Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:22:55.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intra-varietal variability and response to single plant selection in Gossypium hirsutum L.: II. Genotypic variability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

N. J. Thomson
N. J. Thomson
Affiliation:
Division of Land Research, CSIRO, P.O. Box 1666, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Progenies of randomly chosen plants from spaced plant populations of four American and one African variety of Gossypium hirsutum L. were grown in replicated single-plant plots at Kimberley Research Station in 1967–68 (all varieties) and 1968–9 (two varieties only) to estimate intra-varietal parameters of genetic variability.

Estimates of broad-sense heritability were usually similar when derived from components of variance on either a one- or two-season analysis basis or by parentprogeny regression Heritabilities were in general lowest for lint yield and boll number and highest for lint percentage. Mean value of heritability for lint yield and boll number, considered consistent enough on a varietal and seasonal basis to allow averaging, was about 0·15. Components of variance estimates of heritability on a single environment basis for other attributes ranged as follows: boll weight from 0·05 to 0·56, lint percentage from 0·29 to 0·80, mature height from 0·00 to 0·51, micronaire value from 0·20 to 0·63 and Pressley strength index from 0·05 to 0·56.

Genetic coefficients of variation showed an opposite trend to that for heritability: lint yield and boll-number values were large and lint percentage, micronaire value, and Pressley strength indices small. Expected responses to selection for the top 2·5 % of the population for lint yield and boll number at around 10% were usually higher than for other attributes.

Genotypic and phenotypic correlations were mostly similar but correlations often deviated widely between varieties. Positive lint yield correlations with micronaire value and negative lint yield correlations with Pressley strength index were recorded; these are often undesirable associations for breeding.

The association between the period of maintenance under Ord conditions and variability shown phenotypically in the original populations was not evident from the quantitative inheritance studies. Residual variability following breeding was considered as accounting for the larger portion of the genetic variability.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 80 , Issue 1 , February 1973 , pp. 147 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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

Al-Jibouri, H. A., Miller, P. A. & Robinson, H. F. (1958). Genotypic and environmental variances and covariances in an upland cotton cross of interspecific origin. Agron. J. 50, 633–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allard, R. W. & Hansche, P. E. (1964). Some parameters of population variability and their implications in plant breeding. Adv. Agron. 16, 281–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allard, R. W., Jain, S. K. & Workman, P. L. (1968). The genetics of inbreeding populations. Adv. Genet. 14, 55–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allard, R. W. & Workman, P. L. (1963). Population studies in predominantly self-pollinated species. IV. Seasonal fluctuations in estimated values of genetic parameters in lima bean populations. Evolution, Lancaster, Pa. 18, 470–80.Google Scholar
Arnold, M. H. (1970). Cotton improvement in East Africa. In Crop Improvement in East Africa (ed. Leakey, C. L. A.), pp. 178–208.Google Scholar
Bennett, E. (1965). Plant introduction and genetio conservation: genecological aspects of an urgent world problem. Rep. Scott. PI. Breed. Stn. 1965, pp. 27–113.Google Scholar
Briggs, F. N. & Knowles, P. F. (1967). Introduction to Plant Breeding. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Burton, G. W. & De Vane, E. H. (1953). Estimating heritability in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) from replicated clonal material. Agron. J. 45, 478–81.Google Scholar
Comstock, R. E. & Robinson, H. F. (1952). Genetic parameters, their estimation and significance. Proc. Sixth Int. Grassld Congr. 1, 248–91.Google Scholar
Hanson, W. D. (1963). Heritability. In Statistical Genetics and Plant Breeding (ed. Hanson, W. D. and Robinson, H. F.), pp. 125–40. Publ. no. 982. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences – National Research Council.Google Scholar
Harland, S. C. (1934). Selection effects in pure lines of Sea Island cotton self-fertilized for seventeen generations. Rep. Summ. Proc. 2nd Conf. Gott. Grav-Problems, pp. 31–46. London: Empire Cotton Growing Corporation.Google Scholar
Hayes, H. K., Immer, F. R. & Smith, D. C. (1955). Methods of Plant Breeding, 2nd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.Google Scholar
Higgs, R. L. & Russell, W. A. (1968). Genetic variation in quantitative characters in maize inbred lines. 1. Variation among and within corn belt seed sources of six inbreds. Crop Sci. 8, 345–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iman, A. G. & Allard, R. W. (1965). Population studies in predominantly self-pollinated species. VI. Genetic variability between and within natural populations of wild oats from differing habitats in California. Genetics, Princeton 15, 49–62.Google Scholar
Jain, S. K. & Allard, R. W. (1960). Population studies in predominantly self-pollineated species. I. Evidence for heterozygotic advantage in a closed population of barley. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 46, 1371–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempthorne, O. (1957). An introduction to Genetic Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Inc.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. F. (1963). Concepts of varietal maintenance in cotton. Proc. 15th Ann. Cotton Improv. Conf. pp. 123–31.Google Scholar
Manning, C. W. (1954). Selection techniques in cotton breeding. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Agronomy, Iowa State College, Iowa, U.S.A.Google Scholar
Manning, H. L. (1955). Response to selection for yield in cotton. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 20, 103–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, H. L. (1956). Yield improvement from a selection index technique with cotton. Heredity, Lond. 10, 303–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, H. L. (1963). Realized yield improvement from twelve generations of progeny selection in a variety of upland cotton. In Statistical Genetics and Plant Breeding (ed. Hanson, W. D. and Robinson, H. F.), pp. 329–49. Publ. no. 982. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences – National Research Council.Google Scholar
Miller, P. A., Williams, J. C, Robinson, H. F. & Comstock, R. E. (1958). Estimates of genotypic and environmental co-variances in upland cotton and their implications in selection. Agron. J. 50, 126–31.Google Scholar
Morley, F. (1963). In Statistical Genetics and Plant Breeding (ed. Hanson, W. D. and Robinson, H.F.), pp. 612. Publ. no. 982. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences – National Research Council.Google Scholar
Murray, J. C. & Verhalen, L. M. (1969). Genetic studies of earliness, yield, and fibre properties in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Crop Sci. 9, 752–5.Google Scholar
Robinson, H. F. (1963). In Statistical Genetics and Plant Breeding (ed. Hanson, W. D. and Robinson, H. F.), pp. 612. Publ. no. 982. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences – National Research Council.Google Scholar
Russell, W. A., Sprague, C.F. & Penny, L.H. (1963). Mutations affecting quantitative characters in longtime inbred lines of maize. Crop. Sci. 3, 178–8.Google Scholar
Scossiroli, R. (1963). In Statistical Genetics and Plant Breeding (ed. Hanson, W. D. and Robinson, H. F.), pp. 612. Publ. no. 982. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council.Google Scholar
Self, F. W. & Henderson, M. T. (1954). Inheritance of fibre strength in a cross between the upland cotton varieties AHA 50 and Half and Half. Agron J. 46, 151–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinnot, E. W., Dunn, L. C. & Dobzhansky, T. (1958). Principles of Genetics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1956). Statistical Methods Applied to Experiments in Agriculture and Biology. Ames, Iowa, U.S.A.: Oowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. F., Russell, W. A. & Penny, L. H. (1960). Mutations affecting quantitative traits in the selfed progeny of doubled monoploid maize stocks. Genetics, Princeton 45, 855–66.Google Scholar
Thomson, N. J. (1973). Intra-varietal variability and response to single plant selection in Gossypium hirsutum L. I. Phenotypic variability. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 80, 135–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhalen, L. M. & Murray, J. C. (1967). A diallel analysis of several fibre property traits in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Crop. Sci. 7, 501–5.Google Scholar
Walker, J. T. (1968 a). Bias in singling cotton seedlings. Cott. Grow. Rev. 45, 175–8.Google Scholar
Walker, J. T. (1968 b). Selection pressure due to hand thinning of seedlings of varietal mixtures. Cott. Grow. Rev. 45, 258–65.Google Scholar
Walker, J. T. (1969). Selection and quantitative characters in field crops. Biol. Rev. 44, 207–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar