|
Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences
Vol. 9(1), pp. 1-6, 2019
ISSN: 2276-7770
Copyright ©2019, the copyright of this article is
retained by the author(s)
DOI Link:
http://doi.org/10.15580/GJAS.2019.1.122718184
http://gjournals.org/GJAS
|
|
Performance
and Yield Advantages of Experimental Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Varieties over
the Standard Checks in North-Western Ethiopia
Kedir
Wulchafo Hussen1*, Bedada
Girma2 and Gudeta Nepir3
1Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research,
Assosa Agric. Research Center, Assosa,
Ethiopia
2Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research,
Kulumsa Agric. Research Center, Kulumsa,
Ethiopia
3Ambo University, e-mail: gudetangt@
gmail.c om,
P.O. Box 552; Ambo, Ethiopia
|
ARTICLE INFO
|
ABSTRACT
|
|
Article
No.: 122718184
Type: Research
DOI: 10.15580/GJAS.2019.1.122718184
|
Twelve advanced upland cotton (Gossypium
hirsutum L.) experimental lines and two check
varieties were evaluated for ten phonological and agronomic traits at Kamashi,
Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State during the 2017/18
main cropping season. The objective of the study was to assess
performance of the experimental cotton varieties for seed cotton and lint
yield. The varieties differed significantly for most of the traits with wide
ranging mean values for most of the characters thus indicating the existence
of variations among the tested lines and for possibility of immediate
commercial utilization and for improvements in future cotton breeding
programs.
|
|
Submitted:
27/12/2018
Accepted: 11/01/2019
Published:
31/01/2019
|
|
*Corresponding
Author
Kebir Wulchafo
E-mail:
kedir.wulchafo@ gmail.com
Phone:
+251910716747
|
|
Keywords:
Variability,
traits, heritability, upland cotton, Gossypium
|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
Cotton
(Gossypium spp.), known as white gold and king of fiber crops, is one
of the most important commercial cash and industrial crops in the world. Cotton
is among the first crops in which the rediscovered Mendelian principles were
applied (Balls, 1907). Cotton has a predominant status among all the commercial
crops providing cotton fiber for the textile industry. It is also valued for
the protein and oil portion of the seed.
The protein portion of the seed is mainly utilized for cattle feed while
the oil portion is utilized as a vegetable oil for the food industry and
industrial usage like lubricants. Despite severe competition from the synthetic
fiber industry in recent years, cotton is still holding its commercial value as
an important natural fiber crop in the textile industry (Alkuddsi
et al., 2013). Cotton is primarily
used in textile industries providing employment opportunity during production,
processing, spinning, weaving and marketing throughout the world (Alkuddsi et al.,
2013).
Cotton mainly possesses four species
of the genus Gossypium (Malvaceae),
namely G. hirsutum L., G. barbadense L., G. arboretum L., and G. herbaceum L. These were domesticated independently as
source of textile fiber (Brubaker et al.,
1999). Nowadays, G. hirsutum and G. barbadense are the major cultivated
cotton species, with G. hirsutum
accounting for 90% of world production (Jenkins, 2003). G. barbadense represents approximately 5% of world fiber production
and is cultivated primarily in Egypt, Peru, Sudan, USA and parts of the former
Soviet Union (Wu et al., 2005). G. arboreum is
mainly grown in India whereas G. herbaceum is grown in the drier regions of Africa and
Asia (Jenkins, 2003).
In
Ethiopia, Upland cotton is the only species grown by small and large scale
producers. Cotton is a unique and important industrial crop and no other crop
in Ethiopia can compete with cotton’s potential for forward linkages with the
industrial and service sectors (MOI, 2015). Ethiopia possesses three million
hectares of land suitable for growing cotton on an area that equals the cotton
land in Pakistan, the world’s 4th largest producer. Although
Ethiopia has a great potential for cotton production, it only uses 111, 886
hectares, which is 3% of the total land available for cotton and produces about
80,000 metric tons annually (MOI, 2015). The national average seed cotton yield in Ethiopia
is low ranging from 2.0-3.0 ton/ha and 0.7-1.4 ton/ha for irrigated and rain
fed conditions, respectively (Arkebe et al., 2014). The cause for low
productivity and production of cotton in Ethiopia include insects pests
especially white fly, aphids and the bollworm complex; lack of suitable
varieties, poor management practices and poor marketing system.
Demand is
rising because the annual spinning capacity of the industry increased from
25,000 to 111,000 tons of lint (ICAC, 2014). Currently, Ethiopia has about 14
textile factories and 50 medium-to-large garment manufacturers. There is a
relatively better flow in the textile and garment sector; especially many
Turkish textile firms are relocating to Ethiopia. Therefore, developing
improved varieties is one of the measures to alleviate these constraints. In
this regard, studying per se performance for the characters of interest is the
primary precondition that breeders look into for the development of new
varieties (Scossiroli et al., 1963).
So far no studies on per se performance of different cotton
traits contributing to yield parameters have been carried out in the Beneshangul-Gumuz Regional State in Ethiopia. Therefore, presence of adequate information
on per se performance enables
identification and release of promising cotton varieties. Thus, main objective
of this study was to assess per se performances of experimental cotton
varieties for seed cotton yield.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Description of the
Study Area
The experiment was conducted at Assosa Agricultural Research
Center’s (AsARC) sub-testing site in Kamashi woreda (district) in Benishangul Gumuz Regional State
in the western part of Ethiopia during the main cropping season of 2017/18. Kamashi woreda is one of main cotton
cultivating areas in Benishangul-Gumuze. The Kamashi
sub-center of AsARC is located 250 km east of Assosa
town and 560 km west of Addis Ababa with an altitude of 1247 meter above sea
level and found at 09◦ 31.172' N latitude, and at 0350
35.488' E longitude. Kamashi woreda has a
unimodal rainfall pattern, which starts at the end of April and extends to
mid-November. The major soil type of Kamashi is Nitosol with a dark reddish brown color (AsARC Report, 2011).
And also, its optimum temperature range is 28 to 32◦C.
Experimental Materials and Design
In this study, a total of 14 genotypes including 12 elite
genotypes and two check varieties were
evaluated at Kamashi (Table 1). These genotypes were
obtained from Werer Agricultural Research Center (WARC) which is a center of
excellence for cotton research in the irrigated areas. The genotypes were organized in a randomized complete
block design with three replications.
Five rows of 5 m length were used for each plot. Inter-row and intra-row
spacing of 90 cm and 20 cm, respectively, were used to make up plot sizes
of 22.5 m2 (5 rows x 5 m x
0.9 m) each. This translates to a population of about 55,000 plants on a per
hectare basis.
Table 1. Twelve
experimental cotton lines and 2 standard checks used in the study.
|
Entry number
|
Codes
|
Pedigree/Designation
|
Selection number
|
|
1
|
WARC-1
|
HTO#052 x Deltapine 90
|
21-7
|
|
2
|
WARC-2
|
Cucurova1518 x LG-450
|
35-4
|
|
3
|
WARC-3
|
Deltapine 90 x Cucurova1518
|
37-7
|
|
4
|
WARC-4
|
Deltapine 90 x Stam-59A
|
38-8
|
|
5
|
WARC-5
|
Del Cero x GL-7
|
8-2
|
|
6
|
WARC-6
|
ISA
205H x Stam-59A
|
11-4
|
|
7
|
WARC-7
|
ISA
205H x Beyazealtin/5
|
16-2
|
|
8
|
WARC-8
|
HS-46 x
Stoneville 453
|
19-2
|
|
9
|
WARC-9
|
HS-46 x
Stoneville 453
|
19-8
|
|
10
|
WARC-10
|
Stam-59
A x Cucurova 1518
|
30-2
|
|
11
|
WARC-11
|
Stam-59
A x Cucurova 1518
|
30-6
|
|
12
|
WARC-12
|
Stam-59A x Europa-5
|
-
|
|
13
|
(Check-1)
|
Deltapine 90 (na+)
|
-
|
|
14
|
(Check-2)
|
Stam-59A
(na+)
|
-
|
na+= Pedigree not
available
Management Practices
All recommended agronomic practices which included land
preparation to harvesting were followed as per the recommendations from
research. Planting was carried out in early June with the onset of rains.
Di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) and urea fertilizers were applied at the recommended
rate, each at 100 kg per hectare. Whole DAP was applied at sowing while urea
was applied in splits, 2/3 at sowing and 1/3 at initial flowering stage. To
control grass and broad leaf weeds, two hand weeding were performed at critical
stages of crop development. The first hand weeding was carried out 35 days
after seedling emergence whereas the second weeding was performed 65 days after
emergence or 30 days after the first weeding.
Performance measurement and statistical analyses:
Data were measured and recorded on days to 50% flowering,
days to 65% boll opening, plant height, monopodia branches per plant, sympodial
branches per plant, boll number per plant, boll weight, seed cotton yield, lint
yield and lint percentage. All the data were subjected to analysis of variance
(Fisher, 1958). Means for each trait were further separated and compared by
using Duncan’s multiple range (DMRT) test at 5% level of probability.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of variance results for the ten traits studied
are given in Tables 2. Highly significant (P<0.01) differences among
genotypes were observed at Kamashi testing site for
days to 50% flowering, days to 65% boll opening, plant height, number of
monopodial branches per plant, number of sympodial or fruiting branches per
plant, number of bolls per plant, for average boll weight, seed cotton yield,
lint yield, and lint percentage or ginning outturn (GOT).
Table
2.
Analysis of variance (mean square) for 10 traits of 14
experimental cotton varieties.
|
Traits
|
Replication
|
Genotypes
|
Error
|
CV
|
|
Days to 50% flowering
|
1.50ns
|
18.35**
|
1.60
|
1.42
|
|
Days to 65% boll opening
|
141.07*
|
111.53**
|
37.56
|
3.72
|
|
Plant height
|
2483.62**
|
1545.68**
|
291.53
|
12.79
|
|
Number of monopodial branches/plant
|
0.74ns
|
3.91**
|
0.45
|
7.66
|
|
Number of sympodial branches/plant
|
0.57ns
|
2.65**
|
0.32
|
6.60
|
|
Number of bolls per plant
|
1.87ns
|
6.48**
|
0.81
|
4.05
|
|
Boll weight in grams
|
0.21ns
|
0.22**
|
0.08
|
7.82
|
|
Seed cotton yield in kg per ha
|
235570.91ns
|
332418.31**
|
96973.04
|
14.11
|
|
Lint yield in kg per ha
|
45356.15ns
|
56175.97**
|
17464.58
|
14.45
|
|
Lint percentage or Ginning out turn
|
6.60**
|
7.93**
|
0.89
|
2.27
|
*,
** Indicate significance at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively;
ns=non-significant;
Mean Performances of Experimental Cotton
varieties
Range and mean values for 10
characters of 14 cotton genotypes evaluated at Kamashi
testing site in 2017-18 cropping season are presented in Tables 3. Regarding phenological characters, days to 50% flowering ranged from
82.67 to 93.00 days while days to 65% boll opening ranged from 145 to 167 days.
Shorter number of days to flower setting and boll opening indicated earliness
of certain tested lines. The early flowering entry was the check Deltapinee-90
with 82.7 days from emergence followed by WARC-4 with 88.3 days. The late
flowering lines were WARC-5 and WARC-1 with 93.0 and 92.7 days, respectively.
The remaining entries were intermediate and ranged from 90.0 to 91.3 days.
Deltapine-90 was also the early boll opener at 145 days and WARC-12 was the
latest at 165.7 days after emergence (Table4). Ali and Khan (2003) have also
reported that the number of days taken to flowering is considered as an
important determinant of earliness. Iqbal and Jabbar, (2011) also found positive linkage between first
flower formation and earliness. Hence, delay in flowering is a sign of late
maturity which may be okay in non-moisture stress areas. Plant height ranged from 99.60 cm to 186.53 cm with the mean
value of 133.48 and indicated a wide range of variability. Variations of
genotypes for other traits are demonstrated in Table 3 and Table 4.
Yield and Yield Components of
Experimental Cotton Varieties
Seed cotton yield (SCY) ranged from 1601.20 to 2724.70
kg/ha with a mean value of 2207.20 kg/ha. The top yielders, as shown in Table 4, included WARC-4,
WARC-8, WARC-3, WARC-9, WARC-11 and the check Deltapine-90 with 2724.9, 2583.7,
2564.9, 2433.1, 2353.1 and 2413.3 kg/ha, respectively. These entries with the
exception of WARC-3 have satisfactory levels of lint percentages and could
serve as good source for cotton variety improvement. Lint is a major and most important
component of cotton production, and a vital raw material for the textile
industry.
Boll number per plant (BNP) and boll weight (BWt) are important yield components that contributed to increased
seed cotton (Table 4). Entries with higher boll number than the trial mean
(3.62 g) included WARC-2, WARC-5, WARC-6, WARC-10 and the two checks Deltapine-90
and Stam-59A. These test entries also had ball weights larger than the mean
with the exception of WARC-6 and Stam-59A (Table4). Larger number of bolls
indicated the capacity of certain entries to retain more productive bolls under
stress or otherwise.
Table 3. Minimum and maximum values, mean and standard error of mean (SE)
for the 10 traits of 14 experimental cotton varieties evaluated at Kamashi testing site.
|
Traits
|
Min.
Value
|
Genotypes with
Min. value
|
Max. value
|
Genotype with
Max. value
|
Mean
|
SE
|
CV (%)
|
|
Days to
50% flowering
|
82.70
|
Deltapine-90
|
93.00
|
WARC-5
|
90.29
|
0.73
|
1.42
|
|
Days to
65% boll opening
|
145.00
|
Deltapine-90
|
167.33
|
Stam-59A
|
159.29
|
3.51
|
3.72
|
|
Plant
height
|
99.60
|
Deltapine-90
|
186.53
|
Stam-59A
|
133.50
|
9.86
|
12.79
|
|
Number
of monopodial branches per plant
|
6.21
|
WARC-2
|
10.22
|
WARC-3
|
8.76
|
0.39
|
7.66
|
|
Number
of sympodial branches per plant
|
7.46
|
WARC-11
|
10.98
|
WARC-6
|
8.89
|
0.33
|
6.33
|
|
Number
of bolls per plant
|
20.00
|
WARC-7
|
24.69
|
Deltapine-90
|
22.17
|
0.52
|
4.05
|
|
Boll
weight, grams
|
2.95
|
Stam-59A
|
3.95
|
WARC-10
|
3.62
|
0.16
|
7.82
|
|
Seed
cotton yield, kg/ha
|
1601.00
|
WARC-1
|
2725.00
|
WARC-4
|
2207.20
|
180
|
14.11
|
|
Lint
yield, kg per ha
|
645.00
|
WARC-1
|
1140.00
|
WARC-4
|
914.45
|
76.3
|
14.45
|
|
Lint
percentage or GOT
|
37.60
|
WARC-3
|
43.62
|
WARC-10
|
41.46
|
0.54
|
2.27
|
Table 4. Performance of 14 experimental
cotton varieties tested at Kamashi in 2017.
|
Cotton
Genotypes
|
Mean
morphological and agronomic values
|
|
D50F
|
D65BO
|
PHt
|
NMoB
|
NSyB
|
NBP
|
BWt
|
SCY
|
LY
|
L%
|
|
WARC-1
|
92.7ba
|
158.0bdac
|
103.6d
|
7.1ef
|
8.8ced
|
21.6dce
|
3.75dac
|
1601.2e
|
644.6d
|
40.26ed
|
|
WARC-2
|
90.7bc
|
161.3bdac
|
120.7cd
|
6.2fa
|
9.8b
|
24.2a
|
3.52dac
|
2202.2bc
|
917.4ba
|
41.66bdc
|
|
WARC-3
|
90.7bc
|
167.0a
|
142.3cb
|
10.2a
|
8.0fg
|
21.2dce
|
3.93ba
|
2564.9ba
|
965.4ba
|
37.64f
|
|
WARC-4
|
88.3d
|
156.7bdc
|
116.5cd
|
7.8ecd
|
9.0ebd
|
21.1dce
|
3.84bac
|
2724.9a
|
1139.5a
|
41.82bdc
|
|
WARC-5
|
93.0a
|
152.3de
|
119.1cd
|
7.7ed
|
8.8ebd
|
22.2bc
|
3.59dac
|
2017.5edc
|
856.9bcd
|
42.47bac
|
|
WARC-6
|
90.0dc
|
159.3bdac
|
144.3cb
|
9.6ba
|
11.0a
|
24.0a
|
3.33de
|
1668.1ed
|
686.0cd
|
41.13edc
|
|
WARC-7
|
91.0bac
|
160.7bdac
|
135.8cb
|
8.9bc
|
8.4egd
|
20.1e
|
3.61bdac
|
1958.5edc
|
844.4bcd
|
43.12ba
|
|
WARC-8
|
90.7b
|
154.7dec
|
134.5cb
|
8.6bcd
|
7.7g
|
20.7de
|
3.87bac
|
2583.7ba
|
1049.0ba
|
40.60ed
|
|
WARC-9
|
91.3bac
|
156.7bdc
|
155.0ba
|
9.5ba
|
8.9ebd
|
22.0dc
|
3.71dac
|
2433.1bac
|
1056.4ba
|
43.42a
|
|
WARC-10
|
90.0dc
|
162.3bdac
|
120.9ba
|
9.5ba
|
9.7cb
|
22.3bc
|
3.95a
|
2160.0bdc
|
942.2ba
|
43.62a
|
|
WARC-11
|
91.0bac
|
163.0bac
|
137.7cb
|
8.9bc
|
7.5g
|
20.4e
|
3.44dc
|
2353.1bac
|
1004.1ba
|
42.67bac
|
|
WARC-12
|
90.3dc
|
165.7dcdc
|
152.1b
|
9.5ba
|
8.2feg
|
22.0dc
|
3.74dac
|
2184.7bdc
|
869.5bc
|
39.80e
|
|
Deltapine-90
|
82.7e
|
145.0e
|
99.6d
|
9.7ba
|
9.7cb
|
24.7a
|
3.47bdc
|
2413.3bac
|
976.2ba
|
40.45ed
|
|
Stam-59A
|
91.7bac
|
167.3a
|
186.5a
|
9.4ba
|
9.3cbd
|
23.7ba
|
2.95e
|
2035.3edc
|
850.7bcd
|
41.80bdc
|
|
Trial
mean
|
90.3
|
159.3
|
133.5
|
8.76
|
8.9
|
22.16
|
3.62
|
2207.20
|
914.44
|
41.46
|
|
CV
(%)
|
1.42
|
3.85
|
12.79
|
7.66
|
6.33
|
4.05
|
7.82
|
14.11
|
14.45
|
2.27
|
|
LSD(0.05)
|
2.16
|
10.29
|
28.66
|
1.13
|
0.95
|
1.51
|
0.48
|
522.60
|
221.8
|
14.45
|
* Within columns, values having a letter in
common are not significantly different at the 5% significance level.
D50F=Days to 50% flowering; D65BO=Days to 65%
boll opening; PHt=Plant height; NMoB=
Number of monopodial branches per plant; NSyB=Number
of sympodial branches per plant; NBP=Number of bolls
per plant; BWt=Boll weight in grams; SCY=Seed cotton
yield in kg per ha; LY=Lint yield in kg per ha; L%=Lint percentage or GOT
(Ginning out turn).
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the analysis of variance showed significant differences among the tested
experimental varieties for all phenological and
agronomic traits. This indicated the existence of variability among the tested
lines and for a chance to improve seed cotton yield and other
desirable characters through adaptation testing and selection.
Ethiopia has great potential for cotton
production both in the irrigated and rain-fed areas. But, demands for cotton
lint by the textile industries have not been satisfied for a long time. Benshangul-Gumuz Regional State in western Ethiopia is one
of the potential areas for cotton production. Testing of advanced cotton lines
in this region has indicated the presence of climatic suitability and
adaptability of potential cotton lines. Based on seed cotton yield performance
at Kamashi Research Sub-Center of Assosa
Agricultural Research Center, WARC-3, WARC-4, WARC-8, WARC-9 and WARC-11 can be
further evaluated in more number of locations in the region and considered for
release and production by farmers. Also, advanced lines with high lint
percentages (≥ 43%) can be used in cotton breeding programs to enhance
lint yields.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My special
appreciation and deepest thanks go to Dr. Bedada Girma and to Dr. Gudeta Nepir for their encouragement, suggestions, guidance and
overall assistance during my study period.
And I want to express my deepest gratitude
and appreciation to EIAR for sponsoring my study through provision of research
grant. My thanks also go to Werer Agricultural
Research Center for providing me with seeds of cotton varieties for my research
work. Finally there are no conflicts of competition of interest in this paper.
REFERENCES
Ali.A, and Khan M (2003). Genetic analysis of morphological traits in upland cotton. The Pak Cotton, 44:25-26.
Alkuddsi A.A, Patil SS, Manjula SM, Patil BC, Nadaf HL, Nandihali BS (2013).
Genetic Variability Studies in Segregating Generation of Gossypium
barbadense lines
in Cotton, Plant Gene and Trait, Vol.
4, No.1790-94 (doi: 10.5376/pgt.2013.04.0017).
Arkebe Geberegizabher, Alehegn Workie and Michael Kebede (2014). Cotton
production manual in Amharic language for users. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Assosa Agricultural
Research Center (2011).Farming system survey document.
Balls W.L (1907). Note on Mendelian heredity in cotton. J. Agric. Sci. 2:216-220.
Brubaker CL, Bourland
FM, Wendel JE (1999). The origin
and domestication of
cotton. Chapter 1.1. In: CW Smith, and JT Cothren (eds.) Cotton: Origin, History, Technology and
Production. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. pp
3-31.
Fisher, R.A (1958). Statistical methods for researcher works. 13th
edition. Olover and Boyed Edinburgh.
Iqbal M, Chang M.A, Jabbar A, Iqbal M.Z, Hassan
M, Islam N (2011). Inheritance
of earliness and other characters in upland cotton. Online J. Biol. Sci. 3(6):585-590.
Jenkins
J.N (2003). Cotton. In: Traditional crop breeding
practices: an historical review to serve as a baseline for assessing the role
of modern biotechnology. OECD, pp 61-70.
MOI
(Ministry of Industry) (2015). National Cotton Development strategy for
Ethiopia
(unpublished). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Scossiroli, R.E, Ferrari A, Haussmann G
(1963). Genetic variability for quantitative characters in
Alfalfa. pp. 597-608.
Wu Z, Soliman KM, Zipf A, Saha S, Sharma GC, Jenkins JN (2005). Isolation
and Characterization of Genes Differentially Expressed in Fiber of Gossypium barbadenseL. The Journal of Cotton Science 9: 166-174.
|
Cite this
Article: Kedir WH; Bedada G; Gudeta N (2019).
Performance and Yield Advantages of Experimental Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Varieties over the
Standard Checks in North-Western Ethiopia. Greener Journal of Agricultural
Sciences 9(1), 1-6, http://doi.org/10.15580/GJAS.2019.1.122718184
|