ACTA AGRONOMICA TOMUS 12. (A MTA AGRÁRTUDOMÁNYI KÖZLEMÉNYEI, 1963)

1963 / 1-2. szám - L. MAGASSY: Selective Fertilization in Beet (Beta vulgaris L.)

3 SELECTIVE FERTILIZATION IN BEET GERMAN [17] found hybridization to amount to 86.4% in sugar-beet derived from crosses between sugar-beet and garden beet. CHARETSCHKO—SAWIZKAJA [8] carried out crossings between self­fertile sugar-beet races and mangel, as well as garden beet varieties, and found 74.9% selfing. However, two of the autofertile races have been fertilized mainly by foreign pollen. SEDLMAYR'S [35] first report on selective fertilization in beet dates back to 1933, when in sugar-beet and mangel crossed under open pollination conditions he observed a nearly 100% hybridization of both partners in the progenies. In the subsequent papers of this author, selective fertilization, the possibilities of its utilization in plant breeding are discussed [36, 37, 40] and data on its occurrence reported [38, 39]. Besides of a detailed account of the theoretical aspects of selective fertilization, cases of its occurrence in general and particularly in beet are described and classified [41, 42, 43]. Thus in one of his papers [41] Sedlmayr makes a distinction between positive and negative selectivity, according to the number of the hybrids produced being larger or smaller than theoretically expected. He distinguishes further one-way from mutual selectivity (when deviations from the random distribution occur in the offspring of both or only one of the parents) — as well as eu­selectivity (true selectivity) from paraselectivity, in which latter case the shift occurring in the ratio of progenies is due to complete pollen sterility. He termed pseudoselectivity the phenomenon when though fertilization had taken place according to the rules of probability, all the hybrids produced, or part of them, proved to be inviable thus causing a shift in the numerical ratio of the progeny. In this latest work [43] Sedlmayr proposes — in addition to one-way and mutual selectivity — a further discriminating notion, that is, opposite selectivity. It will be apparent that on the strength of what was said in the foregoing, neither para- nor pseudoselectivity can be considered as falling within the range of selective fertilization as formulated by the present author. OLÁH [29] found that in sugar-beet X mangel crosses, of the plants derived from sugar-beet only 2.8%, of those derived from mangel 4.2% have been originated by selfpollination. When the trial was replicated the rate of hybridization amounted to 92.7% in sugar-beet, while in mangel it was but 44.54%. The results obtained were qualified by the author as largely due to problems related to sterility. The method of mating pairs in sugar-beet breeding, as reported by CSITKOVICS [11] is based equally on selective fertilization. According to SAVITSKY [32] the monogerm sugar-beet race SLC 101 was fertilized mainly by its own pollen, with only 17.08 per cent hybrids produced when a single monogerm plant of SLC 101 was grown within a large 1*

Next