Premium
Effectiveness of Selection in Upland Cotton in Stress Environments 1
Author(s) -
Quisenberry J. E.,
Roark Bruce,
Fryrear D. W.,
Kohel R. J.
Publication year - 1980
Publication title -
crop science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.76
H-Index - 147
eISSN - 1435-0653
pISSN - 0011-183X
DOI - 10.2135/cropsci1980.0011183x002000040007x
Subject(s) - lint , moisture stress , biology , selection (genetic algorithm) , yield (engineering) , heat stress , gene–environment interaction , population , moisture , spring (device) , agronomy , genotype , horticulture , zoology , microbiology and biotechnology , demography , engineering , meteorology , genetics , geography , materials science , mechanical engineering , artificial intelligence , sociology , computer science , gene , metallurgy
Much of the Upland cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) acreage growni n the UnitedS tates is producedin environments where lack of moisture and low temperatures frequently limit production. The purpose of the current research was to test the effectiveness of selecting for lint yield in such stress environments as compared with an optimal environment. Random F 3 plants from a composite cross population were advanced two generations by self‐pollination. The F 4 and F 5 progenies were grown at Lubbock, Big Spring, and College Station, Tex. in 1976, and the F 5 progenies were grown at the same locations in 1977. In both years, all locations were classified as deficient or adequate in temperature and moisture based on input heat units and available water. Genotype × environmenitn teractions, within‐location herltabifities, and genetic advance for lint yield were estimated. In 1976, Lubbockw as deficient in heat units and adequate in precipitation, Big Spring was adequate in heat units and deficient in precipitation, and College Station was adequate in both heat units and moisture. Entries were not significantly different for lint yield at either Lubbock or Big Spring, although the genotype × environment interaction was significant for these locations. At College Station, entries were significantly different, whereas the genotypes × environment interaction was not significant. We concluded that selection within the stress environments was largely based upon genotype × environment interactions. A significant genetic advance for lint yield was realized at all locations when the selection was made at College Station in an environment considered optimal for the growth of Upland cotton.