Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:43:01.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variability within cotton cultivars for yield, fibre quality and physiological traits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2008

I. S. TOKATLIDIS ,
C. TSIKRIKONI ,
J. T. TSIALTAS ,
A. S. LITHOURGIDIS  and
P. J. BEBELI
I. S. TOKATLIDIS*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Development, Democritus University of Thrace, 68200 Orestiada, Greece
C. TSIKRIKONI
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Development, Democritus University of Thrace, 68200 Orestiada, Greece
J. T. TSIALTAS
Affiliation:
NAGREF, Cotton and Industrial Plants Institute, 57400 Sindos, Greece
A. S. LITHOURGIDIS
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Aristotle University Farm of Thessaloniki, 57001 Thermi, Greece
P. J. BEBELI
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Breeding and Biometry, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athens, Greece
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. E mail: [email protected] and [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Selection within elite cotton cultivars is ineffective; it is believed that they are genetically homogeneous. Research in other crops, however, has verified significant intra-cultivar variation based either on phenotypic differentiation or molecular analysis techniques. The present study primarily investigated possible intra-cultivar variation for seedcotton yield. Honeycomb selection within three elite cotton cultivars, on the basis of single-plant seedcotton yield and under the ultra-low density of 1·2 plants/m2, was performed. From each cultivar, six selfed (hand-pollinated) plants were selected and seed of each selected plant constituted a separate line. The 18 first generation lines were evaluated in three locations at a density of 1·2 plants/m2. Within each line, the 10 selfed plants which yielded the highest were selected. Mixed seed from these selected plants constituted the respective second generation line. Offspring performance of the 18 second generation lines was also tested in three locations at a density of 1·2 plants/m2. The results were indicative of intra-cultivar variation, since significant differentiation between lines of each cultivar was found for seedcotton yield per plant, averaged across two years and three locations. Additionally, significant intra-cultivar variation was found for fibre quality properties (length and micronaire, but not strength and uniformity) averaged across two years in a single location, as well as for physiological traits (leaf carbon isotope discrimination, ash content and K concentration) averaged across two years and three locations. In comparison with the original cultivars the second generation lines had higher seedcotton yields supporting the existence of exploitable genetic variation. The conclusion was that honeycomb selection in the absence of competition could be an effective technique in breeders' seed treatment in order to avoid gradual degeneration and beneficially exploit any latent or newly developed genetic variation.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 146 , Issue 4 , August 2008 , pp. 483 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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

Batzios, D. P., Roupakias, D. G., Kechagia, U. & Galanopoulou-Sendouca, S. (2001). Comparative efficiency of honeycomb and conventional pedigree methods of selection for yield and fiber quality in cotton (Gossypium spp.). Euphytica 122, 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bednarz, C. W., Oosterhuis, D. M. & Evans, R. D. (1998). Leaf photosynthesis and carbon isotope discrimination of cotton in response to potassium deficiency. Environmental and Experimental Botany 39, 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bednarz, C. W., Nichols, R. L. & Brown, S. M. (2006). Plant density modifies within-canopy cotton fiber quality. Crop Science 46, 950–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, B. T. & Jones, M. A. (2005). Assessment of genotype×environment interactions for yield and fiber quality in cotton performance trials. Euphytica 144, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condon, A. G. & Richards, R. A. (1992). Broad sense heritability and genotype×environment interaction for carbon isotope discrimination in field-grown wheat. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 43, 921–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, H. Z., Zhang, D. M., Tang, W., Li, W. J. & Li, Z. H. (2005). Effects of planting system, plant density and flower removal on yield and quality of hybrid seed in cotton. Field Crops Research 93, 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1989). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 3rd edn.New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Farquhar, G. D., Ehleringer, J. R. & Hubick, K. T. (1989). Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 40, 503–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farquhar, G. D. & Lloyd, J. (1993). Carbon and oxygen isotope effects in the exchange of carbon dioxide between terrestrial plants and atmosphere. In Stable Isotopes and Plant Carbon-water Relations (Eds Ehleringer, J. R., Hall, A. E. & Farquhar, G. D.), pp. 47–70. San Diego, USA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasoula, D. A. (1990). Correlations between auto-competition, allo-competition and nil-competition and their implications in plant breeding. Euphytica 50, 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasoula, D. A. & Fasoula, V. A. (1997). Competitive ability and plant breeding. Plant Breeding Reviews 14, 89–138.Google Scholar
Fasoula, V. A. & Boerma, H. R. (2005). Divergent selection at ultra-low density for seed protein and oil content within soybean cultivars. Field Crops Research 91, 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasoula, V. A. & Boerma, H. R. (2007). Intra-cultivar variation for seed weight and other agronomic traits within three elite soybean cultivars. Crop Science 47, 367–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasoula, V. A. & Fasoula, D. A. (2000). Honeycomb breeding: principles and applications. Plant Breeding Reviews 18, 177–250.Google Scholar
Fasoula, V. A. & Fasoula, D. A. (2002). Principles underlying genetic improvement for high and stable crop yield potential. Field Crops Research 75, 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasoulas, A. C. (2000). Building up resistance to Verticillium wilt in cotton through honeycomb breeding. In New Frontiers in Cotton Research. Proceedings of the 2nd World Cotton Research Conference, Athens, Greece, September 6–12, 1998 (Ed F. M. Gillham), p. 120–124.Google Scholar
Fasoulas, A. C. & Fasoula, V. A. (1995). Honeycomb selection designs. Plant Breeding Reviews 13, 87–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gethi, J. G., Labate, J. A., Lamkey, K. R., Smith, M. E. & Kresovich, S. (2002). SSR variation in important U.S. maize inbred lines. Crop Science 42, 951–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janick, J. (1999). Exploitation of heterosis: uniformity and stability. In The Genetics and Exploitation of Heterosis in Crops (Eds Coors, J. G. & Pandey, S.), pp. 319–333. Madison, WI, USA: ASA-CSSA-SSSA.Google Scholar
Leidi, E. O., López, M., Gorham, J. & Gutiérrez, J. C. (1999). Variation in carbon isotope discrimination and other traits related to drought tolerance in upland cotton cultivars under dryland conditions. Field Crops Research 61, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClintock, B. (1984). The significance of the responses of the genome to challenge. Science 226, 792–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olufowote, J. O., Xu, Y. B., Chen, X. L., Park, W. D., Beachell, H. M., Dilday, R. H., Goto, M. & McCouch, S. R. (1997). Comparative evaluation of within-cultivar variation of rice (Oryza sativa L.) using microsatellite and RFLP markers. Genome 40, 370–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rasmusson, D. C. & Phillips, R. L. (1997). Plant breeding progress and genetic diversity from de novo variation and elevated epistasis. Crop Science 37, 303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggs, A. D. & Porter, T. N. (1996). Overview of epigenetic mechanisms. In Epigenetic Mechanisms of Gene Regulation (Eds Russo, V. E. A., Martienssen, R. A. & Riggs, A. D.), pp. 29–45. Cold Spring Harbor, NY, USA: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
Saranga, Y., Flash, I. & Yakir, D. (1998). Variation in water-use efficiency and its relation to carbon isotope ratio in cotton. Crop Science 38, 782–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokatlidis, I. S. (2000). Variation within maize lines and hybrids in the absence of competition and relation between hybrid potential yield per plant with line traits. Journal of Agricultural Science 134, 391–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokatlidis, I. S., Koutsika-Sotiriou, M. & Fasoulas, A. C. (2001). The development of density independent hybrids in maize. Maydica 46, 21–25.Google Scholar
Tokatlidis, I. S., Tsialtas, J. T., Xynias, I. N., Tamoutsidis, E. & Irakli, M. (2004). Variation within a bread wheat cultivar for grain yield, protein content, carbon isotope discrimination and ash content. Field Crops Research 86, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokatlidis, I. S., Xynias, I. N., Tsialtas, J. T. & Papadopoulos, I. I. (2006). Single-plant selection at ultra-low density to improve stability of a bread wheat cultivar. Crop Science 46, 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traka-Mavrona, E., Georgakis, D., Koutsika-Sotiriou, M. & Pritsa, T. (2000). An integrated approach of breeding and maintaining an elite cultivar of snap bean. Agronomy Journal 92, 1020–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsialtas, J. T., Kassioumi, M. & Veresoglou, D. S. (2002). Evaluating leaf ash content and potassium concentration as surrogates of carbon isotope discrimination in grassland species. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 188, 168–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xanthopoulos, F. P. & Kechagia, U. E. (2000). Natural crossing in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 51, 979–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y. X., Gentzbittel, L., Vear, F. & Nicolas, P. (1995). Assessment of inter- and intra-inbred line variability in sunflower (Helianthus annuus) by RFLPs. Genome 38, 1040–1048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed