<%BANNER%>

Dwarfism in Low Chill Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum)


PAGE 1

DWARFISM IN LOW CHILL HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY ( Vaccinium corymbosum ) By DAVID H. BAQUERIZO A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by David H. Baquerizo

PAGE 3

This thesis is dedicated to Karen, Da vid Manuel, Gabriel Roberto, Ana Faustina and Mara Teresa.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Dr. Paul Lyrene, my chairman pr ofessor, for his gui dance during this project, and for the opportunity of l earning about breeding blueberries and horticulture firsthand. I thank my advisors, Dr. Wayne She rman, Dr. Mark Bassett and Dr. Ramon Littell, for all their contributions to this study. I also thank my family for their support and all the nice people at the University of Florida. Because of people like them, life is beaut iful and full of joy.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDG MENTS.......................................................................................iv LIST OF T ABLES................................................................................................vii LIST OF FI GURES .............................................................................................viii ABSTRACT ..........................................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUC TION............................................................................................1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................4 Morphology of Dwa rf Plants...........................................................................4 Genetics and Physiology of Plant Dwa rfism...................................................5 Highbush Blueberry Domesticat ion................................................................7 3 MATERIALS A ND METHOD S.....................................................................11 Morphological Studies ..................................................................................11 Multiple Compar ison Anal ysis................................................................11 Internode l ength..............................................................................13 Leaf ar ea.........................................................................................13 Height of the plant or l ength of the l ongest shoo t............................14 Logistic Regressi on Analysi s.................................................................14 Inheritance Studies ......................................................................................15 Field Observ ations .................................................................................15 Controlled Cr osses................................................................................16 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSS ION.....................................................................18 Morphological Studies ..................................................................................18 Multiple Compar ison Studi es.................................................................18 Logistic Regressi on Analysi s.................................................................23 Inheritance Studies ......................................................................................30

PAGE 6

vi 5 CONCLUS IONS...........................................................................................38 APPENDIX CATEGORICAL DATA AN ALYSIS.................................................39 LITERATURE CITED.........................................................................................44 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................................................................48

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 Length of three-internodes (mean 2 SE) of dwarf and normal plants (average of 10 m easurement s)..................................................................20 2 Results of the t-test for the length of three internodes of dwarf plants vs. normal pl ants.............................................................................................20 3 Individual leaf area (mean 2 SE).............................................................21 4 Results of the t-test for the leaf area of dwarf plants vs. normal plants......21 5 Frequency of plants in different cat egories of length a nd branch number for each plant type.....................................................................................25 6 Model 1 and Model 2 equat ions with logit, odds of dwarf and probability of dwarf, for M odel 2 on ly...........................................................................26 7 Model 4 and Model 5 equat ions with logit, odds of dwarf and probability of dwarf, for M odel 5 on ly...........................................................................28 8 Results of fitting five logistic r egression models to the dwarf data.............29 9 Segregation ratios and chi-square test s for normal to dw arf ratios (3:1 and 11:1) for dwarf-segregating norma l stature phenotype crosses from the 2002, 2003 and 2004 high density pl ots..............................................31 10 Tetrasomic inheritance frequencies following chromosomal segregation..33 11 Segregation ratios and chi-square test for normal to dwarf ratios in dwarf x dwarf controll ed crosse s..........................................................................34 12 Segregation ratios and chi-square test for normal to dwarf ratios in dwarf x normal controll ed crosse s.......................................................................35 13 Segregation ratios and chi-square test for normal to dwarf ratios in normal x normal cont rolled cro sses...........................................................35 14 Cross table of all the controlled cr osses per genotype evaluated in this study. .........................................................................................................36

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 The author with dwarf and norma l highbush bluebe rry, May 2005.............18 2 Dotplot of length of three internodes (mm ) by cl one..................................19 3 Dotplot of leaf area (mm2) by cl one............................................................22 4 Scatter plot of three year old dw arf and normal plant heights (cm) from the 2003 Stage 2 nursery...........................................................................23 5 Scatter plot of height versus number of branches for dwarf and normal plants 10 mont h old. ...................................................................................24

PAGE 9

ix Abstract of Thesis Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulf illment of the Requirements for t he Degree of Master of Science DWARFISM IN LOW CHILL HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY ( Vaccinium corymbosum ) By David H. Baquerizo December 2005 Chair: Paul M. Lyrene Major Department: Horticultural Science Plant dwarfism was studied in the highbush blueberry ( Vaccinium corymbosum complex hybrid) breeding program at the University of Florida between the fall of 2002 and spring of 2005. Morphological studies included comparisons among dwarf and normal populations for plant height, internode length, leaf area and number of sprouts or branching. Inheritance studies were conducted by crossing dwarf x normal, dwarf x dwarf and normal x normal plants, and by making field observations on mo re than 10,000 seedlings from normal x normal crosses grown in high-density seedling nurseries in the breeding program. All of the studied morphological traits were significantly different between normal and dwarf populations. Plant hei ght, internode length and leaf area of normal plants were 2.5, 1.7 and 2.7 time s that of dwarf plants respectively. Dwarf plants were also characterized by a high number of branches when

PAGE 10

x compared to normal. Based on a logistic regression analysis, plants that had more than 5 branches and were less than 16 cm tall at 10 m onths had a 99.4 % probability of being dwarf. C onversely, the probability of a dwarf plant was 0.9% for plants with fewer than three branc hes and a height exceeding 16 cm. The fertility of the studi ed dwarf plants was normal. The genotype of dwarf plants appears to be simplex (Aaaa), with the nulliplex fo rm being lethal. Most crosses between normal plants that segr egated dwarfs segregated in an 11:1 and 27:8 normal to dwarf ratio, supporting the hypothesis that triplex and duplex plants have normal growth habit. Triple x to duplex cross produces dwarf to normal ratios of 11:1. D uplex to duplex cross segrega tes in a 27:8 normal to dwarf ratio. Segregation ratios in a few dwarf to dwarf and dwarf to normal crosses did not fit the proposed model.

PAGE 11

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Mature plant height is influenced by both environment and genotype. Environmental influences can signific antly reduce plant height and produce dwarfed plants, as in the ca se of the bonsai, which, due to constant pruning and small containers, yields dwarfed plants (Garvey, 1985). Envi ronmentally induced dwarfism is not passed to its progeny, and it can be tedious work to keep the plant dwarf. A dwarf genotype achi eves its dwarf phenotype without unusual environmental influence and may pa ss this trait to its progeny. Dwarf genotypes are of interest to most breeding programs, because the shorter stature plants can have advantages in common horticultural practices. Dwarf genotypes can reduce the cost of controlling tree size (a significant operational cost for normal hei ght plants), and can maximize the use of available space. Dwarf plants can also be of hor ticultural and ornamental use when height is a limitation in protected agric ulture or in indoor landscapes. Dwarf plants have been important in agric ulture. The spectacular increase in grain yield during the “Green Revolution ,” particularly in w heat and rice, can be attributed largely to the dwarf traits in troduced into the cultivars (Hedden, 2003). Horticultural crops that benefit from shor t sized cultivars or rootstocks include apples (Atkinson and Else, 2001, Johnson et al., 2001), cherries (Edin et al., 1996, Franken-Bembenek, 1996), bananas a nd raspberries (Keep, 1969). Advantages offered by dwarf plant s include easier harvest, less need for

PAGE 12

2 trimming and pruning to control height, and suitability for high-density planting designs. Dwarf trees may also be useful for studying the genetic control of physiological factors affecting shoot gr owth (Sommer et al., 1999). To date, there has been much published research that used dwarf mutations to study plant regulators. Curtis et al. (2000) discovered a feedback control of GA 20oxidase gene expression in Solanum dulcamara by over-expressing the pumpkin gene CmGA20ox1 that induced semi-dwarf plants in S. dulcamara Molecular and genetic studies of dwarf mutants of arabidopsis, tomato and pea have helped explain the role of brassinoste roid biosynthesis and regulation (Li and Chory, 1998). Dwarf growth habit has been previously observed and studied in highbush blueberry ( Vaccinium corymbosum complex hybrids). In 1984, Draper et al. studied dwarf selections and concluded that their data appeared not to fit tetraploid genetic ratios for a single locu s; furthermore plant height in crosses involving dwarfs appeared to follow a continuous distribution. In the University of Florida blueberry breeding program, dwarf plants have been observed segregating from southern highbush cr osses in which both parents had normal stature. These dwarf s eedlings are characterized by reduced height and by compact and multiple-sprouted c anopy, similar to the dwarf Vaccinium ashei (FL 78-66) described by Garvey and Lyrene (1987).

PAGE 13

3 The objective of this research was to study the inheritance and morphology of different southern highbus h dwarf phenotypes observed in the University of Florida blueberry breeding program.

PAGE 14

4 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Morphology of Dwarf Plants Dwarf plants are characterized by reduced height when compared to normal plants. Dwarfness results from ei ther smaller and/or fewer cells (Gale and Youssefian, 1985) and thus, shorter and/or fewer internodes. Bindloss (1942) reported fewer cell divisi ons in the stem of a dwarf Lycopersicon esculentum L. compared to a normal plant. Pe lton (1964), as cited by Garvey (1985), reported precocious secondary cell wall thickening in the dwarf columbine ( Aguilegea vulgares L. cultivar ‘Compacta’). This was believed to result in smaller cells and dwarf plants. Other morphological traits that have been described in dwarf plants include smaller canopy (Fideghelli et al., 2003); higher number of sp routs (Wareing and Phillis, 1978; Draper et al., 1984; Ga rvey and Lyrene, 1987), smaller leaves (Draper et al., 1984), smaller reproductive organs, smaller fruits, and smaller root weight and depth (Gale and Youssefian, 1985). In blueberries, dwarf plants have been observed and studied. Draper and colleagues in 1984 reported dwarf selections of V. corymbosum with shorter internodes and smaller leaves. They also mentioned a bushy appearance to each shoot caused by high sprouting. Garvey and Lyrene (1987) observed and studied dwarf selections of V. ashei The dwarf plants were described as shortsaturated and compact-growing.

PAGE 15

5 Genetics and Physiology of Plant Dwarfism Reports on the inheritance of dwar fing genes are numerous and diverse. There are good examples of simple inheritance like the recessive dw gene in peach (Hansche et al., 1986), the monogenic recessive dwarfing genes in raspberry: fr, n and dw (Knight and Scott, 1964; Jennings, 1967) and the single dominant gene for compact habit in ‘Wijci k’ apple (Lapins and Watkins, 1973). Keep (1969) mentioned the digenic ‘sturdy dwarf’ and ‘crumpled dwarf’ in raspberry. There are also complex inheritances that can not be explained by a known inheritance ratio. Examples include the Vaccinium dwarfs studied by Draper and colleagues (1984) and by Garvey and Lyr ene (1987). These dwarf phenotypes might be the product of several interacting genes. Aneuploidy can also affect the statur e of plants and cause dwarfs. With aneuploids, fertility is significantly reduced because the abnormal chromosome number affects meiosis, produci ng some non-viable gametes. Three major groups of hormones are mo st often reported in association with dwarf phenotypes. The most comm only mentioned group is gibberellins (GA), followed by auxins and brassinostero ids. A fourth group, cytokinins has been implicated in some dwarfs. Gibberellins are usually associated wit h shoot and cell elongation, internode length and other plant develop mental processes like fr uit enlargement (Berhow, 2000). Gibberellin was named after the fungus Gibberella fujikuroi which causes elongation in infected rice seedlings. Foliar application of GA (either GA3 or GA4)

PAGE 16

6 in apple ( Malus domestica Borkh) decreased shoot number but increased total shoot length and total bud numbe r (Kurshid et al., 1997). Mutations affecting GA synthesis, deactivation and reception are usually identified via a shoot elongat ion screen (Ross et al. 1997). Short plant (dwarf) mutants can be categorized as responsive or non-responsive depending on their response to exogenous gibberellins. Ladizinsky (1997) described a dwarf phenotype in Lens characterized by short internodes, short leaf axis and sma ller convex leaflets. This dwarf, when sprayed with GA, responds positively by elongation of the internode and leafaxis. Dwarfs that respond in this way to GA applications are re ferred to as GA responsive or GA sensitive dwarfs. Goldman and Watson (1997) described a monogenic dwarf mutant in red beet ( Beta vulgaris L. subsp. Vulgaris) that is also sensitive to GA. Mackenzie-House et al. (1998) gives a good example of a non responsive dwarf mutant. App lication of GA to Pisum sativum L. plants that carry the Irs mutation reduces internode length, GA synthesis and cell elongation. Borner et al. (1999) studied two dwarfing genes in barley ( Hordeum vulgare ), the recessive gai and gal dwarfing genes. Both were on chromosome 2H and both reduced plant height, but the gal phenotype was sensitive to exogenous GA, whereas the gai phenotype was insensitive. Auxins are also directly involved in r egulation of stem el ongation (Little et al., 2003), and they might be present at lo wer levels in dwarf plants than in normal tall plants (Yang et al., 1993). An abrupt growth response was observed

PAGE 17

7 by Yang et al. (1996) in dwarf mutants (GA1-deficient le ) of light-grown pea ( Pisum sativum L.) after applying IAA. The lag time was only 20 minutes, and the plants reached a growth rate up to t en times higher than the control. The elongation was in the older elongating in ternodes. Gibberellins also caused an elongation response (mainly in less t han 25% of expanded internodes). The authors concluded that auxins and gibberel lins control separate processes that together contribute to stem elongation. A deficiency in either leads to a dwarf phenotype. Brassinosteroids have also been observed to cause dwarf plants, mainly due to their role throughout plant growth and development. Yin et al. (2002) and Schaller (2003) reported that plants with defective brassinosteroid biosynthesis and perception have cell elongation def ects and severe dwarfism. Since prolific sprouting is characteri stic of many dwarf types and is the result of the growth of m any axillary buds (Wareing and Phillis, 1978), and since the interaction among auxins and cytokinin s has been reported to control apical dominance (Sachs and Thimann, 1967), cytok inins should also be considered when investigating plant dwarfism mec hanisms, because cytokinins can disrupt apical dominance and cause t he multiple sprouting or bushy branches reported with the dwarf phenotype by Draper et al. (1984). Highbush Blueberry Domestication The domestication of highbush blueberries (complex hybrids of Vaccinium corymbosum L.) started early in the 20th century with the work of Frederick Coville, a botanist who made the first select ions for breeding purposes in the first US blueberry breeding pr ogram (Coville, 1937).

PAGE 18

8 From the beginning, highbush blueberries were hybridized with other species in Vaccinium section Cyanococcus (Moore, 1966). Some of the other species used to improve the highbush blueberry included lowbush blueberry ( V. angustifolium Ait.) and the myrtle blueberry of Florida ( V. myrsinites Lam.). Early in the breeding of blueberries it was noticed that some species did not hybridize, and it was determined by the cytological work of Longley in 1927 (cited by Coville, 1937) that t he primary cause was the differenc e in ploidy – diploids when crossed with tetraploid species did not hybrid ize, or if they did, they produced a few low vigor plants (Coville, 1937). Draper and Hancock (2003) mentioned the work of Darrow and Sharpe, who selected a V. darrowi (Camp) plant that they found near Tampa, Florida. They named it Florida 4B, and this pl ant has been used extensively in the southern highbush blueberry breeding pr ograms to reduce the high chill requirement of the northern highbus h (Sharpe, 1954; Sharpe and Darrow, 1959; Sharpe and Sherman, 1971; Lyrene and She rman, 1984). It is important to mention that this diploid plant hybridizes with the tetraploid V. corymbosum because it produces unreduced gametes (Lyrene, Vorsa and Ballington, 2003). Other interspecific crosses involving tetraploid cultivated blueberries with non tetraploid species included hexaploid V. ashei (Darrow, 1949; Lyrene and Sherman, 1984) and diploid V. elliottii (Lyrene and Sherman, 1983; Lyrene and Sherman, 1985). The rabbiteye blueberry ( V. ashei ) was grown commercially in Florida starting around 1893, and by the late 1920’s approximately twoto three-

PAGE 19

9 thousand acres were in cultivation (James, 1924; Clayton, 1925; Mowry and Camp, 1928; Lyrene and Sherman, 1979). By 1930, the industry had declined rapidly, mainly because the quality of the Florida bluebe rries was low compared to New Jersey and Michigan blueberri es. The northern blueberries were produced on clonally-pr opagated cultivars based on V. corymbosum developed by the U.S. Department of Agricultur e (USDA) (Lyrene and Sherman, 1977). To support the blueberry industry in t he southeast, breeding efforts with V. ashei were started in 1940 in Tifton, G eorgia (Brightwell, 1971) and with highbush blueberries in Florida in 1948 (Sharpe and Sherman, 1971). The Florida blueberry breeding program has focused mainly on the improvement of the tetraploid V. corymbosum rather than on the hexaploid V. ashei Lyrene and Sherman (1977) mentioned va rious reasons for this, including the fact that Georgia al ready had an active rabbiteye breeding program, and none of the Vaccinium species in Florida can be easily crossed with V. ashei without producing pentaploids. Further, early ripening (the most significant advantage for Florida) and low chilling were not readily available in V. ashei germplasm. Low-chill highbush blueberries from Florida, based on V. corymbosum and V. darrowi hybrids, has resulted in an early-seas on blueberry industry in Florida and Georgia. To date, the annual shipment of fres h-market blueberries from Florida is about 4 million pounds and is increasing yearly. The estimated wholesale value (farm gate va lue) is about $20 million per year. Almost all early-

PAGE 20

10 season varieties grown in Florida came fr om the University of Florida blueberry breeding program (Dr. Paul Ly rene, personal communication).

PAGE 21

11 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS It was noticed in the Florida tetrapl oid highbush breeding program that some crosses between two plants of norma l stature segregated dwarfs. Two of these dwarf plants, 00-266 and 00-08, were selected by Dr. Paul Lyrene before the study reported here was carried out, bec ause of their desirable traits for breeding (early leafing and hi gh fruit quality). Other dw arf selections were made during the study period fr om the high density seedlin g nurseries of 2002 and 2003. The high density nursery (Stage O ne) consisted of about 120 different crosses of normal stature plants, about 90 seedlings per cross, producing a highly diverse blueberry population. Morphological Studies Two analyses were carried out for morphol ogical traits with the objective of contrasting normal and dwarf types. The first was a multiple comparison analysis for particular traits (e.g. internode length). The second was a logistic regression analysis that modeled the response (the probability of being a dwarf) for given parameters (i.e. height and sprouting). Multiple Comparison Analysis To classify and distinguish dwarfs from normal plants, internode length, leaf area, and plant height were measured fr om different clones representing the dwarf and normal types.

PAGE 22

12 The dwarf plants studied for internode length and leaf area measurements were selected from the high density nursery (Stage One) of 2003, except for 00266 and 00-08 which had been selected and pr opagated previously by Dr. Paul Lyrene. Dwarf plants were selected subjec tively by visual inspection, but the dwarf plants appeared to be qualitatively diffe rent from their normal full-siblings, and there were few or no plants whose classification was not obvious. The normal plants selected for contrast with the dwarfs also had a diverse background and were used previously in the breeding program (some of them are known cultivars, e.g. ‘Emerald’ and ‘Jewel’) All plants used in this study were at l east one year old. They were grown in black 3-liter pots filled with peat, outside in full sun, watered as needed, and fertilized with Tracite 20-20-20 with minor elements (Helena Corp.) about once a month during the growing season. The me asurements were taken at the end of August 2003. The plants for the height study were selected from the high density seedling nursery of 2002. From t hese seedlings, approximately 36 plants were selected as dwarfs in the spring of 2003 and were transplanted to fallow ground at one end of the nursery to keep them from being s haded by taller plants. The height of these 36 dwarf plants as well as of 36 randomly selected tall plants from the Stage Two nursery of 2003 was determined. The Stage Two nursery of 2003 was the group of sele cted plants (based on their desired breeding attributes) from t he high density nursery of 2002 after the unselected plants were removed.

PAGE 23

13 A one side t-test for two populations (d warf vs. normal) was conducted to determine if there were statistical diffe rences between the two populations for the traits studied. Analyses of variance and multiple comparisons were also conducted. Tukey’s W procedure with alpha=0.05 was performed to determine if there were statistical differences bet ween the means of each clone for the studied traits. Internode length The average lengths of three-inter node stem segments were determined for 12 clones: six dwarf (00-08, 00-266, 03-105, 03-112, 03-115 and 03-118) and six normal (‘Emerald’, ‘Jewel’, 00-204, 00-206, 00-59, 98-325). The three internodes measured started at the fourth node count ing from the tip of a randomly selected stem and ending at the seventh node from the tip. The fourth internode was selected as the starting point to avoid measuring internodes that were still elongating. Internode length was meas ured for ten stem segments of each clone. Leaf area The leaf area (LA) of dwarf and norma l types was estimated by measuring leaf length (L) and leaf width (W), then ca lculating the area using the formula for a rhombus (LA= W L / 2). Five l eaves were measured for each of 18 clones, nine dwarf (00-08, 00-266, 03-105, 03-112, 03-114, 03-115, 03-116, 03-117, 03118) and nine normal type (‘Emerald’, ‘J ewel’, 95-174, 97-118, 98-325, 00-59, 00-116, 00-206, 00-204). T he measured leaves were mature and picked at random.

PAGE 24

14 Height of the plant or length of the longest shoot The height of the plants was measured fr om the soil level to the tip of the longest shoot. Logistic Regression Analysis Plants used in this study originated fr om seed sown in pots of peat in June 2003. In August, the seeds were ge rminated in a controlled temperature chamber at about 10C with continuous illu mination. After germination was at about 50%, the seedlings were moved to a greenhouse. They were transplanted at 2cm by 2cm spacing to trays of peat in September 2003. They were grown in a greenhouse until May 2004, being watered daily by hand and fertilized every 3 weeks with Tracite 20-20-20. At the end of May, when the plants were about 10 months old, they were visually cla ssified into dwarf and normal phenotypes. Measurements were taken for each class as described below. Categorical data analysis was conduct ed using SAS (the SAS System V.9), to model the log of the probability that the plant was dwarf given the predictor parameters: length of the longest shoot (measured as described previously) and branching (the number of sp routs or branches on the longest shoot, divided by the length of that shoot measured in c m), by a multiple logistic regression analysis. Both predictors were treated as categorical variables. Scores were assigned to each predictor category, and bac kward elimination of predictors was conducted to select the most appropriate model as described by Agresti (1996). (For detailed information on logistic regressions see Appendix). The benefit of this analysis is that it allows the st udy of various parameters (i.e. length of the longest shoot and branchi ng) as well as their interaction, as

PAGE 25

15 predictors for a categorical response (i.e dwarf vs. normal blueberries). It was noticed that dwarf blueberries had high sprouting and low stature. Both parameters were predictors of dwarf bluebe rry plants. These parameters were also preferred over others, because t hey were the easiest to measure. Inheritance Studies Field observations from crosses of t he University of Florida blueberry breeding program were made in the fall of 2002, 2003 and 2004 to study the inheritance of dwarfness. Controlled crosses between selected dwarf plants and normal plants were carried out in a greenhouse in the fall of 2002 and were evaluated during the summer and fall of 2004. The evaluation consisted of classifying the progeny plants as either normal or dwarf by their physical appearance (the normal being taller and with normal branching, while the dwarf smaller and with high branching) to obtain inheritance ratios. Normal to dwarf ratios from field obs ervations of the breeding program and from the controlled crosses we re analyzed statistically by a chi-square test to see how well they fit various hypothesized ratios. Field Observations The field observations were made in Stage One high density nurseries planted in 2002, 2003 and 2004. All of the clones used for the crosses were of normal stature phenotype. Stage One is t he first field stage in the blueberry breeding program before any selection is done. For each nursery, the seeds were planted in December. The seedlings were transplanted to trays of peat and grown in a greenhouse until May. Then, th ey were transplanted to a fumigated field nursery (Stage One) at a spac ing of 15 cm between plants and 45 cm

PAGE 26

16 between rows (about 15 plants per m2). The evaluations were carried out in October 2002, November 2003 and Novemb er 2004, after the plants had been growing in the field nursery for 10 to 11 months. Controlled Crosses Dwarf plants were selected from the 2002 Stage One high density nursery based on their vigor and attractive arch itecture, except for 00-266 and 00-08, which had been selected previously. The plants were prepared for winter crossing by keeping them in the gr eenhouse and not allowing them to enter dormancy. Controlled pollination as descr ibed by Galletta (1975) was started in January and continued until t he end of March. Various cross combinations were tried: dwarf to dwarf (00-266 x 00-08, 00-266 x 03-105, 00-08 x 03-105 and 03112 x 00-08), dwarf to normal (00-266 x 01-21, 00-266 x ‘Emerald’, 00-08 x ‘Emerald’) normal to dwarf (01-21 x 03112, ‘Jewel’ x 00-266), normal to normal (03-120 x ‘Southern Belle’, 03-54 x ‘Santa Fe’, 03-73 x ‘Jewel’, ‘Emerald’ x ‘Sapphire’) and self (00-266 and 00-08). The mature fruits were harvested, and the seeds were extracted following the method used in the blueberry breeding program. The berries were processed in a food blender with water for a few sec onds, after which most of the seeds were obtained by washing away the fles h and skin of the berries. The seeds were then dried at room temperature and st ored in a refrigerator at 7C until they were sown in pots with peat moss and germinated in a chamber with a temperature of about 10C in the summer of 2003. The seedlings started to germinate in early August, and were then transplanted to trays, 48 seedlings per tray, in September. A tota l of 96 seedlings, two trays filled to capacity, were

PAGE 27

17 grown for each controlled cross in t he greenhouse. Each cross was evaluated for dwarf to normal ratios in February, when the plants were about 6 months old and still growing in greenhouse trays. Only the dwarf plants were transpl anted to the 2004 Stage One high density nursery. A follow up evaluation was per formed in October 2004 to check for possible short normal plants that c ould have been erroneously classified.

PAGE 28

18 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Morphological Studies Multiple Comparison Studies The studied dwarf plants were short, with a compact look similar to the descriptions of dwarf blueberries given by Draper et al. (1983), and Garvey and Lyrene (1987) (Figure 1). Am ong the dwarf plants observed in the field, leaf size, plant height and branching were variable, just as these characteristics are variable among seedling blueberri es that are not dwarfs. Figure 1. The author with dwarf and normal highbush blueberry, May 2005.

PAGE 29

19 The internodes of the dwarfs were signi ficantly shorter than those of normal plants (P = 0.0001, see Table 1 and 2). The average dwarf internode was somewhat over half the normal length. Nevertheless, dwarfs 00-08 and 00-266 were not significantly different from normal 00-206, and only dwarf 00-266 was not significantly different from no rmal cultivar ‘Jewel’ (Figure 2). 98-325 00-59 00-206 00-204 Jewel Emerald 03-118 03-115 03-112 03-105 00-266 00-08 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 clone Three-internode length (mm) cd cde bc abc ab a h efg fg def gh fg Dwarf clonesNormal clones Figure 2. Dotplot of length of three internod es (mm) by clone. The group means are indicated by horizontal red li nes and each circle represents an observation. The first 6 plants were considered dwarf and the last six normal. The letters on top of each clone represent the statistical grouping according to Tukey’s W procedure. Leaf area was also smaller in the dwar fs compared to normal plants (Table 3 and 4). Nevertheless, leaf areas of dwarf genot ypes: 03-114, 03-105, 00-08 and 00-266 were not statistically differ ent from the normal genotypes 98-325, 97118, 95-174, 00-59, and 00-204 (Figure 3). Also dwarfs 03-105, 00-08 and 00266 were not statistically different from the normal cultivar ‘Jewel’.

PAGE 30

20 Table 1. Length of three-internodes (mean 2 SE) of dwarf and normal plants (average of 10 measurements). Pedigree Type y Three-internode length (mm) (Mean 2 SEz) 00-08 D 29.76 2.32 00-266 D 32.24 2.18 03-105 D 27.52 2.32 03-112 D 25.12 3.01 03-115 D 20.45 2.93 03-118 D 17.47 1.90 Emerald N 53.41 7.80 Jewel N 41.30 2.68 98-325 N 41.51 3.45 00-59 N 46.18 4.65 00-206 N 36.99 3.82 00-204 N 42.98 4.91 y D=Dwarf, N= Normal z SE= SD/(n1/2) Table 2. Results of the t-te st for the length of three in ternodes of dwarf plants vs. normal plants Type z N Mean Std.Dev.SE Mean D 6 25.43 5.62 2.3 N 6 43.73 5.60 2.3 z D=Dwarf, N= Normal 95% CI for dwarf type – normal type: (-25.6, -11.0) Ho: dwarf type = normal type; Ha: dwarf type < normal type t = -5.65 P-value = 0.0002 DF = 9

PAGE 31

21 Table 3. Individual leaf area (mean 2 SE). Average of 5 measurements of dwarf and normal plants. Clone Typey Leaf area (mm2) (Mean 2 SEz) 00-08 D 507.1 150.2 00-266 D 565.0 114.0 03-105 D 443.9 161.4 03-112 D 211.9 54.6 03-114 D 382.2 95.8 03-115 D 211.6 62.6 03-116 D 199.8 72.6 03-117 D 145.8 22.8 03-118 D 136.8 43.2 Emerald N 1242.2 149.0 Jewel N 780.3 170.0 95-174 N 672.3 133.0 97-118 N 620.0 202.0 98-325 N 683.8 93.0 00-59 N 761.2 172.4 00-116 N 1079.0 226.0 00-206 N 953.0 330.0 00-204 N 668.6 46.0 y D=Dwarf, N= Normal z SE= SD/(n1/2) Table 4. Results of the ttest for the leaf area of dwarf plants vs. normal plants Type Ny Meanz Std.Dev.SE Mean Dwarf 9 312 164 55 Normal 9 829 215 72 y N= number of observations z Square mm 95% CI for dwarf type – normal type: (-711,-324) Ho: dwarf type = normal type; Ha: dwarf type < normal type T = -5.74 P-value = 0.0000 DF = 14

PAGE 32

22 98-325 97-118 95-174 00-59 00-206 00-204 00-116 Jewel Emerald 03-118 03-117 03-116 03-115 03-114 03-112 03-105 00-266 00-08 1500 1000 500 0 Clone Leaf area (sq. mm) abcd bcd abcd ab abc ab ab a a g def fg cde efg cdef cde cde cde Dwarf clones Normal clones Figure 3. Dotplot of leaf area (mm2) by clone. Group means are indicated by horizontal red lines and each circle represents an observation. The letters on top of each clone represent the statistical grouping according to Tukey’s W procedure. Plant height was significantly diffe rent among dwarf and normal plants. Three year old normal plants were 2.5 times taller than three year old dwarf plants, both from the 2003 Stage 2 nursery (Figure 4). The analysis of variance reported an F value of 309.1 with one degree of freedom for plant type (P value= 0.000).

PAGE 33

23 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 010203040Plant number Dwarf Normal 95% CI 49.8 4.8 95% CI 124.2 6.9Plant height (cm) Figure 4. Scatter plot of three year old dwarf and norma l plant heights (cm) from the 2003 Stage 2 nursery. Plant num bers are the sequence in which the plants were measured. Logistic Regression Analysis The total number of plants observ ed (373) had a large range for both variables (44.0 cm for shoot length and 18. 9 cm for number of branches), which was due mainly to the differences between dwarf and normal types. Dwarf plants were shorter, with a mean of 11.8 0.5 cm and a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 4.9 to 18.7 cm, whereas the mean length of normal plants was 22.1 0.7 cm with a 95% CI of 11.1 to 33.0 cm. Dwarf pl ants also had more sprouts, with a median of six branches compared to a median of three branches for normal plants. In order to determine t he number of categories to use for each predictor and to assign their ranges, a scatter plot of shoot length versus branch number was made (Figure 5). Two categories we re assigned for shoot length – plants with shoots less than or equal to sixtee n centimeters and plants with shoots longer than sixteen centimet ers, and three categories for branch number – plants

PAGE 34

24 that had three branches or fewer, those that had betwe en four and five branches and those that had more than five branc hes. The categories were chosen in such a way that each category would in clude both dwarf and normal plants so that the chi square approximatio n would be valid (Table 5). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 02468101214161820 Branches (count)Length (cm) Dwarf Normal Figure 5. Scatter plot of height versus number of branches for dwarf and normal plants 10 month old. Using these categories, a logistic regression analysis was carried out to model the odds of a plant being a dwarf (probability of dwarf / probability of normal plants) and to test the main effects of the two pr edictors, shoot length and branch number, as well as to test for interaction effects. For information on logistic regression analysis see Appendix.

PAGE 35

25 Table 5. Frequency of plants in different categories of length and branch number for each plant type. Length of tallest shoot (cm) Dwarf plants Normal plants Branches (total count of shoots) 16 > 16 16 > 16 < 4 27 2 22 106 4 – 5 45 6 6 51 > 5 88 10 1 9 First, using the univariate procedure in SAS, the categories were given scores. For branches, the scores were: 3, 4, and 8, which were the medians for each group. The scores for the length groups were the means for each group, 11.6 and 22.9. Multiple logistic regr ession analysis was performed using all variables, as well as all interactions. A second model was tested using only the length measurements and numbe r of branches as predict ors, ignoring potential interactions. The models are given below (see Table 6 and 8). The first model had a good fit with G2=199.89 and df =367. The second model also had a good fit with G2=199.93 and df =369. The likelihood ratio st atistics for the interacting terms showed there were no signific ant interactions between length and branches. The differences in deviances between the two models were small, 0.04 with two degree s of freedom (P> X2 2 = 0.980). Thus, these differences were not significant and it was concluded that dropping the interaction terms would have no effect on the ability of the model to predict the log of the odds of a plant being a dwarf.

PAGE 36

26 Both predictors, height and branch num ber, were significant. The likelihoodratio test gave probability values <0.0001 for both predictors. Thus Model 2 was the better model for indicating whet her a plant was dwarf or normal. Table 6. Model 1 and Model 2 equations with l ogit, odds of dwarf and probability of dwarf, for Model 2 only. MODEL1: Logit P(Y=dwarf) = 0.1054 – 4.0757 [b 3] – 2.2454 [4b5] + 4.3720 [l16] – 0.1969 [b<=3]* [l16] – 0.2170[4b5]*[l16] MODEL 2: Logit P(Y=dwarf) = 0.137 – 4.127 [b3] – 2.299 [4b5] + 4.198 [l16] Logit (Y=dwarf) Odds of dwarf Probabiliy of dwarf Branches (b) 34b5 Branches (b) > 5 Length (l) 16 0.208 1.23 0.552 2.036 7.66 0.885 4.335 76.32 0.987 Length (l) > 16 -3.990 0.02 0.018 -2.162 0.103 0.115 0.137 1.15 0.534 Using the simpler model (Model 2), it was found that the odds of getting a dwarf plant, if the number of branches wa s three or fewer, was 1.6% of the odds of getting a dwarf plant when the number of branches was greater than five, with a 95% confidence of 0.5% to 4.9%. Fu rthermore, the odds of a dwarf plant with four or five branches was 10% the odds of a dwarf plant with more than five branches (95% CI 3.5% to 28.5%). T he odds of getting a dwarf with three or fewer branches was 16% the odds of havi ng a dwarf with four or five branches. Finally, a plant was 66.5 times (95% CI 28. 2 to 157.1) more likely to be a dwarf if its height was less than 16 cm than if its height was more than 16 cm. Table 6 shows that the probability that a plant is dwarf increased as branch count increased for a given length category, whereas t he estimated probability of

PAGE 37

27 dwarf types decreased when plant height was taller than sixtee n centimeters for a given branch category. During the analysis of this model it was realized that the odds of a dwarf with fewer than three branches was 1.6% t he odds of a dwarf with more than five branches. This number seemed rather sm all. The odds of getting a dwarf with four and five branches was only 10% the odds of getting dwarfs with more than five branches. It was hypothesized that a simpler model would fit, using only two categories for branches – those with more than five branches and those with five or fewer branches. This model was labele d Model 3. However, Model 3 fit the data poorly. The deviance of this model was 20.13 with only three degrees of freedom and various large residuals, which illu strates the poor fit of this model to the data. Going back to the second model, the re siduals were studied. There were three observations with large residuals, which may have had an effect on the original model. As seen in Table 7 and Table 8, after removing these outliers, the model was again fitted – one with inte raction terms (Model 4) and one without interaction terms (Model 5). The observa tions with the large residuals were two relatively tall plants that had very few branches, which had been classified as dwarfs. From the previous analysis of these data, observations like that seemed very unlikely. Thus, these strong outliers may have shifted the model. The third outlier was an observation of a plant that had classified as normal but was short and had numerous branches. After fitting th e data to the remaining observations it was again found through the likelihood-ratio test that the interacting terms were

PAGE 38

28 insignificant and could be dropped from the model ( G2 of model without interacting terms = 173.30; G2 of model with interacti ng terms =169.01, thus the difference = 4.29 with 2 degrees of freedom and a P> X2 2= 0.117). The deviance of Model 5, the model t hat deleted the three outliers and did not include of interactions, was equal to 173.30 with 366 degrees of freedom, and the model was declared to be a good fit for the data. Using Model 5, the odds of getting a dwarf with three or fewer branches was 0.74% the odds of getting a dwarf wit h more than five branches (95% CI: 0.2%, 2.8%). The probability of getting a dwarf with four or five branches was 6.8% the odds of getting a dwarf with mo re than five branches (95% CI: 6.0%, 7.6%). The odds of getting a dwarf with three or fewer branches were 10.9% the odds of getting a dwarf with four or five branches, similar to the results from Model 2. Table 7. Model 4 and Model 5 equations with logit, odds of dwarf and probability of dwarf, for Model 5 only. MODEL 4: Logit P(Y=dwarf) = 0.1054 – 28.4709 [b3] – 2.2454 [4b5] + 28.2597 [l16]+0.3106[b3]* [l16] 24.1048[4b5]*[l16] MODEL 5: Logit P (Y=dwarf) = 0.266 – 4.911 [b3] – 2.69 [4b5] + 4. 81 [l16] Logit (Y=dwarf) Odds of dwarf Probability of dwarf Branches (b) 34b5 Branches (b) > 5 Length (l) 16 0.125 1.133 0.531 2.346 10.444 0.913 5.036 153.853 0.994 Length (l) > 16 -4.685 0.009 0.009 -2.464 0.085 0.078 0.226 1.254 0.556 The odds of getting a dwarf with shoot length equal to or less than sixteen centimeters was 122.73 times the odds of getting a dwarf with shoot length

PAGE 39

29 greater than sixteen centim eters (95% CI: 42.68, 353. 2). For both predictors, removing the outliers gave stronger evi dence that the hi gher the number of branches and the shorter t he plants, the higher the probability of a dwarf phenotype, supporting the field observation that dwarf plants are short and with a higher than normal number of sprouts. This model has an outcome similar to that of Model 2, but Model 5 showed slightly stronger evidence for what has been observed in the field. Both models had high deviances, showing both are good fits for the data. However, Model 5 has a slightly stronger deviance, as such ; the p-value for the intercept of the model is smaller than in Model 2. Thus, Model 5 is a slightly better fit for this data. More importantly, there are no significant residuals when Model 5 is applied to the data, omitting the three outliers. Therefor e the best fit for the data is Model 5. Table 8. Results of fitting five logi stic regression models to the dwarf data Model Deviance ( G2) DF P> X2 Fit of model Models compared Difference P> X2 1 199.89 367 1 2 199.93 369 1 (2) (1) 0.04 ( df =2) 0.980 3 20.13 3 0.0002* 4 169.01 364 1 5 173.30 366 1 (5) (4) 4.29 ( df =2) 0.117 Not a good fit for the model It has been shown through categorical analysis that length of the longest shoot and number of branches, when us ed together, are good predictors of dwarfs in blueberry plants. More specif ically, analysis of the data has shown that a plant with more than five branches w hose longest shoot is less than sixteen centimeters long has a 99.4 % probabilit y of being dwarf. Conversely, the

PAGE 40

30 probability of having a dwarf plant with fe wer than three branc hes and measuring more than sixteen cent imeters is 0.9%. These results are supported by previ ous observations suggesting that low or lack of apical dominance, which c auses high branching, is associated with dwarfness in Rubus sturdy dwarf (Keep, 1969) and in highbush blueberry, Vaccinium corymbosum (Draper et al., 1984). Inheritance Studies In the fall of 2002, 2003 and 2004, the hi gh density plots of the blueberry breeding program at the Univ ersity of Florida’s Plant Science Research and Education Unit, in Citra, Florida, were studied for dwarf plants. Each of these three plots consisted of seedlings from about 150 crosses, with 90 seedlings per cross. The parents for each plant consisted of about 200 different southern highbush cultivars and advanced selections and the parents differed for each plot. The parents were all highly heterozygous, and the seedling populations were segregat ing for many characteristics. Twenty-five crosses that were segr egating dwarfs were identified, and segregation ratios were determined for each cross. Each progeny population was examined for fit to a 3:1 and 11:1 normal:dwarf segregation ratio. The rationale for testing these parti cular ratios is given belo w. The dwarf-segregating populations studied could be classified into two groups. The first seven crosses in Table 9 fit an inheritance ratio of 3:1 fair ly well. The last 18 fit a ratio of 11:1.

PAGE 41

31 Table 9. Segregation ratios and chi-square tests for normal to dwarf ratios (3:1 and 11:1) for dwarf-segregating normal stature phenotype crosses from the 2002, 2003 and 2004 high density plots. 3:1y 11:1z Pedigree Nursery Year Normal (N) Dwarf (D) N/D X2 1 P value X2 1 P value 01-21 x 96-32 2002 47 20 2.4 0.84 0.359 40.61 0.000 01-20 x Nui 2002 70 18 3.9 0.97 0.325 16.93 0.000 00-43 x S.Belle 2002 67 17 3.9 1.02 0.314 15.58 0.000 Windsor x 98-336 2002 68 14 4.9 2.75 0.097 8.20 0.004 02-38 x 98-325 2003 73 23 3.2 0.06 0.814 30.68 0.000 98-405 x 95-115 2003 74 22 3.4 0.22 0.637 26.73 0.000 NC 2925 x 03-124 2004 69 20 3.5 0.30 0.582 23.29 0.000 97-130 x 93-204 2002 87 8 10.9 13.93 0.000 0.00 0.975 97-61 x 99-220 2002 73 7 10.4 11.27 0.001 0.02 0.893 98-18 x 97-390 2002 80 8 10.0 11.88 0.001 0.07 0.797 01-64 x 97-142 2002 64 5 12.8 11.60 0.001 0.11 0.744 02-20 x 00-61 2003 87 9 9.7 12.50 0.000 0.14 0.712 01-129 x 97-41 2003 84 12 7.0 8.00 0.005 2.18 0.140 02-69 x 00-14 2003 92 4 23.0 22.22 0.000 2.18 0.140 03-47 x S.Belle 2004 74 7 10.6 11.56 0.001 0.01 0.920 03-61 x 90-4 2004 80 8 10.0 11.88 0.001 0.07 0.797 03-01 x S.Belle 2004 69 7 9.9 10.11 0.001 0.08 0.782 03-12 x Emerald 2004 76 8 9.5 10.73 0.001 0.16 0.693 98-406 x Jewel 2004 75 9 8.3 9.14 0.002 0.62 0.430 03-50 x 03-126 2004 85 5 17.0 18.15 0.000 0.91 0.340 02-86 x Sapphire 2004 79 11 7.2 7.84 0.005 1.78 0.182 Sapphire x 95-209-B 2004 69 10 6.9 6.42 0.011 1.93 0.164 Jewel x 02-22 2004 60 9 6.7 5.26 0.022 2.00 0.157 S.Belle x 00-206 2004 85 3 28.3 21.88 0.000 2.79 0.095 03-103 x Santa Fe 2004 83 13 6.4 6.72 0.010 3.41 0.065 y AAaa x AAaa and the reciprocal cross z AAaa x AAAa and the reciprocal cross The dwarf phenotype seems to be a recessive trait with monogenic inheritance. Since crosses between two no rmal plants segregated dwarf plants, the dwarf genotype cannot include the tr iplex form (AAAa) because this would imply that one of the parents was a dwarf which was not the case. This limits the possibilities of dwarfs segregating from normal plants to the duplex (AAaa) and simplex (Aaaa) forms, because the nullipl ex (aaaa) form cannot occur in the

PAGE 42

32 progeny of a triplex parent that show s chromosome segregation preferentially over random chromatid and maximum equational segregations. If the duplex genotype is dwarf, then the only combination of normalstatured parents that would segregate dwarfs would be that of crossing two triplex (AAAa). This would produce t he duplex genotype of a dwarf with a 0.25 frequency, giving a 3:1 normal to dwarf rati o (Table 10). The fact that 18 crosses did not follow a 3:1 frequency implies that the duplex genotype has a normal instead of dwarf phenotype. Since duplex plants have no rmal stature, the nulliplex form is possible for a dwarf segregating from a cross between two normal plants. The genotypic combinations of normal phenotypes that could produce dwarfs are as follows: AAAa x AAaa, AAaa x AAaa and t he reciprocal crosses. Dwarfs produced by crossing a triplex with a duplex will be simplex and would be expected in a ratio of 11:1 norma l to dwarf phenotyp e. A duplex times another duplex can produce dwarfs in a 3: 1 ratio, the possible genotypes for dwarf being the simplex and nulliplex at frequencies of 0. 22 (8/36) and 0.03 (1/36) respectively (Table 10). To further test this hypothesis, tw o dwarf plants (00-266 and 00-08) were self-pollinated, intercrossed with two ot her dwarf selections (03-105 and 03-112) and backcrossed to normal types ‘Emerald’, ‘Jewel’ and 01-21 (Table 11 and Table 12). See Table 14 for a cross table of all the controll ed crosses evaluated in this study.

PAGE 43

33 The two dwarfs that were selfpollinated (00-266 and 00 -08) segregated some normal type plants, indicating that t hey are not nulliplex and are probably simplex (Aaaa) for the normal allele. T he 1:3 normal to dwarf segregation did not fit very well when the two clones were self pollinated, so the possibility that the nulliplex is lethal was tested. For this case a 1:2 segregation ratio was expected, and both 00-266 and 00-08 had low chi-square values for this ratio, 0.09 and 0.01 respectively, with very high probabilities (Table 11). Table 10. Tetrasomic inheritance frequencies following chromosomal segregation. In italics, normal to dwarf segregation ratios when dwarf is either a simplex or nulliplex. In parenthesis, normal to dwarf segregation ratios when the nulliplex is lethal. AAAA x aaaaAAAa x aaaaAAaa x aaaaAaaa x aaaa AAaa1AAaa 1/2AAaa 1/6Aaaa 1/2 Aaaa 1/2Aaaa 4/6aaaa 1/2 aaaa 1/6 All normal 1:1 1:5 (1:4)All dwarfs AAAA x AaaaAAAa x AaaaAAaa x AaaaAaaa x Aaaa AAAa 1/2AAAa 1/4AAAa 1/12AAaa 1/4 AAaa 1/2AAaa 1/2AAaa 5/12Aaaa 2/4 Aaaa 1/4Aaaa 5/12aaaa 1/4 aaaa 1/12 All normal 3:1 1:1 (6:5) 1:3 (1:2) AAAA x AAaaAAAa x AAaaAAaa x AAaa AAAA 1/6AAAA 1/12AAAA 1/36 AAAa 4/6AAAa 5/12AAAa 8/36 AAaa 1/6AAaa 5/12AAaa 18/36 Aaaa 1/12Aaaa 8/36 aaaa 1/36 All normal 11:1 3:1 (27:8) AAAA x AAAaAAAa x AAAa AAAA 1/2AAAA 1/4 AAAa 1/2AAAa 2/4 AAaa 1/4 All normalAll normal

PAGE 44

34 The other two dwarfs studied (0 3-105 and 03-112) also appeared to be simplex because they segr egated normal types when crossed with the putative simplex 00-266 and 00-08. Nevertheless, nei ther of these dwar f to dwarf crosses followed the expected ratios 1:3 or 1: 2 (Table 11). 03-105, when crossed with 00-266 and 00-08, produced 29% and 40% of the expected number of dwarf plants expected for a 1:3 segregation ratio. 03-112 also segregated more normal plants than expected. For each of these three cases, the chi-square statistics clearly indicate that they fit neither a 1:3 ratio nor a 1:2. Table 11. Segregation ratios and chi-square test for nor mal to dwarf ratios in dwarf x dwarf controlled crosses. 1:3y 1:2z Pedigree Normal (N) Dwarf (D) N/D X2 1 P. value X2 1 P. value 00-266 00-266 30 56 0.544.480.034 0.09 0.760 00-08 00-08 32 63 0.513.820.051 0.01 0.942 00-08 03-105 43 51 0.8473.80.000 38.00 0.000 00-266 03-105 50 43 1.1638.00.000 15.70 0.000 03-112 00-08 42 48 0.8822.50.000 7.20 0.007 00-266 00-08 40 54 0.7418.00.000 4.69 0.030 y Aaaa x Aaaa z Aaaa x Aaaa when the nulliplex is lethal The cross between putative simp lex plants 00-266 and 00-08 also segregated more than the ex pected number of normal plant s for a 1:3 ratio (three times the expected count for normal phenoty pes). The ratio of normal to dwarf did not fit a 1:2 ratio, with X2 1 = 4.69 and a probability of 0.030, so the genotypes of these selections is undetermined. The crosses between dwarf and normal pl ants gave ratios that could be more easily explained than the crosses described above. As seen in Table 12, for the crosses of dwarf x normal, a ll but one cross, 01-21 x 03-112, gave seedlings that fit a 3:1 ratio, which was the expected for a simplex times a triplex

PAGE 45

35 (01-21 was a putative duplex based on the high-density plot ratios, see Table 9). 01-21 x 03-112, was expected to have more dwarfs (i.e. 50% of the total population) than the 39% observed. The chi-square test indicated that the segregation ratio in this cross was a poor fit to a 1:1 segregation (P= 0.025). Possibly, as was speculated before, the nullip lex form is lethal. In this case the expected segregation would be 6:5. The chi-square test for a 6:5 segregation supports this speculation ( X2 1= 1.85) with P=0.174. The c ontradiction is that 00266 x 01-21 (a putative simplex times a putat ive duplex) fit a 3:1 ratio and not the expected 6:5 if indeed the nulliplex is lethal or a 1:1 otherwise. Table 12. Segregation ratios and chi-square test for nor mal to dwarf ratios in dwarf x normal controlled crosses. 3:1x 1:1y Pedigree Normal (N) Dwarf (D) N/D X2 1 P. value X2 1 P. value 00-266 (D) 01-21 (N) 63 24 2.630.310.577 17.500.000 01-21 (N) 03-112 (D) 59 37 1.599.390.002 5.04 0.025 Jewel (N) 00-266 (D) 75 19 3.951.150.284 33.400.000 00-266 (D) Emerald (N) 72 19 3.790.820.364 30.900.000 00-08 (D) Emerald (N) 78 18 4.332.000.157 37.500.000 x Aaaa x AAAa y Aaaa x AAaa Table 13. Segregation ratios and chi-square test for nor mal to dwarf ratios in normal x normal controlled crosses. 3:1x 11:1y Pedigree Normal (N) Dwarf (D) N/D X2 1 P. value X2 1 P. value 03-120 S. Belle 90 6 15.00 18.000.000 0.55 0.460 03-54 Santa Fe 90 5 18.00 19.700.000 1.17 0.279 03-73 Jewel 86 10 8.60 10.900.001 0.55 0.460 Emerald Sapphire 83 12 6. 92 7.75 0.005 2.30 0.130 x AAaa x AAaa y AAAa x AAaa In the normal x normal crosses (see Table 13), some dwarfs were observed. Since the genotype of ‘Jewel’ and ‘Emerald’ is triplex, the genotype of

PAGE 46

36 the plants crossed with them can be determined. In t he case of 03-73 crossed with the triplex ‘Jew el’, the progeny fit an 11:1 rati o, indicating that 03-73 is duplex. ‘Sapphire’ is also duplex because it also fits an 11:1 ratio when crossed with Emerald. The cross 03-120 x ‘Southern Belle’ also followed an 11:1 ratio, ‘Southern Belle’ be ing the duplex and 03120 the triplex. Table 14. Cross table of all the contro lled crosses per genotype evaluated in this study. Male Female Aaaa AAaa AAAa AA_ Aaaa 00-266 x 00-266 00-08 x 00-08 00-08 x 03-105 00-266 x 03-105 03-112 x 00-08 00-266 x 00-08 00-266 x 01-21 00-266 x Emerald 00-08 x Emerald AAaa 01-21 x 03-112 03-73 x Jewel AAAa Jewel x 00-266 Emerald x Sapphire 03-120 x S.Belle AA_ 03-54 x Santa Fe The results found have a few contradicti ons, in that some of the crosses among the putative simplex dwarfs did not follow the expected ratio (Table 11), and the dwarf x normal cross 00-266 x 01-21 did not follow the expected 6:5 ratio (Table 12). For the cross 01-21 with t he dwarf 03-112, the expected 6:5 ratio was obtained. It appears that the nulliplex is indeed let hal, but this could not be definitively proved because of the aforem entioned contradictions. It also appears likely that the duplex form has a normal phenotype; the dwarf phenotypes observed are simplex.

PAGE 47

37 Draper et al. (1984) and Garvey and Ly rene (1987) mentioned in their work that the inheritance of dwarfism was complex, and t hey attributed its complexity to multiple genes. The analysis of the dat a presented in this research suggests a simpler inheritance. For most of t he cases it supports monogenic inheritance with tetrasomic segregation. The few contradictions are probably due to heterozygosity at other loci, and to the fa ct that the blueberry germplasm studied was the product of several interspecif ic crosses that involved lowbush blueberries, V. darrowi (the most likely source for the dwarf genes). The possibility of aneuploidy as a cause fo r dwarfness has been mentioned in the literature, but in the case of the controlled crosses involving the dwarfs: 00-08, 00-266, 03-112 and 03-105, t he fertility was normal, suggesting euploidy.

PAGE 48

38 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Internode length, leaf area and plant hei ght were significantly different between dwarf and normal plants. T he average internode length of normal plants was 1.7 times longer than that of dw arf plants. Leaf area was smaller for dwarfs when compared to normal (37.6% the area of a normal plant). When seedlings were three years old, the hei ght of normal plants was 2.5 times taller than the height of dwarf plants. Dwarf plants were characterized by their high number of branches and low stature. The probability of a dwarf plant from a six month old population is 99.4% for plants with more than 5 branches and height less than 16 cm. Conversely, the probability of a dwarf plant is 0.9% for plants with fewer than three branches and height exceeding 16 cm. The fertility of the dwarf plants studied in controlled crosses (clones 00-266, 00-08, 03-112 and 03-105) was normal, indi cating that aneuploidy was not the reason for the dwarf phenotype. The genotype of the dwarf plants appear s to be simplex (Aaaa), with the nulliplex genotype being lethal. Norma l plants that segregated dwarfs when crossed are either triplex (AAAa) or dupl ex (AAaa). Triplex crossed to duplex and the reciprocal give 11:1 normal to dw arf ratio. Duplex crossed to duplex gives a 27:8 normal to dwarf ratio.

PAGE 49

39 APPENDIX CATEGORICAL DATA ANALYSIS Categorical data is a type of data that is measured on a scale that consists of a set of categories (i.e. small, medium or large si ze of clothing; dwarf or normal height) where only one cat egory applies to each subject. There could be nominal and ordinal ca tegorical variables. Nominal variables refer to those variables that have unordered scales like race (black, white, hispanic, other) and party affiliation (republican, democrat, independent, other), where the order of listing the cat egories is irrelevant. Ordinal variables refer to those variables that have order like size of clothing (small, medium, large) and height (short, intermediate and ta ll), and the statistical analysis should depend on that order. Further, statistical methods desig ned for ordinal variables cannot be used for nominal variables, w hereas statistical methods for nominal variables can be used for ordinal variables but the information about the order is not used, resulting in the loss of power of the test. Chi-square Test In any breeding program, especially after crosses have been made, the understanding of the genetic inhe ritance of particular characters is important and in some cases necessary to the success of the program. Inheritance ratios as between dwarf and normal plants can be tested for an inheritance hypothesis by chi-square ( X2) statistics as proposed by Karl Pearson

PAGE 50

40 in 1900. The object of this test is to see if the observed ratios correspond to the expected or hypothesized ones (Watts, 1980). In a multinomial experiment in wh ich each trial can result in one of k outcomes, the expected num ber of outcomes of type i in n trials is n i where i is the probability that a single trial results in outcome i (Ott and Longnecker, 2001). As proposed by Karl Pearson in 1900, the following test statistic can be used to test the specified probabilities: X2= [( ni – Ei)2/ Ei ], where ni represents the number of trials resulting in outcome i and Ei represents the num ber of trials expected to result in outcome i when the hypothesized probabilities represent the actual probabilities assigned to each outcome (Ott and Longnecker, 2001). If the hypothesized probabilities are co rrect, the observed cell counts ni should not deviate greatly fr om the expected cell count Ei, and the computed value of X2 should be small. Conversely, when one or more of the hypothesized cell probabilities are incorrect, X2 should be large. The distribution of the X2 value can be approximated by a chi-square distribution provided that the expected cell counts Ei are fairly large. Cochran (1954) indicates that the approx imation should be adequate if no Ei is less than 1, and at least 80% of all the Eis are greater than five. Ideally all Eis should be greater than 5. The chi-square goodnessof-fit test based on k specified cell probabilities will have k -1 degrees of freedom ( df ). For inheritance studies lexica, df equals the number of observed cat egories minus one, and the fo rmula for calculating the chi-square value is: X2= [(observed ratio – expected)2/ expected]

PAGE 51

41 Logistic Regression Analysis a summary of Agresti’s book on categorical data analysis (1996). Logistic regression models are a type of General Linear Model (GLM) used to analyze categorical data when the re sponse variable has only two categories (binary response). Thus, its distribution is specified by probabilities of success P(Y=1) and of failure P(Y=0) with binomial distribution. Because the relation between the probability of success and the observations are usually nonlinear, logistic models are better than linear models. For instance, a fixed change in independ ent variable X may have less impact when the probability of success is near 0 or 1 than when it is near the middle; a good example would be the probability of doubling the yield when adding x amount of fertilizer in different fertilitytype soils (rich, medium poor). The rich soils will have a very low probability, close to zero, because the nutrients available in the soil might be already ma ximizing the yield potential, thus the fertilizer is not necessary. The poor soils will have high probabilities, close to one, because the fertilizer amendment will significantly improve the nutrients available for sustaining double the yield. The steeper change will occur in soils of medium fertility (the transition between non-likely to respond and always responding) because their response is more variable, less uniform with some observations that will double the yield and some that will not. Overall, if the data are plotted with the fertilitytype soil categories (rich, medium, poor) on the x-axis, and the probability of success on the y-ax is, the curve will have an “S” shape.

PAGE 52

42 The most important f unction having this S-shaped curve has the model form: log [P(Y=1)/P(Y=0)] = + x where [P(Y=1)/P(Y=0)] is the odds of the response. In this study, t he odds of a plant being dwarf. This function is called the logistic regression function. The random component for the determination of success or failure is binomial. The link function is the logit transformation log [P(Y=1)/P(Y=0)], symbolized by logit P(Y=1). The logit is the natural param eter of the binomia l distribution, and because of this it is a canonical link. To determine if a model is fitting the data set well, goodnessof-fit statistics and residual analysis are useful. When t he fitted values are relatively large (exceeding 5) and the number of settings (categories) is fixed, Pearson ( X2) and likelihood-ratio ( G2) goodness-of-fit statistics hav e approximate chi-squared distributions, and the df equals the number of response counts minus the number of model parameters. The deviance is the likelihood-ratio statistic for comparing model M to the saturated model; it is the st atistic for testing the hypot hesis that all parameters that are in the saturated model but not in model M equal zero. For the logit transformation it has the same form as the G2 likelihood-ratio goodness-of fit statistic for model M For two models, where M0 is a special case of M1, given that the more complex model holds, the lik elihood-ratio statistic for testing that the simpler model holds is: Deviance0 – Deviance1. For larger samples, this is approximately a chi-squared statistic, with df equal to the difference between the residual df

PAGE 53

43 values for the separate models. This te st works well for comparing two models, even when the overall goodness-of-fit test is poor for each model. In multiple logistic regressions, the si gnificance of a predictor can be tested by the difference in deviance of the model with the predictor and a simpler model without the predictor, this way the effect of predictors and their interactions can be tested to determine if they are significant or if they shouldn’t be in the model. A backward elimination consists in test ing different models by the previous method, starting from the most comple x model with all the interactions and moving backward to the simplest model possible. Once the simplest model has been det ermined, various interpretations can be obtained from it. The odds and probabilities are very useful to study and analyze the data; also confidence interv als (CI) for the odds, and comparisons among the odds of the two cat egories, i.e. the odds of a dwarf plant vs. the odds of a normal plant, can show trends and enhance the study of the data. For detailed information on how to interpret logistic regressions the book on categorical data from Agre sti (1996) is recommended.

PAGE 54

44 LITERATURE CITED Agresti, A. 1996. Categorical data analysis. Wiley. New York, USA. Atkinson, C., Else, M. 2001. Understandi ng how rootstocks dwar f fruit trees. The compact fruit tree 34 #2: 46-49. Berhow, M.A. 2000. Effects of early pl ant growth regulator treatments on flavonoid levels in grapefruit. Plant Growth Regulation 30: 225-232. Bindloss, E. 1942. A developmental analysis of cell length as related to stem length. Am. J. Bot. 29:179-188. Borner, A., Korzun, V., Malyshev, S., Ivandic, V., Graner, A. 1999. Molecular mapping of two dwarfing genes differing in their GA response on chromosome 2H of barley. T heor. Appl. Genet. 99: 670-675. Brightwell, W.T. 1971. Rabbi teye blueberries. Ga. Agri c. Exp. Sta. Bul. 100. Clayton, H.G. 1925. Florida making a good begi nning with blueberri es. Proc. Fla. State Hort. So c. 38: 200-201. Cochran, W. 1954. Some methods for strengthening the common X2 test. Biometrics 10: 417-451. Coville, F.V. 1937. Improvi ng the wild blueberry. USDA Yearbook of Agriculture 1937: 559-574. Curtis, I.S., Ward, D.A., T homas, S.G., Phillips, A.L., Davey, M.R., Power, J.B., Lowe, K.C., Croker, S.J., Lewis, M.J. Magness, S.L. 2000. Induction of dwarfism in transgenic Solanum dulc amara by over expression of a gibberellin 20 oxidase cDNA from pumpkin. The Plant Journal: For Cell and Molecular Biology 23: 329-338. Darrow, G.M., 1949. Polyploidy in fruit improvement. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 54: 523–532. Draper, A.D., Chandler, C.K., Galletta G.J. 1984. Dwarfed plants in some blueberry (Vaccinium) seedling popul ations. Acta Hort. 146: 63-68. Draper, A.D., Hancock, J. 2003. Florida 4B: Native blueberry with exceptional breeding value. J. Am. Pom. Soc. 57(4): 138-141.

PAGE 55

45 Edin, M., Garcin, A., Lichou, J., Jourdain, J.M. 1996. Influence of dwarfing cherry rootstocks on fruit production. Acta Hort. 410: 239-246. Fideghelli, C., Sartori, A., Gr assi, F. 2003. Fruit tree size architecture. Acta Hort. 622: 279-293. Franken-Bembenek, S. 1996. Cherry hybrid rootstocks developed at giessen: new experiences and evaluation. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 410: 377-384. Gale, M.D., Youssefian, S. 1985. Dwarfing genes in wheat. In: Progress in Plant Breeding, Ed. by Russell G.E., Butterworths, London, p: 1-35. Galletta, G.J. 1975. Blueberries and Cranberries. In: J. Janick and J.N. Moore (eds.). Advances in Fruit Breeding. Purdue Univ. Press, West Lafayette, Indiana. Pp 154-196. Garvey, E.J. 1985. Dwarfism, self-incom patibility, and female sterility in Vaccinium ashei (Reade). PhD Diss. University of Florida. Garvey, E.J., Lyrene, P.M. 1987. Inher itance of compact growth habit in rabbiteye blueberry. J. Am. So c. Hort. Sci. 112: 1004-1008. Goldman, I.L., Watson, J.F. 1997. Inheritance and phenocopy of a red beet gibberellic acid deficient dwarf mutant. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 122: 315-318. Hansche, P.E., Beres, W., Darnell, R. 1986. Yield potential of peach trees dwarfed by the dw gene. Hortscience 21:1452-1453. Hedden, P. 2003. The genes of the Green Revolution. Trends in Genetics 19: 59. James, C.B. 1924. Blueberries in Northwest Florida. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 37: 160-169. Jennings, D.L. 1967. Balanced lethals and polymorphism in Rubus idaeus Heredity 2: 465-479. Johnson, W.C., Aldwinckle, H.S., Cummins, J.N., Forsline, P.L., Holleran, H.T., Norelli, J.L., Robinson, T.L. 2001. T he new usda-ars/cornell university apple rootstock breeding and eval uation program. Acta Hor t. (ISHS) 557: 35-40. Keep, E. 1969. Dwarfing in the raspberry Rubus idaeus L. Euphytica 18:256-276. Khurshid, T., McNeil, D.L., Trought, M.C.T. 1997. Effect of foliar-applied gibberellins and soil-appli ed paclobutrazol on reproductive and vegetative growth of 'Braeburn' apple trees gro wing under a high-density planting system. N. Z. J. Crop. Hort. Sci. 25: 49-58.

PAGE 56

46 Knight, R.J., Scott D.H. 1964. Effect s of temperatures on selfand crosspollination and fruiting of four highbush blueberry varieties. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 85:302-306. Ladizinsky, G. 1997. Dwarfing genes in t he genus Lens Mill. Theor. Appl. Genet. 95: 1270-1273. Lapins, K.O., Watkins, R. 1973. Geneti cs of compact growth habit. Rep. E. Malling Res. Stn. for 1972: 136. Li, J., Chory, J. 1999. Brassinosteroid acti ons in plants. J. Exp. Bot. 50: 275-282. Little, C.H.A., MacDonald, J.E. 2003. Effe cts of exogenous gibberellin and auxin on shoot elongation and vegetative bud dev elopment in seedlings of Pinus sylvestris and Picea glauca. Tree Physiol. 23: 73-83. Lyrene, P.M., Sherman, W.B. 1977. Breeding blueberries for Florida: accomplishments and goals. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 90: 215-217. Lyrene, P.M., Sherman, W.B. 1979. The rabbiteye blueberry industry in Florida – 1887 to 1930 – with notes on the current status of abandoned plantations. Econ. Bot. 33: 237-243. Lyrene, P.M., Sherman, W.B. 1983. Mito tic instability and 2n gamete production in Vaccinium corymbosum x V. elliottii hybrids. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 108: 339-342. Lyrene, P.M., Sherman, W.B. 1984. Breeding early-ripening blueberries for Florida. Proc. Fla. Stat e Hort. Soc. 97: 322-325. Lyrene, P.M., Sherman, W. B. 1985. Breeding blueberry cu ltivars for the central Florida Peninsula. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 98: 158-162. Lyrene, P.M., Vorsa, N., Ballington, J.R. 2003. Polyploidy and sexual polyploidization in the genus Vaccinium Euphytica 133: 27-36. Mackenzie-Hose, A.K., Sherriff, L.J., Ross, J.J., Reid, J.B. 1998. Internode length in Pisum. The lrs mutation reduces gibberellin response and levels. Physiol. Plantarum 103: 485-490. Moore, J. N. 1966. Breeding. In: P. Eck and N. Childers ( eds.). Blueberry culture. Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA. Mowry, H., Camp, A. F. 1928. Blueberry cult ure in Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 194. Ott, R.L., Longnecker, M. 2001. An introduc tion to statistical methods and data analysis. Duxbury, Thomson learning. Pacific Grove, California, USA.

PAGE 57

47 Ross, J.J., Murfet, I.C., Re id, J.B. 1997. Gibberellin mut ants. Physiol. Plantarum 100: 550-560. Sachs, T., Thimann, K.V. 1967. The role of auxins and cytokinins in the release of buds from dominance. Am. J. Bot. 54:136-144. Schaller, H. 2003. The role of sterols in plant growth and development. Prog. Lipid Res. 42: 163-175. Sharpe, R.H. 1954. Horticultural developm ent of Florida blueberries. Proc. Fla. State Hort. So c. 66: 188-190. Sharpe, R.H., Darrow, G.M. 1959. Breeding blueberries for the Florida climate. Proc. Fla. State Ho rt. Soc. 72:308-311. Sharpe, R.H., Sherman, W.B. 1971. Breeding blueberries for low chilling requirement. Hortscience 6: 145-147. Sommer, H.E., Wetzstein, H. Y., Brown, C.L. 1999. Shoot growth and histological response of dwarf sweetgum to gibberelli n. Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology 74: 618-621. Wareing, P.F., Phillips, I.D. 1978. The control of growth and differentiation in plants. 2nd ed. Pergamon Press, New York. Watts, L. 1980. Flower & vegetable pl ant breeding. Grower Books, London, England. Yang, T., Davies, P.J., Reid, J.B. 1996. Genetic dissection of the relative roles of auxin and gibberellin in t he regulation of stem el ongation in intact lightgrown peas. Plant Physiol. 110: 1029-1034. Yang, T., Law, D.M., Davies, P.J. 1993. Magnitude and kinetics of stem elongation induced by exogeno us indole-3-acetic acid in intact light-grown pea seedlings. Plant Physiol. 102: 717-724. Yin, Y., Cheong, H., Friedrichsen, D., Zhao, Y., Hu, J., Mora-Garci a, S., Chory, J. 2002. A crucial role for the putative Ar abidopsis topoisomerase VI in plant growth and development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99: 10191-10196.

PAGE 58

48 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH David Humberto Baquerizo, born in Guayaquil, Ecuador, in 1978, is the oldest son of Tito and Meche Baquerizo – the parents of six children. From a young age he was delighted by nature. His grandparents “M aruja” and Angel Zambrano, a humble couple from the sm all town of Manta with a love for agriculture and farm-life, taught him to appreciate simple rural living. David learned to see natur e as a sign of God’s love towards men as he was taught by the Salesians and Jesuits at the schools he attended. This inspired David to venture into studying horticulture. In 1996 he finished high school at Colegio Javier and moved to Costa Rica to study agriculture at Escuela de Ag ricultura de la Regin Tropical Hmeda (EARTH College) located in the heart of the humid tropi cs, in Limon province. He graduated with honors in December 1999 after four years of living among howler monkeys and eating “gallo pinto.” He returned to Ecuador with his wife Karen and newborn son David Manuel. In August 2000, the Baquerizo family em igrated to the US in search of economic stability, because Ecuador was in the middle of a depression. David worked in South Florida in a horticult ural related business until August 2002 when he started graduate studies at the University of Florida under the guidance of Dr. Paul Lyrene. No w with four children, the Baquerizo family has become Gator fans and enjoyed living in t he beautiful city of Gainesville.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110320_AAAABI INGEST_TIME 2011-03-20T10:23:49Z PACKAGE UFE0009784_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 8423998 DFID F20110320_AAAQSF ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH baquerizo_d_Page_33.tif GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
d317f130df4c82c17b43d4b458569bd4
SHA-1
a6a6f3ee7c4fb3d28eddf6e95a3d612119a536df
163547 F20110320_AAAQNH baquerizo_d_Page_09.jpg
b88350bcbb4163be94635ed482df8d8d
a143b8cf23bf796cd489dfed0f365117df0e7a83
1598 F20110320_AAAQXC baquerizo_d_Page_49.txt
107c10deec0c28845b2e6abca4b9a991
25c9b79b660ed937963eb5144093a45c60b874d2
25271604 F20110320_AAAQSG baquerizo_d_Page_34.tif
1658621b4dc6e18292fa0b90cf732559
bbefb7d6140eda8c57301c616426ba6adc4ecdd7
120575 F20110320_AAAQNI baquerizo_d_Page_10.jpg
01595426494da8d62f85a23929862274
54b25bd68cbdc9185751def6f83fd35e8075c156
1795 F20110320_AAAQXD baquerizo_d_Page_50.txt
2971024d9ecadb503f1628a4b6ca1efb
20da2a87336c288872d77f19e2c7156fb91b8a98
1053954 F20110320_AAAQSH baquerizo_d_Page_35.tif
2a03fed0e488710956e9c91c11d65d66
320fb76002a3996a76f74fc029cb93d94781560b
202485 F20110320_AAAQNJ baquerizo_d_Page_11.jpg
1c4088e2dc3982945165b4a7d322b844
27e954398dc7f64f737b0379b3e7b52f05a32d29
1754 F20110320_AAAQXE baquerizo_d_Page_51.txt
0f6c5018d34c1376862112982b2418f7
25a16a201d85ac4d35ab02eaccd69e950eaa9452
186052 F20110320_AAAQNK baquerizo_d_Page_12.jpg
158b4e616c12c4204ae3a6e0f91f2755
eb4ae12cef713658e1b83095d0f62181d4d4c2bb
1725 F20110320_AAAQXF baquerizo_d_Page_52.txt
eb13e3dd576dcba9fa25af4c20300c82
bda875085e303526314ce1c6e5cb4620df5fd9ad
F20110320_AAAQSI baquerizo_d_Page_36.tif
829b44e7b29213df074f7f9e2bdd965b
022b2dbab74dce35ab647a509f51cffeb72dcb18
34625 F20110320_AAAQNL baquerizo_d_Page_13.jpg
8ff3a1a858143cb5a3f42c4f8b4a348a
2dddff30e39d92f8e2e24619e727338d44032431
1264 F20110320_AAAQXG baquerizo_d_Page_53.txt
a8a85b7e59271f25741a41889e7549f4
fe0059bd912a6db7e1bc36138469ba82cf73f3c1
F20110320_AAAQSJ baquerizo_d_Page_37.tif
8af8a5d70091e591d12078f58d7624aa
e50b8345e891259d9e6c5353e41c861463f4f136
186999 F20110320_AAAQNM baquerizo_d_Page_14.jpg
0757f0c439c3a53c51ca5c228a5c6410
a8b3d98e6184a1fa3d4b568cd809bd4f7ab49299
1871 F20110320_AAAQXH baquerizo_d_Page_54.txt
b7b1cea3585203b0fcb2767c75b3d97e
ee4d3e971f08e17989ebd8ae0e4ec3500b1e469b
F20110320_AAAQSK baquerizo_d_Page_38.tif
3b88e5e398cc05194c49e377c3b211aa
ef3642b16f9ad4f27e6a6feb3bf66852f187eccc
209522 F20110320_AAAQNN baquerizo_d_Page_15.jpg
bfb2e589b81f5136f5b2341fd872f21e
87b2aaebd000d9a174a9f4b8c31d3286f69826c7
2239 F20110320_AAAQXI baquerizo_d_Page_55.txt
0ea15556e4e68ddb190c7d2fe0e83841
9bf20370d3f4a47ffb208b29b010ecad58c92d46
F20110320_AAAQSL baquerizo_d_Page_39.tif
7572860533cf1bb7d50987f4433f39fc
95f5bfee4100a3c81e86b31a4b0edc119dd540a1
209024 F20110320_AAAQNO baquerizo_d_Page_16.jpg
3bd93a9661447d98ef7eec497c639f50
b8a9378ef6a647429e3f230114afeb37928b3fd2
2275 F20110320_AAAQXJ baquerizo_d_Page_56.txt
86000ddbc464c74e180b5f41fd1ad0f3
6df55eeb83402dffa2070631f595634407189902
F20110320_AAAQSM baquerizo_d_Page_40.tif
92280689288b4b810c6406cd4ee81442
02512330dc41ea05e2333c96cfcf25b9bdd29f5b
217165 F20110320_AAAQNP baquerizo_d_Page_17.jpg
c849ae1a14e8ce80874e182d56c8a140
413aaf2239f83e6b2ff6892b5761959e6a8e51ad
1824 F20110320_AAAQXK baquerizo_d_Page_57.txt
32c230c7680298f0740d9e18b7f614c6
6cd7adac04ce5400f15e5aaf5e3b1c9bca871ace
F20110320_AAAQSN baquerizo_d_Page_41.tif
bab860b85e8b0b5882dd44a9a18b5472
ce7491bf8c5e6424db772def87dd8cdc280d32e3
215914 F20110320_AAAQNQ baquerizo_d_Page_18.jpg
1c25dfe6c943dd861599cd01a7e7541c
a64a4bb4430c30564241a5bd7f147cb53e331f30
1583 F20110320_AAAQXL baquerizo_d_Page_58.txt
38a1ba0f72839bd58fb6276fe3d3cb06
35dea60543a4ee7476598673976bed3a15708013
F20110320_AAAQSO baquerizo_d_Page_42.tif
389ec462bf7799c8e4d06ecec60573c8
a411727ae7aa4b6e32c63b344131cd2bd7080f44
207530 F20110320_AAAQNR baquerizo_d_Page_19.jpg
73bd2a53bb44afea6af644c5e3f00f7b
aa2ca41746b2779dfbf0ed8409a5b02f6c1a360c
7137 F20110320_AAAQXM baquerizo_d_Page_01thm.jpg
5c35d782b564f5b5c98b22278dbc1b64
8c4c8e2522c7d8509f90e38ec73a5ca95509d4ce
F20110320_AAAQSP baquerizo_d_Page_43.tif
70fbf238ae23ab7b257ae7f9b6dc2f48
c64df655ebdfedb5490389c1d3fb5c163bed81cf
29203 F20110320_AAAQNS baquerizo_d_Page_20.jpg
b639f41fca2cfdda60e37c98efcc3eb7
c7209d9beb85c78f231ac2496ba4c1e9f312a83c
F20110320_AAAQSQ baquerizo_d_Page_44.tif
1d106bd4ea2e2032467362b5345a80d4
0c9c8791a3026f8719cb6c2b91e8ec2613a0b37f
168269 F20110320_AAAQNT baquerizo_d_Page_21.jpg
010c13e15544968bd8eca606a0ddd9bd
e5348f485d09a48b3f3ab23ccdf5b90a246c3cde
396685 F20110320_AAAQXN baquerizo_d.pdf
dc67c41b57efa9bf9565a53e5cd6d72c
d6e028b72af305f88136dbeee187c933e8c3e77e
F20110320_AAAQSR baquerizo_d_Page_45.tif
67669c51e968f456bd755ce7bff2ab36
dfc58f475c3864516fc7017c961c1d8e3c80b409
211852 F20110320_AAAQNU baquerizo_d_Page_22.jpg
f923086cebf937bb2b47f61f3be3af3b
1efca93bd0fbb6a6d6bc5479b182aa216c6c492a
75178 F20110320_AAAQXO baquerizo_d_Page_36.QC.jpg
2d3fcae933963c22ca87dfe367e5285f
2df22b9a81e3cc6a8ff47dfe2266f3461d3c33e0
F20110320_AAAQSS baquerizo_d_Page_46.tif
170f78ff287f37624db9f71dc1d86162
d8db91b50c1b7aa1412c3ebffb37e82685a04ab2
189226 F20110320_AAAQNV baquerizo_d_Page_23.jpg
ab317141db7a2da18cc43c2987f4421d
ebe1916ee08975054c5fe948195b8c00937b2101
77959 F20110320_AAAQXP baquerizo_d_Page_34.QC.jpg
c273a2abd2adeb2b3910409f4c3e52a4
e0f89bf9e944d25c7c9c07dd63c49cfa29dc8571
F20110320_AAAQST baquerizo_d_Page_47.tif
a3936a9f738ac3b5aa57a959c9e6679c
c6f27d8d9a6a1abe143e211575ec5e02a41c45d8
221725 F20110320_AAAQNW baquerizo_d_Page_24.jpg
2a6a36d93a1ef39b99ab6223f1a0d7fc
fbb31dda6987ca327683fbaddda98e1f1158c080
22317 F20110320_AAAQXQ baquerizo_d_Page_12thm.jpg
658a6a0584d1907f6aa51cf571b1f5c3
25df6e7e92951479c31ef6d1a492f6246e0ab515
F20110320_AAAQSU baquerizo_d_Page_48.tif
c4c9082c56124c5de8564c05422216e7
2b67de0a8c3c71c3bc661d922a582db70161bf39
220980 F20110320_AAAQNX baquerizo_d_Page_25.jpg
2e28bec4108e9a0b5546105b6a036835
d93eb1968cc94ef237b05a4cae4eb0f74fff404d
119559 F20110320_AAAQXR baquerizo_d_Page_07.QC.jpg
bce4e6a99efec89cd39784ab21126f30
ad78feeced2f9a514d667a7882340c0e54ee563b
F20110320_AAAQSV baquerizo_d_Page_49.tif
7bdea5e01c25697cefbdba3e2a0babdc
2de478f3ee852bf8f75667256ed73073eccad5b6
227077 F20110320_AAAQNY baquerizo_d_Page_26.jpg
3324c1d54b77db6902d6f6eab1ff303f
2be9c60d80ab7bd1555d39bf63dbe44af36c34a3
78827 F20110320_AAAQXS baquerizo_d_Page_45.QC.jpg
674ff866a510dd1026e88c57b59e4d85
87b82d0904ea484caeb1f9c4eb4f506a20ce11bb
F20110320_AAAQSW baquerizo_d_Page_50.tif
5c2bf9ce4c5a3544c359afedebcea7a1
eb77dca447f5cbe12d71cc804d95977f60742d55
62922 F20110320_AAAQNZ baquerizo_d_Page_27.jpg
005fa9f5123834ba02a1a6bd1062f7be
0d9282fe7f9ee65feb7ef51d492369658b6674cf
22859 F20110320_AAAQXT baquerizo_d_Page_11thm.jpg
78afd1f0e39add1f1f800bf45533676c
061fa9341c385d6c0ee743f81f839ce859a75bb4
F20110320_AAAQSX baquerizo_d_Page_51.tif
fa0e5bf857b7c98ae37e26b876dc2ee8
1f747036dfc7a3a2df46977f6ee67cc25a3f30ef
45299 F20110320_AAAQXU baquerizo_d_Page_29thm.jpg
2b49b446d57bc86ee67d466727bc093d
c2533824208b03003e113d058d2c313cd0439e54
F20110320_AAAQSY baquerizo_d_Page_53.tif
3e038ed095acaf02bab77ee43235dce1
a8fa0d3b90530b4f6254634da63d1762755853eb
62731 F20110320_AAAQXV baquerizo_d_Page_21.QC.jpg
ac57bd071e503533bd125bd0b1f5507c
8aa360bedda5ec1a0f544c707b861879fe4422eb
28027 F20110320_AAAQQA baquerizo_d_Page_27.jp2
7ec156d130a13c757bfe77c382c45b0c
8b76df132a1d8f9bb1ca89d26129f4c00d053d02
F20110320_AAAQSZ baquerizo_d_Page_54.tif
98c790a7caa448dcbd3b5330e3a8a2fd
f69cad7617f7a3f88fdd64cc03a8396d858dd240
82982 F20110320_AAAQXW baquerizo_d_Page_44.QC.jpg
d1ef86b0aa8833f5be00c6266c20a49d
fcc7e73bb14d1e47b3f0268f586af11ca20eaa65
1051873 F20110320_AAAQQB baquerizo_d_Page_28.jp2
919d630ad714ae72be9bd9fd818373f3
5da1930a8a784bb9be87600f52f00b420afa3708
77456 F20110320_AAAQXX baquerizo_d_Page_16.QC.jpg
39787bd6267427137c366d77802df73f
d1907ba57b4a52c1350da6843561aa6c2cbe46b3
864880 F20110320_AAAQQC baquerizo_d_Page_29.jp2
226bc6dcf126b481e51e7398d8947392
f85c6e3c77a32aca5b6ad8475f7411f052bb6a55
44161 F20110320_AAAQVA baquerizo_d_Page_51.pro
f6d22d4647a225f8cc1d9fb29dc34b63
32f70ac347a01bff2b4180236ab9563f3a6d9396
44828 F20110320_AAAQXY baquerizo_d_Page_05thm.jpg
2f584cdf3c2e6766b847ca5d3d71b056
5291b5216b671e39241015cb404d490a516e42d9
50774 F20110320_AAAQQD baquerizo_d_Page_30.jp2
c651889ec75898e4932bd0cfe237b651
6353342ad65ef759f1105381843ae4f5401a9496
43225 F20110320_AAAQVB baquerizo_d_Page_52.pro
fa7535d4085620e6c939d1d4896b79e4
47a8e8032658ed7982a57985da71664a69b5039e
11542 F20110320_AAAQXZ baquerizo_d_Page_20.QC.jpg
b51c2e757c5a6e23e8188ba2d39985f8
97294b85b51539dad96e6ad61b0b53577bb812d6
57577 F20110320_AAAQQE baquerizo_d_Page_31.jp2
468107919aa24eee10bcf8181a7b60bf
adf6f990411b8efd2226b908325d40bccc5d5efa
31373 F20110320_AAAQVC baquerizo_d_Page_53.pro
fa1e3fef19ad5ca3b1c03a945be8a7cb
ede925b1e40967dd8a35bc3a97c9d7abafc3937d
564676 F20110320_AAAQQF baquerizo_d_Page_32.jp2
c566b881c93e982372e6996e5f6ebb1a
762c385b6d0b08fe148df2bc9ee6e036ca0cca18
45918 F20110320_AAAQVD baquerizo_d_Page_54.pro
9cf284f65dce7bb4a579770c218b70ec
0033f28111dc9aea6fef299e684051a2607c78e5
55483 F20110320_AAAQVE baquerizo_d_Page_55.pro
56201ac2f33674d93faad64e988e2cd1
5ea1dd7536470fe337f7e58692282e6b597283fc
901763 F20110320_AAAQQG baquerizo_d_Page_33.jp2
e00c8668832776267b1526c82982af40
edbf8462cbac34a5d47727e915d36dd6d8a82c6e
56116 F20110320_AAAQVF baquerizo_d_Page_56.pro
7910441846f3e12eaee071a32eed89bd
6d133f9093f4c4598a08319b6a3f9714078157c2
665392 F20110320_AAAQQH baquerizo_d_Page_34.jp2
4e88c0b000399cc45b4bc7b613f7bc44
f007f49c1493d0c41575fc567af7f4ac1325fcde
44263 F20110320_AAAQVG baquerizo_d_Page_57.pro
e5db5d6699b973faa08f5df974000b4a
23d5fcfe69500abf525923c7c3d74ae249f9a410
81697 F20110320_AAAQQI baquerizo_d_Page_35.jp2
d7111484829b1911f9f916925083d105
5f3b4e7d13ae086ccb3eed53a0e0c5ad14550877
38947 F20110320_AAAQVH baquerizo_d_Page_58.pro
a18867e87ac727d9d12765d911920b77
33fdff8d8355f7de59487058157cd3ea697a97fb
93810 F20110320_AAAQQJ baquerizo_d_Page_36.jp2
ee398bbfb3dff918a720014d5337ff52
92dd9daa3a00f792c4eb13b74b2fbbd940e17b8a
417 F20110320_AAAQVI baquerizo_d_Page_01.txt
fbabf10a6b8c044eaa96545d000202b5
f1c39e379ae951846498020e403e800aee875684
98010 F20110320_AAAQQK baquerizo_d_Page_37.jp2
73259ee52de6f3b0fb751de5484dee3d
cc5ef459d6d898256958b1d2ecdd66228f907b82
103 F20110320_AAAQVJ baquerizo_d_Page_02.txt
14463654d3dc084f74d0fce9c1981a4e
c7dd289832325ae5ae1ee6a43154af49ed225927
92605 F20110320_AAAQQL baquerizo_d_Page_38.jp2
983ddb8c0e8b48d21b18c8b3fa196430
38a1bf61f707b307a5f00fa3adae6d9adeea3d2d
194 F20110320_AAAQVK baquerizo_d_Page_03.txt
c67f8a34674e32339d9f949fffe3cef0
dcd5f09fe2ebd5d1c11e15f4ab2cfe82c24a7dc2
95284 F20110320_AAAQQM baquerizo_d_Page_39.jp2
2b282d47153948bae21055b8d89157dd
9a8f134773131def739ae5fda0a37a881349350e
86855 F20110320_AAAQQN baquerizo_d_Page_40.jp2
5168efadc617b04d2a86cb796b11b3d6
768a25ba304f5586fbde10d54f9fc2e90ceb39ff
565 F20110320_AAAQVL baquerizo_d_Page_04.txt
c850a0976852814418d6bef5aca361fc
54ab809936676f20e2100af2b311d12e1c7cca4c
1051954 F20110320_AAAQQO baquerizo_d_Page_41.jp2
9096ba013f3c49b4cfc2e5c214325bff
9c3deaf2c38f29b439db9ac506424c593c493307
2106 F20110320_AAAQVM baquerizo_d_Page_05.txt
211b02e5605608ec888bcc22056c5989
94ec56d1c8f2d7d39a05de0bdcdaf137f367d21d
935721 F20110320_AAAQQP baquerizo_d_Page_43.jp2
1fc1336feb54cfe832557de16a069bac
d66c618cf7d64a5b17dc78aef3fc09b7c24bb55d
295 F20110320_AAAQVN baquerizo_d_Page_06.txt
ca70cc6dc114af0b4a620ce292947169
6a710fa4582c78c98dea2056828f8614c0b901a1
106526 F20110320_AAAQQQ baquerizo_d_Page_44.jp2
9be3f632e1e2b5c4f42909502c31e612
e599969004b54eb078c1b1e86e6e76baeaa5edda
2130 F20110320_AAAQVO baquerizo_d_Page_07.txt
f81d7e2cb8a42d0990e3425e834acae5
1b1b0552ba93d42440f978425a9d359455d98e42
104405 F20110320_AAAQQR baquerizo_d_Page_45.jp2
5befa66b1945d7345f7c28427afa1229
6132286dd13a8d2c2ec44b241f447320c17e2294
617 F20110320_AAAQVP baquerizo_d_Page_08.txt
65dd87d3bea67ba66b3104b25d0d0fb8
fbfc62a5c687e76e03ca3283e02ee2bf4a7b2d25
82266 F20110320_AAAQQS baquerizo_d_Page_46.jp2
cc5348ab194bba7c58148b93d4ae1587
4ec208c159fe94cb99879556b0ee409d348cfbd2
1484 F20110320_AAAQVQ baquerizo_d_Page_09.txt
8764df4cc89d264343a489dec12817e2
d01a4a938f42e8c5be914a4cce17e867e98ae7a4
51175 F20110320_AAAQQT baquerizo_d_Page_47.jp2
7b28d44f14bef5b1024edc135adb2624
8bd91259dd112c977a942258bc6a94fab7fbd900
942 F20110320_AAAQVR baquerizo_d_Page_10.txt
7b8fb278f0f4051b3ed7805314323389
06229f0333255d744a9a8cd49224ea08d24eaf18
78707 F20110320_AAAQQU baquerizo_d_Page_48.jp2
c741ff94ca23da672c360773824ddeca
20c41d160426071f4dc4300e1b07254ba894c8cb
42981 F20110320_AAAQLX baquerizo_d_Page_16.pro
92aae4098b89988131b04680d24c6874
cb916897613a54f73bb4691c5de8c2b3d470f56d
1708 F20110320_AAAQVS baquerizo_d_Page_11.txt
6cc6adb488e0e266d4b1d9b766cb3fe6
cdf804e341eee5a636f2b2dfe5b65c5edc5493a4
96435 F20110320_AAAQQV baquerizo_d_Page_50.jp2
fb2db50a4f726a1a951c9abaa7fd7cd3
bd026307dc6673ec9291ec0287225c21889bad37
68217 F20110320_AAAQLY baquerizo_d_Page_12.QC.jpg
2af37ab218cceb98343f0bf3a097ff18
9fcba1efb983e031e34adb613d8f2f1dcd36298d
1518 F20110320_AAAQVT baquerizo_d_Page_12.txt
1cbc5cad1247e37f08eae1226989dee2
cbb9d5762373055920933a5f86ae7e800e313bdb
94427 F20110320_AAAQQW baquerizo_d_Page_51.jp2
cc86db0f5cf621ca7db5b421bc4cb8e3
f4781a131f88e308d8eed40f96c830ada4b3c7c1
68216 F20110320_AAAQLZ baquerizo_d_Page_46.QC.jpg
512ead0abd600d7f5113a8e3600dabcc
9e9149e33bf8ffa08969e5e5bc78a48c40850709
253 F20110320_AAAQVU baquerizo_d_Page_13.txt
3644aa376aac99a535ce56a4c335b919
e018de340c05d85fc6ef8466b3004630626b6489
91425 F20110320_AAAQQX baquerizo_d_Page_52.jp2
d0033ce084a1820155cce348e6c70682
657609919d66a17487ea49ba23cfcd6ce1c97abd
1570 F20110320_AAAQVV baquerizo_d_Page_14.txt
40763524767f86730b2b2c0db172b24d
744bbe304b36310b72b549408cc1934b18880166
242491 F20110320_AAAQOA baquerizo_d_Page_28.jpg
7e9d96d87a82be6ea33aea0b769f8aaf
3a546ef1f9319ea1d779dc1422e0c8c1a732487c
69870 F20110320_AAAQQY baquerizo_d_Page_53.jp2
d75c29a3c64c94e7cdefdb932bcf26cf
165353ef005e2ed269ce706f6f28f9d699ac5a67
201691 F20110320_AAAQOB baquerizo_d_Page_29.jpg
c00b76091064b140989de37b9996fd0a
f574734dd4aba8df06dea8690b29a5a137b9a1ab
95514 F20110320_AAAQQZ baquerizo_d_Page_54.jp2
105d8aea189fd970edc6effa9ff6be02
60130d7d7684c397f2c1e74512e80041110c3b95
1688 F20110320_AAAQVW baquerizo_d_Page_15.txt
16a58a7912bddb22ec27299103cbd13c
0508df3e3344e58757d98b57d7c4bc61f71bd3f7
119151 F20110320_AAAQOC baquerizo_d_Page_30.jpg
c6ed30fc91050dfbba7ceccf4777fb14
70ced2e4261612bbdd96d091f02cac700f123350
1717 F20110320_AAAQVX baquerizo_d_Page_16.txt
cf2c93f705d9d00ad01bd0cf01dc9042
a3e02d552944633b6569040cebc61631ff735289
130746 F20110320_AAAQOD baquerizo_d_Page_31.jpg
52d4469b1b0e67e8736fbde8fd3b7a6d
27885a3ed2e0b430f395e2675d3505c905f2edbf
F20110320_AAAQTA baquerizo_d_Page_55.tif
5258519095e6397f6c7e43a1a7c17608
7978181f9fbc4e7618ed29e324d3f05e605e4a1a
1801 F20110320_AAAQVY baquerizo_d_Page_17.txt
1685e7d40c9511825a66c1bc257266e0
0690e914d8e9bba7e65db6d924f31fde92585b1f
F20110320_AAAQTB baquerizo_d_Page_56.tif
a3417b7512d10aad224677d008f93853
e6a1230af20648b4b6e7d892711c33cc90910c9f
1681 F20110320_AAAQVZ baquerizo_d_Page_19.txt
95d1dcb38809561c7bdecd79f78fc479
43e892aebc169c932ff03effa8ad88e2703f8c78
148668 F20110320_AAAQOE baquerizo_d_Page_32.jpg
2c1131cada5ba80275a6b1ebce84b839
13e36c2419360c4f223ac5a1dd10bcf27fea2b6e
F20110320_AAAQTC baquerizo_d_Page_57.tif
f79a2eacfdf8f43b74012174d73c2416
ed3bc9cb54c374dc443d64411a296c3cc982d69c
196210 F20110320_AAAQOF baquerizo_d_Page_33.jpg
b2c1c1b8792930504a4fc193d582d458
1c7c347871abe124ba614d5551eaa586cbf954a5
87511 F20110320_AAAQYA baquerizo_d_Page_56.QC.jpg
bbd133b7e36a98bca0f7f8caef9c5c7e
94f18949817bc38ed7cffb00c4abf12f19607368
43793 F20110320_AAARAA baquerizo_d_Page_31.QC.jpg
50f547a6a2625972402694fa1c124305
6f0dc29dfe23f2abfac9027c03978674a73c8b3f
F20110320_AAAQTD baquerizo_d_Page_58.tif
004cea23f42a5a21c2f37354c9d50368
c519a63e4eeddf9a0f08463eff0c4f286e87d731
158314 F20110320_AAAQOG baquerizo_d_Page_34.jpg
502138925b8a13e703c4043070a8874e
91163355a98f3f537d5e9e7eb252e491e42b265f
26166 F20110320_AAAQYB baquerizo_d_Page_04.QC.jpg
d2f1e76f3428f21822a054dd742babb5
397e1a3a2c1b4c3e85aa08ef67768809b7b29535
6215 F20110320_AAARAB baquerizo_d_Page_02.QC.jpg
c224f5a8f588692e9efe09d138d33c05
a690a2f8e3fd105610d973e92327b43d43016cb4
7689 F20110320_AAAQTE baquerizo_d_Page_01.pro
16427e59cb32499707f164f171648e7f
8ff10d76aa7f8d2ddb0770443c4ae3e127f26e98
187098 F20110320_AAAQOH baquerizo_d_Page_35.jpg
5943a7177ca2bb949cbdc542448f8a62
4f606805ad958d7558169065fc096f7e8b07cd1b
77118 F20110320_AAAQYC baquerizo_d_Page_19.QC.jpg
6f651aa489a7c08ff09740016784e2ab
52958c353259b4e24edf0391dbf3bc7fa048355e
81529 F20110320_AAARAC baquerizo_d_Page_24.QC.jpg
874682596e70ad117c1ac4f9edc1916e
c7ab6625447518f6dfdcc087df6a29efe4b96ae8
1252 F20110320_AAAQTF baquerizo_d_Page_02.pro
b18cfb2b2e3595d123b95616461ee0cd
08e1706bbd30e6f4bd3a958f0a5774b892c104fd
208058 F20110320_AAAQOI baquerizo_d_Page_36.jpg
76264b52df0bcb5a85b169b9d65a6e2e
38009be11f48ca0e2473d1828c0135846f2e7c63
59168 F20110320_AAAQYD baquerizo_d_Page_08.QC.jpg
aaf4a477c0eff37c6a147961140d1fc4
a637ebc6e31517e2074229de511d0b3286aa23cf
30352 F20110320_AAARAD baquerizo_d_Page_33thm.jpg
d4af349dd266f3f8dd95f5538c1cd02d
069e0e58e222e92961f7d1b2a750ccdad8afd46a
2797 F20110320_AAAQTG baquerizo_d_Page_03.pro
2931e0bbc256beb8444a4c54bfb4d647
34188032bd20b95ab583d803ef04dd25030b8b39
26052 F20110320_AAAQYE baquerizo_d_Page_44thm.jpg
8e5c213fa026e4c01082e140d9250d73
49277d3cfd584e0a39eeb767d51ac0ba4c684517
24211 F20110320_AAARAE baquerizo_d_Page_39thm.jpg
69b021524e3e74efc743287af9b3bec0
30ce57f6216dc389f5bbbd68d7382ff5e8bd081f
12715 F20110320_AAAQTH baquerizo_d_Page_04.pro
721491aede2e8605481cefb0808cd287
9a787b43e9ec159b39b234760ded009da7a0517b
218357 F20110320_AAAQOJ baquerizo_d_Page_37.jpg
effa45113cd97b4eb470daf112dd8922
0b8665a68759a54afdca49c64aef35ba27fb8a74
65906 F20110320_AAAQYF baquerizo_d_Page_35.QC.jpg
ac5233e6b97fbeb92b87a682d9f4b68d
13779948f51065870f094aa52d59ad8e4baf20a4
43631 F20110320_AAARAF baquerizo_d_Page_06.QC.jpg
62e918ac5733d0b32f4f0d77aa759158
318148adbfbe6d3ca6f084ab7991ff0329099f8d
47605 F20110320_AAAQTI baquerizo_d_Page_05.pro
d10b65471aab9e4f5f2dd775e600fbca
2c4ee43adc9ae5b07f3195e582ce3e36f47eb260
205551 F20110320_AAAQOK baquerizo_d_Page_38.jpg
a9082266e3a3054c141d8cdacabb6520
9043d9dfbeb9526a1cd03bbb9acf4b7c03db8885
81581 F20110320_AAAQYG baquerizo_d_Page_18.QC.jpg
f761751a2242add184aa301e8095365b
662959839050444c2ed477151e69feb0eb9e79d2
69229 F20110320_AAARAG baquerizo_d_Page_40.QC.jpg
43c0de4db72cfd196c6121e085bdc0a2
bb972fb718fe7cef92d545d9e4e679a31c9bc658
212353 F20110320_AAAQOL baquerizo_d_Page_39.jpg
4a60b3b3171f08858b7d7f44fdef4713
c3bf20d0065db81e5746ad5be0587fab42aeb672
24944 F20110320_AAAQYH baquerizo_d_Page_18thm.jpg
9e0a90e1563e2df193a51652c5bd8a32
b6b1f0d44604ba5fe575f24b216fd6fd1fa2efb7
5203 F20110320_AAARAH baquerizo_d_Page_13thm.jpg
5d27a3a99e1ad2963496deef06b2880e
4a3e9b2183664803b6e468eb081eab160a69115a
6054 F20110320_AAAQTJ baquerizo_d_Page_06.pro
c208fabda4432626c4c905bf8a9be505
ffcd1fb77973d335088b391abe54d2bbd130fa5f
190546 F20110320_AAAQOM baquerizo_d_Page_40.jpg
4fa54556b5b9f74143c8321ae3c43502
779448ce4b190f2eced2210b81309593c4ad973e
83060 F20110320_AAAQYI baquerizo_d_Page_17.QC.jpg
c58b0c174209080dfbe0c4b346aab933
627b2ca5d749c130966d77168a91a162825a7a48
73391 F20110320_AAARAI baquerizo_d_Page_11.QC.jpg
d55c38428b70fed15a0ef026909b277d
0503a37775c29acc15e1869cb21e0d71420c6f83
52001 F20110320_AAAQTK baquerizo_d_Page_07.pro
c76d204341e2da4bc53efacf5358af0c
230ce670f19a5a5780888f97bf9524ac103cb3c3
311838 F20110320_AAAQON baquerizo_d_Page_41.jpg
e59b42a7d17922ce9c674fdbb82fe4cd
d7e1d2ff93026bcd9f8092bda746aa7e4a85fcf3
58481 F20110320_AAAQYJ baquerizo_d_Page_53.QC.jpg
9939edb08c3f7d65274b5eb14de9cacf
a5bc957479ca623bb1140b7a7b796da3a3b5a551
76916 F20110320_AAARAJ baquerizo_d_Page_15.QC.jpg
ad76903e30a724d422e1777b4409e418
1328887b00ca9808a8df0a3dde25db1077180979
14781 F20110320_AAAQTL baquerizo_d_Page_08.pro
dc07b8d65c94d7b94700300d8c642e5b
818eb1618b3a3910013544cad20c87954f55766e
195600 F20110320_AAAQOO baquerizo_d_Page_42.jpg
9e6e5e43de0084942aa06057bad9d0e7
f2852a790fe1c6acdf04947261e3cf4114574b42
64664 F20110320_AAAQYK baquerizo_d_Page_48.QC.jpg
a4bcbe2c52b6f8f91fffc9155880f93b
262d2a9fe12009b798bf71683e5f4be79103774d
95236 F20110320_AAARAK baquerizo_d_Page_28.QC.jpg
e9f71f2c4dfcf4b0ce9c82c54ae7a2ea
cdf92245d193ea71a9e4bce635697ac1b9f45be0
33225 F20110320_AAAQTM baquerizo_d_Page_09.pro
b383bc6f87f1e9c3ab60a42b64a81866
24c7499a4a39413c9976d8808a60a99730837929
196537 F20110320_AAAQOP baquerizo_d_Page_43.jpg
f52d1418d0c0f51f444f6a2b8d044e3e
b1426d59e34caed1f62d3f5172b2dbc9d8919b72
66332 F20110320_AAAQYL baquerizo_d_Page_49.QC.jpg
6e54b7f6e5fc9c54fdf924f96d2b9853
7fc53dbe72d7155a23bcdafe1572a78abdf070ec
39657 F20110320_AAARAL baquerizo_d_Page_32thm.jpg
bc231f0c295e7d87ed79974a0865cc2c
80a48cd7cea489d1e7ecfec0c36e33e2ae905d34
23505 F20110320_AAAQTN baquerizo_d_Page_10.pro
eabd55493743ba1beb1d2d136ffd663f
7d92571703d48a887c3a1af3d63eb1ff98b75c4c
231052 F20110320_AAAQOQ baquerizo_d_Page_44.jpg
57dd02756663ae4aac0556b8f12b0db0
f15a1c5e1c51b6ad4a553312c25aaa641a25941d
25062 F20110320_AAAQYM baquerizo_d_Page_27.QC.jpg
8ff8006cd69b2d2db1d55933b0492835
d9eb259e78675ba546b5a66852ad3ffbdb7f0fb8
51459 F20110320_AAARAM baquerizo_d_Page_41thm.jpg
b5a5800c827ad99c0ed69d2d156b5f02
6a47c6c503940cc195a9cf40168f2ac879b4eed7
41413 F20110320_AAAQTO baquerizo_d_Page_11.pro
17942159a00fa5c463adb88f70b10431
9c46a69887a1bb4aa713fecdf2c33ee198be96c1
233427 F20110320_AAAQOR baquerizo_d_Page_45.jpg
72259ba1e109505b473004921db58801
7a40d2df349e946f7e173be58002e859b9e488d1
8394 F20110320_AAAQYN baquerizo_d_Page_27thm.jpg
0b0a6cc0b70b7d04aa5037022bb43f0a
515dbb569fec4bf1b90ffa6769f607754e0562bb
21975 F20110320_AAARAN baquerizo_d_Page_54thm.jpg
a72ea00a356d3d5eb919b3ce02a2e29f
baf1229bcc6eab30182d1375d36d2049ab486f0c
37972 F20110320_AAAQTP baquerizo_d_Page_12.pro
19ade3982374a4ba56f2904df009b09b
7c97d9b850d314f37e1d19c2f650bcc64c49eeec
185731 F20110320_AAAQOS baquerizo_d_Page_46.jpg
ff72b926df99e35af79b2f302a0a901e
94dd840de4f6f82c9d5d0c79330c10d9f7343242
96805 F20110320_AAARAO UFE0009784_00001.xml FULL
ddbb64400ee06d5c2f95c5375627301b
06fe503d46308e0f49ea84caf3091fd6ae02e30f
5079 F20110320_AAAQTQ baquerizo_d_Page_13.pro
1f4def187de5c416234eecfdefeab168
0e5476dc4b9bd4ead8f4db9d7dcfc416a44a0504
175263 F20110320_AAAQOT baquerizo_d_Page_48.jpg
ab058c1bc394740ceb482f5dc2d47802
2e03c89268cb0a0f436c56914aab0fd32edc8655
117737 F20110320_AAAQYO baquerizo_d_Page_41.QC.jpg
bb6cac4d065e1413f1aebceaaee21810
b8c9650a5207ba013dab52e0d1f9dc96563502e5
90787 F20110320_AAARAP baquerizo_d_Page_05.QC.jpg
242a687c3ac7826cabd7deae863b2c8e
550daac15125241bf0533e30daac21fd08481cda
37197 F20110320_AAAQTR baquerizo_d_Page_14.pro
ca006fdb61424578d8dec2a6283430f5
fc3a496a3d1494c12cc5cfb22b90cff4efc8211f
189158 F20110320_AAAQOU baquerizo_d_Page_49.jpg
58674f98298a0941425d7bab30c013e7
5d384bd69e2af05c5d1dd526ecc60b1c5dd9e427
32093 F20110320_AAAQYP baquerizo_d_Page_06thm.jpg
f3c61f9231b2fea917a13551c5cb7a77
c39ddbf0eb250d104d285ebc98921aadcfbb4e0c
58501 F20110320_AAARAQ baquerizo_d_Page_09.QC.jpg
402f33e2a4ac3b079107877411a64c6e
efea56010f34e2a0a935c9c8656e6906ef1e12d0
41843 F20110320_AAAQTS baquerizo_d_Page_15.pro
b2da249beca6ec1d84d4062728d6015f
1a2b05df7504ca3078fc3d3f666c69841e35ffd9
214557 F20110320_AAAQOV baquerizo_d_Page_50.jpg
c23616b33a8710e11cd660044551458b
efd0e198b9349bc57f93e4f5ee6dd0133a722d81
24108 F20110320_AAAQYQ baquerizo_d_Page_22thm.jpg
dd09eb27b8ced9f417ec5817de3be044
afb3e0b4719e61d53413a8180df2cfb1a94ee6c6
45529 F20110320_AAARAR baquerizo_d_Page_10.QC.jpg
b3dee6bb512baabc0aa5ffd6a41fc9e9
fa055bdaab8e5656a7f58820e0d6c76d3b89ef40
44878 F20110320_AAAQTT baquerizo_d_Page_17.pro
360fbd17be0c9d1e6042cae4ca76082a
a342d79327a837ce73f31f914a90e3f4d137fb78
208338 F20110320_AAAQOW baquerizo_d_Page_51.jpg
6511ce265fe59af9c9d988d55a955479
f00b45dec7fe83ee0912bc83b15969af260fcb49
21955 F20110320_AAAQYR baquerizo_d_Page_58thm.jpg
e5805edd6e945ab1da0f4e844231cb87
8a0513219e96004ec55c9748f7d32c9f139cefc0
76875 F20110320_AAARAS baquerizo_d_Page_22.QC.jpg
162d3daef3b35ba9ae6067566031f80d
288460ba21852e711ff89f48e53599a345dce592
43817 F20110320_AAAQTU baquerizo_d_Page_18.pro
8c45b72fb09668548c4de8c631b00c45
9a115bd5cb36be38e9ac732894970692c3bbe009
204656 F20110320_AAAQOX baquerizo_d_Page_52.jpg
3c56645d25e7bc99a66f3f85d6554873
425c643e3662722f03378c3e33ea31c7beeaafd7
79924 F20110320_AAARAT baquerizo_d_Page_25.QC.jpg
5082e3bf181944c74133db580f0d64f8
420f89bfbe4a6742d189aba0ac11e4d1a1776a41
42366 F20110320_AAAQTV baquerizo_d_Page_19.pro
077b3b2292ac38a64af0c63ac0052ca4
0d9aca00a633d54b89763da23c01c5829fb26eb5
20753 F20110320_AAAQMA baquerizo_d_Page_14thm.jpg
561628b0809c6f75657d32cc2789afbf
41102adad77a809d7cb3606afb2c72bfe63ddc4a
153783 F20110320_AAAQOY baquerizo_d_Page_53.jpg
7fab1ac921947e3a7b8a92baa9d85dee
1a1c188314ba3319d27e64d4731ef601af9e004b
25107 F20110320_AAAQYS baquerizo_d_Page_19thm.jpg
11fdbbf7801d67722fe8ad289ee47fc2
b68548aa6d3a9c74cef208c4ef6a8f770bedbfcb
70221 F20110320_AAARAU baquerizo_d_Page_32.QC.jpg
c493addd2d7da42a8b0125226178e44b
6c563ac5f4500a590f6adef4c05056dd0538e0eb
4001 F20110320_AAAQTW baquerizo_d_Page_20.pro
34d8a0703ef4ca807a97e5d9b306e89f
917e7638d501e1097aa396fadcf8380776adc7c4
85592 F20110320_AAAQMB baquerizo_d_Page_55.QC.jpg
1eb5d224e7928af989f0633fe814b0bc
61dfd7d8b55fd99a28529411ee01339607b4d930
225991 F20110320_AAAQOZ baquerizo_d_Page_54.jpg
2251cf00e0b2d4214dbdb337d37e2021
e6fa4229d79f970062c0eb0145339b0d507cb41b
22686 F20110320_AAAQYT baquerizo_d_Page_15thm.jpg
5dbb7c8353dd5901f4c1ec37c8bad6fa
9618f13db60396f7638cee061b708a6c55389990
34122 F20110320_AAAQTX baquerizo_d_Page_21.pro
eb4eefa45ccd4b1b855a4bb3ca081529
c7ca66b061607a3323e09012b9f0dec72703f6d9
89559 F20110320_AAAQYU baquerizo_d_Page_29.QC.jpg
627cc975d84d47bdeb8d40a165aadd2a
7fb192b5f8c33674b1d15df444381ea8ea6aae45
76617 F20110320_AAARAV baquerizo_d_Page_33.QC.jpg
0c470a573afbffb72749fe705eea455e
e7784cfeec32c030886d554d535300e1946dfd36
112915 F20110320_AAAQRA baquerizo_d_Page_55.jp2
220f7ecf0f2730f3cbb630a6a9db925f
545562d8656eef4c65eb13c32a93cdef66e09079
38380 F20110320_AAAQTY baquerizo_d_Page_23.pro
1229da567a65c0ed4630e2b447bd9b69
cefda3af169055e721140b6d65c5ebfdc80c4db7
42856 F20110320_AAAQMC baquerizo_d_Page_22.pro
628222f5378a8a812b6eb1ae609ce18e
887738d89c555f2c4d4fdef5d57ad7ab1c08b854
35739 F20110320_AAAQYV baquerizo_d_Page_08thm.jpg
c2e71ce6bb7f2808a8aa01697ea633a2
f8ed53b96bbd1188674d9a0012b9d1e40403e659
81569 F20110320_AAARAW baquerizo_d_Page_37.QC.jpg
425d3c4a13684ed5694f8470e7efc516
dbc0301db4547a5c54b425c65668b1829b2411d7
113863 F20110320_AAAQRB baquerizo_d_Page_56.jp2
470f773b255ceeb0cc5c8965d30a8468
5433d0e0cbddbcd7ff0a95bca1d9e379ab1d2df8
45211 F20110320_AAAQTZ baquerizo_d_Page_24.pro
ae448d14239cf54a02ec010a8209cd80
cebf0faf4ee98636fd540638a0d318788ee74c51
18393 F20110320_AAAQMD baquerizo_d_Page_53thm.jpg
44311dbea4ff8fdf8cc42fc32fa69986
d6b35c2d0ab92054c821b02b07656b9d9159756c
66409 F20110320_AAAQYW baquerizo_d_Page_57.QC.jpg
32d94148d2fb2d669ae2201cf69d0667
f3a495cb77af6e969fabd636cac72588ed6e4b7f
79009 F20110320_AAARAX baquerizo_d_Page_39.QC.jpg
575258e8f86341930be71ec64b31afcc
ec43ca2f0f5fba50fdd3d36cbae6a59fc5915fd1
84373 F20110320_AAAQRC baquerizo_d_Page_58.jp2
9d0d4c697d416ec914788e9bc160851c
94903d53f2a2a77530757a5378a6da6a065c3f06
1794 F20110320_AAAQME baquerizo_d_Page_24.txt
758bdebd419f6f46820556d3309bbe7a
5a364be455ee53551bdf2671129b657c11ba0546
75306 F20110320_AAAQYX baquerizo_d_Page_52.QC.jpg
c6c5042dfd9c216454039781a8aa826b
d0e6aae26efcb9b0a06fb4ae4f24cf95f8e1cfd4
73491 F20110320_AAARAY baquerizo_d_Page_42.QC.jpg
bf53f1280bc7444c38dbd818e93136b3
db42fbee2449319a9b9debb4fee9ec0bc526799d
F20110320_AAAQRD baquerizo_d_Page_02.tif
de70116db4609cb8d1e395e99025d05b
6f357b092cb36e728f890d9148e404785421a5bb
F20110320_AAAQMF baquerizo_d_Page_01.tif
4a5ca434ce4f50a2014dc2f2bc2f7f7e
588067d39f026a3a44bc01b0e9b10f8d45b3ba8a
198 F20110320_AAAQWA baquerizo_d_Page_20.txt
8f52e25b6f52d84f8da74d34d66da491
ee6197b2e81580828206615d9c54727e59262a3f
25791 F20110320_AAAQYY baquerizo_d_Page_56thm.jpg
1fb3464409b1d6d8e8523173e337a3a5
0f4be83c06173e23d29d7d7526f8f896195f901b
F20110320_AAAQRE baquerizo_d_Page_03.tif
cdf670e0bd45ce5b4974c9dae81d415d
836f73877656f0c8b8dfd371d9453dd89d51ce1e
9094 F20110320_AAAQMG baquerizo_d_Page_04thm.jpg
211a61c7a5c5d57c0eedd9cd72c38c1b
d101c3b7918abfb2964f6684c2bc29a48d036a61
1458 F20110320_AAAQWB baquerizo_d_Page_21.txt
4a97b97726cdb6172f8240f2cda31345
79f42f1f0846034af4638d760050356fa9776dcb
4094 F20110320_AAAQYZ baquerizo_d_Page_03thm.jpg
23ac49f2367e2ca2eebb7d75f75a4abe
383062921d653941e08771b7a903f86c55472aaf
77918 F20110320_AAARAZ baquerizo_d_Page_50.QC.jpg
822ad3bfd6d5a7c6e79e09c45cfff074
c7a46b8bc2a2593e88078da467f893f5157ae3c7
F20110320_AAAQRF baquerizo_d_Page_04.tif
624d8a6859925956e22016aa45bc6d65
59efe80fae99ab1f6117d9bf2ff95f3e938f381b
86562 F20110320_AAAQMH baquerizo_d_Page_12.jp2
9418c3ccf049cb51e2e2549efb5c5640
3004e05dccac42f495cf916b7e309bc720a459f6
1711 F20110320_AAAQWC baquerizo_d_Page_22.txt
96dc82602a2a949e17d65901fb19f91d
ddb2842108ceb963547289db35fe1b8319daf565
117855 F20110320_AAAQMI baquerizo_d_Page_08.jpg
272039de408b6872d37b2fea961d2c8f
40227e4d8c153071efef9c23219fef9f7006c443
1535 F20110320_AAAQWD baquerizo_d_Page_23.txt
4173ff2503ff9cec5b2a5ce584e39e2c
1e33001bc7fe4e8f07e9c0f559f3caa96a8ef306
F20110320_AAAQRG baquerizo_d_Page_05.tif
c9e8959db53cfddeee882170dae288e2
769b2af40dbc3d5018d547489f91e71e7b0452e7
F20110320_AAAQMJ baquerizo_d_Page_52.tif
c1c0ce63186d285330e2f20559536ebb
bcc7aaf4735a2adb3b3953a2c3299dd22e6f33b7
F20110320_AAAQWE baquerizo_d_Page_25.txt
f401ff0bd5f126d3dc42cf632d6a81e5
12ec5835908bd05e5d1814b7dceae91393a8e023
83251 F20110320_AAAQMK baquerizo_d_Page_49.jp2
5987939422a27b485d09b658cdf0475b
b9065f42d511af92421ffe770bcc12283de626aa
1809 F20110320_AAAQWF baquerizo_d_Page_26.txt
3cfbc025190d7ac17a3048cc232b5408
2a3ba0a0849df7492aafabb9cf586eb98baecade
F20110320_AAAQRH baquerizo_d_Page_06.tif
14776eb8a7c98d8ab497fb6e523e6b1f
4868e8200b3d8240b9febc9889a308dd11b7bf86
1749 F20110320_AAAQML baquerizo_d_Page_18.txt
09d1cecfaac75e4b004b5fbc0eea8cb4
b2d0c4b8ec8068998e5c5fdc86416cb80d8dcc88
494 F20110320_AAAQWG baquerizo_d_Page_27.txt
2c50eb0207a806bcf69501333dba6595
8b6c43ff5dce23e8aa5019cb2c6e10ebb1f7d0f7
F20110320_AAAQRI baquerizo_d_Page_08.tif
cb3dffb7b86588987f142daf8fa3bb80
6365e24b765176d7caa764b6cb9fa4f5c494d5a8
89293 F20110320_AAAQMM baquerizo_d_Page_42.jp2
16352284c40ac08c86d3bbefec62ffe7
29b9b615bc54d4892abf6aeacf5d713fb060ea1a
662 F20110320_AAAQWH baquerizo_d_Page_28.txt
e9c92ded2aab535369ec6a56d0f184c9
a840d4004db7964ee30bd27769c8f554b343815f
F20110320_AAAQRJ baquerizo_d_Page_09.tif
bcfaf31f078e49c0ef86663420169674
a21d3adf3f7ee1aab5dd824a3b6ab93a48872865
F20110320_AAAQMN baquerizo_d_Page_24.tif
0831565a979b429214c3ffa5a96ccd3a
6ad6b1ece312a0d2032fe44312cbb64b690a0a7a
1692 F20110320_AAAQWI baquerizo_d_Page_29.txt
bff322802fecd254948f051419b09ff3
b6ef91effde110a6c86a4353e2417967fc7dd69b
F20110320_AAAQRK baquerizo_d_Page_10.tif
c0f00ceebfe28ee5e3ae2950a82add87
b088b144b2cd8d0120125c9e28e40974f71d3f91
5724 F20110320_AAAQMO baquerizo_d_Page_02.jp2
03afd3003fa78208cb0a7ea3cf831959
9ceecac2426ee0379111b8d5f03065510016823a
897 F20110320_AAAQWJ baquerizo_d_Page_30.txt
cd84607231fc767c654915b40a52cb74
1e96d8b4a6225a832b2555f8a960f5161419d145
F20110320_AAAQRL baquerizo_d_Page_11.tif
cedcab35cfa280bc22b0958b1f5038c5
b821d7ea8d1e1875fcfe1db37563ca7136262d70
12513 F20110320_AAAQMP baquerizo_d_Page_30thm.jpg
7970d8a31075a84c4d00aff2e7da1404
3e36bdfb2ca6646422e19dc943163733737b65b7
1008 F20110320_AAAQWK baquerizo_d_Page_31.txt
81f80ffca3e2cb12bd819ce220406417
30129f42833eec14c169d8d3da8af328fe8552ae
F20110320_AAAQRM baquerizo_d_Page_12.tif
1d1a13b18f3d39b8ab4aaf04e6011106
47ce6137b37f9ad02a0ff9a1b794c22b2ddf264e
F20110320_AAAQMQ baquerizo_d_Page_32.tif
43804709975de8a5007bcc2ea91cd2e7
299a905d6bc8b9b35070cd78a715b77d69b87761
1319 F20110320_AAAQWL baquerizo_d_Page_32.txt
9040a9250b359a84c253b2882298f3d2
db5bab347917c1ef10664ee6836fe9960eac85c8
F20110320_AAAQRN baquerizo_d_Page_13.tif
3997a12165f3147a9bb255022768cc1c
78e66dc19973c1c2ddf5747b78fb41718d692247
91336 F20110320_AAAQMR baquerizo_d_Page_57.jp2
93810290234ab4eae3f8ad7bd935e0e6
1ed0aa3d0584d041623a68ff06e555ebc8f03880
F20110320_AAAQRO baquerizo_d_Page_14.tif
5a351d6e8e62bc9b8efedad1b6ba27c1
6b9437d124517a5f150565cca9ba3d876cd24103
113710 F20110320_AAAQMS baquerizo_d_Page_47.jpg
16c83bce3edfd23bd56f4ff19a84ba50
041ca71f329acdbda9251aa1562ef2b0383f1455
1684 F20110320_AAAQWM baquerizo_d_Page_33.txt
bdc19dc7a9939c2addde83e46a04b3c1
a0964b57c4eef6129d4a7b749ba1a515ecc09b95
F20110320_AAAQRP baquerizo_d_Page_15.tif
fd61b483c8d2868a56d3df673e905cc5
af9713bd70eb104cc7dcfef93ae854fb4ecd32cb
74102 F20110320_AAAQMT baquerizo_d_Page_09.jp2
ec0c17b63daa3e04d5610d3eca9d9704
d6f554dbaea59ea6567dfef976f94973c781b115
1076 F20110320_AAAQWN baquerizo_d_Page_34.txt
e30fbbb4d508c16d79e71b5b7fb4eeb9
8c819220ec2443ad3ff002ae42d54869415bdadd
F20110320_AAAQRQ baquerizo_d_Page_16.tif
9b9670c5a57e915054be84cadcb43db9
bd7418b9969252bfbdb5c1ceb4de9a1e9a1eb9fa
F20110320_AAAQMU baquerizo_d_Page_07.tif
44bd6391879c6307e206dd4b98e149c7
ad62f580f8c42aae89ab4c92e372c175b2b46070
F20110320_AAAQWO baquerizo_d_Page_35.txt
f8d31269ac97f1212c764ea8a8c599e0
17553f5853a74eccf52cbc3ea5f417cee657c72f
F20110320_AAAQRR baquerizo_d_Page_17.tif
948909ea0812cb77c7d2ee2847a1795c
a5c2e2e25733cf68c4b1801afa5c2ab1dae28145
1051983 F20110320_AAAQMV baquerizo_d_Page_05.jp2
07c190b89cc798e93c5e5c105a40f84e
d90c81576401a286ce051e03b64afcd11edb8f30
1938 F20110320_AAAQWP baquerizo_d_Page_36.txt
7bcecf8988b48096dfb3935145268a0a
bda4cb85265316b66a68e9128297c1d4fcc4bb59
F20110320_AAAQRS baquerizo_d_Page_18.tif
30d6d3a31bf59370b311a419cffde6ce
fec51c6654baa1ac042be7db9a57b191098e2554
26230 F20110320_AAAQMW baquerizo_d_Page_55thm.jpg
ecb84463f661bb5ec43371b9e49f23a4
ffe21a4da0fb740458854f3893ebcb3eadb4afa6
F20110320_AAAQWQ baquerizo_d_Page_37.txt
0674f49999856e7818c532dd84e4fde0
a980db2c7ffb4cff093436486e99603f89d81f46
F20110320_AAAQRT baquerizo_d_Page_19.tif
6081de67355d926b24b267ae2426a002
e16039c4a38aa8f5f8f37c62bdea71c52a5d588f
70166 F20110320_AAAQMX UFE0009784_00001.mets
6232c047676c76c304a0fa5dbe3828a2
a54da3b42b75189d2c5f4a8fcd1051b129ccc070
1907 F20110320_AAAQWR baquerizo_d_Page_38.txt
ae8e3f34f1158f9bcb94c21fbd3d6e28
ab75deea3abf92972c691c351e18d4779947dfd8
F20110320_AAAQRU baquerizo_d_Page_20.tif
2b8ca8d0a3b4f9aaea133ed7d37df895
a85b1cd66665ee0672fec6c6ba0bf14cc6b9ed35
1739 F20110320_AAAQWS baquerizo_d_Page_39.txt
484ad9c67f2adca771a70f27f552b35a
e917321194c5ab4619afafb4c542c0f33e1d2693
F20110320_AAAQRV baquerizo_d_Page_21.tif
0456d1916dbbb4485e0780f8b6fb2901
0c7d5b9a3da09ec306439799432f86b3d649eab1
1590 F20110320_AAAQWT baquerizo_d_Page_40.txt
d4a43edbd9715916784843c1a77b4ef2
6ac7126d7b8a8aa5830b569e4823af58890930a7
F20110320_AAAQRW baquerizo_d_Page_22.tif
8e90d3c896807af4cc8ac78f6cb47e68
1bd3fb7fc79253e6922235e8beb19102391f2871
2508 F20110320_AAAQWU baquerizo_d_Page_41.txt
e5be231d5dffdd608670e2dde96a8668
4ecf7f688d8e570ba7aee4a0b93b813e2375adc2
F20110320_AAAQRX baquerizo_d_Page_23.tif
4ff09ff7575e49f75fb9465fb5163ea2
1273eb8c84c667b21c21c3dfa66c75ea0fe4ed57
1593 F20110320_AAAQWV baquerizo_d_Page_42.txt
016be1964b74587a36da653be4e2d04f
67327e4b6487370029bc808ff73cc04af739c8b6
258249 F20110320_AAAQPA baquerizo_d_Page_55.jpg
4970643b03a52005e1cb3809dad6d09f
c295282b425505ab64e8c14e963596b856ba895d
F20110320_AAAQRY baquerizo_d_Page_25.tif
2435b55109b3c22841887d04544e8fd9
8730bc591c412d02dbd6b33ac204a428a1ef829a
1737 F20110320_AAAQWW baquerizo_d_Page_43.txt
360de92448dce3ca932669e58882a1d1
e38c71b51a617360c137c90573371eef2c6aa685
258525 F20110320_AAAQPB baquerizo_d_Page_56.jpg
675e804988678f7e4bbc5e4ef03ebe01
749b3da9166cbbc9227aff2d2e4eedac5f8e1a62
F20110320_AAAQRZ baquerizo_d_Page_26.tif
e2fd57404963e87a5ff21dffdbccae60
d2b9f32b92f7521589ed362c1116fd67a3465444
1913 F20110320_AAAQWX baquerizo_d_Page_44.txt
a08c888796be8192ef10ae34c8917860
c85468c750ed97b845c0fc074e3f9daf8a3f6e13
200759 F20110320_AAAQPC baquerizo_d_Page_57.jpg
e241308aa8e12ff6d7b5d35d4b4b0260
0b0a321345f06e2ab185467d62648b502610db0e
44637 F20110320_AAAQUA baquerizo_d_Page_25.pro
f318361903a8bd143679a9b2b3750d3e
acc0d51bb6e79d48fc4bd478218701dcb4ec9ebd
1912 F20110320_AAAQWY baquerizo_d_Page_45.txt
e7f910a61be6fc8d2da6039853a3ac53
cbe94abb4776471d81b98d0451bcd0e7db076b03
193913 F20110320_AAAQPD baquerizo_d_Page_58.jpg
5740bf4b3606b80443884b70fc908443
f8059b059cc95514016cc94125dc6197542080aa
45843 F20110320_AAAQUB baquerizo_d_Page_26.pro
c04e26f8896062836d7e10cf53ed524e
d199551aaa086c7e79b2bc0cbce7fa16e26ede66
1505 F20110320_AAAQWZ baquerizo_d_Page_46.txt
3d1881a95358e9e232bd730c4d5f54e7
1f037bc8857a8683c512fc2604d71e6d37155137
21586 F20110320_AAAQPE baquerizo_d_Page_01.jp2
620030d1ab831531abeba4ec58c340b7
7eaa16648135b299e312724f0cd35782f84587bc
11315 F20110320_AAAQUC baquerizo_d_Page_27.pro
21463f5082f6d3cdd2175bc9297520d8
ea685836a8385a530a0a4220a6d60f8deca6aa6e
9343 F20110320_AAAQPF baquerizo_d_Page_03.jp2
0d6ba7961d3e77266385b7a0c68b03c0
2a15b24fa2d7c9ef2f9442208ef417b5680c4f17
78190 F20110320_AAAQZA baquerizo_d_Page_43.QC.jpg
9ae77247d5ed47db1d8e7353d2be1ef9
345e25a6de882bc6b4489b5767aca82e6f625a2a
75545 F20110320_AAARBA baquerizo_d_Page_51.QC.jpg
b5f3a4572422e9d34768bb9df8131133
660057d2b18aa2a8b0fab5139e5852c0a5d25cbc
14228 F20110320_AAAQUD baquerizo_d_Page_28.pro
572fccb9dadec1ba4022337b674b0829
d1725134eeb97e7ccaa71f688a71dd7feb722f43
29889 F20110320_AAAQPG baquerizo_d_Page_04.jp2
40dd5172a00ae134dfab31bb91130b3a
3f9f3a353d867fb3cdbf30a287fa4dc0f4d75c31
22423 F20110320_AAAQZB baquerizo_d_Page_23thm.jpg
d0da6d2e573c635a37bd864bec7ad040
a27b510c90e48a1003bb9842279395b44aabd5cb
70415 F20110320_AAARBB baquerizo_d_Page_58.QC.jpg
bf6443a870a7a13d735632741d46fdb6
e8655dd387855e4912a909946233c4d6be7c2b1f
33751 F20110320_AAAQUE baquerizo_d_Page_29.pro
9e56cc03fdfe646f5082ab623f243961
a1cad744188613329c4e44d5e52a51365b0d77a2
291471 F20110320_AAAQPH baquerizo_d_Page_06.jp2
f1fbc59063103206e667e46e5bd80c23
1d3901b4c5f851642b381797772e7bcde18b25b7
85070 F20110320_AAAQZC baquerizo_d_Page_26.QC.jpg
5115b5d6b8f8cac5894802a6f44d4e90
510e390088981bc61c4774eaaac6f1c81b59810f
52198 F20110320_AAARBC baquerizo_d_Page_07thm.jpg
d38acbb95b70178e5343b1a2771fd5fc
629ec603409d7cf85934f569d9ea62ff6f10faf2
21798 F20110320_AAAQUF baquerizo_d_Page_30.pro
6e45cf78bc2e55f31b07a463b173c20b
2e782ef753915f402c8202323da47db15174fa32
1051978 F20110320_AAAQPI baquerizo_d_Page_07.jp2
66447b9248ca3162255bd607319fb41d
88b3a6597f81f6aff18f167743f4c3af04d04b54
21222 F20110320_AAAQZD baquerizo_d_Page_49thm.jpg
a4e978971be338d77b5467c048e9b86d
d129c0b89fc432a4c54c01d800068f8873b71541
19854 F20110320_AAARBD baquerizo_d_Page_09thm.jpg
030c67c3343025302c826d02f3330a35
fc70ddc63e3f5e14457c2b6c6c8f9cc12da74173
24850 F20110320_AAAQUG baquerizo_d_Page_31.pro
a9a38fa777abf5a93cf86fee28530233
194b619eba35d10e428130e12bd716e6557f0457
644373 F20110320_AAAQPJ baquerizo_d_Page_08.jp2
726ffe93afe7da6ec81c46506941850f
978b747d3d812697da4466118395ad746d104816
14505 F20110320_AAAQZE baquerizo_d_Page_31thm.jpg
e4df6d73fe72f9a05fb5834c6260b324
1371d20cd029e223f54a9ea687496c9ff8a60598
24017 F20110320_AAARBE baquerizo_d_Page_16thm.jpg
8afc58f599accde0b848ad5408a8e618
c341e13c242651217e6ed4c83d4350890f581f64
22793 F20110320_AAAQUH baquerizo_d_Page_32.pro
33244c32d4ce5dab37955bf82caf24ce
cf80cb11235928bbdea4b20093aebfacf8a033e7
53880 F20110320_AAAQPK baquerizo_d_Page_10.jp2
1260704d5fa8736f0785b1695bdf38ad
936bef8b8e67ae4e4d43bb683f479b8416ebfc1a
74929 F20110320_AAAQZF baquerizo_d_Page_38.QC.jpg
a11de9c8e37fd2054d086a872daf89cd
5966fb2caa5ec25e3945bbb0cd8b0377f50532bb
20726 F20110320_AAARBF baquerizo_d_Page_21thm.jpg
b30add750b1741cc174e2941b574426c
d63be696d4646c46b1a7f19c1d5cbfd59913a161
37251 F20110320_AAAQUI baquerizo_d_Page_33.pro
a7be87252574e60c2f4c50a1640fe2df
fad7a47eb7485f3c91c86079bc903fe64e55b35d
89868 F20110320_AAAQPL baquerizo_d_Page_11.jp2
58bd5135c452a06389c22d30f32392b4
b62b2befdb57c3153824279892cbac2590874c73
24031 F20110320_AAAQZG baquerizo_d_Page_51thm.jpg
50e5981fa10336b01617e1a3987fb78c
fe79bac99513aa8cd81e0edc8a6f53710f006954
25447 F20110320_AAARBG baquerizo_d_Page_24thm.jpg
07f14c7208575d015de4a0cadfc07aff
43924bb2a801787ec7d7ae92f12de4de61599add
21685 F20110320_AAAQUJ baquerizo_d_Page_34.pro
7a0fff838346bdb40d9833293891b988
91276ce0cbe700e7380e15622d6c1d30627be025
14623 F20110320_AAAQPM baquerizo_d_Page_13.jp2
b4c18c8dafb1e46a90b41fa592e8633a
a20b1299445fc1309137bdfc483b24c7d19d509a
14008 F20110320_AAAQZH baquerizo_d_Page_13.QC.jpg
db4f60f5467e12982928773dc3542a55
4cf671b02c184bebab74c0161864b637921ae062
25255 F20110320_AAARBH baquerizo_d_Page_25thm.jpg
087e523c1bc6ad819cad291d38c872c2
128ad996d945ec1347e570e5571d1a92cc6a4cff
84482 F20110320_AAAQPN baquerizo_d_Page_14.jp2
84832e67b38caa5d23b94bc6472e16f2
6f6ca69b3822c1ec7b03053d86b0b3202b08c0ec
71370 F20110320_AAAQZI baquerizo_d_Page_23.QC.jpg
5271c17dae6a819c562edb7c9f7d0c7d
f052fc66fcb4ac45cf70babee87394a8fac54474
43115 F20110320_AAARBI baquerizo_d_Page_34thm.jpg
8225701e0de7c33532ad17ea5568161d
e79237f35cb13ea6eb11d37f2edbea884ce501ba
35929 F20110320_AAAQUK baquerizo_d_Page_35.pro
ca2345bf4458fc7f3fa55ff91ba85748
c309853c0b5a0eff6cff6e73c455c4f2997066fd
24087 F20110320_AAARBJ baquerizo_d_Page_36thm.jpg
5abc7bbff83ec09429431357c3e24b2c
59c7343e8ca021d7a0aef0cfc382b22a776a500b
94953 F20110320_AAAQPO baquerizo_d_Page_15.jp2
0a9f153738fb2cbbd745130873d7dd28
58983a3a73bd20cee727e3eac95700b2a50f7e9b
24263 F20110320_AAAQZJ baquerizo_d_Page_17thm.jpg
1393ad6544695cb61087750bbddad3a1
757a680b73f8e14a50e005620e19de722561ac9c
43695 F20110320_AAAQUL baquerizo_d_Page_36.pro
63e06c869d0669ae8c490128e37a5c14
6bc5f7f6c8a5611a62c6405a2dd9e5b20c84415c
25572 F20110320_AAARBK baquerizo_d_Page_37thm.jpg
1668a817351219b2c8ed6f407c7e8e27
1d00cd1019cad9ee5e438bc412ea83705ec08304
97267 F20110320_AAAQPP baquerizo_d_Page_16.jp2
6e9e055442fc4f862d2bf93184feff90
b87313982ee1c0f4730a462d20e5a744be88c2e9
40113 F20110320_AAAQZK baquerizo_d_Page_30.QC.jpg
57affbbdcefbb45716e0d6ddee804386
aa741fdc50b61ef6af18a73d7a4a52f1008f4e45
45467 F20110320_AAAQUM baquerizo_d_Page_37.pro
b1511eb266c7355459a04de78bd4d1e1
6804fd76c4992b88b17fe71b05b58f15cf1dc7b1
22049 F20110320_AAARBL baquerizo_d_Page_40thm.jpg
b26c54f95b57c28ce0d089177d073485
51b9c04fdeb57f23493beecdc3d4535f4d4255e7
99382 F20110320_AAAQPQ baquerizo_d_Page_17.jp2
b96babf83b218001e6bf2b06fbed1894
bef23b272c40e3e2a842ce3fdabf9acab0710e16
46422 F20110320_AAAQZL baquerizo_d_Page_28thm.jpg
013c2104d43e23c97e338443d8566a02
2727c01690917ea472d2973c07e33083c0a77bb8
42873 F20110320_AAAQUN baquerizo_d_Page_38.pro
e8a2d941cb3a556becd7699937a81a3a
107799dd15a85a53f4afab9f21c6305fdcf266c7
22936 F20110320_AAARBM baquerizo_d_Page_42thm.jpg
b19edf198b13536236835ac577c514cf
72a11613585a49f0bf75b096ec12557824a2a49f
97714 F20110320_AAAQPR baquerizo_d_Page_18.jp2
a35002ec79cef40c753cf5f51fd82e9d
d264bd4d97ea40eacc8235a1c5e0ad3ef983dc87
66993 F20110320_AAAQZM baquerizo_d_Page_14.QC.jpg
665b918b580df5d3695168822aae6ccd
77e2e2004c0c8fd33a779470a47b60448b0a5a74
43192 F20110320_AAAQUO baquerizo_d_Page_39.pro
43a74f9a773c505aeecfc90f572c521b
4d1e5a286d82b17682f6a558521468c4eabd6f1a
28802 F20110320_AAARBN baquerizo_d_Page_43thm.jpg
7a74f2dc6c5e6eda45551453296e1d22
facb7185d2b6bb71b5db547396d871f190ad220f
94276 F20110320_AAAQPS baquerizo_d_Page_19.jp2
e558792c82ef69d0bd181e9ce20b4e37
8b5f3f2aba593d57fe4115ac3503bc5cbf62f06e
4562 F20110320_AAAQZN baquerizo_d_Page_20thm.jpg
cd398aa789aa56ada8e226a3b7b649b6
65fae81b2721bf02a27b240cdc0260fbe78847e9
38912 F20110320_AAAQUP baquerizo_d_Page_40.pro
7b6c0155acc294b7d64352d3a6f27310
a3199cba6974b1d8861b3139996167af4831b7ba
13499 F20110320_AAARBO baquerizo_d_Page_47thm.jpg
ceccc56129d388be7df6e11b3cd95aaf
b9de8878070dffc19d3b0ce8ccff5f5e0835883b
11571 F20110320_AAAQPT baquerizo_d_Page_20.jp2
c47e9a57908d714470699a7689119749
83c6f23083292ad85690a4937f26ae8b8e6fc4bd
76310 F20110320_AAAQZO baquerizo_d_Page_54.QC.jpg
e49456957b498e199f98b32ee5afa31b
c409946aca5c5631aa5984464e5ce7ecb32a934c
60870 F20110320_AAAQUQ baquerizo_d_Page_41.pro
d413fc7b3f1d4c7e3cf70712ccaa510e
1d82ef83a4363c8f84bb2ceb0d342b9588fe7189
20738 F20110320_AAARBP baquerizo_d_Page_48thm.jpg
bd0784f370ed2082cf822cfc3aa2cb3d
f3db9906d9ef7d837d8948f147d0e3404b666af1
77715 F20110320_AAAQPU baquerizo_d_Page_21.jp2
a663ad5fbd1cb68c3e735466ab01b2d2
1de91df2339ecca2ef6a4510de9ae1a4744f4d19
39686 F20110320_AAAQUR baquerizo_d_Page_42.pro
ff81abe629ba0082a60ad2a538318d16
0e1cc91a6817a57635411557c759c41eb915f487
24485 F20110320_AAARBQ baquerizo_d_Page_50thm.jpg
8a816277d45af7c3fb0866231ac54b74
f3af90789ed29b21be063c9d4676a772e5c40bce
95184 F20110320_AAAQPV baquerizo_d_Page_22.jp2
3437abea93879b2527eee55c6cccd590
6007a70cba82e30795f52753c301e9da6ce5fa94
23816 F20110320_AAAQZP baquerizo_d_Page_52thm.jpg
eddbf21dba2088fac8af8f3686fdf094
6438a963afd4480ed72179e94d28a82065548613
36941 F20110320_AAAQUS baquerizo_d_Page_43.pro
5467fdef5571c8dfe618be20eb7ab8e8
6b1427f1d4ced2f365095a02dce8d12735a4dcb4
21795 F20110320_AAARBR baquerizo_d_Page_57thm.jpg
18caa83b7fee73414513f44b4063a8d9
e2e40cd377433a6dca1d43e28c3d9d37d02037df
86232 F20110320_AAAQPW baquerizo_d_Page_23.jp2
195b9b98a2fad6ef530ab87dc24111d6
6f2840f74d86a48a2630433252ca181a36407d74
3126 F20110320_AAAQZQ baquerizo_d_Page_02thm.jpg
ddade89b92d4f925a43b857549d00f27
c3eb6c4cc3aa40720188e1b252c14f90b0719399
47476 F20110320_AAAQUT baquerizo_d_Page_44.pro
1136b27a92a46e7c56ee2b88aaee06ca
93bcae9dc6b94e25e875b19877cc55627d0d77ed
100726 F20110320_AAAQPX baquerizo_d_Page_24.jp2
17a2cafb3a5e896328767daefd30f0c3
0e343bf50b128e7b4a1daf9186febc4a108f9627
21854 F20110320_AAAQZR baquerizo_d_Page_46thm.jpg
f7b5867afca1f3a011cfa0604df0c268
42b2de63f7c65e3c203fc382b44abd996ac08f58
46669 F20110320_AAAQUU baquerizo_d_Page_45.pro
5dc59d5e5afa33326a22ee145d9c3170
8986050c3c1ce25616e679bb952095cc81828fb9
98428 F20110320_AAAQPY baquerizo_d_Page_25.jp2
b8984379d181c99008410bea36e314d2
c202742868271be083d963639da8c89f23eeda01
23133 F20110320_AAAQZS baquerizo_d_Page_38thm.jpg
69688b5438c04c0818fb8ff21d1d9c53
901675341da9009c3ad370fc1a6235aa2d9dd56f
35467 F20110320_AAAQUV baquerizo_d_Page_46.pro
0e5d854e750d99c30120cf471d5462b2
942dfcda2a0f1c68a652855bfd9ee67049eedcb6
55194 F20110320_AAAQNA baquerizo_d_Page_01.jpg
e39a654b0aece09d6b7f42fb7e542774
20d28ed1a8168a6e37881bb8a2ae893d4d3c99de
102320 F20110320_AAAQPZ baquerizo_d_Page_26.jp2
37d32d8bf66c8430c92d86176649930a
3451884ebf335cfe9f19961e177fe9155f8bd309
24525 F20110320_AAAQZT baquerizo_d_Page_45thm.jpg
c812c1ca19e49f45bad3538f46ef239f
13d5c1c77189110138501a9fef20e99b04aea771
22457 F20110320_AAAQUW baquerizo_d_Page_47.pro
12186e5aaea7c940ed288872da0599de
8f3a337af288c28dfb06859c50845b71811105e6
15513 F20110320_AAAQNB baquerizo_d_Page_02.jpg
11dd83ffeb5cc6588179d503114df4bd
fc1873671de2d15173e823c322dbbca2c69c51c0
7407 F20110320_AAAQZU baquerizo_d_Page_03.QC.jpg
5748e4bb7a6bdfa5d1ea70007490ebaf
1f4dbfcdfdd509e5c5f29245efcab3e99c91c4a3
34939 F20110320_AAAQUX baquerizo_d_Page_48.pro
68fa25f3ea81582b8edcaeea49db3fa0
a3ef7a207314c535005ac27ba96c7bf3711bf221
23290 F20110320_AAAQNC baquerizo_d_Page_03.jpg
1b6654218dc774b9a487fe593246c7b6
faeea235454b2ac57315b0f7a8edd9924e6b4c98
44708 F20110320_AAAQZV baquerizo_d_Page_47.QC.jpg
b6d7094eb7c65aade77cbac414bd9569
721f827b994982d017906a73222fb510af3abc1e
F20110320_AAAQSA baquerizo_d_Page_27.tif
ebc8faa4bccdc366d209f7f8b152c8e7
92bf8f87122b258259c7e929a1befd0b0161f371
37691 F20110320_AAAQUY baquerizo_d_Page_49.pro
0207ca2bda282c4f0c9b547afd39033c
a7e04c04f6f507fcb63010a2589e311d0a567edd
14088 F20110320_AAAQZW baquerizo_d_Page_10thm.jpg
9492888670bd9a07da34a5d3ebd6025b
bd80e0e3f4c02f590258d5fe2091cfb6c21a8d82
F20110320_AAAQSB baquerizo_d_Page_28.tif
9ef51668f1db0758b18f05f3386f071b
cd779f8eb78f2d05fe6214418a64fc74eba02d24
45008 F20110320_AAAQUZ baquerizo_d_Page_50.pro
734fdedf2ab583eb1f3c3067adbe941e
922e5abab471e569c22ad51e95c1b1b22a0bb6a7
69036 F20110320_AAAQND baquerizo_d_Page_04.jpg
be7107004b28e97a477637d57eb51748
bbec1c0730ac25680b553fca1c279603f18d75fa
25647 F20110320_AAAQZX baquerizo_d_Page_26thm.jpg
83b0f95a3a3537c631fea08a1c60da5f
9aac1a8142d0071d312bf63a988df7239d2ab6ea
F20110320_AAAQSC baquerizo_d_Page_29.tif
c0714734eab980978b16aef4d68fd041
b4021c4152bb1ea584f5b037455c6ce7f303c4c4
247428 F20110320_AAAQNE baquerizo_d_Page_05.jpg
ea9b8a3f07f757e4e97a86e3cb6cdac9
fb6b4e83d8eb14223c6b89d5b7f8f9df134fb35f
21357 F20110320_AAAQZY baquerizo_d_Page_35thm.jpg
23bec0497ad2ed743a65b98b8fee6001
610dd61bc4c8940834ffec7dbe17b658c95ab2ad
F20110320_AAAQSD baquerizo_d_Page_30.tif
4c5d860436c98d337013ea077bea29cb
d75126a148c5f957497dfc9ae92b70e6dc49420e
77061 F20110320_AAAQNF baquerizo_d_Page_06.jpg
ffdb92ad8d56f0b710196c20180291ca
93dbdb508f3230894e41854ebba8d401ae1babd9
899 F20110320_AAAQXA baquerizo_d_Page_47.txt
dbc183fa7e76aa1af6caf6174e03acc1
ab812b02ab57d05b0d1e793a9877669d693af829
19651 F20110320_AAAQZZ baquerizo_d_Page_01.QC.jpg
c6e49623e069010e8a467412ecdf0338
7e9a6cd358179661554e4c4a34ec31fb2f241e35
F20110320_AAAQSE baquerizo_d_Page_31.tif
2e4c48fae2723540cca821cee4f5262a
a5e13ccf40c1abfc417d7a8b682f19dfa3425dbc
313919 F20110320_AAAQNG baquerizo_d_Page_07.jpg
e058e12360f3c7d8d959636524c3e047
396014c97b9a27f152394d2bbbb148987543bf1b
1471 F20110320_AAAQXB baquerizo_d_Page_48.txt
27523c4beccdb7e877393e2de97df85f
b794f83ad449b8e82d1755b2ef19f0cc60b3e2e8


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0009784/00001

Material Information

Title: Dwarfism in Low Chill Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum)
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0009784:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0009784/00001

Material Information

Title: Dwarfism in Low Chill Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum)
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0009784:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











DWARFISM IN LOW CHILL HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY
(Vaccinium corymbosum)













By

DAVID H. BAQUERIZO


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

U NIVE RS ITY OF FLORI DA


2005



























Copyright 2005

by
David H. Baquerizo



































This thesis is dedicated to Karen, David Manuel, Gabriel Roberto, Ana Faustina
and Maria Teresa.














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Dr. Paul Lyrene, my chairman professor, for his guidance during this

project, and for the opportunity of learning about breeding blueberries and
horticulture firsthand.

I thank my advisors, Dr. Wayne Sherman, Dr. Mark Bassett and Dr. Ramon

Littell, for all their contributions to this study.

I also thank my family for their support and all the nice people at the

University of Florida. Because of people like them, life is beautiful and full of joy.























TABLE OF CONTENTS






ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .........._._ ...... .___ ...............iv....


LIST OF TABLES .........._._ ...... .___ ...............vii...


LIST OF FIGURES .........._._ ...... .___ ...............viii...


ABSTRACT .........._._ ...... .___ ...............ix....


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION................ ............. 1


2 L ITE RATU RE REVI EW. ........._._._.. ...... ............... 4..


Morphology of Dwarf Plants ........._.._... .......... ....____ ...........4
Genetics and Physiology of Plant Dwarfism ........._._............ ............. 5
Highbush Blueberry Domestication ...._._._._ ........____ ........___........ 7

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS ........._._.. ......___ ....._.. ............1


Morphological Studies ...._ ......_____ ........___ .. ...... .....1
Multiple Comparison Analysis................ ............... 11
Internode length ............. ...... ._ ....._ _. ............1
Leaf area........ ... ... .........__ ............_ .. .... ....._ .......... 1
Height of the plant or length of the longest shoot .......................... 14
Logistic Regression Analysis ......._._.............._ ........._ ........ 14
Inheritance Studies ..............__......._ ....._._ .... ........1
Field Observations................ ............. 15
Controlled Crosses ..........._.._ ....._ ............... 16....


4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............... ............... 18


Morphological Studies ...._ ......_____ ........___ .. ...... .....1
Multiple Comparison Studies ...._ ......_____ ...... ... ..__......... 18
Logistic Regression Analysis ...._ ......_____ ...... ... ..__......... 23
Inheritance Studies ............. .....__ ............... 30...












5 CONCLUSIONS................. ............. 38


APPENDIX CATEGORICAL DATA ANALYSIS................. ............... 39


LITERATURE CITED ............. ...... ._ ............... 44....


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............. ...... .__ ....___ .............4

















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

1 Length of three-internodes (mean+~2 SE) of dwarf and normal plants
(average of 10 measurements) ................. ................. 20......... ...

2 Results of the t-test for the length of three internodes of dwarf plants vs.
normal plants ................. ................. 20..............

3 Individual leaf area (mean +2 SE)................ .................. 21

4 Results of the t-test for the leaf area of dwarf plants vs. normal plants...... 21

5 Frequency of plants in different categories of length and branch number
for each plant type. ........... ....._ ............... 25.

6 Model 1 and Model 2 equations with logit, odds of dwarf and probability
of dwarf, for Model 2 only. ...._ ......_____ ......._ __ ...........2

7 Model 4 and Model 5 equations with logit, odds of dwarf and probability
of dwarf, for Model 5 only. ...._ ......_____ ......._ __ ...........2

8 Results of fitting five logistic regression models to the dwarf data ............29

9 Segregation ratios and chi-square tests for normal to dwarf ratios (3:1
and 11:1) for dwarf-segregating normal stature phenotype crosses from
the 2002, 2003 and 2004 high density plots. ........... __... ......__........ 31

10 Tetrasomic inheritance frequencies following chromosomal segregation .. 33

11 Segregation ratios and chi-square test for normal to dwarf ratios in dwarf
x dwarf controlled crosses................ ................ 34

12 Segregation ratios and chi-square test for normal to dwarf ratios in dwarf
x normal controlled crosses. ................. ................. 35.............

13 Segregation ratios and chi-square test for normal to dwarf ratios in
normal x normal controlled crosses. ................. ................ ......... 35

14 Cross table of all the controlled crosses per genotype evaluated in this
study. ................. ................. 36..............
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figureur page

1 The author with dwarf and normal highbush blueberry, May 2005....._...... 18

2 Dotplot of length of three internodes (mm) by clone ........._...... .............. 19

3 Dotplot of leaf area (mm2) by clone................ ................. 22

4 Scatter plot of three year old dwarf and normal plant heights (cm) from
the 2003 Stage 2 nursery................ ................ 23

5 Scatter plot of height versus number of branches for dwarf and normal
plants 10 month old. ........._._ ....__._ .. ............... 24














Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
DWARFISM IN LOW CHILL HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY
(Vaccinium corymbosum)

By
David H. Baquerizo

December 2005

Chair: Paul M. Lyrene
Major Department: Horticultural Science
Plant dwarfism was studied in the highbush blueberry (Vaccinium

corymbosum complex hybrid) breeding program at the University of Florida
between the fall of 2002 and spring of 2005. Morphological studies included

comparisons among dwarf and normal populations for plant height, internode

length, leaf area and number of sprouts or branching. Inheritance studies were
conducted by crossing dwarf x normal, dwarf x dwarf and normal x normal plants,

and by making field observations on more than 10,000 seedlings from normal x

normal crosses grown in high-density seedling nurseries in the breeding

program.
All of the studied morphological traits were significantly different between

normal and dwarf populations. Plant height, internode length and leaf area of

normal plants were 2.5, 1.7 and 2.7 times that of dwarf plants respectively.

Dwarf plants were also characterized by a high number of branches when









compared to normal. Based on a logistic regression analysis, plants that had

more than 5 branches and were less than 16 cm tall at 10 months had a 99.4 %

probability of being dwarf. Conversely, the probability of a dwarf plant was 0.9%

for plants with fewer than three branches and a height exceeding 16 cm.

The fertility of the studied dwarf plants was normal. The genotype of dwarf

plants appears to be simplex (Aaaa), with the nulliplex form being lethal. Most

crosses between normal plants that segregated dwarfs segregated in an 11:1

and 27:8 normal to dwarf ratio, supporting the hypothesis that triplex and duplex

plants have normal growth habit. Triple to duplex cross produces dwarf to

normal ratios of 11:1. Duplex to duplex cross segregates in a 27:8 normal to

dwarf ratio. Segregation ratios in a few dwarf to dwarf and dwarf to normal

crosses did not fit the proposed model.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Mature plant height is influenced by both environment and genotype.

Environmental influences can significantly reduce plant height and produce

dwarfed plants, as in the case of the bonsai, which, due to constant pruning and

small containers, yields dwarfed plants (Garvey, 1985). Environmentally induced

dwarfism is not passed to its progeny, and it can be tedious work to keep the

plant dwarf. A dwarf genotype achieves its dwarf phenotype without unusual

environmental influence and may pass this trait to its progeny.

Dwarf genotypes are of interest to most breeding programs, because the

shorter stature plants can have advantages in common horticultural practices.

Dwarf genotypes can reduce the cost of controlling tree size (a significant

operational cost for normal height plants), and can maximize the use of available

space. Dwarf plants can also be of horticultural and ornamental use when height

is a limitation in protected agriculture or in indoor landscapes.

Dwarf plants have been important in agriculture. The spectacular increase

in grain yield during the "Green Revolution," particularly in wheat and rice, can be

attributed largely to the dwarf traits introduced into the cultivars (Hedden, 2003).

Horticultural crops that benefit from short sized cultivars or rootstocks include

apples (Atkinson and Else, 2001, Johnson et al., 2001), cherries (Edin et al.,

1996, Franken-Bembenek, 1996), bananas and raspberries (Keep, 1969).

Advantages offered by dwarf plants include easier harvest, less need for









trimming and pruning to control height, and suitability for high-density planting

designs.

Dwarf trees may also be useful for studying the genetic control of

physiological factors affecting shoot growth (Sommer et al., 1999). To date,

there has been much published research that used dwarf mutations to study

plant regulators. Curtis et al. (2000) discovered a feedback control of GA 20-

oxidase gene expression in Solanum dulcamara by over-expressing the pumpkin

gene CmGA20ox1 that induced semi-dwarf plants in S. dulcamara. Molecular

and genetic studies of dwarf mutants of arabidopsis, tomato and pea have

helped explain the role of brassinosteroid biosynthesis and regulation (Li and

Chory, 1998).

Dwarf growth habit has been previously observed and studied in highbush

blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum complex hybrids). In 1984, Draper et al.

studied dwarf selections and concluded that their data appeared not to fit

tetraploid genetic ratios for a single locus; furthermore plant height in crosses

involving dwarfs appeared to follow a continuous distribution. In the University of

Florida blueberry breeding program, dwarf plants have been observed

segregating from southern highbush crosses in which both parents had normal

stature. These dwarf seedlings are characterized by reduced height and by

compact and multiple-sprouted canopy, similar to the dwarf Vaccinium ashei (FL

78-66) described by Garvey and Lyrene (1987).






3

The objective of this research was to study the inheritance and morphology

of different southern highbush dwarf phenotypes observed in the University of

Florida blueberry breeding program.














CHAPTER 2
L ITE RATU RE REVI EW

Morphology of Dwarf Plants

Dwarf plants are characterized by reduced height when compared to

normal plants. Dwarfness results from either smaller andlor fewer cells (Gale

and Youssefian, 1985) and thus, shorter andlor fewer internodes. Bindloss

(1942) reported fewer cell divisions in the stem of a dwarf Lycopersicon

esculentum L. compared to a normal plant. Pelton (1964), as cited by Garvey

(1985), reported precocious secondary cell wall thickening in the dwarf

columbine (Aguilegea vulgares L. cultivar 'Compacta'). This was believed to

result in smaller cells and dwarf plants.

Other morphological traits that have been described in dwarf plants include

smaller canopy (Fideghelli et al., 2003); higher number of sprouts (Wareing and

Phillis, 1978; Draper et al., 1984; Garvey and Lyrene, 1987), smaller leaves

(Draper et al., 1984), smaller reproductive organs, smaller fruits, and smaller root

weight and depth (Gale and Youssefian, 1985).

In blueberries, dwarf plants have been observed and studied. Draper and

colleagues in 1984 reported dwarf selections of V. corymbosum with shorter

internodes and smaller leaves. They also mentioned a bushy appearance to

each shoot caused by high sprouting. Garvey and Lyrene (1987) observed and

studied dwarf selections of V. ashei. The dwarf plants were described as short-

saturated and compact-growing.









Genetics and Physiology of Plant Dwarfism

Reports on the inheritance of dwarfing genes are numerous and diverse.

There are good examples of simple inheritance like the recessive dw gene in

peach (Hansche et al., 1986), the monogenic recessive dwarfing genes in

raspberry: fr, n and dw (Knight and Scott, 1964; Jennings, 1967) and the single

dominant gene for compact habit in 'Wijcik' apple (Lapins and Watkins, 1973).

Keep (1969) mentioned the digenic 'sturdy dwarf' and 'crumpled dwarf' in

raspberry.

There are also complex inheritances that can not be explained by a known

inheritance ratio. Examples include the Vaccinium dwarfs studied by Draper and

colleagues (1984) and by Garvey and Lyrene (1987). These dwarf phenotypes

might be the product of several interacting genes.

Aneuploidy can also affect the stature of plants and cause dwarfs. With

aneuploids, fertility is significantly reduced because the abnormal chromosome

number affects meiosis, producing some non-viable gametes.

Three major groups of hormones are most often reported in association

with dwarf phenotypes. The most commonly mentioned group is gibberellins

(GA), followed by auxins and brassinosteroids. A fourth group, cytokinins has

been implicated in some dwarfs.

Gibberellins are usually associated with shoot and cell elongation, internode

length and other plant developmental processes like fruit enlargement (Berhow,

2000). Gibberellin was named after the fungus Gibberella fujikuroi, which causes

elongation in infected rice seedlings. Foliar application of GA (either GA3 Or GA4)









in apple (Mlalus domestica Borkh) decreased shoot number but increased total

shoot length and total bud number (Kurshid et al., 1997).

Mutations affecting GA synthesis, deactivation and reception are usually

identified via a shoot elongation screen (Ross et al. 1997). Short plant (dwarf)

mutants can be categorized as responsive or non-responsive depending on their

response to exogenous gibberellins.

Ladizinsky (1997) described a dwarf phenotype in Lens characterized by

short internodeh, short leaf axis and smaller convex leaflets. This dwarf, when

sprayed with GA, responds positively by elongation of the internode and leaf-

axis. Dwarfs that respond in this way to GA applications are referred to as GA

responsive or GA sensitive dwarfs. Goldman and Watson (1997) described a

monogenic dwarf mutant in red beet (Beta vulgaris L. subsp. Vulgaris) that is also

sensitive to GA.

Mackenzie-House et al. (1998) gives a good example of a non responsive

dwarf mutant. Application of GA to Pisum sativum L. plants that carry the Irs

mutation reduces internode length, GA synthesis and cell elongation.

Borner et al. (1999) studied two dwarfing genes in barley (Hordeum

vulgare), the recessive gai and gal dwarfing genes. Both were on chromosome

2H and both reduced plant height, but the gal phenotype was sensitive to

exogenous GA, whereas the gai phenotype was insensitive.

Auxins are also directly involved in regulation of stem elongation (Little et

al., 2003), and they might be present at lower levels in dwarf plants than in

normal tall plants (Yang et al., 1993). An abrupt growth response was observed









by Yang et al. (1996) in dwarf mutants (GAl-deficient le) of light-grown pea

(Pisum sativum L.) after applying IAA. The lag time was only 20 minutes, and

the plants reached a growth rate up to ten times higher than the control. The

elongation was in the older elongating internodes. Gibberellins also caused an

elongation response (mainly in less than 25% of expanded internodes). The

authors concluded that auxins and gibberellins control separate processes that

together contribute to stem elongation. A deficiency in either leads to a dwarf

phenotype.

Brassinosteroids have also been observed to cause dwarf plants, mainly

due to their role throughout plant growth and development. Yin et al. (2002) and

Schaller (2003) reported that plants with defective brassinosteroid biosynthesis

and perception have cell elongation defects and severe dwarfism.

Since prolific sprouting is characteristic of many dwarf types and is the

result of the growth of many axillary buds (Wareing and Phillis, 1978), and since

the interaction among auxins and cytokinins has been reported to control apical

dominance (Sachs and Thimann, 1967), cytokinins should also be considered

when investigating plant dwarfism mechanisms, because cytokinins can disrupt

apical dominance and cause the multiple sprouting or bushy branches reported

with the dwarf phenotype by Draper et al. (1984).

Highbush Blueberry Domestication

The domestication of highbush blueberries (complex hybrids of Vaccinium

corymbosum L.) started early in the 20th century with the work of Frederick

Coville, a botanist who made the first selections for breeding purposes in the first

US blueberry breeding program (Coville, 1937).









From the beginning, highbush blueberries were hybridized with other

species in vaccinium section Cyanococcus (Moore, 1966). Some of the other

species used to improve the highbush blueberry included lowbush blueberry (V.

angustifolium Ait.) and the myrtle blueberry of Florida (V. myrsinites Lam.). Early

in the breeding of blueberries it was noticed that some species did not hybridize,

and it was determined by the cytological work of Longley in 1927 (cited by

Coville, 1937) that the primary cause was the difference in ploidy diploids when

crossed with tetraploid species did not hybridize, or if they did, they produced a

few low vigor plants (Coville, 1937).

Draper and Hancock (2003) mentioned the work of Darrow and Sharpe,

who selected a V. darrowi (Camp) plant that they found near Tampa, Florida.

They named it Florida 4B, and this plant has been used extensively in the

southern highbush blueberry breeding programs to reduce the high chill

requirement of the northern highbush (Sharpe, 1954; Sharpe and Darrow, 1959;

Sharpe and Sherman, 1971; Lyrene and Sherman, 1984). It is important to

mention that this diploid plant hybridizes with the tetraploid V. corymbosum

because it produces unreduced gametes (Lyrene, Vorsa and Ballington, 2003).

Other interspecific crosses involving tetraploid cultivated blueberries with

non tetraploid species included hexaploid V. ashei (Darrow, 1949; Lyrene and

Sherman, 1984) and diploid V. elliottii (Lyrene and Sherman, 1983; Lyrene and

Sherman, 1985).

The rabbiteve blueberry (V. ashei) was grown commercially in Florida

starting around 1893, and by the late 1920's approximately two- to three-









thousand acres were in cultivation (James, 1924; Clayton, 1925; Mowry and

Camp, 1928; Lyrene and Sherman, 1979). By 1930, the industry had declined

rapidly, mainly because the quality of the Florida blueberries was low compared

to New Jersey and Michigan blueberries. The northern blueberries were

produced on clonally-propagated cultivars based on V. corymbosum developed

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Lyrene and Sherman, 1977). To

support the blueberry industry in the southeast, brdeding efforts with V. ashei

were started in 1940 in Tifton, Georgia (Brightwell, 1971) and with highbush

blueberries in Florida in 1948 (Sharpe and Sherman, 1971).

The Florida blueberry breeding program has focused mainly on the

improvement of the tetraploid V. corymbosum, rather than on the hexaploid V.

ashei. Lyrene and Sherman (1977) mentioned various reasons for this, including

the fact that Georgia already had an active rabbiteve breeding program, and

none of the Vaccinium species in Florida can be easily crossed with V. ashei

without producing pentaploids. Further, early ripening (the most significant

advantage for Florida) and low chilling were not readily available in V. ashei

germplasm.

Low-chill highbush blueberries from Florida, based on V. corymbosum and

V. darrowi hybrids, has resulted in an early-season blueberry industry in Florida

and Georgia. To date, the annual shipment of fresh-market blueberries from

Florida is about 4 million pounds and is increasing yearly. The estimated

wholesale value (farm gate value) is about $20 million per year. Almost all early-






10


season varieties grown in Florida came from the University of Florida blueberry

breeding program (Dr. Paul Lyrene, personal communication).














CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS

It was noticed in the Florida tetraploid highbush breeding program that

some crosses between two plants of normal stature segregated dwarfs. Two of

these dwarf plants, 00-266 and 00-08, were selected by Dr. Paul Lyrene before

the study reported here was carried out, because of their desirable traits for

breeding (early leafing and high fruit quality). Other dwarf selections were made

during the study period from the high density seedling nurseries of 2002 and

2003. The high density nursery (Stage One) consisted of about 120 different

crosses of normal stature plants, about 90 seedlings per cross, producing a

highly diverse blueberry population.

Morphological Studies

Two analyses were carried out for morphological traits with the objective of

contrasting normal and dwarf types. The first was a multiple comparison analysis

for particular traits (e.g. internode length). The second was a logistic regression

analysis that modeled the response (the probability of being a dwarf) for given

parameters (i.e. height and sprouting).

Multiple Comparison Analysis

To classify and distinguish dwarfs from normal plants, internode length, leaf

area, and plant height were measured from different clones representing the

dwarf and normal types.









The dwarf plants studied for internode length and leaf area measurements

were selected from the high density nursery (Stage One) of 2003, except for 00-

266 and 00-08 which had been selected and propagated previously by Dr. Paul

Lyrene. Dwarf plants were selected subjectively by visual inspection, but the

dwarf plants appeared to be qualitatively different from their normal full-siblings,

and there were few or no plants whose classification was not obvious. The

normal plants selected for contrast with the dwarfs also had a diverse

background and were used previously in the breeding program (some of them

are known cultivars, e.g. 'Emerald' and 'Jewel')

All plants used in this study were at least one year old. They were grown in

black 3-liter pots filled with peat, outside in full sun, watered as needed, and

fertilized with Tracite 20-20-20 with minor elements (Helena Corp.) about once a

month during the growing season. The measurements were taken at the end of

August 2003.

The plants for the height study were selected from the high density seedling

nursery of 2002. From these seedlings, approximately 36 plants were selected

as dwarfs in the spring of 2003 and were transplanted to fallow ground at one

end of the nursery to keep them from being shaded by taller plants.

The height of these 36 dwarf plants as well as of 36 randomly selected tall

plants from the Stage Two nursery of 2003 was determined. The Stage Two

nursery of 2003 was the group of selected plants (based on their desired

breeding attributes) from the high density nursery of 2002 after the unselected

plants were removed.









A one side t-test for two populations (dwarf vs. normal) was conducted to

determine if there were statistical differences between the two populations for the

traits studied. Analyses of variance and multiple comparisons were also

conducted. Tukey's Wprocedure with alpha=0.05 was performed to determine if

there were statistical differences between the means of each clone for the

studied traits.

Internode length

The average lengths of three-internode stem segments were determined for

12 clones: six dwarf (00-08, 00-266, 03-105, 03-112, 03-115 and 03-118) and six

normal ('Emerald', 'Jewel', 00-204, 00-206, 00-59, 98-325). The three internodes

measured started at the fourth node counting from the tip of a randomly selected

stem and ending at the seventh node from the tip. The fourth internode was

selected as the starting point to avoid measuring internodes that were still

elongating. Internode length was measured for ten stem segments of each

clone.

Leaf area

The leaf area (LA) of dwarf and normal types was estimated by measuring

leaf length (L) and leaf width (W), then calculating the area using the formula for

a rhombus (LA= W L / 2). Five leaves were measured for each of 18 clones,

nine dwarf (00-08, 00-266, 03-105, 03-112, 03-114, 03-115, 03-116, 03-117, 03-

118) and nine normal type ('Emerald', 'Jewel', 95-174, 97-118, 98-325, 00-59,

00-116, 00-206, 00-204). The measured leaves were mature and picked at

random.









Height of the plant or length of the longest shoot

The height of the plants was measured from the soil level to the tip of the

longest shoot.

Logistic Regression Analysis

Plants used in this study originated from seed sown in pots of peat in June

2003. In August, the seeds were germinated in a controlled temperature

chamber at about 10oC with continuous illumination. After germination was at

about 50%, the seedlings were moved to a greenhouse. They were transplanted

at 2cm by 2cm spacing to trays of peat in September 2003. They were grown in

a greenhouse until May 2004, being watered daily by hand and fertilized every 3

weeks with Tracite 20-20-20. At the end of May, when the plants were about 10

months old, they were visually classified into dwarf and normal phenotypes.

Measurements were taken for each class as described below.

Categorical data analysis was conducted using SAS (the SAS System V.9),

to model the log of the probability that the plant was dwarf given the predictor

parameters: length of the longest shoot (measured as described previously) and

branching (the number of sprouts or branches on the longest shoot, divided by

the length of that shoot measured in cm), by a multiple logistic regression

analysis. Both predictors were treated as categorical variables. Scores were

assigned to each predictor category, and backward elimination of predictors was

conducted to select the most appropriate model as described by Agresti (1996).

(For detailed information on logistic regressions see Appendix).

The benefit of this analysis is that it allows the study of various parameters

(i.e. length of the longest shoot and branching) as well as their interaction, as









predictors for a categorical response (i.e. dwarf vs. normal blueberries). It was

noticed that dwarf blueberries had high sprouting and low stature. Both

parameters were predictors of dwarf blueberry plants. These parameters were

also preferred over others, because they were the easiest to measure.

Inheritance Studies

Field observations from crosses of the University of Florida blueberry

breeding program were made in the fall of 2002, 2003 and 2004 to study the

inheritance of dwarfness. Controlled crosses between selected dwarf plants and

normal plants were carried out in a greenhouse in the fall of 2002 and were

evaluated during the summer and fall of 2004. The evaluation consisted of

classifying the progeny plants as either normal or dwarf by their physical

appearance (the normal being taller and with normal branching, while the dwarf

smaller and with high branching) to obtain inheritance ratios.

Normal to dwarf ratios from field observations of the breeding program and

from the controlled crosses were analyzed statistically by a chi-square test to see

how well they fit various hypothesized ratios.

Field Observations

The field observations were made in Stage One high density nurseries

planted in 2002, 2003 and 2004. All of the clones used for the crosses were of

normal stature phenotype. Stage One is the first field stage in the blueberry

breeding program before any selection is done. For each nursery, the seeds

were planted in December. The seedlings were transplanted to trays of peat and

grown in a greenhouse until May. Then, they were transplanted to a fumigated

field nursery (Stage One) at a spacing of 15 cm between plants and 45 cm









between rows (about 15 plants per m2). The evaluations were carried out in

October 2002, November 2003 and November 2004, after the plants had been

growing in the field nursery for 10 to 11 months.

Controlled Crosses

Dwarf plants were selected from the 2002 Stage One high density nursery

based on their vigor and attractive architecture, except for 00-266 and 00-08,

which had been selected previously. The plants were prepared for winter

crossing by keeping them in the greenhouse and not allowing them to enter

dormancy. Controlled pollination as described by Galletta (1975) was started in

January and continued until the end of March. Various cross combinations were

tried: dwarf to dwarf (00-266 x 00-08, 00-266 x 03-105, 00-08 x 03-105 and 03-

112 x 00-08), dwarf to normal (00-266 x 01-21, 00-266 x 'Emerald', 00-08 x

'Emerald') normal to dwarf (01-21 x 03-112, 'Jewel' x 00-266), normal to normal

(03-120 x 'Southern Belle', 03-54 x 'Santa Fe', 03-73 x 'Jewel', 'Emerald' x

'Sapphire') and self (00-266 and 00-08).

The mature fruits were harvested, and the seeds were extracted following

the method used in the blueberry breeding program. The berries were processed

in a food blender with water for a few seconds, after which most of the seeds

were obtained by washing away the flesh and skin of the berries. The seeds

were then dried at room temperature and stored in a refrigerator at 7oC until they

were sown in pots with peat moss and germinated in a chamber with a

temperature of about 10oC in the summer of 2003. The seedlings started to

germinate in early August, and were then transplanted to trays, 48 seedlings per

tray, in September. A total of 96 seedlings, two trays filled to capacity, were






17


grown for each controlled cross in the greenhouse. Each cross was evaluated

for dwarf to normal ratios in February, when the plants were about 6 months old

and still growing in greenhouse trays.

Only the dwarf plants were transplanted to the 2004 Stage One high density

nursery. A follow up evaluation was performed in October 2004 to check for

possible short normal plants that could have been erroneously classified.












CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Morphological Studies
Multiple Comparison Studies
The studied dwarf plants were short, with a compact look similar to the

descriptions of dwarf blueberries given by Draper et al. (1983), and Garvey and

Lyrene (1987) (Figure 1). Among the dwarf plants observed in the field, leaf size,

plant height and branching were variable, just as these characteristics are
variable among seedling blueberries that are not dwarfs.


Figure 1. The author with dwarf and normal highbush blueberry, May 2005.


05.






19


The internodes of the dwarfs were significantly shorter than those of normal

plants (P = 0.0001, see Table 1 and 2). The average dwarf internode was

somewhat over half the normal length. Nevertheless, dwarfs 00-08 and 00-266

were not significantly different from normal 00-206, and only dwarf 00-266 was

not significantly different from normal cultivar 'Jewel' (Figure 2).


80 -- Dwarf clones a Normal clones

S 70 -- h
fg gh
S 601 o 8 9
efg ef a

cd cde Q

30 ac be 8
20 -

10 -

clone

~~~~~ ~LLJ

Figure 2. Dotplot of length of three internodes (mm) by clone. The group means
are indicated by horizontal red lines and each circle represents an
observation. The first 6 plants were considered dwarf and the last six
normal. The letters on top of each clone represent the statistical
grouping according to Tukey's W procedure.

Leaf area was also smaller in the dwarfs compared to normal plants (Table

3 and 4). Nevertheless, leaf areas of dwarf genotypes: 03-114, 03-105, 00-08

and 00-266 were not statistically different from the normal genotypes 98-325, 97-

118, 95-174, 00-59, and 00-204 (Figure 3). Also dwarfs 03-105, 00-08 and 00-

266 were not statistically different from the normal cultivar 'Jewel'.









Table 1. Length of three-internodes (mean i2 SE) of dwarf and normal plants
(average of 10 measurements).
Pedigree Typey Three-internode length (mm)
(Mean i2 SEz)
00-08 D 29.76 2.32
00-266 D 32.24 & 2.18
03-105 D 27.52 & 2.32
03-1 12 D 25. 12 13.01
03-1 15 D 20.45 12.93
03-1 18 D 17.47 *1 .90
Emerald N 53.41 17.80
Jewel N 41 .30 & 2.68
98-325 N 41.51 & 3.45
00-59 N 46. 18 & 4.65
00-206 N 36.99 & 3.82
00-204 N 42.98 & 4.91
' D= Dwarf, N= Normal
z SE= SDI(n1/2)

Table 2. Results of the t-test for the length of three internodes of dwarf plants vs.
normal plants

Typez N Mean Std.Dev. SE Mean
D 6 25.43 5.62 2.3
N 6 43.73 5.60 2.3
z D= Dwarf, N= Normal

95% Cl for p dwarf type p normal type: (-25.6, -11.0)
Ho: p dwarf type = p normal type; Ha: p dwarf type < p normal
type
t = -5.65 P-value = 0.0002 DF = 9










Table 3. Individual leaf area (mean 1 2 SE). Average of 5 measurements of
dwarf and normal plants.
Clone TypeY Leaf area (mm )
(Mean i2 SEz)
00-08 D 507.1 1150.2
00-266 D 565.0 &114.0
03-1 05 D 443.91 161.4
03-1 12 D 21 1.9 154.6
03-1 14 D 382.2 195.8
03-1 15 D 21 1.6 162.6
03-1 16 D 199.8 172.6
03-1 17 D 145.8 122.8
03-1 18 D 136.8 143.2
Emerald N 1242.2 &149. 0
Jewel N 780.31170.0
95-1 74 N 672.31133.0
97-1 18 N 620.0 1202.0
98-325 N 683.8 193.0
00-59 N 761.2 &172.4
00-1 16 N 1079.0 & 226.0
00-206 N 953.0 & 330.0
00-204 N 668.6 & 46.0
yD= Dwarf, N= Normal
z SE= SDI(n1/2)

Table 4. Results of the t-test for the leaf area of dwarf plants vs. normal plants

Type NY Meanz Std.Dev. SE Mean
Dwarf 9 312 164 55
Normal 9 829 215 72
Y'N number of observations
z Square mm

95% Cl for p dwarf type p normal type: (-711,-324)
Ho: p dwarf type = p normal type; Ha: p dwarf type < p normal
type
T = -5.74 P-value = 0.0000 DF = 14











Dwarf clones Normal clones
1500 -( g O
Sfg
E efg
E cdef
B def T 8 o
-- 1000-
a cde
bcd 8 cde 0 0 0
abcd a o a d
abcd o e
-g. abc a
O500 o a o
b o cde
a~~ o a ab_ b



Clone I l l ll llll

OOO OOO OO 00

Figure 3. Dotplot of leaf area (mm2) by clone. Group means are indicated by
horizontal red lines and each circle represents an observation. The
letters on top of each clone represent the statistical grouping according
to Tukey's W procedure.

Plant height was significantly different among dwarf and normal plants.

Three year old normal plants were 2.5 times taller than three year old dwarf

plants, both from the 2003 Stage 2 nursery (Figure 4). The analysis of variance

reported an F value of 309.1 with one degree of freedom for plant type (P value=

0.000)>.










180.0
160.0
140.0 -P O Op
O O 0 0O 95% Cl
S120.0 pg OO O O O 124.2 & 6.9
100.0 OO
,a 80.0 4O **
S60.0 *. of + + s 95% Cl
S40.0 -~ 4 4 ~* 4 4* 49.8 & 4.8
20.0
0.0 r, ar
0 10 20 30 40 oNra
Plant number


Figure 4. Scatter plot of three year old dwarf and normal plant heights (cm) from
the 2003 Stage 2 nursery. Plant numbers are the sequence in which
the plants were measured.

Logistic Regression Analysis

The total number of plants observed (373) had a large range for both

variables (44.0 cm for shoot length and 18.9 cm for number of branches), which

was due mainly to the differences between dwarf and normal types. Dwarf plants

were shorter, with a mean of 11.8 & 0.5 cm and a 95% confidence interval (CI) of

4.9 to 18.7 cm, whereas the mean length of normal plants was 22.1 & 0.7 cm with

a 95% Cl of 11.1 to 33.0 cm. Dwarf plants also had more sprouts, with a median

of six branches compared to a median of three branches for normal plants.

In order to determine the number of categories to use for each predictor

and to assign their ranges, a scatter plot of shoot length versus branch number

was made (Figure 5). Two categories were assigned for shoot length plants

with shoots less than or equal to sixteen centimeters and plants with shoots

longer than sixteen centimeters, and three categories for branch number plants









that had three branches or fewer, those that had between four and five branches

and those that had more than five branches. The categories were chosen in

such a way that each category would include both dwarf and normal plants so

that the chi square approximation would be valid (Table 5).












*i *









0 2 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Branches (count)

Figure 5. Scatter plot of height versus number of branches for dwarf and normal
plants 10 month old.

Using these categories, a logistic regression analysis was carried out to

model the odds of a plant being a dwarf (probability of dwarf I probability of

normal plants) and to test the main effects of the two predictors, shoot length and

branch number, as well as to test for interaction effects. For information on

logistic regression analysis see Appendix.


on effects. For information on

logistic regression analysis see Appendix.









Table 5. Frequency of plants in different categories of length and branch number
for each plant type.
Length of tallest shoot (cm)
Branches
(total count of shoots) Dwarf plants Normal plants
I 16 >16 116 >16
<4 27 2 22 106
4-5 45 6 6 51
>5 88 10 1 9


First, using the univariate procedure in SAS, the categories were given

scores. For branches, the scores were: 3, 4, and 8, which were the medians for

each group. The scores for the length groups were the means for each group,

11.6 and 22.9. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed using all

variables, as well as all interactions. A second model was tested using only the

length measurements and number of branches as predictors, ignoring potential

interactions. The models are given below (see Table 6 and 8). The first model

had a good fit with G2=199.89 and df=367. The second model also had a good

fit with G2=199.93 and df-369. The likelihood ratio statistics for the interacting

terms showed there were no significant interactions between length and

branches. The differences in deviances between the two models were small,

0.04 with two degrees of freedom (P>X22 = 0.980). Thus, these differences were

not significant and it was concluded that dropping the interaction terms would

have no effect on the ability of the model to predict the log of the odds of a plant

being a dwarf.









Both predictors, height and branch number, were significant. The likelihood-

ratio test gave probability values <0.0001 for both predictors. Thus Model 2 was

the better model for indicating whether a plant was dwarf or normal.

Table 6. Model 1 and Model 2 equations with logit, odds of dwarf and probability
of dwarf, for Model 2 only.

MODEL1: Logit P(Y=dwarf) = 0.1054 4.0757 [b43] 2.2454 [41b15] + 4.3720 [1116] 0.1969 [b<=3]*
[1116] 0.2170[411b55]*[I116]

MODEL 2: Logit P(Y=dwarf) = 0.137 4.127 [b13] 2.299 [41b15] + 4.198 [1116]

Logit (Y=dwarf) Branches (b) 53 41b15 Branches (b) > 5
Odds of dwarf
Probabiliy of dwarf
Length (1) 5 16 0.208 2.036 4.335
1.23 7.66 76.32
0.552 0.885 0.987
Length (1) > 16 -3.990 -2.162 0.137
0.02 0.103 1.15
0.018 0.115 0.534


Using the simpler model (Model 2), it was found that the odds of getting a

dwarf plant, if the number of branches was three or fewer, was 1.6% of the odds

of getting a dwarf plant when the number of branches was greater than five, with

a 95% confidence of 0.5% to 4.9%. Furthermore, the odds of a dwarf plant with

four or five branches was 10% the odds of a dwarf plant with more than five

branches (95% Cl 3.5% to 28.5%). The odds of getting a dwarf with three or

fewer branches was 16% the odds of having a dwarf with four or five branches.

Finally, a plant was 66.5 times (95% Cl 28.2 to 157.1i) more likely to be a dwarf if

its height was less than 16 cm than if its height was more than 16 cm.

Table 6 shows that the probability that a plant is dwarf increased as branch

count increased for a given length category, whereas the estimated probability of









dwarf types decreased when plant height was taller than sixteen centimeters for

a given branch category.

During the analysis of this model it was realized that the odds of a dwarf

with fewer than three branches was 1.6% the odds of a dwarf with more than five

branches. This number seemed rather small. The odds of getting a dwarf with

four and five branches was only 10% the odds of getting dwarfs with more than

five branches. It was hypothesized that a simpler model would fit, using only two

categories for branches those with more than five branches and those with five

or fewer branches. This model was labeled Model 3. However, Model 3 fit the

data poorly. The deviance of this model was 20. 13 with only three degrees of

freedom and various large residuals, which illustrates the poor fit of this model to

the data.

Going back to the second model, the residuals were studied. There were

three observations with large residuals, which may have had an effect on the

original model. As seen in Table 7 and Table 8, after removing these outliers,

the model was again fitted one with interaction terms (Model 4) and one without

interaction terms (Model 5). The observations with the large residuals were two

relatively tall plants that had very few branches, which had been classified as

dwarfs. From the previous analysis of these data, observations like that seemed

very unlikely. Thus, these strong outliers may have shifted the model. The third

outlier was an observation of a plant that had classified as normal but was short

and had numerous branches. After fitting the data to the remaining observations

it was again found through the likelihood-ratio test that the interacting terms were










insignificant and could be dropped from the model (G2 Of model without

interacting terms = 173.30; G2 Of model with interacting terms =169.01, thus the

difference = 4.29 with 2 degrees of freedom and a P>X22= 0.117). The deviance

of Model 5, the model that deleted the three outliers and did not include of

interactions, was equal to 173.30 with 366 degrees of freedom, and the model

was declared to be a good fit for the data.

Using Model 5, the odds of getting a dwarf with three or fewer branches

was 0.74% the odds of getting a dwarf with more than five branches (95% Cl:

0.2%, 2.8%). The probability of getting a dwarf with four or five branches was

6.8% the odds of getting a dwarf with more than five branches (95% Cl: 6.0%,

7.6%). The odds of getting a dwarf with three or fewer branches were 10.9% the

odds of getting a dwarf with four or five branches, similar to the results from

Model 2.

Table 7. Model 4 and Model 5 equations with logit, odds of dwarf and probability
of dwarf, for Model 5 only.

MODEL 4: Logit P(Y=dwarf) = 0.1054 28.4709 [b13] 2.2454 [41b15] + 28.2597
[I516]+0.3106[b13]* [1i16] 24.1 048[411b55]*[I116]

MODEL 5: Logit P (Y=dwarf) = 0.266 4.911 [b13] 2.69 [41b15] + 4. 81 [1116]

Logit (Y=dwarf) Branches (b) 53 41b15 Branches (b) > 5
Odds of dwarf
Probability of dwarf
Length (1) 5 16 0.125 2.346 5.036
1.133 10.444 153.853
0.531 0.913 0.994
Length (1) > 16 -4.685 -2.464 0.226
0.009 0.085 1.254
0.009 0.078 0.556



The odds of getting a dwarf with shoot length equal to or less than sixteen

centimeters was 122.73 times the odds of getting a dwarf with shoot length









greater than sixteen centimeters (95% Cl: 42.68, 353.2). For both predictors,

removing the outliers gave stronger evidence that the higher the number of

branches and the shorter the plants, the higher the probability of a dwarf

phenotype, supporting the field observation that dwarf plants are short and with a

higher than normal number of sprouts.

This model has an outcome similar to that of Model 2, but Model 5 showed

slightly stronger evidence for what has been observed in the field. Both models

had high deviances, showing both are good fits for the data. However, Model 5

has a slightly stronger deviance, as such; the p-value for the intercept of the

model is smaller than in Model 2. Thus, Model 5 is a slightly better fit for this

data. More importantly, there are no significant residuals when Model 5 is

applied to the data, omitting the three outliers. Therefore the best fit for the data

is Model 5.

Table 8. Results of fitting five logistic regression models to the dwarf data
Model Deviance DF P> X2 Models Difference P>X2
(G2) Fit of com pared
model
1 199.89 367 1
2 199.93 369 1 (2) -(1) 0.04 (df-2) 0.980
3 20.13 3 0.0002
4 169.01 364 1
5 173.30 366 1 (5) -(4) 4.29 (df-2) 0.117
Not a good fit for the model

It has been shown through categorical analysis that length of the longest

shoot and number of branches, when used together, are good predictors of

dwarfs in blueberry plants. More specifically, analysis of the data has shown that

a plant with more than five branches whose longest shoot is less than sixteen

centimeters long has a 99.4 % probability of being dwarf. Conversely, the









probability of having a dwarf plant with fewer than three branches and measuring

more than sixteen centimeters is 0.9%.

These results are supported by previous observations suggesting that low

or lack of apical dominance, which causes high branching, is associated with

dwarfness in Rubus sturdy dwarf (Keep, 1969) and in highbush blueberry,

Vaccinium corymbosum (Draper et al., 1984).

Inheritance Studies

In the fall of 2002, 2003 and 2004, the high density plots of the blueberry

breeding program at the University of Florida's Plant Science Research and

Education Unit, in Citra, Florida, were studied for dwarf plants.

Each of these three plots consisted of seedlings from about 150 crosses,

with 90 seedlings per cross. The parents for each plant consisted of about 200

different southern highbush cultivars and advanced selections and the parents

differed for each plot. The parents were all highly heterozygous, and the

seedling populations were segregating for many characteristics.

Twenty-five crosses that were segregating dwarfs were identified, and

segregation ratios were determined for each cross. Each progeny population

was examined for fit to a 3:1 and 11:1 normal:dwarf segregation ratio. The

rationale for testing these particular ratios is given below. The dwarf-segregating

populations studied could be classified into two groups. The first seven crosses

in Table 9 fit an inheritance ratio of 3:1 fairly well. The last 18 fit a ratio of 11:1.









Table 9. Segregation ratios and chi-square tests for normal to dwarf ratios (3: 1
and 11:1) for dwarf-segregating normal stature phenotype crosses


from the 2002, 2003
Nursery
Year


and 2004
Normal
(N)
47
70
67
68
73
74
69
87
73
80
64
87
84
92
74
80
69
76
75
85
79
69
60
85
83


high density plots.


Pedigree


Dwarf
(D)
20
18
17
14
23
22
20
8

8
5
9
12
4
7
8

9
5
11
10
9
3
13


P value
0.359
0.325
0.314
0. 097
0.814
0.637
0.582
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.005
0.011
0.022
0.000
0.010


N/D 3:1'
X2


11:1z
X21 P value
40.61 0.000
16.93 0.000
15.58 0.000
8.20 0.004
30.68 0.000
26.73 0.000
23.29 0.000
0.00 0.975
0.02 0.893
0.07 0.79
0. 11 0. 44
0. 14 0.712
2. 18 0. 140
2. 18 0. 140
0.01 0.920
0.07 0.79


01-21 x 96-32
01-20 x Nui
00-43 x S.Belle
Windsor x 98-336
02-38 x 98-325
98-405 x 95-115
NC 2925 x 03-124
97-130 x 93-204
97-61 x 99-220
98-18 x 97-390
01-64 x 97-142
02-20 x 00-61
01-129 x 97-41
02-69 x 00-14
03-47 x S.Belle
03-61 x 90-4
03-01 x S.Belle
03-12 x Emerald
98-406 x Jewel
03-50 x 03-126
02-86 x Sapphire
Sapphire x 95-209-B
Jewel x 02-22
S.Belle x 00-206
03-103 x Santa Fe


2002
2002
2002
2002
2003
2003
2004
2002
2002
2002
2002
2003
2003
2003
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004


2.4
3.9
3.9
4.9
3.2
3.4
3.5
10.9
10.4
10.0
12.8
9.7
7.0
23.0
10.6
10.0
9.9
9.5
8.3
17.0
7.2
6.9
6.7
28.3
6.4


0.84
0.97
1.02
2.75
0.06
0.22
0.30
13.93
11.27
11.88
11.60
12.50
8.00
22.22
11.56
11.88
10. 11
10.73
9.14
18. 15
7.84
6.42
5.26
21.88
6.72


0.08
0. 16
0.62
0.91
1.78
1.93
2.00
2.79
3.41


0.782
0.693
0.430
0.340
0. 182
0.164
0. 157
0.095
0.065


Y AAaa x AAaa and the reciprocal cross
z AAaa x AAAa and the reciprocal cross


The dwarf phenotype seems to be a recessive trait with monogenic

inheritance. Since crosses between two normal plants segregated dwarf plants,

the dwarf genotype cannot include the triplex form (AAAa) because this would

imply that one of the parents was a dwarf which was not the case. This limits the

possibilities of dwarfs segregating from normal plants to the duplex (AAaa) and

simplex (Aaaa) forms, because the nulliplex (aaaa) form cannot occur in the









progeny of a triplex parent that shows chromosome segregation preferentially

over random chromatid and maximum equational segregations.

If the duplex genotype is dwarf, then the only combination of normal-

statured parents that would segregate dwarfs would be that of crossing two

triplex (AAAa). This would produce the duplex genotype of a dwarf with a 0.25

frequency, giving a 3: 1 normal to dwarf ratio (Table 10). The fact that 18 crosses

did not follow a 3: 1 frequency implies that the duplex genotype has a normal

instead of dwarf phenotype.

Since duplex plants have normal stature, the nulliplex form is possible for a

dwarf segregating from a cross between two normal plants. The genotypic

combinations of normal phenotypes that could produce dwarfs are as follows:

AAAa x AAaa, AAaa x AAaa and the reciprocal crosses.

Dwarfs produced by crossing a triplex with a duplex will be simplex and

would be expected in a ratio of 11:1 normal to dwarf phenotype. A duplex times

another duplex can produce dwarfs in a 3: 1 ratio, the possible genotypes for

dwarf being the simplex and nulliplex at frequencies of 0.22 (8/36) and 0.03

(1/36) respectively (Table 10).

To further test this hypothesis, two dwarf plants (00-266 and 00-08) were

self-pollinated, intercrossed with two other dwarf selections (03-105 and 03-112)

and backcrossed to normal types 'Emerald', 'Jewel' and 01-21 (Table 11 and

Table 12). See Table 14 for a cross table of all the controlled crosses evaluated

in this study.










The two dwarfs that were self-pollinated (00-266 and 00-08) segregated

some normal type plants, indicating that they are not nulliplex and are probably

simplex (Aaaa) for the normal allele. The 1:3 normal to dwarf segregation did not

fit very well when the two clones were self pollinated, so the possibility that the

nulliplex is lethal was tested. For this case a 1:2 segregation ratio was expected,

and both 00-266 and 00-08 had low chi-square values for this ratio, 0.09 and

0.01 respectively, with very high probabilities (Table 11).

Table 10. Tetrasomic inheritance frequencies following chromosomal
segregation. In italics, normal to dwarf segregation ratios when dwarf
is either a simplex or nulliplex. In parenthesis, normal to dwarf
segregation ratios when the nulliplex is lethal.


AAAA x aaan
AAaa



All normal
AAAA x Aaan
AAAa
AAaa



All normal
AAAA x AAna
AAAA
AAAa
AAaa



All normal
AAAA x AAAa
AAAA
AAAa


AAAa x aaan
AAaa
Aaaa



AAAa x Aaan
AAAa
AAaa
Aaaa



AAAa x AAna
AAAA
AAAa
AAaa
Aaaa



AAAa x AAAa
AAAA
AAAa
AAaa
All normal


1/2
1/2




1/4
1/2
1/4




1/12
5/12
5/12
1/12




1/4
2/4
1/4


AAna x aaan
AAaa
Aaaa
aaaa

AAna x Aaan
AAAa
AAaa
Aaaa
aaaa

AAna x AAna
AAAA
AAAa
AAaa
Aaaa
aaaa
3:1 (27:8)


Aaan x aaan
Aaaa
aaaa

All awa~rfs
Aaan x Aaan
AAaa
Aaaa
aaaa


1/6
4/6
1/6



1/12
5/12
5/12
1/12



1/36
8/36
18/36
8/36
1/36


1:3 (1:2)


All normal









The other two dwarfs studied (03-105 and 03-112) also appeared to be

simplex because they segregated normal types when crossed with the putative

simplex 00-266 and 00-08. Nevertheless, neither of these dwarf to dwarf crosses

followed the expected ratios 1:3 or 1:2 (Table 11). 03-105, when crossed with

00-266 and 00-08, produced 29% and 40% of the expected number of dwarf

plants expected for a 1:3 segregation ratio. 03-112 also segregated more normal

plants than expected. For each of these three cases, the chi-square statistics

clearly indicate that they fit neither a 1:3 ratio nor a 1:2.

Table 11. Segregation ratios and chi-square test for normal to dwarf ratios in
dwarf x dwarf controlled crosses.
Pedigree Normal Dwarf N/D 1:3y 1:2z
(N) (D) X2 P. value X2 P. value
00-266 00-266 30 56 0.54 4.48 0.034 0.09 0. 760
00-08 00-08 32 63 0.51 3.82 0.051 0.01 0. 942
00-08 03-1 05 43 51 0.84 73.8 0.000 38.00 0. 000
00-266 03-1 05 50 43 1.16 38.0 0.000 15.70 0. 000
03-112 00-08 42 48 0.88 22.5 0.000 7.20 0. 007
00-266 00-08 40 54 0.74 18.0 0.000 4.69 0. 030
SAaaa x Aaaa
z Aaaa x Aaaa when the nulliplex is lethal

The cross between putative simplex plants 00-266 and 00-08 also

segregated more than the expected number of normal plants for a 1:3 ratio (three

times the expected count for normal phenotypes). The ratio of normal to dwarf

did not fit a 1:2 ratio, with X2= 4.69 and a probability of 0.030, so the genotypes

of these selections is undetermined.

The crosses between dwarf and normal plants gave ratios that could be

more easily explained than the crosses described above. As seen in Table 12,

for the crosses of dwarf x normal, all but one cross, 01-21 x 03-112, gave

seedlings that fit a 3:1 ratio, which was the expected for a simplex times a triplex









(01-21 was a putative duplex based on the high-density plot ratios, see Table 9).

01-21 x 03-112, was expected to have more dwarfs (i.e. 50% of the total

population) than the 39% observed. The chi-square test indicated that the

segregation ratio in this cross was a poor fit to a 1:1 segregation (P= 0.025).

Possibly, as was speculated before, the nulliplex form is lethal. In this case the

expected segregation would be 6:5. The chi-square test for a 6:5 segregation

supports this speculation ( y=, 1.85) with P=0.174. The contradiction is that 00-

266 x 01-21 (a putative simplex times a putative duplex) fit a 3:1 ratio and not the

expected 6:5 if indeed the nulliplex is lethal or a 1:1 otherwise.

Table 12. Segregation ratios and chi-square test for normal to dwarf ratios in
dwarf x normal controlled crosses.
Pedigree Normal Dwarf N/D 3:1x 1:1'
(N) (D) X2 P. value X2 P. value
00-266 (D) 01-21 (N) 63 24 2.63 0.31 0.577 17.50 0.000
01-21 (N) 03-112 (D) 59 37 1.59 9.39 0.002 5.04 0.025
Jewel (N) 00-266 (D) 75 19 3.95 1.15 0.284 33.40 0.000
00-266 (D) Emerald (N) 72 19 3.79 0.82 0.364 30.90 0.000
00-08 (D) Emerald (N) 78 18 4.33 2.00 0. 157 37.50 0.000
x Aaaa x AAAa
Y Aaaa x AAaa

Table 13. Segregation ratios and chi-square test for normal to dwarf ratios in
normal x normal controlled crosses.
Pedigree Normal Dwarf N/D 3:1x 11:1'
(N) (D) X21 P. value X21 P. value
03-1 20 S. Belle 90 6 15.00 18.00 0.000 0.55 0.460
03-54 Santa Fe 90 5 18.00 19.70 0.000 1.17 0.279
03-73 Jewel 86 10 8.60 10.90 0.001 0.55 0.460
Emerald Sapphire 83 12 6.92 7.75 0.005 2.30 0. 130
x AAaa x AAaa
Y AAAa x AAaa


In the normal x normal crosses (see Table 13), some dwarfs were

observed. Since the genotype of 'Jewel' and 'Emerald' is triplex, the genotype of









the plants crossed with them can be determined. In the case of 03-73 crossed

with the triplex 'Jewel', the progeny fit an 11:1 ratio, indicating that 03-73 is

duplex. 'Sapphire' is also duplex because it also fits an 11:1 ratio when crossed

with Emerald. The cross 03-120 x 'Southern Belle' also followed an 11:1 ratio,

'Southern Belle' being the duplex and 03-120 the triplex.

Table 14. Cross table of all the controlled crosses per genotype evaluated in this
study.
Female Male
Aaaa AAaa AAAa AA-
Aaaa 00-266 x 00-266 00-266 x 01-21 00-266 x Emerald
00-08 x 00-08 00-08 x Emerald
00-08 x 03-105
00-266 x 03-105
03-112 x 00-08
00-266 x 00-08
AAaa 01-21 x 03-112 03-73 x Jewel
AAAa Jewel x 00-266 Emerald x Sapphire
03-120 x S.Belle
AA 03-54 x Santa Fe


The results found have a few contradictions, in that some of the crosses

among the putative simplex dwarfs did not follow the expected ratio (Table 11),

and the dwarf x normal cross 00-266 x 01-21 did not follow the expected 6:5 ratio

(Table 12). For the cross 01-21 with the dwarf 03-112, the expected 6:5 ratio

was obtained.

It appears that the nulliplex is indeed lethal, but this could not be definitively

proved because of the aforementioned contradictions. It also appears likely that

the duplex form has a normal phenotype; the dwarf phenotypes observed are

simplex.









Draper et al. (1984) and Garvey and Lyrene (1987) mentioned in their work

that the inheritance of dwarfism was complex, and they attributed its complexity

to multiple genes. The analysis of the data presented in this research suggests a

simpler inheritance. For most of the cases it supports monogenic inheritance

with tetrasomic segregation. The few contradictions are probably due to

heterozygosity at other loci, and to the fact that the blueberry germplasm studied

was the product of several interspecific crosses that involved lowbush

blueberries, V. darrowi (the most likely source for the dwarf genes). The

possibility of aneuploidy as a cause for dwarfness has been mentioned in the

literature, but in the case of the controlled crosses involving the dwarfs: 00-08,

00-266, 03-112 and 03-105, the fertility was normal, suggesting euploidy.














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

Internode length, leaf area and plant height were significantly different

between dwarf and normal plants. The average internode length of normal

plants was 1.7 times longer than that of dwarf plants. Leaf area was smaller for

dwarfs when compared to normal (37.6% the area of a normal plant). When

seedlings were three years old, the height of normal plants was 2.5 times taller

than the height of dwarf plants.

Dwarf plants were characterized by their high number of branches and low

stature. The probability of a dwarf plant from a six month old population is 99.4%

for plants with more than 5 branches and height less than 16 cm. Conversely,

the probability of a dwarf plant is 0.9% for plants with fewer than three branches

and height exceeding 16 cm.

The fertility of the dwarf plants studied in controlled crosses (clones 00-266,

00-08, 03-112 and 03-105) was normal, indicating that aneuploidy was not the

reason for the dwarf phenotype.

The genotype of the dwarf plants appears to be simplex (Aaaa), with the

nulliplex genotype being lethal. Normal plants that segregated dwarfs when

crossed are either triplex (AAAa) or duplex (AAaa). Triple crossed to duplex

and the reciprocal give 11:1 normal to dwarf ratio. Duplex crossed to duplex

gives a 27:8 normal to dwarf ratio.














APPENDIX
CATEGORICAL DATA ANALYSIS

Categorical data is a type of data that is measured on a scale that consists

of a set of categories (i.e. small, medium or large size of clothing; dwarf or

normal height) where only one category applies to each subject.

There could be nominal and ordinal categorical variables. Nominal

variables refer to those variables that have unordered scales like race (black,

white, hispanic, other) and party affiliation (republican, democrat, independent,

other), where the order of listing the categories is irrelevant. Ordinal variables

refer to those variables that have order like size of clothing (small, medium,

large) and height (short, intermediate and tall), and the statistical analysis should

depend on that order. Further, statistical methods designed for ordinal variables

cannot be used for nominal variables, whereas statistical methods for nominal

variables can be used for ordinal variables, but the information about the order is

not used, resulting in the loss of power of the test.

Chi-square Test

In any breeding program, especially after crosses have been made, the

understanding of the genetic inheritance of particular characters is important and

in some cases necessary to the success of the program.

Inheritance ratios as between dwarf and normal plants can be tested for an

inheritance hypothesis by chi-square (X2) Statistics as proposed by Karl Pearson









in 1900. The object of this test is to see if the observed ratios correspond to the

expected or hypothesized ones (Watts, 1980).

In a multinomial experiment in which each trial can result in one of k

outcomes, the expected number of outcomes of type i in n trials is nf7; where [7; is

the probability that a single trial results in outcome i (Ott and Longnecker, 2001).

As proposed by Karl Pearson in 1900, the following test statistic can be

used to test the specified probabilities: X2= E [(n; E;)21 E; ], where n; represents

the number of trials resulting in outcome i and E; represents the number of trials

expected to result in outcome i when the hypothesized probabilities represent the

actual probabilities assigned to each outcome (Ott and Longnecker, 2001).

If the hypothesized probabilities are correct, the observed cell counts n;

should not deviate greatly from the expected cell count E;, and the computed

value of X2 should be small. Conversely, when one or more of the hypothesized

cell probabilities are incorrect, X2should be large.

The distribution of the X2 value can be approximated by a chi-square

distribution provided that the expected cell counts E; are fairly large. Cochran

(1954) indicates that the approximation should be adequate if no E; is less than

1, and at least 80% of all the Eis are greater than five. Ideally all Eis should be

greater than 5.

The chi-square goodness-of-fit test based on k specified cell probabilities

will have k-1 degrees of freedom (df). For inheritance studies lexica, df equals

the number of observed categories minus one, and the formula for calculating the

chi-square value is: =2 t [(observed ratio expected)2/ 9Xpected]









Logistic Regression Analysis a summary of Agresti's book on

categorical data analysis (1996).

Logistic regression models are a type of General Linear Model (GLM) used

to analyze categorical data when the response variable has only two categories

(binary response). Thus, its distribution is specified by probabilities of success

P(Y=1) and of failure P(Y=0) with binomial distribution.

Because the relation between the probability of success and the

observations are usually nonlinear, logistic models are better than linear models.

For instance, a fixed change in independent variable X may have less impact

when the probability of success is near 0 or 1 than when it is near the middle; a

good example would be the probability of doubling the yield when adding x

amount of fertilizer in different fertility-type soils (rich, medium, poor). The rich

soils will have a very low probability, close to zero, because the nutrients

available in the soil might be already maximizing the yield potential, thus the

fertilizer is not necessary. The poor soils will have high probabilities, close to

one, because the fertilizer amendment will significantly improve the nutrients

available for sustaining double the yield. The steeper change will occur in soils

of medium fertility (the transition between non-likely to respond and always

responding) because their response is more variable, less uniform with some

observations that will double the yield and some that will not. Overall, if the data

are plotted with the fertility-type soil categories (rich, medium, poor) on the x-axis,

and the probability of success on the y-axis, the curve will have an "S" shape.









The most important function having this S-shaped curve has the model

form: log [P(Y=1)/P(Y=0)] = ac + (Sx, where [P(Y=1)/P(Y=0)] is the odds of the

response. In this study, the odds of a plant being dwarf.

This function is called the logistic regression function. The random

component for the determination of success or failure is binomial. The link

function is the logit transformation log [P(Y=1)/P(Y=0)], symbolized by logit

P(Y=1). The logit is the natural parameter of the binomial distribution, and

because of this it is a canonical link.

To determine if a model is fitting the data set well, goodness-of-fit statistics

and residual analysis are useful. When the fitted values are relatively large

(exceeding 5) and the number of settings (categories) is fixed, Pearson (X2) and

likelihood-ratio (G2) gOodness-of-fit statistics have approximate chi-squared

distributions, and the df equals the number of response counts minus the number

of model parameters.

The deviance is the likelihood-ratio statistic for comparing model M to the

saturated model; it is the statistic for testing the hypothesis that all parameters

that are in the saturated model but not in model M equal zero. For the logit

transformation it has the same form as the G2 likelihood-ratio goodness-of fit

statistic for model M.

For two models, where M~o is a special case of M?, given that the more

complex model holds, the likelihood-ratio statistic for testing that the simpler

model holds is: Devianceo Deviance?. For larger samples, this is approximately

a chi-squared statistic, with df equal to the difference between the residual df









values for the separate models. This test works well for comparing two models,

even when the overall goodness-of-fit test is poor for each model.

In multiple logistic regressions, the significance of a predictor can be tested

by the difference in deviance of the model with the predictor and a simpler model

without the predictor, this way the effect of predictors and their interactions can

be tested to determine if they are significant or if they shouldn't be in the model.

A backward elimination consists in testing different models by the previous

method, starting from the most complex model with all the interactions and

moving backward to the simplest model possible.

Once the simplest model has been determined, various interpretations can

be obtained from it. The odds and probabilities are very useful to study and

analyze the data; also confidence intervals (CI) for the odds, and comparisons

among the odds of the two categories, i.e. the odds of a dwarf plant vs. the odds

of a normal plant, can show trends and enhance the study of the data. For

detailed information on how to interpret logistic regressions the book on

categorical data from Agresti (1996) is recommended.
















LITERATURE CITED


Agresti, A. 1996. Categorical data analysis. Wiley. New York, USA.

Atkinson, C., Else, M. 2001. Understanding how rootstocks dwarf fruit trees. The
compact fruit tree 34 #2: 46-49.

Berhow, M.A. 2000. Effects of early plant growth regulator treatments on
flavonoid levels in grapefruit. Plant Growth Regulation 30: 225-232.

Bindloss, E. 1942. A developmental analysis of cell length as related to stem
length. Am. J. Bot. 29: 179-188.

Borner, A., Korzun, V., Malyshev, S., Ivandic, V., Graner, A. 1999. Molecular
mapping of two dwarfing genes differing in their GA response on
chromosome 2H of barley. Theor. Appl. Genet. 99: 670-675.

Brightwell, W.T. 1971. Rabbiteve blueberries. Ga. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bul. 100.

Clayton, H.G. 1925. Florida making a good beginning with blueberries. Proc. Fla.
State Hort. Soc. 38: 200-201.

Cochran, W. 1954. Some methods for strengthening the common X2 test.
Biometrics 10: 417-451.

Coville, F.V. 1937. Improving the wild blueberry. USDA Yearbook of Agriculture
1937: 559-574.

Curtis, I.S., Ward, D.A., Thomas, S.G., Phillips, A.L., Davey, M.R., Power, J.B.,
Lowe, K.C., Croker, S.J., Lewis, M.J., Magness, S.L. 2000. Induction of
dwarfism in transgenic Solanum dulcamara by over expression of a
gibberellin 20 oxidase cDNA from pumpkin. The Plant Journal: For Cell and
Molecular Biology 23: 329-338.

Darrow, G.M., 1949. Polyploidy in fruit improvement. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci.
54: 523-532.

Draper, A.D., Chandler, C.K., Galletta, G.J. 1984. Dwarfed plants in some
blueberry (Vaccinium) seedling populations. Acta Hort. 146: 63-68.

Draper, A.D., Hancock, J. 2003. Florida 4B: Native blueberry with exceptional
breeding value. J. Am. Pom. Soc. 57(4): 138-141.









Edin, M., Garcin, A., Lichou, J., Jourdain, J.M. 1996. Influence of dwarfing cherry
rootstocks on fruit production. Acta Hort. 410: 239-246.

Fideghelli, C., Sartori, A., Grassi, F. 2003. Fruit tree size architecture. Acta Hort.
622: 279-293.

Franken-Bembenek, S. 1996. Cherry hybrid rootstocks developed at giessen:
new experiences and evaluation. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 410: 377-384.

Gale, M.D., Youssefian, S. 1985. Dwarfing genes in wheat. In: Progress in Plant
Breeding, Ed. by Russell G.E., Butterworths, London, p: 1-35.

Galletta, G.J. 1975. Blueberries and Cranberries. In: J. Janick and J.N. Moore
(eds.). Advances in Fruit Breeding. Purdue Univ. Press, West Lafayette,
Indiana. Pp 154-196.

Garvey, E.J. 1985. Dwarfism, self-incompatibil ity, and female sterility in
Vaccinium ashei (Reade). PhD Diss. University of Florida.

Garvey, E.J., Lyrene, P.M. 1987. Inheritance of compact growth habit in
rabbiteve blueberry. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 112: 1004-1008.

Goldman, I.L., Watson, J.F. 1997. Inheritance and phenocopy of a red beet
gibberellic acid deficient dwarf mutant. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 122: 315-318.

Hansche, P.E., Beres, W., Darnell, R. 1986. Yield potential of peach trees
dwarfed by the dw gene. Hortscience 21:1452-1453.

Hedden, P. 2003. The genes of the Green Revolution. Trends in Genetics 19: 5-


James, C.B. 1924. Blueberries in Northwest Florida. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc.
37: 160-169.

Jennings, D.L. 1967. Balanced lethals and polymorphism in Rubus idaeus.
Heredity 2: 465-479.

Johnson, W.C., Aldwinckle, H.S., Cummins, J.N., Forsline, P.L., Holleran, H.T.,
Norelli, J.L., Robinson, T.L. 2001. The new usda-ars/cornell university apple
rootstock breeding and evaluation program. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 557: 35-40.

Keep, E. 1969. Dwarfing in the raspberry Rubus idaeus L. Euphytica 18:256-276.

Khurshid, T., McNeil, D.L., Trought, M.C.T. 1997. Effect of foliar-applied
gibberellins and soil-applied paclobutrazol on reproductive and vegetative
growth of 'Braeburn' apple trees growing under a high-density planting
system. N. Z. J. Crop. Hort. Sci. 25: 49-58.










Knight, R.J., Scott D.H. 1964. Effects of temperatures on self- and cross-
pollination and fruiting of four highbush blueberry varieties. Proc. Amer.
Soc. Hort. Sci. 85:302-306.

Ladizinsky, G. 1997. Dwarfing genes in the genus Lens Mill. Theor. Appl. Genet.
95: 1270-1273.

Lapins, K.O., Watkins, R. 1973. Genetics of compact growth habit. Rep. E.
Malling Res. Stn. for 1972: 136.

Li, J., Chory, J. 1999. Brassinosteroid actions in plants. J. Exp. Bot. 50: 275-282.

Little, C.H.A., MacDonald, J.E. 2003. Effects of exogenous gibberellin and auxin
on shoot elongation and vegetative bud development in seedlings of Pinus
sylvestris and Picea glauca. Tree Physiol. 23: 73-83.

Lyrene, P.M., Sherman, W.B. 1977. Breeding blueberries for Florida:
accomplishments and goals. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 90: 215-217.

Lyrene, P.M., Sherman, W.B. 1979. The rabbiteve blueberry industry in Florida -
1887 to 1930 with notes on the current status of abandoned plantations.
Econ. Bot. 33: 237-243.

Lyrene, P.M., Sherman, W.B. 1983. Mitotic instability and 2n gamete production
in Vaccinium corymbosum x V elliottii hybrids. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 108:
339-342.

Lyrene, P.M., Sherman, W.B. 1984. Breeding early-ripening blueberries for
Florida. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 97: 322-325.

Lyrene, P.M., Sherman, W.B. 1985. Breeding blueberry cultivars for the central
Florida Peninsula. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 98: 158-162.

Lyrene, P.M., Vorsa, N., Ballington, J.R. 2003. Polyploidy and sexual
polyploidization in the genus Vaccinium. Euphytica 133: 27-36.

Mackenzie-Hose, A.K., Sherriff, L.J., Ross, J.J., Reid, J.B. 1998. Internode length
in Pisum. The Irs mutation reduces gibberellin response and levels. Physiol.
Plantarum 103: 485-490.

Moore, J. N. 1966. Breeding. In: P. Eck and N. Childers (eds.). Blueberry culture.
Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA.

Mowry, H., Camp, A. F. 1928. Blueberry culture in Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul. 194.

Ott, R.L., Longnecker, M. 2001. An introduction to statistical methods and data
analysis. Duxbury, Thomson learning. Pacific Grove, California, USA.










Ross, J.J., Murfet, I.C., Reid, J.B. 1997. Gibberellin mutants. Physiol. Plantarum
100: 550-560.

Sachs, T., Thimann, K.V. 1967. The role of auxins and cytokinins in the release
of buds from dominance. Am. J. Bot. 54: 136-144.

Schaller, H. 2003. The role of sterols in plant growth and development. Prog.
Lipid Res. 42: 163-175.

Sharpe, R.H. 1954. Horticultural development of Florida blueberries. Proc. Fla.
State Hort. Soc. 66: 188-190.

Sharpe, R.H., Darrow, G.M. 1959. Breeding blueberries for the Florida climate.
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 72:308-311.

Sharpe, R.H., Sherman, W.B. 1971. Breeding blueberries for low chilling
requirement. Hortscience 6: 145-147.

Sommer, H.E., Wetzstein, H.Y., Brown, C.L. 1999. Shoot growth and histological
response of dwarf sweetgum to gibberellin. Journal of Horticultural Science
& Biotechnology 74: 618-621.

Wareing, P.F., Phillips, I.D. 1978. The control of growth and differentiation in
plants. 2nd ed. Pergamon Press, New York.

Watts, L. 1980. Flower & vegetable plant breeding. Grower Books, London,
England.

Yang, T., Davies, P.J., Reid, J.B. 1996. Genetic dissection of the relative roles of
auxin and gibberellin in the regulation of stem elongation in intact light-
grown peas. Plant Physiol. 110: 1029-1034.

Yang, T., Law, D.M., Davies, P.J. 1993. Magnitude and kinetics of stem
elongation induced by exogenous indole-3-acetic acid in intact light-grown
pea seedlings. Plant Physiol. 102: 717-724.

Yin, Y., Cheong, H., Friedrichsen, D., Zhao, Y., Hu, J., Mora-Garcia, S., Chory, J.
2002. A crucial role for the putative Arabidopsis topoisomerase VI in plant
growth and development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99: 10191-10196.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

David Humberto Baquerizo, born in Guayaquil, Ecuador, in 1978, is the

oldest son of Tito and Meche Baquerizo the parents of six children. From a

young age he was delighted by nature. His grandparents "Maruja" and Angel

Zambrano, a humble couple from the small town of Manta with a love for

agriculture and farm-life, taught him to appreciate simple rural living.

David learned to see nature as a sign of God's love towards men as he was

taught by the Salesians and Jesuits at the schools he attended. This inspired

David to venture into studying horticulture.

In 1996 he finished high school at Colegio Javier and moved to Costa Rica

to study agriculture at Escuela de Agricultura de la Regio~n Tropical Humeda

(EARTH College) located in the heart of the humid tropics, in Limon province.

He graduated with honors in December 1999 after four years of living among

howler monkeys and eating "gallo pinto." He returned to Ecuador with his wife

Karen and newborn son David Manuel.

In August 2000, the Baquerizo family emigrated to the US in search of

economic stability, because Ecuador was in the middle of a depression. David

worked in South Florida in a horticultural related business until August 2002

when he started graduate studies at the University of Florida under the guidance

of Dr. Paul Lyrene. Now with four children, the Baquerizo family has become

Gator fans and enjoyed living in the beautiful city of Gainesville.