o

December, 1953

R search Repo rt No . 9

VARIATIONS IN THE HICKS VARIETY

OF BRIGHT TOBACCO

T. J . Mann and G. L. Jones

AGRONOMY

T l

I , •

" 1 , • f! t •

. . .

T. J .. Mann and G. L.. Jones

E T pF AGRONOMY

A

-----

VARIATIONS IN THE HICKS VARIETY OF BRIGHT TOBACCO

T 0 J. 1\\ann and G. L 0 ~J 0 ne s

For many years it was a common practice for growers of bright tobacco

to produce their own tobacco seed. Thes~ growers recognizing the importance

of good seed in the production of high yields of good quality tobacco usually

se lec te d u::)eed ~Iantsn with special cere. Because of the large number of

jeGd produced en a single plant one could require high and rigid standards

ir t~e sef8sticn of th~se plants.

Successful tobacco growers often made seed of their special selections

~va~ 'able to other grc~ers in their communities and several such selections

be c arne known by the f am i Iy name of t-he or i q l ne t or , Several of the b r lqhr

tobacco variei·ies that are widely grown in North Carolina toaay may have

Jriginated in such a manner; however, in many cases the exact origin of a

o i ven variety may have become obscure.

Since tobacco is rarely cross-pollinated, the varieties that have

originated 0S farmer selections are undoubtedly highly homozygous. At the

same time, such varieties could contain considerable heterogeneity which

"'1ight not be eliminated by mass selectiono Through mechanical mixture,

natural and/or mass selection, it is possible that various strains of t~e~e

varieties may have developed. Although such strains might differ con­

siderably, they could sti I I be known by the same name.

The objectives of the investigations here reported were: To determine

the nature anr:1 extent of genetic differences existing among various collections

of seed of the Hicks Varietyo In the event genetic differences were observed,

an attempt was to have been made to determine any heritable differences that

mi9ht be present within co l le c t l ons , In so doing, it would be possible to

isolat9 superior pure lines for use as breeder's seed for the production of

foundation ::.80C and, in turn, certified seed ,

- 2 -

Experimental Work in Iq~O:.........--'- "".",

In 1950 seed of the Hicks variety were obtained from five different

sources - four from commercial seedsmen and one from the experimental station.

Two tests, one at McCullers, and one at Upper Coastal Plain Experiment Station

were set out to determine the nature and extent of differences existing among

these col1ections.

At each location, these col factions were compared in experiments designed

as randomized blocks with eight replications. Each plot consisted of two

3-1/2 feet rows, forty feet long with pfants spaced 22 inches in the dr l II.

Thus, there was a total of 40 competitive plants per plato

The ferti lization practices fol lowed at each location were those

recomm2nded by the Nort~ Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station for those

areas. Uniform topping and suckering practices were fol lowed. Harvests were

~~j~ in eccord~nce with the degree of maturity of each col laction and the

harvests from l rid i v i dce l p lo r s were labeled in order that· th\;y could be

l de n t i f i ed t hr-ouqrou t t;la cur i nq and grading processes.

The data from t hose ex:)\~rirnents were appropriately combined for

s t e t i s t i ce : ana lvs es , A surnmary is presented in Table I? From t ho se combined

~;, ~.!o s i qn i f i c an t differences were observed in value per 100 pounds.

b , Co' lection 0 f lowered later than and collection E f lowered earl i e r

than the reniclriins cc l le c t i on s .

c" Co l :ection e outyieided all other co l Ioc t l ons except Co

In value i~d0X collection B was superior to al I collections except C.

D~ta or additional characters W8re also col locted at the Upper Coastal

Plain Sf at i on and e r e presented in Teb lo 20 From these data the following

observations W0re made:

- 3 -

a. No significant diff8rences were obtained in length of the longest

leaf J width of the largest leaf, percent sugar, percent nicotine or pe~ent

nitrogen.

b. Collection E produced morG suckers than any 'other col (ection.

Ce Cot lection B produced more leaves than each of the col I·actions

2xcap·t- C.

From these observations the fol lowing- conclusions were drawn:

a o Gen~tic differences were exhibited among collections. SincG these

streins had perhaps been developed by mass selectton, there is perhap~ genetic

variability within collections.

b. Although there may be genetic differences withtn cf)l·\ecti~s". there

w~re no cORsistent differences emong col lections in length and width of

largest leaves, percent nicotine J percent nitrogen, percent sugar, or value

pe r I00 pou nds •

Co Col fections differed in earllness, yield per acre, value indox,

sucker index, and leaf number.

d. In cons i.de r l nq the factors of major economic importance (yield per

acre and value index) it is concluded that collections Band C were superior

to the other three. Th ls superior I tv l.s perhaps due to tho fact that on an

aver~ge these cor lections produced more. leaves, resulting in a higher yield

and in turn a higher ve lue index.

Thg Isolation of Pure Lines:

Since there was a possibillty··'thfrt ttle Htek~·var-iety might at sc>metimQ

in r ne futur-e come up for consideration for certificati·on, a program was also

started in 1950 to establish the best pure-line of ..-th l s variety as a poss l b le

source of breeder's seed. Individual plant selections were made in each of

- l~ -

Expurimental Work in 1953:-_._.- _--_.-Five: pure-I i nes Wi:.:: r(~ s'.' I oc r oc from t he b0st-app.:=ar i ng p I an t s and com-

pared in rop l l c at o o t~)sts in 1(953 at !\~cCutI0rs and Uppor Coastal Plain

Experiment Sr et l on , These were also comparee wi t h collection B, the bo s t

strain in the 1950 tests. Tho objective of these tests was to establish the

best genetically pure-I ine for US0 as a possible source of breeder's seedo

Concurrently, each of the five lines was incrGasod under control led conditions

of pollination so that foundation see d would be avai lab lo of the best l i ne ,

The data from those experiments wore analyzed separately and also com-

bined for analyses, The data from thG combined analysGs are shown in Table 3.

From theso data t ho f o l Jowi ng observat ions were made:

ao LinGs 3 and 4 outyiolded 61 J otherso The high number of leaves

per r I ant probably account cd for the higher yields of 3 and 40

b. There was no d l f f e r-onco in the valuG per acre of l l ne s 2, 3, and LJ

but they surpassed lines I , r; and 6 (the check) •~,' ,

c. Line 2 had a higher valuG pcr 100 pounds than a I I o t ho r-s , This is

an indication that the qual ity of this line was superior to al I others.

do Lines 3, 4, and 5 were not different in maturity but werG rater than

th th L-, nn 2 was later than I but was not differont from 6.C 0 o r s , .,.;-

0. Line 3 had th~ lowest sucker index.

fo Line 3 and 4 produced the most Icaves. Thera was no diffcrenc2

b8tw00n 2 and 6 but both produced morc leaves than I.

The I ines may be r-enkod for he l qhr in tht3 or-dc r of I~ 6, 2, 4, 5,

and 3 wit~ I being the shortesto

h. No diffcr2ncc was observed among f, 2, and 3 in internodG l~ngtho

- :5 -

i 0 Thor-o were; no o l f f er-encos in tho lenq t h and width of the con t e r

I o aves ,

j. Lines I, 2, and 6 al I had wider leavGS at the too than did linesI

3J 4, and 5.

k. Line producod the longast leaves at the top.

From those obsorvations the fol lowing conclusions were drawn:

a. Genetic differences were ~xhibitQd among lines.

b. There was probably some hoterogeneity within thG various

co I Iect ions.

c. ThG ?uro-lines differod in af I characters measured Gxcapt tha

IGngth and width of tho conter leafo

d. Uniformity was obtained within lines and ai' plants within a line

matured at about thG same timo. Selection prossuro was against premature

f lowering and oariiness, a common objection to the variety.

00 Lines 3, 4, and 5 were the tal lost, t e to s t , and had the most

leaves but thesa laavcs w~ro smal I at the top of th0 plant and tho quality,

based on ve lue per 100 pounds of curoc leaf, was lower than 20

fo The Hicks vari0ty as it is presently grown is pGrhaps a composite

of diffor0nt lines. As a result it was possibl~ to isolatG both early and

lata types as wal I as both tal t and short types from various col factions of

Hi cks , Since Hicks has boon nor ed as a var i e t v that "bu t r cns" oe r ly under

adverso wGather conditions, selection of a type that is inhorGntly rater

and truo to form is desirable.

Line 2 strongly resembled tho check, 6, in appearance; however, it did

not f lower c er tv as did some plants of th'3 chock var l e t y , Line 2 was very

uniform in meturityo Although it did not yield as much as did lines 3 and 4,

- 6 -

it had much bettor qual ity and consuqu0ntly a valuG per acr2 comparable to

tho highar yiolding linoso This fino appoarod to bG superior to thG check

collection and had r hc dc s i r eb l o characteristics commonly accredited to tho

Hicks v e r l e t v ,

Table I

HICKS SOURCE OF SEED TESTS 1950

COMBINED ANALYSES OF T.V. 29 (McCul furs) and ToVo 30 (Upper Coastal Plain Experiment Station)

Col l ec t i on

A

8

C

D

E

L. SoD. (5%)

LoS 00& (1%)

CoVo (%)

Yield per Value Value Per Days toAcre Index* 100 Ibso F lower

(pounds)

1492 376 25.39 46.8

1577 399 25.92 47-3

1544 388 25012 47.5

11[16 364 24.79 49.4 r-J

1505 369 24~62 4506

72 22 N.5 o I .8

i'J oS 0 ~'IIS 0 N"S 0204

7 8 6

* VGluG per acre as calculated from average price paid in North Carolina for thevarious Government Grad~s from 1939 through 1941.

Table 2

HICKS SOURCE OF SE~D TEST - 1950

Tc>V~ 30 UPPER COASTAL PLAIN EXPERJIv\Ef\n- STATION

Rocky Mount, N. C.

Sucker Leaf Long t h La rqes t vVi dth Largest % % %Co fleet i on Index Number Lo af (i nchos ) Loaf (inches) Sugar Nicotine Ni t rogGn

A 31.8 18.9 23.37 12.86 24.74 2007 1.93B 3106 19.6 23864 !2.73 25.62 1.58 J .92C 3201 19.5 23.45 12.28 26.33 2 .. J2 1.91D 30~8 18.9 23·30 13002 25.59 2c.02 I -95E 35.4 18.6 23-45 12055 26.42- 1093 J .87

LoS 0Do (5%) 2.2 0.6 NoS 0 N.S. NoSo NoS. NoS.

LoSoD~( Jj?~) 3.0 0.8 NoS 0 N.S 0 NoS 0 NoS .. N.S 0

CoV 0 (%) 7 3 3 5 5 ~. 4-

-- --.......----~ .... - .... -. ...._--.-..---- - . . --. .. ~-

OJ

Table 3

Hicks Foundation Seed Source Test 1953

Combined Analysis of TV 55 (McCullers) & TV 58 (UoC.P.E.S.)..... ..-.~-...,.-- ..-- -- .. -'~ ...-..-..-...~ - - -. --- ----Line Yie Id per Value** Value per Jays to Sucke r Leaf Stalk Internode Vvi dth Length ~Vi dth Length

acre Index 100 Ibs. f lower Index Number Height Length Center Center 5th leaf 5th leaf(pounds) (inches) (inches) Leaf Leaf f rom top f rom top

(inches)(inches) (inches) (inches)---'" --- _...- ....------.....- ....---------.........---..._~ ------

1700 910 53052 54.2 14.1 20.0 48.36 2.1.14 10.06 21.98 5.86 16.90

2 teJ+8 I (J 19 55.14 56.7 12.7 21.0 51.65 2 .L~8 9.86 21.95 5.71 15.74

3 1995 1032 51.70 59.9 9etO 24.0 57.53 2 .L~ I q 4L~ 21.84 l.~ .56 15.18",. f'

~ 1982 1054 53.14 58.9 1006 23.5 54.91 2.35 9.54 21.54 4.58 15.02<o

5 1801 938 52.01 59·1 I J 0 I 23.2 53.31 2·30 9.50 2' .52 4.97 15·98L. 1758 948 53084 5609 1405 2105 50.82 2~38 9094 21.28 5.82 16. I JLJ

LSD (5%) 107 l;O09 , .07 J 0 1 I 014- .7 2.20 u 10 NoS. N.S. .39 .81( 1%) 143 81.4 1.43 1.5 f .8 -9 2.95 N.S. NoS. NoS~ .53 f .08

c.V. (%) 6 ,...,2 2 12 3 5

,-7 4 8 6I ?

-_. - ----** Value per acre as calculated from average price pnid in North Carolina for the various government grades

in 1952.