**INHERITANCE AND MAPPING OF PLANT ARCHITECTURE AND FRUIT YIELD IN MELON
(***Cucumis melo* L.)

####### By

####### **Juan E. Zalapa**

#### A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

**Doctor of Philosophy**

**(Plant Breeding and Plant Genetics)**

at the

#### University of Wisconsin-Madison

2005

######## DEDICATION

To my Lord, Jesus Christ,

my wife Leah, my children

Miriam and Juanito

and to the memory of my

father Juan Zalapa

**INHERITANCE AND MAPPING OF PLANT ARCHITECTURE AND FRUIT YIELD IN MELON
(*Cucumis melo* L.)**

####### Juan E. Zalapa

Under the supervision of Professor Jack E. Staub

at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

**Abstract**

The inheritance of plant architecture and fruit yield (hereafter
designated yield components) in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.; 2n = 2x = 24)
is poorly understood, and the mapping of quantitative trait loci (QTL)
for such yield-related characteristics has not been attempted. A unique
highly branched melon line designated as U. S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) line, USDA 846-1 has been developed that has potential for
increasing yield. The development of optimum breeding strategies for the
commercialization of this highly branched plant type depends upon
gaining an understanding of the inheritance of yield components in this
phenotype. Moreover, the mapping of QTL controlling yield components is
critical for gaining a more complete understanding of the source-sink
relations affecting this plant type. Therefore, a series of studies were
undertaken to determine the inheritance of several melon yield
components (e.g., primary branch number, fruit number and weight per
plant, average fruit weight) by performing generation means analyses,
variance component analyses, and QTL mapping employing progeny derived
from a mating between USDA 846-1 (P~1~; high branching) and "Top-Mark"
(P~2~; low branching). Generation means analyses were performed on yield
component data of parents (P~1~ and P~2~) and cross-progeny (F~1~, F~2~,
BC~1~P~1~, and BC~1~P~2~) grown at Arlington and Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001. While additive gene effects were most important in controlling the
development of primary branch number and fruit number per plant,
dominance and epistatic effects mainly governed the expression of days
to anthesis, fruit weight per plant, and average weight per fruit.
Variance component analyses were applied to F~3~ family (119; derived
from a P~1~ x P~2~ mating) yield component data collected at Arlington
and Hancock, Wisconsin in 2001. Primary branch number and fruit number
per plant exhibited primarily additive genetic variance, while fruit
weight per plant and average fruit weight demonstrated mainly dominance
genetic variance. Narrow-sense heritabilities estimates were 0.91
(Arlington) and 0.86 (Hancock) for primary branch number, 0.72
(Arlington) and 0.51 (Hancock) for fruit number per plant, and 0.45
(Arlington) and 0.28 (Hancock) for fruit weight per plant. A set of 81
recombinant inbred lines (RIL; F~6~; P~1~ x P~2~) were grown in Hancock,
Wisconsin and El Centro, California in 2002 in order to more clearly
define the inheritance of yield components in melon. A 181-point genetic
map was constructed using 114 RAPD, 35 SSR, and 32 AFLP markers. Fifteen
linkage groups spanned 1,032 cM with a mean marker interval of 5.7 cM. A
total of 38 QTL were detected in both locations. Sex expression was
consistently influenced by a genomic region (*exs8.3*) that corresponded
to the *a* locus in linkage Group 8. Similarly, QTL analyses revealed
four location-independent factors for primary branch number (*pb1.1*,
*pb1.2*, *pb2.3*, and *pb10.5*), three for fruit number per plant
(*fn1.1*, *fn1.3*, and *fn5.6*), four for fruit weight per plant
(*fw1.1*, *fw5.6*, *fw6.7*, and *fw8.8*), and two for average weight per
fruit (*awf1.2* and *awf4.3*). Two-dimensional genome scans revealed
numerous epistatic interactions for FW, AWF and PMF. The results of this
study suggest that the introgression of genes resident in highly
branched melon types into a U.S. Western Shipping type background may
lead to the development of melon cultivars with increased yield and
concentrated fruit set. The QTL defined herein are candidates for use in
marker-assisted selection programs to aid in the improvement of melon
yield.

####  {#section .unnumbered}

#### Acknowledgements

First, I would like to thank God for allowing me to finish this work -
"I would have lost heart unless I had believed that I would see the
goodness of the Lord in the land of the living" (Psalm 27:13).

I want express my sincere gratitude to my Major Professor Dr. Jack E.
Staub for his teaching, patience, and encouragement during my studies
and dissertation work. I would like to thank Dr. James McCreight for his
invaluable help and support to accomplish my dissertation research. I
would also like to thank Drs. Philip W. Simon, Michael J. Havey, James
G. Coors, James Nienhuis, and Irwin L. Goldman for their teaching both
academically and in my comprehensive examination and for serving in my
thesis examination committee. A special thanks goes for Dr. Bryan
Yandell and the CALS statistical consulting service for their aid with
the statistical models of my research.

I am grateful to Linda Crubaugh for all her assistance to accomplish
this research. I thank Drs. Anabel Lopez-Sese, Sang-Ming Chung, and
Zhanyong Sun, and Mr. Matthew Robbins for their inspiring discussions
and help in this learning experience. I also thank Patty Fashing,
Katrina Pfaff, Mary Brezinski, Erik Steffen, Jesus Zalapa, Karen Malek,
Isabel Delanney, the crews in California, the management Arlington and
Hancock farms, and everyone who helped me during my dissertation
research.

I would like to thank the Graduate School for the Advanced Opportunity
Fellowship (AOF), the National Consortium for Graduate Degrees for
Minorities in Engineering and Science fellowship (the GEM), and
NSF-K-Through-Infinity (KTI) fellowship for their financial support
during my graduate work. I also want to thank the Texas Tech University
Ronald E. McNair Post-baccalaureate Achievement Program and Howard
Hughes Medical Institute Program (HHMI) for their continued support in
accomplishing this degree.

I would also like to thank my family -- my wife and daughter for their
unconditional love, my parents for their instruction and guidance, and
my brothers and sisters for their support. Lastly, I would like to thank
all of my friends for their constant friendship.

#### Table of contents

Abstract.....................................................................................................ii

Acknowledgements....................................................................................\...iv

Table of
contents........................................................................................\...v

List of
figures.....................................................................................\......\...vii

List of
tables...........................\..................................................................viii

List of
appendixes................................................\........................................xii

Introduction................................................................................................1

Project
objectives...............................................................................49

Timeline of
objectives..........................................................................58

References.......................................................................................61

Chapter I. Generation Means Analysis of Plant Architecture and Fruit
Yield in Melon (*Cucumis melo* L.)
Abstract...........................................................................................86

Introduction......................................................................................87

Material and
Methods..........................................................................89

Results............................................................................................96

Discussion......................................................................................101

References......................................................................................116

Chapter II. Variance Component Analysis of Plant Architecture and Fruit
Yield in Melon (*Cucumis melo* L.)

Abstract.........................................................................................123

Introduction....................................................................................124

Material and
Methods.........................................................................127

Results..........................................................................................135

Discussion......................................................................................138

References......................................................................................154

Chapter III. Mapping and QTL Analysis of Plant Architecture and Fruit
Yield in Melon (*Cucumis melo* L.)

Abstract.........................................................................................160

Introduction....................................................................................161

Material and
Methods.........................................................................163

Results...........................................................................................173

Discussion......................................................................................178

References......................................................................................200

General Summary and
Conclusions..................................................................208

Appendixes.............................................................................................214

**List of figures**

**Introduction**

Figure 1. World population growth and projections to the year 2050 as
modified from (F.A.O.,
1996)............\.................................................................................52

Figure 2. Average cantaloupe fruit yield in the United States between
1992 and 2003
(http://www.usda.gov/nass)............................................................................53

Figure 3. Melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) plant architectural types; vining
(panel A), dwarf (panel B), birdnest (panel C), and fractal (panel D),
and internode length differences among these types (panel
F)............................................................................................54

Figure 4. Differences in vegetative growth \[at four (panel A) and eight
(panel B) weeks after transplant, and leaves (panel C)\], and fruit
characteristics (panel D) of melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) germplasm (USDA
846-1, "Top Mark", "Hales Best Jumbo", "Sol Dorado", and
"Esteem").................................................................................................55

Figure 5. Vegetative growth habit, branching, and fruiting patterns in
melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) lines USDA 846-1 (panels A and B) and "Top
Mark" (panels C and D)....................56

Figure 6. Branching patterns in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) progeny
derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 and "Top
Mark"............................................................\...57

Figure 7. Timeline of objectives for determination of inheritance and
QTL mapping of plant architecture and fruit yield in melon (*Cucumis
melo* L.)... .......................................58

**Chapter III**

Figure 3.1. Linkage map and locations of quantitative trait loci (QTL)
associated with yield components based on 81 melon (*Cucumis melo* L.)
recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived form a cross between USDA 846-1
and "Top Mark"..............................................198

#### List of Tables

**Introduction**

Table 1. Least square means (lsmeans) and standard errors (x S.E.) of
plant architecture and fruit yield of melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) line
USDA 846-1 (P~1~), "Top-Mark" (P~2~), "Hales Best Jumbo", "Esteem", and
" Sol Real" grown in Wisconsin and California in 2001 and
2002........................................................................................................59

Table 2. A summary of the features of several published genetic maps of
melon (*Cucumis melo*
L)....................................................................................................60

**Chapter I**

Table 1.1. Effects of location, generation, and location x generation
interaction on yield components in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) lines USDA
846-1 (P~1~) and "Top-Mark" (P~2~), and their progeny (F~1~, F~2~,
BC~1~P~1~ and BC~1~P~2~) grown at Arlington and Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001......................................................................................................108

Table 1.2. Least square means (lsmeans), standard errors (x S.E.), and
number of plants (N) of yield components in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.)
lines USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top-Mark" (P~2~), their progeny (F~1~,
F~2~, BC~1~P~1~ and BC~1~P~2~), and "Hales Best Jumbo" grown at two
Wisconsin
locations.................................................................................\...109

Table 1.3. Variances (Var), standard errors (S. E.), and number of
plants (N) of yield components in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) lines USDA
846-1 (P~1~) and "Top-Mark" (P~2~), their progeny (F~1~, F~2~, BC~1~P~1~
and BC~1~P~2~), and "Hales Best Jumbo" grown at two Wisconsin
locations.................................................................................................110

Table 1.4. Phenotypic correlations among yield components in melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) lines USDA846-1 (P~1~) and "Top-Mark" (P~2~) and
their progeny (F~1~, F~2~, BC~1~P~1~ and BC~1~P~2~) evaluated at
Arlington (upper diagonal) and Hancock, Wisconsin in 2001 (lower
diagonal)................................................................................................111

Table 1.5. Estimates of the additive, dominance and interaction
parameters of yield components in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) lines
USDA846-1 (P~1~) and "Top-Mark" (P~2~), and their progeny (F~1~, F~2~,
BC~1~P~1~ and BC~1~P~2~) grown at Arlington, Wisconsin in
2001.........\...112

Table 1.6. Estimates of the additive, dominance and interaction
parameters of yield components in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) lines
USDA846-1 (P~1~) and "Top-Mark" (P~2~), and their progeny (F~1~, F~2~,
BC~1~P~1~ and BC~1~P~2~) grown at Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001.............113

Table 1.7. Genetic and environmental components of variances,
heritabilities and their standard errors of yield components in melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) lines USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top-Mark" (P~2~) and
their progeny (F~1~, F~2~, BC~1~P~1~ and BC~1~P~2~) grown at two
Wisconsin
locations.................................................................................................114

Table 1.8. Estimation of the minimum number (n~1min~ and n~2min~) of
effective factors controlling yield components in melon (*Cucumis melo*
L.) plants grown at Arlington and at Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001.........................................................................115

###### Chapter II

Table 2.1. Analysis of variance and estimates of variance components for
primary branch number (PBN), and fruit number (FN) and weight (kg; FW)
per plant in 119 F~3~ melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) families derived from a
cross between USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top-Mark" (P~2~) grown at Arlington
and Hancock, Wisconsin in 2001.......................................144

Table 2.2. Analysis of variance and estimates of variance components for
average weight per fruit (kg; AWF), percentage of plants possessing
predominantly crown fruit set per plot (PCF), and percentage of plants
with early maturing fruit per plot (PMF) in 119 F~3~ melon (*Cucumis
melo* L.) families derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and
"Top-Mark" (P~2~) grown at Arlington and Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001.......................................145

Table 2.3. Spearman correlation (rank) coefficients (r~s~) and
percentage of families with performance changes (∆%) between locations
(Arlington and Hancock Wisconsin) for yield components in 119 F~3~ melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) families derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
(P~1~) and "Top-Mark"
(P~2~).............................................................146

Table 2.4. Best linear unbiased estimations (BLUEs) of USDA 846-1
(P~1~), "Top Mark"(P~2~), their hybrid (F~1~), and "Hales Best Jumbo"
(HB), and best linear unbiased predictions (BLUPs) of melon (*Cucumis
melo* L.) F~3~ population, their standard errors (S.E.), and confidence
intervals (C.I.) for yield components based on plants grown at Arlington
and Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001.........................................................................147

Table 2.5. Phenotypic correlations among yield components in 119 F~3~
melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) families derived from a cross between USDA
846-1 (P~1~) and "Top-Mark" (P~2~) evaluated at Arlington, Wisconsin in
2001.....................................................................148

Table 2.6. Phenotypic correlations among yield components in 119 F~3~
melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) families derived from a cross between USDA
846-1 (P~1~) and "Top-Mark" (P~2~) evaluated at Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001......................................................................149

Table 2.7. Variance components, percentage of variance component
contribution to the total variance, and broad-sense heritabilities
(h^2^~B~) for yield components in 119 F~3~ melon (*Cucumis melo* L.)
families derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark"
(P~2~) evaluated at Arlington and Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001.........................................150

Table 2.8. Variance components and percentage of variance component
contribution to the total variance for yield components in 119 F~3~
melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) families derived from a cross between USDA
846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) evaluated at Arlington and Hancock,
Wisconsin in
2001......................................................................................151

Table 2.9. Genetic and environmental components of variance, and
heritabilities and their standard errors for yield components in 119
F~3~ melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) families derived from a cross between
USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Arlington and Hancock,
Wisconsin in
2001.........................................................................152

Table 2.10. Estimation of the minimum number (n) of effective factors
controlling yield components in 119 F~3~ melon (*Cucumis melo* L.)
families derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark"
(P~2~) evaluated at Arlington and Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001......................................................................................................153

###### Chapter III

Table 3.1. Analysis of variance, estimates of variance components, and
broad-sense heritabilities (h^2^~B~) of primary branch number (PBN), and
fruit number (FN), and weight (kg; FW) per plant in 81 melon (*Cucumis
melo* L.) recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between
USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top-Mark" (P~2~) grown at El Centro, California
and Hancock, Wisconsin in
2002.........................................................................187

Table 3.2. Analysis of variance, estimates of variance components, and
broad-sense heritabilities (h^2^~B~) for average weight per fruit (kg;
AWF) and percentage mature fruit per plot (PMF) in 81 melon (*Cucumis
melo* L.) recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between
USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top-Mark" (P~2~) grown at El Centro, California
and Hancock, Wisconsin in
2002.........................................................................188

Table 3.3. Correlation (rank) coefficients (r~s~) between locations (El
Centro, California and Hancock, Wisconsin, 2002) for yield components in
81 melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from
a cross between USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top-Mark"
(P~2~)...............................................................................................189

Table 3.4. Sex expression phenotypic scores of USDA 846-1 (P~1~), "Top
Mark"(P~2~), "Esteem" (ES), "Sol Real" (SR), "Hales Best Jumbo" (HB),
and 81 melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) recombinant inbred lines (RIL; P~1~ x
P~2~), and their standard errors (S.E.) evaluated in El Centro,
California and Hancock, Wisconsin in
2002.............................................190

Table 3.5. Best linear unbiased estimations (BLUEs) of USDA 846-1
(P~1~), "Top Mark"(P~2~), "Esteem" (ES), "Sol Real" (SR), and "Hales
Best Jumbo" (HB), and best linear unbiased predictions (BLUPs) of a
melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) RIL population, their standard errors (S.E.),
and confidence intervals (C.I.) for yield components based on plants
grown at El Centro, California and Hancock, Wisconsin in
2002.............................................191

Table 3.6. Phenotypic correlations among yield components in 81 melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross
between USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top-Mark" (P~2~) evaluated at Hancock,
Wisconsin in 2002............................................192

Table 3.7. Phenotypic correlations among yield components in 81 melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross
between USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top-Mark" (P~2~) evaluated at El Centro,
California in 2002............................................193

Table 3.8. Linkage group (LG) positions (cM) of QTL along with their
associated logarithm of odds (LOD), percentage of phenotypic variation
(R^2^), and additive effect for sex expression in a recombinant inbred
line (RIL) population derived from a cross between melon (*Cucumis melo*
L.) lines USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark" evaluated in Hancock, Wisconsin and
El Centro, California in
2002......................................................194

Table 3.9. Linkage group (LG) positions (cM) of QTL along with their
associated logarithm of odds (LOD), percentage of phenotypic variation
(R^2^), and additive effect for yield components in a recombinant inbred
line (RIL) population derived from a cross between melon (*Cucumis melo*
L.) lines USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark" evaluated in Hancock, Wisconsin and
El Centro, California in
2002......................................................195

#### List of appendixes

**Introduction**

Appendix 1. Fruit characteristics and plant architecture (fractal) of
the CR1 accession (received in 1995 from Mr. Claude Hope, Cartago, Costa
Rica) used in the synthesis of USDA
846-1............................................................................................214

Appendix 2. Plant architecture and fruit setting patterns for USDA 846-1
(P~1~) and "Top-Mark" (P~2~) (spacing at 0.70 m within rows on 2 m
centers, 36,300 plants/ha) grown at Arlington (AR) and Hancock (HCK)
Wisconsin in 2001.........................................215

Appendix 3. Plant architecture and fruit setting patterns of line USDA
846-1 (P~1~) and "Top-Mark" (P~2~) (spacing at 0.35 m within row spacing
on 2 m centers; 72,600 plants/ha) grown at Hancock (HCK) Wisconsin
2002....................................................................216

Appendix 4. Differences in relative yield and fruit characteristics of
melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) germplasm (USDA 846-1, "Top Mark", "Sol
Dorado", and "Esteem") grown (spacing at 0.35 m within row spacing on 2
m centers; 72,600 plants/ha) at El Centro California in
2002.............................................................................................\.........
217

**Chapter I**

Appendix I-1. Average gene effect expectations of the six basic
generations................218

Appendix I-2. Estimation of gene effects based on a six-parameter model
using a non-weighted analysis
approach........................................................................\...219

Appendix I-3. Expectations of genetic and environmental variances for
the six basic
generations..............................................................................................220

Appendix I-4. Frequency distributions of days to anthesis for P~1~ (USDA
846-1), P~2~ ("Top-Mark"), and their F~1~, BC~1~P~1~, BC~1~P~2~, and
F~2~ progenies grown at Arlington, Wisconsin in
2001......................................................................................................221

Appendix I-5. Frequency distributions of primary branch number for P~1~
(USDA 846-1), P~2~ ("Top-Mark"), and their F~1~, BC~1~P~1~, BC~1~P~2~,
and F~2~ progenies grown at Arlington, Wisconsin in
2001................................................................................................\...222

Appendix I-6. Frequency distributions of primary branch number for P~1~
(USDA 846-1), P~2~ ("Top-Mark"), and their F~1~, BC~1~P~1~, BC~1~P~2~,
and F~2~ progenies at grown Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001......................................................................................................223

Appendix I-7. Frequency distributions of fruit number per plant for P~1~
(USDA 846-1), P~2~ ("Top-Mark"), and their F~1~, BC~1~P~1~, BC~1~P~2~,
and F~2~ progenies grown at Arlington, Wisconsin in
2001................................................................................................\...224

Appendix I-8. Frequency distributions of fruit number per plant for P~1~
(USDA 846-1), P~2~ ("Top-Mark"), and their F~1~, BC~1~P~1~, BC~1~P~2~,
and F~2~ progenies grown at Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001......................................................................................................225

Appendix I-9. Frequency distributions of fruit weight per plant for P~1~
(USDA 846-1), P~2~ ("Top-Mark"), and their F~1~, BC~1~P~1~, BC~1~P~2~,
and F~2~ progenies grown at Arlington, Wisconsin in
2001................................................................................................\...226

Appendix I-10. Frequency distributions of fruit weight per plant for
P~1~ (USDA 846-1), P~2~ ("Top-Mark"), and their F~1~, BC~1~P~1~,
BC~1~P~2~, and F~2~ progenies grown at Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001......................................................................................................227

Appendix I-11. Frequency distributions of average weight per fruit per
plant for P~1~ (USDA 846-1), P~2~ ("Top-Mark"), and their F~1~,
BC~1~P~1~, BC~1~P~2~, and F~2~ progenies grown at Arlington, Wisconsin
in
2001......................................................................................228

Appendix I-12. Frequency distributions of average weight per fruit per
plant for P~1~ (USDA 846-1), P~2~ ("Top-Mark"), and their F~1~,
BC~1~P~1~, BC~1~P~2~, and F~2~ progenies grown at Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001......................................................................................229

Appendix I-13. Number of plants (N), least square means (lsmeans),
variances (Var), standard errors (S.E.), estimates of the additive,
dominance and interaction parameters (sequential parameter model
fitting), variance components, heritabilities and minimum number of
effective factors (n~1min~ and n~2min~) of yield components in melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) lines USDA846-1 (P~1~) and "Top-Mark" (P~2~), their
progeny (F~1~, F~2~, BC~1~P~1~ and BC~1~P~2~), and "Hales Best Jumbo"
for primary branch analysis combined over locations (Arlington and
Hancock,
Wisconsin)..................................................................................230

Appendix I-14. Types of epistasis based on the signs of gene effects in
a six-parameter
model.....................................................................................................231

**Chapter II**

Appendix II-1. Analysis of variance of 119 F~3~ melon (*Cucumis melo*
L.) families and homogeneous-entries tested in two
environments.................................................232

Appendix II-2. Analysis of variance of 119 F~3~ melon (*Cucumis melo*
L.) families and homogenous-entries (two inbred parents and their F~1~
hybrid) analyzed by location..........233

Appendix II-3. Stem and leaf display, box plot, and normal probability
plot of days to anthesis (DA) for 119 F~3~ families grown at Arlington,
Wisconsin in 2001..................\...234

Appendix II-4. Stem and leaf display, box plot, and normal probability
plot of percentage of plants having pistillate flowers (PPF) per plot
for 119 F~3~ families grown at Arlington, Wisconsin in
2001......................................................................................235

Appendix II-5. Stem and leaf displays, box plots, and normal probability
plots of primary branch number (PBN) for 119 F~3~ families grown at
Arlington (panel A) and Hancock (panel B), Wisconsin in
2001.................................................................................236

Appendix II-6. Stem and leaf displays, box plots, and normal probability
plots of fruit number (FN) per plant for 119 F~3~ families grown at
Arlington (panel A) and Hancock (panel B), Wisconsin in
2001.................................................................................237

Appendix II-7. Stem and leaf displays, box plots, and normal probability
plots of fruit weight (kg; FW) per plant for 119 F~3~ families grown at
Arlington (panel A) and Hancock (panel B), Wisconsin in
2001.........................................................................238

Appendix II-8. Stem and leaf displays, box plots, and normal probability
plots of average weight per fruit (kg; AWF) for 119 F~3~ families grown
at Arlington (panel A) and Hancock (panel B), Wisconsin in
2001.........................................................................239

Appendix II-9. Stem and leaf displays, box plots, and normal probability
plots of percentage of plants having basally concentrated fruit set
(PCF) per plot for 119 F~3~ families grown at Arlington (panel A) and
Hancock (panel B), Wisconsin in 2001................................240

Appendix II-10. Stem and leaf displays, box plots, and normal
probability plots of percentage of plants having mature fruit (PMF) at
the time of harvest (80 days after transplant) per plot for 119 F~3~
families grown at Arlington (panel A) and Hancock (panel B), Wisconsin
in
2001......................................................................................241

Appendix II-11. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for days to anthesis (DA) in 119 F~3~ melon (*Cucumis
melo* L.) families derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and
"Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Arlington, Wisconsin in
2001............................242

Appendix II-12. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for percentage of plants having pistillate flowers
(PPF) per plot in 119 F~3~ melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) families derived
from a cross between USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at
Arlington, Wisconsin in
2001......................................................................................245

Appendix II-13. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for primary branch number (PBN) in 119 F~3~ melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) families derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
(P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Arlington, Wisconsin in
2001..............248

Appendix II-14. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for primary branch number (PBN) in 119 F~3~ melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) families derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
(P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001............\...251

Appendix II-15. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for fruit number (FN) per plant in 119 F~3~ melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) families derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
(P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Arlington, Wisconsin in
2001.......................254

Appendix II-16. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for fruit number (FN) per plant in 119 F~3~ melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) families derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
(P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001.....................\...257

Appendix II-17. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for fruit weight per plant (kg; FW) in 119 F~3~ melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) families derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
(P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Arlington, Wisconsin in
2001..............260

Appendix II-18. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for fruit weight per plant (kg; FW) in 119 F~3~ melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) families derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
(P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001............\...263

Appendix II-19. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for average weight per fruit (kg; AWF) in 119 F~3~
melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) families derived from a cross between USDA
846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Arlington, Wisconsin in
2001......................................................................................................266

Appendix II-20. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for average weight per fruit (kg; AWF) in 119 F~3~
melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) families derived from a cross between USDA
846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001....................................................................................................\...269

Appendix II-21. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for percentage of plants having basally concentrated
fruit set (PCF) per plot in 119 F~3~ melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) families
derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~)
tested at Arlington, Wisconsin in
2001........................................................................272

Appendix II-22. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for percentage of plants having basally concentrated
fruit set (PCF) per plot in 119 F~3~ melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) families
derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~)
tested at Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001.........................................................................275

Appendix II-23. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for percentage of plants having mature fruit (PMF) at
the time of harvest (80 days after transplant) in 119 F~3~ melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) families derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
(P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Arlington, Wisconsin in
2001.............................................\...278

Appendix II-24. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for percentage of plants having mature fruit (PMF) at
the time of harvest (80 days after transplant) per plot in 119 F~3~
melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) families derived from a cross between USDA
846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Hancock, Wisconsin in
2001....................................281

**Chapter III**

Appendix III-1. A sample of relative yield and fruiting characteristics
in a melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) recombinant inbred line (RIL; F~6~)
population derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark" grown
(72,600 plants/ha) at El Centro California in 2002.........\...284

Appendix III-2. Frequency distributions of yield components for 81 melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross
between USDA 846-1 and "Top-Mark"), and grown at Hancock, Wisconsin in
2002...............................................287

Appendix III-3. Frequency distributions of yield components for 81 melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross
between USDA 846-1 and "Top-Mark"), and grown at El Centro, California
in 2002..............................................288

Appendix III-4. Analysis of variance of 81 melon (*Cucumis melo* L.)
recombinant inbred lines (RIL) tested in two
environments..............................................................289

Appendix III-5. Sex expression (EXS) of 81 melon (*Cucumis melo* L.)
recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
(P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Hancock, Wisconsin and El Centro,
California in 2002..........................................290

Appendix III-6. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for primary branch number (PBN) in 81 melon (*Cucumis
melo* L.) recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between
USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Hancock, Wisconsin in
2002......................................................................................................292

Appendix III-7. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for primary branch number (PBN) in 81 melon (*Cucumis
melo* L.) recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between
USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at El Centro, California
in
2002......................................................................................................294

Appendix III-8. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for fruit number (FN) per plant in 81 melon (*Cucumis
melo* L.) recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between
USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Hancock, Wisconsin in
2002......................................................................................................296

Appendix III-9. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for fruit number (FN) per plant in 81 melon (*Cucumis
melo* L.) recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between
USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at El Centro, California
in
2002......................................................................................................298

Appendix III-10. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for fruit weight per plant (kg; FW) in 81 melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross
between USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Hancock,
Wisconsin in
2002......................................................................................................300

Appendix III-11. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for fruit weight per plant (kg; FW) in 81 melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross
between USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at El Centro,
California in
2002......................................................................................................302

Appendix III-12. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for average weight per fruit (kg; AWF) in 81 melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross
between USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Hancock,
Wisconsin in
2002................................................................................................\...304

Appendix III-13. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for average weight per fruit (kg; AWF) in 81 melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross
between USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at El Centro,
California in
2002................................................................................................\...306

Appendix III-14. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for percentage of mature fruit per plot (PMF) (at 80
days after transplant) in 81 melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) recombinant
inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 (P~1~) and
"Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at Hancock, Wisconsin in
2002................................................308

Appendix III-15. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), their standard
errors (S.E.), confidence intervals (C.I.), *t*BLUPs, genotype scores,
and family ranks for percentage of mature fruit per plot (PMF) (at 80
days after transplant) per plot in 81 melon (*Cucumis melo* L.)
recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
(P~1~) and "Top Mark" (P~2~) tested at El Centro, California
2002.................................................\...310

Appendix III-16. Marker designation, linkage group, genetic nature
(dominant or codominant), parental genotypic score (P~1~ and P~2~
scores), number of recombinant inbred line (RIL) genotypically
resembling a parental line (P~1/~P~2~ RIL), chi-square goodness of the
fit test (1:1), and reference source of molecular markers used for map
development and quantitative trait (QTL) analysis in melon (*Cucumis
melo* L.) using 81 RIL families derived from cross between USDA 846-1
(P~1~) and "Top Mark"
(P~2~)..................................................312

Appendix III-17. A graphic depiction of QTL positions and effects
associated with sex expression (ESX) in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) as
estimated by the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric model (Kruklyak and
Lander, 1995) in R/qtl (Broman et al., 2003) in 15 linkage groups (1-15)
using 81 recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between
USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark' grown at Hancock, Wisconsin and El Centro,
California
2002......................................................................................................320

Appendix III-18. A graphic depiction of QTL positions and effects
associated with sex expression (ESX) in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) as a
result of composite interval mapping (Jansen, 1993; Zeng, 1993, 1994)
performed using QTL cartographer (Wang et al., 2004) in 15 linkage
groups (1-15) using 81 recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a
cross between USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark' grown at Hancock, Wisconsin and
El Centro, California
2002.........................................................................................321

Appendix III-19. Graphical representation of QTL positions associated
with primary branch number in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) as a result of
composite interval mapping (Jansen, 1993; Zeng, 1993, 1994) performed
using QTL cartographer (Wang et al., 2004) using 81 recombinant inbred
lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark' grown
at Hancock Wisconsin in
2002............................................................\...322

Appendix III-20. Graphical representation of QTL positions associated
with primary branch number in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) as a result of
composite interval mapping (Jansen, 1993; Zeng, 1993, 1994) performed
using QTL cartographer (Wang et al., 2004) using 81 recombinant inbred
lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark' grown
at El Centro, California in
2002..............................................................323

Appendix III-21. A graphic comparison of QTL positions and effects
associated with primary branch number in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) as
estimated by composite interval mapping (Jansen, 1993; Zeng, 1993, 1994)
using QTL cartographer (Wang et al., 2004) in 15 linkage groups (1-15)
using 81 recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between
USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark' grown at Hancock Wisconsin and El Centro
California in
2002......................................................................................................324

Appendix III-22. Graphical representation of QTL positions associated
with fruit number per plant in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) as a result of
composite interval mapping (Jansen, 1993; Zeng, 1993, 1994) performed
using QTL cartographer (Wang et al., 2004) using 81 recombinant inbred
lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark' grown
at Hancock Wisconsin in
2002............................................................\...325

Appendix III-23. Graphical representation of QTL positions associated
with fruit number per plant in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) as a result of
composite interval mapping (Jansen, 1993; Zeng, 1993, 1994) performed
using QTL cartographer (Wang et al., 2004) using recombinant inbred
lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark' grown
at El Centro, California in
2002............................................................................326

Appendix III-24. A graphic comparison of QTL positions and effects
associated with fruit number per plant in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) as
estimated by composite interval mapping (Jansen, 1993; Zeng, 1993, 1994)
using QTL cartographer (Wang et al., 2004) in 15 linkage groups (1-15)
using 81 recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between
USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark' grown at Hancock Wisconsin and El Centro
California in
2002......................................................................................................327

Appendix III-25. Graphical representation of QTL positions associated
with fruit weight per plant in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) as a result of
composite interval mapping (Jansen, 1993; Zeng, 1993, 1994) performed
using QTL cartographer (Wang et al., 2004) using 81 recombinant inbred
lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark' grown
at Hancock Wisconsin in
2002............................................................\...328

Appendix III-26. Graphical representation of QTL positions associated
with fruit weight per plant in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) as a result of
composite interval mapping (Jansen, 1993; Zeng, 1993, 1994) performed
using QTL cartographer (Wang et al., 2004) for fruit weight per plant
using 81 recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between
USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark' grown at El Centro, California in
2002....................................\......329

Appendix III-27. A graphic comparison of QTL positions and effects
associated with fruit weight per plant in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) as
estimated by composite interval mapping (Jansen, 1993; Zeng, 1993, 1994)
using QTL cartographer (Wang et al., 2004) in 15 linkage groups (1-15)
using 81 recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between
USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark' grown at Hancock Wisconsin and El Centro
California in
2002......................................................................................................330

Appendix III-28. Graphical representation of QTL positions associated
with average weight per fruit in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) as a result
of composite interval mapping (Jansen, 1993; Zeng, 1993, 1994) performed
using QTL cartographer (Wang et al., 2004) using 81 recombinant inbred
lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark' grown
at Hancock Wisconsin in
2002............................................................\...331

Appendix III-29. Graphical representation of QTL positions associated
with average weight per fruit in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) as a result
of composite interval mapping (Jansen, 1993; Zeng, 1993, 1994) performed
using QTL cartographer (Wang et al., 2004) using 81 recombinant inbred
lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark' grown
at El Centro, California in
2002..............................................................332

Appendix III-30. A graphic comparison of QTL positions and effects
associated with average weight per fruit in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) as
estimated by composite interval mapping (Jansen, 1993; Zeng, 1993, 1994)
using QTL cartographer (Wang et al., 2004) in 15 linkage groups (1-15)
using 81 recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between
USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark' grown at Hancock Wisconsin and El Centro
California in
2002......................................................................................................333

Appendix III-31. Graphical representation of QTL positions associated
with percentage of fruit maturity per plot in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.)
as a result of composite interval mapping (Jansen, 1993; Zeng, 1993,
1994) performed using QTL cartographer (Wang et al., 2004) using 81
recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
and "Top Mark' grown at Hancock Wisconsin in
2002.............................................\...334

Appendix III-32. Graphical representation of QTL positions associated
with percentage of fruit maturity per plot in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.)
as a result of composite interval mapping (Jansen, 1993; Zeng, 1993,
1994) performed using QTL cartographer (Wang et al., 2004) using 81
recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
and "Top Mark' grown at El Centro, California in
2002..............................................335

Appendix III-33. A graphic comparison of QTL positions and effects
associated with percentage of fruit maturity per plot in melon (*Cucumis
melo* L.) as estimated by composite interval mapping (Jansen, 1993;
Zeng, 1993, 1994) using QTL cartographer (Wang et al., 2004) in 15
linkage groups (1-15) using 81 recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived
from a cross between USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark' grown at Hancock
Wisconsin and El Centro California in
2002......................................................................................336

Appendix III-34. Summary of the QTL epistatic effects influencing yield
components as estimated using a two-QTL analysis model resident in R/qtl
(Broman et al. 2003) and 81 melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) recombinant inbred
lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark"
evaluated at Hancock, Wisconsin (WI) and El Centro California (CA) in
2002...............................................................................337

Appendix III-35. A two-dimensional epistasis genome scan for
quantitative trait loci (QTL) associated with sex expression in melon
(*Cucumis melo* L.) on 15 linkage groups (LG1-LG15) using 81 recombinant
inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1 and "Top
Mark" grown at Hancock, Wisconsin and El Centro, California in 2002. The
analysis employed the Haley-Knott regression (HK) (Haley and Knott 1992)
in R/qtl (Broman et al. 2003). The upper diagonal contains the
interaction LOD scores and the lower diagonal contains joint LOD scores
for each pair of putative QTLs tested. The vertical bar on the right
indicates the magnitude of the epistasis LOD scores (left interaction
LOD scores and right joint LOD
scores)........................................................................\...341

Appendix III-36. A two-dimensional epistasis genome scan for
quantitative trait loci (QTL) associated with primary branch number in
melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) on 15 linkage groups (LG1-LG15) using 81
recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
and "Top Mark" grown at Hancock, Wisconsin in 2002. The analysis
employed the Haley-Knott regression (HK) (Haley and Knott 1992) in R/qtl
(Broman et al. 2003). The upper diagonal contains the interaction LOD
scores and the lower diagonal contains joint LOD scores for each pair of
putative QTLs tested. The vertical bar on the right indicates the
magnitude of the epistasis LOD scores (left interaction LOD scores and
right joint LOD
scores)...................................................................................................342

Appendix III-37. A two-dimensional epistasis genome scan for
quantitative trait loci (QTL) associated with primary branch number in
melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) on 15 linkage groups (LG1-LG15) using 81
recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
and "Top Mark" grown at El Centro, California in 2002. The analysis
employed the Haley-Knott regression (HK) (Haley and Knott 1992) in R/qtl
(Broman et al. 2003). The upper diagonal contains the interaction LOD
scores and the lower diagonal contains joint LOD scores for each pair of
putative QTLs tested. The vertical bar on the right indicates the
magnitude of the epistasis LOD scores (left interaction LOD scores and
right joint LOD
scores)...................................................................................................343

Appendix III-38. A two-dimensional epistasis genome scan for
quantitative trait loci (QTL) associated with fruit number per plant in
melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) on 15 linkage groups (LG1-LG15) using 81
recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
and "Top Mark" grown at Hancock, Wisconsin in 2002. The analysis
employed the Haley-Knott regression (HK) (Haley and Knott 1992) in R/qtl
(Broman et al. 2003). The upper diagonal contains the interaction LOD
scores and the lower diagonal contains joint LOD scores for each pair of
putative QTLs tested. The vertical bar on the right indicates the
magnitude of the epistasis LOD scores (left interaction LOD scores and
right joint LOD
scores)...................................................................................................344

Appendix III-39. A two-dimensional epistasis genome scan for
quantitative trait loci (QTL) associated with fruit number per plant in
melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) on 15 linkage groups (LG1-LG15) using 81
recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
and "Top Mark" grown at El Centro, California in 2002. The analysis
employed the Haley-Knott regression (HK) (Haley and Knott 1992) in R/qtl
(Broman et al. 2003). The upper diagonal contains the interaction LOD
scores and the lower diagonal contains joint LOD scores for each pair of
putative QTLs tested. The vertical bar on the right indicates the
magnitude of the epistasis LOD scores (left interaction LOD scores and
right joint LOD
scores)...................................................................................................345

Appendix III-40. A two-dimensional epistasis genome scan for
quantitative trait loci (QTL) associated with fruit weight per plant in
melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) on 15 linkage groups (LG1-LG15) using 81
recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
and "Top Mark" grown at Hancock, Wisconsin in 2002. The analysis
employed the Haley-Knott regression (HK) (Haley and Knott 1992) in R/qtl
(Broman et al. 2003). The upper diagonal contains the interaction LOD
scores and the lower diagonal contains joint LOD scores for each pair of
putative QTLs tested. The vertical bar on the right indicates the
magnitude of the epistasis LOD scores (left interaction LOD scores and
right joint LOD
scores)...................................................................................................346

Appendix III-41. A two-dimensional epistasis genome scan for
quantitative trait loci (QTL) associated with fruit weight per plant in
melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) on 15 linkage groups (LG1-LG15) using 81
recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
and "Top Mark" grown at El Centro, California in 2002. The analysis
employed the Haley-Knott regression (HK) (Haley and Knott 1992) in R/qtl
(Broman et al. 2003). The upper diagonal contains the interaction LOD
scores and the lower diagonal contains joint LOD scores for each pair of
putative QTLs tested. The vertical bar on the right indicates the
magnitude of the epistasis LOD scores (left interaction LOD scores and
right joint LOD
scores)...................................................................................................347

Appendix III-42. A two-dimensional epistasis genome scan for
quantitative trait loci (QTL) associated with average weight per fruit
in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) on 15 linkage groups (LG1-LG15) using 81
recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
and "Top Mark" grown at Hancock, Wisconsin in 2002. The analysis
employed the Haley-Knott regression (HK) (Haley and Knott 1992) in R/qtl
(Broman et al. 2003). The upper diagonal contains the interaction LOD
scores and the lower diagonal contains joint LOD scores for each pair of
putative QTLs tested. The vertical bar on the right indicates the
magnitude of the epistasis LOD scores (left interaction LOD scores and
right joint LOD
scores)...................................................................................................348

Appendix III-43. A two-dimensional epistasis genome scan for
quantitative trait loci (QTL) associated with average weight per fruit
in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) on 15 linkage groups (LG1-LG15) using 81
recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between USDA 846-1
and "Top Mark" grown at El Centro, California in 2002. The analysis
employed the Haley-Knott regression (HK) (Haley and Knott 1992) in R/qtl
(Broman et al. 2003). The upper diagonal contains the interaction LOD
scores and the lower diagonal contains joint LOD scores for each pair of
putative QTLs tested. The vertical bar on the right indicates the
magnitude of the epistasis LOD scores (left interaction LOD scores and
right joint LOD
scores)...................................................................................................349

Appendix III-44. A two-dimensional epistasis genome scan for
quantitative trait loci (QTL) associated with percentage of mature fruit
per plot in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) on 15 linkage groups (LG1-LG15)
using 81 recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between
USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark" grown at Hancock, Wisconsin in 2002. The
analysis employed the Haley-Knott regression (HK) (Haley and Knott 1992)
in R/qtl (Broman et al. 2003). The upper diagonal contains the
interaction LOD scores and the lower diagonal contains joint LOD scores
for each pair of putative QTLs tested. The vertical bar on the right
indicates the magnitude of the epistasis LOD scores (left interaction
LOD scores and right joint LOD
scores)....................................................................................\...350

Appendix III-45. A two-dimensional epistasis genome scan for
quantitative trait loci (QTL) associated with percentage of mature fruit
per plot in melon (*Cucumis melo* L.) on 15 linkage groups (LG1-LG15)
using 81 recombinant inbred lines (RIL) derived from a cross between
USDA 846-1 and "Top Mark" grown at El Centro, California in 2002. The
analysis employed the Haley-Knott regression (HK) (Haley and Knott 1992)
in R/qtl (Broman et al. 2003). The upper diagonal contains the
interaction LOD scores and the lower diagonal contains joint LOD scores
for each pair of putative QTLs tested. The vertical bar on the right
indicates the magnitude of the epistasis LOD scores (left interaction
LOD scores and right joint LOD
scores)....................................................................................\...351