 0 0 5 5 . 5 5 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 ' ; 4 2 . 8 5 0 . 0 0 3 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 4 4 . 4 4 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 3 7 . 5 0 V 2 3 k 8 5 . 7 1 1 6 . 6 6 66.66 4o.oo 5 0 . 0 0 28 .57 3 0 . 7 6 4 2 . 8 5 5 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 VI 2 3 k 4 5 . 0 0 4 2 . 8 5 2 3 . 0 7 1 6 . 6 6 3 3 . 3 3 1 6 . 6 6 4 0 . 0 0 28 .57 7 5 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 6 0 . 0 0 3 7 . 5 0 Ave. 40 .44 18 .61 4 6 . 3 1 3 9 . 6 2 Analys i s of variance Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Prob. Treatment Cl u s t e r C-T Error T o t a l 3 2 6 6 0 7 1 7 8 9 2 . 5 0 2 6 3 0.8O 6 . 8 6 880 .68 4 4 0 . 3 4 1 . 1 5 1 7 5 2 . 2 0 2 9 2 . 0 4 O .76 2 2 9 9 4 . 0 0 3 8 3 . 2 3 3 3 5 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 5 0 . 3 2 4 3 0 . 6 0 4 2 Duncan's test (P=0.01) Treatment PxBB PSi BBxP BBS Mean 4 6 . 3 1 4 o . 4 4 3 9 . 6 2 18 .61 3 5 Table 3 Percentage of f r u i t set of Cold Set, I.P.B. and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l with Bonny Best i n cool greenhouse. . „i A. Treatment Block C l u s t e r I P B a IPBxBB BBxIPB csa CSxBB BBxCS 2 75.oo 7 0 . 0 0 6 0 . 00 33.33 5 0 . 0 0 33.-33 I 3 33.33 55.55 0.00 5 0 . 0 0 37-50 28.57 4 45.83 66.66 0.00 6 0 . 0 0 33.33 44.44 2 16 . 66 57.1^ 83.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 I I 3 2 5 . 5 8 57.1^+ 5^.5^ i i . i l 58.33 6 0 . 0 0 4 2 9 . 0 3 33.33 2 0 . 0 0 33.33 4 2 . 8 5 50 . 00 2 46 . 15 5 0 . 0 0 57.1^ 16 . 66 33.33 33.33 I I I 3 58.82 6 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 37 . 5 0 88.88 3 3 . 3 3 4 3 0 . 0 0 55.55 50.00 3 0 . 7 6 5 0 . 0 0 25.00 2 38.46 57.1*1 2 0 . 0 0 55.55 1 2 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 IV 3 33.33 66.66 2 2 . 2 2 57.1** 4 2 . 8 5 66.66 4 41.66 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 28.57 77.77 66.66 Ave. 39.39 5 2 . 4 3 38.10 37 .26 46.72 39.47 Analys i s of Variance Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Prob. Treatment 5 2 1 6 6 . 3 4 3 3 . 2 5 1 . 1 8 0 . 3 2 9 8 C l u s t e r 2 3 9 0 . 1 4 1 9 5 . 0 7 0 . 5 3 0 . 5 9 5 7 T-C 10 5 2 4 6 . 6 5 2 4 . 6 6 1 . 4 3 0 . 1 9 1 2 Error 54 1 9 7 8 6 . 0 3 6 6 . 4 1 T o t a l 7 1 2 7 5 9 9 . 0 ( No s i g n i f i c a n t differences revealed by Duncan's test at P= 0 . 0 1 ) 36 Table 4 Percentage of f r u i t set o f Cold Set, IPB and their: r e c i p r o c a l with Bonny Best i n warm greenhouse. Trea tment Block C l u s t e r IPB IPBxBB BBxIPB i cs a CSxBB BBxCS 2 3 3 . 3 3 14.28 66.66 6 6 . 6 6 6 0 . 0 0 41 . 1 7 I 3 4 2 . 8 5 5 5 . 5 5 5 0 . 0 0 6 1 . 5 3 71.42 2 0 . 0 0 7 3 . 3 3 3 3 . 3 3 0 . 0 0 2 5 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 5 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 8 0 . 0 0 2 8 . 5 7 4 2 . 8 5 0 . 0 0 II 3 3 5 . 7 1 5 0 . 0 0 4 2 . 8 5 5 0 . 0 0 1 6 . 6 6 0 . 0 0 4 2 7 . 2 7 3 3 . 3 3 5 0 . 0 0 66.66 3 3 . 3 3 66.66 2 2 5 . 0 0 8 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 1 2 . 5 0 5 7 . 1 4 66.66 I I I 3 3 5 . 7 1 5 2 . 9 4 66.66 5 0 . 0 0 7 5 . 0 0 3 3 . 3 3 4 3 0 . 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 6 0 . 0 0 66.66 2 7 5 . 0 0 4 4 . 4 4 2 5 . 0 0 66.66 6 6 . 6 6 3 3 . 3 3 IV 3 8 4 . 6 1 6 9 . 2 3 5 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 6 6 . 6 6 2 0 . 0 0 4 5 5 . 5 5 71.42 5 0 . 0 0 4 o.oo 4 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 Ave. 4 7 . 3 6 5 6 . 2 1 4 1 . 7 6 47.29 5 3 . 3 1 3 3 . 1 5 Analys i s of Variance Source D.F. s.s. M .s. F. Prob. Treatment 5 3 4 4 i . 3 6 8 8 . 2 6 1 . 3 4 0 . 2 6 1 6 C l u s t e r 2 1 2 9 . 9 8 1 64 . 9 9 0 . 1 3 0 . 8 7 7 4 T-C 10 4 2 3 4 . 5 4 2 3 . 4 5 0 . 8 2 0 . 6 0 8 6 Error 5k 2 7 7 6 7 . 0 5 1 4 . 2 0 T o t a l 7 1 3 5 5 7 3 . 0 ( No s i g n i f i c a n t differences revealed by Duncan's test at P= 0 . 0 1 ) 37 (b) f r u i t weight In general, f r u i t size i n the warm house was lar g e r than i n the cool house. Within each house, table 5> 6, 7 and 8 shown that there was a trend f o r larger f r u i t to develop from cross p o l l i n a t i o n rather than s e l f p o l l i n a t i o n . The phenomenon i s most noticeable where BB i s the maternal parent i n the cross p o l l i n a t i o n s . When BB po l l e n was used, P f r u i t i n the cool house shows an increase i n s i z e , but i n the warm house, there was no e f f e c t . Likewise when IPB and CS were maternal parents, there was l i t t l e increase i n s i z e . However when BB was p o l l i n a t e d with P, IPB or Cs pollen there was an increase i n f r u i t size by on t h i r d or more. F r u i t size on d i f f e r e n t c l u s t e r s was v a r i a b l e , but none of the differences were s i g n i f i c a n t . 3 8 Table 5 Mean f r u i t weight (g) of Puck, Bonny Best and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids i n cool greenhouse. Block Clus t e r Treatment Puck & B . B . a PuckxB.B. B.B.xPuck 2 3 2 . 4 5 1 8 8 . 3 0 2 2 . 8 6 124 . 7 0 I 3 2 7 . 9 5 /* 3 2 . 7 3 1 6 7 . 6 2 4 18.95 /* 4 4 . 2 5 6 1 .40 2 32.46 /* 3 8 . 6 7 52.00 II 3 1 5 . 3 0 5 1 . 8 5 6 3 . 3 0 62.40 4 2 7 . 7 0 /* 31.10 9 6 . 1 5 2 18 . 7 4 5 ^ . 5 5 4 7 . 8 6 49.80 I I I 3 1 1 . 0 7 3 5 . 6 0 3 8 . 6 0 /* 4 6 5 . 3 0 4 3 . 4 o 38.80 /* 2 3 9 . 6 8 /* 55.10 114.10 IV 3 28.40 /* 7 8 . 9 0 /* 4 4 7 . 6 6 /* /* 29.90 2 32.80 /* 4 1 . 7 7 7 8 . 7 0 V 3 30.20 /* 1 7 . 7 0 1 6 5.IO 4 6 7 . 6 5 /* 37.28 /* 2 5 0 . 6 5 2 2 . 6 0 3 0 . 68 1 0 9 . 7 0 VI 3 24. 50 3 1 . 9 0 2 8 . 50 /* 4 46 . 1 5 /* 3 5 . 9 2 1 0 1 .20 Ave. 34 . 3 1 6 1 . 1 7 40.18 9 3 . 2 2 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. 1 Required F value 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 Treatment 3 3 0 5 6 7 . 2 1 1 0 1 8 9 . 0 7 6. . 2 9 3 . 2 9 5 . 4 2 Block 5 6 1 7 8 . 57 1 2 3 5 . 7 2 l , . 11 2 . 46 2 . 91 B-T 1 5 2 4 3 1 0 . 7 0 1 6 2 0 . 7 1 1. .46 1 . 92 2 . 18 C l u s t e r 2 1 0 2 4 . 2 3 5 1 2 . 1 2 0 . . 4 6 3 . 2 3 5 . 18 C-T 6 1 0 9 7 8 . 2 3 1 8 2 9 . 7 1 1. . 6 5 2 . 3k 3 . 2 9 Error 4 o 4 4 3 9 3 . 34 1 1 0 9 . 8 4 T o t a l 7 1 1 1 7 4 5 2 . 2 9 Duncan's test (P= 0 . 0 1 ) Treatment BBxP BB a PxBB P s Mean 9 3 . 2 2 6 1 . 17 40.18 3k. 31 * no f r u i t on the c l u s t e r 3 9 Table 6 Mean f r u i t weight (g) of Puck, Bonny Best and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids i n warm greenhouse. Treatment BIOCK t i u s i e r Puck S t B.B. & PuckxB.] B. B.B.xPuck 2 2 6 . 5 0 /* 3 0 . 2 3 8 7 . 4 0 I 3 3 6 . 5 0 /* 2 8 . 7 0 91 . 25 4 /* 6 0 . 56 2 2 . 3 0 112.k5_ 2 2 2 . 6 6 /* 2 7 . 8 5 9 5 . 4 5 II 3 4 4 . 0 0 1 1 5 . 8 0 2 5 . 1 7 1 0 0 . 0 0 4 5 8 . 1 0 /* 1 5 . 8 0 8 3 . 0 0 2 3 3 - 0 0 6 1 . 4 0 4 7 . 6 0 7 5 . 7 5 I I I 3 3 4 . 9 0 4 9 . 1 0 2 5 . 4 8 6 5 . 5 0 4 2 6 . 8 7 5 5 . 7 2 4 5 . 0 0 8 8 . 6 5 2 5 8 . 42 /* 4 1 . 9 0 /* IV 3 6 5 . 4 8 /* 3 8 . 2 7 108 .33 4 5 1 . 2 0 5 5 . 8 5 4 3 . 9 0 1 1 7 . 1 0 2 1 9 . 6 0 6 1 . 2 0 3 2 . 8 6 1 1 3 . 4 5 V 3 2 7 . 8 0 3 1 . 8 0 3 2 . 2 5 7 9 . 46 4 2 7 . 3 0 5 9 . 8 0 4 9 . 7 6 /* 2 3 0 . 7 7 5 1 . 3 0 4 2 . 9 3 i 4 i . 3 0 VI 3 3 2 . 5 0 7 1 . 2 0 5 1 . 9 5 66.66 4 2 5 . 46 5 1 . 1 0 3 1 . 8 7 1 1 0 . 1 3 Ave. 3 6 . 5 8 6 0 . 4 0 3 5 . 2 0 9 5 . 9 9 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Required F value 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 Treatment 3 4 0 0 0 7 . 10 1 3 3 3 5 . 7 0 3 0 . 5 1 3 . 2 9 5 .42 Block 5 1 6 4 9 . 0 9 3 2 9 . 8 2 2 . 3 8 2 .46 2 . 9 1 T-B 15 4555. 4 9 3 0 3 . 6 9 2 . 1 8 1 . 9 2 2 . 1 8 Cluster 2 2 9 8 . 0 1 1 4 9 . 0 0 1 . 0 8 3 . 2 3 5 . 1 8 C-T 6 1 3 3 4 . 98 2 2 2 . 4 9 1 . 6 1 2 . 3 4 3 . 2 9 Error 4© 5 5 2 7 . 8 8 1 3 8 . 1 9 T o t a l 7 1 5 3 3 7 2 . 55 Duncan's test (P: = 0 . 0 1 ) Treatment BBxP BB & P 8 PxBB Mean 4 5 . 9 9 6 0 . 4 0 3 6 . 58 3 5 . 2 0 * no f r u i t set on the c l u s t e r 4 o Table 7 Mean f r u i t weight (g) of Cold Set, I.P.B. and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l with Bonny Best i n cool greenhouse. Block Clust e r Treatment IPB & IPBxBB BBxIPB CS & CSxBB BBxCS 2 1 4 . 7 1 1 5 . 1 6 7 6 . 6 3 1 7 . 55 6 5 . 7 0 1 0 0 . 2 6 I 3 1 2 . 7 6 1 9 . 7 4 /* 2 5 . 90 4 2 . 1 6 7 1 . 3 0 4 19 . 8 6 2 3 . 0 0 /* 3 0 . 8 3 6 3 . 6 5 8 8 . 2 0 2 2 4 . 9 0 2 2 . 1 2 1 0 4 . 2 7 7 2 . 6 5 3 2 . 9 5 1 0 5 . 7 0 II 3 1 7 . 7 4 1 2 . 36 8 5 . 6 0 5 3 . 4 0 3 6 . 0 3 1 1 0 . 1 0 4 1 7 . 3 2 1 7 . 1 0 8 1 . 9 0 8 1 . I ? 28 .^56 5 9 . 2 5 2 2 2 . 50 2 4 . 7 0 8 4 . 7 7 1 3 0 . 0 0 3 4 . 3 0 1 4 2 . 8 0 I I I 3 1 5 . 7 5 1 8 . 2 8 7 6 . 6 0 3 2 . 32 6 2 . 5 7 . 1 2 2 . 4 5 4 1 0 . 6 5 1 6 . 52 7 5 . 1 0 2 5 . 0 0 4 7 . 7 0 1 7 1 . 8 0 2 1 9 . 9 8 1 7 . 5 1 8 6 . 6 0 2 0 . 7 2 6 8 . 2 0 /* IV 3 1 4 . 5 5 2 5 . 1 7 7 3 . 5 0 2 2 . 77 3 5 . 4 0 9 5 . 7 0 4 2 2 . 8 6 /* 8 5 . 8 5 2 1 . 9 5 3 5 . 2 5 4 8 . 7 5 Ave. 1 7 . 7 9 1 9 . 2 5 8 3 . 0 8 4 4 . 52 4 6 . 0 4 1 0 1 . 4 8 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S. s. M.S. F. Required 0 . 0 5 F value 0 . 0 1 Treatment 5 6 3 4 4 2 . 3 3 1 2 6 8 8 . 4 7 1 7 . 1 0 2 . 9 0 4 . 5 6 Block 3 2 1 9 5 . 6 2 7 3 1 . 8 7 2 . 1 3 2 . 8 8 4 . 4 1 T-B . 15 9 1 2 7 . 6 2 6 0 8 . 4 7 1 . 78 1 . 9 6 2 . 6 1 C l u s t e r 2 1 2 3 6 . 2 5 6 1 8 . 1 3 1 . 8 0 3 . 2 6 5 . 2 7 C-T 1 0 1 5 8 3 . 2 9 1 5 8 . 3 3 0 . 4 6 2 . 1 3 2 . 9 1 E r r o r 36 1 2 3 4 1 . 0 1 3 4 2 . 8 1 T o t a l 7 1 8 9 9 2 6 . 12 Duncan's test ( P = 0 . 0 l ) Treatment BBxCS BBxIPB CSxBB CS& IPBxBB I P B a Mean 1 0 1 . 4 8 8 3 . 0 8 4 6 . 0 4 4 4 . 5 2 1 9 . 2 5 1 7 . 7 9 * no f r u i t set on the c l u s t e r 41 Table 8 Mean f r u i t weight (g) of Cold Set, I.P.B. and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l with Bonny Best i n warm greenhouse. Treatment Block Cluster I P B & IPBxBB BBxIPB CS & CSxBB BBxCS 2 2 6 . 8 0 6 . 4 o 1 0 8 . 9 0 1 2 . 4 l 6 9 . 3 7 7 6 . 6 0 I 3 1 9 . 8 6 1 7 . 4 8 7 7 . 1 8 7 1 . 28 6 7 . 4 0 7 9 . 8 0 4 1 6 . 47 1 9 . 6 0 /* 9 5 . 2 0 1 0 4 . 1 0 /* 2 3 2 . 1 5 2 1 . 6 5 9 8 . 3 5 7 6 . 4 o 6 0 . 1 0 /* II 3 1 8 . 7 5 2 3 . 8 3 7 5 . 7 1 7 0 . 8 3 4 2 . 0 0 /* 4 2 1 . 1 3 4 2 . 50 1 1 0 . 6 0 7 5 . 90 5 7 . 4 0 6 7 . ^ 5 2 1 7 . 8 5 2 2 . 1 7 5 9 . 8 0 6 3 . 1 0 8 2 . 7 7 7 9 . 2 2 III 3 3 9 . 3 6 2 1 . 72 5 9 . 7 2 4 2 . 5 0 4 1 . 2 0 8 3 . 9 5 4 1 6 . 7 3 2 3 . 5 0 7 2 . 9 0 6 5 . 8 0 8 7 . 8 0 7 5 . 8 0 2 2 1 . 9 7 2 0 . 0 0 9 4 . 8 0 7 6 . 6 5 5 8 . 7 0 1 2 5 . 5 0 IV 3 2 2 . 4 8 2 2 . 1 1 1 3 3 . 5 6 3 2 . 30 2 7 . 0 5 9 9 . 1 0 4 /* 2 4 . 9k 7 0 . 5 3 4 i . 4 0 7 3 . 3 3 6 2 . 6 0 Ave. 2 3 . 0 5 2 2 . 1 6 8 7 . 5 5 6 0 . 0 6 6 4 . 2 7 8 3 . 3 4 Analys i s of variance Source D.F. . S.S. M.S. F. Required F value 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 Treatment 5 4 4 3 6 7 . 66 8 8 7 3 . 53 2 3 . 2 2 2 . 9 0 4 . 56 Block 3 1 9 6 . 56 6 5 . 52 2 . 6 0 2 . 8 8 4 . 41 T - B 15 \ 7 2 9 . 6 0 4 8 . 64 l . 9 3 1 . 9 6 2 . 6 1 C l u s t e r 2 5 8 6 . 78 2 9 3 . 3 9 1 1 . 67 3 . 2 6 5 . 27 C-T 10 1 4 0 8 3 . 37 1 4 0 8 . 3k 5 6 . 0 2 2 . 1 3 2 . 91 Error 36 9 0 5 . 0 0 2 5 . 2 0 T o t a l 7 1 6 5 2 4 2 . 16 Duncan's test ( P = 0 . 0 l ) Treatment BBxIPB BBxCS CSxBB CS & IPB £1 IPBxBB Mean 8 7 . 5 5 8 3 . 3 4 6 4 . 27 6 0 . 0 6 2 3 . 0 5 2 2 . 1 6 * no f r u i t set on the c l u s t e r k2 (c) Seed number It i s obvious i n table 9 that temperature s i g n i f i c a n t l y influenced the seed number. Generally speaking, seed number was much greater i n the warmer house. Regarding the parthe-nocarpic f r u i t (table 9)> there was none i n the warm house on any v a r i e t y ; but i n the cool house, BB <k>, CS 8 and Puck 8 had high percentages of parthenocarpy. These parthenocarpic f r u i t s occurred i n the s e l f - p o l l i n a t e d plants only, and there was no parthenocarpy i n the c r o s s - p o l l i n a t e d f r u i t s . There were no highly s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n seed number from the d i f f e r e n t p o l l i n a t i o n treatments of the v a r i e t i e s at the two temperatures regimes, as can be seen i n tables 10, 11, 12 and 13. However i n tables 10 and 12 there are differences i n favour of using f o r e i g n p o l l e n i n c r o s s - p o l l i n a t i o n , although only data from table 10 shows a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e . In table 11 and 13, i n spite of the lack of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , the data show that i n the warm greenhouse BB crossed with f o r e i g n p o l l e n from P, IPB and CS gave a higher seed number than BB s e l f - p o l l i n a t e d ; however, P, IPB and CS crossed with BB p o l l e n gave lower seed numbers than s e l f - p o l l i n a t i o n . 4 3 Table 9 Seed number and percentage of parthenocarpic f r u i t i n the ten l i n e s 'at two d i f f e r e n t temperatures. temperature p o l l i n a t i o n treatment seed per number f r u i t $ parthenocarpy 0 1-5 6 - 1 0 1 1 - 5 0 5 0 -Puck 8 17 8 7 18 6. 2 5 . 7 6 BB^  &> 7 4 2 3 4 3 . 7 5 PxBB 13 9 17 5 0 BBxP 6 8 4 0 Cold temp. IPB a 15 2 1 42 2 0 0 1 0 ° - 1 2 . 8 ° C IPBxBB 1 3 6 16 7 0 BBxIPB 2 2 17 5 0 CS 8 26 11 5 6 5k. 17 CSxBB 9 12 18 7 0 BBxCS 5 14 4 0 Puck 8 12 2 0 5 3 0 BB 8 6 3 1 9 6 0 PxBB 6- 2 9 3 3 0; BBxP 1 l 12 2 2 0 . Warm temp. IPB 8 2 5 4 3 3 3 0, 1 8 . 5 ° - 2 1 . 1 ° C IPBxBB BBxIPB 2 6 28, 14 12 17 0 0 CS 8 9 26 24 0 CSxBB 5 15 16 0 BBxCS l 1 0 13 0 44 Table 1 0 Seed number per f r u i t of Puck, Bonny Bfest and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids: i n cool greenhouse. Treatment -Puck a Bonny Best & PuckxBB BBxPuck 2 24 . 0 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 1 5 . 0 0 . I 3 4 o . 7 5 /* 1 2 . 3 3 1 0 1 . 5 0 4 8 . 50 /* 1 2 . 0 0 9 . 0 0 2 1 2 . 5 0 /* 1 3 . 0 0 8 . 0 0 I I 3 0 3 . 5 0 4 3 . 0 0 2 3 . 0 0 4 4 . 0 0 /* 3 . 0 0 30 . 0 0 2 7 . 8 8 1 2 . 7 5 38;. 0 0 7 . 0 0 I I I 3 2 . 0 0 5 . ^ 0 . 18 . 3 3 /* 4 7 0 . 3 3 6 . 0 0 1 6 . 5 0 /* 2 1 5 . 0 0 /* 4 0 . 0 0 3 6 . 0 0 IV 3 8 . 0 0 /* 5 2 . 0 0 /* 4 2 3 . 3 3 /* t* OJ 2 6 . 5 0 /* 1 6 .14 1 0 . 0 0 V 3 3 5 . 0 0 /* 6 . 5 0 ; 2 2 . 0 0 4 18 . 0 0 /* 1 0 . 5 0 /* 2 1 1 . 0 0 0 2 2 . 0 0 1 3 . 0 0 VI' 3 1 . 0 0 0, 8 . 0 0 /* 4 1 0 . 0 0 •/* 18.. 7 5 1 5 . 0 0 Ave. 16.54 3 . 9 5 3 0 . 9 1 2 2 . 3 0 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S. S. M.S. F. Required F value fr.05 0 . 0 1 Treatment 3 2 7 0 2 . 84 9 0 0 . 9 5 ^ . 5 7 3 . 2 9 5 . ^ 2 Block 5 1 4 6 1 . 9 1 2 9 2 . 3 8 ; 1.58. 2.46. 2 . 9 1 T.-B) 1 5 2 9 5 5 . 18. 1 9 7 . 0 1 1 . 0 7 I . 9 6 2.18; Cl u s t e r 2 4 0 4 . 92 202.46 1 . 1 0 3 . 2 3 5.18) C-T 6 3 4 0 4 . 2 3 5 6 7 . 3 7 3 . 0 7 2 . 3 ^ 3 . 2 9 E r r o r 4 o 7 3 8 5 . 0 5 1 8 4 . 6 3 T o t a l 7 1 1 8 3 1 ^ . 13 Duncan's test (E = 0 . 0 1 ) Treatment PxBB BBxP P 8 \ BB 8 Mean 3 0 . 9 1 2 2 . 3 0 1 6 . 3 . 9 5 * No f r u i t set on. the c l u s t e r 4 5 Table 1 1 Seed number per f r u i t of Puck, Bonny Best and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids i n warm greenhouse. Block Clus t e r Treatment Puck &) Bonny Best PuckxBB» BBxPuck 2 1 1 . 0 0 /* 5 0 . 1 6 6 2 . 0 0 I 3 3 0 . 0 0 /* 6 1 . 6 0 6 6 . 5 0 4. /* 1 9 . 0 0 1 3 . 5 0 4 4 . 0 0 2 2 5 . 6 6 /* 2 5 . 0 0 6 0 . 5 0 , I I 3 7 1 . 0 0 1 1 0 . 0 0 3 0 . 0 0 6 3 . 0 0 4 8 7 . 3 3 /* 1 0 . 0 0 66.66, 2 1 5 0 . 0 0 1 3 . 0 0 9 0 . 0 0 4 9 . 7 5 -I I I 3 6 3 . O O 1 0 . 0 0 35». o^- 4 0 . 0 0 4 1 1 2 . 7 5 3 8 . 0 0 6 6 . 50 6 1 . 0 0 2 94 . 0 0 /* 6 5 . 0 0 /* I V 3 7 1 . 0 0 /* 5 7 . 6 6 4 8 . 3 3 4 1 0 3 . 0 0 2 4 . 0 0 7 2 . 5 0 3 7 . 3 3 2 6 . 0 0 6 0 . 0 0 6 1 . 0 0 1 3 1 . 5 0 V 3 28 . 0 0 2 . 5 0 5 5 . 7 5 1 0 3 . 6 6 4 1 9 . 0 0 5 1 . 0 0 9 5 . 6 6 /* 2 1 0 6 . 1 1 1 4 . 0 0 9 3 . 5 0 7 5 . 0 0 V I 3 1 3 7 . 6 6 4 0 . 0 0 64 . 5 0 1 4 . 6 6 4 1 1 5 . 0 0 1 6 . 5 0 4 8 . . 8 8 7/8,. 6 6 Ave. 7 2 . 3 8 3 3 . 1 7 5 5 . 3 7 6 2 . 6 6 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S.S. required F. v a l 0. °5 u . Ul Treatment 3 1 1 3 7 7 . 1 3 3 7 9 2 , ; 37 1 . 3 6 . 3 . 2 9 5„42i Block 5 4 4 9 3 . 8 , 3 8 9 8 . 7 7 2.385 2 . 46 2 4 9 1 T-B: 15 1 0 6 7 3 . 8 5 7 0 7 . 5 9 1 . 8 9 1 . 96 2 . 1 8 Cluster 2 6 . 3 6 . 9 3 318.46 O.8.5 3 . 2 3 5.18 C-Tx 6 3 3 4 7 . 3 9 5 5 7 . 8 9 1 . 4 9 2 . 34 3 . 2 9 E r r o r 4 o 1 4 9 7 5 . 6 0 3 7 4 . 3 9 T o t a l 7 1 4 5 4 4 5 . 1 3 ]("iiMoasignifdcant; differences revealed by Duncan's test at P= 0 . 0 1 )) * No f r u i t set on the c l u s t e r 46. Table 1 2 Seed number per f r u i t of Cold Set, I.P.B. and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids with Bonny Best i n cool greenhouse. Block C l u s t e r Treatment I P B a IPBxBB BBxIPB CS a: CSxBB'. BBxCS Ti-2 3 4 1 7 . 6 6 1 1 . 6 0 3 3 . 1 0 2 1 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 3 5 . 0 0 1 5 . 3 3 / * / * 0 O .25. 1 . 6 6 4 8 . 0 0 42 . 6 6 4 8 . 0 0 3 3 . 0 0 , 1 2 . 0 0 1 9 . 2 5 l l 2 3 4 2 9 . 5 5 1 7 . 0 0 2 5 . 6 6 3 ^ . 7 5 6 . 3 3 6 . 0 0 1 1 6 . 2 5 6 0 . 0 2 3 9 . 0 0 1 9 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 2 2 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 5 0 1 1 . 6 6 3 9 . 0 0 3 4 . 0 0 1 9 . 0 0 I I I 2 3 4 38 .08; 2 7 . 3 3 6 . 0 0 5 0 . 7 5 2 3 . 1 4 2 7 . 4 o 3 0 . 7 5 9 . 0 0 5 . 5 0 4 4 . 0 0 0 . 3 3 0 8-. 0 0 24 . 7 1 21. 0 0 1 5 . 0 0 4 2 . 5 0 4 3 . 0 0 IV 2 3 4 3 4 . 0 0 1 9 . 5 0 4 6 . 4 0 2 2 . 2 5 4 i . o o / * 2 2 . 0 0 3 5 . 0 0 1 5 . 5 0 0 8 . 5 0 1 1 . 5 0 1 8 . 0 0 3 . 3 3 4 . 5 7 / * 5 7 . 5 0 7 . 0 0 Ave. 2 5 . 4 9 28 . 0 1 3 4 . 8 4 9 . 7 7 2 0 . 8 7 2 9 . 2 0 Analysis of variance o ^ ^ ^ ^ required F value Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. rr~^ 6~01 Treatment 5 5 1 4 4 . 5 7 1028 .91 1 .84 2 . 90 4 . 5 6 , Block 3 4 3 5 . 0 5 145 . 0 2 0 . 6 1 2 . 8.8. 4 .41 T~B> 15 8 3 7 3 . 9 6 . 5 5 8 . 2 6 2 . 3 3 1 . 96. 2 . 6 1 C l u s t e r 2 8 5 9 . 9 5 4 2 9 . 9 8 - 1 . 7 9 3 . 26 5 . 2 7 C-Ti 1 0 1 4 7 2 . 5 3 1 4 7 . 2 5 O . 6 2 2 . 13 2 . 9 1 E r r o r 36 8 6 1 2 . 8 2 2 3 9 . 2 5 T o t a l 7 1 2 4 8 9 8 . 8 8 No s i g n i f i c a n t differences revealed by Duncan's test at P= 0 . 0 1 . * no f r u i t set on the c l u s t e r 4 ? Table 13 Seed number per f r u i t of IPB, Cold Set and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids with Bonny Best i n warm greenhouse, Block Clus t e r Treatment I P B a IPBxBB BBxIPB c s a CSxBB BBxCS 2 3 4 . 0 0 2 . 0 0 9 2 . 0 0 3 8 . 2 5 1 0 2 . 0 0 4 9 . 2 8 I 3 4 3 . 3 3 2 9 . 6 0 3 6 . 3 3 4 2 . 8 7 5 9 . 7 5 3 2 . 0 0 h 3 6 . 1 8 3 4 . 3 3 /* 6 8 . 50 8 9 . 0 0 /* 2 64. 5 0 9 . 0 0 7 5 . 7 5 1 2 3 . 5 0 1 7 . 3 3 /* II 3 3 5 . 2 5 2 4 . 0 0 5 5 . 1 6 7 9 . 6 6 5 8 . 0 0 /* h 3 6 . 0 0 9 0 . 0 0 9 0 . 5 0 6 5 . 0 0 4 2 . 0 0 3 5 . 5 0 2 46. 5 0 4 8 . 7 5 3 6 . 0 0 2 5 . 0 0 6 6 . 2 5 3 9 - 0 0 III 3 2 9 . 0 0 8 5 . 5 7 2 6 . 2 5 7 4 . 0 0 3 2 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 k 2 1 . 66 5 6 . 6 6 3 9 . 0 0 4 4 . 8 5 3 2 . 3 3 7 3 . 0 0 2 /* 2 5 . 2 5 6 2 . 0 0 8 9 . 7 5 2 6 . 2 5 1 2 5 . 0 0 IV 3 4 8 . 3 3 3 0 . 1 1 5 9 . 0 0 7 5 . 6 6 6 . 5 0 1 0 9 . 0 0 h 2 7 . 9 1 2 4 . 0 0 3 6 . 0 0 8 5 . 5 0 5 5 . 0 0 6 5 . 6 O Ave. 4 0 . 8 7 3 8 . 2 7 5 5 . 2 7 6 7 . 7 1 3 0 . 8 7 6 4 . 2 6 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S. S. M.S. F. Required 0 . 0 5 F value 0 . 0 1 Treatment 5 8 9 1 6 . 8 1 1 7 8 3 . 3 6 1 . 3 3 2 . 9 0 4 . 5 6 Block 3 1 3 1 8 . 3 6 4 3 9 . 4 5 1 . 0 8 2 . 8 8 4 . 4 1 T-B 1 5 2 0 1 6 8 . 7 3 1 3 4 4 . 5 8 3 . 3 1 1 . 9 6 2 . 6 1 C l u s t e r 2 3 5 2 . 5 4 1 7 6 . 2 6 0 . 4 3 3 . 2 6 5 . 2 7 C-T 1 0 13889.75 3 8 8 . 9 8 O . 9 6 2 . 1 3 2 . 9 1 Error 36 1 4 6 3 9 . 8 5 4 0 6 . 6 6 T o t a l 7 1 4 9 2 8 6 . 0 4 (No s i g n i f i c a n t differences revealed by Duncan's test at P = 0 . 0 1 ) * No f r u i t set on the c l u s t e r 48 . 1968-1969 experiment (a) percentage of seed germination Germination of seeds of four v a r i e t i e s and s i x F l hybrid l i n e s sown under two d i f f e r e n t temperature l e v e l s and are shown i n table 14. Although there was no r e p l i c a t i o n , the response to temperatures and time shows same i n t e r e s t i n g features which may be of value to a plant breeder. Variety CS had the most rapid and highest germination under both temperature l e v e l s . The CSxBB hybrid was nearly the same Other l i n e s were v a r i a b l e , and temperature i n t e r a c t i o n may be involved. 4 9 Table l 4 Percentage of seed germination i n four v a r i e t i e s and s i x F l hybrid l i n e s at two d i f f e r e n t temperature l e v e l s . Temperature Variety days a f t e r sowing the seeds 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 ik 15 16 17 18 1 9 2 0 2 1 Puck a 0 8 52 7 0 74 / o B.B. a 6 36 54 58 58 PxBB 0 3 0 72 78 80 BBxP 0 12 16 36 36 Warm temp. IPE St 4 46 6 8 76 78 ? 1 ° + 1 ? 1 C IPBxBB 8 3 0 4 8 6 0 6 2 BBxIPB 16 4 4 80 90 98 CS St 5 2 84 98 98 98 CSxBB 36 84 8 4 9 0 94 BBxCS 26 42 58 6 2 6 2 Puck a 0 0 0 0 2 14 16 20 20 B . B . a 0 0 0 4 12 18 18 20 28 PxBB 0 0 0 0 2 6 10 12 16 BBxP 0 4 4 8 16 24 36 36 4 0 Cold temp. I P B a 2 2 4 8 14 3 2 46 50 56 1 0 ° + 1.1°C IPBxBB 2 2 8 8 14 20 20 22 36 BBxIPB 0 4 4 10 14 22 26 3 0 36 cs a 0 2 3 0 42 68 7k 78 80 80 CSxBB 0 0 24 44 58 64 80 86 86 BBxCS 0 2 4 8 14 18 22 28 28 50 (b) number of flower buds Under warm temperatures, the differences i n flower number among the four v a r i e t i e s and s i x hybrid l i n e s were not s i g n i f i c a n t as can be seen i n table 15. The average flower number i n some hybrid l i n e s was greater than the parents, but i n some cases were between t h e i r two parents. Under the cool temperature, the r e s u l t s i n table 16 show a highly s i g n i f i c a n t differences among the l i n e s . The flower number of r e c i p r o c a l hybrids between Puck and Bonny Best, and I.P.B. and Bonny Best was lower than the two parents. But the flower number of r e c i p r o c a l hybrids between Cold Set and Bonny Best was intermediate, and approached the l e s s e r flower number parent. Generally speaking, floxver number of a l l l i n e s i n cool temperature was much higher than i n warm temperature conditions. 51 Table 15 Number of flower buds formed on the : f i r s t four c l u s t e r s of four v a r i e t i e s and s i x hybrid l i n e s i n warm greenhouse Variety and l i n e s Block Cluster P a BB a PxBB BBxP IPB& IPBxBB BBxIPB cs a CSxBB BBxCS 1 4 ' 7 9 7 14 6 6 4 8 7 I 2 5 7 14 6 13 7 7 8 5 6 3 6 6 6 7 9 7 7 6 7 6 4 5 8 7 8 7 7 6 5 6 6 1 6 8 7 7 5 7 6 7 6 6 I I 2 1 0 6 8 6 1 0 9 7 9 4 9 3 6 6 6 7 8 l l 7 3 8 1 0 4 i 4 5 7 8 8 7 8 6 9 9 1 6 8 6 6 7 5 5 7 7 8 I I I 2 6 7 6 7 8 6 4 8 9 11 3 6 8 7 8 8 8 6 9 7 9 4 5 7 5 7 8 7 7 6 5 10 l 7 7 6 7 5 6 5 6 7 6 IV 2 6 8 7 7 6 9 7 8 7 6 3 6 9 6 8 4 8 8 7 1 0 9 4 7 6 7 7 9 6 8 9 5 8 T o t a l 1 0 5 1 1 3 11k. 1 1 3 129 116 104 1 0 8 1 1 0 1 2 6 Ave. 6 . 5 6 7 . 0 6 7 . : 13 7 . 0 6 8 . 0 6 7 . 2 5 6 . 50 6 . 7 5 6 . 8 8 7 . 8 8 Analysis of variance Source D.F. M. S. F. Prob. Var i e t y 9 3 7 , 9 7 7 k.2196 1 . 3 4 0 . 2 2 1 4 Clus ter 3 1 6 . 5 2 3 5 . 5 0 7 8 1 . 7 5 0 . 1 5 8 2 V-C 27 7 2 . 4 7 7 2.6843 0 . 8 5 0 . 6 7 3 1 Error 1 2 0 3 7 7 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 4 1 7 T o t a l 1 5 9 5 0 3 . 9 8 0 (No s i g n i f i c a n t differences revealed by Duncan's test at P= 0 . 0 1 ) Table 16 Number of flower buds formed on f i r s t four c l u s t e r s of four v a r i e t i e s and s i x hybrid l i n e s i n cool greenhouse. Block Variety and l i n e s u i u s i e r pa BBS PxBB BBxP IPB8 IPBxBB BBxIPB CSS CSxBB BBxCS 1 16 14 7 9 15 11 9 6 14 7 I 2 i i 28 13 15 14 7 9 13 4 6 3 22 23 15 26 25 12 12 8 9 11 4 18 21 20 31 39 29 9 8 7 18 1 9 7 17 7 31 10 9 6 9 21 II 2 20 48 22 4 25 42 9 7 6 12 3 12 49 7 23 46 11 9 5 23 15 4 26 21 17 9 29 22 13 11 9 13 l 12 9 4 5 10 4 9 6 5 4 I I I 2 18 17 28 9 24 l l 9 5 14 7 3 23 7 21 7 21 24 l l 8 8 13 4 15 8 25 7 20 28 12 5 7 15 l 13 11 7 16 7 10 8 6 8 9 IV 2 21 23 8 10 l l 9 9 14 6 12 3 19 16 17 8 18 7 12 21 11 18 4 2 5 7 19 10 20 13 13 13 10 21 T o t a l 280 309 247 196 355 250 162 142 145 202 Ave. 17.5 19.13 15.44 12 .25 22.19 15.63 10.13 8.87 9.06 12.62 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Prob. Variety 9 4859. 90 317. 770 5. 93 0.0000 Cluster 3 1138. 10 379. 370 7. 08 0.0002 V-C 27 1483. 70 54. 952 l . 03 0.4418 Error 120 6431* 70 53. 598 T o t a l 159 11913. 00 Duncan's test (P=0.0l) Variety and l i n e s IPBft BB& PS IPBxBB PxBB BBxCS BBxP BBxIPB CSxBB CSa Mean 22.19 19.31 17.5 15.63 15.44 12.62 12.25 10.13 9.06 8.87 53 (c) number of f r u i t There were highly s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n f r u i t number1 among v a r i e t i e s and hybrids. In the warm greenhouse, there were highly s i g n i f i c a n t differences (table 17) and most of the hybrids were intermediate between t h e i r two parents i n f r u i t number, except f o r (IPBxBB)PI and (BBxCS)Fl both of which exceeded t h e i r parent l i n e s . Under cool temperatures, the differences i n f r u i t number were more pronounced (table 18). The hybrid l i n e s were intermediate between t h e i r two parent l i n e s except once more (bbxCS)Fl exceeded both parents. There was a highly s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between f r u i t c l u s t e r s , and i t can be seen that u s u a l l y the second and t h i r d c l u s t e r s set more f r u i t than f i r s t and fourth c l u s t e r s . 54 Table 17 Number of f r u i t formed on f i r s t four clu s t e r s of four v a r i e t i e s and six hybrid l i n e s i n warm greenhouse. , ~., , Variety and l i n e s  Block C l u s t e r * : / P a BB S PxBB BBxP IPB & IPBxBB BBxIPB CS & CSxBB BBxCS 1 2 4 1 5 6 3 4 1 1 2 I 2 2 2 7 4 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 1 5 5 4 3 2 3 3 4 4 l 2 4 2 2 3 5_ 3 3 2 _ j_ _ - - •• g 2 4 3 2 I I 2 5 1 3 2 4 7 4 2 4 5 3 3 1 3 4 5 4 5 2 3 4 4 5 2 2 5 2 2 3_ 3 4 3 1 3 1 1 2 5 1 1 4 3 3 I I I 2 4 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 5 3 4 1 4 4 3 3 3 2 1 3 4 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 l " 4 1 2 2 2 5 1 2 1 1 IV 2 4 2 1 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 5 2 1 1 3 4 3 1 - 2 4 3 5. 4 2 2 2 T o t a l 51 27 4 3 46 52 5J> 44 36 36 47 Ave. 3.18 1.68 2.68 2.87 3 . 2 5 3 . 5 0 2.75 2 . 2 5 2 . 2 5 2.94 (Per c l u s t e r ) Analysis of variance Source D.F. S . S . M . S . F. Prob. Var i e t y 9 4 1 . 3 7 5 0 4 . 5 9 7 2 2 . 5 4 0 . 0 1 0 7 Cluster 3 3 . 6 9 9 7 1 . 2 3 3 2 0 . 6 8 O . 5 6 9 4 V-C 27 3 5 . 4 2 5 0 1 . 3 1 2 0 0 . 7 2 0 . 8 3 3 7 Error 1 2 0 2 1 7 . 5 0 0 0 1 . 8 1 2 5 T o t a l 1 5 9 2 9 8 . 0 0 0 0 (No s i g n i f i c a n t differences revealed by Duncan's test at P= 0 . 0 1 ) 5 5 Table 18- Number of f r u i t formed on f i r s t four- c l u s t e r of four v a r i e t i e s and s i x hybrid l i n e s i n cool greenhouse;. Variety and l i n e s P H BB a PxBB BBxP IPB & IPBxBB BBxIPB CS ®> CSxBB BBxCS 1 9 5 1 6 4 5 2 3 6> 1 2 4 6 3 4 1 5 7 1 1 3 5 Xt 3 15 5 5 12 9 1 0 7 5 8, 5 4 7/ 6 6 24 12 16, 5* 4 3 13f; 1 4 2 4 3 5- 6 3 2 1 11 T T 2 4 1 5 1 0 4 9 2 6 6 4i 3 8) 1 1 3 8 16; 1 15, 14 4 8 3 7 8; 4 7/ 2 3 8. 7 5 7 1 2 4 l 4 3 3 3 6 2 4 l 1 3) I I I 2 1 0 2 18, 1 2 5 7 2 6 1 3 1 2 1 16 2 1 1 12 6 4 5 3 4 ? 1 13 5 9 7. 7 2 5' 2 l 4 4 5 1 1 4 4 4 3 3 6 T V 2 11 5 6- 6 5 6, 5 4 2 8 JL V 3 12 2 14 6 11 5 7 1 0 5 10,' 4 9 1 14 6: 9 7 6. 5, 4; 1 3 , T o t a l 1 2 9 76. 1 2 3 1 2 1 128- 1 2 5 91 64 64 1 0 1 Ave . 8 . 0 6 4 . ' 75 7 . 6 9 7 . 5 6 8 . 0 0 7 . 8 1 5 . 6 9 4 . 0 0 4 . 0 0 6 . 3 1 (per c l u s t e r ) Analysis of variance Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Prob. Va r i e t y 9 4 0 1 . 3 5 4 4 . 5 9 5 2 . 6 7 0 . 0 0 7 5 C l u s t e r 3 3 3 7 . 8 7 ' 1 1 2 . 6 2 6 . 7 3 o . o o o 4 V-C 27/ 286 .75 1 0 . 6 2 1 O . 6 3 0 . 9 1 ^ 3 E r r o r 1 2 0 2008 .00 1 6 . 7 3 3 T o t a l 1 5 9 3 0 3 4 . 0 0 (No s i g n i f i c a n t differences revealed by Duncan's test at P=0.0l) 56> (d) f i r s t flower, f r u i t set, and ripe f r u i t The data i n "table 1 9 show that under the warm temperature, T J P B was the e a r l i e s t v a r i e t y , i n c l u d i n g the production of f i r s t flower, f i r s t f r u i t set and f i r s t r i p e f r u i t . IPB required $6 days from seeding to f i r s t flower, and the l a t e s t l i n e s , Puck &<, Bonny Best a and (PxBB)Fl needed 7,0 days. Although IPB was: the f i r s t f r u i t set was 9 days, whereas Puck 0 only needed 5 days?. For t h i s same i n t e r v a l (BBxP)Fl had the longest period, r e q u i r i n g 16 days. None of the hybrids showed, any heterosis with respcet to the time i n t e r v a l hetween f i r s t flower to f i r s t f r u i t set. Although IPB was the f i r s t plant to bear ripe f r u i t , the period between f i r s t f r u i t set to fird:t r i p e f r u i t was kO days, whereas i n the case of (BBxIPB)Fl the i n t e r v a l was only 3k days, and (IPBxBB)F1 only required 35 days. Furthermore, Puck k needed 52 days, which was the longest time f o r ripening the f r u i t . During t h i s period from f i r s t f r u i t set to f i r s t r i p e f r u i t , hybrid l i n e s showed p o s i t i v e heterosis, i n other words, the number of days required f o r ripening f r u i t was shorter than> f o r t h e i r two parents. Under cool temperatures, a l l l i n e s took longer periods f o r development as can be seen i n table 20. Under these condition, the period from seeding to f i r s t flower, ,was only 8>9 days for-IPB, but Puck ®- and (CSxBB)Fl needed 119 days. In the second period of f i r s t flower to f r u i t set, although IPB was the f i r s t ; l i n e to set f r u i t , the i n t e r v a l between f i r s t flower aridi f r u i t set, was 35 days, whereas BB' only required 26 days. In the t h i r d period, although IPB was the f i r s t v a r i e t y to ripen f r u i t , the 57 i n t e r v a l between f i r s t f r u i t set to f i r s t ripe f r u i t was 58 days f o r IPB, whereas i t was only kO days, for (BBxP)Fl. ('e) percentage of f r u i t set Under warm temperature culture there were highly s i g n i f i c a n t d ifferences i n percentage of f r u i t set among the ten l i n e s (table 2 l ) . Puck v a r i e t y had the highest percentage set and BB was^ the lowest. Among the hybrid l i n e s , only (iPBxBB)Fl and (BBxCS)Fl showed a higher percentage of f r u i t set than parents. Under cool temperature culture, the difference i n percentage of f r u i t set was highly s i g n i f i c a n t . Differences were more prono-unced than under warm temperatures. A l l the hybrid l i n e s showed a higher percentage of f r u i t set than the two parents. 5& Table 19 F i r s t flower, f r u i t set and ri p e f r u i t i n a l l l i n e s , compared with ZPBi 8t> i n warm greenhouse F i r s t flower production i n F i r s t f r u i t set i n a l l a l l l i n e s l i n e s  Lines days number t o t a l num- days- number number i n t e r v a l from of ber flowers from of of f r u - bet-ween, seed flowers on IPB®' seed f r u i t i t on f i r s t ; flo-t h i s time IPB®, th^ wer and i s a . t i m e e a a f r u i t set P a 70 7/ 15 75 1 3 5. BB ft 70 1 15 85 1 18> 15 PxBB^Fl 70 5 15 85 3 18:. 15> BBxP)Fl 63 l 6. 79 2 4. 16. IPB a 56 1 65 1 9 IPBxBB)F1 60 l 4 70 2 2 10 BBxIPB)F1 60 1 4 79 4 4 19' cs a 60 l 4 70 l 2 10J CSxBB)Fl 60 l h 73 1 3 13 BBxCS)Fl 63 2 6 73 1 3 10. Lines p a BB a (PxBB)Fl (BBxP)Fl IPB' & (IPBxBB)F1 (BBxIPB)F1 cs a (CSxBB)F1 (BBxCS)F1 F i r s t r i p e f r u i t i n a l l l i n e s days number number i n t e r v a l from of r i p e of f r u i t between f i r s t . seed f r u i t on IPBa; f r u i t : set and at. this; f i r s t r i p e t ime • f r u i t 127 1 22 52 133 2 28 48 126 1 18 41 119 2 10 40 105 2 40 105 1 2 35 113 1 5 3^ 119 2 10 ^9 118. 1 9 45 120 1 11 hi, 59 Table 20 F i r s t flower, f r u i t set and r i p e f r u i t i n a l l l i n e s , compared with IPB 8 i n cool greenhouse Lines F i r s t flower production i n a l l l i n e s F i r s t , f r u i t set l i n e s i n a l l days from seed number of flowers t o t a l num- days number number. ber flowers from of on IPB® th i s time seed f r u i t of f r u i t on IPB; 8; thi s time i n t e r v a l between f i r s t flower-and f r u i t ; set E : i a 119 1 4 151 7 12 32 B B a 107 l 3 133 1 2 26 (PxBB^Fl 112 1 3 144 2 5 32 (BBxP)Fl 107 1 3 148 8 7 41 IPB a 89 1 124 2 35. (IPBxBB)F1 115 l 3 144 5 5 32 (iBBxIPB)Fl 115 1 3 151 2 12 36 cs a 101 3 3 128 1 2 27 (CSxBB)Fl 119 l 4 151 5 12 32 (BBxCS)Fl 105 2 3 151 3 12 46 F i r s t r i p e f r u i t ; i n a l l l i n e s days number number i n t e r v a l Lines from of r i p e of f r u i t between seed f r u i t on IPB8 f r u i t set at t h i s and f i r s t time r i p e f r u i t p a 215 2 49 64 BB 8 214 2 37 81 (PxBB)Fl 219 3 6-3 75 (BBxP)Fl 188 1 2 4o I E B 8 182 1 58 (IPBxBB)F1 196 1 4 52 ( B B X I P B ) F 1 211 4 25 60 cs a 191 1 3 63 (CSxBB)Fl 215 2 49 64 (BBxCS)Fl 215 1 49 64 6o Table 21 Percentage of f r u i t set of four v a r i e t i e s and s i x F l hybrid l i n e s i n warm greenhouse. Block V a r i e t i e s and hybrid l i n e s  C l u s t e r p fi B B a p XBB BBxP IBB® IPBxB BxIPB CSSt CSxBB BBxCS 1 50. 00 57. 14 11. 11 71. 42 jTi. -tt— 42.85 50.00 66. 66 25. 00 12. 50 28.57 T 2 ko. 00 28. 57 50. 00 66. 66 28.08 28.57 42. 85 37. 50 4o . o o 50.00 JL 3 66. 67 16. 66 83. 33 71. 42 44.44 42.85 28. 57 50. 00 42.85 66.66 4 20. 00 25. 00 57. 14 25. 00 28.57 42.85 83. 33 60. 00 50.00 33.33 1 66.67 25.00 42.85 14.28 60.00 85.72 33.33 57.Ik 50.00 33.33 2 5 50.00 16.66 37.50 33.33 40.00 77.78 57 .ik 22.22 100.0 55-55 3 50.00 16.66 50.00 57.14 62.50 36.36 71.42 66.66 37.50 4o . o o 4 35.71 20.00 28.57 62.50 25.00 28.57 37.50 50.00 44.44 33.33 1 50.00 12.50 16.66 33.33 71.42 20.00 20.00 57.14 42.85 37.50 2 66.67 42.85 16.66 14.28 37.50 33.33 25.00 12.50 22.22 45.45 3 66.67 12.50 57.14 50.OO 37.50 37.50 50.00 22.22 14.28 33.33 4 40.00 28.57 40.00 14.28 25.00 14.28 28.57 16.67 20.00 30.00 1 57.1^ 14.28 33.33 28.57 40.00 83.33 20.00 33.33 14.28 16.67 2 66.67 25.00 14.28 28.57 50.00 44.44 28.57 25.00 28.57 33.33 3 16.66 22.22 33.33 25.00 50.00 62.50 25.OO 14.28 10.00 33.33 4 42.85 16.66 28.57 57.14 33.33 83.33 50.00 22.22 40.00 25.00 Ave. 49.11 23.77 37.53 40.81 42.26 48.21 41.75 35 .Ik 35.59 37.21 I I I IV Analysis of variance Source D.F. S.S. M . S . F. Prob. Var i e t y 9 7489.30 832.15 2.52 0.0112 C l u s t e r 3 650.00 216.67 0.66 0.5844 V-C 27 9253.30 342.72 1.04 0.4257 Error 120 29622.00 330.19 T o t a l 159 57015.00 No s i g n i f i c a n t P=0.01 differences revealed by Duncan's test at 61 T a b l e 22 Percentage o f f r u i t s e t of f o u r v a r i e t i e s and s i x F l h y b r i d l i n e s i n c o o l greenhouse. B l o c k V a r i e t i e s and h y b r i d l i n e s C l u s t e r _. „ P ss BB a PxBB BBxP I P B a IPBxB BxIPB cs a CSxBB BBxCS 1 56.25 35. 71 14.28 66. 66 26. 67 45. 45 22.22 50.00 42.86 1 4 . 2 8 T 2 36.36 21. 42 23.07 26. 67 7. 14 71. 43 77.78 84.62 75.00 83.33 X 3 6 8 . 1 8 21. 69 33.33 4 6 . 15 36. 00 83- 33 58.33 62. 50 88.89 45.45 4 38.89 2 8 . 57 35.00 77. 42 30. 76 55. 17 55.56 50.00 42.86 72. 22 jfc-'r . 44.44 2 8 . 57 23.53 4 2 . 86 16. 13 60. 00 33.33 33.33 11.11 52.38 T T 2 20.00 31. 25 45.45 IOC 1.0 36. 00 61. 90 66.66 57.14 50.00 66.67 X X 3 75.00 32. 65 1 4 . 2 8 60. 83 30. 43 36. 36 88.89 60.00 30.43 53.33 4 2 6 . 9 2 9- 52 17.65 88. 89 24. 14 22. 73 53.3 5 9.09 22.22 30.77 1 3 3 . 3 3 , 33. 33 75-00 60. 00 60. 00 50. 00 44.44 16.67 20.00 75.00 T TT 2 55.56 11. 76 64.29 66. 66 50. 00 45. 45 77.78 4 o . o o 42.86 14.28 X X X 3 52.19 14. 28 76.19 28. 57 52. 38 50. 00 54.25 50.00 62. 50 23.08 4 60.00 12. 50 32.00 71. 43 00 25. 00 58.23 4 o . o o 71.43 13.33 l 30 .77 36. 36 71.43 68. 75 57. 14 4 0 . 00 50.00 50.00 37.50 66.67 TV 2 52.38 21. 69 75.00 60. 00 44. 44 66. 66 55.56 28.57 33.33 66.67 X V 3 6 3 . I 6 12. 50 82.35 75. 00 61. 11 71. 43 58.33 47.61 45.45 55.56 4 36.00 14. 28 73.68 60. 00 45. 00 53- 83 46.15 3 8 . 4 6 4 o . o o 61.90 Ave. 4 6 . 8 4 22. 88 48. 53 62. 49 38.89 52. 42 56.35 44.37 44.78 49.68 A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e Source D.F. S.S. M .s. F Prob. V a r i e t y 9 16369. 0 1818. 8 0 5 130 0. 0000 C l u s t e r 3 2843. 6 947. 88 2 .76 0. 0445 V-G 27 8348. 2 309. 19 0 ..90 0. 6102 E r r o r 120 41208. 0 343. 4 0 T o t a l 159 68769. 0 Duncan 1 s t e s t (P= :0.01) V a r i e t i e s and l i n e s BBxP BBxIPB IPBxBB BBxCS : PxBB -pa , csesxBBFBsa i P B a BBa Mean 62.49 56.35 52.42 49.68 48.53 4 6 . 8 4 44.78 44.37 38.89 22.88 (f) growth days from seeding to ri p e f r u i t Under both warm and cool temperature culture, as tables 23, and 2k show, there were highly s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the-days required to rip e n f r u i t . In both Ibhe warm and cool temperar-tures a l l the hybrid l i n e s were intermediate between two parents except (iPBxBB)Fl i n the warm house. Also i n the warm house, CS was the e a r l i e s t v a r i e t y , requiring. I34.I days, and BB was the l a t e s t with 150.8 days. In the cool temperature, IPB was the e a r l i e s t v a r i e t y , 212.3 days, and BB was. the l a t e s t 2 2 0 . 9 days. (g) f r u i t weight There were some highly s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n f r u i t weight among the ten l i n e s (table 25 and 26). Considering parent lines:., BB was the heaviest and IPB the lightest; i n f r u i t weights under both temperatures. In general the f r u i t weight of the hybrids was intermediate between parental l i n e s with two exceptions, namely, (BBxGS)Fl which was s l i g h t l y heavier than both parents; and (CSxBB)Fl which was a l i t t l e l e s s than the;'parents ;> although the differences are s i g n i f i c a n t when subjected to the Duncan's t e s t . In general the f r u i t weight of the hybrids tended to be closes- to the l i g h t e r parent f r u i t weight. 6 3 Table 2 3 Growth days from seeding to ripe f r u i t of four v a r i e t i e s and s i x F l hybrid l i n e s i n warm greenhouse. Block V a r i e t i e s and hybrid l i n e s  Cluster P® BB® PxBB BBxP IPB® IPBxB BxIPB CSS CSxBB BBxCS 1 1 3 ^ . 3 1 5 2 . 5 l4l.O 1 2 9 . 4 1 5 3 . 5 1 2 3 . 3 1 2 3 . 0 1 1 9 . 0 1 4 4 . 0 1 3 6 . 5 2 1 3 6 . 0 1 5 2 . 0 149.6 148.5 1 5 7 . 7 1 3 1 . 5 1 2 7 . 7 128.7 1 4 3 . 5 1 5 2 . 3 3 1 3 8 . 5 1 5 5 . 0 1 5 2 . 4 156.O 1 5 5 . 0 1 3 3 . 7 1 4 0 . 5 141.3 1 5 4 . 0 1 5 3 . 5 4 1 5 3 . 0 1 5 7 . 0 1 5 6 . 0 1 5 9 . 5 1 6 0 . 0 1 4 5 . 3 1 4 9 . 2 1 5 7 . 3 1 5 3 . 0 1 5 0 . 5 1 1 3 2 . 0 1 3 3 . 5 1 3 6 . 7 140.0 112.0 1 1 9 . 8 143.0 1 3 6 . 3 1 2 9 . 3 1 2 5 . 5 2 1 3 3 . 2 1 4 5 . 0 1 5 1 . 7 1 3 4 . 5 1 2 3 . 3 1 2 3 . 7 1 3 8 . 5 1 3 0 . 5 1 3 5 . 0 1 3 1 . 0 3 1 3 4 . 0 1 5 1 . 0 148.7 148.0 1 2 4 . 8 1 2 6 . 8 1 5 5 . 4 138.O 146.0 136.O 4 1 4 4 . 0 1 5 3 . 0 1 5 6 . 5 1 5 0 . 8 1 3 6 . 5 133.0 155.0 1 4 9 . 3 1 5 2 . 5 l4l.O 1 1 3 9 . 0 1 3 3 . 0 1 2 7 . 0 1 2 2 . 5 114.6 145.0 1 2 7 . 0 124.5 1 2 0 . 3 140.0 2 1 3 2 . 0 1 5 4 . 7 126.O 1 1 9 . 0 1 1 7 . 7 143.5 1 4 0 . 0 123.O 1 3 3 . 5 1 4 9 . 6 3 1 5 0 . 5 1 5 6 . 0 1 3 6 . 5 1 3 2 . 8 1 3 0 . 3 1 5 0 . 7 1 4 6 . 0 142.0 1 2 9 . 0 1 5 3 . 7 4 1 4 8 . 5 1 5 8 . 5 1 5 3 . 0 1 3 2 . 0 128.0 1 5 5 . 0 1 5 5 . 0 1 4 9 . 0 l4l.O 1 5 6 . 3 1 1 3 3 . 3 1 5 2 . 0 1 3 5 . 0 1 3 4 . 5 1 2 5 . 0 114.2 1 1 6 . 0 124.0 1 3 5 . 0 1 4 3 . 0 2 1 4 3 . 3 151.O 1 4 9 . 0 1 3 8 . 0 1 4 9 . 0 1 3 0 . 8 1 2 1 . 5 1 2 3 . 0 1 3 4 . 0 1 4 9 . 3 3 146.0 151.O 148.5 1 3 5 . 5 1 4 9 . 0 135.2 128.0 1 2 7 . 0 1 4 9 . 0 1 5 2 . 0 4 155.3 157.0 149.5 150.0 152.3 147.0 1 3 2 . 5 1 3 2 . 5 140.5 153.5 Ave. 140.8 1 5 0 . 8 144.8 139.4 1 3 6 . 8 1 3 4 . 9 137.4 134.1 1 3 9 . 9 145.2 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Prob. Variety 9 3 9 2 0 . 0 4 3 5 . . 5 6 0 4 . , 6 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 C l u s t e r 3 6 6 3 7 . 0 2 2 1 2 . . 3 0 0 2 3 . . 3 6 - 0 . 0 V-C 27 5 8 0 . 0 2 1 . , 4 8 1 0 . , 2 3 1 . 0 0 0 0 Error 1 2 0 1 1 3 6 6 . 0 9 4 . . 7 1 7 T o t a l 1 5 9 2 2 5 0 3 . 0 Duncan's test (p=0.0l) Variety and l i n e s BBS BBxCS PxBB P® CSxBB BBxP BBxIPB IPB® IPBxBB CS® Mean 1 5 0 . 8 145.2 144.8 140.8 1 3 9 . 9 1 3 9 . 4 1 3 7 . 4 1 3 6 . 8 1 3 4 . 9 1 3 4 . 1 64 Table 24 Growth days from seeding to ripe f r u i t of four v a r i e t i e s and s i x F l hybrid l i n e s i n cool greenhouse. Block V a r i e t i e s and hybrid l i n e s  C l u s t e r P& BBS PxBB BBxP I.PB& IPBxBB BBxIPB CS8 CSxBB BBxCS 1 2 1 2 . 3 2 1 6 . 0 2 1 9 . 0 2 0 2 . 0 186.5 2 0 6 . 7 2 1 9 . 0 2 0 9 . 3 2 2 0 . 0 218.0 2 2 1 2 . 0 2 1 9 . 0 2 1 9 . 5 2 1 5 . 5 2 1 7 . 0 2 0 8 . 9 2 2 0 . 0 2 1 0 . 6 2 1 9 . 0 2 2 0 . 0 3 2 2 0 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 2 2 2 . 3 2 0 6 . 1 2 0 7 . 8 2 0 2 . 8 2 2 0 . 5 2 2 0 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 4 2 2 2 . 0 2 2 2 . 5 2 2 5 . 0 2 0 3 . 1 2 0 6 . 9 2 0 5 . 9 2 2 2 . 0 2 2 2 . 0 2 1 7 . 0 2 2 2 . 0 1 2 1 6 . 5 2 1 9 . 0 2 1 9 . 5 2 1 5 . 5 2 1 5 . 0 2 1 5 . 0 2 1 7 . 0 2 1 5 . 5 2 2 0 . 0 2 1 7 . 0 2 2 1 9 . 0 218.0 2 2 1 . 0 2 1 0 . 5 2 1 3 . 8 2 1 4 . 7 2 l 4 . 3 2 1 7 . 0 2 2 0 . 5 2 2 0 . 5 3 2 2 0 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 2 2 2 . 0 2 1 9 . 7 2 1 3 . 9 2 l 4 . 5 214.3 2 1 3 . 0 2 2 4 . 0 2 2 0 . 5 4 2 2 3 . 0 2 2 5 . 0 2 2 2 . 7 2 2 0 . 3 2 2 0 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 2 1 3 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 2 2 5 . 0 2 2 3 . 7 1 2 1 9 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 2 2 0 . 0 2 1 5 . 5 2 0 7 . 0 2 1 9 . 0 2 1 6 . 0 2 1 9 . 0 2 2 3 . 0 2 2 0 . 0 2 2 2 0 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 2 1 5 . 0 2 1 1 . 3 2 1 7 . 0 2 l 4 . 5 2 1 9 . 0 2 2 2 . 7 2 2 1 . 0 3 2 2 3 . 0 2 2 5 . 0 2 2 4 . 0 2 1 6 . 5 2 1 0 . 1 2 1 6 . 5 2 1 5 . 3 2 2 1 . 0 2 2 3 . 0 2 2 3 . 0 4 2 2 5 . 0 2 2 6 . 0 2 2 6 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 2 2 0 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 2 2 3 . 0 2 2 4 . 0 2 2 5 . 0 2 2 5 . 0 " l 2 1 7 . 0 2 1 4 . 3 2 2 0 . 0 2 1 6 . 0 2 1 7 . 0 2 1 7 . 0 2 1 5 . 5 2 1 9 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 2 1 7 . 0 2 2 1 9 . 0 2 1 9 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 2 1 6 . 5 2 1 5 . 0 2 1 7 . 0 2 1 5 . 5 2 2 0 . 5 2 2 3 . 0 2 1 6 . 0 3 2 2 1 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 2 2 4 . 0 2 1 6 . 3 2 1 5 . 4 2 1 5 . 5 2 2 0 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 2 2 3 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 4 224.0 2 2 5 . 0 2 2 5 . 0 2 1 5 . 5 2 2 0 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 2 2 3 . 0 2 2 3 . 0 2 2 5 . 0 224.0 Ave. 2 1 9 . 6 2 2 0 . 9 2 2 0 . 0 214.1 2 1 2 . 3 2 l 4 . 6 2 1 7 . 7 2 1 8 . 4 2 2 0 . 0 220.6 II I I I IV Analysis of variance Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Prob. Variety 9 1 7 6 3 . , 0 1 9 5 . 8 9 0 0 1 0 , . 7 1 - 0 . 0 C l u s t e r 3 5 9 2 . , 0 1 9 7 . 3 3 0 0 1 0 . . 7 9 0 . 0 0 0 0 V-C 27 2 3 3 . , 0 8 . 6 2 9 6 0 . . 4 7 0 . 9 8 6 8 Error 1 2 0 2 1 9 5 . , 0 1 8 . 2 9 2 0 T o t a l 1 5 9 4 7 8 3 . , 0 Duncan's test (P=0.0l) Variety and l i n e s BBS BBxCS PxBB CSxBB Pfit CS& BBxIPB IPBxBB BBxP IPBSt Mean 2 2 0 . 9 220 .6 2 2 0 . 0 2 2 0 . 0 2 1 9 . 6 218. 4 2 1 7 . 7 2 1 4 . 6 2 1 4 . 1 2 1 2 . 3 65 Table 2 5 Mean f r u i t weight (g) of four v a r i e t i e s and s i x hybrid l i n e s i n warm greenhouse. Block V a r i e t i e s and hybrid l i n e s C l u s t e r Pa BBS PxBB BBxP IPBQ IPBxBB BBxIPB CSS CSxBB BBxCS 1 3 1 . 0 5 6 1 . 7 8 3 5 . 6 0 5 2 . 8 6 1 9 . 0 1 2 2 . 5 0 2 2 9 . 0 0 6 7 . 5 0 3 5 . 3 4 4 7 . 4 3 1 9 . 3 3 3 5 . 8 5 3 24 . 5 5 5 9 . 7 0 5 3 . 7 8 3 6 . 6 6 2 0 . 8 5 2 9 . 4 7 4 2 6 . 5 0 1 0 0 . 9 5 5 3 . 3 0 3 7 . 6 0 2 5 . 2 0 3 2 . 3 6 3 3 . 5 7 1 0 0 . 6 0 44 . 6 0 44 . 2 6 46 . 1 7 5 2 . 1 5 2 3 . 8 O 7 7 2 . 3 3 5 3 . 6 7 4 7 . 5 8 7 3 . 2 0 6 7 . 4 7 73.45 48 . 0 3 6 0 . 1 8 6 2 . 1 0 II 1 28.28 8 O . 7 5 5 1 . 9 7 3 2 . 7 0 1 3 . 7 3 2 0 . 7 0 2 24 . 0 8 6 5 . 7 0 6 2 . 3 0 3 1 . 9 5 2 2 . 5 7 2 3 . 3 5 3 3 5 . 4 3 7 3 . 2 0 5 1 . 2 3 3 0 . 9 5 28 . 2 6 2 7 . 3 3 4 36 .OO 6 9 . 5 0 5 0 . 9 0 2 9 . 2 6 2 2 . 4 5 3 4 . 3 5 28.45 Z38226 3 2 . 5 0 6 5 . 9 0 40.96 64.85 42.76 5 9 . 6 7 8 2 . 0 0 7 2 . 6 0 5 3 . 6 7 5 0 . 6 3 6 1 . 6 0 7 0 . 2 5 5 5 . 9 5 ?3,. 60 7 6 . 4 7 6 6 . 0 0 9 2 . 9 0 7 0 . 0 7 i l l 1 3 6 . 2 3 6 5 . 5 0 6 0 . 0 0 3 7 . 3 0 1 5 . 9 8 1 8 . 2 0 2 3 7 . 3 8 6 0 . 5 7 4 4 . 9 0 3 4 . 7 0 1 3 . 3 3 2 7 . 6 0 3 2 6 . 8 8 8 7 . 3 0 7 6 . 9 8 3 6 . 2 5 2 3 . 3 6 3 2 . 5 0 4 2 8 . 9 0 7 7 . 4 0 64 . 9 5 39.80 2 3 . 0 0 3 8 . 7 0 T 2 7 . 2 0 4 8 . 7 0 5 1 . 0 5 3 6 . 9 0 1 9 . 7 5 28 . 0 0 2 2 4 . 6 0 5 7 . 4 5 6 2 . 3 0 3 8 . 1 0 2 2 . 5 3 3 0 . 7 3 3 2 6 . 9 0 5 3 . 8 5 46 . 9 5 4 9 . 0 0 2 2 . 9 5 3 8 . 7 6 4 3 0 . 6 7 4 2 . 7 0 3 6 . 1 0 4 2 . 6 8 17.40 23.80 4 4 . 6 0 7 0 . 6 0 8 5 . 7 3 5 3 . 7 0 50.40 5 6 . 8 0 3 6 . 9 6 4 9 . 6 o 6 6 . 6 0 4 4 . 1 5 9 6 . 9 0 8 2 . 3 0 IV 2 1 . 4 0 7 2 . 1 0 6 7 . 2 6 3 1 . 2 5 34 . 2 5 46 . 5 0 4 3 . 7 5 1 1 4 . 8 0 54 . 2 0 42 . 2 3 53.55 76.55 6 5 . 7 0 6 5 . 9 0 7 0 . 2 0 6 6 . 0 5 Ave. 2 9 . 6 0 6 7 . 0 3 5 2 . 3 5 3 8 . 3 8 2 0 . 6 1 2 9 . 7 6 3 8 . 2 5 6 6 . 4 5 6 3 . 2 0 6 8 . 6 5 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Prob. Variety 9 4 8 2 6 6 . 0 0 5 3 6 2 . . 9 0 0 3 7 . . 9 7 - 0 . 0 Cluster 3 9 4 l . 6 9 3 1 3 . , 9 0 0 2 . . 22 0 . 0 8 7 7 V-C 27 2 6 6 2 . 7 0 9 8 . , 6 1 8 0 . . 7 0 0 . 8 5 9 9 Error 1 2 0 1 6 9 5 0 . 0 0 141. . 2 5 T o t a l 1 5 9 6 8 8 2 0 . 0 0 Duncan's test (P= 0 . 0 1 ) Variety and l i n e s R R ^ n s B P . a n s a P x B R BBxP BBxIPB IPBxBB PS I P B S Mean 6 8 . 6 5 6 7 . 0 3 6 6 . 4 5 6 3 . 2 0 5 2 . 3 5 3 8 . 3 8 3 8 . 2 5 2 9 . 7 6 2 9 . 6 0 2 0 . 6 1 66 Table 26 Mean f r u i t weight (g) of four v a r i e t i e s and s i x hybrid l i n e s i n cool greenhouse. Block Cluster V a r i e t i e s and hybrid l i n e s P® BBS PxBB BBxP IPB® IPBxBB BBxIPB CS® CSxBB BBxCS 1 17.22 51.76 52.20 45.70 13.85 44.77 18.10 13.47 36.30 55.40 2 17.05 136.80 39.80 24.80 15.10 24.06 27.60 16.92 25.80 43.03 3 21.26 60.77 40.20 8.73 7.02 29.07 24.30 22.20 18.60 43.20 4 19.77 43.60 27.20 11.01 9.44 21.93 27.30 18.05 8.20 39.00 II 1 19.85 2 19.80 3 18.70 4 17.80 77-60 31.70 27.25 8.70 15/47 41.30 23.65 49.30 59.55 52.65 23.80 26.35 6.93 30.07 23.33 38.87 30.37 55-55 86.90 4i.6o 25.90 8.01 29.50 18.50 28.65 31.00 45.8O 68.70 39.25 20.87 10.31 12.85 18.66 27.15 29.60 83.50 I I I 1 18.60 2 21.70 3 22.50 4 23.70 109.26 56.70 15.20 15.13 35.70 27.80 28.70 42.80 68.70 205.70 40.85 16.47 7.02 20.30 33.18 21.70 32.50 85.60 54.60 35.70 27.05 11.04 64.15 40.97 25.80 35.70 78.35 65.70 36.10 25.17 12.30 51.60 38.60 25.60 31.60106.20 IV 1 18.60 2 15.70 3 16.70 4 20.61 29.37 67.30 17.40 23.60 14.70 34.65 21.50 56.70 22.30 73.20 45.70 31.50 24.65 19.65 47.92 38.80 42.80 29.33 59.45 46.50 17.50 29.60 26.18 43.20 50.53 38.70 35.60 75.20 43.10 37.20 18.90 25.60 41.00 41.65 25.60 40.17 Ave. 19.41 79.45 41.73 23.63 13.23 29.10 31.65 27.03 33.47 55.74 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Prob. Variety 9 52199.0 5799.90 19.44 -0.0 C l u s t e r 3 548. 5 182.83 0.61 0.6119 V-C 27 10675.0 395.38 1.33 0.1532 Error 120 35799.0 298.32 T o t a l 159 99222.0 Duncan 1s test (P=0.0l) Variety and l i n e s BBS BBxCS PxBB CSxBB BBxIPB IPBxBB CS® BBxP P® IPB® Mean 79.45 55.74 41. 73 33.47 31.65 29.10 27 .03 23.63 19.41 13.23 67 (h) percentage of parthenocarpic f r u i t Under warm temperature culture there were no parthenocarpic f r u i t (table 2 7 ) , But i n cool temperature, a l l l i n e s whether hybrid F l or v a r i e t y had parthenocarpic f r u i t . There was a range from o 3 • 6", parthenocarpy i n BB to 3 6 . 9 % i n IPB. Table 2 7 Parthenocarpic f r u i t of four v a r i e t i e s and s i x hybrid l i n e s i n two d i f f e r e n t temperatures i n the greenhouse. T . warm temperature cool temperature f r u i t number parthenocar- number of parthenocar- percentage examined pic number f r u i t examined p ic f r u i t parthenocarpy P& 2 5 0 2 7 16 55.55 B B S 2 0 0 3 1 2 6 8 3 . 8 7 PxBB)PI 2 5 0 20 1 0 50.00 BBxP)Fl 2 5 0 64 4 3 67.18 IPB® 2 5 0 6 5 24 3 6 . 9 2 IPBxB:)F125 0 52 3 5 6 7 . 3 1 BxIPB ) F 1 2 5 0 44 1 5 3 4 . 0 9 csa 3 0 0 4 3 2 5 58.14 CSxBB)F130 0 20 9 45.00 B B X C S)F130 0 36 18 50.00 68 2. Growth, chamber experiments a. Experiment one (a) percentage of f r u i t set Recognizing that the data i n tables 28, 29, 30 and 3 1 are.' from two series i n each 6'f two chambers, then comparing warm and cool temperature response i n tables 28 and 29 i t i s seen that there were some s i g n i f i c a n t differences among l i n e s . Puck c o n s i s t e n t l y had the highest percentage f r u i t set and BB had the lowest. Also PxBB was higher than BBxP, although differences were not s i g n i f i c a n t at P= 0 . 0 1 l e v e l . The second series with a d d i t i o n a l l i n e s also showed some s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n f r u i t set i n the warm chamber (chamber 3 0 ) but not so i n the cool chamber (table 3 1 ) . At e i t h e r temperature, IPBxBB and CSxBB had higher sets than t h e i r s e l f - p o l l i n a t e d parents. 69 T a b l e 28 Percentage o f f r u i t s et on Puck, Bonny Best and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l h y b r i d s i n a warm growth chamber. Treatment B l o c k C l u s t e r PS BBS PxBB BBxP 1 71. 42 40.00 100.00 100.00 2 71.42 25.00 33.33 40 .00 I 3 35.71 14.28 33.33 28.57 4 66.66 25.00 50.00 16.66 5 42.85 0.00 33.33 42.85 l 83.33 66.66 100.00 62.50 2 57.14 0.00 33.33 4o.oo I I 3 66.66 25.00 33.33 20.00 4 25.00 25.00 50.00 0.00 5 20.00 25.00 66.66 33.33 Ave. 54.02 24.59 53.33 38.39 A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e Source D:F: s.s. M.S. F. Prob. Treatment 3 5874.9 1958.30 9.11 0.0006 C l u s t e r 4 12692.0 3173.10 14.77 0.0000 T-C 12 3951.3 329.28 1.53 0.1924 E r r o r 20 4297.8 214 .89 T o t a l 39 26816.0 (No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s r e v e a l e d by Duncan's t e s t at P=0.01) 7 0 Table 2 9 Percentage of f r u i t set on Puck, Bonny Best and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l h y b r i d s i n a co o l groifth chamber. Block C l u s t e r Treatment s E® BB® PxBB BBxP 1 2 I 3 4 5 6 2 . 5 0 3 3 . 3 3 4 4 . 4 4 2 0 . 0 0 14.28 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 5 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 5 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 3 7 . 5 0 2 5 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 2 II 3 4 5 5 0 . 0 0 2 2 . 2 2 5 0 . 0 0 2 5 . 0 0 1 6 . 6 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 8 0 . 0 0 6 2 . 5 0 3 3 . 3 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 3 . 3 3 2 5 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ave. 33.84 4.50 27.08 1 9 . 0 8 A n a l y s i s of va r i a n c e Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Prob. Treatment C l u s t e r T-C E r r o r T o t a l 3 4 12 2 0 3 9 4 7 7 7 . 7 5 9 4 8 . 6 3 8 8 7 . 4 4 1 5 7 . 8 1 8 7 7 1 . 0 1 5 9 2 . 6 0 1 4 8 7 . 1 0 3 2 3 . 9 5 2 0 7 . 7 9 7 . 6 6 7 . 1 5 l . 56 0 . 0 0 1 4 0 . 0 0 1 0 0 . 1 8 3 5 (No s i g n i f i c a n t P= 0 . 0 1 ) d i f f e r e n c e s r e v e a l e d by Duncan's t e s t at 7 1 Table 3 0 Percentage of f r u i t set on Gold Set, I.P.B. and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids with Bonny Best i n a warm growth chamber. Block Clus t e r Treatment IPB® IPBxBB BBxIPB ess CSxBB BBxCS 1 5 4 . 5 4 1 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 7 1 . 4 2 7 5 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 2 7 0 . 0 0 8 5 . 6 1 40 . 0 0 2 8 . 5 7 1 0 0 . 0 0 14.28 I 3 5 0 . 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 5 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 3 3 . 3 3 4 28 . 5 7 66.66 0 . 0 0 1 6 . 6 6 2 5 . 0 0 3 3 . 3 3 5 2 0 . 0 0 3 3 . 3 3 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 l 57.14 8 7 . 50 6 0 . 0 0 14.28 8 3 . 3 3 7 5 . 0 0 2 5 7 . 1 4 80 . 0 0 2 5 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 5 . 0 0 II 3 25.OO 6 0 . 0 0 3 3 . 3 3 3 3 . 3 3 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 4 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 3 . 3 3 5 40 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 3 3 . 3 3 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 3 . 3 3 Awe. 45.24 66 . 3 2 26.66 3 5 . 4 3 48 . 3 3 28,. 7 6 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Prob. Treatment 5 1 0 9 5 4 . 0 2 1 9 0 . 90 6 . 7 6 0 . 0 0 0 3 C l u s t e r 4 1 6 9 9 9 . 0 4 2 4 9 . 80 13 . 1 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 T-C 2 0 1 1 3 1 3 . 0 5 6 5 . 6 5 1 . 7 5 0 . 0 8 1 4 Error 3 0 9 7 2 0 . 8 3 2 4 . 0 2 T o t a l 5 9 4 8 9 8 8 . 0 Duncan's test ( p = 0 . 0 l ) Treatment IPBxBB CSxBB IPB® CS® BBxCS BBxIPB Mean 6 6 . 3 2 4 8 . 3 3 4 5 . 2 4 3 5 . 4 3 2 8 . 7 6 2 6 . 6 6 72 Table 31 Percentage of f r u i t set on Cold Set, IPB and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids x^ith Bonny Best i n a cool growth chamber. Block Clus t e r Treatment IPB® IPBxBB BBxIPB CS® CSxBB BBxCS 1 50.00 66.66 25.00 55.55 50.00 60.00 2 27.77 75.00 40.00 42.85 50.00 50.00 I 3 ko. 00 20.00 40.00 9.09 25.00 0.00 4 11.11 0.00 16.66 20.00 4 0 . 00 33.33 5 16.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.66 0.00 l ki.66 100.00 4 o . o o 16.66 60.00 4 o . o o 2, 27.77 71.42 33.33 14 . 28 4 o . o o 0.00 I I 3 20.00 33.33 4 o . o o 50.00 25.00 25.00 4 20.00 33.33 25.00 20.00 25.00 33.33 5 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ave. 26.49 39.97 2 5 . 99 22 . 8 4 33.16 24.16 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Prob. Treatment 5 2140.3 428.06 2.22 O.0778 C l u s t e r k 14996.0 3749.00 19.43 0.0000 T-C 20 6193.0 309.65 1.61 0.1173 Error 30 5787.3 192.91 T o t a l 59 29117.0 (No s i g n i f i c a n t differences revealed by Duncan's test at P=0.0l) 7/3 (b) f r u i t weight In; the warm growth chamber, there were highly s i g n i f i c a n t : d i f f erences among f r u i t x^eights (table 32). BB; crossed with P p o l l e n gave the largest s i z e , but P crossed with BB p o l l e n produced the smallest s i z e . XIn the cool growth chamber, c r o s s - p o l l i n a t e d f r u i t s were heavier than s e l f - p o l l i n a t e d f r u i t (table 33). There are highly s i g n i f i c a n t , differences between s e l f and c r o s s - p o l l i n a t e d f r u i t because PxBB was heavier than P 8 and BBxP was heavier than BB 8. At_ cool temperature the f r u i t of IPB crossed with BB were heavier than s e l f - p o l l i n a t e d fruit., but i n warm temperature the r e s u l t s were reversed (tables 3^ and 35). In both cool and warm temperatures CSxBB was heavier than CS 8. (c) seed number Seed number response to temperature appeared to be variable (tables 36 arid 39). In the warm growth chamber, the seed number of PxBB was less than that of P 8, but the seed number of BBxP was greater than that of BB 8. This., s i t u a t i o n was reversed i n the cool growth chamber, although the differences between some treatments were s i g n i f i c a n t (table 37). In both warm and cool growth chambers, the seed number of IPBxBB was less than that of IPB 8, and CSxBB xvas greater than CS 8; and the seed number of BBxIPB and BBxCS was greater than BB 8 (table 38< and 39). 74 Table 32 Mean f r u i t weight (g) of Puck, Bonny Best and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids i n a warm growth chamber treatment P ® BB 8 PxBB. BBxP 1 2 I ' 3 4 5 36.40 40.90 54.96. 42.03 29.53 108.50 47.25 36. 20 99.90 / * 42.05 27.95 40.65 38. 90 28.33 98.27 6O.30 39.00 59.80 54.20 1 2 II 3 5 51.96 48.75 26.65 25.60 24.20 92.77 / * 37.10 29.70 35.00 28.22 29.10 30.30 / * 29.50 116.83 62.20 48.60 63.90 30.85 Ave. 38.11 61.05 32.77 63.39 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Prob. Treatment Cluste r T.-C Erro r T o t a l 3 4 12 20 39 ; 67.13.84 6854.86 4515.31 3941.54 22043.55 2237.95 1713.72 376.27 197.07 11.4 8.7 1.9 0.0000 0.0007 0.2013 Duncan 1s test (P=0.01) Treatment BBxP BB ® p a PxBB Mean; 63 .39 61.05 38.11 32.77 * No f r u i t set on the c l u s t e r Table 3 3 Mean f r u i t weight (g) of Puck, Bonny Best and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids i n a cool growth chamber Block C l u s t e r treatment. P S BB ® PxBB BBxP 1 1 5 . 2 6 3 5 - 8 0 4 o . 6 o 5 8 . 9 3 2 2 2 . 9 5 /* 18... 0 0 2 9 . 1 3 Ii 3 2 6 . 5 0 /* t* 35->. 1 0 4 1 7 . 4 5 28 . 7 0 3 5 . 0 0 3 7 . 2 0 5 2 0 . 2 0 /* fa / * l 2 3 . 6 0 /* 4 0 . 7 0 5 9 . 9 0 2 3 2 . 8 0 /* 23.64 4 o . i o II 3 3 0 . 8 5 /* 4 2 . 6 0 /* 4 2 9 . 2 5 /* /* /* 5 2 7 . 6 0 /* /* /* Ave. 24.65 3 2 . 2 5 33.42 4 3 . 3 9 Analysis of variance Source D.F. s.s. M.S. F. Prob. Treatment 3 L 3 3 1 . 3 2 4 3 3 . 7 7 3 1 . 5 - 0 . 0 Cluster 4 6 4 9 . 6 5 1 6 2 . 4 5 1 1 . 8 0 . 0 0 0 0 T:-C 12 7 7 1 . 2 3 64.27 4 . 7 0 . 0 3 3 1 E r r o r 2 0 2 6 5 . 3 8 1 3 . 7 7 T o t a l 3 9 3 0 1 7 . 5 9 Duncan's test ( P = 0 . 0 l ) Treatment BBxP PxBB BB ® P ® Mean 4 3 . 3 9 3 3 . 4 2 3 2 . 2 5 24 .65-No f r u i t set on the c l u s t e r 76 Table 34 Mean f r u i t weight (g) of Cold Set and I.P.B. and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids with Bonny Best i n a warm growth chamber Treatment C L O C K u i u s i e r -i-i-m ^ IPB 8 IPBxBB BBxIPB c s a CSxBB BBxCS 1 28 .65 23.36 109.67 26.4o 67.54 107.93 2 26.60 25.45 98.80 34.25 34.80 59.40 I 3 39.25 29.23 85.60 4o.4o 48.10 /* 4 34.23 /* /* 32.80 /* 85.30 5 38/35 17.60 45.60 70.60 /* 114.60 1 20.27 26.04 108 .70 38.50 73.37 107.40 2 26.30 23.05 127.25 26.50 68.76 129.30 I I 3 29.25 25.08 120.80 59.87 63.60 59.00 4 20.45 26.75 /* 69.30 113.00 67.IO 5 18 .7© 20.80 /* 32.80 /* /* Ave. 28 .21 24.15 99.49 43.14 67.02 91.25 Analysis of variance Source D.P. s.s. M.S. F • Prob. Treatment 5 42523.09 8504. 6.2 39 .50 -0.0 C l u s t e r 4 1361.84 340.46 1 .61 0.6431 T-C 20 8679.85 433. 99 2 .03 0.9622 Error 30 6413 .91 213. 79 T o t a l 59 58978 .69 Duncan's test (P=0.0l) Treatment BBxIPB BBxC§ CSxBB CS 8 IPB 8' IPBxBB Mean 99.49 91.25 67.02 43.14 28 .21 24.15 * No f r u i t set on the c l u s t e r 77 Table 35 Mean f r u i t weight of Cold Set and I.P.B. and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids with Bonny Best i n a cool growth chamber ...... ., , Treatment Block C l u s t e r IPB& IPBxBB BBxIPB CSSt CSxBB BBxCS 1 10.05 17.50 45.70 16.70 28.23 30.83 2 16.32 19.20 28.00 17.80 22.15 18.90 I 3 12.50 19.30 24.50 15.90 28.30 /* 4 i 5 . 4o /* 12.30 13.15 19.95 17.30 5 13.90 /* /* /* 28.60 /* 1 18.78 10.86 31.95 26.10 19.30 27.15 2 14.98 17.72 30.60 14. 20 16.60 /* II 3 12.13 25.60 27.40 18.20 25.60 32.10 4 10.73 12.50 25.60 15. 20 18.70 13.50 5 10.30 /* /* /* /* /* Ave. 13.51 17.52 28.26 17.16 23.05 23.29 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Prob. Treatment 5 C l u s t e r 4 T-C 20 Error 30 T o t a l 59 1223.92 244.78 403.89 100.97 578.98 28.99 419.10 13.97 2625.89 17.5 0.0000 7.2 0.0052 2.1 0.9800 Duncan's test (P=0.0l) Treatment BBxIPB BBxCS CSxBB IPBxBB csa IPB® Mean 28 . 26 23.29 23.05 17.52 17.16 13-51 * No f r u i t set on the c l u s t e r 78 T a b l e 36 Seed number of Puck, Bonny Best and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l h y b r i d s i n a warm growth chamber. „, , _, . Treatment B l o c k C l u s t e r p a BB a PxBB BBxP 1 114.2 90.0 123.0 105.0 2 135.2 47.0 95.0 97.0 I 3 175.0 24.0 63.0 79.0 4 107.6 70.0 127.0 91.5 5 67.6 /* 96.0 100.5 1 202.0 107.25 76.6 122.3 2 117.0 /* 105.0 l4i.O II 3 53.5 14.0 80.0 84.0 4 77.0 6.0 /* 46.0 5 65.0 76.0 75.0 66.5 Ave. l l l . 4 l 54.26 96.66 93.28 A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. > Prob. Treatment 3 15000. .30 5000. ,10 5-,4 0. 0012 C l u s t e r 4 12994. .30 3248. .56 3. • 5 0. 0059 T-C 12 10229. .29 852. ,44 0. .9 0. 2841 E r r o r 20 18422. .88 921. ,14 T o t a l 39 566h6, .77 (No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s r e v e a l e d by Duncan's t e s t at P=0.01) * No f r u i t s e t on the c l u s t e r 79 Table 37 Seed number of Puck, Bonny Best and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids i n a cool growth chamber. •rt i . _ i . /~t i . . _ i _ Treatment r i l o c K t l u s t e r p a BB a PxBB BBxP 1 17.40 25.00 64 .00 32.66 2 24.75 /* 36.00 19.66 I 3 12.50 /* /* 14 .00 4 9.00 21.00 36.00 13.00 5 28 .00 /* /* /* l 21.00 /* 27.00 37.50 2 16.50 /* 22.60 18 .00 I I 3 15.00 /* 4o.oo /* 4 19.00 /* /* /* 5 11.00 /* /* /* Ave. 17.42 23.00 37.60 22.47 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S .s. M.S. F. Prob. Treatment 3 1558.56 519. 52 14 .7 0.0000 C l u s t e r 4 653.02 163. 26 4.6 0.0087 T-C 12 542.71 45. 23 1.3 0.1989 Error 20 700.59 35. 29 T o t a l 39 3454.79 Duncan's test (P=0.0l) Treatment PxBB B B a BBxP pa Mean 37.6.0 23.00 22. 47 17 .42 * No f r u i t set on the c l u s t e r 8 0 Table 38 Seed number of Cold Set, I.P..B. and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids with Bonny Best i n a warm groxrth chamber. •nt i /-.n a. Treatment Block Clus t e r IPB Si IPBxBB BBxIPB CS & CSxBB BBxCS 1 48.00 3 5 . 6 0 83.00 38. 80 3 2 . 6 7 9 2 . 5 0 2 6 8 . 5 7 36.33 86. 50 3 2 . 00 3 4 . 4 0 138.00 I 3 57.75 31.75 73.00 89. 00 37-00 1 2 5.00 4 5 0 . 0 0 15.00 / * 75. 00 87.00 78.00 5 4 2.00 21.00 /* 2 5 . 00 71.80 /* 1 5 5 . 5 0 35.86 88.00 4. 00 15.33 87.66 2 62. 5 0 46.00 1 1 9.00 2 5 . 00 55.33 143.00 II 3 1 3 7 . 5 0 74.33 53.00 7. 5 0 /* /* 4 91.00 /* /* 2 4 . 6 9 /* 82.00 5 1 1 9.00 3 9 . 5 0 48.00 1 0 5 . 00 /* 138.00 Ave. 73.18 3 7 . 2 6 78.64 4 2 . 6 0 4 7 . 6 5 110 . 5 2 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Prob. Treatment 5 3 2 5 4 3 . 1 7 6 5 0 8 . 6 3 1 1 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 0 0 C l u s t e r 4 2 7 6 1 . 3 1 6 9 0 . 3 3 1.18 0.5873 T-C 2 0 14793.93 7 3 9 . 9 6 1 . 3 0 0 . 1 0 2 5 Error 3 0 1 7 6 3 3 . 1 6 587 . 7 7 T o t a l 5 9 6 7 7 3 1.57 Duncan's test ( P = 0 . 0 l ) Treatment BBxCS BBxIPB IPB a CSxBB cs & IPBxBB Mean 1 1 0 . 5 2 7 8.64 7 3 . 1 8 4 7 . 6 5 4 2 . 6 0 3 7 . 2 6 * No f r u i t set on the c l u s t e r 81 Table 3 9 Seed number of Cold Set, I.P.B. and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l hybrids with Bonny Best i n a cool growth chamber. „, , , , Treatment Block C l u s t e r I P B & IPBxBB BBxIPB cs & CSxBB BBxCS 1 10.0 17.0 29.0 1 2 . 0 0 18 . 5 0 19.0 2 20.2 21.0 2 4 . 5 18 . 3 3 17.00 1 4 . 5 I 3 1 7 . 0 11.0 19.5 1 3 . 0 0 19.00 /* 4 2 6 . 0 /* 38.0 1 5 . 6 5 22.0 9.0 5 24.0 /* /* /* 18.0 /* l 22.0 9.0 18.5 5 . 0 0 18 . 3 3 1 7 . 5 2 13 . 6 20.0 2 5 . 0 3 . 0 0 I 8 . 5 0 /* II 3 11.0 13.0 1 5 . 0 1 3 . 5 0 21.00 1 6 . 0 4 1 7 . 0 /* 1 6 .0 1 1 . 0 0 21.00 10.0 5 1 5 . 0 /* /* /* /* /* Ave. 17.58 1 5 . 1 6 2 3 . 1 9 11 . 4 2 1 9 . 2 6 14 . 3 3 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Prob. Treatment 5 6 6 5 . .79 1 3 3 . 1 5 1. 3 0 0. 1 0 4 7 Clus ter 4 202. ,28 5 0 . 57 0. 50 0. 8796 T-C 20 585. .59 2 9 . 27 0. 2 3 0 . 1475 Err o r 3 0 2 9 7 . .12 99. 0 1 T o t a l 59 1 7 5 0 . ,80 (No s i g n i f i c a n t differences revealed by Duncan's test at P=0.0l) * No f r u i t set on the c l u s t e r 8-2 Experiment two (a) In the warm growth chamber, IPB had the highest f r u i t -set, and BB the lowest. A l l the F l hybrids were interme-diate between t h e i r two parents, except (cSxBB)Fl which exceeded the better parent by a small percentage (tableau) Regarding growth days, (bbxP)Fl was the e a r l i e s t , l i n e , and BB was the l a t e s t . The (BBxIPB)Fl was intermediate two parents. The growth days f o r (BBxP)Fl was intermediate between the parents, but (BBxP)Fl showed heterosis i n e a r l i n e s s . Regarding f r u i t weight, a l l F l hybrids were intermediate between t h e i r two parents, except the r e c i p r o c a l hybrids between CS and BB which were less productive than both parents, (b) In the cool growth chamber, percentage of f r u i t set on the r e c i p r o c a l F l hybrids was lower than t h e i r totw parents with exception of (BBxIPB)Fl which had the highest per-centage set i n the experiments (table 4 l ) . Size of f r u i t i n terms of weight was very v a r i a b l e between the F l hybrids, (PxBB)Fl was intermediate and (BBxP)Fl was lower than both parents. (BBxCS)Fl was intermediate between paren ts but (CSxBB)Fl weight gre a t l y exceeded? those of the parents. T a b l e 40 Percentage o f f r u i t s e t , growth, days from s e e d i n g to r i p e f r u i t , and f r u i t w eightoof f o u r v a r i e t i e s and s i x h y b r i d l i n e s i n a warm growth chamber. L i n e % of f r u i t s e t Growth days C l u s t e r C l u s t e r 1 2 3 4 Mean l 2 3 4 Mean P ® 33.33 70. 00 33.33 33. 33 42. 50 101.0 108. 0 109. 67119.0 109.42 BB & 40.00 25.00 14.29 25. 00 26.07 115.0 121. 5 122. 0 125.0 120.88 PxBB)PI 40.00 40.00 25.00 20. 00 31.25 114.0 116. 5 120.0 123.0 118.38 BBxP)Frl 33.33 28.57 25.00 50. 00 34.23 102.0 103.5 112.0 112.0: i107^28 I P B S 88.89 50.00 40.00 60. 00 59.72 101.0 i o 4 . 3 114. 0 117.0 109.08 I PBxB)Fi66.6 6 20.00 50.00 66. 66 50.83 108.2 112. 0 121. 0 120.7 115.50 B X I P B ) F I 3 3 . 3 3 60.00 40.00 30. 33 40.92 107.5 114. 6 118. 5 119.0 114.92 c s a 50.00 50.00 33.33 50. GO 45.83 136.9 110. 0 116. 5 117.6 120.27 CSxBB)Fl60.00 33.33 50. o o 50. 00 48.33 103.6 115. 5 116. 0 115.0 112.54 BBxCS)Fl42.86 42.86 33.33 33. 33 38.10 93.0 106. 3 115. 0 118.0 108.28 F r u i t weight ( g / f r u i t ) C l u s t e r 1 2 3_ 4 Mean p a 31. 90 23. 70 31.90 20. 40 26. 99 B B a 47. 25 78. 70 65.30 30. 50 55. 44 P X B B : ) P 1 33. 35 32. 60 21.70 25. 70 28. 34 B B X P ) F 1 27. 10 28. 15 27.50 20. 00 25. 69 I P B a 26. 33 22. 10 22.15 26. 90 24. 37 IPBxBB)F1 28. 43 32. 85 30. 20 35. 45 31. 73 B B X I P B ) F 1 31. 35 19. 50 33.50 25. 70 27. 51 c s a 70. 28 60. 90 4o.4o 36. 73 50. 08 CSxBB)F1 34. 75 30. 50 38.75 39. 93 35. 98 BBxCS)Fl 30. 47 27. 27 39.60 35. 70 33. 29 84 T a b l e kl P e r c e n t a g e o f f r u i t s e t , g r o w t h d a y s f r o m s e e d i n g t o r i p e f r u i t , a n d f r u i t w e i g h t o f f o u r v a r i e t i e s a n d s i x h y b r i d l i n e s i n a c o o l , g r o w t h c h a m b e r . 4> o f f r u i t s e t G r o w t h d a y s L i n e s — ' *— C l u s t e r C l u s t e r 1 2 3 4 M e a n 1 2 3 4 M e a n p a ko. 15 38.89 4 o . o o 40. 00 4o. 01 219 220 223 225 224.2 BB & 15. 00 2 8 . 57 40.00 38. 46 30. 51 216 219 221 224 2 2 0 . 0 P x B B ) F l , l 4 . 28 25.00 31.25 33. 33 23. 72 219 219 223 225 2 2 1 . 6 B B x P ) P I 36. 36 40 .00 1 2 . 50 8. 33 2 4 . 29 215 220 225 225 2 2 1 . 2 I P B Q 1 0 0 . 00 15.79 13.64 30. 77 4o. 05 176 188 217 221 200 .1 I P B x B B ) F 1 2 2 . 22 50.00 45.45 13. 33 32. 75 196 208 213 224 2 1 0 . 2 B B x I P B ) F l 8 7 . 50 77.78 66.67 58. 33 72. 57 196 207 209 215 206.7 c s a 66. 67 57.14 25. 00 1 0 . 00 39. 70 203 209 214 220 2 1 1 . 5 C S x B B ) F 1 55. 56 25.00 10.00 14. 28 26 . 21 215 218 221 225 219.7 B B x C S ) F 1 50. 00 76.92 14 .28 10. 00 37. 80 220 221 223 225 222.2 F r u i t w e i g h t ( g / f r u i t ) C l u s t e r i 2 3 4 M e a n p a 18. 7 23.9 1 8 . 9 14. 6 19.02 B B a 65. 7 78.4 73. 5 56. 9 68.62 P x B B ) F l 37. 6 4 o . i 35. 8 32. 7 36.55 B B X P ) F 1 2 8 . 5 35.2 1 8 . 9 30. 3 28 .22 I P B a 1 8 . 2 14.7 16. 5 13. 7 25.77 I P B x B B ) F l 16. 2 17 .1 12. 1 14. 7 15.02 B B x I P B ) F 1 19. 8 17.4 27. 6 28. 5 23.31 c s a 22. 5 25.6 25. 8 26. 9 25.20 C S x B B ) F l 97. l 194.7 73. 6 63. 8 107.29 B B x C S ) F l 68. 7 67.7 51. 4 44. 7 58.13 85 3 . Pollen experiments a. p o l l e n germination i n v i t r o Puck had the highest per cent germination, followed by IPB and CS, and BB was d e f i n i t e l y the poorest i n spite of the warm temperatures which favour growth of that v a r i e t y (table 4 3 ) . Results of a s i m i l a r experiment using p o l l e n from plants grown under cool temperatures (table 4 2 ) showed a reduction i n per cent germination as compared to r e s u l t s i n table 43» except f o r the v a r i e t y CS. Thus CS had the highest per cent germination followed by IPB and P with BB showing very low germination. b. p o l l e n germination i n vivo There were s i g n i f i c a n t differences among v a r i e t a l e f f e c t s on pollen gertninat ion (table 4 4 ) . In the case of v a r i e t a l pollen germination i n vivo, Puck po l l e n on BB stigma gave the highest percentage germination, and BB pol l e n germination on IPB stigma was the lowest percentage among the cross p o l l i n a t i o n treatments. 86 Table 4 2 Percentage of pol l e n germination i n v i t r o f o r four v a r i e t i e s grown under cool temperatures. Rep. Cluster Variety Puck BB IPB CS 1 4 6 2 2 4 8 47 1 2 54 3 1 4 5 3 9 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 5 0 1 2 8 18 38 4 8 2 2 2 9 2 5 4 0 4 9 3 3 5 2 0 4 l 51 Mean 3 9 . 1 7 2 4 . 8 3 4 2 . 5 0 4 7 . 1 7 Analys i s of variance Source D.P. S.S. M.S. F. Prob. Variety 3 1 6 8 7 . 50 5 6 2 . 4 9 9 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 2 1 C l u s t e r 2 3 1 . 0 8 1 5 . 5 4 0 . 2 5 0 . 7 8 0 8 V-C 6 i o 4 . 92 1 7 . 4 9 0 . 2 9 0 . 9 3 1 6 Error 12 7 3 2 . 50 6 1 . 0 4 T o t a l 2 3 2 5 5 6 . 0 0 Duncan 1s test (p; = 0 . 0 1 ) V a r i e t y CS IPB Puck BB Mean 4 7 . 1 7 4 2 . 5 0 3 9 . 1 7 2 4 . 8 3 87 Table 4 3 Percentage of pol l e n germination i n v i t r o f o r four v a r i e t i e s grown under warm temperature. Puck BB IPB CS 1 6 0 37 51 4 9 1 2 68 28 54 51 3 51 41 k8 6o l 6 0 39 47 48 2 2 46 43 46 47 3 48 4o 40 40 Mean 5 5 - 5 0 38 . 0 0 49 . 1 7 47.66 Analysis of variance Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Prob. Var i e t y 3 9 4 2 . 1 7 3 1 4 . 0 6 5 . 8 7 0 . 0 1 0 6 C l u s t e r 2 34.08 17.04 0 . 3 2 0 . 7 3 6 2 V-C 6 . 1 5 1 . 5 8 2 5 . 2 6 0 . 4 7 0 . 8 1 7 1 Error 12 6 4 2 . 0 0 5 3 . 5 0 T o t a l 2 3 I769.8O Duncan's test ( P = 0 . 0 l ) Variety Puck IPB CS BB Mean 5 5 . 5 0 4 9 . 1 7 4 7 . 6 6 3 8 . 0 0 88 Table 44 P o l l e n germination i n vivo (percentage) Block Treatment Cl u s t e r 1 2. 3 4 5 6. 7 8, 9 10) flower Pollen Source P B P B I B 1 C B C Stigma P B B p B I 1 B C C i 1 20 330 116: ; ! 2 8 119 117 :;23 222: 119 j. 2 16^ 23 26 15 1 4 25 20 25. 17 16 o 1 17 14 25 22 24 1 8 1 4 1 8 21 20> <c 2 18 16 26 2 4 22 22 17 19 19 18 Ti T 1 21 15 39 22 21 i a 23 26. 17 19 x J 2 19 16 2 4 17 17 20 16 32 18. 17 U 1 23 16 2 8 27 24 19 i a 26 25 22 H- 2 21 16 26 33 20 16 17 22 23 16. 1 22 22 34 28 , 22 20.. 19- 24 22 2 8 y 2 20 20 30 2 4 25 19 21 21 2 4 34 •\. 1 15 21 2 4 35 i a 17 23 20 20, 1 8 X 2 17 22 22 24 20 19 25 26 16) 19 Q 1 17 17 20 25 1 8 . 20 1 8 32 19 19 2 18 19 1 8 2 4 25 22 19 22 24 20 T T 1 18 18- 26 29 33 22 38, 26 27 18 , 2 20 18 24 24 29 21 30 20 21 22 4 1 30 18 ' 23 25 22 19 31 26 30 22 *+ 2 2h 19 22 2 8 24 20; 2 8 25 31 24 c 1 1 8 23 2 4 27 26 22 27/ 29 36 2 4 > 2 20 22 26 26 20 22. 24 3 0 ' 27 22 Mean 19.7 18.9 25.9 24.8 22.1 19.9 22.2 24.6. 22.9 20.9 Analysis of variance Source D.F. s . S. M. S. F. Prob. Treatment 9 1009. 2 8 112. 13 5 .78. 0.0000 C l u s t e r 4 455. 2 8 113. 8 2 5 .86 0.0003 Flower 1 49. 01 h9. 01 2 .52 0.1111 Ti-C 36 8 0 2 . 72 22. 30 1 .15 0.2910, TL-F 9 65. 04 7. 23 0 .37 0.9454 C-F 4 51. 8 2 12. 96. 0 .67 0.6191 C , -Tr-E 36 283. 38 8$ 6 . 4 1 0.9985. Error. 1 100. 1941. 50 19. 42 T o t a l 1 9 9 4:6)58.00 Duncan's, te s t (P=0.0l) Treatment 3 4 8 9 7 5 10 6 1 2  Mean 25.9 2 4 . 8 2 4 . 6 22.9 22.2 22.1 20.9 19.9 19.7 1 8 , . 9 8 9 DISCUSSION 1. Greenhouse experiments The main purpose of the greenhouse experiments was to compare the d i f f e r e n t responses of four v a r i e t i e s and t h e i r hybrids to two temperature l e v e l s , namely, cool (10°C - 1 5 . 5°G) and warm (18.3°C-21.1°C ) . Generally speaking, the cold temperature resulted i n lower percentage f r u i t set, l i g h t e r f r u i t weight i n most l i n e s and fewer seeds per f r u i t . Under both temperature regimes, the percentage of f r u i t set was markedly increased when c r o s s - p o l l i n a t i o n was used i n contrast to the natural mode of s e l f - p o l l i n a t i o n . I t i s recognized that the data from the cool house may confound temperature e f f e c t s on f r u i t s e t t i n g with the quantity and v i a b i l i t y of pollen as provided by the experimental procedures. The s e l f - p o l l i n a t e d flowers i n the cool house may have shown a low percentage f r u i t set because the quantity and v i a b i l i t y of pollen were reduced i n comparison with flowers grown under the more congenial warm temperatures. On the other hand, the cr o s s - p o l l i n a t i o n s i n the cool house were made using p o l l e n grown i n the warm house where large quantities of functional pollen are developed. Thus the higher set from cross p o l l i n a t i o n might be a t t r i b u t e d to the quantity and v i a b i l i t y of pol l e n a v a i l a b l e . Nevertheless the data have some value i n assessing cross-versus s e l f - p o l l i n a t i o n . Data from the cool house show the same trend as warm house r e s u l t s , and i n the l a t t e r the s e l f - p o l l i n a t i o n s would be a r e s u l t of the ample supply of 90 normal p o l l e n produced under those growing conditions. It seems that the trend i s established but the magnitude of differences i n the cool house f r u i t - s e t data may be larger than would be the case i f a l l p o l l e n had been supplied from the warm house. Ifi s p i t e of t h i s c r i t i c i s m , i t i s worth noting that the s e l f -p o l l i n a t i o n r e s u l t s of 39$ f o r IPB and 37$ f o r CS are r e l a t i v e l y high (table 3) f o r cool temperature condition's, and cross-p o l l i n a t i o n r e s u l t e d i n increased percentage f r u i t set although the differences were not s i g n i f i c a n t at P=0.01. This apparent e f f e c t of c r o s s - p o l l i n a t i o n should be studied further because i t may be a manifestation of a comp a t i b i l i t y phenomenon. F r u i t weight under warm temperature was, heavier than under cool temperature except f o r BB 8 and PxBB?. In spite of this, generalizations, the weight of f r u i t form s e l f - p o l l i n a t i o n was; t y p i c a l of the v a r i e t y with l i t t l e apparent influence by the d i f f e r e n t temperatures employed. In the case of c r o s s - p o l l i n a -t i o n s , f r u i t weight c e r t a i n l y depended f i r s t on the maternal parent;-that is,ys,ize was t y p i c a l f o r the v a r i e t y . A d d i t i o n a l to t h i s basic weight, c r o s s - p o l l i n a t i o n resulted i n heavier f r u i t than did s e l f - p o l l i n a t i o n i n most l i n e s . According to tables 5-&, when Puck, IPB and CS received BB, pol l e n , the f r u i t weight was a l i t t l e heavier than those from s e l f - p o l l i n a t i o n under both cool and warm temperatures; however, when BB was crossed with Puck, IPB and CS gave an increase i n weight almost one-third greater than the s e l f - p o l l i n a t e d f r u i t . It, s i suggested that this, c r o s s - p o l l i n a t i o n phenomena; might be used to advantage f o r increasing crop y i e l d s , i f plant breeders 91 could develop tomatoes which would be n a t u r a l l y c r o s s - p o l l i n a t i o n . In s e l f - p o l l i n a t e d f r u i t of the four v a r i e t i e s , the seed number was t y p i c a l for the v a r i e t y . Regarding the c r o s s - p o l l i -nated f r u i t , the seed number was greater than i n s e l f - p o l l i n a t e d f r u i t , regardless of temperature. Taking BB aa, an example, i t -i s seen that under cool temperatures the average seed number i n s e l f - p o l l i n a t e d f r u i t was only 3»95» hut when crossed with Puck polle n , the number of seed was increased to 22.3; s i m i l a r l y when crossed with IPB and with CS the seed number was; 34.84 and 29.2 r e s p e c t i v e l y . It appears that seed number depends- on amount,, v i a b i l i t y and co m p a t i b i l i t y of the pol l e n . When the s i x F l hybrid l i n e s and four parental v a r i e t i e s were observed over the d i f f e r e n t growing stages form seed sowing to f i r s t r i p e f r u i t , there vras. v a r i a b i l i t y i n the manifestation of h e t e r o s i s . It i s generally considered that the optimum temperature f o r tomato seed germination i s about 18.5°-21.1°C ( Kotowski,24), and i t i s known that germination w i l l tkke longer and i s often reduced at cooler temperatures. Also there are v a r i e t a l or genetic d i f f e r e n c e s . Although Luckwill (34) reported that seed of tomato hybrids d i d not germinate more quickly than t h e i r parents, the r e s u l t s of the present studies showed that the hybrids (p-xBBs)Fl and (BBxIPB)Fl had a higher percentage germi-nation than parents i n warm temperatures, and (BBxP)Fl and (CSxBB)Fl had a higher percentage seed germination than parents i n cool temperature. These r e s u l t s are s i m i l a r to the work of Burdick ( 3 ) , K h e i r a l l a (22) and Lewis (30);> hut a l l these workers 9 2 used optimum temperatures. The current study employed the two le v e l s of temperature and i n spit e of lack of r e p l i c a t i o n , r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e another case of genotype and temperature i n t e r -a c t i o n . Cool temperatures s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased the flower number i n a l l l i n e s , however, the flower number of F l hybrids was, l e s s than either one or both parents. In warm temperatures the F l flower number was intermediate between or sometimes higher than that of both of the parents. I t seems that the gene action which controls the flower number was not producing maximum expression at warm temperatures. Furthermore i n the cool temperature greenhouse, the percentage of f r u i t set on F l hybrid l i n e s was generally higher than for/ the parents. This increase might be considered to be a result, of heterosis being revealed at cool temperatures only. The percentage of f r u i t set on the F l hybrid l i n e s was higher i n the cool house than i n warm (table 2 1 and 2 2 ) although the reverse occurred with the true-breeding v a r i e t i e s . This i n t e r e s t i n g point might be a r e s u l t of the F l hybrids being more adaptable to r e l a t i v e l y cool temperatures than parents, or that the F l hybrids were able to make vegetative growth vigorously at cool temperatures and thus support a larger number of f r u i t , of again these F l hybrids may have produced greater amounts of pollen or were able to mature the pol l e n which i n turn could function better than parents 1 pollen at cool temperatures. The increased flower number r e s u l t i n g from exposure to cool 93 temperatures has been reported for a few v a r i e t i e s of tomato by Calvert ( 4 ) , Daubeny (9) and Lewis ( 3 l ) . The r e s u l t s of the present studies report two more v a r i e t i e s , IPB and Cold Set, and the F l hybrids which also show thi s cool, temperature resp-onse. The diverse reports lead one: to think that the species, i n general! which makes optimum growth at r e l a t i v e l y hi'gh temperature, has the somewhat s u r p r i s i n g response of increasing flower number when exposed to the cool temperature. The number of growth days required from seeding to r i p e f r u i t , was increased with decreasing temperature. In both the warm and codl temperature houses, CS and IPB were the e a r l i e s t varie.-t i e s , Puck was intermediate and BB was the l a t e s t . F l hybrids were intermediate between t h e i r two parents, except, some of the F l l i n e s which were 1 or 2 days e a r l i e r than the e a r l i e s t parent; however, t h i s small difference i n such a l i m i t e d population is? of dubious h o r t i c u l t u r a l value. F r u i t s i z e of F l l i n e s was intermediate between parents, and seems to approach the s m a l l e r - f r u i t parents These r e s u l t s are s i m i l a r to those of Power (39) who reported that heterosis was not obtained for f r u i t size and that the small f r u i t character had p a r t i a l dominance. No l i n e s had parthenocarpic f r u i t i n the warm house, but a l l l i n e s had a high percentage i n the cool house, e s p e c i a l l y the 83.9$ f o r BB, (table 27). These plants were allowed to s e l f - p o l l i n a t e n a t u r a l l y , and the parthenocarpy might be a r e s u l t of i n s u f f i c i e n t p o l l e n production or f a i l u r e of p o l l e n to germinate, or f a i l u r e of p o l l e n tube to reach the ovule. 9k. Although cool temperature tended to reduced the percentage of f r u i t set on the true-breeding v a r i e t i e s (tables 21 and 22), the actual number of f r u i t set. i n cool temperatures was: greater than i n warm temperatures (tables 17 and 18J) . As already obser-ved, the cool temperatures increased the flower number greatly. The l a r g e r number of flowers would give more chances to set more f r u i t , and yet t h i s l a r g e r number of f r u i t i s apparently a smaller percentage of the blossoms than i n the case at warm temperature. Under both temperature regimes IPB* was the eari e s t v a r i e t y compared with a l l other l i n e s . I f the growth period i s divided into three periods, ( l ) from seeding to f i r s t flower, (2) f i r s t flower to f i r s t f r u i t set and (3) f i r s t f r u i t set to f i r s t ripe f r u i t , then IPB was the e a r l i e s t i n the f i r s t period, but not i n the second and t h i r d periods. I t seems that t h i s v a r i e t y was! growing very quickly before flowering and then slowed down, a f t e r flowering and s e t t i n g f r u i t . F l hybrids did not show any ear l i n e s s i n the f i r s t period, but i n second period were i n t e r -mediate betwwen two parental v a r i e t i e s , and a l l were showing heterosis i n the t h i r d period. The growth rate i s no doubt, c o n t r o l l e d by many genes, and those genes may respond d i f f e r e n t l y i n the various- genotypes. Probably d i f f e r e n t groups of genes are involved at d i f f e r e n t stages of growth, thus i t seems desirable that breeding f o r earli n e s s should attempt to get recombinations which have the shortest terms f o r the d i f f e r e n t stages, and eventually obtain the e a r l i e s t plants. Apparently most breeders evaluate earliness 9 5 i n terms of days from seeding to f i r s t r i p e f r u i t . Unless by, chance they recover segregants with the shortest times f o r every stage, then the earliness could be improved by c a r e f u l l y s e l e c t i n g parents to contribut these component stages of e a r l i n e s s . 2. growth chamber experiments The r e s u l t s of the growth chamber experiments showed some differences from the greenhouse experiment. Such differences could be expected because the chambers were maintained at constant temperatures, whereas the greenhouses had some,even though r e s t r i c t e d , d i u r n a l f l u c t u a t i o n s i n temperature. Never-theless, the more exact controls i n growth chambers should evaluate temperature differences c a r e f u l l y and indicate whether the v a r i a b i l i t y i n greenhouse environments s e r i o u s l y affected the plants' response to temperature. The amount of space a v a i l a b l e i n growth chamber, l i m i t e d the s i z e of plant population, therefore comparisons of greenhouse and growth chamber experimental r e s u l t s must be made c a t i o u s l y . The r e s u l t s from both sources were e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r f o r percentage f r u i t set and weight with s i m i l a r trends i n time needed to reach maturity, although greenhouse plants were slower. Regarding the percentage f r u i t set i n the cool chamber the PxBB was s u r p r i s i n g l y lower than that f o r the s e l f - p o l l i n a t e d Puck. It i s possible that the BB p o l l e n had lower v i a b i l i t y than Puck as a r e s u l t of conditions f o r p o l l e n production. The l i m i t e d plant population precluded studying possible differences i n pollen, therefore, the above diffe r e n c e should be further 9 6 investigated. Regarding f r u i t weight, i n the growth chamber experiments:, the c r o s s - p o l l i n a t e d f r u i t wasausually la r g e r than s e l f - p o l l i n a t e d as i n the greenhouses, but i n the warm chamber the f r u i t size of PxBB and IPBxBB was smaller than P & and IPB &. According to the data i n tables 32 and 34, PxBB and IPBxBB had smaller numbers than P & and IPB ®, andtthis s i t u a t i o n seems to account f o r the reduced si z e because according to Dempsey (13) there i s a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between seed number and f r u i t s i z e . Once again i t seems BB p o l l e n d i d not function as well as Puck and IPB p o l l e n . I t would be valuable to have more experiments done to compare and r e l a t e responses of crops i n growth chambers and i n green-houses. The example of IPB i n these experiments i s a case i n point. In. the growth chamber, IPB had the highest percentage f r u i t set i n a l l l i n e s ; however i n the greenhouse, IPB was; i n f e r i o r to Puck. Such r e s u l t s may be d i f f e r e n t i a l responses; of genotypes to such environmental factors as temperature and l i g h t conditions. Present work did not indicate that one:? could assume that responses i n the growth chambers can be expected i n the greenhouse on the f i e l d . 3. general The d i f f i c u l t i e s i n precise control over greenhouse environ-mental va r i a b l e s and the l i m i t a t i o n to very small plant popula-tions i n growth chambers obscured the cl e a r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the component characters i n f r u i t set at cool temperatures. It., 9 7 was obvious that IPB and CS are p a r t i c u l a r l y good genotypes: f o r further study of tolerance to cool temperatures. Also the v a r i a b i l i t y i n the function of time f o r d i f f e r e n t stage of growth was c l e a r l y evident, and suggest* that the plant breeder might p r o f i t a b l y pursue "component" stages to develop improved from f o r earliness and cool temperature tolerance, and u l t i m a t e l y expend the regions f o r p r a c t i c a l production of tomatoes. 98 SUMMARYt AND CONCLUSION Most commercial tomato v a r i e t i e s require a r e l a t i v e l y high temperature f o r f r u i t set and development, and t h i s requirement l i m i t s tomato groxving i n the Canadian a g r i c u l t u r a l areas. There are c e r t a i n newer v a r i e t i e s such a Puck, IPB and Cold Set which are reported to set f r u i t r e l a t i v e l y cool temperatures (about 12.8°-15.6°C). These v a r i e t i e s were crossed r e c i p r o c a l l y with Bonny. Best, representing the cultivate, r e q u i r i n g the r e l a t i v e l y warm temperature (21.1°C). Replicated greenhouse and growth chamber experiments were done to a s c e r t a i n the economic characters, such as f r u i t set, f r u i t weight, seed number, growth days and pol l e n v i a b i l i t y . The r e s u l t s are summarized as follows: 1. The percentage f r u i t set was increased when c r o s s - p o l l i n a t i o n was used i n contrast to the normal s e l f - p o l l i n a t i o n of tomatoes. 2. C r o s s - p o l l i n a t i o n with d i f f e r e n t v a r i e t i e s increased both the f r u i t size and seed number i n the low temperature l e v e l . 3. There was no parthenocarpic f r u i t i n the c r o s s - p o l l i n a t i o n treatment, but there was a r e l a t i v e l y gjhih percentage of parthenocarpic f r u i t with s e l f - p o l l i n a t i o n at cool temperatures. None of the f r u i t was parthenocarpic i n the warm temperature. k. Cool temperature increased the flower and f r u i t number i n a l l four v a r i e t i e s an& s i x hybrid l i n e s . 5. IPB was the e a r l i e s t v a r i e t y i n both warm and cool tempera-tures. Most of the F l hybrid l i n e s were intermediate between 9 9 t h e i r two parents f o r e a r l i n e s s . 6. The e a r l i e s t v a r i e t y requires the shortest number of days from seed sowing to f i r s t r i p e f r u i t , but the e a r l i e s t v a r i e t y did not n e c e s s a r i l y show earliness at every growth stage. In f a c t a l a t e v a r i e t y l i k e Bonny Best had the shortest i n t e r v a l between two p a r t i c u l a r growth stages. 7. Most of the F l l i n e s showed intermediate f r u i t size between t h e i r two parents. 8. The r e s u l t s of p o l l e n germination i n vivo showed v a r i e t a l d i f f e r e n c e s and may be a matter of c o m p a t i b i l i t y between and. within v a r i e t i e s . The choice of parents to provide components with desirable growth rates at several stages i n the l i f e cycle appears more promising i n breeding f o r earliness and cool temperature t o l e -rance than the customary approach of crossing and then s e l e c t i n g f o r e a r l i n e s s as a single character, that, i a days- required from seeding to f i r s t r i p e f r u i t . S i m i l a r l y component stages- f o r cool temperature tolerance might be i d e n t i f i e d ! and brought together i n recombination. 100 LITERATURE CITED 1. Bonn, G.N. 1955 A genetic d i f f e r e n c e i n pollen tube growth i n the tomato. Report of the T-tamato genetics- Cooperative 5-.i6. 2. Bbswell, V.R^ . 1933 Descriptions- o f types of p r i n c i p a l American: v a r i e t i e s of tomatoes:. U.S.Dept.Agr. Misc. Pub. l 6 0 3. Burdick, A.B. 1954 Genetics o f heterosis for earliness in. the-tomato. Genetics 39: 488-505 4. Calvert, A. 1958 Effect, of early environment: on development; of flowering im the tomato. J. Hort. S c i . 33: 9-1-7 5. Charles, W.B. 1962 Some factors a f f e c t i n g pollen v i a b i l i t y in; a tomato breeding program M.S.A. Thesis, Dept. Plant S c i . , U.B.C. 6.-. C o r b e i l , R.R. and L.Butler 1965. A genetic analysis of time to maturity i n a cross between species of the genus, Ly.c o p e r s i co ra. 7. Curme, J.H. ( H o r t i c u l t u r i s t ) 1968 Personal communication:. 8. Daubeny, H.A. 1959 Possible mechanism involved i n the f a i l u r e ; of flowers of some tomato v a r i e t i e s to set f r u i t ; at r e l a t i v e l y low temperature. Report of the Tomato Genetics Coo/perative 9J12-« 101 9. Daubeny,, H.A. 1955 Some e f f e c t s of cool temperature on flower production, p o l l e n production and pol l e n germination i n c e r t a i n l i n e s of the tomato. M. S, A. The s i s , Dept. Plant. S c i . , U.B.C. 10. Davis ,'. RJ.M.Jir., P.G.Smith,,, V.H. Sch.wee.-ES: and R. W. Scheuerman. 1965 Independence of f l o r a l f e r t i l i t y and f r u i t set; i n the tomato. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. 0 c i . 86=: 552-556• 11. Dempsey, W.H. i 9 6 0 Pollen tube growth vs. pollen v i a b i l i t y . Report of the Toamto Genetics C o o p e r a t i v e 10J: lft.. 12. „ and J.E. Boynton. 1962 E f f e c t of time of day on: co n t r o l l e d p o l l i n a t i o n s . Report of the Tomato Genetics C o o p e r a t i v e 12:12. 13. 1965 E f f e c t of seed number on tiomato f r u i t size and; maturity^:.:: Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . 86.: 575-581. 14,. Dinkel, D.H. 1966 TSmatoes-varieties and culture f o r Alaska greenhouses. Alaska Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 38 . 15. Hatcher, E.S.J. 19^0 Studies i n the inheritance of p h y s i o l o g i c a l characters. V. Hybrid vigor i n the tomato par t . I I I i . A c r i t i c a l examination of the r e l a t i o n of embryo development to the manifestation of hybrid vigor. Amer. J. Bot. 4,: 735-764. 16.. Hepton, A. 1957 Temperature e f f e c t s on germination of c a u l i -flower seeds. Control of the plant environment p. 218 In J.P.Hudson, Butter worths S c i e n t i f i c Pub., London. 102 17. Hornby, C.A. and H.A.Daubeny 1956 Genetic differences i n pollen production, germi-nation and growth. Report of the Tomato Genetics C o o p e r a t i v e 6:17. 18,. . and W.B.Charles 1962 Pollen germination as affected by v a r i e t y and number of pollen grains. Report of the Tomato Genetics Cooperative 16:11. 19. Howlett, F.S. 1936 The effect, of carbohydrate and nitrogen deficiency' upon microsporogenesis and development of the male gametophyte i n the tomato. Amer. J. Bo.t.. 50 : 767-803. 20. K a l l i o , A. (Research H o r t i c u l t u r i s t i n Alaska Agr. Exp. Sta.) I968 Personal communication. 2 1 . Kemp, G.A. I968 Low temperature growth responses of the tomato. Can. J . Plant S c i . 48: 281-286. 22. K h e i r a l l a , A.I. and W.J.Whittington 1962 Genetic analysis of growth i n tomato: the F l generation. Ann. Bot. 26: 489-510. 23. Koot, V. I J . and Van. Ravestijn 1962 The germination of tomato po l l e n on the stigma. l 6 t h International Hort. Congress Vol. IT: 452-461 24. Kotowski, F. 1926 Temperature r e l a t i o n s to germination o f vegetable seeds. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . 2 3 : 1 7 6 - 1 8 4 . 2 5 . Lake, J.V. I965 Plants and temperature. S c i . Hort. 1 7 : l 6 l - l 6 6 . 2 6 . I967 The temperature response of sin g l e - t r u s s tomato. J. Hort. S c i . 42: 1-12. 103 Lars on, R. E. and S.Paur 1948 Trie d e s c r i p t i o n and inheritance of a f u n c t i o n a l l y s t e r i l e mutant i n tomato and i t s probable value i n hybrid tomato seed production. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . 5 2 : 3 5 5 - 3 6 4 . 1944 The extent of hybrid vigor i n F l and F2 generations of tomato crosses. Minn. Agr. Exp/ Sta. Tech. Bui. 1 6 4 . Learner, E.N. and S.H.Wittwer 1953 Some e f f e c t s of photoperiodicity and thermo-p e r i o d i c i t y on vegetative growth, flowering and f r u i t i n g of the tomato. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . 6 l : 3 7 3 - 3 8 0 . Lewis, D. 1954 Gene-environment i n t e r a c t i o n : A r e l a t i o n s h i p between dominance heterosis, phenotypid, s t a b i l i t y and v a r i a b i l i t y . Heredity 8: 3 3 3 - 3 5 6 . Lewis, D. 1953 Some factors a f f e c t i n g flower production i n the tomato. J.Hort. S c i . 2 3 : 2 0 7 - 2 1 9 . Luckwill, L.C. 1939 Observation on heterosis i n Lycopersicum. J. Genetics 3 7 : 4 2 1 - 4 4 0 . 1937 Studies i n the inheritance of p h y s i o l o g i c a l characters I V hybrid vigor i n the tomato. Part 2 Manifestations of hybrid vigor during the flowering period. Ann. Bot. 1: 3 7 9 - 4 0 7 . Martin, F.W. 1959 Observing pollen tubes i n tomato s t y l e s . Report of the Tomato Genetics Cooperative 9l6 • 104 Metcalf, J.G. 1 9 6 4 Germination of tomato seed under cool temperature. Can. Hort. Council Report on Hort. Res. P.4 3 . Osborne, D.J. and F.W.Went 1 9 5 3 Climatic factors i n f l u e n c i n g parthenocarpy and normal f r u i t set i n tomato. Bot. Gaz. 114: 3 1 2 - 3 2 3 . Phatak, S.C. 1 9 6 6 Top and root temperature e f f e c t s on tomato flowering, Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . 8 8 : 5 2 7 - 5 3 1 . Poole, C.F. 1 9 3 2 Pollen grain, studies as an i n d i c a t i o n of f e r t i l i t y i n hybrids. Genetics 1 7 : 1 2 5 - 1 3 6 . Powers, L. 1 9 4 5 Relative y i e l d s of inbred l i n e s and F l hybrids of tomato. Bot. Gaz. 1 0 6 : 2 4 7 - 2 6 8 . Quinones, F«A. 1 9 5 7 Heterosis i n tomatoes as affected by diverse o r i g i n of parents. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . 7 0 : 3 6 6 - 3 7 2 . Reynard, G.B; ("Vice President of Campbell I n s t i t u t e for Agr. 1 9 6 8 Res., New Jersey) Personal communication. Rick, CM. 1 9 5 6 Cytogenetics of the tomato. Adv. Genet. 8 : 2 6 7 - 3 8 2 . and J.E.Boynton 1 9 6 7 A temperature-sensitive male s t e r i l e mutant of the tomato. Amer. Bot. 5 4 : 6 0 1 - 6 l l . 1 9 4 6 The development of s t e r i l e ovules i n Lycopersicon  esculentum M i l l . Amer. Bot. 3 3 : 2 5 0 - 2 5 6 . 1 0 5 Robinson, R.¥., W.Mishanec and S.Shannon 1 9 6 6 F r u i t s e t t i n g a b i l u t y i n r e l a t i o n to extreme temperature. Report of the Tomato Genetics Cooperative 1 6 : 3 3 . , S.Shannon and W.Mishanec 1 9 6 5 Low temperature influence pollen production and f r u i t set of tomatoes. Farm Research 3 1 : 1 3 - 1 5 . Schaible, C.W. 1 9 6 2 F r u i t s e t t i n g response of tomatoes to high night temperatures. Cambell Soup Co. Plant S c i . Syrn. Proc. P. 8 9 - 9 8 . Shannon, S., R.W.Robinson and W.Mishanec 1 9 6 5 Male s t e r i l i t y induced by cold temperature. Report of the Tomato Genetics Cooperative 1 5 : 5 7 . Smith, 0 1 9 3 5 P o l l i n a t i o n and l i f e h i s t o r y studies of the tomato. ( Lycopers icon esculentum M i l l ) C o r n e l l Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Mem. 1 8 4 . 1 9 3 2 Relation of temperature to anthesis and blossom drop of the tomato, together with a h i s t o l o g i c a l study of the p o s t i l s . J. Agr. Res. 4 4 : 1 8 3 - 1 9 0 . and H.L.Cochran 1 9 3 5 E f f e c t of temperature on pollen germination and tube growth i n the tomato. Corn e l l Agr. Exp. Sta. Mem. 1 7 5 . S o o s t, R. K. 1 9 5 1 Comparative cytology and genetics of asynaptic mutants i n Lycopersicon esculentum M i l l . Genetics 3 4 : 4 1 0 - 4 3 4 . Torfason, W.E. 1 9 5 4 A study of the e f f e c t s of temperature and other factors upon the germination of vegetable crops I. sweet corn. Can. J. Agr. S c i . 3 4 : 1 3 7 - 1 4 4 1 0 6 Walkof, C . 1 9 6 2 Environmental pressures and e a r l i n e s s of tomatoes, Report of 18th ann. meeting W. Can. Soc. Hort. P. 4 9 - 5 1 . Wedding, R.T. and II. M. Vines 1 9 5 9 Temperature e f f e c t s on tomato. C a l i f o r n i a Agr. 1 3 : 1 3 - l 4 . Went. F.W. 1 9 5 7 The experimental c o n t r o l of p l a n t growth. Chronica B o t a n i c a Co. Waltham, Mass., U.S.A. 1 9 4 4 P l a n t growth under c o n t r o l l e d c o n d i t i o n s . Amer. Bot. 3 1 : 5 9 7 - 6 1 8 . 1 9 4 4 P l a n t growth under c o n t r o l l e d c o n d i t i o n s . I I . T h e r m o p e r i o d i c i t y i n growth and f r u i t i n g . Amer. J . Bot. 3 1 : 135-149. W h i t t i n g t o n , W.J. and J.D.Childs 1 9 6 5 A n a l y s i s of v a r i a t i o n i n the r a t i o fo germination and e a r l y s e e d l i n g growth i n tomato. Ann. Bot. 2 9 : 5 9 - 7 1 . W i l l i a m s , W. and N. G i l b e r t i 9 6 0 H e t e r o s i s and the i n h e r i t a n c e of y i e l d i n the tomat< H e r e d i t h l 4 : 1 3 3 - 1 ^ 5 . i 9 6 0 R e l a t i o n v a r i a b i l i t y of inb r e d l i n e s and F l hyb r i d s i n L. esculentum. Genetics 4 5 : l 4 5 7 - l 4 6 5 . 1 9 5 9 H e t e r o s i s and the gen e t i c s of complex c h a r a c t e r s . Nature, 1 8 4 : 5 2 7 - 5 3 0 . Wittwer, S.H. and F'G.Tevbner 1 9 5 6 Cold exposure of tomato se e d l i n g s and fl o w e r format i o n . Proc. Amer. Soc;,Hort. S c i . 6 7 : 3 6 9 - 3 7 6 . 107 6 4 . Z i e l i n s k i , Q.B. 1 9 4 8 F a s c i a t i o n i n Lycopersicon. I . Genetic a n a l y s i s of dominance m o d i f i c a t i o n . Genetics 3 3 : 4 0 4 - 4 2 8 . 108 APPENDIX Table 1 Experiment design f o r 1967-1968 greenhouse experiment Block 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 . 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 P a BBxP PxBB BB® BBxP P & PxBB BBS BBxP PxBB P a BBa Blo c k 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 PxBB p a BBS BBxP PxBB BBxP BBS P a P S BBxP PxBB BBa Block 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 CSa BxCS IPBa CSxB IPBxB BxIPB IPBxB csa CSxB BxIPB ipsa BxCS Blo c k 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 B x c s csa CSxB IPBxB IPBa BxIPB BxIPB csa CSxB IPBxB IPBa BxCS Table 2 Temperatures r e c o r d d u r i n g I 9 6 7 - I 9 6 8 greenhouse experiment room 14 room 15 dat e ave. H i Lo ave. H i Lo 1967 Nov.30-Dec.4 65 75 60* 56 68* 54 Dec.4-Dec.ll 65 82 61* 55 67* 53 Dec.ll-Dec.18 64 76 5 9 ( l h r . )55 7 4(lhr.) 49 Dec.l8-Dec.25 64 72 5 9 ( l h r . )58 67* 47 Dec.25-Jan.1 66 72 58(2hr. )57 66* 55 1968 Jan.1-Jan.8 65 76 60*- 58 68* 46 Jan.8-Jan.15 64 75 6 l * 55 69* 54 Jan.15-Jan.22 65 77 62* 57 74* 51 Jan.22-Jan.29 66 76 5 9 ( l h r . )58 7 4 ( l h r . ) 46 Jan. 29-Fe-b. 5 65 77 62* 54 7 4(lhr.) 49 Feb.5-Feb.12 66 78 5 9 ( l h r . )57 72* 55 Feb.12-Feb.19 64 74 5 8 ( l h r . )56 68* 52 Feb.19-Feb.26 67 75 62* 60 68* 57 * l e s s than 1 hour. 109 Table 3 Experimental design f o r I968-I969 greenhouse experiment-Warm house: Block 1 1 2 3 k 5 6 7 & 9 10;  BxC BS PxB BxP CxB C & Bxl IxB> EQ I Q III BxP IxB! BxC P PxBi I a> B S CxB: C & Bxl I I I I a. C &> IxB; CxB BxC Bxl P. S B & BxP PxB IV BxC C &) CxB B &> IxB P 0 I a BxP PxB Bxl  Cool house: Block I 1 2 3 k 5 6. 7 8; 9 10, p S IxB BxC PxB CxB c a Bxl 1 a . BxP B a. II. BxC Bxl. BxP 1 a. I'xBi PxBi BJ a* p a . c a CxB I I I JL H Bxl CxB, IxB^ BxC PxB. BxP p a c a B a IV p a B75&. IxB BxC c a Bxl CxB. 1 a < BxP PxB 1-10, Table 4 Temperature record during I 9 6 8 - I 9 6 9 greenhouse experiment. clci"fct© room 14 room 15 Hi Lo Hi ILo ave. ave. N0v.1a-N0v . 2 5 66 7 0 6,1* 5-0 5 4 * 47 Nov . 2 5-Dec . 2 6 5 7.8. 6 3 * 4.7 5 2 * 42 Dec . 2-Dec . 9 6 5 7-0 6 2 * 47 5 5 * ' 42 Dec.9-Dec . l 6 64. 7 0 58.* 4:6 5 1 * 4 3 . Dec . l 6-Dec . 2 3 Z6: 7 2 6 3 * 53 5 4 * 48 Dec. 2 3-Dec . 3 0 - 6,5 7 3 6.2* 5k 6 0 * 5 0 Dec. 3 0-Jan. 6» 6,7 7 4 6 3 * 5 3 58,* 5 0 JJan. 6:- Jan . 1 3 6,7 76 59(lhfe^. )5k 6 4 ( 6 h r $ ) 4 8 Jan.1 3-Jan.2 0 6 6 7 3 58>* 5 2 6.0* ' 48 Jan. 2 0 -Jan. 27/ 6 5 7 8 5 6 * 5 0 7 3 ( 2 h r s ) 4 3 Jan.27-Feb.3 6 5 7 6 6 0 * 5 0 6 6 * 44 Feb.3-Feb.10 64 7 0 5 9 ( l h r ) 5k 7 6 * 5 0 F e b . l 0 - F e b . l 7 6 7 7 2 6,1* 48: 6 5 * 4 3 Feb . 1 7-Feb . 2 4 6 7 7 3 6 1 * 50. 6 0 * 40 Feb.24-Mar.3 6 5 7 1 6 0 * 5 0 6 0 * 4 2 Mar.3-Mar.10 6 6 7 0 5 9 ( 2 h r s ) 5 0 ' 6 5 ( 9 h r s ) 3 9 Mar. 10-Mar. 17, 6,6 7 0 6 0 * 5k 68(8hrs - ,y43 * le s s than one hour. Table 5 Experimental design f o r i n vivo test. female Bi P B'> C I P B: 1 C I B. male I, C P B ; Bi I C Bi B P female I C P B:> B J I C Bi Bi P I I male B C B:, I P I B C'l B. P 

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.831.1-0103967/manifest

Comment

Related Items