EVALUATION OF SOME COTTON GENOTYPES FOR ABILITY TO INFESTATION TOLERANCE TO BOLLWORMS FOR IMPROVING...

J. Agric. Res. Kafer E1-Sheikh Univ., 36 (2) 2010 147

EVALUATION OF SOME COTTON GENOTYPES FOR

ABILITY TO INFESTATION TOLERANCE TO

BOLLWORMS FOR IMPROVING OF SOME IMPORTANT

ECONOMICAL CHARACTERS.

M.A. AL-Ameer *; M.E. Abd EL-Salam *; W. M. B. Yehia *

and I. A. I. Saad ** * Cotton Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Egypt.

** Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Egypt.

ABSTRACT

The main objective of this research was to investigate effect of the

infestation tolerance to insects to improve some traits of cotton and the

relationships between insect infestations and some economic traits of cotton.

The study was conducted at Sakha Agricultural Research Station, Kafr

El-Sheikh, Egypt during the two successive seasons, 2007 and 2008. Ten

genotypes of cotton were used in this study namely; Giza 70, Giza 85, Giza 86,

Giza 92, Alexandria 4, Bahteem 101, Karshensky 2, Pima S 6, Pima S 6 x G.89

and Seuvin. These cotton genotypes were evaluated for their relative resistance

against bollworms insect pests i.e., Pectinophora gossypiella (Saund.), Earias

insulana (Boisd.) and Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) in Egypt.

The research showed that mean performance of the genotypes

exhibited higher values where the genotypes of Pima S 6 x G.89, Giza 92, Giza

86 and Seuvin recorded the highest values of mean for most characters except

fiber length (F.L.) and uniformity ratio (U.R.) comparing with the remaining

genotypes. However, the genotype of Giza 70 {extra long staple} recorded the

highest values of mean for fiber length (F.L.) and uniformity ratio (U.R.).

The genotypes mean squares were highly significant for all traits in

the first season, while the genotypes mean squares were highly significant for

all traits in the second season except for boll weight (B.W.) and uniformity

ratio (U.R.). Significant differences in these traits occurred among genotypes

due to genetic variability between these genotypes, so these genotypes can be

used as stocks in breeding programs for some specific traits or using in the

general agriculture.

With respect to the correlation coefficient, results revealed that the

value was negatively insignificant between fiber length (F.L.) and lint yield/m2

M. A. Al-Ameer, et al. 148

(L.Y. /m2) [-0.l49], so the genotypes with high lint yield had low fiber length.

Therefore, the breeder should break the linkage between lint yield and fiber

length by mutation or intermitting designs (North Carolina Design I and II) or

recurrent selection. However, the value of correlation coefficient was negative

significantly between lint yield/m2 (L.Y. /m

2) and insect infestations. Also, the

value was insignificantly negative between insect infestations and gossypol

content, thus there was weak correlation between concentrations of gossypol

and each of lint yield /m2 (L.Y. /m

2) (r = 0.248

N.S.) and insect infestations ratio

(r = -0.551N.S.

), but significantly negative between lint yield /m2 (L.Y. /m

2) and

insect infestations ratio(r = 0.684*). The increase of concentration of gossypol

in cotton is desirable in the relationship between concentration of gossypol and

ratio of infestation by insects and cotton yield. Therefore, the cotton breeder

use the breeding programs to select genotypes with low gossypol in cotton seed

(for food industries and feeding) and high gossypol concentrations in the

organs of plants i.e.,(leaf, stem, branch, bud, and boll wall), this means

importance of gossypol concentration for reduction of the infestation by insects

without negative effects on cotton yield and the utilization of seeds.

The results revealed that Karshensky 2, Giza 70 and Alexandria 4

were the most susceptible genotypes to infestation of green bolls by P.

gossypiella and E. insulana, while Pima S 6 X G.89 was the most resistant one

to both insects. On the other hand, Giza 92, Bahteem 101, Giza 86, Seuvin and

Pima S 6 X G.89 were significantly resistant genotypes to infestation of green

bolls by H. armigera during 2007 and 2008 seasons.

INTRODUCTION

Cotton varieties belonging to (Gossypium barbadense L.) are from

among the most economic agriculture crops in Egypt, where cotton is a main

cash crop for the industry and exportation due to its importance, as one of the

most important fiber crops in the world. Also, the Egyptian cotton is famous

for its supplies of the extra fine long staple cotton in the world. Therefore, the

goal of most plant breeding programs is to increase the yielding capacity and

fiber quality of cotton varieties characterized with resistance and/or tolerance

of insect infestations. In all areas of Egypt where cotton is grown, insecticides

are used in controlling cotton pests, which cause harmful effects for people,

animals and environment.


Plant pests are major factor in the loss of the world’s important

agricultural crops. About many billions Dollars are lost every year in the world

due to infestations of plants by non-mammalian pests including insects.

Insect pests are mainly controlled by intensive applications of

chemical pesticides, which are active through inhibition of insect growth,

prevention of insect feeding or reproduction, or cause death. Good control of

insect pests can thus be reached, but these chemicals can sometimes also affect

other beneficial insects. Another problem resulting from the wide use of

chemical pesticides is the appearance of insect resistant. This has been partially

alleviated by various resistance management practices, but there is an

increasing need for alternative pest control agents.

One of the main traits characterizing the Gossypium genus is the

presence of pigment glands containing terpenoid aldehydes, namely gossypol,

throughout the plant. The presence of glands in cultivated cotton seed has

economic disadvantages to the seed and oil processing industry because

gossypol is toxic to non-ruminant animals, including humans.

Damage to cotton crops by insect pests throughout the world results in

a significant yield loss each year. Effective control of these pests to minimize

yield loss is of great economic importance Abdel-Glil (1981) and Wilson et al.

(1981), also Abdel-Bary et al. (1980) who notes less damage from bollworms

for the hairy strain Bahteem 101 than all current Egyptian cultivars and strains

which highly susceptible to bollworms infestation and demonstrated the

highest resistance in field tests over three years. Examples of insect pests of

cotton include Boll weevil (Anthononnis grandis grandis), Cotton bollworm

(Heliocoverpa zea), Cutworms (Feltia subterranea, Peridrornasaucia, Agrotis

ipsilon), fall armyworm (Spodoptera fugiperda).

There exists a requirement to generate a cotton plant that is insect

resistant so that yield loss through damage to cotton crops by insect pests is

reduced (Wilson and George, 1983). An insect resistant cotton plant could

reduce the need to apply chemical pesticides, which may be detrimental to

other, beneficial insects and the environment. Further, it is desirable to provide

an insect resistant plant that comprises a gossypol as Abou-Tour (1986) who

showed that the correlation was negative and significant between resistance to

bollworms infestation and number of glandes/cm2 of boll and total gossypol

contents. This may be of use in insect resistance management.


Cotton plants especially the seed are a rich source of gossypol and

related terpenes. Several other low molecular weight compounds and condensed

tannins and their interaction with gossypol have been implicated as possible

factors in insect resistance.

Cotton plants are subjected to attack by a wide range of insect pests

throughout growing stages until to maturity. This insect complex is divided in

two categories; sucking insect pests and chewing insect pests. Among the main

chewing insect pests is pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saund.)

(Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), spiny bollworm, Earias insulana (Boisd.)

(Lepidoptera: Arctiidae), and American bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera

(Hub.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) (Mohyuddin el al. 1997). In Egypt, bollworms

are well known insect pests causing considerable damage to squares, flowers

and green bolls (Khalifa et al. 1974). Differences in the susceptibility of cotton

varieties to bollworm infestation have been previously reported, i.e. (Lukefahr

and Martin, 1966; Lukefahr et al. 1966; Scales and Stadelbacher 1972; Abdel-

Rahim et al. 2000; E1-Mezayyen 2004; Bhatti, et al. 2007 and Jamshed et al.

2008). Chemical control of these insects is expensive and environmentally

disruptive and largely ineffective. Therefore, it is strictly necessary to select

resistant genotypes as one of the simplest and useful tactics in integrated pest

management programs Abou-Tour (1986) showed that the correlation was

negative and significant between resistance to bollworms infestation and

number of glandes/cm2 of boll and total gossypol contents.

The present investigation aims to study the insect resistance in cotton

varieties and genotypes to enable the crop to developed and improved during

many seasons. So, the present study was estimated for the corrected response of

gossypol ratio and type variety genotype as a result of infestation tolerance or

resistance. In this regard this, evaluate the susceptibility of some cotton varieties

and genotypes to infestation by the above mentioned bollworms, the pink, spiny

and American bollworms at Kafr El-sheikh region, also study the relationship

and effect of the infestation and the role of gossypol ratio to infestation

tolerance and its variation in cotton genotypes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this work ten cotton genotypes of Egyptian and foreign cotton

genotypes were used to evaluate tolerance and resistance to insect infestations.

The present study is a preliminary trial to control the three bollworms on cotton

plants in open field during two successive seasons.


The cotton genotypes were planted at Sakha Agricultural Research

Station, Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt during the two successive seasons, 2007 and

2008. The collected boll samples which were 40 samples for estimating

gossypol ratio in green boll wall were done in the chemical laboratory of

Chemical Research Department, Cotton Research Institute in Giza.

Ten genotypes of cotton were used in this study which namely; Giza

70 (G.70), Giza 85 (G.85), Giza 86 (G.86), Giza 92 (G.92), Alexandria 4

(Alex.4), Bahteem 101, Karshensky 2 (Kar.2), Pima S 6, Pima S 6 x G.89 and

Seuvin. These cotton genotypes were planted in a randomize complete block

design with four replications. Each cotton genotype plot consisted of five

rows, four meters long and 70 cm. wide among the rows. Seeds were sown in

hills, spaced 25 cm. apart in the row. After full emergence, the hills were

thinned to two plants. All cultural practices were done according to the

standard recommendation.

Data were recorded on 40 samples taken at random from four

replications i.e. ten samples per one replication. Each sample for genotype

contained 25 bolls for nine overhauls. Investigation of the sample of bolls for

all kind of bollworms were applied in the laboratory of Plant Protection

Research Institute.

The Plot of genotype consisted of five rows, four meters long with

four replications for each genotype. The mean population of different

bollworms, i.e., Pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella, Spiny bollworm,

Earias insulana and American bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera were recorded

on weekly basis as long as the infestation existed in the field from second week

of July until the mid of September during the 2007 and 2008 season. Weekly

random samples of 25 green bolls were collected from each plot (100 green

bolls as total) and then the percentage of infestation was determined as bolls

containing larvae. The data were subjected to statistical analysis and Duncan’s

multiple range test (DMRT) (1955) was used for comparizon.

The pesticides which were used in this experiment for Cotton

bollworms were Agerin ( biopesticide) (wettable powder) as 500 g. per feddan,

Pestban (48 % EC) as one liter per feddan, Atabron (5 % EC) as 400 cm.3 per

feddan, Teliton (72 % EC) as 750 cm.3 per feddan, Cascade (10 % DC) as 400

cm.3 per feddan, Selecron (720 % EC) as 750 cm.

3 per feddan, Match (5 % EC)

as 160 cm.3 per feddan, Sumi-Alpha KZ (5 % EC) as 400 cm.

3 per feddan,

Bulldock (12.5 % EC) as 150 cm.3 per feddan, Decis (2.5 % EC) as 350 cm.

3

per feddan, Sumi-Gold KZ (20 % EC) as 150 cm.3 per feddan. All these many

pesticides were used continually to prevent the insects from taking tolerance

and resistance for the pesticides, prevention of insect feeding or reproduction


and prevention appearance resistance varieties or resistance strains from the

insects. This may be of use in insect resistance management.

Number of the

spray

The name of

pesticide

The concentration of pesticide

1 Agerin 500 gm. / feddan

2 Pestban+ Atabron one liter + 400 cm.3 / feddan

3 Teliton+ Cascade 750 cm.3! feddan+400 cm.3 I feddan

4 Match 160 cm.3 / feddan

5 Sumi-Alpha KZ 400 cm.3 / feddan

6 Bulldock 150 cm.3 / feddan

7 Decis 350 cm.3 / feddan

8 Sumi-Gold KZ 150 cm.3 / feddan

All data were subject to analysis of variance and the least significant

differences test ( L.S.D.) was used for the comparison between means. Mean

values were compared at 0.05 and 0.01 levels of probability

Data were recorded on each cotton genotype in the plot for the following

traits:

A- yield components characters were: B- fiber properties traits

1- Li1t yield g(L.Y.tm2) 1- Fiber length (F.L.)

2- Boll weight ,g (B.W.) 2- Fiber fineness (F.F.)

Lint percentage (L.P. %) 3- Fiber strength (F.S.)

4- Seed index ,g (S.I.) 4- Uniformity ratio (U.R.)

5- Lint index ,g (L.I.) 5- Yellowness (+ b)

6- Brightness (R.D. %)

Correlation coefficient was determined between all characters specialist

gossypol relative in green boll wall and resistance of genotypes to insect

infestations.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1- Mean performances and analysis of variance

The data presented in Tables 1 and 2 indicated that the means of

genotypes were statistically different ,where the genotypes of Pima S 6 x G.89,

Giza 92 (G.92), Giza 86 (G.86) and Seuvin recorded the highest values of

mean for most characters except fiber length (F.L.) and uniformity ratio (U.R.)


comparing to the remaining genotypes. However, the genotype of Giza 70

(G.70) {extra long staple} recorded the highest values of mean for fiber length

(F.L.) and uniformity ratio (U.R.).

Table (1): Mean performances of cotton genotypes for all studied

characters in 2007 season.

Characters L.y./m

2 B.W. L.P. S.I. L.I. F.L.

Genotypes

G.70 56.95 2.93 38.10 10.00 6.16 37.25

G.85 66.44 3.21 38.70 10.75 6.79 32.30

G.86 77.84 3.46 40.08 10.20 6.82 34.75

G.92 77.90 3.29 36.82 10.38 6.05 36.05

Alex. 4 61.52 3.06 35.71 10.08 5.60 34.03

Bahteem101 70.12 3.19 36.40 10.45 5.98 34.53

Kar. 2 49.39 2.77 34.51 9.54 5.02 33.40

Pima S 6 70.23 3.10 36.80 9.88 5.75 34.73

Pima S 6 xG.89 97.82 3.32 38.23 9.95 6.16 32.98

Seuvin 76.70 3.26 35.84 10.38 5.80 32.65

L.S.D. 0.05 15.39 0.37 1.16 0.56 0.40 1.25

0.01 20.79 0.50 1.57 0.76 0.54 1.69

Table (1): Cont.

Characters F.F. F.S. U.R. + b R.D.% Gossypol

Genotypes

G.70 4.10 11.63 89.13 8.98 69.33 0.93

G.85 3.95 10.75 87.23 8.45 71.28 1.16

G.86 4.18 10.68 87.75 8.60 71.28 1.78

G.92 3.43 11.20 88.28 8.28 72.23 1.44

Alex. 4 3.98 10.48 88.50 9.80 68.63 1.40

Bahteem101 3.90 10.35 86.70 9.88 65.15 1.41

Kar. 2 3.53 10.43 86.48 11.38 57.83 1.27

Pima S 6 4.13 10.58 87.18 8.45 68.95 1.33

Pima S 6 xG.89 3.90 10.78 88.33 8.43 71.50 1.75

Seuvin 3.50 11.05 86.58 8.75 69.30 1.75

L.S.D. 0.05 0.27 0.63 1.62 0.68 3.26 0.55

0.01 0.37 0.85 2.19 0.92 4.40 0.74



characters in 2008 season.

Characters L.y./m

2 B.W. L.P. S.I. L.I. F.L.

Genotypes

G.70 40.50 2.91 37.53 9.84 5.92 36.50

G.85 37.70 3.02 38.66 9.76 6.14 31.13

G.86 51.80 3.19 38.29 9.59 5.96 33.30

G.92 46.60 3.10 36.67 9.18 5.32 35.10

Alex. 4 36.00 2.93 34.79 9.65 5.15 31.08

Bahteem101 42.00 2.76 36.30 9.97 5.68 31.80

Kar. 2 30.00 2.88 32.99 8.16 4.03 32.38

Pima S 6 39.30 2.98 36.22 9.70 5.51 33.80

Pima S 6 xG.89 55.30 3.15 37.85 9.14 5.57 32.78

Seuvin 44.90 2.97 35.06 10.17 5.49 32.28

L.S.D. 0.05 14.50 0.43 1.42 0.72 0.52 1.55

0.01 19.58 0.58 1.92 0.98 0.70 2.10

Table (2): Cont.


Genotypes

G.70 4.08 9.00 85.28 9.90 67.80 0.88

G.85 4.03 9.20 82.70 9.45 69.43 1.15

G.86 4.25 9.85 85.90 9.60 70.40 1.77

G.92 3.60 10.13 84.73 9.48 69.60 1.43

Alex. 4 4.00 8.73 82.35 10.10 68.13 1.38

Bahteem101 4.10 9.23 83.25 10.70 67.45 1.40

Kar. 2 3.93 8.68 83.88 12.28 58.60 1.25

Pima S 6 4.10 9.18 82.20 9.35 69.88 1.31

Pima S 6 xG.89 4.05 10.03 83.73 9.20 72.05 1.74

Seuvin 3.75 9.48 84.33 9.63 71.28 1.73

L.S.D. 0.05 0.21 1.13 3.06 0.79 3.95 0.54

0.01 0.28 1.53 4.13 1.07 5.33 0.73


In regard to, the concentrations of gossypol in cotton are desirable in the

relationship between concentrations of gossypol and infestation ratio for

insects and cotton yield. Therefore, the cotton breeder use the breeding

programs i.e. selection of genotypes with low gossypol in cotton seed (for food

industries and feeding) and high gossypol concentrations in the organs of

plants i.e., (leaf, stem, branch, bud, and boll wall). Same results were obtained

from the combined data over both seasons which were presented in Table 3.

All these results are desirable to provide an insect resistant plant that

comprises a gossypol. This may be of use in insect resistance management

according to Galal et al. (1980). Low concentration of gossypol and related

phyllophage toxins from cotton improve the effectiveness of insecticidal agents

against social insects, including cockroaches, and particularly termites and

ants. Levels of gossypol and other cotton phyllophage toxins which are

sufficiently low as to be non-biocidal to social insects alone will significantly

increase the control efficiency of other insecticidal agents. From all these

results the mean performance of cotton genotypes for all studied characters

were very important to select the best and good stock genotypes required for

breeding programs or using in the general agriculture according to Baloch et al.

(1982) and White et al. (1982).

In Table 4, the genotypes of Giza 86 (G.86), Pima S 6 x G.89, Seuvin

and Giza 92(G.92) recorded the lowest values of infestation for insects and

high concentrations of gossypol. While, the genotypes of Giza 70 ( G.70) {

extra long staple }, Alexandria 4 (Alex.4), Karshensky 2 (Kar.2) recorded the

lowest values for lint yield/m2 ,highest values for percentage of infestation for

insects ratio and lowest values for concentrations of gossypol, thus there were

simple negative correlation between concentrations of gossypol and infestation

for insects ratio (r = -0.551N.S.

) also between lint yield/m2 (L.Y./m

2) and

infestation for insects ratio(r = -0.684*) and lint yield/rn

2 (L.Y./m

2) with

concentration of gossypol (r = 0.248N.S.

) see in Table 9. This is in agreement

with results of Abou-Tour (1986) who showed that the correlation was

negative and significant between resistance to bollworms infestation and

number of glandes/cm2 of boll and total gossypol contents.



characters obtained from the combined data over both

seasons

Characters L.y./m

2 B.W. L.P. S.I. L.I. F.L.

Genotypes

G.70 48.73 2.92 37.82 9.92 6.04 36.88

G.85 52.07 3.12 38.68 10.26 6.47 31.72

G.86 64.82 3.33 39.19 9.90 6.39 34.03

G.92 62.25 3.20 36.75 9.78 5.69 35.58

Alex. 4 48.76 3.00 35.25 9.87 5.38 32.56

Bahteem101 56.06 2.98 36.35 10.21 5.83 33.17

Kar. 2 39.70 2.83 33.75 8.85 4.53 32.89

Pima S 6 54.77 3.04 36.51 9.79 5.63 34.27

Pima S 6 xG.89 76.56 3.24 38.04 9.55 5.87 32.88

Seuvin 60.80 3.12 35.45 10.28 5.65 32.47

L.S.D. 0.05 10.31 N.S. 0.89 0.45 0.32 0.97

0.01 13.71 N.S. 1.19 0.59 0.43 1.29

Table (3): cont.


Genotypes

G.70 4.09 10.32 87.21 9.44 68.57 0.91

G.85 3.99 9.98 84.97 8.95 70.36 1.16

G.86 4.22 10.27 86.83 9.10 70.84 1.78

G.92 3.52 10.67 86.51 8.88 70.92 1.44

Alex. 4 3.99 9.61 85.43 9.95 68.38 1.39

Bahteem101 4.00 9.79 84.98 10.29 66.30 1.40

Kar. 2 3.73 9.56 85.18 11.83 58.22 1.26

Pima S 6 4.12 9.88 84.69 8.90 69.42 1.32

Pima S 6 xG.89 3.98 10.41 86.03 8.82 71.78 1.75

Seuvin 3.63 10.27 85.46 9.19 70.29 1.74

L.S.D. 0.05 0.17 N.S. N.S. 0.51 2.50 0.38

0.01 0.22 N.S. N.S. 0.68 3.32 0.50

Also, these previous results were in agreement with Yuan et al. (2000)

where suggested that the results showed that there were no apparent linkage


associations of the glandless gene on most agronomic, fiber and seed characters

of Upland cotton, except for seed quality, also showed that the gossypol

content of seed in dominant

glandless lines in Upland cotton was very low (<O.04g/kg).Therefore, it is

suggested that the glandless gene can play an important role in breeding

glandless or low seed-gossypol Upland cotton cultivars. According to, Bottger

(1964) gossypol is also toxic to cotton bollworms, further Shaver and Lukefahr

(1969) showed effect of gossypol concentration on bollworms and bud worms.

Table (4): The ratio of infestation for cotton genotypes at the first season

2007, the second season 2008 and the combined data over both

seasons.

Genotypes

%

Gossypol

in green

boll wall

%

infesta

tion in

2007

%

Gossyp

ol in

green

boll

wall

%

infestat

ion in

2008

% Gossypol

in green boll

wall

%

infestation

from

combined

data over

both

seasons

G.70 0.93 13.42 0.88 27.04 0.91 20.23 G.85 1.16 12.66 1.15 23.22 1.16 17.94 G.86 1.78 8.91 1.77 16.45 1.78 12.68 G.92 1.44 9.45 1.43 12.33 1.44 10.89 Alex. 4 1.40 12.07 1.38 24.94 1.39 18.51 Bahteem 101 1.41 10.21 1.40 15.73 1.40 12.97 Kar. 2 1.27 14.50 1.25 23.58 1.26 19.04 Pima S 6 1.33 11.11 1.31 21.39 1.32 16.25 Pima S 6 xG.89 1.75 6.90 1.74 13.53 1.75 10.22 Seuvin 1.75 8.89 1.73 13.46 1.74 11.18

Also, Vilkova (1989) who reported that even though high cotton

bollworm and larval weight when compared to those on low gossypol lines, the

larvae from the high gossypol lines that survived had a higher pupal weight

because of their apparent resistance to gossypol, but fecundity of these

survivors was significantly reduced.

The data in Table 5 and 6 reported that the genotypes mean squares

were highly significant for all traits in the first season, while the genotypes

mean squares were highly significant for all traits in the second season except

for boll weight (B.W.) and uniformity ratio (U.R.). The significance of these

mean squares indicated presence of genetic variability between these materials


and genotypes, so these genotypes can be used as stocks in breeding programs

for some specific traits.

Table (5): Analysis of variance and the mean square estimates of cotton

genotypes for all studied characters in 2007 season.

Table (5): cont.

*,** Significant and highly significant at 5% and 1% levels of probability, respectively.

Table (6): Analysis of variance and the mean square estimates of cotton

genotypes for all studied characters in 2008 season.

Table (6): cont.

*,** Significant and highly significant at 5% and 1% levels of probability,

respectively.

S.O.V. d.f. L.y./m2

B.W L.P. S.I. L.I.

G 9 720.00** 0.16** 10.95** 0.48** 1.14**

R 3 1082.10** 0.12 0.58 0.79** 0.12

Error 27 84.40 0.05 0.48 0.11 0.06

Total 39

S.O.V. d.f. F.L. F.F. F.S. U.R. + b RD% Gossypol

G 9 9.58** 0.63** 0.63** 3.37** 3.84** 73.32** 0.31**

R 3 0.11 0.08 0.06 1.64 0.07 1.23 0.04

Error 27 0.56 0.03 0.14 0.94 0.17 3.79 0.11

Total 39

S.O.V. d.f. L.y./m2

B.W L.P. S.I. L.I. F.L.

G 9 226.2** 0.07 12.51** 1.31** 1.40** 12.55**

R 3 81.2 0.04 3.26** 0.55* 0.25 1.73

Error 27 74.9 0.07 0.72 0.19 0.10 0.86

Total 39

S.O.V. d.f. F.F. F.S. U.R. + b RD% Gossypol

G 9 0.23** 1.05* 6.17 3.39** 56.71** 0.32**

R 3 0.02 0.17 0.91 0.20 8.06 0.04

Error 27 0.02 0.46 3.34 0.22 5.55 0.11

Total 39


Also, the interaction of genotype x environments in Table 7 showed

that the genotypes mean squares were insignificant for boll weight (B.W.), lint

percentage (L.P. %), lint index (L.I.), uniformity ratio (U.R.), yellowness (+ b),

brightness (R.D. %) and gossypol ratio in green boll wall. While, the rest traits

showed highly significant for the interaction, therefore the evaluation of these

genotypes under different environments should be repeated to correct arbiter on

performance of these genotypes especially for lint yield/m2 (L.Y./m

2) and seed

index (S.I.), thus these traits have quantitative nature. This agrees with Abou-

Tour (1986) who showed that a combined analysis of variance revealed that

population x season interactions were significant for all the studied traits.

Table 7. Combined analysis of variance and the mean square estimates of

cotton genotypes for all studied characters obtained from the

combined data over both seasons.

Table (7): cont.


respectively.

S.O.V. d.f. L.y./m2 B.W L.P. S.I. L.I. F.L.

Y 1 15783.80** 0.58* 9.36 8.23* 5.71** 36.59**

Error A 6 581.63 0.08 1.92 0.67 0.19 0.92

G 9 643.60** 0.17 22.76** 1.40* 2.39** 20.06**

G*Y 9 302.50** 0.06 0.70 0.38** 0.15 2.07**

Error B 54 79.70 0.06 0.60 0.15 0.08 0.71

Total 79

S.O.V. d.f. F.F. F.S. U.R. + b RD % Gossypol

Y 1 0.45* 41.62** 285.77*

* 15.14** 0.14 0.0074

Error A 6 0.05 0.11 1.27 0.14 4.64 0.0383

G 9 0.78** 0.80 6.89 7.12** 124.58** 0.6298**

G*Y 9 0.07** 0.88** 2.66 0.11 5.45 0.0003

Error B 54 0.02 0.30 2.14 0.20 4.67 0.1063

Total 79


Insignificance interaction mean squares suggests that these traits were not

affected by any different season, while the significance referred that the

performance of these traits changed from season to season. All these previous

results were in agreement with Yuan et al. (2000) showed that mean square for

sources of variation of all characters indicated that significant differences were

found in boll weight and percentage lint in 1994, while in 1996 there were no

significant differences among cultivars for length uniformity and there were no

significant interaction between cultivars and years for uniformity of length. For

the other traits, differences among cultivars and their interactions were

significant. These results indicated that most characters measured varied with

cultivar backgrounds.

2- Effect of concentration of gossypol

The results presented in Table 8 showed that the genotype Pima S 6 x

G.89 was high supremacy in lint yield /m2 (L.Y. /m

2) and followed by the

genotypes of Giza 86 (G.86), Seuvin and Giza 92 (G.92), while the remaining

genotypes were more depressed in lint yield/m2 (L.Y. /m

2).

Table 8: Superior and supremacy relations for genotypes for some

characters.

Genotypes

%

Superior

in Yield

%

Superior in

Gossypol

% Superior

in sensitivity

%

infestation

intensity

G.70 18.53 0 49.48 20.23

G.85 23.76 21.55 43.03 17.94

G.86 38.75 48.88 19.40 12.68

G.92 36.22 36.81 6.15 10.89

Alex. 4 18.58 34.53 44.79 18.51

Bahteem101 29.18 35.46 21.20 12.97

Kar. 2 00.00 27.78 46.32 19.04

Pima S 6 27.52 31.06 37.11 16.25

Pima S 6 xG.89 48.15 48.00 0.00 10.22

Seuvin 34.70 47.70 8.59 11.18

Concerning the effect of gossypol ratio, the genotype Giza 86 (G.86)

had high supremacy in gossypol concentration and followed by the genotypes

of Seuvin. pima S 6 x G.89 and Giza 92( G.92 ) which gave low values

comparing with Giza 86 (G.86), however the rest of genotypes were more


depressed in concentration of gossypol. All these results are desirable to

provide an insect resistant plant that comprises a gossypol. This may be of use

in insect resistance management. Low concentration of gossypol and related

phyllophage toxins from cotton improve the effectiveness of insecticidal agents

against social insects, including cockroaches, and particularly termites and

ants. Levels of gossypol and other cotton phyllophage toxins which are

sufficiently low as to be non-biocidal to social insects alone will significantly

increase the control efficiency of other insecticidal agents. These results were

in agreement with the results reported by Baloch et al. (1982) and White et al.

(1982) who said that maximum yield was obtained from a high- gossypol

variety that was comparatively resistant to sucking pests as well as to the

bollworms. Also, results of Yuan et al. (2000) showed that there were no

apparent linkage associations between the glandless gene and most agronomic

traits; fiber and seed characters of Upland cotton, except for seed quality, also

showed that the gossypol content of seed in dominant glandless lines in Upland

cotton was very low (<0.04g/kg). Therefore, it is suggested that the glandless

gene can play an important role in breeding glandless or low seed-gossypol

Upland cotton cultivars. Also, Bottger (1964) showed that gossypol is also

toxic to cotton bollworms, further Shaver and Lukefahr (1969) who showed

effect concentration of gossypol for their effect on bollworms and bud worms.

The results in Table 8 also showed the results indicated that cotton

genotypes often showed differential responses effect to insects infestation,

where the genotype Pima S 6 x G.89 had high supremacy in tolerance to the

infestation of insects and followed by the genotypes of Giza 92(G.92), Seuvin

and Giza 86 (G.86) showed low values comparing with Pima 5 6 x G.89,

meanwhile the remaining genotypes showed less tolerance to the infestation of

insects. Raulston (1985) observed a significant increase in budworm tolerance

to gossypol during thirteen generations.

Further, the genotype Giza 70 (G.70) was very high in sensitivity to the

infestation to insects and followed by the genotypes of Alexandria 4 (Alex.4),

Pima S 6 and Karshensky 2 (Kar.2) which cleared low sensitivity values

comparing with Giza 70(G.70), but the rest of genotypes were less sensitive to

the infestation insects. Raulston (1985) observed a significant increase in bud

worm tolerance to gossypol during thirteen generations. This agreement with

results of Vilkova (1989) who reported that even though high gossypol lines

had a detrimental effect on cotton bollworm development, survival and larval

weight when compared to those on low gossypol lines, the larvae from the high

gossypol lines that survived had a higher pupal weight because of their


apparent induced resistance to gossypol, but fecundity of these survivors was

significantly reduced.

3- The correlation coefficients

The correlation coefficients were estimated between all studied traits

and presented in Table 9. As shown in the table the values of correlation

coefficient were positively highly significant between lint index (L.I.) and boll

weight (B.W.) [0.794**

], lint index (L.I.) and lint percentage (L.P. %) [0.935**

],

uniformity ratio (U.R.) and fiber length (F.L.) [0.824**

], also between

brightness (R.D. %) and lint index (L.I.) [0.783**

].Furthermore, the correlation

coefficient values between lint percentage (L.P. %) and boll weight (B.W.)

[0.642*], seed index (S.I.) and boll weight (B.W.) [0.739

*], lint index (L.I.) and

seed index (S.I.) [0.736*], fiber fineness (F.F.) and lint percentage (L.P. %)

[0.715], fiber fineness (F.F.) and lint index (L.I.) [0.748*], brightness (R.D. %)

and lint percentage (L.P. %) [0.717*], brightness (R.D. %) and seed index (S.I.)

[0.666*], also between brightness (R.D. %) and fiber strength (F.S.) [0.696

*]

were positively significant.

However, the values were negative highly significant between

yellowness (+ b) and fiber strength (F.S.) [-0.790**

], also between brightness

(R.D. %) and yellowness (+ b) [0.971*]. Furthermore, the values were negative

significant between yellowness (+ b) and lint yield/rn2 (L.Y. /m2) [0.633*],

yellowness (+ b) and lint percentage (L.P. %) [0.727*], yellowness (+ b) and

lint index (L.I.) [-0.764], also between infestation and lint yield/m2 (L.Y. /m2)

[0.684*].

The correlation coefficients between all characters in Table 9 reported

that correlation coefficients between the lint yield and most traits was non

significant, while the value of correlation was negative significant between

yellowness (+ b) and lint yield/m2 (L.Y./m

2) [-0.633

*], also between infestation

and lint yield/m2 (L.Y./m

2) [-0.684

*]. However, the value was negative

insignificant between fiber length (F.L.) and lint yield/m2 (L.Y./m

2) [-0.149].

So, the genotypes with high lint yield had low fiber length, Therefore,

genotypes having crossing over between lint yield and fiber length by mutation

or intermitting designs (North Carolina Design I and II) or recurrent selection

should be selected. However, the value of correlation coefficient was negative

significantly between lint yield/rn2 (L.Y. /m

2) and insect infestations.


Table (9): The correlation coefficients among all studied characters characters

L.y./m2 B.W L.P.% S.I. L.I. F.L. F.F. F.S. U.R. + b RD % Gossypol

B.W 0.152

L.P.% 0.542 0.642*

S.I. 0.016 0.739* 0.452

L.I. 0.404 0.794** 0.935** 0.736*

F.L. -0.149 -0.018 0.102 -0.041 0.046

F.F. 0.065 0.485 0.715* 0.548 0.748* 0.260

F.S. 0.575 0.279 0.373 0.306 0.372 0.398 0.146

U.R. 0.142 0.185 0.455 -0.129 0.284 0.824** 0.381 0.409

+ b -0.633* -0.617 -0.727* -0.597 -0.764* -0.076 -0.556 -0.790** -0.299

RD % 0.590 0.618 0.717* 0.666* 0.783** 0.021 0.596 0.696* 0.234 -0.971**

Gossypol 0.248 -0.257 -0.261 0.049 -0.199 -0.505 -0.101 -0.027 -0.485 -0.135 0.270

% infestation -0.684* 0.195 -0.049 -0.008 -0.024 0.436 0.367 -0.390 0.331 0.330 -0.335 -0.551


respectively.

Also, the value was insignificantly negative between infestation by

insects and gossypol, thus there was correlation between concentrations of

gossypol and insect infestations (r = -0.551N.S.

), also between lint yield/m2

(L.Y. /m2) and insect infestations (r -0.684

*) and lint yield/m

2 (L.Y. /m

2) with

concentrations of gossypol (r = -0.248N.S.

). Results in Table 9 showed that the

concentration of gossypol in cotton is desirable in the relationship between

existence of gossypol and insect infestations ratio and cotton yield. Therefore,

the cotton breeder use the breeding programs i.e. selection genotypes with low

gossypol in cotton seed ( for food industries and feeding) and high gossypol

concentrations in the organs of plants i.e.,(leaf, stem, branch, bud, and boll

wall), this means that importance of gossypol concentrations to decrease the

insect infestations without negative effect on cotton yield. Baloch et al. (1982)

and White et al. (1982) who showed that maximum yield was obtained from a

high gossypol variety that was comparatively resistant to sucking pests as well

as to the bollworms, also Yuan et al. (2000) showed that there were no

apparent linkage associations of the glandless gene with most agronomic traits;

fiber and seed characters of Upland cotton, except for seed quality, also the

gossypol content of seed in dominant glandless lines in Upland cotton was very

low (<0.04g/kg). Therefore, it is suggested that the glandless gene can play an

important role in breeding glandless or low seed-gossypol Upland cotton

cultivars. Also, Bottger (1964) showed that gossypol is also toxic to cotton


bollworms, further Shaver and Lukefahr (1969) who showed effect

concentration of gossypol for their effect on bollworms and bud worms. Also,

the results go in line with those obtained by Abou-Tour (1986) who showed

that the correlation was negative and significant between resistance to

bollworms infestation and number of glandes/cm2 of boll wall and total

gossypol contents.

Vilkova (1989) reported that even though high gossypol lines had a

detrimental effect on cotton bollworm development, survival and larval weight

when compared to those on low gossypol lines, the larvae from the high

gossypol lines that survived had a higher pupal weight because of their

apparent resistance to gossypol, but fecundity of these survivors was

significantly reduced. Also, Abd El-hamid and Helw (1973) and Meisner et al.

(1977) suggested that gossypol content may be one of the factors associated

with resistance to cotton leafworm, so these genotypes can be used as a stock

in breeding programs or using in the direct and general agriculture.

4- Susceptibility of Egyptian cotton varieties and genotypes to infestation

of bollworms:

4-1- P. gossypiella infestation:

As shown in Tables (10 and 11) and Fig (1 and 2) infestation of green

bolls by pink bollworm, indicated that Kar.2 and Giza 70 (G.70) were the most

susceptibility cotton varieties and genotypes while Pima S 6 X G.89 and

Seuvin were the most resistant during 2007 and 2008 seasons at Kafr El-Sheikh

region. This may be due to the early blooming of Pima S 6 X G.89 and Seuvin,

a phenomenon which help escaping the heavy attack occurring at the end of the

season. In this respect, Shawer (2000) and El-Mezayyen (2004) indicated that

G.45 (late bloomer variety) was the most susceptible variety while G.89 (early

bloomer variety) was the most resistant one to P. gossypiella.

4-2- E. insulana infestation:

Results in Tables (10 and 11) and Fig (1 and 2) revealed that Kar.2 ,

AIex.4, Giza 85 (G.85) and Giza 70 (G.70) were significantly the most

susceptible cotton varieties and genotypes to green bolls infestation by spiny

bollworm (E. insulana) while Pima S 6 X G.89, Giza 92 (G.92) and Seuvin

were the most resistant during 2007 and 2008 seasons.


Also, El-Mezayyen (2004) found that G.89 had the lowest numbers of

spiny bollworm larvae; consequently it was the most resistant variety, while the

G.45 had the highest number of larvae E. insulana followed by G.85 and G.86

at Kafr El-Sheikh region. On the other hand, Aiex.4 came the first rank before

Kar.2 to infestation of green bolls by E. insulana during 2008 season

Table (10 (: Percentage of green bolls infestation of Pink bollworm, Spiny

bollworm and American bollworm on different cotton

varieties and genotypes during 2007 season.

*Means followed by the same letter in a column are not significantly

different at the 5% level of probability (Duncan Test).

Genotypes % of green boll infestation

Pink bollworm Spiny bollworm American bollworm

G.70 4.23 a 6.86 abc 2.33 ab

G.85 3.22 ab 7.35 ab 2.09 ab

G.86 3.11 ab 5.20 bc 0.60 bc

G.92 3.67 ab 5.78 abc 0.00 c

Alex. 4 3.22 ab 7.36 ab 1.49 abc

Bahteem 101 3.68 ab 6.53 ab 0.00 c

Kar. 2 4.56 a 8.44 a 1.50 abc

Pima S 6 3.33 ab 6.78 ab 1.00 bc

Pima S 6 xG.89 2.22 b 3.78 c 0.90 bc

Seuvin 3.00 ab 5.11 bc 0.78 bc


Fig:1 Percentage of green bolls infestation by Pink bollworm, Spiny bollworm and

American bollworm for different cotton varieties and genotypes during 2007 season

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

G70

G85

G86

ALE

X 4

Bah

tem

KAR.2

Pim

as 6

Seu

ven

Tetra

Cro

ss

Pim

a x G89

Cotton varities and genotypes

% In

fes

tati

on

Pink bollworm

Spiny bollworm

American

bollworm

4-3- H. armigera infestation:

Data in Tables (10 and 11) and Fig (1 and 2) revealed that the green

bolls of G.70, G.85, Alex.4 and Kar.2 were the most susceptible genotypes to

infestation by H. armigera, while Giza 92 (G.92), Bahteem 101, Giza 86,

Seuvin and Pima S 6 X G.89 were significantly the most resistant during 2007

and 2008 seasons.

From the above mentioned results, it could be concluded that Kar.2,

Giza 70 (G.70) and Alex.4 were the most susceptible cotton varieties and

genotypes to infestation of green bolls by P. gossypiella and E. insulana, while

Pima S 6 X G.89 was the most resistant one of that two insects. On the other

hand, Giza 92, Bahteem 101, Giza 86, Seuvin and Pima S 6 X G.89 were

significantly resistant cotton genotypes to infestation of green bolls by H.

armigera during 2007 and 2008 seasons. So, these cotton genotypes can be

used as parents in breeding programs or using them directly in the general

agriculture.


Table 11 : Percentage of green bolls infestation of Pink bollworm, Spiny

bollworm and American bollworm on different cotton

varieties and genotypes during 2008 season.

*Means followed by the same letter in a column are not

significantly different at the 5% level of probability (Duncan Test).

Genotypes % of green boll infestation

Pink bollworm Spiny bollworm American bollworm

G.70 6.70 ab 15.67 ab 4.67 a

G.85 5.44 abc 15.78 ab 2.00 b

G.86 4.89 abc 10.78 bc 0.78 b

G.92 3.44 bc 8.89 c 0.00 b

Alex. 4 5.11 abc 18.33 a 1.50 b

Bahteem 101 4.90 abc 10.16 bc 0.67 b

Kar. 2 6.78 ab 14.80 bc 2.00 b

Pima S 6 6.11 abc 14.33 abc 0.95 b

Pima S 6 xG.89 3.00 c 9.78 bc 0.75 b

Seuvin 2.89 c 9.90 bc 0.67 b


REFERENCES

Abdel-Bary, A.A.; M.A. Omer and M.M. Shahbander (1980). Evaluation of

bollworm resistance in some Egyptian cotton cultivars and strains. Alex.

J. Agric. Res. 28 (1): 91 – 96.

Abdel-Glil, M.A. (1981).Studies on the characters of insect resistance in some

cotton varieties. M. Sc. Thesis. Faculty of Agric. Alex Univ.

Abdel-Halim, A.; K. A. M. El-Khawass and H. A. F. Salem (2000). Boll

infestations with pink bollworm(Pectinophora gossypiella) and spiny

bollworm (Earias insulana) on certain cotton varieties in Damietta

Governorate. Al-Azhar J. Agric. Res., 31: 149-155.

Abdel-Hamid, A.M. and M.R. Helw (1973). Cotton leafworm on different

genotypes of cotton. Cott. Gr. Rev., 50: (4), 338

Abdel-Rahim, W. A.; S. M. I. Metwally and F. El-Dakroury (2000).

Susceptibility of some Egyptian cotton varieties to the infestation by

Pectinophora gossypiella (Sound.) and Earias insulana (Boisd.). J.

Agric. Res. Tanta Univ., 2(2): 332-338.

Abou-Tour, H.B. (1986). Genetical studies on resistance to insects in Egyptian

cotton. Ph. D. Thesis. Faculty of Agric. Tanta Univ.

Baloch, A.A.; B.A., Soomro and G.H., Mallah, (1982). Evaluation of some

cotton varieties with known genetic markers for their resistance against

sucking and bollworm complex. (En, Tr, 11 ref.) Cotton Res. Inst.

Sakrand, Pakistan. (From Review of Applied Entomology, A (1982) 70

(12) 7180.

Bhatti, J. A.; M. A. Khan; M. A. Murtaza; M. Z. Majeed and F. F. Jamil

(2007). Response of American bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) (Hub.)

to Weather factors in cotton under unsprayed conditions. Faisalabad J.

Agric. Res., 45(3): 209-214.

Bottger, G.T. (1964). Relation of gossypol content of cotton plants to insect

resistance. [1964] J. Econ. Entomol. 57: 283-285.

Duncan, D. B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple F test. Biometrics, 11: 1-42.

El-Mezayyen, G. A. (2004). Evaluation of some Egyptian cotton varieties to

infestation of piercing sucking insects, cotton leafworm and bollworms

at Kafr El-Sheikh region. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ., 29(1): 433-

441.

Galal, H.E.; S.A. Abd-Alla and H.B. Abou-Tour (1980). Genetic studies on

resistance to the major cotton insects in G. barbadense L. I. Heterosis. J.

Agric. Res. Tanta Univ. 6 (1): 81 – 92.


Jamshed, K.; A. Suhail; M. Arshad; M. Asghar and M. M. Majeed (2008).

Comparative infestation of bollworms on transgenic BT and

conventional cotton cultivars. Pak. Entomol. 30(2): 193-197.

Khalifa, A.; M. F. El-Sharawy and S. M. Shehata (1974). Studies on the control

of bollworms. 2nd

Egypt. Pest Control Conf., Alex., 1: 207-233.

Lukefahr, M. J. and D. F. Martin (1966). Cotton-plant pigments as a source of

resistance to the bollworm and tobacco budworm. J. Econ. Entomol.,

59(1): 178-179.

Lukefahr, M. J.; L. W. Nobel and J. E. Houghtaling (1966). Growth and

infestation of bollworms and other insects on glanded and glandedless

strains of cotton. J. Econ. Entomol., 59(4): 817-819.

Meisner, J.; M. Zur; E. Kabonci and K.R.S.Ascher (1977). Influence of

gossypol content of leaves of different cotton strains on the

development of Spodoptera Littoralis larvae. J. Eco. Ento. Vol. 70, No.

6 (714 – 716).

Mohyuddin, A.I., G. Jilkani, A.G. Khan, A. Hamza I. Ahmad and Z.

Mahmood,(1997). Integrated Pest Management of major cotton pests by

Conservation, Redistribution and Augmentation of Natural Enemies.

Pak. J. Zool., 29: 293-298.

Raulston, J.R. (1985). Tobacco bud worms response to gossypol and selection

in a field-collected strain under laboratory conditions.[1985] J. Econ.

Entomol. 78: 158-162.

Scales, A. L. and E. A. Stadelbacher (1972). Population of bollworms, tobacco

budworms, Tarnished plant bugs and other cotton pests in four varieties

of plant cotton. J. Econ. Entomol., 65(2): 213-215.

Shaver, T.N. and Lukefahr, M.J. (1969). Effects of flavonoids pigments and

gossypol on growth and development of the boll worm, tobacco bud

worm, and pink boll worm. [1969] J. Econ. Entomol. 62: 643-646.

Shawer, D. M. B. (2000). Ecological studies on some insect pests infesting

cotton plants. M. Sc. Thesis, Fac. Agric. Kafr El-Sheikh, Tanta Univ.

Vilkova, N.A. (1989). Effect of cotton cultivars with high content of gossypol

on development of the cotton boll worm, Heliothis armiqera

[Hbn.][Lepidoptera: Noctuidae],[1989] J. Econ. Entomol. Rev.68: 129-

137

White, W.H.; J.C. JR. McCarty; D.H. Gollum; and P.A. Hedin (1982). Strains

and within season variability of various allelochemics within a diverse

group of cottons, Gossypium hirsutum L. Crop Sci. 22(6): 1235 – 1238.

Wilson, F.D.; B.W. George and R.L. Wilson (1981). Lint yield and resistance

to pink bollworm in early maturing cotton. Crop Sci., 21(2): 213-216.


Wilson, F.D. and B.W. George (1983). A genetic and breeding study of pink

bollworm resistance and agronomic properties in cotton. Crop Sci.,

23(1): 1- 4.

Yuan, Y.L., Y.H. Chen, C.M. Tang, S.R. Jing, S.L. Liu, J.J. Pan, R.J. Kohel

and T.Z. Zhang (2000). Effects of the dominant glandless gene Gl2e on

agronomic and fiber characters of Upland cotton. Plant Breeding 118,

59-64 (2000).

الموز تحمل اإلصابة الحشرية لديدانلالقطن لقدرتها التراكيب الوراثية فى تقييم بعض .الهامه االقتصاديةوذلك لتحسين بعض الصفات

، وليد محمد بسيونى يحيى* محمد عبد المولى األمير* ، محمد عزت عبد السالم*

و إبراهيم عبد العظيم سعد**

مصر –مركز البحوث الزراعية –القطن * معيد بحوث مصر –مركز البحوث الزراعية –** معيد بحوث وقاية النبات

عمى تحسين بعض لديدان الموز الحشرية اإلصابةأجري ىذا البحث بيدف دراسة تأثير تحمل

يةاالقتصادوبعض الصفات لديدان الموز بين األصابو الحشريةالعالقة الصفات فى القطن ودراسة اليامو فى القطن.

جيزة , 58, جيزة 58, جيزة 07تراكيب وراثية ىي : جيزة وقد تم استخدام عشرة 52جيزة x 8, سوفين و اليجين بيما س 8, بيما س 9, كارشنسكي 171 , بيتيم 4اسكندرية ,29

ومن بين ىذه األصناف .Gossypium barbadense Lوكل ىذه األصناف تنتمي إلى النوع انالصنف نطبقا لمتصنيف العالمي فإن ىذاوىى ) 29, جيزة 07سبعة أصناف مصرية منيا جيزة

171 و بيتيم 4اسكندرية ,58, جيزة 58لألصناف جيزة باإلضافةلألصناف فائقة الطول( نممثالوىي أصناف مصرية ممثمة لألصناف طويمة التيمة وكذلك الصنف المصري 52جيزة 8Хو بيما س


و الصنف اليندي سوفين وىى تنتمي لألصناف 9و الصنف الروسي كارشنسكي 8ألمريكي بيما سا طويمة التيمة .

أجريت فى كل منيما تجربتان حقميتان فى 9775و 9770وفى خالل الموسمين الزراعيين ات مصر وكل تجربو منيما صممت فى قطاع –كفر الشيخ –مزرعة محطة البحوث الزراعية بسخا

العشرة وكل منيا مزروع فى التراكيب الوراثية كاممة العشوائية ذات أربع مكررات ويحتوى كل مكرر عمى . خمسة خطوط

اليامو فى القطن مثل بعض صفات مكونات االقتصاديةراسة بعض الصفات دوقد تم ر وتقديروصفة نسبة تركيز الجوسيبول فى جدار الموزة األخض المحصول وبعض صفات جودة التيمة

ثم تم تقدير المتوسطات وتحميل التباين وعالقتيا بكل ىذه الصفات الحشرية لديدان الموز نسبو اإلصابة .ومعامل االرتباط بين بعض الصفات اليامو

هذا ويمكن تمخيص النتائج المتحصل عميها من هذا البحث كاآلتى :وسوفين 58, جيزة 29, جيزة 52جيزة Х 8س التراكيب الوراثية بيما من *أظيرت النتائج أن كال

سجمت أعمى القيم في المتوسطات لمعظم الصفات المدروسة مقارنة بباقي التراكيب الوراثية األخرى بينما سجل أعمى القيم في المتوسطات لصفة طول وىو صنف مصري فائق الطول 07التركيب الوراثي جيزة

, 58كذلك سجمت التراكيب الوراثية جيزة فاضا فى المحصولوانخ التيمة ونسبة االنتظام في طول التيمةلديدان الحشريةأقل القيم في المتوسطات لنسبة اإلصابة 29, سوفين وجيزة 52جيزة Х 8س بيما

الموز وفي نفس الوقت أعمى القيم في المتوسطات لصفة تركيز نسبة الجوسيبول ولذلك كانت ىذه الذي أعطى 07في صفة محصول الشعر عكس التركيب الوراثي جيزة التراكيب الوراثية أعمى كذلك

كان من أكثر التراكيب الوراثية ارتفاعا في أقل محصول في الشعر وأقل نسبة تركيز لمجوسيبول لذلك نسبة اإلصابة الحشرية لديدان الموز لذلك فإن معرفة متوسط أداء التراكيب الوراثية لمصفات المدروسة

أو النتخاب التراكيب الوراثية األفضل واألحسن الستخداميا في برامج التربية المختمفة يكون ميم جدا .المباشرة الزراعة العامة فى استخداميا

إختبارات المعنوية لمتوسطات المربعات الخاصة بالتراكيب الوراثية أشارت * كذلك أوضحت النتائج أن لكل الصفات المدروسة في ن ىذه التراكيب الوراثيةالى أن ىناك اختالف وتباين عالى المعنوية بي

عالية المعنوية أيضا لكل الصفات المدروسة في الموسم الثاني عدا صفتي الموسم األول بينما كانت التراكيب ىذه وىذه النتائج تدل عمى وجود تباين وراثي بينوزن الموزة ونسبة االنتظام في طول التيمة

ك يمكن استخدام ىذه التراكيب الوراثية كمخزن متخصص لصفات معينة معروفة الوراثية المستخدمة لذل


لدييا أما تحميل التباين المشترك أوضح معنوية عالية لبعض الصفات وانعدام معنوية لصفات أخرى لمتوسطات المربعات يدل عمى أن أداء ىذه التراكيب الوراثية يتغير من سنة ألخرى والمعنوية العالية

لذلك يجب البيئيةأداء ىذه التراكيب الوراثية تحت الظروف الختالفويرجع ذلك م آلخرومن موستكرار تقييم ىذه التراكيب الوراثية تحت بيئات مختمفة لمحكم الصحيح عمى أداء ىذه التراكيب الوراثية

ذرة حيث أن ىذه الصفات صفات كمية.صفتي محصول الشعر ومعامل البل خاصةأن معامل االرتباط بين الصفات المدروسة سجمت أن معامل االرتباط بين محصول النتائجأوضحت *

القطن الشعر وصفة درجة االصفرار كانت معنوية سالبة وكذلك كانت معنوية سالبة مع صفة نسبة اإلصابة الحشرية لديدان الموز وكانت غير معنوية وسالبة لصفة طول التيمة لذلك فإن المحصول العالي

طول التيمة المحصول العالي و طول التيمة المنخفض ولذلك يجب كسر ىذا االرتباط بين كان مع ات المختمفة أو االنتخاب المتكرر.بالطفرات أو استخدام التصميم

لديدان الموزة وتركيز نسبة الجوسيبول في جدار الموز * كان معامل االرتباط بين نسبة اإلصابة الحشرية

نقاص نسبة اإلصابة األخضر كان غير معنوي وسالب وىذا يعني أىمية تركيز الجوسيبول لخفض وا .الحشرية لديدان الموز بدون تأثير سالب عمى محصول القطن

58, سوفين وجيزة 29, جيزة 52جيزة Х 8* أوضحت النتائج أن كال من التراكيب الوراثية بيما سلموز وكذلك كانت متفوقة في تركيز نسبة ديدان الكانت متفوقة في درجة تحمل اإلصابة الحشرية

الجوسيبول في جدار الموز األخضر مما يدل عمى أىمية نسبة تركيز الجوسيبول في تحمل اإلصابة فى ىذه التراكيب الوراثية وامكانية استخداميا فى برامج التربية المختمفة أو الحشرية لديدان الموز .العامة المباشرةاستعماليا فى الزراعة

EVALUATION OF SOME COTTON GENOTYPES FOR ABILITY TO INFESTATION TOLERANCE TO BOLLWORMS FOR IMPROVING...

Documents

Transcript of EVALUATION OF SOME COTTON GENOTYPES FOR ABILITY TO INFESTATION TOLERANCE TO BOLLWORMS FOR IMPROVING...