Table 4.
Results of marker-trait associations assessed on SCYLV resistance traits for MLM models showing an efficient control of inflation risk (λ < 1.05)
| Co-factors | ANOVA | Disease parameter | Markers (frequency) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Trial | Trait | Plant part | Aggctc35 (0.06) | Agccag14 (0.17) | Agccta52 (0.10) | B424681 (0.20) | B424690 (0.08) | B424752 (0.14) | |
| −logP (R 2) | ||||||||||
| Q2 + K | 2 | A | Incidence | Stalk | 4.05 (0.09) | 2.66 (0.05) | 3.50 (0.07) | 4.37 (0.09) | 4.69 (0.10) | 2.84 (0.06) |
| Q2 + K | 2 | A | Density | Leaf | 2.63 (0.05) | 4.71 (0.10) | 1.95 (0.03) | 4.84 (0.10) | 4.33 (0.09) | 5.25 (0.11) |
| Q2 + K | 2 | A | Density | Stalk | 3.88 (0.08) | 2.66 (0.05) | 3.48 (0.07) | 3.39 (0.07) | 4.01 (0.08) | 2.84 (0.06) |
| Q2 + K | 2 | B | Density | Stalk | 2.54 (0.05) | 3.59 (0.07) | 2.07 (0.04) | 4.15 (0.09) | 1.93 (0.03) | 1.74 (0.03) |
| Q2 + K | 2 | A and B | Incidence | Leaf | 3.58 (0.06) | 4.01 (0.08) | 1.65 (0.02) | 2.86 (0.05) | 1.58 (0.02) | 4.19 (0.08) |
| Q2 + K | 2 | A and B | Density | Stalk | 3.81 (0.08) | 3.72 (0.08) | 3.22 (0.06) | 4.47 (0.09) | 3.35 (0.06) | 2.67 (0.05) |
| Q1 + K | 2 | A | Incidence | Leaf | 3.40 (0.07) | 3.87 (0.08) | 4.00 (0.08) | 6.09 (0.14) | 6.21 (0.14) | 3.99 (0.08) |
| Q1 + K | 2 | A | Incidence | Stalk | 4.47 (0.10) | 2.86 (0.06) | 4.29 (0.09) | 4.85 (0.11) | 4.65 (0.10) | 2.82 (0.06) |
| Q1 + K | 2 | A | Density | Stalk | 3.97 (0.09) | 3.01 (0.06) | 4.17 (0.09) | 3.59 (0.08) | 3.78 (0.08) | 3.05 (0.06) |
| Q1 + K | 1 | A and B | Density | Stalk | 3.62 (0.08) | 4.00 (0.09) | 3.65 (0.08) | 3.67 (0.08) | 3.10 (0.06) | 3.20 (0.06) |
In bold character −log(P) > 4.28 corresponding to an P GWER < 10 % (see material and method section). See legend of Table 3 for the signification of co-factors abbreviations