Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T17:14:55.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combining-ability analysis in cotton for agronomic characters, fruiting efficiency, photosynthesis and bollworm resistance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. L. Bhardwaj  and
J. B. Weaver Jr
H. L. Bhardwaj
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A.
J. B. Weaver Jr
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Heterosis and combining abilities for yield, bollworm resistance, fruiting efficiency and photosynthesis were studied in a five-parent diallel involving cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) strains differing in their resistance to the bollworm complex (Heliothis zea and H. virescens).Substantial magnitudes of useful heterosis (over the commercial cultivar ‘Coker 304’) were observed for yield and other agronomic characters. Useful heterosis for yield ranged from 1 to 32·7%. The highest yielding hybrid was Coker 304 × PD 695. The strain PD 695 is moderately resistant to bollworms.

All the hybrids having at least one resistant strain as their parent suffered less damage from bollworms than Coker 304. The resistant strains (BW 76–31, PD 695 andred leaf cotton) had desirable general combining ability (GCA) effects for bollworm damage. Relative yield (yield without protection expressed as percentage of yield with protection) was used as a measure of bollworm resistance. The high gossypol strain BW 76–31 had desirable GCA effects for relative yield, bollworm damage to buds, number of live worms and for bolls per plant. The fruiting efficiencies and photosynthetic rates of some bollworm-resistant strains were similar to those of a high-yielding, moderately susceptible cultivar.

Combining-ability analysis indicated BW 76–31 to be a desirable parent for use in hybridization programmes for improving agronomic performance, fruiting efficiency, photosynthetic rate and bollworm resistance. It was also observed that bollworm-resistant cottons do not always have lower fruiting efficiencies and photosynthetic rates and it might be possible to combine this resistance with high yields.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 103 , Issue 3 , December 1984 , pp. 511 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adkisson, P. L., Hanna, R. L. & Bailey, C. F. (1964). Estimates of the numbers of Heliothis larvae per acre in cotton and their relation to fruiting cycle and yield of host. Journal of Economic Entomology 57, 657–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, R. J. (1978). Issues in diallel analysis. Crop Science 18, 533–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhardwaj, H. L. & Weaver, J. B. Jr, (1983). Resistance to bollworms in red leaf cotton. In Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Production and Research Conference. San Antonio, Texas, 2–6 01 1983 (ed. Brown, J. M.), pp. 117–119. Memphis, Tennessee, U.S.A.: National Cotton Council.Google Scholar
Bottger, G. T., Sheehand, E. T. & Lukefahr, M. J. (1964). Relationship of gossypol content of cotton plants to insect resistance. Journal of Economic Entomology 57, 283–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culp, T. W., Taft, H. M. & Hopkins, A. R. (1977). Reaction of several cultivars to cotton insects in South Carolina. In Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Production and Research Conference. Atlanta, Oeorgia, 10–12 01 1977 (ed. Brown, J. M.), p. 97. Memphis, Tennessee, U.S.A.: National Cotton Council.Google Scholar
Davis, D. D. (1978). Hybrid cotton – specific problems and potentials. Advances in Agronomy 30, 129–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, D. D., Ellington, J. V. & Brown, J. C. (1973). Mortality factors affecting cotton insects. I. Resistance of smooth and nectariless characters in Acala cottons to Heliothis zea, Pectinophora gossypiella and Trichoplusia ni. Journal of Environmental Quality 2, 530–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffing, B. (1956). Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing systems. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 9, 463–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laster, M. L. & Meredith, W. R. (1974). Influence of nectariless on insect-pest populations. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Research Highlights 37 (7), 2 and 5.Google Scholar
Lee, J. A., Miller, P. A. & Rawlings, J. O. (1967). Interaction of combining ability effects with environments in diallel crosses of upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Crop Science 7, 477–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukefahr, M. J., Houghtaling, J. E. & Cruhm, D. E. (1975). Suppression of Heliothia spp. with cottons containing combinations of resistant characters. Journal of Economic Entomology 68, 743–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuster, M. F. & Maxwell, F. G. (1974). The impact of nectariless cotton on plant bugs, bollworms and beneficial insects. In Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Production and Research Conference. Dallas, Texas, 7–9 01 1974 (ed. Brown, J. M.), pp. 86–87. Memphis, Tennessee, U.S.A.: National Cotton Council.Google Scholar
White, T. G. & Richmond, T. R. (1963). Heterosis and combining ability in top and diallel crosses among primitive, foreign and cultivated American upland cotton. Crop Science 3, 58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, F. D. & George, B. W. (1979). Combining ability in cotton for resistance to pink bollworm. Crop Science 19, 834–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar