International Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science IJPBCS

Vol. 6(2), pp. 512-519, May, 2019. © www.premierpublishers.org, ISSN: 2167-0449

Research Article

Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed

Cotton Yield and Yield Components
Samuel Damtew
Werer Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, P.O. Box: 2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
E-mail: samueldt2@gmail.com

The present study was conducted to evaluate and select appropriate performance of inbreed lines
in form of yield and its components for development of high yield hybrid genotypes at Werer
Agricultural Research Center (WARC). Thirty-four advanced lines and two checks (Deltapine-90
and Stam 59A) were tested in two replications of the (6x6) alpha-lattice design during the 2015
growing season (June-December). The genotypes manifested very highly significant differences
(p≤0.001) for boll weight, ginning out turn (%) and lint yield, highly significant differences (p≤0.01)
for plant height and seed cotton yield and significant differences (p≤0.05) for bolls per plant.
Bigger bolls, higher seed cotton yield and more lint yield were obtained from advanced lines;
Stam 59A x Cucurova 1518#30-2, HTO#052 X DP-90, HS-46 X Stonevile453#19-2, HS-46 X
Stonevile453#19-5, Nazilli-84 X HS-4, ISA 205H X Stonevile453#17-6, ISA 205H X Stonevile453#17-
13, HTO#052 X Cucurova1518 and Delcero X Stoneville453. Boll weight was significantly and
positively correlated with seed cotton yield and lint yield. Seed cotton yield was significantly and
positively correlated with lint yield. It is concluded that advanced lines from the crosses Stam 59
A x Cucurova1518#30-2, HTO#052 X DP-90, HS-46 X Stonevile453#19-2, HS-46 X
Stonevile453#19-5, Nazilli-84 X HS-4, ISA 205H X Stonevile453#17-6, ISA 205H X Stonevile453#17-
13, HTO#052 X Cucurova1518 and Delcero X Stoneville453 showed best performance than other
genotypes for seed cotton yield and lint yield. Therefore, these genotypes should be advanced
towards release as new varieties and can be used in future breeding for the improvement of seed
cotton yield.
Key words: correlation, fiber traits, Gossypium hirsutum, inbreed lines performance, seed cotton yield.

INTRODUCTION

Cotton is an important fiber crop and plays a vital role as a
cash crop in commerce of many countries such as USA,
China, India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Australia and many
countries of Africa including Ethiopia (Kaliyaperumalet
al.,2010). It is extensively grown in the lowlands under
large-scale irrigation schemes. It is also grown on small-
scale farms under rain-fed agriculture.
The most important part is the fiber or lint, which is used in
making cotton cloth. Cotton seed oil is used primarily for
cooking oil and salad dressing. The meal and hulls that
remain are used either separately or in combination as
livestock, poultry and fish feed and as fertilizer (Gregory et
al. 1999).
Current estimates for world cotton production are about 25
million tones or 110 million bales annually, produced on
2.5% of the world's arable land. China is the world's largest
producer of cotton, but most of this is used domestically.
The United States has been the largest exporter for many
years. Ethiopia has enormous potential for the production
of cotton. A recent study of the Ministry of Agriculture
indicates that there is some 2.6 million hectares of land
suitable for cotton production, which is equivalent to that of
Pakistan, the fourth largest producer of cotton in the world.
However, the total production area under cotton in Ethiopia
is only about 130,005 hectares and the country annually
produce approximately 40,060 tons of cotton (Teddy,
2015).
Ethiopian cotton Productivity is 860 - 1800 kg/ha in rain fed
and 2200 kg/ha in irrigated Farms. These low yields may
be attributed to several factors like poverty of farmers, lack
of improved cultivars resistant to diseases and insect

Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield Components
Damtew S. 513
pests, weeds and lack of knowhow by growers about the
advanced package of technology (kind of seed, irrigation
system, fertilizer, spraying and harvesting time)
concerning cotton production. However, most common
cause of low productivity is the growing of inferior varieties.
The solution of this problem is through hybridization by
conventional hand emasculation and pollination and
release of productive cultivars. Yield increase of hybrids
over the better parent or best commercial cultivar has been
documented in a review by Loden and Richmond (1951)
which conclusively showed that the F1 can produce
significantly higher yields than the current best yielding
parent or commercial cultivar. In Pakistan the hybrid of
NIAB Karishma ×CIM-435 was given to the growers for
testing in the field, which showed 10.5% increases in seed
cotton yield over the best parent and the best commercial
variety, NAIB Karishma, during 1999 -2000 (Iqbal et al.
2008).
In Ethiopia no commercial cotton hybrid is in use currently.
Developing and using of hybrids to increase yield of cotton
has been the objective of breeders, in Ethiopia, because a
vast labor force is available to make emasculation and
crosses by hand. The first step in successful hybridization
breeding program is to select appropriate parents for yield,
quality and pest resistance. Selection of parents with good
fiber traits is essential to develop hybrids with superior fiber
properties. The yield of any crop can be broken down into
its components to determine how yield is attained. In an
attempt to facilitate breeding for high yields, it is logical to
examine the various components individually. This way,
the components having the greatest influence on yield, in
both a positive and negative manner, can be identified
(Kambal, 1969). Thus, this gives direction for breeding
programs aimed at improving overall yield (Board 1987).
Various parents have been involved in crosses of both
Intraspecific crosses and Interspecific crosses at Werer
Agricultural Research center to improve both seed cotton
yield and lint quality. Many of the crosses have passed
through a series of evaluations and the best ones are now
at the National yield trial and have almost reached
homozygosity where they can be released as advanced
lines if found to be superior to the varieties under
cultivation. Therefore, the present study was conducted to
evaluate these advanced lines and identify those that
surpass the existing varieties in seed cotton yield and lint
yield.
Table 1. Analysis of Variance of different cotton genotypes for seed cotton yield and its components
Source of Mean Squares
variation plant height Boll no/plant Boll weight (g) Seed
(cm)
Replication 22.52 8.77 0.00076
Block(rep) 436.92 28.77 0.24
Genotypes 311.21 ** 28.03 * 1.297 ***
Error 121.27 12.09 0.32
CV 11.82 16.22 10.39
Note: ***Very highly significantly different at P<0.001, ** highly significantly different at P<0.01, * significantly different at
P<0.05 and ns non-significantly different
Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield Components
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experiment was conducted in 2015 main growing
season at Werer Agricultural Research center in Afar
region, eastern Ethiopia. The Experimental materials
consisted of Thirty-four cotton advanced lines (The
materials are now at F8 generation and have almost
reached homozygosity) (Appendix 1) and two check
varieties (Deltapine-90 and Stam-59A) were obtained from
Werer Agricultural Research center. The experiment was
laid-out in Alpha lattice (6 x 6) design with two replications.
Planting was carried out on 22 May 2015 in four rows each
of them 5 m long with plant to plant distance of 20 cm and
row to row distance of 90 cm. Two seeds were planted per
hill and after full emergence of the seedlings one seedling
was thinned out to have the required population of 100
plants per plot. The central two rows with net plot size of
5m x2rows x 0.9 = 9m 2 were used for harvesting to avoid
boarder effect. All the recommended agronomic practices
including hoeing, weeding, irrigation and pest control were
applied uniformly for all entries from sowing till harvesting
to minimize management variation. Plant height, Bolls per
plant, Boll weight, Seed cotton yield, Ginning Outturn (%)
and Lint Yield were collected and the averages were used
for analysis. The data collected were statistically analyzed
according to Steel and Torrie (1984) by using SAS
software for analysis of variance (ANOVA). Correlation
analysis was performed as suggested by Snedecor&
Cochran (1980) to study the relationship between yield
and yield components.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Yield and yield components
According to analysis of variance (Table 1), the mean
values of thirty-six genotypes manifested very highly
significant differences (p≤0.001) for boll weight, ginning
out turn (%) and lint yield, highly significant differences
(p≤0.01) for plant height and seed cotton yield and
significant differences (p≤0.05) for bolls per plant.
Therefore, the results revealed significant variations
among the genotypes for all of the studied traits.
cotton Ginning % Lint yield (kg/ha)
yield(kg/ha)
64267.76 1.85 32684.70
3036586.52 3.02 334453.02
1941773.71 ** 11.22 *** 365041.59 ***
704482.3 0.61 96376.73
12.78 2.03 12.25

Plant height
Overall plant height ranged from 70.57cm (DP-90 X
Cucurova1518) to 137.57cm (Stam 59 A x HS-46) among
cotton genotypes (Table 2). The highest plant height was
observed in Stam 59 A x HS-46 (137.57 cm) followed by
HTO#052 X Pima S3 (127.83cm), DP-5816 X Stonville
213 (115.97cm) and ISA 205 X DP-5816 (112.27cm). The
lowest plant height was observed in DP-90 X
Cucurova1518 (70.57 cm) and it was statistically at par
with twenty-six genotypes with plant height from 74.37 to
97.07cm. The difference in plant height might be due to the
difference in genetic makeup of genotypes considered in
the experiment. These results are also in line with those of
Wankhade et al. (2002), who reported that plant height is
affected by genetic makeup of genotypes and
environmental conditions. Saeed et al. (1996), also
reported that plant height varies significantly because of
varieties. Khan (2003), Taohua & Haipeng (2006) and
Ahmad et al., (2008) studied the stability and adaptability
of G. hirsutum genotypes and observed varied values for
plant height and other yield components of different
genotypes.
Bolls per plant
Bolls per plant harvested in two pickings ranged from
12.633(Stam -59A genotype) to 36.967(HTO#052 X Pima
S3) (Table 2) among the thirty-six genotypes. Maximum
bolls per plant was picked from HTO#052 X Pima S3
(36.967) followed HTO#052 X LS-90#24-11 (28.900) and
HTO#052 X LS-90#24-7(28.633). The minimum bolls per
plant were picked from Stam-59A genotype (12.633) and
was found statistically at par with sixteen genotypes
(15.300 to 20.967 bolls plant-1). Twenty of the advanced
lines had bolls plant-1 higher than that of the best check
DP-90 (20.86). The differences among genotypes for
number of bolls per plant might have been due to the
difference in genetic potential of the genotypes. These
results are in consonance with the results of Saeed et al.
(1996) who reported that the number of bolls plant-1
differed significantly among different varieties. Soomro et
al., (2005) compared the yield and yield components of
commercial cotton genotypes and observed significant
differences for bolls per plant, yield and other yield
attributes.
Boll weight
Boll weight of the 36 genotypes varied between 3.2683g
(HTO#052 X Pima83) to 7.785(Stam 59 A x Nazilli –84)
(Table 2). The highest boll weight was observed on
genotype Stam 59 A x Nazilli –84 (7.7850 g). The lowest
boll weight was observed on genotypes HTO#052 X
Pima83 (3.2683g), HTO#052 X LS-90#24-7(3.630 g) and
HTO#052 X LS-90#24-11 (3.753g). The checks DP-90
(5.65 g) and Stam 59A (5.15 g) had big bolls being
significantly surpassed only by HTO#052 X Pima83 (7.785
g). The variation in average mature boll weight was
Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield Components
Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 514
probably due to the use of different genotypes and the
ability of different genotypes in utilizing and assimilating
the available resources for the increase in average mature
boll weight. These results are in confirmation with those of
Elayan et al. (1992) who reported that average mature boll
weight was affected varies significantly among the
varieties studied. The significant differences among
varieties for average boll weight had also been reported by
Hofs et al. (2006).
Seed cotton yield
Overall seed cotton yield in thirty-six genotypes ranged
from 3681kg ha-1 (HTO#052 X Pima S3) to 9107kg ha-1
(Stam 59A x Cucurova 1518 #30 -2) (Table 2). The yield
of the highest yielding genotype (9107 Kg ha-1 was
statistically at par with yields of twelve genotypes whose
yield ranged from 7104.6 to 8287kg ha-1, including yield of
the check DP-90 (7463 Kg ha-1). The lowest seed cotton
yield was that of HTO#052 X Pima S3 (3681kg ha-1), but it
was statistically at par with the yield of eight genotypes
whose yield ranged from 4497 to 5566.2 kg ha-1. These
results are in consonance with those of Oakley et al.
(1998) and Nunes et al. (1998) who reported significant
differences in total seed cotton yield due to difference in
genetic makeup of the varieties. Copur (2006) determined
yield and yield attributes of G. hirsutum genotypes and
observed significant differences between means of the
genotypes studied.
Lint Yield
The maximum lint yield (Table 2) was recorded in Stam 59
A x Cucurova 1518 #30 -2 (3535.8kg ha-1). However, it
was found statistically at par with ten genotypes whose lint
yield ranged from 2792.7 to 3275.9 kg ha -1. HTO#052 X
Pima S3 revealed the lowest lint yield (1259.2 kg ha-1)
followed by genotypes HTO#052 X LS-90#24-11(1792.9
kg ha-1), HTO#052 X LS-90#24-7 (1823.2 kg ha-1), Stam-
59A (1978.6), (2113.1), DP-90 X Cucurova1518 (2151.7
kg ha-1), ISA 205H X Nazilli-84 (2162.3 kg ha-1) and ISA
205 X DP-5816 (2168.5 kg ha-1). Munk and Kurby (1993)
also reported significant differences in lint yield of cotton
genotypes. Cook & El-Zik (1993) noticed that genotypes
differed significantly for lint yield.
Ginning Outturn (%)
Ginning out turn was calculated to observe the difference
between genotypes in the ratio of lint to the seed cotton.
Lint % of the thirty six genotypes ranged between 33.197
(GL-7 x Stam 59A) to 43.504 % (Nazilli-84 X HS-4) (Table
2). The highest lint % was noticed in genotype Nazilli-84 X
HS-4 (43.504 %) but it was statistically at par with that of
five genotypes whose ginning % ranged from 41.7472 to
43.014%. Inbreed line GL-7 x Stam 59A revealed lowest
lint % (33.197 %) but was found statistically at par with
three other genotypes whose ginning % ranged from
34.003 to 34.8774%. These results are in line with those
Damtew S. 515
of Khan et al. (1989), Saeed et al. (1996) and Oakley et al.
(1998) who reported significant differences in the ginning
Outturn of genotypes due to genetic differences among
varieties. Taohua & Haipeng (2006) studied the stability
and adaptability of G. hirsutum varieties and observed
varied ginning % for different genotypes.
Correlation coefficients (r) among seed cotton yield
and yield component
Plant height was significantly and positively correlated (r =
0.381*) with boll per plant and had non-significant negative
correlation with boll weight (r = -0.124), seed cotton yield
(r = -0.023), GOT (r = -0.172) and lint yield (r = -0.062)
(Table 3). Plant height is a very important trait and has
close association with bolls per plant (if no lodging
occurred). Taller genotypes (Stam 59 A x HS-46,
HTO#052 X Pima S3, DP-5816 X Stonville 213, Delcero X
Krishna, Nazilli-84 X HS-4 and Stam 59 A x Cucurova
1518#30 -17) showed medium to high number of bolls per
plant. Results revealed that plant height has some
association with bolls plant-1. Plant breeders are generally
interested in short stature plants due to lodging threat, and
the ease in picking the mature bolls both manually or using
machinery. Arshad et al., (1993) also evaluated upland
cultivars and concluded that plant height was positively
correlated with boll number plant-1. The differences in
views of researchers on plant height of cotton genotypes
might be due to the differences in environments used and
due to the difference in genetic background of the breeding
material used.
Highly significant negative correlation (r = -0.595***)
observed between boll per plant and boll weight and GOT
(r = -0.426**) and non-significant negative correlation
between boll per plant and seed cotton yield (r = -0.092)
and lint yield (r = -0.203) (Table 3). Negative correlation of
bolls plant-1 with boll weight is quite common in cotton
crop. Baloch et al., (2014) characterized early maturing
cotton genotypes and recorded negative correlation
between bolls per plant and boll weight. Rao & Mary (1996)
evaluated different G. hirsutum genotypes for yield and
other economic traits and observed significant variations
for number of bolls plant-1. They observed that number of
bolls plant-1 had positive effect on yield. The experimental
material investigated in our study included both
Gossypium hirsutum and Gossypium barbadense
genotypes and number of bolls plant-1 had negative effect
on yield.
Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield Components
Boll weight had highly significant Positive correlation with
seed cotton yield (r = 0.427**) and lint yield (r = 0.437**)
and a non- significant Positive correlation with GOT (r =
0.144) (Table 3). Boll weight is a major yield component
and has a great contribution in enhancement of seed
cotton yield. By having bigger bolls, the genotype Stam
59A x Cucurova 1518 #30-2 and HTO#052 X DP-90 were
among the top promising genotypes with regard to seed
cotton yield. The smallest bolls were recorded on
genotypes HTO#052 X Pima S3, HTO#052 X LS-90#24-
11 and HTO#052 X LS-90#24-7 which produced low seed
cotton yield. Therefore, it is concluded that boll weight is
an important yield component and should be kept in mind
while breeding for seed cotton yield. Ahmad et al., (2008)
obtained similar relations between boll weight and seed
cotton yield in different cotton genotypes. Afiah & Ghoneim
(2000) and Khan (2003) evaluated genetically diverse
genotypes for yield and its components and reported
highly significant correlation between boll weight and yield
which indicated that any improvement in boll weight would
have a positive effect on yield.
Seed cotton yield had highly significant Positive correlation
with lint yield (r = 0.923***) and non-significant negative
correlation with GOT (r = -0.056) (Table 3). Seed cotton
yield is an ultimate goal in growing cotton besides lint yield.
Highest seed cotton yield were observed for genotypes
Stam 59 A x Cucurova 1518 #30 -2, HTO#052 X DP-90 ,
HS-46 X Stonevile 453#19-2, Nazilli-84 X HS-4, ISA 205H
X Stonevile 453#17-6, ISA 205H X Stonevile 453#17-13,
Stam 59 A x HS-46 and HTO#052 X Cucurova1518. These
genotypes were also found to be the top ten genotypes
with high lint yield. Seed cotton yield was found
significantly correlated with lint yield (Elsiddig et al., 2007;
Desalegn et al., 2009; Khan et al., 2009a & 2009b). The
results obtained also revealed that seed cotton yield was
the major contributor to lint yield followed by boll weight.
However, the materials for this present study included both
Gossypium hirsutum and Gossypium barbadense
genotypes which were evaluated for yield and yield
components and the results showed negative effect of ball
per plant on seed cotton yield (Table 3).
Lint Yield was significant Positive correlation with ginning
percent (r=0.324*) (Table 3). Higher lint yields of cotton
genotypes were mainly caused by higher number of lint %.
Desalegn et al., (2009) found that high lint %, more bolls
per plant and a small seed size were positively correlated
to high lint yield.
 Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 516

Table 2. Mean performances of cotton genotypes for seed cotton yield and its components
Inbreed lines Parameters
plant Bolls no,/ Boll weight (g) Seed cotton yield Ginning Lint yield
height (cm) plant (kg/ha) % (kg/ha)

HS-46 X Stonevile 453#19-2 95.77 22.57 5.15 7666.67 37.15 2844.22

GL-7 x DP-90 89.50 22.96 5.45 6740.0 38.87 2619.56
Stam 59 A x Cucurova 1518 #30 -2 96.57 25.63 5.89 9107.78 38.82 3535.78
Stam 59 A x Cucurova 1518#30 -17 102.17 24.56 5.54 6840.00 39.20 2682.00
Stam 59 A x HS-46 137.57 23.63 5.13 7143.33 39.11 2792.78
GL-7 x Stam 59 A 104.43 22.53 6.56 6765.56 33.19 2252.56
HTO#052 x stam 59A#19-6 105.97 17.20 5.74 4916.67 43.01 2113.11
HS-46 X Stonevile 453 #19-8 77.73 17.70 5.07 6657.78 40.16 2674.00
ISA 205H X Beyazealtin/5 94.27 15.30 5.95 6187.78 42.14 2581.89
HTO#052 X LS-90#24-11 84.37 28.90 3.75 4497.78 39.85 1792.89
Stam 59 A xNazilli –84 90.33 16.90 7.78 6445.56 36.26 2327.00
HS-46 XStonevile 453 #19-5 83.97 18.90 4.99 7596.67 34.88 2634.33
ISA 205H X Stonevile 453#17-13 85.23 24.46 5.33 7266.67 39.75 2884.11
ISA 205H X Nazilli-84 79.13 15.96 4.82 5277.78 41.02 2162.33
GL-7 xNazilli –84 74.37 16.53 5.87 5517.78 42.16 2326.11
ISA 205H XStonevile 453#17-6 79.50 21.96 5.23 7460.00 39.81 2950.78
DP-90 X Cucurova1518 70.57 18.96 5.98 5566.67 38.65 2151.67
DP-90 X Stam 59A 78.57 19.96 5.96 6068.89 40.30 2450.00
Delcero X Stoneville 453 78.00 18.60 5.56 7104.44 36.84 2600.78
Delcero X Deltapine90 76.87 22.76 5.38 6843.33 37.88 2597.89
Cucurova1518 X LG-450#35-9 87.50 18.63 5.76 6890.00 42.56 2928.00
Nazilli-84 X HS-4 102.93 23.30 5.21 7560.00 43.50 3275.89
Stam 59A X Europa5 92.23 23.80 5.09 6675.56 39.22 2613.44
Delcero X Krishna 106.70 22.93 5.32 6800.00 35.12 2379.22
Delcero X Coker 315 93.13 22.26 4.67 7155.56 37.17 2664.89
Delcero X ISA 205 98.87 20.96 5.78 6962.22 34.63 2410.67
DP-5816 X Stonville 213 115.97 21.30 6.11 7025.56 40.49 2837.44
ISA 205 X DP-5816 112.27 19.33 4.98 6046.67 35.92 2168.44
Europa X Gedera 236 82.47 23.36 5.003 6370.00 35.39 2253.00
HTO#052 X LS-90#24-7 89.03 28.63 3.63 5038.89 36.24 1823.22
Cucurova1518 X LG-450 97.07 20.100 6.04 6926.67 40.28 2783.00
HTO#052 X Cucurova1518 95.90 18.06 5.94 7123.33 41.75 2968.89
HTO#052 X DP-90 93.23 22.56 5.78 8287.78 37.60 3115.33
HTO#052 X Pima S3 127.83 36.96 3.26 3681.11 34.00 1259.22
Deltapine-90(Check) 84.83 20.86 5.65 7463.33 37.57 2804.22
Stam-59A (Check) 90.37 12.63 5.15 4768.89 41.48 1978.56
Mean 93.20 21.43 5.41 6567.86 38.65 2534.36

Table 3. Correlation coefficients among yield and yield components of cotton genotypes
Boll
Plant height No/plant Boll weight Seed cotton Ginning % Lint yield
Yield
Plant height 1.00
Boll No/plant 0.38 *
Boll weight -0.124 ns -0.595***
Seed cott.yield -0.023 ns -0.092ns 0.427**
Ginning % -0.172 ns -0.426** 0.144ns -0.056 ns
Lint yield -0.062 ns -0.203 ns 0.434** 0.923** 0.324 * 1.00

Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield Components
Damtew S. 517
CONCLUSIONS
According to the results, it can be concluded that high
variability was observed in various traits of the evaluated
36 cotton genotypes. The advanced inbred lines with high
seed cotton and lint yield also possessing the desired lint
quality can be used in the further testing program and
finally released as a new variety. The wide genotypic
variability created through hybridization and generations of
selfing and segregation can be used for the development
of higher yielding and better quality cotton varieties.
Genotypes Stam 59 A x Cucurova 1518 #30 -2, HTO#052
X DP-90, HS-46 X Stonevile 453#19-2, HS-46 X
Stonevile 453 #19-5, Nazilli-84 X HS-4, ISA 205H X
Stonevile 453#17-6, ISA 205H X Stonevile 453#17-
13,HTO#052 X Cucurova1518 and Delcero X Stoneville
453 had maximum mature boll weight, seed cotton yield
and lint yield than other used genotypes. On the basis of
these results it is recommended that the advanced lines
Stam 59 A x Cucurova 1518 #30 -2, HTO#052 X DP-90,
HS-46 X Stonevile 453#19-2, HS-46 X Stonevile 453 #19-
5, Nazilli-84 X HS-4, ISA 205H X Stonevile 453#17-6,
ISA 205H X Stonevile 453#17-13, HTO#052 X
Cucurova1518 and Delcero X Stoneville 453 will be used
for improvement of cotton crop in termsof seed cotton
yield. The positive and highly significant correlation
between boll weight, seed cotton yield and lint yield may
be concluded that increase of the boll weight would
increase seed cotton yield and lint yield. This information
will help cotton breeders to target specific yield
components such as larger bolls.
REFERENCES
Afiah SAN, Ghoneim EM. (2000). Correlation, stepwise
and path coefficient analysis in Egyptian cotton under
saline conditions. Arab Univ. J. Agric. Sci 8: 607-618.
Ahmad W, Khan NU, Khalil MR, Parveen A, Aimen U,
Saeed M, Shah SA. (2008). Genetic variability and
correlation analysis in upland cotton. Sarhad J. Agric.
24: 573-580.
Arshad M, Hanif M, Ilahi N, Shah SM. (1993). Correlation
studies on some commercial cotton varieties of
G.hirsutum. Sarhad J. Agric 9: 49-53.
Baloch MJ, Khan NU, Rajput MA, Jatoi WA, Gul S,
Rindand IH, Veesar NF. (2014). Yield related
morphological measures of short duration cotton
genotypes. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences
24(4): 1198-1211
Board JE. (1987). Yield components related to seed yield
indeterminate soybean. Crop Science 27:1296-1297.
Cook CG,El-Zik KM. (1993). Fruiting and lint yield of cotton
cultivars under irrigated and non-irrigated conditions.
Field Crops Res. 33: 411-421.
Copur O. (2006). Determination of yield and yield
components of some cotton cultivars in semi arid
conditions. Pak. J Biol. Sci 9(14) 2572-2578.
Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield Components
Desalegn Z, Ratanadilok N, Kaveeta R. (2009).
Correlation and heritability for yield and fiber quality
parameters of Ethiopian cotton. Kasetsart J. Nat. Sci
43(1): 1-11.
Elayan SED. (1992). A comprehensive study of some yield
components and nitrogen fertilizer of some varieties of
Egyptian (Gossypium barbadense L.) cotton. Assuit. J.
of Agric. Sci 23 (1): 153-165.
Elsiddig AA, Sid-Ahmed MM, Ibrahim AE. (2007).
Variability, heritability and association of some
characters in upland cotton. Univ.of Khartoum J. Agril.
Sci. 15(2): 191-203.
Gregory SR, Hernandez E, Savoy BR. (1999). Cotton seed
processing in WC Smith, JT
Hofs J L, Hau B,Marais D. (2006). Boll distribution patterns
in Bt and non-Bt cotton cultivars: I. Study on
commercial irrigated farming systems in South Africa.
Field Crops Res 98(2 & 3): 203-209.
Iqbal M, Hayat K, Atiq M,Khan NI. (2008). Evaluation and
prospect of f2 genotypes of cotton (Gossypium
hirsutum) for yield and yield components. Int. J. Agri.
Biol. 10: 442–6
Kaliyaperuma lA, Ravikesavan R. (2010).Combining
Ability Estimates for Yield and Fibre Quality Traits in
Line X Tester Crosses of Upland Cotton, (Gossypium
hirsutum).international journal of biology.vol.2 page
179
Kambal AE. (1969). Components of yield in field beans,
Viciafaba L. Journal of Agricultural Science 72:359-363
Khan NU. (2003). Genetic analysis, combining ability and
heterotic studies for yield, its components, fibre and oil
quality traits in upland cotton(G. hirsutum). Ph.D
Dissertation, Sindh Agric. Univ. Tandojam, Pakistan
Khan NU, Hassan G, Marwat KB, Farhatullah S, Batool K,
Makhdoom W, Ahmad I, KhanI A, Ahmad W. (2009a).
Genetic Variability and heritability in upland cotton.
Pakistan J. Bot, 41(4): 1695-1705.
Khan WS, Khan AA, Naz AS, Ali S. (1989). Performance
of six Punjab commercial varieties of Gossypium
hirsutum L. Under Faisalabad conditions. The Pak.
Cottons, 33(2): 60-65.
Loden HD, Richmond TR. (1951). Hybrid vigor in cotton-
Cytogenetic aspects and practical applications. Econ.
Bot. 5:387–408.
Munk DS,Kerby TA. (1993). Acala cotton varietal response
to late season water stress. Proc. Cotton Conf. 1340-
1341.
Nunes FJ, Sa VA, Oliveira IS, Coutinho B, Santos VF.
(1998). Effect of irrigation depth on the yield and fiber
quality of different cultivars of cotton. RevistaBrasileira
de Enginharia Agricola e Ambiental 2 (3):295-299.
Oakley SR. (1998). Acala GTO Maxxa and Acala C-141;
New Californian Acala varieties for the San J oaquin
Valley. Proceedings Beltwide Cotton Conferences, San
Diego, California, USA, 5-9 January 1998: volume I
(edited by Dugger, P. and D. Richter.). Memphis USA;
National Cotton Council (1998) 46-47 (En) California
Planting cotton Seed Distributors, Shafter, CA, USA.
 Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 518

Rao KVK, Mary TN. (1996). Variability, correlation and
path analysis of yield and fibre traits in upland cotton. J.
Res. APAU 24: 66-70.
Saeed F, Salam T, Khan MI. (1996). Gene action in
intraspecific hybrids of cotton (Gossypium hirsutumL)
for yield parameters. Sarhad J. Agri, 12: 653-661.
Snedecor WG, Cochran WG. (1980). Statistical methods.
7thed. the Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. IOWA, USA.
Soomro AR, Kakar RG, Ali H, Abid SA. (2005).
Comparison of yield and its components in some
commercial cotton varieties. Indus J. Plant Sci 4: 545-
552.
Steel RGD,Torrie JH. (1980). Principles and procedures of
statistics, a biological approach, 2 nd ed. McGraw Hill,
Inc. New York, Toronto, London.
Taohua Z, Haipeng Z. (2006). Comparative study on yield
and main agri-characters of five hybrids colored cotton
varieties. J. Anhui Agric. Univ, 33: 533-536.
Teddy. (2015). Cotton production manual.
Wankhade ST, Gobble AK. (2002). Performance of
different cotton (Gossypium hirsutumL.) cultivars at
different nitrogen rates. Annals of Plant Physiology
1(4): 569-571

APPENDIX

Appendix1. Experimental materials consisted of Thirty four cotton advanced lines (F8) and two check varieties (Deltapine-
90 and Stam-59A).
Lines code Pedigree
1 HS-46 X Stonevile 453#19-2
2 GL-7 x DP-90
3 Stam 59 A x Cucurova 1518 #30 -2
4 Stam 59 A x Cucurova 1518#30 -17
5 Stam 59 A x HS-46
6 GL-7 x Stam 59 A
7 HTO#052 x stam 59A#19-6
8 HS-46 X Stonevile 453 #19-8
9 ISA 205H X Beyazealtin/5
10 HTO#052 X LS-90#24-11
11 Stam 59 A xNazilli –84
12 HS-46 XStonevile 453 #19-5
13 ISA 205H X Stonevile 453#17-13
14 ISA 205H X Nazilli-84
15 GL-7 xNazilli –84
16 ISA 205H XStonevile 453#17-6
17 DP-90 X Cucurova1518
18 DP-90 X Stam 59A
19 Delcero X Stoneville 453
20 Delcero X Deltapine90
21 Cucurova1518 X LG-450#35-9
22 Nazilli-84 X HS-4
23 Stam 59A X Europa5
24 Delcero X Krishna
25 Delcero X Coker 315
26 Delcero X ISA 205
27 DP-5816 X Stonville 213
28 ISA 205 X DP-5816
29 Europa X Gedera 236
30 HTO#052 X LS-90#24-7
31 Cucurova1518 X LG-450
32 HTO#052 X Cucurova1518
33 HTO#052 X DP-90
34 HTO#052 X Pima S3
35 Deltapine-90(Check)
36 Stam-59A(Check)
Note: Crosses between G. barbadense and G. hirsutum : serial number 7,10,30,32 and 33
Crosses between G. hirsutum and G. hirsutum: serialnumber1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,
25,26,27,28,29 and 31
Crosses between G.barbadense and G.barbadense: serial number 34

Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield Components
Damtew S. 519

Accepted 6 April 2019

Citation: Damtew S. (2019). Heter Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield
Components. International Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science, 6(2): 512-519.

Copyright: © 2019: Damtew S. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are cited.

Evaluation of Cotton Advanced Inbreed Lines for Seed Cotton Yield and Yield Components