Genetic Analysis of Yield and its Components of Some Egyptian Cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.) Varieties

World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 6 (5): 65-6 00 ISSN 87-3047 IDOSI Publications 00 Genetic Analysis of Yield and its Components of Some Egyptian Cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.) Varieties 3 S.H.M. Abd-El-Haleem Ehab M.R. Metwali and Ali M.M. Al-Felaly Department of Agronomy Faculty of Agriculture Al-Azhar University Assiut Egypt Department of Botany Faculty of Agriculture Suez Canal University Ismailia Egypt 3 Department of Plant Taxonomy Faculty of Science Seventh of April University Libya Abstract: Seven Egyptian cotton genotypes were crossed using scaling test analysis during summer 004 to 005 and evaluated in 006 summer season at the Agricultural Experimental Farm of Al-Alzhar University Assiut. The experiment was grown in a Randomized Complete Blocks Design with three replications. The means of the six generations; P P F F BC and BC of four cotton crosses recorded for days to 50% flowering first fruiting per plant no. of fruiting branches per plant days to 50% maturity no. of open bolls per plant boll weight seed-cotton yield per plant lint yield per plant and lint percentage were subjected to scaling test and six parameters method to detect epistasis and estimates of m d h i j and L parameters. Results showed that the additive - dominance model was adequate to demonstrate the genetic variation and it important in the inheritance of most studied traits. Non-allelic gene interaction was operating in the control of genetic variation in most studied traits. The epiststic effects additive x additive [i] and dominance x dominance [h] were highly significant in most cases. The signs of (h) and (L) were opposite in all studied traits for most crosses. Also the inheritance of all studied traits was controlled by additive and non-additive genetic effects but dominance gene effects play the major role in controlling the genetic variation of the most studied traits. Significant negative heterosis relative to mid-parents was found for both characters first fruiting branch per plant and days to 50% maturity in all crosses while significant negative heterosis above the better parent was found for first fruiting in both crosses no. and 4 days to 50% maturity in cross no. 4. Inbreeding depression estimates were found to negative and highly significant for days to 50% flowering first fruiting per plant and days to 50% maturity. The phenotypic (PCV) were higher than its corresponding (GCV) for all studied traits except days to 50% maturity. Key words:egyptian cotton Six population analysis Quantitative characters Gene effects Heterosis and inbreeding depression INTRODUCTION In Egypt cotton is one of the most important economic crops as it plays a vital role in our agricultural and industrial development. In recent years the total cultivated area began to decline which requires working to increase the production of unit area in order to compensate for the shortfall in the cultivated area. The breeders has to develop a new set of varieties with higher production the true knowledge of the gene action for various cotton traits is useful in making decisions with regard to appropriate breeding system. It is important to study the genetic diversity of Egyptian cotton varieties which be used for the development of new cotton genotypes. Knowledge of genetic diversity and relationships among breeding materials is essential to the plant breeders for improving this crop. Generation mean analysis is a quantitative genetic method be able to estimate additive dominance and epistatic effects []. Genetic analysis using generation means have been used in cotton breeding to estimate the type of gene action controling of quantitative traits [-7]. On the other hand heterosis breeding is an important genetic tool to facilitate yield enhancement and help enrich many other desirable quantitative Corresponding Author: S.H.M. Abd-El-Haleem Department of Agronomy Faculty of Agriculture Al-Azhar University Assuit Egypt. 65

World J. Agric. Sci. 6 (5): 65-6 00 and qualitative traits. In cotton significant positive heterosis over-mid and better parent was detected for both number of sympodial branches per plant and yield of seed cotton per plant [3] for both lint yield and boll number per plant [5]. Esmail [6] cleared that heterosis relative to mid-parent and better parent was found to be significantly positive for boll number per plant seed cotton yield and lint yield per plant in the intrabarbadense cross while it was negative in the intrahirsutum cross. Crosses between genetically divergent parents are expected to have a larger genetic variance among progenies than crosses between closely related parents [8]. The present study aims to obtain useful information about gene action of some quantitative traits as well as the extent of hybrid vigour and inbreeding depression in the four cotton crosses. MATERIALS AND METHODS The present study was carried out during the period of 004 005 and 006 growing seasons at the Experimental Farm of the Faculty of Agriculture Al-Azhar University Assiut Egypt. Seven varieties were used for this study namely Giza 88 Giza 90 Giza 87 Giza 89 Giza 9 Giza 83 and Dandara. The origin and pedigree of these genotypes are presented in Table. In 004 season the seven genotypes were sown and four crosses were made to produce F hybrid seeds: cross no. (Giza x Giza ) 88 90 cross no. (Giza x Giza ) cross no. 3 (Giza x Giza ) 87 89 9 83 and cross no. 4 (Giza x Dandara). In 005 crossing was 9 made between the F hybrids of each cross and its two respective parents to produce the first (F x P ) and second (F x P ) backcrosses (BC and BC ). At the same time crossing was made among the parents to produce F seeds. Some F hybrids were selfed to produce the F generation. In 006 the six basic generations (P P F F BC and BC ) of each of the four crosses were sown in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Each replicate consisted of one row of each of the parents and F s two rows of each back-cross and three rows for the F populations. Rows were 3 m long and 60 cm apart and 30 cm between plants. The recommended field practices were adopted all over the growing seasons. Data were recorded on individual plant basis as follows: days to 50% flowering first fruiting per plant no. of fruiting branches per plant days to 50% maturity no. of open bolls per plant boll weight seed-cotton yield per plant lint yield per plant and lint percentage. Table : The entry name pedigree and origin of the seven genotypes. Genotypes Pedigree Origin Giza 88 (G. 77 x G. 45) B Egypt Giza 90 (G. 83 x Dandara) Egypt Giza 87 (G. 77 x G. 45) A Egypt Giza 89 (G. 75 x R. 60) Egypt Giza 9 (G.8 x G. 83) Egypt Giza 83 (G. 7 x G. 67) Egypt Dandara Giza 3= Selected from G. 3 Egypt Statistical and Genetic Analysis: The analysis of variance of the six basic generations (P P F F BC and BC ) was statistically analyzed using (RCBD) analysis of variance. The scaling tests (A B and C) were calculated for each trait to detect the adequacy of the additivedominance model or the presence of non-allelic gene interaction according to Mather and Jinks []. The six parameters genetic model (m d h i j and l) were computed according to Jinks and Jones [9] as follows: [m]=mean [d]=additive effect = BC BC [h]= dominance effect = F 4 F ½ P ½ P + BC+ BC [i]=additive x additive type of gene interaction = BC + BC -4F [j]=additive x dominance type of gene interaction = BC- ½ P- BC + ½ P and [l] = dominance x dominance type of gene interaction = P + P + F+ 4F-4BC-4BC. Whenever the additive-dominance model proved to be adequate the phenotypic variance for each character was partitioned into additive (D) dominance (H) and environmental (E) using [] as follows: E = /3 ( V + V + V ) P P F D = 4 V -(V + F BC V BC ) H = 4( V - ½ V -V ). F D The T test was performed as follows: effect. ± T = variance of effect E Estimates of heterosis (%) were calculated as the percent deviation of F mean performance over that of either better or mid parent as follows: Heterosis from the Better-parent: F BP. H( BP. )% = x00 BP. Heterosis deviation = F BP. Variance of heterosis deviation = VF + VBP. 66

World J. Agric. Sci. 6 (5): 65-6 00 Heterosis from the Mid-parents: F MP. HMP (. )% = x00 MP. Heterosis deviation = F MP. Variance of heterosis deviation = VF + / 4( VP + VP) = V F + V F F F tid.. = VID.. VF PCV =. GCV = F VF Inbreeding Depression; its Values Were Measured from the Following Equations: Inbreeding depression of F F F = F x00 Variance of inbreeding depression (V.I.D) for F Estimation of Genotypic Coefficient of Variability: The Phenotypic Coefficient of Variability (PCV) and Genotypic Coefficient of Variability (GCV) calculated according to Singh and Chaudhary [0] as follows: F - VE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The means and standard errors of the six generations with the four crosses for nine traits are presented in Table. The results indicated that means of the F s were higher than either the highest parent or mid-parent value indicating over or partial dominance respectively towards the respective parents for most studied traits. Similar results were obtained by Esmail [6] Dawwam et al. [7] El-Disouqi and Ziena [] AbdeL-Hafez et al. [] and El- Beially and Mohamed [3]. Meanwhile some of F s were lower than the highest parent or mid-parent value for both days to 50% flowering and lint percentage. The results of the A B and C scaling tests for assessing the validity of additive - dominance models are given in Table 3. The non-allelic interaction was found to be operating in the control of genetic variation among the six generations for most studied traits. Meanwhile crosses no. and 4 for first fruiting no. of open bolls and lint yield per plant while the cross no. for boll weight and lint percentage and another cross no. 3 for both seedcotton yield and lint yield per plant. The values of the A B and C scaling tests were not significant indicating the absence of non-allelic interaction and the additive - dominance model was adequate to demonstrate the genetic variation and it is important in the inheritance of the above mentioned studied traits in such crosses. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Esmail [6] AbdeL-Hafez et al. [] and El-Beially and Mohamed [3]. Table : Mean performance of parents F Fand backcross generations in four cotton crosses for all studied traits. Cross --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cross Cross Cross 3 Cross 4 Cross Cross Cross 3 Cross 4 Cross Cross Cross 3 Cross 4 Mean+ S.E Mean + S.E Mean + S.E Mean + S.E Mean + S.E Mean + S.E Mean + S.E Mean + S.E Mean + S.E Mean + S.E Mean + S.E Mean + S.E Generation ----------------Days to 50% flowering-------------------- ----------------------First fruiting------------------------ ------------------No.of fruiting branches------------------- P 70.56+0.4 70.56+0.8 73.4+.8 73.4+.8 9.00+0.9 9.07+0.6 9.7+0.3 9.07+0.7.0+0.93 7.74+0.57.00+0.64 4.0+0.75 P 78.0+0.60 7.33+0.67 73.57+0.8 83.89+0.84 9.0+0.40 9.33+0.6 9.67+0.4 9.67+0.3 8.73+0.55 3.89+0.87.86+0.57.86+0.57 F 7.56+0.9 69.56+0.33 73.56+0.9 79.+0.46 8.73+0.34 8.60+0.5 9.0+0.9 8.53+0.9 4.38+0.39 4.00+0.46 6.50+0.49 6.53+0.57 F 77.30+.4 8.43+.7 86.00+.37 80.50+.66 8.85+0.4 9.5+0.9 8.87+0.7 9.9+0.8.6+0.65 3.9+0.58 3.64+0.56 5.76+0.8 BC 7.+0.9 70.78+0.5 7.33+0.69 69.00+0.50 8.4+0. 8.30+0.7 8.8+0.8 8.54+0.6 7.6+0.66 9.46+0.5 9.4+0.43 9.00+0.34 BC 78.67+0.7 86.44+0.48 7.60+0.73 7.40+0.76 8.9+0.5 8.44+0. 8.68+0. 9.00+0.9 6.3+0.66 8.60+0.35 9.+0.48 7.36+0.63 LSD5% 5.07.74.98.64.6 0.50.04 0.8.90.90.55.3 -----------------Days to 50% maturity------------------ ---------------------No.of open boll----------------------- ----------------------------Boll weight------------------------------ P 43.7+.78 39.+0.8 4.78+0.68 4.78+0.68 5.47+0.77 6.47+0.58 7.40+0.6 7.9+0.40.7+0.7.08+0.5.+0.7.3+0.7 P 45.89+.36 47.56+0.7 5.+.3 5.+0.98 4.4+0.70 5.00+0.38 5.67+0.7 5.67+0.7.96+0..8+0.4.96+0.7.96+0.7 F 37.4+.0 36.75+0.49 40.4+0.55 35.50+0.80 7.89+0.60 4.7+0.78 5.75+0.6 6.77+0.50.67+0.9.37+0.3.60+0.9.47+0.8 F 49.33+.49 50.50+.78 44.46+.64 4.0+.40 4.6+0.84 5.7+0.70 0.7+0.96.03+.0.9+0.3.0+0.3.87+0.4.+0.5 BC 3.7+0.84 33.00+. 33.4+.0 3.9+.0 8.+0.57 7.0+0.85 8.73+0.66.3+0.5.590..5+0.3.75+0..75+0. BC 43.50+.43 36.80+0.90 37.9+0.84 33.38+. 5.6+0.67 6.95+0.6 7.43+0.83 0.75+0.5.50+0..4+0.0.5+0..33+0. LSD5% 5. 3.75.88 4.37.04.58.60.65 0.46 0.9 0.39 0.9 -------------------Seed-cotton yield---------------------- ----------------------Lint yield /plant--------------------- --------------------------Lint percentage------------------- P 9.05+.0 3.90+..60+.35.60+.35 0.35+.5 7.88+0.33.04+0.68 0.99+.8 5.3+.50 4.0+3.4 46.57+.96 50.45+.7 P 5.89+0.93 3.84+0.97 8.60+.79.54+.67 8.9+0.84 7.0+0.37 0.43+0.87 0.43+0.87 44.67+0.49 4.59+.6 44.96+.76 46.57+.96 F 0.37+.35 8.04+.3 9.07+.64 7.38+.34 4.6+.57.63+.36 4.33+.6 3.5+.49 56.57+3.05 47.68+.37 46.34+.37 49.0+.90 F 9.53+.4 7.0+.9 3.9+.34 3.0+.35 9.76+0.88 9.43+0.9 3.4+0.8.8+0.9 44.07+.98 37.93+3.4 40.63+.55 39.96+.88 BC 5.65+0.90 6.80+.0 7.70+.73 3.00+.56.46+0.93.50+0.86 5.0+.0.63+.03 4.74+.5 44.5+.5 53.0+.0 47.57+.97 BC.7+0.99 3.05+. 3.64+. 8.66+.4 0.79+0.94.86+.0 3.0+0.83.58+0.67 40.9+.4 39.6+3.0 38.66+.97 4.70+.4 LSD5% 3.64 4.05 4. 3.64 3.5 3.35 3.7 3.68 7.68 8.36 6.73.30 67

World J. Agric. Sci. 6 (5): 65-6 00 Table 3:The scaling test and estimates of the additive dominance and interaction parameters in four cotton crosses for all studied traits Cross ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Scaling Cross Cross Cross 3 Cross 4 Cross Cross Cross 3 Cross 4 test & Effect+ S.E Effect+ S.E Effect+ S.E Effect+ S.E Effect+ S.E Effect+ S.E Effect+ S.E Effect+ S.E Parameter ------------------------Days to 50% flowering--------------------------------- ----------------------------------First fruiting------------------------ A 0.0+.9.43+0.47** -.04+.03-4.36+.6** -0.89+0.50 -.07+0.44* -.9+0.5** -0.5+0.46 B 7.58+0.74** 30.98+.** -.93+.90-8.3+.79** 0.0+0.60 -.05+0.38** -.5+0.44** -0.0+0.5 C 7.3+8.6* 43.69+6.9** 50.7+5.95** 6.53+6.86-0.6+.6.40+0.88 -.86+0.94 0.96+. [ m] 77.30+.4** 8.43+.7** 86.00+.37** 80.50+.66** 9.77+.0** 9.5+0.9** 8.87+0.7**.05+.04** [ d ] -7.56+0.94** -5.66+0.50** -0.7+.00-3.40+0.9** -0.05+0.5-0.4+0.0-0.40+0. -0.30+0.4* [ h] -.46+8.79-3.6+6.94-53.94+5.95** -38.50+6.93** -.64+.36-4.+0.88** -.83+0.86** -4.9+.4* [ i ] -9.64+8.77 -.8+6.9-54.4+5.84** -39.0+6.88** ---- -3.5+0.85** -.56+0.79* ----- [ j ] -3.74+.00** -4.78+0.6** -0.05+.3.97+.6 ---- -0.0+0.7-0.0+0.7 ------ [ l ].96+9.40 -.3+7.9** 58.+7.8** 7.87+7.76** ---- 5.64+.0** 4.98+.8** ------ ----------------------------Days to 50% maturity--------------------------- --------------------------------No.of open bolls------------------------ A -5.9+.68** -9.97+.60** -6.64+.9** -3.70+.9**.86+.5-6.54+.95** -5.69+.59** -0.07+. B 3.97+3.34-0.7+.00** -7.67+.5** -0.96+.58** -.7+.6-5.37+.50** -6.56+.9** -0.94+.34 C 33.98+6.7** 4.7+7.7**.67+6.80 -.60+5.95-6.9+3.70-7.7+3.7** -3.49+4.3-3.0+4.59 [m] 49.33+.49** 50.50+.78** 44.46+.64** 4.0+.40** 6.75+3.8 5.7+0.70** 0.7+0.96** 4.80+4.65** [d ] -.33+.66** -3.80+.5* -4.5+.35** -.09+.5 0.67+0.5 0.5+.05.30+.0.3+0.4** [ h] -53.37+6.99** -69.04+7.77** -44.9+7.4** -45.06+6.45** 0.36+8.68* 3.80+3.59** 0.46+4.45.97+9.9 [ i ] -45.98+6.8** -6.40+7.74** -36.98+7.0** -33.06+6.38** ------ 5.6+3.49-8.76+4.38* ------- [ j ] -9.97+.00** 0.37+.60 0.5+.5 3.63+.63* ------- -0.58+.0 0.44+.7 -------- [ l ] 57.98+9.44** 83.08+9.45** 7.9+8.67** 67.7+8.50** ------- 6.65+5.3.0+5.93** ------- ----------------------------Seed-cotton yield-------------------------------- ------------------------------Lint yield /plant-------------------------- A.88+.48**.66+.79** 4.73+4.0 -.98+3.65** -.04+.74 5.49+.* 3.83+.76.+.80 B 9.6+.57** 4.+.88-0.39+3.30 -.60+3.56** -.95+.58 5.07+.48*.44+.47-0.4+.9 C.44+5.83-5.4+5.9* -5.58+6.65-5.86+6.40-9.45+4.95-0.44+4.57.55+4.7 3.5+4.96 [ m ] 9.53+.4** 7.0+.9** 0.8+6.84 3.0+.35** 4.8+4.46 9.43+0.9** 8.5+4.8* 3.53+4.49** [ d ].94+.34* 3.75+.64*.50+. 4.34+.* 0.7+0.75 0.64+.34 0.8+0.55 0.8+0.73 [ h ].50+5.85** 45.47+6.8** 33.5+6.77** -.9+7.0.9+0.93 5.8+4.73** 3.8+0.66 -.50+0.73 [ i ] 8.60+5.65** 3.30+6.** ---- -8.7+6.86 ----.00+4.5* ---- ---- [ j ].36+.5 3.7+.8* ----- 4.3+.37 ---- 0.+.36 ---- ---- [ l ] -39.64+7.9** -47.8+8.8** ----- 3.30+0.59* ---- -.56+7.03** ---- --- Cross ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cross Cross Cross 3 Cross 4 Effect+ S.E Effect+ S.E Effect+ S.E Effect+ S.E Scaling test & Parameter --------------------------------------------------------No.of fruiting branches------------------------------------------------------------------- A 8.74+.66** -.5+0.88** 9.98+.9** 7.37+.7** B 9.5+.49** 0.5 9.86+.3** 6.33+.49** C.79+.9-6.56+.7** 0.9-0.4 [ m ].6+0.65** 3.9+0.58** 3.64+0.56** 5.76+0.8** [ d ] 0.85+0.94 0.86+0.43* 0.3+0.65.64+0.7* [ h ] 0.88+3.6** 3.70+.57** 6.7+.67** 3.3+3.66** [ i ] 6.46+3.9** 3.36+.48**.4+.59** 9.68+3.58** [ j ] 0.7-0.3 0.06+0.78 0.5+0.86 [ l ] -34.7+4.74** -0.6+3.** -4.98+3.67** -3.38+4.60** -------------------------------------------------------------Boll weight------------------------------------------------------------------------ A 0.34+0.35 0.57+0.37 0.68+0.35 0.80+0.34* B 0.37+0.37 0.30+0.3 0.46+0.34 0.3+0.34 C -.83+0.70** 0.6 -.90+0.73** 0.45 [m] 77.30+.4** 0.53+0.6 86.00+.37** 80.50+.66** [d ] -7.56+0.94** 0.4+0.0 0.73-3.40+0.9** [ h] -3.67 4.4+.44** -53.94+5.95** -38.50+6.93** [ i ] -0.87 ----- -54.4+5.84** -39.0+6.88** [ j ] -3.74+.00** -----.8.97+.6 [ l ].96+9.40 ----- 58.+7.8** 7.87+7.76** --------------------------------------------------------------Lint percentage------------------------------------------------------------------------ A -4.40+5.97** 4.8 3.9+5.8*.8 B -9.40+5.8** -4.47-3.98+5.00* -.7+5.95* C -3.84+3.64* -.93 -.69+7.88* -35.38+3.50** [ m] 44.07+.98** 6.95+5.76 40.63+.55** 39.96+.88** [ d ] 0.8+3.0 0.5+.77 4.44+.86** 5.87+.9* [ h].47 3.0+36.0.58+8.78* 9.9+3.37 [ i ].49 ----.00+8.43* 8.70+.90 [ j ] 0.85 ---- 3.64+3.5** 3.93+3.53 [ l ] 54.76+8.44** ---- 0.3+3.9 5.8 68

World J. Agric. Sci. 6 (5): 65-6 00 Table 4: Heterosis inbreeding depression (%) and phenotypic (PCV) and genotypic (GCV) coefficient variability in four cotton crosses for all studied traits. Heterosis Phenotypic Genotypic -------------------------------- Inbreeding Coefficient Coefficient Character Cross no. M.P B.P Depression (%) variability (PCV) variability (GCV) Days to 50% Flowering -3.79.4-8.0** 9.60 7.40 -.6* -.40-7.05** 7.8 5.9 3 0.8 0.57-6.9** 5.5 4.65 4 0.90 8.3 -.6 7.4 5.66 First fruiting per plant -3.54** -3.00** -.37* 3.93.07-6.5** 0.00-7.56** 0.48 0.90 3 -.85** -0.76 3.59** 9.70 0.77 4-8.96** -5.95** -7.74**.83. No.of fruiting branches 44.3** 8.39**.4**.90.5 per plant 5.4** 0.00 45.04** 9.7 0.04 3 38.3** 37.50** 7.33** 8.3.3 4 7.35** 7.3** 4.66** 3.3 3.38 Days to 50% Maturity -5.* -4. -8.89** 3.59 5.4-4.63** 0.00-0.05** 4.6 6.39 3-4.96** -.85-3.08** 4.0 5.86 4-8.4** -5.0* -4.3 3.58 5.0 No. of open bolls per plant 0.80** 5.64** 8.8** 3.3 4.3 54.9** 0.00 35.7** 4.36 3.55 3 55.68** 47.99**.8** 5.86 4.96 4 59.35** 49.39**.44** 8.66 5.83 Boll weight(gm) 8.99** 3.04** 8.46** 30.53 0.38.54** 0.00 4.77** 8.44 0.4 3 4.40** 7.** 8.0** 34.4 0.47 4 7.6** 0.76** 0.53** 30.69 0.54 Seed-cotton yield 6.60** 6.93** 4.* 8.48 4.9 per plant (gm) 0.6** 0.00 39.0** 33.7 5.00 3 44.63** 34.58** 0.3** 5.76 4.87 4 6.94** 6.76** 5.96** 6.6 5. Lint yield per plant (gm) 5.56** 4.6** 33.0** 40.3.30 56.** 0.00 8.9** 43.3 3.34 3 7.49** 9.0** 6.35** 7.5.7 4.78** 9.65**.59 3. 3.00 Lint percentage 7.88** 0.5**.0** 6.3 0.37 3.93** 0.00 0.45** 34.95.00 3.5-0.49.3** 4.75 4.50 4. -.68 8.6** 7.89 9.0 The six parameters of gene effect conducted by using line with those reported by Emine Karademir and Oktay the population means are presented in Table 4. The mean Gencer [5].With regard to the negative value of [h] effect [m] was highly significant for all studied traits observed for some studied traits indicated that the alleles except cross no. for no. of open bolls and lint yield per responsible for less value of traits were over dominant plant while cross no. for boll weight and lint percentage over the alleles controlling high value. Meanwhile the and also cross no. 3 for seed cotton yield indicated that all absence of significant [h] component would imply no studied traits were quantitively inherited. Both additive dominance genetic differences or presence of [d] and dominance [h] parameters were significant or ambidirectional dominance between the two parents and highly significant in some crosses for some studied traits the dominant effects seemed to be not important in the indicating that both additive and non-additive effects genetic control of these crosses. The epistatic effects were important in the inheritance of most studied traits. additive x additive [i] and dominance x dominance [l] were The same finding was also reported by El-Beially and significant or highly significant in most cases as well as Mohamed [3] and Tandon et al. [4]. The dominance epistatic effects additive x additive [i] and dominance x parameter [h] showed the largest in magnitude in most dominance [l] were very important in the inheritance of crosses for most studied traits indicating that dominance these studied traits. These results were agreement with gene effects play the major role in controlling the genetic Esmail [6] El-Disouqi and Ziena [] AbdeL-Hafez et al. variation of the most studied traits. These results are in [] El-Beially and Mohamed [3] Okaz [6] 69

World J. Agric. Sci. 6 (5): 65-6 00 Bhardwaj and Kapoor [7] Esmail et al. [8] and results were coupled with a reduction in the mean in the Ahmad et al. [9]. The signs of (h) and (L) were opposite F generation for most studied traits in all crosses. This is in all studied traits for most crosses suggesting duplicate expected as the expression of heterosis in F will be type of non-allelic interaction in these traits. Ahuja and followed by a respectively reduction in F due to the Dhayal [0] found preponderance of non-additive gene direct effect of homozygosity. Abdalla [5] reported that action in the inheritance of cotton yield per plant and cotton has a relatively low inbreeding depression. majority of its components. Jagtap [] stated that when Estimates of phenotypic and genotypic coefficients (PCV) additive effects are larger than the non-additive it is and (GCV) of variability values are presented in Table 4. suggested that selection in early segregating generations The phenotypic coefficient (PCV) of variability values would be effective while if the non-additive portion are were higher than (GCV) in the four crosses for all traits larger than additive the improvement of the characters except one indicating that these traits are more sensitive need intensive selection through later generation when to the environmental conditions. However the genotypic epistatic effects were significant for traits the possibility coefficient of variation (GCV) values were higher than of obtaining desirable segregates through inter-mating in (PCV) for days to 50% maturity indicating that this early segregations by breaking undesirable linkage or it is character was less sensitive to the environmental suggested to adopt recurrent selection for handling the conditions. These results are in line with those reported above crosses for rapid improvement. Dong et al. [5] El- by El-Beially and Mohamed [3] Esmail et al.[8] and El Beially and Mohamed [3] Abo El-Zahab and Amein [] Hashash [6]. and Hendawy et al. [3] reported the same conclusion. The [j] parameter additive x dominance was REFERENCES significant or not significant and positive or negative indicating that dominance was towards direction of. Mather K. and J.L. Jinks 98. Biometrical Genetics. increasing and decreasing respectively for studied traits. rd 3 Ed. Chapman and Hall London pp: 396. However Ramalingam and Sivasamy [4] stated that the. Dani R.G. and R.J. Kohel 989. Maternal effects and preponderance of additive x dominance epistatic effect generation mean analysis of seed-oil content in (highest magnitude) for the trait suggesting delayed cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. selection and inter-mating the segregates followed by 77: 569-575. recurrent selection for improvement of this trait. 3. Iqbal M.Z. and M.A. Nadeem 003. Generation mean Heterosis (%) inbreeding depression % and analysis for seed cotton yield and number of phenotypic (PCV) and genotypic (GCV) coefficients of sympodial branches per plant in cotton (Gossypium variability are presented in Table 4. Heterosis relative to hirsutum L.). Asian J. Plant. Sci. (4): 395-399. mid-parents was significantly negative for both 4. Mert M. Y. Akiscan and O. Gencer 004. Inheritance characters first fruiting branch per plant and days to 50% of oil and protein content in some cotton maturity in all crosses. These results indicated that generations. Asian J. Plant. Sci. 3(): 74-76. dominance direction was toward the low respective 5. Dong J. F.Wu Z. Jin and Y. Huang 006. Heterosis parent. Heterosis above the better parent for first fruiting for yield and some physiological traits in hybrid in both crosses no. and 4 days to 50% maturity in cross cotton Cikangza. Euphytica 5: 7-77. no. 4 indicating the dominance direction was toward the 6. Esmail R.M. 007. Genetic analysis of yield and its best parent. Meanwhile it was significantly positive for contributing traits in two intra-specific cotton no. of fruiting branches per plant no. of open bolls per crosses. J. Applied Sciences Res. 3(): 075-080. plant boll weight seed-cotton yield per plant and lint 7. Dawwam H.A. F.A. Hendawy R.M Esmail and yield per plant indicating that the importance of hybrid El-Shymaa H. Mahros 009. Inheritance of some vigor for these traits. These results were opposite with quantitative characters of Egyptian cotton Dawwam et al. [7] El-Disouqi and Ziena [] El-Beially th (Gossypium barbadense L). 6 International Plant and Mohamed [3] and Karademir and Oktay Gencer [5]. Breeding Conference Ismailia Egypt May pp: 3-5. Inbreeding depression values were positive and 8. Messmer M.M. A.E. Melchinger R.G. Herrmann and highly significant for all studied traits in most crosses J. Boppenmaier 993. Relationship among early except for days to 50% flowering first fruiting per plant European maize inbreds: II. Comparison of pedigree and days to 50% maturity in all or most crosses. These and RFLP data. Crop. Sci. 33: 944-950. 60

World J. Agric. Sci. 6 (5): 65-6 00 9. Jinks J.L. and R.M. Jones 958. Estimation of the 8. Esmail R.M. F.A. Hendawy M.S. Rady and components of heterosis. Genetics. Princeton A.M. Abdel-Hamid 999. Genetic studies on yield 43: 3-4. and yield components in one inter-and two intra- 0. Singh R.K. and B.D. Chaudhary 977. Biometrical specific crosses of cotton. Egypt. J. Agron. : 37-5. method in quantitative genetic analysis Kalyani. Pob. 9. Ahmad S. M.Z. Iqpal S. Ahmad M.A. Sadiq and Lundheine. India N. Khan 003. Genetic analysis of morphological. El-Disouqi A.E. and A.M. Ziena 00. Estimates of characteristics and seed oil content of cotton some genetic parameters and gene action for yield (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J. Biol. Sci. 3(4): 396-405. and yield components in cotton. J. Agricultural Sci. 0. Ahuja S. and L. Dhayal 007. Combining ability l6: 340-3409. estimates for yield and fiber quality traits in 4x3 lines. AbdeL-Hafez A.G. M.A. EL-Hity H.A. EL-Harony x tester crosses of (Gossypium hirsutum L.). and M.A. Abdel-Salam 007. Estimates of genetic Euphytica 53(-): 87-98. parameters using six populations and biparental. Jagtap D.R. 986. Combining ability in Upland crosses in cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.). Egypt. cotton. Indian J. of Agric. Sci. 56(): 833-840. J. Plant Breed. (): 669-680.. Abo El-Zahab A.A. and M.M.M. Amein 000. 3. El-Beially I.E. and G.I.A Mohamed 008. Estimates Prospectives for breeding short season cotton.- of genetic parameters using six populations in Combining ability for cotton yield and its Egyptian cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.). Al- contributing variables. th Proc.9 Conf. Agron. Azhar J. Agric. Res. 4: 5-64. Minufiya Univ. - Sept. : 305-39. 4. Tandon J.P. A.B. Joshi and K.B.L. Jain 968. 3. Hendawy F.A. H.A. Dawwam R.M. Esmail and Genetic analysis of yield in a six row and two rows El-Shymaa H. Mahros 009. Triple test cross analysis varietal cross in barley.. Genetics of yield and its in th some cotton crosses. 6 International Plant primary components. Indian J. Genet. and Plant Breeding Conference Ismailia Egypt. May pp: 3-5. Breeding. 8(3): 39-5. 4. Ramalingam A. and N. Sivasamy 00. Genetics and 5. Emine Karademir and Oktay Gencer 00. Combining order effects of seed cotton yield in upland cotton ability and heterosis for yield and fiber quality (Gossypium hirsutum L.) triallel analysis. Indian J. properties in cotton (G. hirsutum L.) obtained by half Genetics 6(4): 359-360. diallel mating design. Not. Bot. Hort. Agrobot. Cluj. 5. Abdalla A.M.A. 007. Inter and intraspecific cotton 38(): -7. crosses - Heterosis performance and generations 6. Okaz A.M.A. 974. Inheritance of some economic correlation targeted growth earliness and yield traits in cotton. M. Sc. Thesis Fac. of Agric. Al- variables of F and F. Egypt. J. Plant Breed. Azhar Univ. Cairo Egypt. (): 793-8. 7. Bhardwaj R.P. and C.J. Kapoor 998. Genetics of 6. El Hashash E.F. 004. Possibility of improving yield and its contributing traits in upland cotton Egyptian cotton through hybridization with Egyptian (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Proc. of the World Cotton - American cotton. M. Sc. Thesis Fac. of Agric. Al- Research Conference - Athens Sept. 6- Azhar Univ. Cairo Egypt. pp: 4-6. 6