# Inheritance of some agronomical traits in Pear

Bernard Thibault, Léonce Hermann, André Belouin, B. Mangin

► To cite this version:

Bernard Thibault, Léonce Hermann, André Belouin, B. Mangin. Inheritance of some agronomical traits in Pear. Eucarpia fruit breeding section meeting, European Association for Research on Plant Breeding (EUCARPIA). NLD., Sep 1987, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic. hal-01601855

HAL Id: hal-01601855

https://hal.science/hal-01601855

Submitted on 4 Jun 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
SEPARATUM

September 7-11, 1987

HRADEC KRÁLOVÉ

Czechoslovakia
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
# INHERITANCE OF SOME AGRONOMICAL TRAITS IN PEAR

B. Thibault, L. Hermann, A. Belouin B. Mangin
Institut National Institut National
de la Recherche de la Recherche
Agronomique Agronomique
Station d'Amélioration des Espèces Laboratoire de Biométrie
Fruitières et Ornamentales B.P. 27 - Auzeville
49070 Beaucouzé 31326 Castanet-Tolosan
France France

## Abstract

A Program in order to obtain a late maturing variety of pear was carried out between 1967 and 1984. It brought into play 12 parents in a partial diallel and worked out to 64 progenies. The number of trees by progenies varied between 120 and 250 and the total number of trees was 10 325.

The characteristics of the tree: presence of thorns, time and importance of blooming, time and importance of production and the characteristics of the fruit: mean weight, ratio: height/diameter, attractiveness, texture of the flesh, sugar, acidity were observed for at least 3 years.

For each characteristics, the grand mean, the best parents, the best progenies, the general and specific combining abilities and the heritability were calculated. The best arrangements taking into account the GCA and the SCA are also mentioned.

## 1. Introduction

In the pear breeding program of the Angers Research Station, the most important objective was, as early as 1961, late maturity.

Many French fruit areas are well placed for this type of production and particularly Angers where the growing season is long.

Before the development of 'Conference', 'Passe Crassane' was the only variety proposed for the winter market. Beside many good characteristics this variety shows some defects such as: fruits too big, fruit fall before picking time. The great susceptibility to fire blight revealed since then, confirms the need for another late variety.

## 2. Material and methods

Twelve parents were chosen, showing good characteristics for late maturity, for production or taste quality. A half complete diallel without diagonal was underkarten. The intersterility of two crosses resulted in only 64 progenies /Table 1/.

Young seedlings were planted on their own roots without any screening, but too weak subjects were excluded. The total
number of planted trees was 10 325.

Twenty six characteristics were noted, most of them for three years:

- 8 characteristics of the tree

- 8 outer characteristics of the fruit

- 10 characteristics of the flesh.

Only five characteristics will be presented now; they sum up the progenies:

- Length of the juvenile period

- Picking time

- Production /noted by the amount of fruit/

- Attractiveness of the fruit

- Estimate of the taste quality.

Some remarks must be made:

- most of the traits were noted in a subjective way: this is the case for Production - Attractiveness and Estimate of quality.

- Notations were made by several observes and for several years leading to some fluctuation.

- Hybridizations were carried out over a ten year period /1962-1972/. So, all the trees did not have the same climatic history. Also because they were planted in several plots they did not have exactly the same environment.

- Plantation of the different progenies was made in a sequence without replication.

All these facts contribute to enlarging the estimation of error and can explain, in part, the weakness of the calculated heritabilities:

$$ \frac{2 \text{ GCA} + \text{SCA}}{2 \text{ GCA} + \text{SCA} + \text{Error}} $$

- Some characteristics were noted on a smaller number of trees than others. This is particularly true for fruit characteristics: some trees do not flower before 10 or 12 years, some trees had flowers but no fruits or bore fruit only for one or two years. 13 % /thirteen/ trees with too small fruits /<50 g/ were not noted for the other fruit characteristics.

## 3. Results

Excepting the estimations concerning variance components, GCA and SCA, that were obtained using a statistical genetic model, all the results were calculated from phenotypic observations using C.S. - Janus Data-base.

The phenotypic notations of the parents were made on adult trees grafted on quince. They are the average of, at least, six years of observations.

The distribution of the trees for the length of the juvenile period /table 2/ shows that 60 % had flowers by the 6th year or before and more than 90 % had flowers by the 8th year or before. But 136 trees had no flowers before the 12th year.

The grand mean in 6.45 years and these is just one year between the progeny of the parent 'D. Perrault' /6 years/ and the progeny of the parent 'D. du Comice' /7 years/.

The range from the earliest progeny /'D. Perrault' x 'N.
Lepin' / to the latest / 'D. du Comice' x 'N. Lepin' / is 5.5
years to 7.75 years.

There is a significant correlation between production and
juvenile period.

Picking time is a very important trait in this program.
It is very well correlated with eating period after cold sto-
rage /r = 0.960/. Picking period was divided into 9 classes
by 10 day periods from the 20th of July to the 20th of Octo-
ber /table 3/.

near

The grand mean of the progenies is very to the grand mean
of the parents :8 againsts 8.2/. The correlation between pa-
rent means and progeny means for the 64 progenies is good
/r = 0.869/. 'Conference' x 'R. Chatenay' shows the greatest
positive difference between' the parent mean and the progeny
mean. 'D. de Mouchy' x 'Mme. Ballet' shows the greatest nega-
tive difference.

The general distribution shows roughly 50 % of the trees
picked between the 10th and the 20 th of October /as 'P. Cras-
sane' / and only 11.6 % before the 20th of September /picking
time of 'Comice' /.

For this characteristic the heritability is fairly good
/= 0.489/. 'D. d'Hiver' - 'P. Crassane' and 'R. Chatenay' had
the latest progenies /table 4/, 'Conference' and 'D. du Comi-
ce' the earliest. In the latest progeny /'Mmme. Ballet' x
'P. Crassane/ 87 % of the trees are in class 9. In the ear-
liest /'D. du Comice' x 'Conference' 50 % are in classes 5
and 6.

The GCA indices show a good correlation with the phenotypic notation of the parents and with the progeny means. Their range is important: from + 0.442 for 'D. d'Hiver' to - 1.226 for 'Conference'. The SCA's range is also large: + 0.405 for 'D. de Mouchy' x 'D. Perrault' to - 0.370 for 'R. Chatenay' x 'D. Perrault'.

Amount of fruits is an important parameter of the produc-
tivity of a tree, especially if it is noted 3 years running
/table 5/. 11 % of the trees had no fruits during the life
of the orchard /mainly progenies of 'D. du Comice' and 'P.
Crassane'/. Only 7.6 % were noted with many fruits during the
three years.

The grand mean of progenies is clearly lower than the
grand mean of the parents /2.87 against 4.10/. This fact can
be explained by the cultural conditions of the trees /no pru-
ning, high density, no dwarfing rootstock/. Heritability is
low /0.148/.

The behaviour of 'P. Crassane' is noticeable /table 6/ :
the phenotypic notation of the parent is best but the proge-
ny mean is low. We must note that it is always difficult to
give a precise assessment of the phenotypic value of the pa-
rents. Perhaps 'P. Crassane' has been over estimated. Indices
of G.C.A. are generally low except for 'Conference' and the
range of S.C.A. indices is greater /from + 0.376 to - 0.479/.

For this characteristic, general combining abilities have
medium or weak values; some combinations perform relatively
better or poorer than expected.

It is interesting to compare the amount of flowers and
the amount of fruit /figure 1/. We can note three groups of progenies:

- One group with trees having many flowers and many fruits: progenies from 'D. Perrault' - 'B. d'Avril' - 'J. d'Arc' - 'D. de Mouchy' - 'N. Lepin' and 'Conference'.

- One group with trees having many flowers but fewer fruits: progenies from 'P. Crassane' - 'D. d'Hiver' - 'Pt. Drouard' - 'R. Chatenay' - 'Mme. Ballet'.

- One group with only 'D. du Comice' with few flowers and few fruits.

The attractiveness of the fruit is a global notation taking into account the ground color, over color, russetting and also the size and the shape of the fruit. It must be noted that this characteristic was not included in the choice of the parents. It was noted in five classes from 1 /unpleasant/ to 5 /very pleasant/ /table 7/.

The grand mean of the parents is average and is half a class above the grand mean of progenies. 50 % of trees had fruits of medium attractiveness but 46 % had unpleasant fruit.

There is a good correlation between the means of parents and the means of progenies for the 64 progenies /R = 0.410/ but the heritability was low again /0.096/.

'D. de Mouchy' had the best progeny /table 8/ and the best G.C.A. index. All other parents had a low G.C.A. The range of S.C.A. is also narrow so the choice of parents is not easy. However the progeny 'D. du Comice' x 'D. de Mouchy' performed almost as well as the grand mean of parents. The progenies with 'D. de Mouchy' as common parent show more than 71 % of the hybrids noted 3 or more.

Texture, firmness, juicynnes, sugar, acidity, astringency and flavour were noted for each subject but the global quality was also assessed. Should one of these characteristics be too low, the tree was eliminated /class 1 and 2/ /table 9/. 95.7 % of trees were so judged. Only 0.67 % /65 trees/ were ranged in the classes 4, 5 or 6 during the 3 years and about 350 trees were noted 4, 5 or 6 during 1 or 2 years only.

The grand mean of progenies is clearly lower than the grand mean of the parents /1.3 againsts 2.5/ but this seems normal for hybrids in the first generation.

The correlation between the means of the parents and the means of progenies is good /r= 0.661/ but the heritability is very low again /0.077/.

The progeny of 'D. du Comice' is the best /table 10/ and this parent has the best G.C.A. index. This is contrary to 'D. de Mouchy' with a negative G.C.A. The other G.C.A.s are low and the range of the S.C.A. values is narrow again. This characteristic shows the same behaviour as attractiveness.

It is interesting to note the performance of some parents:

- 'D. de Mouchy' performs well for picking-time, amount of fruits and attractiveness but very poorly for quality.

- 'D. du Comice' performs well for attractiveness and quality
Conference performs very well for the amount of fruit, fairly well for attractiveness and quality but not for pic-king-time.

Finally /table 1/ 219 preselections were choosen, 91 with "D. du Comice" as common parent and 57 with "Conference" gi-ving a clear indication that we gave the most important weight to quality.

The best parents showing no great gap were "J. d'Arc" and "Mme.Ballet": 59 and 40 hybrids were respectively se-lected in their progenies /3.5 and 2.3 %/. The best cross was "J. d'Arc x "D. du Comice" with 16 % of selected hy-brids.

18 progenies led to no selections.

## 4. Conclusion

Efforts are now directed in two directions:

- a second generation, using as parents the best selections of this program.

- a more complete exploitation of the data in order to ob-tain a greater security in the estimation of genetic para-meters and of genotypic values of each individual for each characteristic. A model taking in account the effect of the year of sowing, planting and observing the tree could be built. In a mixed model it would be possible to integrate in the same statistical study the parent data, the progeny data and the individual data.

## References

- Thibault, B., 1972. Amélioration du Poirier par hybridation à la Station d'Angers. C.R. Symposium "Culture de Poirier", Angers:79-92.

- Thibault, B., 1982. Review of breeding objectives at Angers. In "The Pears" - T. van der Zwet N.F. Childers, Editors:207-213.

- Mangin, B., Thibault, B., 1985. Comparaison de 3 critères pour prédire la valeur génétique individuelle. Agronomie, 5 /10/:923-927.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Table 2 - Juvenile period</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Distribution %<br>(10.209 trees)</th><th>MEAN / PARENTS</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>cumulated</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4è.</td><td>2.46</td><td>6.07</td></tr><tr><td>5è.</td><td>21.15</td><td>6.23</td></tr><tr><td>6è.</td><td>36.97</td><td>6.24</td></tr><tr><td>7è.</td><td>21.44</td><td>6.29</td></tr><tr><td>8è.</td><td>9.88</td><td>6.30</td></tr><tr><td>9è.</td><td>4.35</td><td>6.39</td></tr><tr><td>10è.</td><td>2.12</td><td>6.45</td></tr><tr><td>11è.</td><td>0.93</td><td>6.48</td></tr><tr><td>12è.</td><td>0.69</td><td>6.49</td></tr><tr><td>RANGE</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>from : D. PERRAULT X N. LEPIN</td><td>5.53</td><td>7.07</td></tr><tr><td>to : D. COMICE X N. LEPIN</td><td>7.75</td><td>6.45</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 4 - Picking time</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">distribution %<br>(9 601 trees)</th><th>grand mean parents</th><th>: 8.20</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2"></th><th>grand mean progenies</th><th>: 8.07</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>U<br>L<br>V</td><td>0.12</td><td>Correlation between:<br>- Parent means<br>- Progeny means</td><td>r = 0.87</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>A<br>U</td><td>0.09</td><td colspan="2">the two greatest differences</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>G<br>U</td><td>0.05 → WILLIAMS</td><td>- CONFERENCE X R.CHATENAY + 0.84</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>S<br>T</td><td>0.16</td><td>- D. MOUCHY X Mme.BALLET - 0.77</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>S<br>E</td><td>2.49</td><td colspan="2">Variance components :</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>P<br>T</td><td>8.69 → COMICE</td><td>G.C.A.</td><td>: 0.177</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td></td><td>20.08</td><td>S.C.A.</td><td>: 0.041</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>O</td><td>19.46</td><td>Error</td><td>: 0.412</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>C<br>T</td><td>48.80 → P.CRASSANE</td><td>Heritability</td><td>: 0.489</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>PARENTS</th><th>1<br>phenotypic<br>notation</th><th>2<br>progeny<br>mean</th><th>3<br>difference</th><th>4<br>G.C.A.</th><th>5<br>σ of S.C.A.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mme. BALLET</td><td>8.66</td><td>8.14</td><td>- 0.52</td><td>+ 0.109</td><td>0.190</td></tr><tr><td>CHATENAY</td><td>8.66</td><td>8.36</td><td>- 0.30</td><td>+ 0.287</td><td>0.268</td></tr><tr><td>D. du COMICE</td><td>6.50</td><td>7.65</td><td>+ 1.15</td><td>- 0.441</td><td>0.142</td></tr><tr><td>CONFERENCE</td><td>5.75</td><td>7.11</td><td>+ 1.36</td><td>- 1.226</td><td>0.221</td></tr><tr><td>P. CRASSANE</td><td>9.00</td><td>8.43</td><td>- 0.57</td><td>+ 0.302</td><td>0.148</td></tr><tr><td>J. D'ARC</td><td>8.66</td><td>8.05</td><td>- 0.61</td><td>+ 0.008</td><td>0.128</td></tr><tr><td>B. D'AVRIL</td><td>8.91</td><td>8.27</td><td>- 0.64</td><td>+ 0.289</td><td>0.173</td></tr><tr><td>P. DROUARD</td><td>7.86</td><td>8.06</td><td>+ 0.20</td><td>- 0.132</td><td>0.136</td></tr><tr><td>D. D'HIVER</td><td>9.00</td><td>8.46</td><td>- 0.54</td><td>+ 0.442</td><td>0.206</td></tr><tr><td>N. LEPIN</td><td>8.13</td><td>8.07</td><td>- 0.06</td><td>+ 0.042</td><td>0.113</td></tr><tr><td>D. de MOUCHY</td><td>8.57</td><td>7.97</td><td>- 0.60</td><td>- 0.039</td><td>0.210</td></tr><tr><td>D. PERRAULT</td><td>9.00</td><td>8.30</td><td>- 0.70</td><td>+ 0.348</td><td>0.200</td></tr></tbody></table><table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">* PROGENIES<br>RANGE</td><td rowspan="2">from</td><td>Mme. BALLET</td><td>X</td><td>P. CRASSANE</td><td>8.854</td></tr><tr><td>B. D'AVRIL</td><td>X</td><td>D. D'HIVER</td><td>8.820</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">* S.C.A. RANGE</td><td rowspan="2">to</td><td>D. du COMICE</td><td>X</td><td>CONFERENCE</td><td>6.451</td></tr><tr><td>CONFERENCE</td><td>X</td><td>P. DROUARD</td><td>6.455</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">* CORRELATION BETWEEN : 1 and 4</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td>D. de MOUCHY</td><td>X</td><td>D. PERRAULT</td><td>+ 0.405</td></tr><tr><td>R. CHATENAY</td><td>X</td><td>D. PERRAULT</td><td>- 0.370</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"></td><td>r =</td><td>0.951</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>distribution %<br>(10 112 trees)</th><th>grand mean parents</th><th>:4.100</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td>grand mean progenies</td><td>:2.879</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>11.15 (no fruits)</td><td colspan="2">Correlation between :</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>24.79</td><td>- Parent means</td><td>r =0.159</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>31.91</td><td>- Progeny means</td><td>(N.S.)</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>24.50</td><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>7.10</td><td colspan="2">the two greatest differences</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>0.55 (many fruits)</td><td>- J. D'ARC X PERRAULT</td><td>+ 0.24</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>- P. DROUARD X P.CRASSANE</td><td>- 2.92</td></tr></tbody></table>

Variance components :

G.C.A. : 0.044

S.C.A. : 0.017

Error : 0.606

Heritability : 0.148

<table><caption>Table 6 - Amount of fruits</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">PARENTS</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th rowspan="2">difference</th><th rowspan="2">G.C.A.</th><th rowspan="2">σ of S.C.A.</th></tr><tr><th>phenotypic<br>notation</th><th>progeny<br>mean</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mme. BALLET</td><td>3.84</td><td>2.71</td><td>- 1.13</td><td>- 0.146</td><td>0.115</td></tr><tr><td>CHATENAY</td><td>3.54</td><td>2.50</td><td>- 1.04</td><td>- 0.048</td><td>0.241</td></tr><tr><td>D.du COMICE</td><td>4.00</td><td>2.65</td><td>- 1.35</td><td>- 0.100</td><td>0.167</td></tr><tr><td>CONFERENCE</td><td>4.66</td><td>3.25</td><td>- 1.41</td><td>+ 0.272</td><td>0.191</td></tr><tr><td>P. CRASSANE</td><td>5.30</td><td>2.64</td><td>- 2.66</td><td>- 0.066</td><td>0.146</td></tr><tr><td>J. D'ARC</td><td>3.64</td><td>3.18</td><td>- 0.46</td><td>+ 0.052</td><td>0.172</td></tr><tr><td>B. D'AVRIL</td><td>3.58</td><td>2.98</td><td>- 0.60</td><td>+ 0.038</td><td>0.155</td></tr><tr><td>P. DROUARD</td><td>4.14</td><td>2.70</td><td>- 1.44</td><td>- 0.087</td><td>0.140</td></tr><tr><td>D. D'HIVER</td><td>3.54</td><td>2.63</td><td>- 0.91</td><td>- 0.111</td><td>0.201</td></tr><tr><td>N. LEPIN</td><td>4.42</td><td>3.10</td><td>- 1.32</td><td>+ 0.107</td><td>0.175</td></tr><tr><td>D. de MOUCHY</td><td>5.00</td><td>3.25</td><td>- 1.75</td><td>+ 0.082</td><td>0.158</td></tr><tr><td>D. PERRAULT</td><td>3.58</td><td>3.09</td><td>- 0.49</td><td>+ 0.005</td><td>0.265</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">* PROGENIES RANGE</td><td>from</td><td>N. LEPIN</td><td>X D.de MOUCHY</td><td>3.930</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>D. PERRAULT</td><td>X N. LEPIN</td><td>3.895</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">* S.C.A. RANGE</td><td>to</td><td>D. d'HIVER</td><td>X P. CRASSANE</td><td>1.711</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>P. DROUARD</td><td>X P. CRASSANE</td><td>1.796</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td>from</td><td>D. PERRAULT</td><td>X J. D'ARC</td><td>+ 0.376</td></tr><tr><td>to</td><td>R. CHATENAY</td><td>X D. PERRAULT</td><td>- 0.479</td></tr></tbody></table>

* CORRELATION BETWEEN : 1 and 4 r = 0.336 (N.S.)
<table><caption>Table 7 - Attractiveness</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>distribution %<br>(9 029 trees)</th><th>grand mean parents</th><th>: 3.00</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td>grand mean progenies</td><td>: 2.45</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>4.58 (unpleasant)</td><td colspan="2">Correlation between :</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>41.44</td><td colspan="2">- Parent means r = 0.410</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>51.19</td><td colspan="2">- Progeny means</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>2.67</td><td colspan="2">The two greatest differences</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>0.11 (very pleasant)</td><td>- CONFERENCE X D.COMICE - 1.21<br>- D. MOUCHY X J. D'ARC - 0.14</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td colspan="2">Variance components :</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>G.C.A.</td><td>: 0.011</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>S.C.A.</td><td>: 0.005</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Error</td><td>: 0.254</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Heritability</td><td>: 0.096</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 8 - Attractiveness</caption><thead><tr><th>PARENTS</th><th>1<br>phenotypic<br>notation</th><th>2<br>progeny<br>mean</th><th>3<br>difference</th><th>4<br>G.C.A.</th><th>5<br>σ of S.C.A.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mme. BALLET</td><td>3.00</td><td>2.45</td><td>- 0.55</td><td>+ 0.014</td><td>0.031</td></tr><tr><td>CHATENAY</td><td>2.55</td><td>2.28</td><td>- 0.27</td><td>- 0.122</td><td>0.047</td></tr><tr><td>D.du COMICE</td><td>4.00</td><td>2.53</td><td>- 1.47</td><td>+ 0.117</td><td>0.063</td></tr><tr><td>CONFERENCE</td><td>3.50</td><td>2.45</td><td>- 1.05</td><td>+ 0.028</td><td>0.044</td></tr><tr><td>P. CRASSANE</td><td>3.00</td><td>2.44</td><td>- 0.56</td><td>+ 0.008</td><td>0.059</td></tr><tr><td>J. D'ARC</td><td>2.90</td><td>2.41</td><td>- 0.49</td><td>- 0.086</td><td>0.049</td></tr><tr><td>B. D'AVRIL</td><td>2.72</td><td>2.44</td><td>- 0.28</td><td>- 0.023</td><td>0.033</td></tr><tr><td>P. DROUARD</td><td>3.08</td><td>2.52</td><td>- 0.56</td><td>+ 0.056</td><td>0.063</td></tr><tr><td>D. D'HIVER</td><td>2.60</td><td>2.34</td><td>- 0.26</td><td>- 0.062</td><td>0.057</td></tr><tr><td>N. LEPIN</td><td>2.91</td><td>2.45</td><td>- 0.46</td><td>- 0.023</td><td>0.044</td></tr><tr><td>D. de MOUCHY</td><td>3.00</td><td>2.70</td><td>- 0.30</td><td>+ 0.216</td><td>0.041</td></tr><tr><td>D. PERRAULT</td><td>2.73</td><td>2.36</td><td>- 0.37</td><td>- 0.125</td><td>0.045</td></tr><tr><td>* PROGENIES<br>RANGE</td><td>from</td><td>D. COMICE<br>Mme.BALLET</td><td>X D.de MOUCHY</td><td>2.945</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X D.de MOUCHY</td><td>2.807</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>to</td><td>D. PERRAULT<br>J. D'ARC</td><td>X D. d'HIVER<br>X R. CHATENAY</td><td>1.986<br>2.053</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>* S.C.A. RANGE</td><td>from</td><td>P. DROUARD<br>D. COMICE</td><td>X P. CRASSANE<br>X D.de MOUCHY</td><td>- 0.128<br>+ 0.094</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>* CORRELATION BETWEEN</td><td>: 1 and 4</td><td></td><td>r =</td><td>0.607</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 9 - Estimate of quality</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>distribution %<br>(9 675 trees)</th><th>grand mean parents</th><th>: 2.54</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td>grand mean progenies</td><td>: 1.29</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>72.56 (very poor)</td><td colspan="2">Correlation between :</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>23.17</td><td>- Parent means</td><td>r = 0.661</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>3.59</td><td>- Progeny means</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>0.52</td><td colspan="2">the two greatest differences</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>0.12 → CONFERENCE</td><td>- D.MOUCHY X R.CHATENAY</td><td>- 0.07</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>0.03 → COMICE</td><td>- D.du COMICE X CONFERENCE</td><td>- 3.82</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>0.00 (very good)</td><td colspan="2">Variance components :</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>G.C.A.</td><td>: 0.007</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>S.C.A.</td><td>: 0.003</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Error</td><td>: 0.203</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Heritability</td><td>: 0.077</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 10 - Estimate of quality</caption><thead><tr><th>PARENTS</th><th>1<br>phenotypic<br>notation</th><th>2<br>progeny<br>mean</th><th>3<br>difference</th><th>4<br>G.C.A.</th><th>5<br>of S.C.A.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mme. BALLET</td><td>2.33</td><td>1.39</td><td>- 0.94</td><td>+ 0.108</td><td>0.049</td></tr><tr><td>CHATENAY</td><td>1.25</td><td>1.18</td><td>- 0.07</td><td>- 0.067</td><td>0.037</td></tr><tr><td>D.du COMICE</td><td>6.00</td><td>1.46</td><td>- 4.54</td><td>+ 0.147</td><td>0.050</td></tr><tr><td>CONFERENCE</td><td>4.87</td><td>1.36</td><td>- 3.51</td><td>+ 0.069</td><td>0.132</td></tr><tr><td>P. CRASSANE</td><td>4.20</td><td>1.29</td><td>- 2.91</td><td>+ 0.015</td><td>0.030</td></tr><tr><td>J. D'ARC</td><td>3.00</td><td>1.40</td><td>- 1.60</td><td>+ 0.060</td><td>0.023</td></tr><tr><td>B. D'AVRIL</td><td>1.91</td><td>1.31</td><td>- 0.60</td><td>+ 0.007</td><td>0.043</td></tr><tr><td>P. DROUARD</td><td>1.46</td><td>1.28</td><td>- 0.18</td><td>- 0.002</td><td>0.049</td></tr><tr><td>D. D'HIVER</td><td>1.33</td><td>1.18</td><td>- 0.15</td><td>- 0.106</td><td>0.029</td></tr><tr><td>N. LEPIN</td><td>1.60</td><td>1.23</td><td>- 0.37</td><td>- 0.022</td><td>0.046</td></tr><tr><td>D. de MOUCHY</td><td>1.00</td><td>1.15</td><td>+ 0.15</td><td>- 0.158</td><td>0.052</td></tr><tr><td>D. PERRAULT</td><td>1.50</td><td>1.25</td><td>- 0.25</td><td>- 0.051</td><td>0.035</td></tr><tr><td>* PROGENIES<br>RANGE</td><td></td><td></td><td>from<br>J. D'ARC X Mme. BALLET</td><td></td><td>1.835</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>J. D'ARC X D.du COMICE</td><td></td><td>1.776</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>to</td><td>N. LEPIN X D. de MOUCHY</td><td></td><td>1.048</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>R. CHATENAY X D. de MOUCHY</td><td></td><td>1.049</td></tr><tr><td>* S.C.A. RANGE</td><td></td><td></td><td>from<br>J. D'ARC X Mme. BALLET</td><td></td><td>+ 0.077</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>N. LEPIN X B. D'AVRIL</td><td></td><td>- 0.090</td></tr><tr><td>* CORRELATION BETWEEN</td><td>: 1 and 4</td><td></td><td>r =</td><td></td><td>0.774</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 -</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>