A2B3

AcronymDefinition
A2B3Ann Arbor Bi Bim Bop (technology lunch group)
References in periodicals archive ?
Table 2 shows some important agronomic characteristics of treatmeants (a1bo,...,a2b3), the highest number of heads/plant (18) number of seeds/head (52), 100.S.W (41gr), Grain yield/plant (18gr), Grain yield/plot (417gr), Oil yield/plant (6.1gr), Oil yield/plot (147gr) and plant height(90Cm) were belong to, a2b1, a1bo, a1b1, a2b1, a1b1, a2b1, a1b1, a2b3 respectively.
Table 1: Grain and oil yield (Kgha-1)of safflower genotypesn in different levels of sub and main factors Traits Grainyield Oilyield (Kgha-1) (Kgha-1) Treatments a1 1407 ns 653 ns a2 1330 ns 610 ns Bo 1323 b 458 b b1 1600 a 539 a b2 1343 ab 479 ab b3 1210 b 416 b a1bo 1003 ns 345 ns a1b1 1172 ns 402 ns a1b2 350 ns 338 ns a1b3 928 ns 323 ns a2bo 902 ns 314 ns a2b1 1133 ns 372 ns a2b2 982 ns 344 ns a2b3 815 ns 280 ns a1= Isphahan local variety a2= Fo2 variety bo= intact plants b1= removal of florets, every 3 days after initiation of flowering b2= removal of florets, every 6 days after initiation of flowering b3= removal of florets, every 9 days after initiation of flowering Different letters in each column shows significant differences at 0.01 probability (DMRT).
According to the project requirements a controlled plant is supposed to has an "a2b3" structure, i.e.
Table 1: Grain and oil yield (Kgha-1)of safflower genotypes in different levels of sub and main factors Traits Grain yield Oil yield Treatments (Kgha-1) (Kgha-1) a1 1407ns 653 ns a2 1330 ns 610 ns Bo 1323b 458b b1 1600a 539a b2 1343ab 479ab b3 1210b 416b a1bo 1003 ns 345 ns a1b1 1172 ns 402 ns a1b2 350 ns 338 ns a1b3 928 ns 323 ns a2bo 902 ns 314 ns a2b1 1133 ns 372 ns a2b2 982 ns 344 ns a2b3 815 ns 280 ns a1=Isphahan local variety a2=Fo2 variety bo=intact plants b1=removal of flore ts, every 3 days after initiation of flowering b2=removal of florets, every 6 days after initiation of flowering b3=removal of florets, every 9 days after initiation of flowering Different letters in each column shows significant differences at 0.01 probabilities (DMRT).
These trials were quasi-randomly mixed with six trials involving compounds with different-class elements (A1B2, A1B3, A2B1, A2B3, A3B1, or A3B2), one trial each.
Training Subsets 2 and 3 was the same except that different samples were used: A3B3, A1C1, A2B3, A3B2, A1C3, A3C1 (Subset 2), and A2B2, A3C3, A1B2, A2B1, A2C3, A3C2 (Subset 3).
The subjects were trained to select C1 when given A1B1, A2B3, or A3B2, to select C2 when given A1B3, A2B2, or A3B1, and to select C3 when given A1B2, A2B1, or A3B3.
Thus when given A2B3, the subjects selected C1 because A2B3 had no element in common with A1B1.
For example, in the trained baseline relations, A1B1, A2B3, and A3B2 controlled selection of C1.
As noted above, in Markham and Dougher's 1993 study, participants demonstrated that classes could emerge based on the training to C stimuli (i.e., Class One = C1, A1B1, A2B3, A3B2) and that the C stimulus and the A and B stimuli within a given compound were substitutable for one another.
In the case of Participant 1, the S- stim uli were A2B3 and A3B1 .