Heterosis and inbreeding depression in some cotton crosses
(Gossypium barbdense L.)
Yehia, W. M. B.
Cotton Research Institute, Agriculture Research Center, Egypt
ABSTRECT
The present study was carried out at Sakha Agric. Res. Station ,
Agriculture Research Center for studding the magnitude of heterosis and
inbreeding depression in fifteen crosses ( F1,s ) , fifteen F2,s population
made by crossing six parents i.e.: 10229 x G.86 , G. 86 , G.93 , BBB,
Uzbekistan 1 and C.B.58 .through half diallel mating design during 2010,
2011 and 2012 summer seasons . All these genotypes belong to G.
barbdense L. Observations were recorded on boll weight, seed cotton
yield per plant, lint cotton yield per plant, lint percentage and number of
bolls per plant. The results indicated that highly significant differences
among all genotypes under this study for all the studied traits. Mean
performances cleared that for boll weight the lowest mean value was
BBB x C.B.58 F2 population and the highest was ( 10229 x G.86) x G.86
F1 cross , also , for seed cotton yield per plant , lint cotton yield per plant
and number of bolls per plant the F1 cross Uzbekistan 1 x C.B.58 with
the mean values 320.76 , 127.78 and 94.99 , respectively .The results of
Estimates of heterosis relative to mid- parents , better parent and
commercial variety was carried out and illustrated that for boll weight
the F1 cross i.e. BBB x C.B.58 was the highest positive heterosis and
G.93 x BBB F2 population was the superior heterosis for that trait. On the
other hand , for seed cotton yield per plant , lint cotton yield per plant and
number of bolls per plant the F1 cross ( Uzbekistan1 x C.B.58 ) was the
superior positive and significant heterosis for mid- parents , better parent
and commercial variety and the F2 population G.93 x Uzbekistan 1 was
the best positive heterosis and significant for the same traits with the
heterosis values 63.92 , 55.78 , 36.18 , 83.67, 67.43, 38.62, 65.79, 65.75
and 56.85% , respectively , the inbreeding depression ranged from
significant positive to significant no positive . From the all results the
study cleared that F2 populations were more stable and performed better
than F1, s even after segregation. Although, F2 population may display
less heterosis as compared to F1, s but still better than high parents and
can be used as hybrid cotton under the stress condition or not suitable
condition and skip the expensive F1 hybrid seed production.
INTRODUCTION
Cotton is one of the prominent industrial and economic crops of Egypt
.hence, its cultivation plays a vital role in nation economy and cotton is
sixth largest source of vegetable oil in the world. It provides principal
row material for the Egypt textile industry. The total area under cotton
decreased from 2 million fedden to 340 thousand fedden in the growing
season 2012-2013 but the production from area is increased.
Heterosis works as basic tool for improvement of crops in from F 1 and F2
populations and economic Heterosis (over standard cultivar) it's also
contributes to choose genotypes with desired genetic variance. Vigor and
maternal effects. Therefore it's essential to have detailed information
about desirable parental combiners in any breeding program, which can
reflect a high degree heterotic response. In intra and inter- specific
Heterosis , yield increase over mid and better parent or greater than
commercial cultivar ( useful Heterosis ) has been documented ( Baloch et
al 1993 b ; Galanopoul sendouca and Roupakias 1999; Wei et al 2002
; Yan et al 2001 and 2002 ; Khan 2007 ; khan 2011 and Maria
Khanpanni et al 2012 ) . Both positive and negative heterotic values
have been detected, demonstrating potential of hybrid combinations for
traits improvement in breeding programs (Hassan et al 1999; Khan et al
2009 and Maria Khanpanni et al 2012). F1 hybrid with high Heterosis
were also associated with higher inbreeding depression , therefore
moderate type of Heterosis has some stability in segregating populations (
Tang et al 1993 ; Soomro 2000 ; Soomro and Kalhoro 2000 ) .
Therefore, heterotic studies can provide basis for exploitation valuable
hybrid combinations in future breeding programs.
In countries like India, china, where labor is cheaper successful hybrid
cotton is produced on large scale since 1960,s (Khan et al 2007 and
Cook 1909) was the first to utilize hybrid vigor in inter- specific hybrids
(G. barbadense L x G. hirsutum L.) And later a number of workers all
over the world supported his conclusions. Hybrid cotton is a good
approach for significant improvement in genetic potential for morph-yield
and fiber quality traits and has attracted attention of cotton breeders for
commercial growing of hybrid generations (Baloch et al 1993 a and b;
Meredith and Browen 1998; Khan et al 2000 and 2009). However,
efforts have not delivered the expected results due to self-pollination
which has some different implications on hybrid seed production in
comparison to cross pollinated crops. Cotton producing countries are
trying increase yield through commercial growing of hybrid generations,
but India and china are the only leading countries having significant
acreage under hybrid cotton (Wu et al 2004; Khan 2011).
Apart from F2,s have larger heterogeneity and genetic variation , which
result in greater range of adapting on relative to their parents and F1
hybrids ( Meredith and Brown 1998 ; and Wu et al 2004) F2,S
manifested superiority over their better parents when grown under stress
conditions and can produce better combinations of yield ( Meredith and
Brown 1998 ) F2,S yield performance was highly correlated with F1,S
and parents . It is expected that F2 populations may express only 50% of
economic Heterosis shown by F1 hybrids and over less when Heterosis is
defined in terms of higher yielding parents .Nonetheless , F2 populations
with lower inbreeding depression in yield and superior performances than
adapted cultivars of such populations lends credibility to use F 1,s as
hybrid cotton. Previous findings are also of view about F2 populations
Heterosis in cotton (Tang et al 1993; Meredith and Browen 1998; Wu
et al 2004, Khan et al 2007 and Maria Khanpanni et al 2012)
Therefore the present investigation was planned to study the genetic
potential , Heterosis over mid , better parent and commercial variety and
inbreeding depression in 6x 5 half diallel populations .
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Genetic materials:
Six genetically genotypes of G. barbdense L namely 10229 x G. 86 ,
G.86 , G.93 , BBB, Uzbekistan 1 and C.B.58 were crossed manually in
half diallel design during 2010 growing season and their 15 F1 s were
raised during 2011 growing season . All the 6 parents and their 15 F 1,s
and 15 F2,s were raised in a randomized complete block design at Sakha
Agriculture Research Station during the 2012 growing season .Each entry
consisted of 4 meter long and 0.70 meter apart and 0.40 between hills
with thinned one plant per hill , one row for non- segregating generations
( parents and F1s) and three row for segregating population (F2,s) . Two
border rows were grown around the experiment to avoid border effects.
All the recommended cultural and management practices were followed
to raise a good crop. The sample size consisted of ten competitive
randomly selected plants for non-segregating material and thirty plants
for segregating material per replicate. Observations on Boll weight (g),
Seed cotton yield per plant (g), Lint cotton yield per plant (g), Lint
percentage (%) and Number of bolls per plant.
Statistical analysis:
Statistical analysis was performed, according to snedecor and Cochran
(1989).
Genetic analysis:
Estimates of Heterosis were determined as the percentage of F1, s
deviation from the average of mid- parents (M.P.), from the average of
better parent (B.P.) and the commercial hybrids (useful Heterosis). The
following equations were used:
H (M.P.) = F1- -M.P. - / M.P. - x 100
H( B.P.) = F1- - B.P.- / B.P.- x 100
H(useful)= F1- - Com- / Com- x 100
The significance of heterosis was tested, using the least significant
difference value (L.S.D.) at 0.05 and 0.01 levels.
Inbreeding depression (I.D.) for each cross was calculated, as follows:
I.D. = F2- - F1- . /F2- x 100 as measured by (Liang et al., 1972).
Dominance relations:
RSULTS AND DESCUISON
Mean squares for all studied traits were presented in Table 1. The results
indicated highly significant differences among all genotypes for all the
studied traits.
Table 1: Mean Squares for boll weight , seed cotton yield per plant ,
lint cotton yield per plant , lint percentage and number of bolls per
plant .
S.O.V.
d.f.
B.W.
S.C.Y./P.
L.C.Y./P.
L.%
No.B./P.
Replication
2
0.029
146.04
68.74
1.064
26.93
Genotypes
35
0.173**
4900.17**
934.59**
7.191**
406.6**
Error
70
0.045
234.68
36.74
0.714
29.03
Mean performances of the all studied traits for all genotypes ( parents ,
F1 crosses and F2 population) were calculated and the results were
presented in Table 2. The results illustrated that for boll weight (10229 x
G.86) x G.86 F1 cross was the highly significant (P ≥ 0.01 ) between all
the genotypes with the mean value is 3.82 g , On the other hand the lower
genotypes for the boll weight trait was The BBB x C.B.58 F 2 population
with the mean value of 2.79 g . Also, for seed cotton yield per plant the
results cleared that the F1 cross Uzbekistan 1 x C.B.58 was the higher
and the highest mean performance value with the mean 320.76 g/p and
the lowest mean performance value was the parent BBB .
For the two traits lint cotton yield per plant and number of bolls per
plant, the same F1 cross (Uzbekistan 1 x C.B.58) was the highest values
with the mean performance 127.78 and 94.49, respectively. Also, the
(10229 x G.86) x Uzbekistan1 and ( 10229 x G.86 ) x G.93 F 1 crosses
were the lowest genotypes mean performance with the mean values 54.76
and 49.01 for the same two traits , respectively . On the other hand , the
F2 population G.93 x Uzbekistan 1 was the highest mean performance
for L% with the mean value 40.78% and the lowest mean performance
for the same trait with the mean 32.30% .
Table 2: Mean performances of parents , F1 crosses and F2
populations for boll weight , seed cotton yield per plant , lint cotton
yield per plant, lint percentage and number of bolls per plant traits .
Genotypes
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
10229 x G. 86
G. 86
G.93
BBB
Uzbekistan11
C.B.58
B.W.
S.C.Y./P.
L.C.Y./P.
L.%
No.B./P.
3.53
3.25
2.94
3.07
3.28
3.09
209.94
196.19
165.31
154.90
183.52
157.70
84.14
71.13
57.34
57.89
96.66
58.45
40.08
36.26
34.69
37.37
37.96
36.62
59.56
60.34
56.36
50.46
56.34
51.72
3.82
3.46
3.01
3.12
3.46
3.07
3.27
3.18
3.50
3.27
3.42
3.39
3.36
3.72
3.38
188.80
169.79
188.95
156.23
228.07
180.84
183.04
171.86
209.08
176.43
226.94
216.31
198.44
233.05
320.76
70.84
61.48
71.87
54.76
92.11
69.91
67.58
65.30
80.88
56.63
82.85
80.89
79.80
90.59
127.78
37.48
36.30
38.09
35.08
40.40
38.70
36.98
37.96
38.64
32.30
36.53
37.37
40.23
38.84
39.83
49.49
49.01
62.67
50.08
65.86
59.08
56.15
54.41
60.06
53.93
66.50
63.96
59.01
62.64
94.99
3.58
3.46
2.94
3.22
3.44
3.29
3.65
3.42
3.23
3.67
3.07
3.09
3.15
2.79
3.07
261.82
244.87
161.83
283.63
178.93
174.68
240.13
174.98
226.55
228.53
285.89
166.28
161.23
192.86
223.11
100.16
91.29
61.77
108.61
66.53
65.34
93.05
64.42
91.90
87.86
116.63
60.27
59.40
71.04
79.81
38.23
37.29
38.17
38.28
37.15
37.43
38.76
36.74
40.57
38.43
40.78
36.25
36.86
36.84
35.76
73.96
70.88
55.09
88.27
52.22
53.24
65.85
51.08
70.29
62.36
93.42
53.88
51.71
69.11
72.76
0.345
0.459
24.94
33.12
9.869
13.105
1.376
1.827
8.785
11.655
F1
(10229 x G.86) x G.86
(10229 x G.86) xG.93
(10229 x G.86) x BBB
(10229 x G.86) Uzbekistan1
(10229 x G.86) xC.B.58
G.86 x G.93
G.86 x BBB
G.86 x Uzbekistan1
G.86 x C.B.58
G.93 x BBB
G.93 x Uzbekistan1
G.93 x C.B.58
BBB x Uzbekistan 1
BBB x C.B.58
Uzbekistan 1 x C.B.58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
F2
(10229 x G.86) x G.86
(10229 x G.86) xG.93
(10229 x G.86) x BBB
(10229 x G.86) Uzbekistan1
(10229 x G.86) xC.B.58
G.86 x G.93
G.86 x BBB
G.86 x Uzbekistan1
G.86 x C.B.58
G.93 x BBB
G.93 x Uzbekistan1
G.93 x C.B.58
BBB x Uzbekistan 1
BBB x C.B.58
Uzbekistan 1 x C.B.58
LSD 0.05
LSD 0.01
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Heterosis breeding in cotton has paid rich dividends in
increasing production and productivity of cotton. One of the chief factors
contributing in increased production and productivity in cotton is the
development of hybrids in teterploids and their successful cultivation.
Hence, heterosis is a useful tool in breeding programs and it is possible to
exploit it through the development of hybrids. In any crop the possibility
of hybrid vigor depends on the magnitude of heterosis and feasibility of
hybrid seed production at commercial scale.
In the present study, the parent Vs. F1.s component of the
variance found significant in all the characters indicated the presence of
heterosis. described genetic principles of expression of heterosis superior
to the better parent may result from one or more of following situations
(1) the accumulated action of favorable dominant or semi- dominant
genes depress between two parents i.e. dominance ; ( 2) the
complementary interactions of additive dominant or recessive genes at
different loci i.e. non- allelic interaction or epistasis ; (3) favorable
interaction between two alleles at the same locus i.e. inter- locus or interallelic interaction referred to as over – dominance
It will be possible to recover homozygous lines as good as
heterotic hybrids if either or both of the first two situations are causing
heterosis , although the success with which such lines can recovered will
depend on linkage relationship of the genes involved and the ability to
identify the recombinants . This will be particularly difficult with close
linkage and when heterosis is expressed by a slight improvement in each
of main yield components. If the heterosis is due to inter- allelic
interactions of dominant types, it is possible to fix such heterosis in
homozygous conditions in subsequent generations. The superiority of
hybrids particularly over the better parent is more useful in determining
the feasibility of commercial exploitation of heterosis and also indicating
parental combinations capable of producing the highest level of
transgressive sergeants. These results are in agreement with the results of
Meredith and Browen 1998; Wu et al 2004, Khan et al 2007 and
Maria Khanpanni et al 2012
The heterosis over mid- parents , better parent and useful
heterosis over commercial variety for F1 crosses and F2 population and
the inbreeding depression were calculated and the results are presented in
Table 3 for boll weight. The results cleared that for F1 crosses the BBB x
C.B.58 was the highest significant and positive heterosis over the mid
and better parents with the mean values of heterosis 20.95 and 20.63 % ,
respectively , On the other hand , for commercial variety no one For F1
crosses cleared significant and positive heterosis .Also , for the F2
populations the G.93 x C.B.58 was the superior F2 population and the
highest positive and significant heterosis over mid and better parents
with the mean values of heterosis 22.7 and 19.65 % , respectively and the
same population cleared positive inbreeding depression .
Table 3: Estimated Heterosis relative to mid- parents ,
better parent , commercial variety a, as well as inbreeding
depression of F1 crosses and F2 populations for boll weight
B.W
F1
Crosses
F2
hF1mp
HF1bp
HF1Bcom
8.41
-1.98
-14.56**
-11.63*
-1.80
-13.04**
-7.37
-9.83*
-0.85
-7.28
-3.02
-3.88
-4.63
5.58
-4.25
5.60
7.06
-10.97*
-5.48
4.13
6.08
15.34**
4.80
1.89
22.17**
-1.23
2.38
-0.89
-9.26*
-3.66
-15.35**
-1.80
-16.73**
-8.79
-2.36
1.02
12.09*
4.37
-0.72
19.65**
-6.30
0.001
-4.07
-9.50
-6.50
1.51
-1.80
-16.73**
-8.79
-2.36
-6.81
3.40
-2.93
-8.41
4.16
-12.85*
-12.48*
-10.78*
-20.79**
-13.04**
-6.80
0.19
-2.61
3.11
-0.58
6.69
10.42*
7.11
-8.26
10.98*
-11.28*
-9.83
-6.89
-33.29**
-10.11
0.345
0.345
0.299
0.345
0.345
0.345
0.459
0.459
0.397
0.459
0.459
0.459
hF1mp
HF1bp
HF1Bcom
12.78**
6.85
-8.64
-8.42
4.74
-1.02
3.32
-2.65
10.30*
8.76
9.91*
12.44*
5.93
20.95**
6.07
8.41
-1.98
-14.56**
-11.63
-1.80
-5.74
0.41
-3.05
7.48
6.51
4.27
9.83
2.54
20.63**
2.95
LSD 0.05
0.299
LSD0.01
0.397
(10229 x G.86) x G.86
(10229 x G.86) x G.93
(10229 x G.86) x BBB
(10229 x G.86) x Uzbekistan 1
(10229 x G.86) xC.B,58
G.86 x G.93
G.86 x BBB
G.86 x Uzbekistan 1
G.86 xC.B,58
G.93 x BBB
G.93 x Uzbekistan 1
G.93 x C.B.58
BBB x Uzbekistan 1
BBB x C.B.58
Uzbekistan 1x C.B.58
*, ** Significant
respectively.
and highly significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels ,
Table 4 cleared the results about heterosis over mid , better and
commercial variety for seed cotton yield per plant and the results
illustrated that the F1 cross Uzbekistan 1 x C.B.58 was the superior and
the highest mean of heterosis with the mean heterosis values 86.91, 74.78
and 52.78% for mid parents , better parent and commercial variety ,
respectively . but , for F2 population the superior was G.93 x Uzbekistan
1 and have a highly positive and significant heterosis for seed cotton yield
per plant with the mean heterosis values 83.67 , 67.4363.92, 55.78 and
36.18 % for mid- parents , better parent and commercial variety ,
respectively . On the other hand. The same F1 cross and the same F2
population was the highest positive and significant heterosis values for
lint cotton yield per plant as cleared in Table 5. The mean heterosis
values were 99.49, 83.44 and 51.88 % for F1 cross and 83.67, 67.43 and
ID
38.62% for F2 population for mid parents, better parent and commercial
variety, respectively These results are in agreement with the results;
Baloch et al 1993 a and b; Galanopoul sendouca and Roupakias 1999;
ofBaloch et al 1993 b Wei et al 2002 ; Yan et al 2001 and 2002 ; Khan
2007 ; khan 2011 and Maria Khanpanni et al 2012
Table 4: Estimated Heterosis relative to mid- parents , better parent
, commercial variety a, as well as inbreeding depression of F1 crosses
and F2 populations for seed cotton yield per plant.
SCY/P
Crosses
F1
F2
hF1mp
HF1bp
HF1Bcom
-10.07
-19.12**
-10.00
-25.59**
8.64
-13.86*
-12.81*
-18.14**
-0.41
-15.96**
8.10
28.93**
30.51**
-11.29*
44.17**
-3.19
-3.36
36.79**
-7.84
27.31**
42.74**
63.92**
14.20*
16.64**
-22.92**
35.10**
-14.77*
-10.96
22.40**
-10.81
15.47*
38.24**
55.78**
14.71*
16.64**
-22.92**
35.10**
-14.77*
-16.80**
-14.38*
-16.65**
7.91
8.85
36.18**
27.89**
30.66**
-16.76**
44.92**
-27.46**
-3.52
23.77**
1.78
7.71
22.80**
20.62**
30.85**
3.03
2.32
0.59
-20.80**
-30.09**
17.27**
48.16**
86.91**
8.13
45.93**
74.78**
-5.48
11.01
52.78**
-4.72
22.61*
30.01**
-12.15*
20.76**
21.57**
-23.20**
-8.14
6.27
-23.07**
-20.84**
-43.76**
LSD 0.05
21.59
24.94
24.94
21.59
24.94
24.94
24.94
LSD0.01
28.68
33.12
33.12
28.68
33.12
33.12
33.12
hF1mp
HF1bp
HF1Bcom
(10229 x G.86) x G.86
(10229 x G.86) x G.93
(10229 x G.86) x BBB
(10229 x G.86) x Uzbekistan 1
(10229 x G.86) xC.B,58
G.86 x G.93
G.86 x BBB
G.86 x Uzbekistan 1
G.86 xC.B,58
G.93 x BBB
G.93 x Uzbekistan 1
-7.03
-9.50
3.58
-20.59**
23.40**
0.05
4.27
-9.48
17.49**
10.20
30.12**
-10.07
-19.12**
-10.00
-25.59**
8.64
-7.83
-6.70
-12.40
6.57
6.73
23.66**
G.93 x C.B.58
33.11**
BBB x Uzbekistan 1
BBB x C.B.58
Uzbekistan 1x C.B.58
*, ** Significant and highly significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels , respectively
ID
Table 5: Estimated Heterosis relative to mid- parents , better parent
, commercial variety a, as well as inbreeding depression of F1 crosses
and F2 populations for lint cotton yield per plant
LCY./P.
F1
Crosses
F2
hF1mp
HF1bp
HF1Bcom
-15.80**
-26.93**
-14.58*
-34.92**
9.48
-16.91**
--19.68**
-22.39**
-3.87
-32.70**
-1.52
-3.87
-5.15
7.67
51.88**
29.02**
29.06**
-13.02*
41.24**
-6.69
1.72
44.24**
-8.49
41.84**
52.49**
83.67**
4.10
-6.85
22.13**
24.59**
-7.71
8.50
-26.59**
29.09**
-20.93**
-8.14
30.81**
-9.44
29.19**
51.77**
67.43**
3.12
-14.72*
21.54*
24.59**
19.05**
8.50
-26.59**
29.09**
-20.93**
-22.34**
10.59
-23.44**
9.23
4.42
38.62**
-28.36**
-29.40**
-15.57*
-5.15
29.27**
32.65**
-16.35
49.58**
-38.46**
-6.98
27.38**
-1.37
11.99*
35.55**
28.96**
-34.20**
-34.34**
-27.52**
-60.11**
9.869
9.869
8.457
9.869
9.569
9.869
13.3
13.105
11.350
13.105
13.105
13.105
hF1mp
HF1bp
HF1Bcom
-8.75
-13.08*
1.20
-28.79**
29.20**
8.82
4.75
-7.24
24.83**
-1.71
30.48**
39.71**
25.14**
55.74**
99.49**
-15.80**
-26.93**
-14.58**
-34.92**
9.48
-1.73
-5.00
-8.20
13.71
-2.18
18.94**
38.38**
14.56*
54.99**
83.44**
LSD 0.05
8.547
LSD0.01
11.350
(10229 x G.86) x G.86
(10229 x G.86) x G.93
(10229 x G.86) x BBB
(10229 x G.86) x Uzbekistan 1
(10229 x G.86) xC.B,58
G.86 x G.93
G.86 x BBB
G.86 x Uzbekistan 1
G.86 xC.B,58
G.93 x BBB
G.93 x Uzbekistan 1
G.93 x C.B.58
BBB x Uzbekistan 1
BBB x C.B.58
Uzbekistan 1x C.B.58
*, ** Significant
respectively
ID
and highly significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels ,
For lint percentage the results of heterosis in mid – parents, better
parent and commercial variety for F1 crosses and F2 population were
calculated and the results are presented in Table 6. The results cleared
that the F1 cross G.86 x G. 93 was the highest and significant positive
heterosis for mid- parents and better parent with the mean values of
heterosis 9.09 and 6.73 %, respectively. Also for F2 populations the F2
G.93 x Uzbekistan 1 was the superior and the highest positive heterosis
for mid parents and better parent with the heterosis values 12.26 and
7.43%, respectively.
For number of bolls per plant the results for heterosis over the
mid- parents , better parent and commercial variety for F1 and F2 are
presented in Table 7 and this results cleared that the F1 cross Uzbekistan
1 x C.B.58 was the best positive heterosis and significant over mid
parents , better parent and commercial variety with the mean heterosis are
75.80 , 68.60 and 59.47% , respectively , Also , the F 2 population ( G.93
x Uzbekistan 1 ) was the superior and the best positive heterosis values
with the mean of heterosis 65.79 , 65.75 and 56.85% , for mid – parents ,
better parent and commercial variety , respectively . These results are in
agreement with the results Wu et al 2004; Khan 2011
Table 6: Estimated Heterosis relative to mid- parents , better
parent , commercial variety a, as well as inbreeding depression of F1
crosses and F2 populations for lint percentage.
L%
F1
Crosses
F2
hF1mp
HF1bp
HF1Bcom
-6.48**
-9.42**
-4.96**
0.16
-0.25
-1.43
-0.25
-6.95**
-4.76**
-4.61**
-6.95**
-4.76**
1.96
2.66
0.21
-12.48**
-1.89
-4.47*
-4.47*
8.38**
0.81
-3.44*
-7.72**
-5.27**
-3.58*
-3.11
5.50**
5.29**
-0.99
11.33**
-7.29**
3.22
3.72*
-3.21
10.79**
-7.29**
-6.61**
-3.28
-8.32**
1.22
-8.74**
-3.40
4.59*
-3.32
4.74**
-19.41**
6.66**
2.84
-4.10
15.97**
-8.86**
-6.76**
0.39
-3.08
-0.62
12.26**
1.66
-2.15
-0.41
-4.11*
7.43**
-1.01
-2.92
-1.42
-5.81**
1.76
-9.56**
-8.03**
-8.07**
-10.78**
10.44**
-3.11
-9.16**
-5.43**
-11.39**
1.376
1.76
1.191
1.376
1.376
1.376
1.827
1.827
1.582
1.827
1.827
1.827
hF1mp
HF1bp
HF1Bcom
-1.80
-2.90
-1.64
0.55
4.82**
6.81**
5.00**
6.81**
-6.48**
-9.42**
-4.96**
12.48**
0.81
6.73**
-1.04
0.001
5.53**
13.58**
-3.78*
2.07
5.98**
3.93*
4.92**
LSD 0.05
1.191
LSD0.01
1.582
(10229 x G.86) x G.86
(10229 x G.86) x G.93
(10229 x G.86) x BBB
(10229 x G.86) x
Uzbekistan 1
(10229 x G.86) xC.B,58
G.86 x G.93
G.86 x BBB
G.86 x Uzbekistan 1
G.86 xC.B,58
G.93 x BBB
G.93 x Uzbekistan 1
G.93 x C.B.58
BBB x Uzbekistan 1
BBB x C.B.58
Uzbekistan 1x C.B.58
-10.11**
5.35**
9.09**
0.45
2.29
6.05**
-10.37**
*, ** Significant and highly significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively
For the inbreeding depression estimates showed that some hybrids
might be used as a source of inbred line to synthesis of hybrids or
synthesis varieties, since negative significant estimates had been
recorded.
ID
Table 7: Estimated Heterosis relative to mid- parents , better
parent , commercial variety a, as well as inbreeding depression of F1
crosses and F2 populations for number of bolls per plant
No.B./P.
F1
Crosses
F2
hF1mp
HF1bp
HF1Bcom
-16.92*
-17.73*
5.22
-15.92*
10.57
-0.80
-5.74
-8.65
0.84
-9.46
11.65
7.38
-0.92
5.16
59.47**
23.36**
22.28**
0.14
52.32**
-6.16
-8.76
18.85**
-12.44
25.45**
16.74*
65.79**
-0.29
-3.17
35.26**
34.67**
-15.50*
19.00*
-7.51
48.20**
-12.34
-11.76
9.13
-15.35*
16.49*
10.63
65.75**
-4.40
-8.22
33.61**
29.15**
24.16**
19.00*
-7.51
48.20**
-12.34
-10.61
10.55
-14.24*
18.01*
4.69
56.85**
-9.53
-13.19
16.02*
22.16**
38.08**
30.86**
-13.77
43.26**
-26.13**
-10.97
14.73*
-6.52
14.55*
13.51
28.82**
-18.70*
-14.13
9.36
-30.54**
8.785
8.785
7.600
8.785
8.785
8.785
11.655
11.655
10.094
11.655
11.655
11.655
hF1mp
HF1bp
HF1Bcom
-17.45**
-15.45*
13.93*
-13.58*
18.37**
1.26
1.34
-6.74
7.20
0.97
18.01**
18.35**
10.51
22.60**
75.80**
-17.99*
-17.73*
5.22
-15.92*
10.57
-2.08
-6.95
-9.83
-0.46
-4.32
17.99**
13.48
4.75
21.11*
68.60**
LSD 0.05
7.600
LSD0.01
10.094
(10229 x G.86) x G.86
(10229 x G.86) x G.93
(10229 x G.86) x BBB
(10229 x G.86) x Uzbekistan 1
(10229 x G.86) xC.B,58
G.86 x G.93
G.86 x BBB
G.86 x Uzbekistan
G.86 xC.B,58 1
G.93 x BBB
G.93 x Uzbekistan 1
G.93 x C.B.58
BBB x Uzbekistan1
BBB x C.B.58
Uzbekistan 1x C.B.58
*, ** Significant and highly significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels , respectively
REFERENCES
El-Adly. H.H. (2007). Heterosis , inbreeding depression and combining
ability analysis in some cotton crosses ( Gossypium
barbadense L.) Egypt. J. Agric. Res., 86( 3) : 1081- 1093.
Esmail, E.M.; H. EL-Mahfouz and M.D.H. Dewedar (2005). Mean
performance , combining ability and Heterosis of new
Egyptian cotton genotypes as parental genotypes in breeding
programs. Egypt. J. Plant Breed, 9 (1) : 127- 145.
Baloch. M. J.; A. R. Lakho and A. H. Soomro. (1993-a). Heterosis in
inter- specific cotton hybrids .Pak. J. Bot., 25: 13-20.
Baloch. M. J.; G. H. Tunio and A. R. Lakho . (1993- B). Performance of
F1 hybrids from intra-hirsutum L. crosses of Upland cotton.
Pak. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 36: 38- 40.
ID
Galanopoulou- Sendouca, S. and G. Roupakias. (1999). Performance of
cotton F1 hybrids and its relation to the mean yield of
advanced bulk generations. Eur. J. Argon., 11: 53- 62.
Cook , C.F. (1909) . Suppressed and intensified characters in cotton
hybrids. U.S. Dept. Agric. Bull., 1947: 127.
Hassan, G.; G.Mahamood , N.U. Khan and A. Razzaq. (1999).
Combining ability and heterobeltiotic estimates in a diallel
cross of cotton ( G.hirsutum L.). Sarhad J. Agric., 15: 563568.
Khan, N. U. (2011). Economic heterosis for morpho- yield traits in F1
and F2 diallel crosses of Upland cotton. SABRAO J. Breed.
Genet. 43 (2): 144- 164.
Khan, N. U. ; G. Hassan ; M. B. Kumbhar; K. B. Marwat ; M.A. Khan;
A. Parveen; U. Aiman and M. Saeed. (2009). Combining
ability analysis to identify suitable parents for heterosis in
seed cotton yield, its components and lint % in Upland cotton.
Ind. Crops Prod., 29: 08- 115.
Khan, N.U.; G.Hassan, M.B. Kumbhar S. Kang; I. Khan, A. Parveen, U.
Aiman and M. Saeed (2007). Heterosis and inbreeding
depression and mean performance in segregating generations
in Upland cotton. Eur. J. Scien. Res., 17: 531- 546.
Khan, N. U.; H. K . Abro, M. B. Kumbhar , G. Hassan and G. Mahmood .
(2000). Study of heterosis in Upland cotton . II. Morphology
and yield traits. The Pak. Cotton, 44: 13 – 23.
Ling, H.H; C. R. Reddy and A. D. Dayton. (1972). Heterosis, Inbreeding
depression and heritability estimates in a systematic series of
grain sorghum genotypes. Crop Sci. 12: 409 – 411.
Maria Khanpanni ; N. Ullahkhan; t. Fitmawati; S. Batool and Maryam
Bibi. (2012). Heterotic studies and inbreeding depression in
F2 populations of Upland cotton. Pak. J. Bot., 44 (3) : 10131020.
Meredith, W. R. and J. S. Brown. (1998) . Heterosis and combining
ability of cottons originating from different regions of United
States. Cotton Sci. , 2: 77- 84.
Nazmey, M.N.A. ; A.E.M. Eissa and W.M.B. Yehia .(2010). Genetical
analysis for F1 and F2 generation in some Egyptian cotton
crosses ( Gossypium Barbadense L.). J. Agric. Chemistry and
Biotechnology , Mansoura Univ., Vol. (6) : 341- 350.
Soomro, A.R. (2000). Assessment of useful heterosis in glandless G.
hirsutum L. cotton strains through their performance in
hybrids combination. Pak. J. Bot., 32: 65- 68.
Soomro, A.R.; and A.D. Kalhoro. (2000). Hybrid vigor (F1) and
inbreeding depression (F2) for some economic traits in crosses
between glandless and glanded cotton . Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 3:
2013 –2015.
Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cocharn. (1989). Statistical Methods. 8 th ed.
Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa, USA.
Tang, B.; J. N. Jenkins ; J.C. McCarty and C. E. Watson.(1993). F2
hybrids of host plant germoplasm and cotton cultivars. I.
Heterosis and combining ability for lint yield and yield
components. Crop Sci., 33: 700- 705.
Wei, X,C, Q.Z.Li ; J. Q. Pang; J. Zhang ; J. H. Zhao and L. G. Wang.
(2002). Heterosis of pre-forest lint yield of hybrid between
cultivars or lines within Upland cotton (G. Hirsutum L.).
Cotton Sci., 14: 269- 272.
Wu, Y.T.; J. M. Yin; W.Z. Guo; X. P. Zhu and T. Z. Zhang (2004).
Heterosis performance of yield and fiber quality in F1 and F2
hybrid in Upland cotton. Plant Breed., 123: 285- 289.
Yuan, Y. L.; T. Z. Zhang; S. R. Jing, ;J. J. Pan.; C.z. Xing, L.P. Guo and
C.M. Tang. (2001) . Studies of the inheritance of seed quality
and the exploitation of F2 heterosis in low gossypol strains in
Upland cotton. Acta Genet. Sin., 28: 471- 484.
Yuan, Y. L.; T. Z. Zhang.; W.Z. Guo.; J. J. Pan and R.J. Kokel. (2002).
Heterosis and gene action of boll weight and lint percentage in
high quality fiber property varieties in Upland cotton. Acta
Agron. Sin. 28: 196- 202.
‫الملخص العربي‬
‫قوة الهجين ومعامل التربية الداخلية لبعض الهجن في القطن المصري‬
‫وليد محمد بسيوني يحيي‬
‫معهد بحوث القطن – مركز البحوث الزراعية – مصر‬
‫اجريت هذه الدراسة في محطة البحوث الزراعية بسخا بمركز البحوث الزراعية ز‬
‫وذلك لدراسة قوة الهجين مقارنة بافضل االباء ومتوسط االباء ومقارنة بالهجين التجاري الي‬
‫جانب تقدير معامل االنحدار الناتج عن التربية الداخلية وذلك من خالل ‪ 51‬هجين جيل اول ناتجة‬
‫من التهجين نصف الدائري لستة اباء( ‪10229 x G.86 , G. 86, G. 93, BBB,‬‬
‫)‪Uzbekistan 1, C.B.58‬‬
‫في الموسم الصيفي ‪ 0252‬وتم زراعة الهجن في موسم ‪ 0255‬للحصول علي بذرة‬
‫الجيل الثاني وفي الموسم الزراعي ‪ 0250‬تم زراعة االباء باالضافة لهجن الجيل االول وهجن‬
‫الجيل الثاني في تجربة قطاعات كاملة العشوائية من ‪ 3‬مكرارات وتم اخذ بيانات علي صفات‬
‫متوسط وزن اللوزة و ممتوسط محصول القطن الزهر للنبات و متوسط القطن الشعر للنبات و‬
‫متصافي الحليج باالضافة الي متوسط عدد اللوز للنبات واظهرت نتائج تحليل التباين وجود‬
‫اختالفات عالية المعنوية بين كل التراكيب الوراثية الداخلة في التجربة اما بالنسبة لقياسات قوة‬
‫الهجين لصفة متوسط وزن اللوزة اظهرت النتائج تفوق هجين الجيل االول ‪BBB x C.B.58‬‬
‫علي هجن الجيل االول بالنسبة لمتوسط االباء وافضل االباء في حين تفوق هجين الجيل الثاني‬
‫‪ G.93 x BBB‬لنفس الصفة اما بالنسبة لصفات متوسط محصول القطن الزهر للنبات‬
‫ومتوسط محصول القطن الشعر للنبات ومتوسط عدد اللوز للنبات فقد اظهرت النتائج تفوق‬
‫هجين الجيل االول ‪ Uzbekistan 1 x C.B.58‬بالنسبة الفضل االباء ومتوسط االباء‬
‫والصنف التجاري وكذلك تفوق هجين الجيل الثاني ‪ G.93 x Uzbekistan 1‬لنفس الصفات‬
‫‪ .‬تارجحت ايضا قياسات معامل االنحدار الناتج عن التربية الداخلية من الموجب الي السالب ‪.‬‬
‫ومن خالل النتائج المتحصل عليها يتضح ان هجن الجيل الثاني وان كانت اقل في قوة الهجين من‬
‫هجن الجيل االول اال انها اكثر ثباتا منه الي جانب انها متفوقة اذا ما قورنت باالباء وهي ثابتة‬
‫تحت الظروف البيئية المغايرة وغير المناسبة وبالتالي يمكن استخدام هجن الجيل الثاني‬
‫وتوزيعها كقطن هجين ‪.‬‬