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