Skip to main content
Download PDF

Genetic analysis of yield traits in Egyptian cotton crosses (Gossypium barbdense L.) under normal conditions

BMC Plant Biology volume 22, Article number: 462 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

To generate high-yielding cultivars with favorable fiber quality traits, cotton breeders can use information about combining ability and gene activity within a population to locate elite parents and potential F1 crosses. To this end, in the current study, twelve cotton parents (eight genotypes as female parents and four testers) and their F1 crosses obtained utilizing the linex tester mating design were evaluated for their general and specialized combining abilities (GCA and SCA, respectively) of yield traits. The findings showed that for all the investigated variables, variances owing to genotypes, parents, crosses, and parent vs cross showed extremely significant (P ≤ 0.01) differences. Additionally, throughout the course of two growing seasons, the mean squares for genotypes (parents and crosses) showed strong significance for all the variables under study. The greatest and most desired means for all the examined qualities were in the parent G.94, Pima S6, and tester G.86. The best crossings for the qualities examined were G.86 (G.89 × G.86), G.93 × Suvin, and G.86 × Suvin. The parents' Suvin, G89x G86 and TNB were shown to have the most desired general combining ability effects for seed cotton yield/plant, lint yield/plant, boll weight, number of bolls/plants, and lint index, while Suvin, G.96 and pima S6 were preferred for favored lint percentage. For seed cotton yield, lint percentage, boll weight, and number of bolls per plant per year, the cross-G.86 x (G.89 × G.86) displayed highly significant specific combining ability impacts. The crosses G.86 × Suvin, Kar x TNB, G.93 × Suvin, and G.93 × TNB for all the studied traits for each year and their combined were found to have highly significant positive heterotic effects relative to better parent, and they could be used in future cotton breeding programs for improving the studied traits.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Cotton is one of the most essential multi-purposes crop due to a wide range of its benefits whether for human or animal such as feed, fiber, protein and oil. Despite the importance of cotton crop for many countries, its yield and productivity as any crop facing and affected by many environmental factors such as biotic and abiotic stresses. Therefore, the plant breeders meet a big challenge to improve cotton crop in terms of yield, yield components and fiber quality against theses harmful stresses [1]. Cotton improvement has targeted directedly towards yield and yield components characters for instance number of locules, boll size and number of bolls per plant, seeds per boll, seed size, lint index, seed index, and ginning outturn. Knowing how gene actions influence economic characteristics is essential for developing high-yielding and quality cultivars [2, 3]. Evaluating candidate lines' combining ability is not only critical for identifying superior combiner parents, but also to determine the type of gene action regulating trait inheritance [4]. Effects of combining ability are divided into general combining ability (GCA) of parents and specific combining ability (SCA) of their crosses. These effects of GCA and SCA are linked to additive and non-additive gene actions, respectively [5]. In the combining ability the entire genetic variability of each trait can be partitioned into GCA and SCA. Many authors mentioned that SCA effects are caused by genes that are non-additive (dominant or epistasis), whereas GCA effects are caused by genes that are additive in nature. They also emphasized the importance of non-additive gene activation for specific cotton characteristics [6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. They stressed upon the appreciable degree of variance to GCA and cleared the mean squares due to GCA and SCA were highly significant however the genetic variances due to SCA were greater than GCA for the yield traits showing the non – additive gene action [13, 14].

The main focus of the cotton improvement program was on developing hybrids, which has helped increase the productivity of cotton [15,16,17]. The most effective way to break yield barriers is through hybridization. It's not a good idea to choose parents based on their phenotypic performance alone, because lines with good phenotypes may produce bad recombinants in the generations that follow [18]. So, it is important that parents are chosen based on how well they can work together. Combining ability analysis is the most popular biometrical tool for finding potential parents and coming up with the best way to breed plants [19, 20].

The selection of parents or inbreeds based on their phenotypic diversity with strong combining ability is critical in developing better hybrids in a heterosis breeding program. The investigation of general and specific combining ability aids in the identification of parents or inbreeds for the generation of superior hybrids. The Line x Tester analysis is one of the easiest and most efficient methods of assessing the combining ability of many inbred/parents. Production of commercially viable hybrids is achievable based on the results of the Line x Tester analysis. Yield is a complicated polygenically inherited character that is the outcome of the multiplicative interaction of its constituent characteristics. Because it is heavily influenced by the environment, selecting solely on yield may limit future improvements. The yield component traits, on the other hand, are less complex in inheritance and are influenced by the environment to a smaller extent. Thus, selection on yield component quality can result in effective yield improvement. To differentiate between the high- and low-performing parents in a hybrid combination, data on the nature of gene activity must be evaluated. As a result, the line by tester approach aids in identifying the gene activity responsible for the manifestation of features of interest in both small and large sample sizes [21, 22]. A strategy like this also aids in the selection of prospective parents and crossing for the development of high-yielding hybrids [23]. Such a method also assists in the selection of promising parents and crosses for developing high-yielding hybrids [24,25,26,27,28,29] and provides information about GCA (additive) of parents and SCA (non-additive) of crosses, and at the same time, it helps identify the best heterotic crosses [30,31,32,33]. The most notable advantage of the line x tester technique over other crossing methods is that it requires fewer experimental materials for the mating procedure. The line x tester technique is used in cotton to study yield, its components, and fiber quality parameters [17, 34,35,36,37,38,39,40].

In this respect and with the above-mentioned various aspects of cotton background. The main objectives of the current research are to assess the combining ability, heterosis and performance of cotton for yield, and yield components using a line × tester mating design strategy, which helping the cotton breeder to determine best superior parents and progenies for simultaneous improvement of cotton crop for its yield, yield components and quality.

Materials and methods

The present investigation was carried out at Sakha Agricultural Research Station during the three growing seasons 2015, 2016 and 2017. The genetic materials used in the current study were twelve genotypes, four of them as tester male parents and eight genotypes as female parents. The names, origin of these cotton genotypes is furnished in (Table 1). In 2015 season the four male testers and the eight female parents were crossed according to line x tester design to produce 32 F1 top crosses as out lined by [41]. The twelve genotypes were grown with their 32F1 hybrids for two years 2016 and 2017, respectively. The experimental design was randomized complete blocks design with three replications. Each plot was represented by one row 4 m long and 0.7 m width and 40 cm between hills and one plant were left per hill. The recommended agricultural agronomic and cultural management practices (thinning, hoeing, fertilization, irrigation etc.) by agriculture research center (ARC) were applied at the proper time as and when required.

Table 1 The origin and the main characters of the parents
Full size table

At maturity stage, the data were collected and taken on the middle five plants, leaving two plants on either start or end of the row to avoid the border effects. Data were recorded on the following traits as described by [42]: Boll weight gram (B.W) was obtained from a random sample of 18 bolls collected from each plot to determine the boll weight. Seed cotton yield (g.) /plant (S.C.Y/P), It is the mean seed cotton yield harvested till final picking from the center row of each plot and expressed in grams. Lint cotton yield (g.)/plant (L.C.Y/P), It is the mean lint yield harvested and ginned till final picking from the center row of each plot and expressed in grams. Lint percentage (Ginning out turn) (L %), Seed cotton obtained from eighteen bolls for each plot chosen at random was ginned and the lint yield obtained from it was used for working out the GOT by the following formula:

$$GOT\mathrm{ \% }=\frac{weight of lint }{Weight of seed cotton }X 100$$

Seed index g. (S.I), by weighting of seed cotton (Sc) for one hundred seeds. Number of bolls/ plant (No. B./P) of random plants, Lint index (L.I), by weighting of lint from one hundred seeds.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed for each year. Combined analysis between the two years was done whenever homogeneity of error mean squares was detected for the studied characters according to [43]. The combining ability analysis was done using line x tester procedure as suggested by [41]. Heritability estimates were obtained as described by [44]. Path coefficient analysis was performed keeping single plant yield as the dependent variable and yield component characters with yield related traits as independent variables based on the scale of [45]. Heritability Estimates were obtained as described [38]. In R (version 3.5.2), all statistical analyses were conducted (R Core Team, 2020) where correlation diagram was performed using corrplot package cluster dendrogram and PCA biplot were conducted using factoextra package, and path analysis was performed with lavaan package.

The Shapiro–Wilk and Brown–Forsythe tests were used to determine whether the data had a normal distribution and whether the variances were homogeneous. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) and mean discrimination analysis were conducted on variables that met both assumptions.

Results

Dissecting of the relationship among parent genotypes (lines and testers)

The cluster analysis of six traits was conducted based on Euclidean distances using by unweighted paired group method using the arithmetic average (UPGMA). Based on the matrix data of dissimilarity coefficients, a dendrogram was performed as shown in Fig. 1. In this dendrogram, the twelve parental cotton genotypes were classified into three clusters. Cluster I included four parents and classified into two sub-clusters; (Giza 96 and Giza 70) in the first subcluster, and the other one (G.89 × G.86, and G86), while cluster II has the two closest parents Suvin and C.B58 in the first subcluster and the other one has one parent (TNB). Cluster III consisted of five parents and classified into two sub-clusters; one has four parents including Pima S6, and kar in the first sub-subcluster and Giza 93, G.94 in the second sub-subcluster while the other sub-cluster has only one parent (BBB). Genotypes grouped in the same cluster (intra cluster) are expected to be genetically more similar than genotypes grouped in different clusters (inter cluster).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Dendrogram based on dissimilarity coefficients for yield, and yield component measured on twelve parental cotton genotypes over two years of study

Full size image

Analysis of variance

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) shown in Table 2 indicated the individual effect of growing season lines, testers factors and their interactions on six studied traits. Effect of growing season (years) was significant for all studied traits. The genotype factor affected all studied traits highly significantly. For effect of different interactions between season, lines, and testers factors, year x treatment interaction showed a highly significant effect on all studied traits. The mean squares for lines, testers and their interaction L x T were highly significant for each year and their combined over two years and this could be due to genetic diversity of parents used to generate the hybrids and environmental influences. The interaction between crosses and their partitions (L, T, and LxT) with years LxY, TxY and Lx TxY were highly significant for all the studied traits, meaning that the genotypes and their partitions affected by years.

Table 2 The Mean squares of twelve parents and F1 for yield and yield components traits in two years and their combined data in line X testers hybrids of cotton
Full size table

Mean performance of genotypes

The mean performance of lines, testers, and their interaction for all studied traits in each year are showed in (Table 3). The performance of genotypes appeared to be vary across years with respect to their means for all the studied traits. The results also showed that the parent G.94 had the highest and most desirable mean values for seed cotton, lint cotton yield, lint percentage, and boll weight, while the parent Pima S6 had the best desirable values for number of bolls/ Plant and seed index. On the other hand, the tester G.86 gave the highest mean values for all the studied traits except seed index, whereas the tester BBB had the highest value for the trait seed index.

Table 3 The mean performances of eight parental lines and four testers for yield and yield components traits in two years
Full size table

The mean performance of the thirty-two top crosses in each year for all the studied traits are shown in (Table 4). The results showed that the Cross G. 86 X (G.89 X G86) had the highest values for seed cotton yield/ plant, lint cotton yield/ plant and numbers of bolls/ Plant with the mean values (387.14, 151.36 and 119.50) respectively. On the other hand, the Cross-G.93 X Suvin gave the highest value for seed index with the mean value (11.55). The highest value for lint percentage (40.30) obtained from the cross-G.86 X Suvin, while the highest value for boll weight was obtained from the cross Kar. X TNB (3.59 gm).

Table 4 The mean performances of the thirty-two top crosses for yield and yield components traits in two years
Full size table

Combining ability

General combining ability

The average of lines x testers crosses performances were used to estimate general combining ability effects (GCA). Estimates of general combining ability effects of lines and testers for all the studied traits in each year are presented in (Table 4), Data showed that the best desirable general combining ability effects for seed cotton yield/ plant, lint cotton yield/ plant, boll weight, number of bolls/ plant and lint index were found in the parents Suvin, G.89 X G.86 and TNB. Meanwhile for favorable lint percentage were Suvin, G.96 and Pima S6, where they exhibited highly significant positive estimates of general combining ability effects. The tester G.86 exhibited highly significant positive (desirable) general combining ability effects for seed cotton yield, lint cotton yield, lint percentage, number of bolls/ plant and seed index. Also, the tester G.93 exhibited highly significant positive general combining ability effects for seed cotton yield, lint cotton yield and boll weight.

Specific combining ability

The SCA mean squares were significant for all studied traits. Thus, the significance of SCA (variances due to lines x testers) implied that both additive and non-additive types of variation was available for all the characters, yet additive genes were more important than the dominant genes because variance due to GCA was higher than that of SCA. Estimates of specific combining ability effects of 32 crosses for all the studied traits for each year are presented in (Tables 5 and 6). Data showed that eight, six, three, six, five and five crosses exhibited highly significant positive (desirable) effects for seed cotton yield, lint yield, lint percentage, boll weight, number of boll/ plant and seed index, respectively. The cross G.86X (G.89 X G.86) expressed high significant specific combining ability effects for seed cotton yield, lint percentage, boll weight and amount of bolls/ plant in each year and over two years. Also, the cross-G.93 X C.B58 had desirable values of specific combining ability effects for seed cotton yield, lint yield, boll weight and amount of bolls/ plant. It could be concluded that the best combiner of specific combining ability effects (Desirable) for most traits in each year and both years might be prime importance in breading program. The other crosses exhibited significant negative or insignificant negative or positive specific combining ability effects (Undesirable) for these traits (Table 6).

Table 5 General combining ability effects of parental genotypes for yield and yield component traits in two years
Full size table
Table 6 Estimates of specific combining ability for yield and yield components in two years
Full size table

Estimation of heterosis

The mean due to crosses and parent vs. crosses were highly significant in F1 crosses, indicating the presence of heterosis in F1 generation (Table 2). The (parent vs. crosses) x years interaction was significant indicating that heterosis for the traits, boll weight, lint percentage, seed cotton yield, plant and lint yield/ plant were inconsistent across different years which reflects the importance of selection of crosses for each year to maximize the yielding ability. Heterosis expressed, as the percentage deviation (increase or decrease) of F1 mean performance from the corresponding better parent for all the studied traits are presented in (Table 7).

Table 7 Heterosis relative to the better parents for yield and yield components traits in the two years
Full size table

Regarding seed cotton yield/ plant, heterosis relative to better parent indicated twelve crosses showed highly significant positive heterosis values in each year. Where G.93 × Suvin exhibited highly significant positive heterosis for SCY. For lint cotton yield, eleven crosses exhibited highly significant positive heterosis relative to better parent in each year. With respect to lint percentage sixteen crosses showed highly significant positive heterosis relative to better parent in each ear and their combined.

For boll weight seven crosses gave significant positive heterotic effects relative to better parent in each year. The 32 F1 crosses exhibited highly significant positive heterosis relative to better parent for number of bolls/ plants in each year. Only four crosses (G.86 × Suvin), Kar. X TNB, G.93 X (G.89 X G.86) and G.93 × G.70 had highly significant positive heterosis relative to better parent in each year. The other crosses remaining exhibited significant negative or non-significant positive or negative values for these traits. It could be concluded that most of the crosses which exhibited highly significant positive heterosis relative to better parent could be utilized in perspective cotton breeding programs for improving these traits.

Path analysis

The result of direct and indirect correlation coefficients regressed with seed cotton yield was presented in Fig. 2 and path analysis diagram were further shown in Fig. 3. Lint yield had the highest significant positive direct effect on seed cotton yield (r = 0.99) which implied that lint yield could be used as marker for direct selection. Also, boll weight and number of bolls/plants showed significant positive direct effect on SCY (r = 0. 95 and r = 0.69). significant direct effect on SCY was recorded by BW (r = -0.59), The path coefficient analysis of indirect and direct effects of the associated traits with seed cotton yield revealed that LCY (r = 0.57) had the highest indirect contribution to seed cotton yield, followed by NOBP (r = 0.41), and BW (r = 0.16) indicating the importance of these traits to SCY. These need to be carefully considered simultaneously when selecting for yield improvement in cotton.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Pearson's genotypic correlation coefficients between the traits. LCY, lint cotton yield; SCY, seed cotton yield; SI, seed index; BW, boll weight; NoBP, number of bolls per plant; L, lint percentage. Crosses indicate non-significant correlations and non-crosses indicate significant correlation by t-test the 5% of probability

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Path diagram showing the direct effect of the 6 explanatory variables on seed cotton yield examined for parents, testers and F1 crosses that evaluated over two seasons of 2016 and 2017. Bidirectional arrows show correlation between the variables, and unidirectional arrows indicate a direct effect on the direction of the arrow, blue and red arrows represent positive and negative effects. Solid arrows indicate P < 0.05 and dashed arrows indicate P > 0.05. LCY, lint cotton yield; SCY, seed cotton yield; SI, seed index; BW, boll weight; NoBP, number of bolls per plant; L, lint percentage

Full size image

Regression analysis

Figure 4 provided the regression coefficients for all attributes and the regression coefficient of determination (R2). Figure 4 provides a graphic representation of the dependence of seed cotton yield (SCY) on key yield-related variables. The results revealed that LCY had the highest coefficient of determination (0.99), followed by No. B/P (0.95), and SI (0.69), while L percent had the lowest coefficient of determination (0.37), followed by No. B/P. (0. 59). Regression coefficient of LCY for BW, No. B/P, L percent, and SI showed that one unit's change in lint weight and boll weight caused a 59 percent, 93 percent, 50 percent, and 70 percent change (increase or decrease) in lint cotton yield (the dependent variable) (dependent variables). The range of the regression coefficient of L percent was 0.24 for BW and 0.38 for SI, respectively. In contrast, the range for BW was 0.56 (SI) to 0.3 9 (No. B/P).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Linear regression of the yield traits, LCY, lint cotton yield; SCY, seed cotton yield; SI, seed index; BW, boll weight; No. BP, number of bolls per plant; L, lint percentage, linear mixed-effects models (second to left-most column), and log-transformed mixed-effects regression (right-most column)

Full size image

Discussion

A "line x tester" analytical approach was used to develop 32 F1 hybrids from a cross between eight different cotton genotypes, or "female parental lines," and four high-yielding testers in this study. Using cluster analysis, we were able to see how the different lines and testers used to build heterotic pools related in terms of the six yield attributes we were looking at. Then, we were able to cross these lines and testers. Based on this study's findings on cluster analysis, it was decided to cross twelve different female paternal genotypes and testers, resulting in the development of super heterotic hybrid cottons. As a result of this research, we can confidently say that certain cotton types can be further altered for crossbreeding utilizing cluster analysis. Previously, similar findings were found in another experiment. [6, 46,47,48]. Because of the wide range in combing ability among the male parents studied, the four testers were classified into two distinct clusters. Genotypic performance was used to categorize cotton genotypes into distinct groups, which may be used in cross-breeding to produce transgressive segregants in the early generations [49,50,51,52,53].

The results of the F1 crosses, together with the twelve parent genotypes, were examined for six yield and yield components traits. Heterosis breeding can only succeed if the genetic diversity between female parent genotypes and tester lines can be accurately measured. There were substantial genetic differences among the 44 genotypes found by using ANOVA in this investigation (P < 0.01) for all traits, further subsequent analysis were performed to assess combining ability [41, 54,55,56]. In addition, highly significant differences were exhibited across female parental genotypes, testers, and their interaction for studied traits. Practically, the combining ability of genotypes is dissected to discover genotypes with high genetic potential for developing cross combinations with desired traits and to study the activity of genes involved in trait expression [33, 57,58,59,60]. Using the Line X Tester analytic method, we can better estimate and predict essential quantitative features, which is a well-established biometrical genetics-based approach in the context of this inquiry [5, 22, 25, 54, 61,62,63,64]

Combining ability is measured via two genetic parameters, GCA and SCA, which may be respectively controlled by the additive genetic effects and non-allelic interactions of the parents [33, 65, 66]. In this investigation, positive and negative GCA effects were exhibited for different genotypes of both female parental lines and testers, indicating possessing of promising good combiner and poor combiner in term of specific traits. Female parental genotypes with strong capacity to impart desired traits to their cross offspring could be used as a significant material to improve the qualities of interest, as these genotypes have good general combining ability [9, 67, 68]. The significant GCA effects revealed in this study were consistent with previous investigations [24, 47, 69,70,71,72]. Both female parental genotypes and testers (pollinators genotypes) with positive and significant GCA effect observed in the current study are of great importance since crossing between such good combiners would result in favorable hybrid combinations in consequent segregating populations, improving selection process for specific traits. Theoretically, high GCA impact could be attributed to additive gene effects or additive x additive gene interaction effects [33, 54, 73,74,75]. Highly significant GCA for female parental lines and testers for LCY noticed in this study further reveal vital role of additive type of gene effects in such trait. It is noteworthy that good combiners parents for SCY were also shown to be good combiners for the majority of its yield components [76,77,78]. As lint yield is significantly important in such fiber crops, the female parents Suvin, G.89 X G.86 and TNB represented the best general combiner in term of LCY, revealing the most favorable genotype among female parents.

Having promising genotypes with excellent fiber quality is also urgently needed due to the increasing global demand for textile products and fierce competition from current synthetic fibers and textile industry technologies [70, 79,80,81]. As a result of this study, we have provided favorable crossing material for quality traits characterized with highly positive GCA effects recorded by both female parents and testers for different quality traits. This includes female parents Suvin, G.96, Pima S6 as well as G.86 and G.93 as testers for seed cotton yield, lint cotton yield, lint percentage, number of bolls/plant and seed index.

As Often, the lint yield is negatively linked with fiber quality in cotton constituting unfavorable association which has impeded cotton breeding efforts to enhance multiple fiber properties [12, 82, 83]. This may shed the light on the necessity of designing breeding programs based on such promising parents in yield traits.

Furthermore, findings of the current investigation showed that specific combining ability was highly significant for all yield traits revealing the role of non-additive gene effects as dominance or epistatic controlling these traits. One of the most promising hybrids in respect to its specific combining ability for LCY, SCY, No. B/P, and SI is G.86X (G.89 X G.86). These promising hybrids could be selected for further recombination breeding programs based on their performance and significant specific combining ability. Nevertheless, not all of F1 hybrid combinations showed positive SCA values for all the evaluated traits concurrently, stating that specific hybrid combinations having high significant SCA for several traits had both parents with a good GCA [7, 61, 84, 85].

In general, variances of GCA and SCA point out the magnitude of gene action, and this further helps in developing an appropriate breeding strategy for future breeding programs [54, 86, 87]. Variances due to GCA effects (mean squares due to lines and testers) were lower than SCA (mean squares due to lines x testers) for some traits such as LCY, SCY, SI, and NoBP indicating that the non-additive type gene action (dominant or epistatic) played an important role in governing these traits. In contrast, GCA variances were greater than SCA variances for BW, L%, and SI, which reflect the importance of additive genes against those non-additive genes controlling these traits. These findings were in consistence with those previously [8, 12, 68, 88,89,90,91].

The regression analysis was conducted to investigate the dependence between several variables. All the yield-related traits are correlated with each other in a way that increases or decreases in one trait directly affects others. Thus, estimation of association among yield,, and yield components are helpful to initiate and select the most appropriate breeding methods [92]. Estimation of phenotypic correlation among the recorded traits showed that SCY had a significant and highly positive correlation with each of NBP and LCY, indicating that selection for these two traits in yield improvement program will increase the lint yield. Similar patterns of correlation were reported in previous studies by [3, 4, 15, 22, 23, 90, 92,93,94,95]. Boll weight showed a negative correlation with NB in all three environments [96]. Likewise, significant, and positive association between BW and NSB is highly beneficial since increase in boll weight will increase the number of seeds per boll, which in turn will result in increased surface area, enhancing the maximum lint percentage. Similarly with earlier investigations, the current study found negative correlations among yield related and fiber quality traits. Correlation between SCY and LCY with fiber quality traits showed non-significant association [97,98,99].

Despite being essential, the correlation coefficient can lead to misunderstandings regarding the relationship between two traits and does not have to be an accurate measure of cause and effect. Thus, the strength and efficiency of the correlation coefficient between two characters may be attributed to the influence possessed by a third trait or collection of traits on the traits, which does not provide the precise relative importance of the direct and indirect effects of the elements being studied [93]. These justifications have led to using path analysis in the current study. Strikingly, the largest direct effect of SCY on the dependent variable LCY in this study implied that SCY could be used as marker to improve LCY through direct selection process. These findings were in line with recent investigations [100, 101]. Furthermore, NBP showed the highest positive indirect contribution to lint cotton yield through SCY, followed by LI through SI, BW through SI which pinpoints the importance of these traits due to their indirect vital role on improvement of LCY. Such results claim that careful and simultaneous consideration should be attained when selecting for yield improvement strategy in cotton and confirms that selection for LCY should depend on such marker traits, as well.

Conclusion

The parent G.94 and Pima S6, as well as the tester G.86, had the best means for all the traits. The crosses G.86 (G.89 × G.86), G.93 × Suvin, and G.86 × Suvin were the elite genotype for all studied traits. The parents Suvin, G89x G86, and TNB had the most desirable GCA effects for SCY, LCY, BW, NOBP, and LI. Suvin, G.96, and pima S6 had the most desirable L%. The cross-G.86 x (G.89 × G.86) showed high significant SCA effects for SCY, L%, BW, and NOBP. whereas the crosses G.86 × Suvin, Kar x TNB, G.93 × Suvin, and G.93 × TNB had a highly significant positive heterotic effects for all the studied traits. This could be recommended this cross for use in future breeding programmes to improve both lint yield and fibre length.

Availability of data and materials

All the data are available in the manuscript and with Correspondence authors.

References

  1. Deussen H: Improved cotton fiber properties--the textile industry's key to success in global competition. In: Proceedings-Beltwide Cotton Conferences: 1993.

  2. Fasahat P, Rajabi A, Rad JM, Derera J. Principles and utilization of combining ability in plant breeding. Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal. 2016;4(1):1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fasoula VA, Fasoula DA, Kang MS: Handbook of Formulas and Software for Plant Geneticists and Breeders. 2003.

  4. Böhm J, Schipprack W, Mirdita V, Utz HF, Melchinger AE. Breeding potential of European flint maize landraces evaluated by their testcross performance. Crop Sci. 2014;54(4):1665–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Falconer DS: Introduction to quantitative genetics: Pearson Education India; 1996.

  6. Abrha SW, Zeleke HZ, Gissa DW. Line x tester analysis of maize inbred lines for grain yield and yield related traits. Asian journal of plant science and research. 2013;3(5):12–9.

    Google Scholar 

  7. El-Hosary AAA, El-Fiki IAI. Diallel cross analysis for earliness, yield, its components and resistance to late wilt in maize. Int J Agric Sci Res. 2015;5:199–210.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kumar KJY: Combining ability and heterosis studies in experimental hybrids of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). 2008.

  9. Nirania KS, Chhabra BS, Jain PP, Dutt Y. Heterosis for yield and its component traits in genetic male sterility based upland cotton hybrids. J Cotton Res Develop. 2004;18:145–9.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nyaligwa L. Genetic diversity analysis of elite maize inbred lines of diverse sources using SSR markers. Maydica. 2016;60(3):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rahman H, Malik SA, Saleem M. Inheritance of seed physical traits in upland cotton under different temperature regimes. Span J Agric Res. 2005;2:225–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yehia WMB, El-Hashash EF: Combining ability effects and heterosis estimates through line x tester analysis for yield, yield components and fiber traits in Egyptian cotton. Journal of Agronomy 2019, 10.

  13. Salama EA, Kumaravadivel N, Mohankumar S, Muthukrishnan NJI: Character association and path coefficient analysis of shoot fly resistance and yield components in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench). 2020, 8(2):1776–1781.

  14. Al-Nemi R, Makki AA, Sawalha K, Hajjar D, Jaremko MJM. Untargeted Metabolomic Profiling and Antioxidant Capacities of Different Solvent Crude Extracts of Ephedra foeminea. 2022;12(5):451.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Chowdhary MA, Sajad M, Ashraf MI. Analysis on combining ability of metric traits in bread wheat. Triticum aestivum J Agric Res. 2007;45(1):11–8.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Aseel DG, Elkobrosy DH, Abdelsalam NR, El-Saedy MA, Shama S, Hafez EEJJom, biotechnology, sciences f: The effect of cyst nematode (Globodera rostochiensis) isolate DDH1 On Gene Expression In Systemic Leaves Of Potato Plant: Cyst nematode and gene expression. 2020, 10(1):93–97.

  17. Tabussam N, Rana RM, Wattoo FM, Khan AI, Amir RM, Javed T, Ahmar S, Dessoky ES, Abdelsalam NRJMBR: Single nucleotide polymorphism based assessment of genetic diversity in local and exotic onion genotypes. 2022:1–10.

  18. Alam MS, Kong J, Tao R, Ahmed T, Alamin M, Alotaibi SS, Abdelsalam NR, Xu J-HJP. CRISPR/Cas9 Mediated Knockout of the OsbHLH024 Transcription Factor Improves Salt Stress Resistance in Rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plants (Basel). 2022,;11(9):1184.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Abdelsalam NR, Balbaa MG, Osman HT, Ghareeb RY. Desoky E-SM. Elshehawi AM, Aljuaid BS, Elnahal ASJSJoBS: Inheritance of resistance against northern leaf blight of maize using conventional breeding methods. 2022;29(3):1747–59.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Badshah SL, Faisal S, Muhammad A, Poulson BG. Emwas AH. Jaremko MJB, Pharmacotherapy: Antiviral activities of flavonoids. 2021;140: 111596.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Moustafa ESA, Ali MMA, Kamara MM, Awad MF, Hassanin AA, Mansour E: Field Screening of Wheat Advanced Lines for Salinity Tolerance. Agronomy 2021, 11, 281. In.: s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published …; 2021.

  22. Mutimaamba C, MacRobert J, Cairns JE, Magorokosho C, Ndhlela T, Mukungurutse C, Minnaar-Ontong A, Labuschagne M. Line× tester analysis of maize grain yield under acid and non-acid soil conditions. Crop Sci. 2020;60(2):991–991.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Swati PG, Ramesh BR. The nature and divergence in relation to yield traits in rice germplasm. Ann Agric Res. 2004;25(4):598–602.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Basbag S, Ekinci R, Gencer O. Combining ability and heterosis for earliness characters in line× tester population of Gossypium hirsutum L. Hereditas. 2007;144(5):185–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jain SK, Sastry EVD: Heterosis and combining ability for grain yield and its contributing traits in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Agriculture and Allied Science 2012, 1(1):17–22.

  26. Rashid M, Cheema AA, Ashraf M. Line x tester analysis in basmati rice. Pak J Bot. 2007;39(6):2035–42.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Abdelghany AM, El-Banna AAA, Salama EAA, Ali MM, Al-Huqail AA, Ali HM, Paszt LS, El-sorady G, Lamlom SF: The Individual and Combined Effect of Nanoparticles and Biofertilizers on Growth, Yield, and Biochemical Attributes of Peanuts (Arachis hypogea L.). J Agronomy 2022.

  28. Abdelghany AM, Zhang S, Azam M, Shaibu AS, Feng Y, Qi J, Li J, Li Y-F, Tian Y, Hong H-l et al: Exploring the Phenotypic Stability of Soybean Seed Compositions Using Multi-Trait Stability Index Approach. J Agronomy 2021.

  29. Youssef MA, Yousef AF, Ali MM, Ahmed AI, Lamlom SF, Strobel WR, Kalaji HM: Exogenously applied nitrogenous fertilizers and effective microorganisms improve plant growth of stevia (Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni) and soil fertility. J AMB Express 2021, 11.

  30. Akaogu IC, Badu-Apraku B, Adetimirin VO, Vroh-Bi I, Oyekunle M, Akinwale RO. Genetic diversity assessment of extra-early maturing yellow maize inbreds and hybrid performance in Striga-infested and Striga-free environments. J Agric Sci. 2013;151(4):519–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bradshaw JE. Plant breeding: past, present and future. Euphytica. 2017;213(3):60–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Salem TSG, Rabie HA, Mowafy SAE, Eissa AEM, Mansour E: COMBINING ABILITY AND GENETIC COMPONENTS OF EGYPTIAN COTTON FOR EARLINESS, YIELD, AND FIBER QUALITY TRAITS. SABRAO Journal of Breeding & Genetics 2020, 52(4).

  33. Sprague GF, Tatum LA: General vs. specific combining ability in single crosses of corn. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy 1942.

  34. Karademir E, Karademir Ç, Başal H: Combining Ability and Line x Tester Analysis on Heat Tolerance in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). 2016.

  35. Khokhar E, Shakeel A, Maqbool M, Abuzar M, Zareen S, Aamir S, Asadullah MJPJoAR: Studying combining ability and heterosis in different cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) genotypes for yield and yield contributing traits. 2018, 31(1):55–68.

  36. Patel B, Patel M, Patel JJEJoPB: Combining ability and gene action for grain yield and its attributing traits in pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum [L.] R. Br.). 2018, 9(4):1396–1402.

  37. Rajeev S, Patil S, Manjula S, Pranesh K, Kencharaddi HJIJoCM, Sciences A: Studies on heterosis in cotton interspecific heterotic group hybrids (G. hirsutum X G. barbadense) for seed cotton yield and its components. 2018, 7(10):3437–3451.

  38. Ridgman WJTJoAS: Statistical Methods, 8th edn, by GW Snedecor & WG Cochran. xx+ 503 pp. Ames: Iowa State University Press (1989). $44.95 (hard covers). ISBN 0 8138 1561 6. 1990, 115(1):153–153.

  39. Lamlom SF, Zhang Y, Su B, Wu H, Zhang X, Fu J, Zhang B, Qiu L-JJTCJ: Map-based cloning of a novel QTL qBN-1 influencing branch number in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. 2020, 8(5):793–801.

  40. Ullah A, Munir S, Badshah SL, Khan N, Ghani L, Poulson BG, Emwas A-H, Jaremko MJM. Important flavonoids and their role as a therapeutic agent. 2020;25(22):5243.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Kempthorne O: An introduction to genetic statistics. 1957.

  42. Abdallah SEDI: Combining Ability and Heterosis for Earliness, Seed Cotton Yield and Fiber Traits in Half Diallel Crosses of Egyptian Cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.) in Central Sudan. University of Gezira; 2018.

  43. Snedecor G, Cochran W: Statistical methods 8th ed.,(pp. 235–236). In.: Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press; 1989.

  44. Burton GW, Devane dEJAj: Estimating heritability in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) from replicated clonal material 1. 1953, 45(10):478–481.

  45. Lenka D. Mishra BJIJAS: Path coefficient analysis of yield in rice varieties. 1973;43(4):376.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ahmad F, Khan S, Latif A, Khan H, Khan A, Nawaz A. Genetics of yield and related traits in bread wheat over different planting dates using diallel analysis. Afr J Agric Res. 2011;6(6):1564–71.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ahmadi J, Zali AA, Samadi BY, Talaie A, Ghannadha MR, Saeidi A. A study of combining ability and gene effect in bread wheat under stress conditions by diallel method. Iranian J Agric Sci. 2003;34(1):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Elmardy NA, Yousef AF, Lin K, Zhang X, Ali MM, Lamlom SF, Kalaji HM, Kowalczyk K, Xu YJPo. Photosynthetic performance of rocket (Eruca sativa. Mill.) grown under different regimes of light intensity, quality, and photoperiod. PLoS One. 2021;16(9):e0257745.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Akter T, Islam A, Rasul MG, Kundu S, Ahmed JU. Evaluation of genetic diversity in short duration cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J Cotton Res. 2019;2(1):1–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Ali M, Mian MAK, Rasul MG, Miah MAA, Alam MZ, Hossain MA. Genetic diversity in local aromatic rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes. Bangladesh J Plant Breed Genet. 2012;25(2):33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Allard RW: Principles of plant breeding: John Wiley & Sons; 1999.

  52. Deshpande LA, Baig KS. Combining ability analysis for yield, economic and morphological traits in American cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J Res Acharya NG Ranga Agric Univ. 2003;31(3):28–34.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mahpara S, Bashir MS, Ullah R, Bilal M, Kausar S, Latif MI, Arif M, Akhtar I, Brestic M, Zuan ATK, et al. Field screening of diverse wheat germplasm for determining their adaptability to semi-arid climatic conditions. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(3): e0265344.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Kaushik P, Dhaliwal MS. Diallel analysis for morphological and biochemical traits in tomato cultivated under the influence of tomato leaf curl virus. Agronomy. 2018;8(8):153–153.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Morsy MI, Alakeel KA, Ahmed AE, Abbas AM, Omara AI, Abdelsalam NR, Emaish HH. Recycling rice straw ash to produce low thermal conductivity and moisture-resistant geopolymer adobe bricks. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. 2022;29(5):3759–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Alam MS, Kong J, Tao R, Ahmed T, Alamin M, Alotaibi SS, Abdelsalam NR, Xu J-H. CRISPR/Cas9 Mediated Knockout of the OsbHLH024 Transcription Factor Improves Salt Stress Resistance in Rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plants. 2022;11(9):1184.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Gheith E, El-Badry OZ, Kandil EE, Lamlom SF, Abdelsalam NR: Maize (Zea mays L.) productivity and nitrogen use efficiency in response to nitrogen application levels and time. Frontiers in Plant Science 2022:2149.

  58. Nawaz MF, Rashid MHU, Saeed-Ur-Rehman M, Gul S, Farooq TH, Sabir MA, Iftikhar J, Abdelsalam NR, Dessoky ES, Alotaibi SS. Effect of Dust Types on the Eco-Physiological Response of Three Tree Species Seedlings: Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Conocarpus erectus and Bombax ceiba. Atmosphere. 2022;13(7):1010.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Hassan MU, Ghareeb RY, Nawaz M, Mahmood A, Shah AN, Abdel-Megeed A, Abdelsalam NR, Hashem M, Alamri S, Thabit MA. Melatonin: A Vital Pro-Tectant for Crops against Heat Stress: Mechanisms and Prospects. Agronomy. 2022;12(5):1116.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. AlSalem HS, Keshk AA, Ghareeb RY, Ibrahim AA, Abdelsalam NR, Taher MM, Almahri A, Abu-Rayyan A. Physico-chemical and biological responses for hydroxyapatite/ZnO/graphene oxide nanocomposite for biomedical utilization. Mater Chem Phys. 2022;283: 125988.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Badu-Apraku B, Oyekunle M, Akinwale RO, Aderounmu M. Combining ability and genetic diversity of extra-early white maize inbreds under stress and nonstress environments. Crop Sci. 2013;53(1):9–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Banumathy S, Shanti P. Diallel analysis for seed cotton yield and its components in cotton. Annals of Plant Physiology. 2000;14(1):56–61.

    Google Scholar 

  63. El-Mowafi HF, AlKahtani MDF, Abdallah RM, Reda AM, Attia KA, El-Hity MA, El-Dabaawy HE, Husnain LA, Al-Ateeq TK, El-Esawi MA. Combining Ability and Gene Action for Yield Characteristics in Novel Aromatic Cytoplasmic Male Sterile Hybrid Rice under Water-Stress Conditions. Agriculture. 2021;11(3):226–226.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Rathinavel K. Principal component analysis with quantitative traits in extant cotton varieties (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and parental lines for diversity. Curr Agric Res J. 2018;6(1):54–54.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Choudhary RC, Bairwa H, Kumar U, Javed T, Asad M, Lal K, Mahawer L, Sharma S, Singh P, Hassan MM. Influence of organic manures on soil nutrient content, microbial population, yield and quality parameters of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) cv. Bhagwa. PLoS One. 2022;17(4):e0266675.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Abbas A, Shah AN, Shah AA, Nadeem MA, Alsaleh A, Javed T, Alotaibi SS, Abdelsalam NR. Genome-Wide Analysis of Invertase Gene Family, and Expression Profiling under Abiotic Stress Conditions in Potato. Biology. 2022;11(4):539.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Han Y-y, Wang K-y, Liu Z-q, Pan S-h, Zhao X-y. Zhang Q, Wang S-f: Research on Hybrid Crop Breeding Information Management System Based on Combining Ability Analysis. Sustainability. 2020;12(12):4938–4938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Liu YX, Han XM. Research on the combining ability and inheritance of 12 economic characters in upland cotton. China cottons. 1998;25(3):9–11.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Balestre M, Von Pinho RG, Souza JC, Lima JL. Comparison of maize similarity and dissimilarity genetic coefficients based on microsatellite markers. Genet Mol Res. 2008;7(3):695–705.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Mangi N, Nazir MF, Wang X, Iqbal MS, Sarfraz Z, Jatoi GH, Mahmood T, Ma Q, Shuli F. Dissecting Source-Sink Relationship of Subtending Leaf for Yield and Fiber Quality Attributes in Upland Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Plants. 2021;10(6):1147–1147.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Saitwal VM: Heterosis and Combining Ability for Yield and Fiber Qualities of Upland Cotton Under High Density Planting Conditions for India. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University.; 2017.

  72. Ghareeb RY. Shams El-Din NGE-D, Maghraby DME, Ibrahim DS, Abdel-Megeed A, Abdelsalam NR: Nematicidal activity of seaweed-synthesized silver nanoparticles and extracts against Meloidogyne incognita on tomato plants. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Munir S, Qureshi MK, Shahzad AN, Nawaz I, Anjam S, Rasul S, Zulfiqar MA. Genetic dissection of interspecific and intraspecific hybrids of cotton for morpho-yield and fiber traits using multivariate analysis. Pak J Agric Res. 2020;33(1):9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Samreen K, Baloch MJ, Soomro ZA, Kumbhar MB, Khan NU, Kumboh N, Jatoi WA, Veesar NF. Estimating combining ability through Line× Tester analysis in upland Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Sarhad J Agric. 2008;24(4):581–6.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Singh RK: Biometrical methods in Quantitative Genetic Analysis. Kalyani Pub. Ludhiana. New Delhi, Revised Ed 1985, 318.

  76. Richika R, Rajeswari S, Premalatha N, Thirukumaran K. Heterosis and combining ability analysis for yield contributing traits and fibre quality traits in interspecific cotton hybrids (Gossypiumhirsutum L. x Gossypium barbadense L.). Electron J Plant Breed. 2021;12(3):934–40.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Abdelsalam NR, Balbaa MG, Osman HT, Ghareeb RY. Desoky E-SM, Elshehawi AM, Aljuaid BS, Elnahal AS: Inheritance of resistance against northern leaf blight of maize using conventional breeding methods. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. 2022;29(3):1747–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Ahmad H, Zahid M, Rehan ZA, Rashid A, Akram S, Aljohani MM, Mustafa SK, Khalid T, Abdelsalam NR, Ghareeb RY. Preparation of Polyvinylidene Fluoride Nano-Filtration Membranes Modified with Functionalized Graphene Oxide for Textile Dye Removal. Membranes. 2022;12(2):224.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Fang DD, Jenkins JN, Deng DD, McCarty JC, Li P, Wu J. Quantitative trait loci analysis of fiber quality traits using a random-mated recombinant inbred population in Upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). BMC genomics. 2014;15(1):1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Akhtar G, Faried HN, Razzaq K, Ullah S, Wattoo FM, Shehzad MA, Sajjad Y, Ahsan M, Javed T, Dessoky ES. Chitosan-Induced Physiological and Biochemical Regulations Confer Drought Tolerance in Pot Marigold (Calendula officinalis L.). Agronomy. 2022;12(2):474.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Ghareeb RY, Abdelsalam NR, El Maghraby DM, Ghozlan MH, Eman E-A, Abou-Shanab RA: Oscillatoria sp. as a Potent Anti-phytopathogenic Agent and Plant Immune Stimulator Against Root-Knot Nematode of Soybean cv. Giza 111. Frontiers in Plant Science 2022, 13.

  82. Kumar V, Maloo SR. Heterosis and combining ability studies for yield components and grain protein content in bread wheat Triticum aestivum (L.). Indian J Genet Plant Breed. 2011;71(4):363–363.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Yu J, Zhang K, Li S, Yu S, Zhai H, Wu M, Li X, Fan S, Song M, Yang D. Mapping quantitative trait loci for lint yield and fiber quality across environments in a Gossypium hirsutum× Gossypium barbadense backcross inbred line population. Theor Appl Genet. 2013;126(1):275–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Allard RW, Bradshaw AD. Implications of genotype-environmental interactions in applied plant breeding 1. Crop Sci. 1964;4(5):503–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Wan Q, Zhang Z, Hu M, Chen L, Liu D, Chen X, Wang W, Zheng J. T 1 locus in cotton is the candidate gene affecting lint percentage, fiber quality and spiny bollworm (Earias spp.) resistance. Euphytica. 2007;158(1):241–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Ghareeb RY, Alfy H, Fahmy AA, Ali HM, Abdelsalam NR. Utilization of Cladophora glomerata extract nanoparticles as eco-nematicide and enhancing the defense responses of tomato plants infected by Meloidogyne javanica. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Youssef NH, Al-Huqail AA, Ali HM, Abdelsalam NR, Sabra MA. The role of Serendipita indica and Lactobacilli mixtures on mitigating mycotoxins and heavy metals’ risks of contaminated sewage sludge and its composts. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Iqbal M, Navabi A, Salmon DF, Yang R-C, Murdoch BM, Moore SS, Spaner D. Genetic analysis of flowering and maturity time in high latitude spring wheat. Euphytica. 2007;154(1):207–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Rao PJM, Gopinath M. Association analysis of yield and fibre quality characters in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Aust J Basic Appl Sci. 2013;7(8):787–90.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Zafar MM, Manan A, Razzaq A, Zulfqar M, Saeed A, Kashif M, Khan AI, Sarfraz Z, Mo H, Iqbal MS. Exploiting Agronomic and Biochemical Traits to Develop Heat Resilient Cotton Cultivars under Climate Change Scenarios. Agronomy. 2021;11(9):1885–1885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Zhang X, Yong H, Zhou Z, Zhang C, Lu M, Sun Q, Zhang L, Li M, Zhang D, Weng J. Heterosis and combining ability of seven maize germplasm populations. Euphytica. 2017;213(2):45–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Teklewold A, Jayaramaiah H, Jagadeesh BN. Correlations and path analysis of physio-morphological characters of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) as related to breeding method. Helia. 2000;23(32):105–14.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Cruz CD, Regazzi AJ, Carneiro PCS. Modelos biométricos aplicados ao melhoramento genético (volume 1. Viçosa, Editora UFV. 2004;1:480p–480p.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Fao: Recent trends and prospects in the world cotton market and policy developments.Rome. Rome; 2021.

  95. Yan W, Hunt LA. Biplot analysis of diallel data. Crop Sci. 2002;42(1):21–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Kumar P, Nimbal S, Sangwan RS, Budhlakoti N, Singh V, Mishra DC: Identification of Novel Marker–Trait Associations for Lint Yield Contributing Traits in Upland Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Using SSRs. Frontiers in plant science 2021, 12.

  97. Desalegn Z, Ratanadilok N, Kaveeta R: Correlation and heritability for yield and fiber quality parameters of Ethiopian cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) estimated from 15 (diallel) crosses. Agriculture and Natural Resources 2009, 43(1):1–11.

  98. El-Moghny AMA, Mariz SM, Reham HAG. Nature of genetic divergence among some cotton genotypes. Journal of Cotton Science. 2015;19(3):368–74.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Abdelsalam NR, Awad RM, Ali HM, Salem MZ, Abdellatif KF, Elshikh MSJH: Morphological, pomological, and specific molecular marker resources for genetic diversity analyses in fig (ficus carica l.). 2019, 54(8):1299–1309.

  100. Mahdy EE, Mahrous H, Sayed MA, Housein MG. Salinity indices and path analysis in Egyptian long-staple cotton cultivars. SVU-International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2021;3(4):105–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Abdelsalam NR, Salem MZ, Ali HM, Mackled MI, Mervat E-H. Elshikh MS. Hatamleh AAJIC, Products: Morphological, biochemical, molecular, and oil toxicity properties of Taxodium trees from different locations. 2019;139: 111515.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to acknowledge their universities for supporting the research

Funding

Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Kafr El-Sheikh University, Kafr el-Sheikh, 33516, Egypt

    M. S. Abdel-Aty & A Youssef-Soad

  2. Cotton Breeding Department, Cotton Research Institute, Agriculture Research Center, Giza, Egypt

    W. M. B. Yehia, R. T. E. EL-Nawsany & H. M. K. Kotb

  3. Plant Pathology Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Moshtohor, Benha University, Banha, Egypt

    Gamal A. Ahmed

  4. Bioinformatics Department, Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Research Institute, University of Sadat City, Sadat City, Egypt

    Mohamed E. Hasan

  5. Agricultural Botany Department, Faculty of Agriculture (Saba Basha), Alexandria University, Alexandria, 21531, Egypt

    Ehab A. A. Salama & Nader R. Abdelsalam

  6. Plant Production Department, Faculty of Agriculture (Saba Basha), Alexandria University, Alexandria, 21531, Egypt

    Sobhi F. Lamlom & Fouad H. Saleh

  7. Department of Agricultural Engineering, Khwaja Fareed University of Engineering and Information Technology, Rahim Yar Khan, 64200, Punjab, Pakistan

    Adnan Noor Shah

Authors
  1. M. S. Abdel-Aty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A Youssef-Soad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. M. B. Yehia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. T. E. EL-Nawsany
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. M. K. Kotb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gamal A. Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mohamed E. Hasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ehab A. A. Salama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sobhi F. Lamlom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Fouad H. Saleh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Adnan Noor Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Nader R. Abdelsalam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.M.S., Y.S.A., W.M.B.Y., R.T.E.E., and H.M.K.K. wrote the main manuscript text and. G.A.A., M.E.H., E.A.A.S., S.F.L., F.H.S., N.R.A. A.N.S. editing and reviewing and prepared figures. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nader R. Abdelsalam.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects. The current experimental research and field study including the collection of plant material, is comply with relevant institutional, national, and international guidelines and legislation and used for research and development.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdel-Aty, M.S., Youssef-Soad, A., Yehia, W.M.B. et al. Genetic analysis of yield traits in Egyptian cotton crosses (Gossypium barbdense L.) under normal conditions. BMC Plant Biol 22, 462 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-022-03839-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-022-03839-8

Keywords

BMC Plant Biology

ISSN: 1471-2229

Contact us