Towards an understanding of the control of ‘crumbly’ fruit in red raspberry

SpringerPlus

Table 3 Effect of the RUB256e marker on LG 1 on the crumbly scores

Year	Env.	KW statistic (3 df)	Sig. of Latham allele	Mean crumbly score for a- offspring (s.e.)	Mean crumbly score for b- offspring (s.e.)
Incidence (0–1)
2004	Field A	4.7	0.046	0.44 (0.071)	0.65 (0.071)
2004	Field B	7.4	0.007	0.18 (0.056)	0.44 (0.074)
2007	Field A	26.9***	< 0.001	0.12 (0.033)	0.43 (0.053)
2007	Poly	5.8	0.036	0.05 (0.022)	0.14 (0.037)
2008	Field A	0.5	0.849	0.04 (0.019)	0.05 (0.022)
2008	Poly	5.7	0.078	0.00 (0.001)	0.02 (0.016)
2009	Field A	20.8***	< 0.001	0.16 (0.037)	0.49 (0.054)
2009	Poly	5.6	0.005	0.02 (0.007)	0.06 (0.012)
2010	Field A	25.1***	< 0.001	0.22 (0.042)	0.53 (0.055)
2010	Poly	4.4	0.094	0.17 (0.041)	0.28 (0.053)
2011	Field A	19.7***	< 0.001	0.58 (0.052)	0.89 (0.036)
2012	Field A	24.4***	< 0.001	0.46 (0.059)	0.83 (0.044)
Severity (0–4)
2011	Field A	27.8***	< 0.001	0.77 (0.097)	1.59 (0.104)
2012	Field A	26.3***	< 0.001	0.69 (0.121)	1.62 (0.121)

KW = the Kruskal-Wallis statistic for this marker; df = degrees of freedom. The last three columns show the significance of the additive effect of the Latham allele in a generalised linear model, and the predicted mean crumbly score for the offspring inheriting either the ‘a’ allele or the ‘b’ allele from Latham
*** p < 0.001