Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

International Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science IJPBCS

Vol. 6(2), pp. 512-519, May, 2019. © www.premierpublishers.org, ISSN: 2167-0449

Research Article

Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed


Cotton Yield and Yield Components
Samuel Damtew
Werer Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, P.O. Box: 2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
E-mail: samueldt2@gmail.com

The present study was conducted to evaluate and select appropriate performance of inbreed lines
in form of yield and its components for development of high yield hybrid genotypes at Werer
Agricultural Research Center (WARC). Thirty-four advanced lines and two checks (Deltapine-90
and Stam 59A) were tested in two replications of the (6x6) alpha-lattice design during the 2015
growing season (June-December). The genotypes manifested very highly significant differences
(p≤0.001) for boll weight, ginning out turn (%) and lint yield, highly significant differences (p≤0.01)
for plant height and seed cotton yield and significant differences (p≤0.05) for bolls per plant.
Bigger bolls, higher seed cotton yield and more lint yield were obtained from advanced lines;
Stam 59A x Cucurova 1518#30-2, HTO#052 X DP-90, HS-46 X Stonevile453#19-2, HS-46 X
Stonevile453#19-5, Nazilli-84 X HS-4, ISA 205H X Stonevile453#17-6, ISA 205H X Stonevile453#17-
13, HTO#052 X Cucurova1518 and Delcero X Stoneville453. Boll weight was significantly and
positively correlated with seed cotton yield and lint yield. Seed cotton yield was significantly and
positively correlated with lint yield. It is concluded that advanced lines from the crosses Stam 59
A x Cucurova1518#30-2, HTO#052 X DP-90, HS-46 X Stonevile453#19-2, HS-46 X
Stonevile453#19-5, Nazilli-84 X HS-4, ISA 205H X Stonevile453#17-6, ISA 205H X Stonevile453#17-
13, HTO#052 X Cucurova1518 and Delcero X Stoneville453 showed best performance than other
genotypes for seed cotton yield and lint yield. Therefore, these genotypes should be advanced
towards release as new varieties and can be used in future breeding for the improvement of seed
cotton yield.
Key words: correlation, fiber traits, Gossypium hirsutum, inbreed lines performance, seed cotton yield.

INTRODUCTION

Cotton is an important fiber crop and plays a vital role as a 2.5% of the world's arable land. China is the world's largest
cash crop in commerce of many countries such as USA, producer of cotton, but most of this is used domestically.
China, India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Australia and many The United States has been the largest exporter for many
countries of Africa including Ethiopia (Kaliyaperumalet years. Ethiopia has enormous potential for the production
al.,2010). It is extensively grown in the lowlands under of cotton. A recent study of the Ministry of Agriculture
large-scale irrigation schemes. It is also grown on small- indicates that there is some 2.6 million hectares of land
scale farms under rain-fed agriculture. suitable for cotton production, which is equivalent to that of
Pakistan, the fourth largest producer of cotton in the world.
The most important part is the fiber or lint, which is used in However, the total production area under cotton in Ethiopia
making cotton cloth. Cotton seed oil is used primarily for is only about 130,005 hectares and the country annually
cooking oil and salad dressing. The meal and hulls that produce approximately 40,060 tons of cotton (Teddy,
remain are used either separately or in combination as 2015).
livestock, poultry and fish feed and as fertilizer (Gregory et
al. 1999). Ethiopian cotton Productivity is 860 - 1800 kg/ha in rain fed
and 2200 kg/ha in irrigated Farms. These low yields may
Current estimates for world cotton production are about 25 be attributed to several factors like poverty of farmers, lack
million tones or 110 million bales annually, produced on of improved cultivars resistant to diseases and insect

Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield Components
Damtew S. 513

pests, weeds and lack of knowhow by growers about the MATERIALS AND METHODS
advanced package of technology (kind of seed, irrigation
system, fertilizer, spraying and harvesting time) The experiment was conducted in 2015 main growing
concerning cotton production. However, most common season at Werer Agricultural Research center in Afar
cause of low productivity is the growing of inferior varieties. region, eastern Ethiopia. The Experimental materials
The solution of this problem is through hybridization by consisted of Thirty-four cotton advanced lines (The
conventional hand emasculation and pollination and materials are now at F8 generation and have almost
release of productive cultivars. Yield increase of hybrids reached homozygosity) (Appendix 1) and two check
over the better parent or best commercial cultivar has been varieties (Deltapine-90 and Stam-59A) were obtained from
documented in a review by Loden and Richmond (1951) Werer Agricultural Research center. The experiment was
which conclusively showed that the F1 can produce laid-out in Alpha lattice (6 x 6) design with two replications.
significantly higher yields than the current best yielding Planting was carried out on 22 May 2015 in four rows each
parent or commercial cultivar. In Pakistan the hybrid of of them 5 m long with plant to plant distance of 20 cm and
NIAB Karishma ×CIM-435 was given to the growers for row to row distance of 90 cm. Two seeds were planted per
testing in the field, which showed 10.5% increases in seed hill and after full emergence of the seedlings one seedling
cotton yield over the best parent and the best commercial was thinned out to have the required population of 100
variety, NAIB Karishma, during 1999 -2000 (Iqbal et al. plants per plot. The central two rows with net plot size of
2008). 5m x2rows x 0.9 = 9m 2 were used for harvesting to avoid
boarder effect. All the recommended agronomic practices
In Ethiopia no commercial cotton hybrid is in use currently. including hoeing, weeding, irrigation and pest control were
Developing and using of hybrids to increase yield of cotton applied uniformly for all entries from sowing till harvesting
has been the objective of breeders, in Ethiopia, because a to minimize management variation. Plant height, Bolls per
vast labor force is available to make emasculation and plant, Boll weight, Seed cotton yield, Ginning Outturn (%)
crosses by hand. The first step in successful hybridization and Lint Yield were collected and the averages were used
breeding program is to select appropriate parents for yield, for analysis. The data collected were statistically analyzed
quality and pest resistance. Selection of parents with good according to Steel and Torrie (1984) by using SAS
fiber traits is essential to develop hybrids with superior fiber software for analysis of variance (ANOVA). Correlation
properties. The yield of any crop can be broken down into analysis was performed as suggested by Snedecor&
its components to determine how yield is attained. In an Cochran (1980) to study the relationship between yield
attempt to facilitate breeding for high yields, it is logical to and yield components.
examine the various components individually. This way,
the components having the greatest influence on yield, in
both a positive and negative manner, can be identified
(Kambal, 1969). Thus, this gives direction for breeding RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
programs aimed at improving overall yield (Board 1987).
Various parents have been involved in crosses of both Yield and yield components
Intraspecific crosses and Interspecific crosses at Werer
Agricultural Research center to improve both seed cotton According to analysis of variance (Table 1), the mean
yield and lint quality. Many of the crosses have passed values of thirty-six genotypes manifested very highly
through a series of evaluations and the best ones are now significant differences (p≤0.001) for boll weight, ginning
at the National yield trial and have almost reached out turn (%) and lint yield, highly significant differences
homozygosity where they can be released as advanced (p≤0.01) for plant height and seed cotton yield and
lines if found to be superior to the varieties under significant differences (p≤0.05) for bolls per plant.
cultivation. Therefore, the present study was conducted to Therefore, the results revealed significant variations
evaluate these advanced lines and identify those that among the genotypes for all of the studied traits.
surpass the existing varieties in seed cotton yield and lint
yield.
Table 1. Analysis of Variance of different cotton genotypes for seed cotton yield and its components
Source of Mean Squares
variation plant height Boll no/plant Boll weight (g) Seed cotton Ginning % Lint yield (kg/ha)
(cm) yield(kg/ha)
Replication 22.52 8.77 0.00076 64267.76 1.85 32684.70
Block(rep) 436.92 28.77 0.24 3036586.52 3.02 334453.02
Genotypes 311.21 ** 28.03 * 1.297 *** 1941773.71 ** 11.22 *** 365041.59 ***
Error 121.27 12.09 0.32 704482.3 0.61 96376.73
CV 11.82 16.22 10.39 12.78 2.03 12.25
Note: ***Very highly significantly different at P<0.001, ** highly significantly different at P<0.01, * significantly different at
P<0.05 and ns non-significantly different

Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield Components
Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 514

Plant height probably due to the use of different genotypes and the
ability of different genotypes in utilizing and assimilating
Overall plant height ranged from 70.57cm (DP-90 X the available resources for the increase in average mature
Cucurova1518) to 137.57cm (Stam 59 A x HS-46) among boll weight. These results are in confirmation with those of
cotton genotypes (Table 2). The highest plant height was Elayan et al. (1992) who reported that average mature boll
observed in Stam 59 A x HS-46 (137.57 cm) followed by weight was affected varies significantly among the
HTO#052 X Pima S3 (127.83cm), DP-5816 X Stonville varieties studied. The significant differences among
213 (115.97cm) and ISA 205 X DP-5816 (112.27cm). The varieties for average boll weight had also been reported by
lowest plant height was observed in DP-90 X Hofs et al. (2006).
Cucurova1518 (70.57 cm) and it was statistically at par
with twenty-six genotypes with plant height from 74.37 to Seed cotton yield
97.07cm. The difference in plant height might be due to the
difference in genetic makeup of genotypes considered in Overall seed cotton yield in thirty-six genotypes ranged
the experiment. These results are also in line with those of from 3681kg ha-1 (HTO#052 X Pima S3) to 9107kg ha-1
Wankhade et al. (2002), who reported that plant height is (Stam 59A x Cucurova 1518 #30 -2) (Table 2). The yield
affected by genetic makeup of genotypes and of the highest yielding genotype (9107 Kg ha-1 was
environmental conditions. Saeed et al. (1996), also statistically at par with yields of twelve genotypes whose
reported that plant height varies significantly because of yield ranged from 7104.6 to 8287kg ha-1, including yield of
varieties. Khan (2003), Taohua & Haipeng (2006) and the check DP-90 (7463 Kg ha-1). The lowest seed cotton
Ahmad et al., (2008) studied the stability and adaptability yield was that of HTO#052 X Pima S3 (3681kg ha-1), but it
of G. hirsutum genotypes and observed varied values for was statistically at par with the yield of eight genotypes
plant height and other yield components of different whose yield ranged from 4497 to 5566.2 kg ha-1. These
genotypes. results are in consonance with those of Oakley et al.
(1998) and Nunes et al. (1998) who reported significant
Bolls per plant differences in total seed cotton yield due to difference in
genetic makeup of the varieties. Copur (2006) determined
Bolls per plant harvested in two pickings ranged from yield and yield attributes of G. hirsutum genotypes and
12.633(Stam -59A genotype) to 36.967(HTO#052 X Pima observed significant differences between means of the
S3) (Table 2) among the thirty-six genotypes. Maximum genotypes studied.
bolls per plant was picked from HTO#052 X Pima S3
(36.967) followed HTO#052 X LS-90#24-11 (28.900) and Lint Yield
HTO#052 X LS-90#24-7(28.633). The minimum bolls per
plant were picked from Stam-59A genotype (12.633) and The maximum lint yield (Table 2) was recorded in Stam 59
was found statistically at par with sixteen genotypes A x Cucurova 1518 #30 -2 (3535.8kg ha-1). However, it
(15.300 to 20.967 bolls plant-1). Twenty of the advanced was found statistically at par with ten genotypes whose lint
lines had bolls plant-1 higher than that of the best check yield ranged from 2792.7 to 3275.9 kg ha -1. HTO#052 X
DP-90 (20.86). The differences among genotypes for Pima S3 revealed the lowest lint yield (1259.2 kg ha-1)
number of bolls per plant might have been due to the followed by genotypes HTO#052 X LS-90#24-11(1792.9
difference in genetic potential of the genotypes. These kg ha-1), HTO#052 X LS-90#24-7 (1823.2 kg ha-1), Stam-
results are in consonance with the results of Saeed et al. 59A (1978.6), (2113.1), DP-90 X Cucurova1518 (2151.7
(1996) who reported that the number of bolls plant-1 kg ha-1), ISA 205H X Nazilli-84 (2162.3 kg ha-1) and ISA
differed significantly among different varieties. Soomro et 205 X DP-5816 (2168.5 kg ha-1). Munk and Kurby (1993)
al., (2005) compared the yield and yield components of also reported significant differences in lint yield of cotton
commercial cotton genotypes and observed significant genotypes. Cook & El-Zik (1993) noticed that genotypes
differences for bolls per plant, yield and other yield differed significantly for lint yield.
attributes.
Ginning Outturn (%)
Boll weight
Ginning out turn was calculated to observe the difference
Boll weight of the 36 genotypes varied between 3.2683g between genotypes in the ratio of lint to the seed cotton.
(HTO#052 X Pima83) to 7.785(Stam 59 A x Nazilli –84) Lint % of the thirty six genotypes ranged between 33.197
(Table 2). The highest boll weight was observed on (GL-7 x Stam 59A) to 43.504 % (Nazilli-84 X HS-4) (Table
genotype Stam 59 A x Nazilli –84 (7.7850 g). The lowest 2). The highest lint % was noticed in genotype Nazilli-84 X
boll weight was observed on genotypes HTO#052 X HS-4 (43.504 %) but it was statistically at par with that of
Pima83 (3.2683g), HTO#052 X LS-90#24-7(3.630 g) and five genotypes whose ginning % ranged from 41.7472 to
HTO#052 X LS-90#24-11 (3.753g). The checks DP-90 43.014%. Inbreed line GL-7 x Stam 59A revealed lowest
(5.65 g) and Stam 59A (5.15 g) had big bolls being lint % (33.197 %) but was found statistically at par with
significantly surpassed only by HTO#052 X Pima83 (7.785 three other genotypes whose ginning % ranged from
g). The variation in average mature boll weight was 34.003 to 34.8774%. These results are in line with those

Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield Components
Damtew S. 515

of Khan et al. (1989), Saeed et al. (1996) and Oakley et al. Boll weight had highly significant Positive correlation with
(1998) who reported significant differences in the ginning seed cotton yield (r = 0.427**) and lint yield (r = 0.437**)
Outturn of genotypes due to genetic differences among and a non- significant Positive correlation with GOT (r =
varieties. Taohua & Haipeng (2006) studied the stability 0.144) (Table 3). Boll weight is a major yield component
and adaptability of G. hirsutum varieties and observed and has a great contribution in enhancement of seed
varied ginning % for different genotypes. cotton yield. By having bigger bolls, the genotype Stam
59A x Cucurova 1518 #30-2 and HTO#052 X DP-90 were
Correlation coefficients (r) among seed cotton yield among the top promising genotypes with regard to seed
and yield component cotton yield. The smallest bolls were recorded on
genotypes HTO#052 X Pima S3, HTO#052 X LS-90#24-
Plant height was significantly and positively correlated (r = 11 and HTO#052 X LS-90#24-7 which produced low seed
0.381*) with boll per plant and had non-significant negative cotton yield. Therefore, it is concluded that boll weight is
correlation with boll weight (r = -0.124), seed cotton yield an important yield component and should be kept in mind
(r = -0.023), GOT (r = -0.172) and lint yield (r = -0.062) while breeding for seed cotton yield. Ahmad et al., (2008)
(Table 3). Plant height is a very important trait and has obtained similar relations between boll weight and seed
close association with bolls per plant (if no lodging cotton yield in different cotton genotypes. Afiah & Ghoneim
occurred). Taller genotypes (Stam 59 A x HS-46, (2000) and Khan (2003) evaluated genetically diverse
HTO#052 X Pima S3, DP-5816 X Stonville 213, Delcero X genotypes for yield and its components and reported
Krishna, Nazilli-84 X HS-4 and Stam 59 A x Cucurova highly significant correlation between boll weight and yield
1518#30 -17) showed medium to high number of bolls per which indicated that any improvement in boll weight would
plant. Results revealed that plant height has some have a positive effect on yield.
association with bolls plant-1. Plant breeders are generally
interested in short stature plants due to lodging threat, and Seed cotton yield had highly significant Positive correlation
the ease in picking the mature bolls both manually or using with lint yield (r = 0.923***) and non-significant negative
machinery. Arshad et al., (1993) also evaluated upland correlation with GOT (r = -0.056) (Table 3). Seed cotton
cultivars and concluded that plant height was positively yield is an ultimate goal in growing cotton besides lint yield.
correlated with boll number plant-1. The differences in Highest seed cotton yield were observed for genotypes
views of researchers on plant height of cotton genotypes Stam 59 A x Cucurova 1518 #30 -2, HTO#052 X DP-90 ,
might be due to the differences in environments used and HS-46 X Stonevile 453#19-2, Nazilli-84 X HS-4, ISA 205H
due to the difference in genetic background of the breeding X Stonevile 453#17-6, ISA 205H X Stonevile 453#17-13,
material used. Stam 59 A x HS-46 and HTO#052 X Cucurova1518. These
genotypes were also found to be the top ten genotypes
Highly significant negative correlation (r = -0.595***) with high lint yield. Seed cotton yield was found
observed between boll per plant and boll weight and GOT significantly correlated with lint yield (Elsiddig et al., 2007;
(r = -0.426**) and non-significant negative correlation Desalegn et al., 2009; Khan et al., 2009a & 2009b). The
between boll per plant and seed cotton yield (r = -0.092) results obtained also revealed that seed cotton yield was
and lint yield (r = -0.203) (Table 3). Negative correlation of the major contributor to lint yield followed by boll weight.
bolls plant-1 with boll weight is quite common in cotton However, the materials for this present study included both
crop. Baloch et al., (2014) characterized early maturing Gossypium hirsutum and Gossypium barbadense
cotton genotypes and recorded negative correlation genotypes which were evaluated for yield and yield
between bolls per plant and boll weight. Rao & Mary (1996) components and the results showed negative effect of ball
evaluated different G. hirsutum genotypes for yield and per plant on seed cotton yield (Table 3).
other economic traits and observed significant variations
for number of bolls plant-1. They observed that number of Lint Yield was significant Positive correlation with ginning
bolls plant-1 had positive effect on yield. The experimental percent (r=0.324*) (Table 3). Higher lint yields of cotton
material investigated in our study included both genotypes were mainly caused by higher number of lint %.
Gossypium hirsutum and Gossypium barbadense Desalegn et al., (2009) found that high lint %, more bolls
genotypes and number of bolls plant-1 had negative effect per plant and a small seed size were positively correlated
on yield. to high lint yield.

Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield Components
Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 516

Table 2. Mean performances of cotton genotypes for seed cotton yield and its components
Inbreed lines Parameters
plant Bolls no,/ Boll weight (g) Seed cotton yield Ginning Lint yield
height (cm) plant (kg/ha) % (kg/ha)

HS-46 X Stonevile 453#19-2 95.77 22.57 5.15 7666.67 37.15 2844.22


GL-7 x DP-90 89.50 22.96 5.45 6740.0 38.87 2619.56
Stam 59 A x Cucurova 1518 #30 -2 96.57 25.63 5.89 9107.78 38.82 3535.78
Stam 59 A x Cucurova 1518#30 -17 102.17 24.56 5.54 6840.00 39.20 2682.00
Stam 59 A x HS-46 137.57 23.63 5.13 7143.33 39.11 2792.78
GL-7 x Stam 59 A 104.43 22.53 6.56 6765.56 33.19 2252.56
HTO#052 x stam 59A#19-6 105.97 17.20 5.74 4916.67 43.01 2113.11
HS-46 X Stonevile 453 #19-8 77.73 17.70 5.07 6657.78 40.16 2674.00
ISA 205H X Beyazealtin/5 94.27 15.30 5.95 6187.78 42.14 2581.89
HTO#052 X LS-90#24-11 84.37 28.90 3.75 4497.78 39.85 1792.89
Stam 59 A xNazilli –84 90.33 16.90 7.78 6445.56 36.26 2327.00
HS-46 XStonevile 453 #19-5 83.97 18.90 4.99 7596.67 34.88 2634.33
ISA 205H X Stonevile 453#17-13 85.23 24.46 5.33 7266.67 39.75 2884.11
ISA 205H X Nazilli-84 79.13 15.96 4.82 5277.78 41.02 2162.33
GL-7 xNazilli –84 74.37 16.53 5.87 5517.78 42.16 2326.11
ISA 205H XStonevile 453#17-6 79.50 21.96 5.23 7460.00 39.81 2950.78
DP-90 X Cucurova1518 70.57 18.96 5.98 5566.67 38.65 2151.67
DP-90 X Stam 59A 78.57 19.96 5.96 6068.89 40.30 2450.00
Delcero X Stoneville 453 78.00 18.60 5.56 7104.44 36.84 2600.78
Delcero X Deltapine90 76.87 22.76 5.38 6843.33 37.88 2597.89
Cucurova1518 X LG-450#35-9 87.50 18.63 5.76 6890.00 42.56 2928.00
Nazilli-84 X HS-4 102.93 23.30 5.21 7560.00 43.50 3275.89
Stam 59A X Europa5 92.23 23.80 5.09 6675.56 39.22 2613.44
Delcero X Krishna 106.70 22.93 5.32 6800.00 35.12 2379.22
Delcero X Coker 315 93.13 22.26 4.67 7155.56 37.17 2664.89
Delcero X ISA 205 98.87 20.96 5.78 6962.22 34.63 2410.67
DP-5816 X Stonville 213 115.97 21.30 6.11 7025.56 40.49 2837.44
ISA 205 X DP-5816 112.27 19.33 4.98 6046.67 35.92 2168.44
Europa X Gedera 236 82.47 23.36 5.003 6370.00 35.39 2253.00
HTO#052 X LS-90#24-7 89.03 28.63 3.63 5038.89 36.24 1823.22
Cucurova1518 X LG-450 97.07 20.100 6.04 6926.67 40.28 2783.00
HTO#052 X Cucurova1518 95.90 18.06 5.94 7123.33 41.75 2968.89
HTO#052 X DP-90 93.23 22.56 5.78 8287.78 37.60 3115.33
HTO#052 X Pima S3 127.83 36.96 3.26 3681.11 34.00 1259.22
Deltapine-90(Check) 84.83 20.86 5.65 7463.33 37.57 2804.22
Stam-59A (Check) 90.37 12.63 5.15 4768.89 41.48 1978.56
Mean 93.20 21.43 5.41 6567.86 38.65 2534.36

Table 3. Correlation coefficients among yield and yield components of cotton genotypes
Boll
Plant height No/plant Boll weight Seed cotton Ginning % Lint yield
Yield
Plant height 1.00
Boll No/plant 0.38 *
Boll weight -0.124 ns -0.595***
Seed cott.yield -0.023 ns -0.092ns 0.427**
Ginning % -0.172 ns -0.426** 0.144ns -0.056 ns
Lint yield -0.062 ns -0.203 ns 0.434** 0.923** 0.324 * 1.00

Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield Components
Damtew S. 517

CONCLUSIONS Desalegn Z, Ratanadilok N, Kaveeta R. (2009).


Correlation and heritability for yield and fiber quality
According to the results, it can be concluded that high parameters of Ethiopian cotton. Kasetsart J. Nat. Sci
variability was observed in various traits of the evaluated 43(1): 1-11.
36 cotton genotypes. The advanced inbred lines with high Elayan SED. (1992). A comprehensive study of some yield
seed cotton and lint yield also possessing the desired lint components and nitrogen fertilizer of some varieties of
quality can be used in the further testing program and Egyptian (Gossypium barbadense L.) cotton. Assuit. J.
finally released as a new variety. The wide genotypic of Agric. Sci 23 (1): 153-165.
variability created through hybridization and generations of Elsiddig AA, Sid-Ahmed MM, Ibrahim AE. (2007).
selfing and segregation can be used for the development Variability, heritability and association of some
of higher yielding and better quality cotton varieties. characters in upland cotton. Univ.of Khartoum J. Agril.
Genotypes Stam 59 A x Cucurova 1518 #30 -2, HTO#052 Sci. 15(2): 191-203.
X DP-90, HS-46 X Stonevile 453#19-2, HS-46 X Gregory SR, Hernandez E, Savoy BR. (1999). Cotton seed
Stonevile 453 #19-5, Nazilli-84 X HS-4, ISA 205H X processing in WC Smith, JT
Stonevile 453#17-6, ISA 205H X Stonevile 453#17- Hofs J L, Hau B,Marais D. (2006). Boll distribution patterns
13,HTO#052 X Cucurova1518 and Delcero X Stoneville in Bt and non-Bt cotton cultivars: I. Study on
453 had maximum mature boll weight, seed cotton yield commercial irrigated farming systems in South Africa.
and lint yield than other used genotypes. On the basis of Field Crops Res 98(2 & 3): 203-209.
these results it is recommended that the advanced lines Iqbal M, Hayat K, Atiq M,Khan NI. (2008). Evaluation and
Stam 59 A x Cucurova 1518 #30 -2, HTO#052 X DP-90, prospect of f2 genotypes of cotton (Gossypium
HS-46 X Stonevile 453#19-2, HS-46 X Stonevile 453 #19- hirsutum) for yield and yield components. Int. J. Agri.
5, Nazilli-84 X HS-4, ISA 205H X Stonevile 453#17-6, Biol. 10: 442–6
ISA 205H X Stonevile 453#17-13, HTO#052 X Kaliyaperuma lA, Ravikesavan R. (2010).Combining
Cucurova1518 and Delcero X Stoneville 453 will be used Ability Estimates for Yield and Fibre Quality Traits in
for improvement of cotton crop in termsof seed cotton Line X Tester Crosses of Upland Cotton, (Gossypium
yield. The positive and highly significant correlation hirsutum).international journal of biology.vol.2 page
between boll weight, seed cotton yield and lint yield may 179
be concluded that increase of the boll weight would Kambal AE. (1969). Components of yield in field beans,
increase seed cotton yield and lint yield. This information Viciafaba L. Journal of Agricultural Science 72:359-363
will help cotton breeders to target specific yield Khan NU. (2003). Genetic analysis, combining ability and
components such as larger bolls. heterotic studies for yield, its components, fibre and oil
quality traits in upland cotton(G. hirsutum). Ph.D
Dissertation, Sindh Agric. Univ. Tandojam, Pakistan
REFERENCES Khan NU, Hassan G, Marwat KB, Farhatullah S, Batool K,
Makhdoom W, Ahmad I, KhanI A, Ahmad W. (2009a).
Afiah SAN, Ghoneim EM. (2000). Correlation, stepwise Genetic Variability and heritability in upland cotton.
and path coefficient analysis in Egyptian cotton under Pakistan J. Bot, 41(4): 1695-1705.
saline conditions. Arab Univ. J. Agric. Sci 8: 607-618. Khan WS, Khan AA, Naz AS, Ali S. (1989). Performance
Ahmad W, Khan NU, Khalil MR, Parveen A, Aimen U, of six Punjab commercial varieties of Gossypium
Saeed M, Shah SA. (2008). Genetic variability and hirsutum L. Under Faisalabad conditions. The Pak.
correlation analysis in upland cotton. Sarhad J. Agric. Cottons, 33(2): 60-65.
24: 573-580. Loden HD, Richmond TR. (1951). Hybrid vigor in cotton-
Arshad M, Hanif M, Ilahi N, Shah SM. (1993). Correlation Cytogenetic aspects and practical applications. Econ.
studies on some commercial cotton varieties of Bot. 5:387–408.
G.hirsutum. Sarhad J. Agric 9: 49-53. Munk DS,Kerby TA. (1993). Acala cotton varietal response
Baloch MJ, Khan NU, Rajput MA, Jatoi WA, Gul S, to late season water stress. Proc. Cotton Conf. 1340-
Rindand IH, Veesar NF. (2014). Yield related 1341.
morphological measures of short duration cotton Nunes FJ, Sa VA, Oliveira IS, Coutinho B, Santos VF.
genotypes. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences (1998). Effect of irrigation depth on the yield and fiber
24(4): 1198-1211 quality of different cultivars of cotton. RevistaBrasileira
Board JE. (1987). Yield components related to seed yield de Enginharia Agricola e Ambiental 2 (3):295-299.
indeterminate soybean. Crop Science 27:1296-1297. Oakley SR. (1998). Acala GTO Maxxa and Acala C-141;
Cook CG,El-Zik KM. (1993). Fruiting and lint yield of cotton New Californian Acala varieties for the San J oaquin
cultivars under irrigated and non-irrigated conditions. Valley. Proceedings Beltwide Cotton Conferences, San
Field Crops Res. 33: 411-421. Diego, California, USA, 5-9 January 1998: volume I
Copur O. (2006). Determination of yield and yield (edited by Dugger, P. and D. Richter.). Memphis USA;
components of some cotton cultivars in semi arid National Cotton Council (1998) 46-47 (En) California
conditions. Pak. J Biol. Sci 9(14) 2572-2578. Planting cotton Seed Distributors, Shafter, CA, USA.

Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield Components
Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 518

Rao KVK, Mary TN. (1996). Variability, correlation and Steel RGD,Torrie JH. (1980). Principles and procedures of
path analysis of yield and fibre traits in upland cotton. J. statistics, a biological approach, 2 nd ed. McGraw Hill,
Res. APAU 24: 66-70. Inc. New York, Toronto, London.
Saeed F, Salam T, Khan MI. (1996). Gene action in Taohua Z, Haipeng Z. (2006). Comparative study on yield
intraspecific hybrids of cotton (Gossypium hirsutumL) and main agri-characters of five hybrids colored cotton
for yield parameters. Sarhad J. Agri, 12: 653-661. varieties. J. Anhui Agric. Univ, 33: 533-536.
Snedecor WG, Cochran WG. (1980). Statistical methods. Teddy. (2015). Cotton production manual.
7thed. the Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. IOWA, USA. Wankhade ST, Gobble AK. (2002). Performance of
Soomro AR, Kakar RG, Ali H, Abid SA. (2005). different cotton (Gossypium hirsutumL.) cultivars at
Comparison of yield and its components in some different nitrogen rates. Annals of Plant Physiology
commercial cotton varieties. Indus J. Plant Sci 4: 545- 1(4): 569-571
552.

APPENDIX

Appendix1. Experimental materials consisted of Thirty four cotton advanced lines (F8) and two check varieties (Deltapine-
90 and Stam-59A).
Lines code Pedigree
1 HS-46 X Stonevile 453#19-2
2 GL-7 x DP-90
3 Stam 59 A x Cucurova 1518 #30 -2
4 Stam 59 A x Cucurova 1518#30 -17
5 Stam 59 A x HS-46
6 GL-7 x Stam 59 A
7 HTO#052 x stam 59A#19-6
8 HS-46 X Stonevile 453 #19-8
9 ISA 205H X Beyazealtin/5
10 HTO#052 X LS-90#24-11
11 Stam 59 A xNazilli –84
12 HS-46 XStonevile 453 #19-5
13 ISA 205H X Stonevile 453#17-13
14 ISA 205H X Nazilli-84
15 GL-7 xNazilli –84
16 ISA 205H XStonevile 453#17-6
17 DP-90 X Cucurova1518
18 DP-90 X Stam 59A
19 Delcero X Stoneville 453
20 Delcero X Deltapine90
21 Cucurova1518 X LG-450#35-9
22 Nazilli-84 X HS-4
23 Stam 59A X Europa5
24 Delcero X Krishna
25 Delcero X Coker 315
26 Delcero X ISA 205
27 DP-5816 X Stonville 213
28 ISA 205 X DP-5816
29 Europa X Gedera 236
30 HTO#052 X LS-90#24-7
31 Cucurova1518 X LG-450
32 HTO#052 X Cucurova1518
33 HTO#052 X DP-90
34 HTO#052 X Pima S3
35 Deltapine-90(Check)
36 Stam-59A(Check)
Note: Crosses between G. barbadense and G. hirsutum : serial number 7,10,30,32 and 33
Crosses between G. hirsutum and G. hirsutum: serialnumber1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,
25,26,27,28,29 and 31
Crosses between G.barbadense and G.barbadense: serial number 34

Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield Components
Damtew S. 519

Accepted 6 April 2019

Citation: Damtew S. (2019). Heter Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield
Components. International Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science, 6(2): 512-519.

Copyright: © 2019: Damtew S. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are cited.

Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield Components