Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:11:50.059Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

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

Response to selection primarily for lint yield among spaced plant populations of four American and one African variety of Gossypium hirsutum L., established in 1965—6 at Kimberley Research Station, was studied in three experiments conducted between 1966 and 1970.

In the first experiment, in which single-hill micro-plots of 3–5 plants per hill were used, the mean lint yield of progenies was larger than predicted from single plant heritabilities. In the second experiment, in which single-row plots were used, response to selection for lint yield was generally less than expected. In the third experiment, in which three-row plots were used, response to selection for lint yield was again less than expected and less than manifested in the second experiment. However, in all experiments responses to selection for lint percentage, lint quality properties, and height were close to expectations while some individual progenies substantially out-yielded their unselected parents.

The progressive decline in response to selection for lint yield from the first to thethird experiment, and the discrepancies between the actual responses and the expected responses for lint yield in all experiments, were interpreted mainly on a basis of intergenotypic competitive effects differing in sympathy with plot size and plant disposition.

It was concluded that the objective methods of selection practised were successful when judged on plant breeding criteria. It was also concluded that intra-varietal selection is an important technique by which genetic improvement can be achieved at regional breeding centres with limited resources.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 80 , Issue 1 , February 1973 , pp. 161 - 170
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

Arnold, M. H. (1969). In Smithson, J. B. (1969). Cotton Research Corporation Summer Meeting, 1969. Coll. Grow. Rev. 46, 306–12.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. Farnham: Royal Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Arnold, M. H., Costelloe, B. E. & Church, J. M. F. (1968). BPA and Satu Uganda's two new cotton varieties. Gott. Grow. Rev. 45, 162–74.Google Scholar
Eberhart, S. A., Penny, L. H. & Sprague, C. F. (1964). Intra-plot competition among maize single crosses. Crop. Sci. 4, 467–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evenson, J. P. (1970). Ratooning of cotton: a review. Cott. Grow. Rev. 47, 1–7.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1960). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Harland, S. C. (1949). Methods and results of selection experiments with Peruvian Tangnis cotton. I. A survey of present methods of cotton breeding and a description of the ‘Mass Pedigree System’. Emp. Cott. Grow Rev. 26, 163–74.Google 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 Soiences – 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, P. A. & Rawlinqs, J. O. (1967). Selection for increased lint yield and correlated responses in Upland cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. Crop Sci. 7, 637–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mungomery, V. E. (1971). Incidence of natural hybridization and responses to selection in American upland cotton (G. hirsutum L.) in Queensland. M.Ag.So. Thesis, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Murray, J. C. & Verilalen, L. M. (1969). Genetic studies of earliness, yield and fibre properties in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Crop. Sci. 9, 752–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickell, C. D. & Grafius, J. E. (1969). Analysis of a negative response to selection for high yield in winter barley, Hordeum vulgare L. Crop. Sci. 9, 447–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parnell, F. R. (1935). The origin and development of U 4 cotton. Emp. Cott. Grow. Rev. 12, 177–82.Google Scholar
Richmond, T. R. (1951). Procedures and methods of cotton breeding with special reference to American cultivated species. Adv. Genet. 4, 213–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sakai, K. (1955). Competition in plants and its relation to selection. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 20, 137–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shannon, J. G., Wilcox, J. R. & Probst, A. H. (1971). Population response of soybeans in hill-plots. Crop Sci. 11, 477–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmonds, N. W. (1962). Variability in crop plants, its use and conservation. Biol. Rev. 37, 422–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, N. J. (1973 a). 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
Thomson, N. J. (1973 b). Intra-varietal variability and response to single plant selection in Gossypium hirsutum L. II. Genotypic variability. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 80, 147–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar