Table 2.
(a) | (b) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
date2.5 | date2 | date1.5 | date1 | date0.5 | subproc1 | subproc2 | date2.5 | date2 | date1.5 | date1 | date0.5 | subproc1 | subproc2 | |
date2.5 | 0.97 | 0.89 | 0.81 | 0.62 | -0.84 | 0.98 | 0.93 | 0.83 | 0.63 | -0.24 | ||||
*** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ** | |||||
date2 | 0.99 | 0.96 | 0.89 | 0.61 | -0.92 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.90 | 0.69 | -0.20 | ||||
0.00 | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0.00 | *** | *** | *** | * | |||||
date1.5 | 0.93 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.63 | 0.24 | -0.96 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.76 | 0.36 | -0.12 | ||
0.01 | 0.00 | *** | *** | ** | *** | 0.00 | 0.00 | *** | *** | *** | ns | |||
date1 | 0.87 | 0.93 | 0.98 | 0.68 | 0.33 | 0.96 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.88 | 0.50 | ||||
0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00 | *** | *** | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | *** | *** | |||||
date0.5 | 0.78 | 0.72 | 0.58 | 0.84 | 0.03 | 0.88 | 0.93 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.49 | ||||
0.03 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.02 | ns | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | *** | |||||
subproc1 | -0.08 | -0.17 | 0.11 | -0.27 | -0.31 | -0.42 | -0.59 | 0.28 | ||||||
0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | *** | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.05 | *** | |||||||
subproc2 | -0.92 | -0.98 | -1.00 | 0.08 | -0.56 | -0.47 | -0.37 | 0.74 | ||||||
0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.04 |
POP5 grown in two experimental sites in Italy: Cavallermaggiore (CV) and Viterbo (VT). Data were analyzed on cumulative night length (CNL) basis. (a) Within site phenotypic (above the diagonal) and genetic (below the diagonal, with ± standard deviation (SD)) correlations for CV and (b) likewise for VT. The levels of significance of the Pearson coefficient are indicated as: ns, non-significant; *, P ≤ 0.05; **, P ≤ 0.01; ***, P ≤ 0.001.