You are on page 1of 21

144

SABRAO Journal of Breeding and Genetics 43 (2) 144-164, 2011

ECONOMIC HETEROSIS FOR MORPHO-YIELD TRAITS IN F1 AND F2 DIALLEL CROSSES OF UPLAND COTTON
NAQIB ULLAH KHAN
Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural University, Peshawar 25130, Pakistan. *Corresponding Author: nukmarwat@yahoo.com

SUMMARY
Heterosis in upland cotton has been exploited for many decades, but efforts have not bestowed the predictable results due to its predominant nature of self-pollination and floral structure. Currently, hand pollinated hybrid seed is being used for hybrid cotton production in some countries. Thirty F1 and F2 diallel cross combinations with six parental upland cotton genotypes were used to evaluate genetic potential, heterobeltiosis in F1 and F2 populations, economic heterosis in F1s and inbreeding depression in F2s during 2007 to 2009. Analysis of variance revealed highly significant variation among F1s, F2s and their parents. Cultivar CIM-1100 exhibited exceptional performance as paternal/maternal parent in crossing with other cultivars. Positive heterobeltiotic values were also exhibited by F1 and F2 hybrids. Positive economic heterotic values were recorded as 80% in F1 hybrids for plant height, 97% for sympodia, 60% for boll weight, 83% for bolls per plant, and 60% for seed cotton yield. However, some F2s showed inbreeding depression for the above traits. Results revealed that the F1 and F2 cross combinations obtained from good with medium/poor performing parents had relatively high dominant effects and exceeded check cultivars and their better parents.

Key words: Diallel cross, economic heterosis, inbreeding depression, seed cotton yield, upland cotton

INTRODUCTION Plant breeding deals fundamentally with selection of improved genotypes within genetically heterogeneous populations. The basic aim of autogamous breeding programs is the creation of hybrids and pure lines of high economic value selected out of hybrids or segregating populations. The

144

populations used for selection could be local land races, exotic germplasm or to gain products from the crossing of preferred genotypes (Aguiar et al., 2007). In such crosses, promising allelic combinations are expected to originate new commercial hybrids/cultivars that are highly adapted to cotton growing regions. Some phases in this process are extremely important such as selection of parents, identification of the best hybrid combinations, maternal effects and genotype vs environment effects under the given environment. Heterosis (over better parent) works as a basic tool for increased production of F1 and F2 hybrids. Economic heterosis is the improved production of F1 and F2 hybrids over standard/existing cultivars. However, heterosis not only provides the basis for exploitation of valuable hybrid combinations but also guides breeders for their commercial utilization in future breeding programs. It also contributes to choosing potential parents with desired genetic variance, vigor and maternal effects. Hybrid cotton is a vital approach for bringing significant improvement in genetic potential of morphological, yield and fiber quality traits and has attracted cotton breeders for commercial growing of F1 hybrids (Meredith, 1990; Baloch et al., 1993; Meredith and Brown, 1998; Khan et al., 1999, 2000, 2009; Wu et al., 2004). Cook (1909) was the first to utilize the hybrid vigor in interspecific hybrids (G. barbadense × G. hirsutum) and after that a number of workers all over the world supported his conclusions. However, the efforts have not delivered the expected results due to self-pollination which has some different implications on hybrid seed production in comparison to cross pollinated crops. In countries like India and China, where labor is cheaper, hybrid cotton has been successfully grown on a large scale since 1960s (Wang and Li, 2000; Khan et al., 2007). The F1 hybrids with high heterosis were also associated with higher inbreeding depression, so the moderate type of heterosis has some stability in advanced segregating generations (Tang et al. 1993; Soomro, 2000; Soomro and Kalhoro, 2000; Khan et al., 2009). In intra- and interspecific heterosis, the yield increase over the better parent (useful heterosis) or standard commercial cultivar (economic heterosis) has been documented in numerous reviews (Baloch et al., 1993; Galanopoulou and Roupakias, 1999; Wei et al., 2002; Yuan et al. 2001, 2002; Khan et al., 2007). Nevertheless, both positive and negative heterotic values have been detected, demonstrating the potentiality of hybrid combinations for traits’ improvement in breeding programs (Hassan et al., 1999; Aguiar et al., 2007). Dong et al. (2007) mentioned significant economic heterosis in seed cotton yield and yield contributing traits over check cultivar. Apart from the F1s, the F2 hybrids have larger heterogeneity and genetic variation, which may result in a greater adaptation relative to their parents and F1 hybrids (Meredith and Brown, 1998; Wu et al., 2004),

145

1991. Pakistan. Li et al. economic heterosis and inbreeding depression among various populations for morpho-yield traits of cotton.914 million bales (FBS. BH-36 and CRIS-9) of upland cotton varying in pedigree. Tang et al. year of release. and even less when heterosis is defined in terms of the higher yielding parent. Tang et al. Six diverse genotypes (CIM-109. 2007). 2003.106 million hectares and seed cotton production was 12. Seed cotton yield. 1990). Peshawar. Nonetheless. a thorough knowledge about the genetic potential and mean performance of different F1 and F2 hybrids and extent of relationship and association of seed cotton yield with various agronomic characters is indispensable for breeders to successfully increase the yield.. the cotton crop was grown on 3. Wang and Pan..146 and F2s also exhibited superiority over their better parents when grown under stress conditions. 2010). 1990. F2 hybrids with lower inbreeding depression in yield and superior in other traits over well-adapted cultivars have also been found (Meredith. Thus. Meredith (1990) demonstrated that F2s can even produce better yield and fiber quality over their parents. 2000. Previous finding are also of same view about the F2 hybrids’ heterosis in cotton (Wang and Pan. Khan et al. FH-682... 1991. Xing et al. Results from various studies also indicated that yield performance of F2s was highly correlated with F1s and parental combinations. a complex character is the product of interaction of multiple genes is largely affected by varying environmental conditions. During 2009-10. and the importance of selected hybrids which have lower inbreeding depression and superior performance over well-adapted cultivars mandated cotton breeders to evaluate the manifestation of genetic variability and performance in terms of heterosis over better parents. 1993. CIM-1100. 1993. The existence of such hybrids lends credibility to the use of F2s in hybrid cotton production. and in some cases the F2 heterosis was equivalent to F1 heterosis (Meredith.. 2000. 37 ′ East longitude. 02 ′ North latitude and 71°. and F2 populations of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. 2007). CIM-240. Yet Pakistan’s per unit area yield is low compared with other cotton growing countries. It is expected that F2 populations express 50% of the economic heterosis shown by F1 hybrids.) and was conducted during 2007 to 2009 at Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural University. Pakistan is the fourth largest cotton producer in the world. Peshawar lies between 34°. and morphological-yield 146 . MATERIALS AND METHODS Breeding material and experimental procedure The experimental material comprised F1. with the crop occupying 12% of the total cultivated area. The economic significance of hybrid cotton cultivation. Khan.

respectively. (1999.traits were sown in a non-replicated crossing block during May. Crosses were made in complete diallel fashion. sympodia (fruiting branches) per plant (#). boll weight (g). respectively. number of bolls (#) and seed cotton yield per plant (g). 2007). and parents. For assessment of economic heterosis. F2s. Parents and F1s were planted in two rows measuring 6 m (with no border effect as the spacing between and within treatments was same) with three replications. F1s and F2s populations were hand sown in a randomized complete block (RCB) design during May 2008 and 2009. CIM-1100 × CRIS-9 147 . with reciprocals. the heterosis (over better parents) was estimated according to Fehr (1987). CIM-1100. CIM-1100 × BH-36 and its reciprocal. The inbreeding depression in F2 hybrids was computed as percent decrease of F2 hybrids compared with F1 hybrids as outlined by Baloch et al. for all the traits. 30 m in length. such as CIM-1100 × FH-682. All data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique using MSTAT-C computer software to test the difference between various F1s. The highest and statistically equal plant height (168 to 187 cm) was measured by six F1 hybrids and in some reciprocals of cv. Cultural practices were carried out as per recommended package for cotton production and all the crops were grown under uniform conditions to minimize environmental variations to the maximum possible extent. with four replications. Measurement of traits and statistical analysis Data were recorded for plant height (cm). Each cultivar was planted in five rows. respectively. In F1 and F2 hybrids. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Genetic variability and mean performance Analysis of variance revealed highly significant variations among F1s. The parents and 30 F1s. and parents. So the average performance of the check cultivar was compared with the mean values the of F1 hybrids for all the traits and hence economic heterosis was calculated. Picking was done during the months of November/December every year on single plant basis and ginning was carried-out with eight saw-gins. F2 populations and their parental line means. Plant height varied from 105 to 155 cm among the parents and 117 to 187 cm in F1 hybrids (Figure 1a). The row and plant spacing was 75 and 30 cm. 2007. the existing check cultivar (CIM-473) was used. The F1 and F2 hybrid means having positive heterotic values were further tested for significance with t test by Wynne et al. (1993) and Khan et al. with a spacing of 60 and 100 cm for plants and rows. (1970). while the F2 populations were planted in four rows. each of 8 m in length. CIM109 × CIM-1100.

maximum sympodia were also exhibited by the same hybrid CIM-109 × CIM-1100 (25. The boll weight (Figure 3a) varied from 2. In F2 hybrids (Figure 2a).38 (CIM-109) to 2. The lowest boll weight 148 . CIM-240 × CIM-109 (117 cm) and CIM-240 × CRIS-9 (119 cm).38 g) and CRIS-9 (2.69) were produced by CIM-1100.81 (BH-36 × FH-682) to 25.09 (CIM-1100) to 21. In F2 generation. were recorded in six F2 hybrids having CIM-1100 as one of the parents in the F2 generation. A majority of the F1 hybrids surpassed the better parental cultivars. The heavier boll weights ranging from 2.46 g). (2007) in their studies.26 (CIM-109 × BH-36) to 3. Boll weight varied from 2. Khan et al.96 to 3. (1999.20 g. the plant height varied from 116 cm (BH-36 × CRIS-9) to 161 cm (FH-682 × BH36) among the hybrids (Figure 1a).52 g) and their F1 hybrid and its reciprocal (2.62 g. The lowest sympodia per plant (14. 2000) noticed that plant height was positively correlated with sympodia and boll number and ultimately seed cotton yield. (1999). boll weight ranged from 2.20 g (CIM-1100 × FH-682) among the F2 hybrids.68 (CIM240) among the parents and 22. respectively. The hybrid BH-36 × CRIS-9 (116 cm) gave the shortest plants.34 to 3. the sympodia varied from 17. The sympodia per plant varied from 16. (2003.87 (CIM-109 × CIM-1100). 33% of the F2 hybrids showed increased boll weight over the better parental cultivars (Figure 3a). The lowest boll weight was obtained from two cultivars CIM-109 (2. Results revealed greater genetic variability in F1 and F2 populations and parental cultivars and the same has also been mentioned by Khan et al.42 to 2. In F2 population. Sympodia per plant showed positive correlation with seed cotton yield. The highest and statistically equal boll weight was recorded in nine F1 hybrids (with eight crosses of parent CIM-1100) and their boll weight ranged from 3. Soomro (2000) and Aguiar et al. Results were also in proportion with the findings of Khan et al.e.62 g (CRIS-9 × CIM-1100).00 (CIM-109 × CIM-1100) in F1 hybrids (Figure 2a).42 (CIM-109 × CRIS-9) to 3.87) as in the F1 generation and were found at par with CIM-1100 × CRIS-9 (24. Results revealed that plant height had significantly positive role in increased sympodia and bolls per plant. However. The shortest plants were recorded in the cultivar CIM-240 (105 cm) and its cross combinations as a maternal parent (i.91 g (CIM-1100) among the parents while in F1 hybrids. and eventually enhanced the seed cotton yield. Maximum sympodia among F1s were exhibited by the hybrid CIM-109 × CIM-1100 (33.33 (CRIS-9 × CIM-240) to 33. The highest and statistically equal plant height of 160 to 161 cm was exhibited by the hybrids CIM-1100 × BH-36 and FH-682 × BH-36.00) which was not different from the hybrids where CIM-1100 was used as paternal parent.148 and its reciprocal. 2007) who noted larger genetic variability for plant height in F1 and F2 hybrids along with parents and its role in managing the seed cotton yield. if lodging didn’t occur.21).

In the F2 generation (Figure 5a). BH-36 × CIM-1100 (183. In F2 generation (Figure 4a). as compared to parental cultivars the F1 and F2 hybrids expressed greater genetic variability for boll weight (Wu et al.10 g (CIM1100 × FH-682) among the cross populations. 1999.62 g (CIM-109) among the parents and 59.58 g) and CIM-1100 × CIM-109 (180. BH-36 × CIM-1100 (52) and CIM-1100 × CRIS9 (51). Soomro and Kalhoro. 2000).was manifested by the genotype CIM-109 × BH-36 (2.e.68 g).16 g). The maximum bolls were recorded in five F1 hybrids such as CRIS-9 × CIM-1100 (53).. 67.60 g).63 (CIM-240 × FH-682) to 138. The parental cultivars of these promising crosses yielded approximately half to that of their F1 hybrids.e. The cultivar CIM-240 (24) and its crosses with CIM-1100 (20). FH-682 (23) and its reciprocal (26) and CIM-109 (27). 2004. The highest seed cotton yield was recorded in three hybrids that involved CIM-1100 as one of the parents. Maximum bolls of 44 were recorded in the F2 hybrid CIM-1100 × FH-682 and followed by six other derivatives of CIM-1100 as paternal parent.10 g) was recorded in F2 genotype CIM-1100 × FH-682. CIM-1100 × CRIS-9 (121. such as CRIS-9 × CIM-1100 (188. Basal and Turgut.42 g. CIM-1100 × CRIS-9 (169.92 g). It was followed by three other derivatives of CIM-1100 i.19 g).63 g). CIM-1100 × 109 (38) and CIM-1100 × BH-36 (38). i. CIM-109 × CIM-1100 (37).85 to 86. Wang and Li. Wei et al.81 g). 2003). Bolls per plant varied from 24 (CIM-240) to 38 (CIM-109) among the parents and 20 (CIM-1100 × CIM-240) to 53 (CRIS-9 × CIM-1100) among the F1 hybrids (Figure 4a). CRIS-9 × CIM-1100 (39). Seed cotton yield per plant ranged from 67. The lowest seed cotton yield was recorded in F1 of CIM-240 × FH-682 (63. seed cotton yield varied from 63. The above derivatives of CIM-1100 149 . In previous studies. FH-682 × CIM-1100 (122.81 g (CRIS-9 × CIM-1100) among the F1 hybrids (Figure 5a). The highest seed cotton yield (138. Hassan et al.84 g) and its reciprocal CRIS-9 × CIM-1100 (119. 1998. CIM-1100 × FH-682 (164.12 (BH-36 × CIM-240) to 188. 2000. CIM-1100 × CIM-109 (53) and their reciprocals (52).98 g). These hybrids were followed by the second higher scoring hybrids.62 g per plant.. BH36 (22).56 g) and FH-682 × CIM-1100 (155. and as maternal parent CIM-1100 × CRIS-9 (39).26 g). CIM240 × CIM-1100 (160. Two other F2 genotypes of CIM-1100 were the third highest yielding F2s at 102. The least number of bolls (25) were produced by F2 hybrids CIM-240 × FH-682 and BH-36 × FH-682. FH-682 × CIM-1100 (40).96 g). Various research findings have shown inconsistent mean performance with enhanced genetic variation for bolls per plant in F1 and F2 genotypes as compared to their parents (Meredith and Brown.53 to 109.85 (CIM-240) to 86. 2002. produced the least number of bolls. bolls per plant varied from 25 (CIM-240 × FH-682) to 44 (CIM-1100 × FH-682). CIM-109 × CIM-1100 (162.

In the present study. Yuan et al. However. no lodging was observed and the F1s economic heterosis in plant height manifested positive impact in boosting the sympodia. The degree of increase in economic heterosis ranged from 0. Economic heterosis in F1s over check cultivar Twenty four F1 hybrids showed positive economic heterosis. (2003. BH-36 × CIM-1100.1%). 2002). almost all the F1 hybrids had more fruiting branches per plant as compared to the check cultivar and displayed positive economic heterosis except for hybrid (CRIS-9 × CIM-240). medium plant height is desirable. and seed cotton yield only if lodging didn’t occur.4 (CIM-240 × CIM-1100) to 28. (2005) indicated that superior heterotic hybrids were mostly associated with high per se performance and noted standard heterosis for sympodia. 2007. These data agree with Khan et al. Other hybrids revealed lower economic heterosis by having short stature plants.30%). The remaining hybrids had low economic heterosis with medium number of sympodia as compared to check cultivar. (2000) and Khan et al. Baloch et al. Plant height is positively correlated with fruiting branches. CRIS-9 × CIM-1100. As far as sympodia per plant are concerned (Figure 2a). eight F1 hybrids such as CIM-1100 × FH-682. bolls and ultimately seed cotton yield. 1999.1% (CIM-1100 × FH-682). However. number of bolls.54 to 30. 2007) who indicated that larger genetic variability and economic heterosis for plant height in F1 and F2 hybrids and was associated with its role in managing the seed cotton yield. (1993). Hybrids expressed more heterosis in yield traits than commercial cultivars 150 . while six manifested negative economic heterosis over the standard cultivar (Figure 1a). For CIM-1100 as a parent. 2009) reported remarkable variations for seed cotton yield in different F1 and F2 genotypes as compared with their parental cultivars. FH-682. BH-36 and CRIS-9 and two other hybrids (BH-36 × CIM-109 and FH-682 × CIM-109) expressed maximum economic heterosis for fruiting branches (11. CIM-240.30% (CIM109 × CIM-1100) for sympodia per plant. Li et al. in case of picking the cotton crop with machines. and their reciprocals.0 to 28. manifested maximum economic heterosis for plant height (16. Seed cotton yield was found with greater variation mostly affected by different yield contributing traits in different previous studies (Dong et al. Muthu et al. economic heterosis ranged from 2. 1993. The ten hybrids developed from CIM-1100 by crossing with CIM-109. which exhibited negative economic heterosis. et al. (2007.83 (CIM-109 × CRIS-9) to 30. 2001. having taller plants. CIM-109 × CIM1100.150 surpassed all the hybrids and parents in yield and could be utilized in the segregating generations to evolve cultivars with better yield potential. Sympodia showed a positive association with bolls number and eventually the seed cotton yield. Hassan et al. Tang.

(2002). FH-682. Dong et al.2% (CIM-1100 × CIM-109 & CRIS-9 × CIM-1100) for bolls number. BH-36 and CRIS-9) manifested leading position and expressed the largest heterotic values (34. Soomro (2000) and Dong et al. FH-682 × CIM-1100. Hassan et al. The extent of the economic heterosis ranged from 0.4 to 52.3%. 1999. However. and 2007) confirmed maximum heterosis over better parents for boll weight. 2000. 2007).99 (FH-682 × BH-36) to 17. Yuan et al. (2000) and Yuan et al. The other nine F1 hybrids revealed positive but low economic heterosis with medium bolls as compared to check cultivar.5 (FH-682 × BH-36. The F1 hybrids developed by cultivar CIM-1100 expressed the largest economic heterosis ranging from 10. (1999). The F1 hybrids and reciprocals developed from CIM-1100 with cultivars (CIM-109. Yuan et al. For boll weight (Figure 3a). 2000). (1993). Khan et al.. The extent of advancement in economic heterosis ranged from 2. Baloch et al.2%).1% (CRIS-9 × CIM-1100. (2001) and Basal and Turgut (2003) also found considerable heterosis for boll weight.07 (FH-682 × CRIS-9) to 52. (1993). Khan et al.0 to 47. These results also support the findings of Baloch et al. eighteen F1 hybrids showed positive economic heterosis (by having bigger bolls) while twelve manifested negative heterosis over check cultivar. 5 to 17. Soomro. (2002) noted that the population means heterosis for boll weight over the mid-parental was 13.3%). which may be translated to improved seed cotton yield since it is one of the major yield contributors and can have a positive association with seed cotton yield if boll number remains constant. (2007) noted significant heterosis in boll size and boll numbers over check cultivar. For bolls per plant (Figure 4a).33% (CRIS-9 × CIM1100). BH-36 × CIM-109 & BH-36 × FH-682) to 47. (1999. 151 . Khan et al. The sixteen other hybrids also had positive but low economic heterosis with medium number of bolls as compared to check cultivar. (2007) showed significant heterosis over mid-parent and check cultivars for bolls per plant. CIM-240. (1999) also observed significant heterosis over better parents in 26 out of 30 hybrids for sympodia. The eighteen F1 hybrids expressed positive economic heterosis for seed cotton yield while twelve manifested negative economic heterosis over check cultivar as observed for boll weight. BH36 × CIM-1100 and their reciprocals) while two other hybrids (CIM-1100 × CIM-240 and CIM-1100 × CIM-109) also manifested higher economic heterosis for boll weight.(Khan et al. demonstrating the potential of hybrid combinations (Aguiar et al. Galanopoulou and Roupakias (1999). almost all the F1 hybrids had more bolls as compared to check cultivar and displayed positive economic heterosis except five hybrids which revealed negative economic heterosis. boll weights were not different when compared to the better parent. The nine hybrids developed from CIM-1100 manifested large economic heterosis for bolls (30. Heterosis ranged from 3.1% (CRIS-9 × CIM-1100).

and Basal and Turgut (2003) also mentioned that heterosis for seed cotton yield was associated with heterosis for boll number.404** 0.963** F1 F2 F1 -1 Sympodia plant F2 F1 Boll weight F2 F1 -1 Bolls plant F2 F1 -1 Seed cotton yield plant F2 ** Significant at 1% probability level. only two presented negative heterosis and the remaining cross combinations gave positive heterosis. (2007) also mentioned that. Parameters Plant height Population Mean Squares 1095.18% (FH-682 × BH-36). FH-682 × BH-36 (14.2% (CIM-109 × CIM-1100) in F1 generation. Baloch et al.18%) and CIM-1100 × FH-682 (7.3 (FH-682 × BH-36 and its reciprocal) to 26. Khan et al.994** 1343. Hassan et al. (1999).152 while other nine hybrids revealed positive but low economic heterosis by having medium seed cotton yield per plant.399** 34. out of 30 hybrids. consequently higher heterosis. Table 1. (2001.819** 83. Mean squares for various morpho-yield traits in a 6 × 6 F1 and F2 diallel cross of upland cotton.14%) manifested highly significant and one hybrid showed merely significant {CIM-1100 × BH-36 152 .637** 392. In F2 segregating generation (Figure 1b). (1993). (1999). This indicates a cytoplasmic role. seventeen out of thirty F1 crosses surpassed their better parental values (Figure 1b). although such examples are rarely found in plants. although its reciprocal CIM-240 × CIM-1100. Almost all the hybrids obtained from the crosses of CIM-1100 parent showed desirable morpho-yield traits except CIM-1100 × CIM-240. Heterobeltiosis in F1s. 2002) suggested that F1 cross combinations between parents with similar performances had relatively higher dominant effects. the best cross combinations were obtained by crossing well and medium performing parents. Two hybrids viz. positive heterosis over better parents was recorded in seven hybrids varied from 0.140** 4472.276** 0. But Yuan et al. In their studies.337** 13. F2s and inbreeding depression in F2s For plant height. expressed promising performance for all the traits. Aguiar et al.72 (CRIS-9 × FH-682) to 14. The degree of heterosis was 1.170** 261. The maximum heterobeltiosis was manifested by CIM-1100 derivatives used either as a male or female parent with the exception of its combinations with CIM240 as maternal parent.

Highest heterotic 153 . selection in such F2 crosses can provide better base for improvement in the fruiting branches. in the F1 generation.(13. nonetheless two F2 hybrids also showed highly significant heterosis over better parents.78 to 61. 1b). 2000.7 to -28.0%). The hybrids obtained from CIM-1100 crosses were also high yielding and performed well in the segregating generation.00 (CRIS-9 × CIM-240) to 61. 2b). some of the F2 hybrids showed positive values for inbreeding depression by showing increase in plant height due to low inbreeding depression and transgressive segregation in F2 generation as compared to their F1s. thus.8%. Results were in agreement with the observations of Khan et al. even after inbreeding depression in F2s. 50% of the hybrids expressed positive heterosis.8% (CIM-109 × CIM-1100) for sympodia per plant. Soomro. After segregation in the F2 generation (Fig. (2005) indicated that superior heterotic hybrids were mostly associated with high performance over corresponding parents and check cultivar for sympodia per plant. All of the F2 hybrids showed inbreeding depression for plant height that ranged from -0. However. 2000).46%)} heterosis over better parents. (1999. sustainable heterosis for sympodia in the F2 suggests that commercial exploitation of F2 heterosis is possible.3 to 33. plant height is positively correlated with fruiting branches. Ten hybrids obtained from CIM-1100 manifested the highest heterobeltiosis (29. In comparison to the F1. Among F2s.. However. the majority of hybrids showed negative heterosis. while in F2 population. Hybrids displayed more heterosis in yield traits against commercial cultivars (Khan et al. bolls and seed cotton yield even after segregation and inbreeding depression.8% (Fig. number of bolls and eventually seed cotton yield if lodging does not occur.3 (CIM-1100 × CIM-240) to 28. which is encouraging because breeders are mostly interested in short stature plants for reduced lodging and easy machine picking. Muthu et al. the decrease in F2 plant height was due to inbreeding depression. all hybrids manifested positive heterobeltiosis by surpassing the better parental values for sympodia per plant (Figure 2b). consequently more bolls and higher seed cotton yield. 1999. the three CIM-1100 hybrids exceeded other hybrids with heterosis ranging from 10. The results in F1 and F2 generations were encouraging.91% (FH-682 × CIM-1100). The increase over better parents ranged from 3. the fifteen hybrids showed positive heterosis over better parents like 0. Results exhibited that CIM-1100 hybrids maintained increased plant height in F1 and F2 generations which also increased sympodia. 2003) who also elaborated that F2 hybrids can be used as hybrid cotton if they have better performance over their superior parents because the F2 crop seed can easily be managed with increased amount of seed produced from F1 plants In the F1 generation.5 to 28. Moreover. All F2 hybrids displayed inbreeding depression (-7. some hybrids also manifested significant heterosis.91%). However.

some genotypes displayed positive values of inbreeding which may be due to low inbreeding depression in the F2 population as compared to their F1 hybrids. demonstrating the potentiality of hybrid combinations.07 (FH682 × CIM-1100) to 12. suggesting dominant genes functioning for such traits. but over better parent. (2007). In the F2 generation (Fig. (2000) and Yuan et al. can be used for hybrid cotton so as to skip expensive F1 hybrid seed production through laborious job of hand emasculation and pollination (Wu. 2004). 2003. Although F2 hybrids may display less heterosis as compared to F1s. ranging from 0.75 (BH-36 × CIM-240) to 24. 3b)..40% (CRIS9 × CIM-1100). Galanopoulou and Roupakias (1999). Wei et al. Due to high inbreeding depression in boll weight as compared to other yield related traits. Khan et al. et al. 2002). 2004.37%) and its reciprocal (21. Khan et al.40%) and FH-682 × CIM-1100 (23..02% (BH-36 × FH-682). 2009). but still better than high parents. Hassan et al.7%. Wu et al. only nine hybrids manifested positive heterosis over better parents that varied from 2. Wang and Li. Results suggested that even after inbreeding depression.4 to -23..02%) and CIM-1100 × FH-682 (10. Results are in agreement with the findings of Baloch et al. The crosses BH-36 × FH-682 (12. in which only two hybrids reached at significance level.154 values were also detected by Aguiar et al. some promising F2 populations may be exploited for hybrid cotton development. Yuan et al. All the F2 genotypes displayed inbreeding depression for boll weight (Figure 3b) which ranged from -0. all but three F1 hybrids manifested exceptionally bigger bolls as compared to the better parents (Figure 3b) and displayed positive heterosis. 1998.65%) exhibited the maximum heterobeltiosis. For boll weight. boll weight showed no significant heterosis. The results in the F2 generation indicated a need for further study in segregating generations. However. F2 hybrids having heterogeneity and genetic variation might result in a greater range of adaptation relative to their parents and F1 hybrids (Meredith and Brown. which ultimately will increase seed cotton yield. Soomro and Kalhoro (2000) and Basal and Turgut (2003) also reported that hybrids showing higher magnitudes of heterosis were generally associated with higher inbreeding depression. (2001. (1999).3%. CIM-1100 derivatives CRIS-9 × CIM-1100 (24. 2000. 2002.34%) expressed the maximum heterobeltiosis. (1993). It was shown clearly that the F1 hybrids obtained from crossing between parents with similar performances had relatively high heterosis. the selection for yield in the F2 generation should mostly be dependent on bolls per plant. F2 hybrids expressing only half of the heterosis shown by F1 hybrids can be 154 . (2002) noted that average heterosis of boll weight over the midparent was 13. 2007. The thirteen F1 hybrids surpassed their better parents with highly significant values and only two hybrids showed significant heterobeltiosis.

Meredith (1990) demonstrated that F2s can produce better combinations of yield and F2 performance was highly correlated with F1 yield. nine hybrids of CIM-1100 exhibited highly significant heterosis over the better parent and one cross showed merely significant heterosis.used for cotton improvement (Wang and Pan.63% (CRIS-9 × CIM-1100) over the better parent and around 50% of the F1 hybrids attained positive heterosis. (1993) and Galanopoulou and Roupakias (1999) as they reported maximum increase of yield and yield components in segregating population through transgressive segregation against checks. 1993. Khan.63%). 2004. 2000. 2000. parental cultivars and F1 hybrids. Li et al.8 to 33. varying from 2.94 (CIM-109 × CRIS-9 and CRIS-9 × BH-36) to 46.65 to 65. Wu et al. 1991. (2005) mentioned standard heterosis for bolls per plant. Xing et al. The majority of the F2 genotypes displayed inbreeding depression for boll number that ranged from -2. While. Dong et al. Some F2 populations gave better mean values and less inbreeding depression with increased bolls in the F2 generation due to more stability and low inbreeding depression at F2 level. 155 . Nine crosses involving the cultivar CIM-1100 as a paternal or maternal parent manifested maximum and highly significant heterosis over better parent for boll number (17.13 (FH-682 × CRIS-9) to 65. Basal and Turgut (2003) and Muthu et al. two hybrids expressed significant heterosis over the better parent. only thirteen hybrids displayed positive heterosis over better parents for bolls per plant. (1993). In the remaining 21 crosses. 2007). Due to inbreeding depression in the F2 generation (Figure 4b). (2007) showed considerable heterosis in boll number and boll size. Tang et al. Bolls per plant heterosis (Figure 4b) ranged from 3. 2003. Tang et al.0%. Results were also in accordance with the findings of Baloch et al.67% (CIM-1100 × FH-682). Khan et al.

Mean performance of F1s. and F1s economic heterosis CIM-473 CRIS-9 × BH-36 CRIS-9 × FH-682 CRIS-9 × CIM-1100 CRIS-9 × CIM-240 CRIS-9 × CIM-109 BH-36 × CRIS-9 BH-36 × FH-682 BH-36 × CIM-1100 BH-36 × CIM-240 BH-36 × CIM-109 FH-682 × CRIS-9 FH-682 × BH-36 FH-682 × CIM-1100 FH-682 × CIM-240 FH-682 × CIM-109 CIM-1100 × CRIS-9 CIM-1100 × BH-36 CIM-1100 × FH-682 CIM-1100 × CIM-240 CIM-1100 × CIM-109 CIM-240 × CRIS-9 CIM-240 × BH-36 CIM-240 × FH-682 CIM-240 × CIM-1100 CIM-240 × CIM-109 CIM-109 × CRIS-9 CIM-109 × BH-36 CIM-109 × FH-682 CIM-109 × CIM-1100 CIM-109 × CIM-240 CRIS-9 F1s Economic Heterosis F2s Inbreeding depression BH-36 for plant height in a 6 × 6 diallel cross of upland cotton. FH-682 CIM-1100 CIM-240 CIM-109 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 CRIS-9 × BH-36 CRIS-9 × FH-682 CRIS-9 × CIM-1100 CRIS-9 × CIM-240 CRIS-9 × CIM-109 BH-36 × CRIS-9 BH-36 × FH-682 BH-36 × CIM-1100 BH-36 × CIM-240 BH-36 × CIM-109 FH-682 × CRIS-9 FH-682 × BH-36 FH-682 × CIM-1100 FH-682 × CIM-240 FH-682 × CIM-109 CIM-1100 × CRIS-9 CIM-1100 × BH-36 CIM-1100 × FH-682 CIM-1100 × CIM-240 CIM-1100 × CIM-109 CIM-240 × CRIS-9 CIM-240 × BH-36 CIM-240 × FH-682 CIM-240 × CIM-1100 CIM-240 × CIM-109 CIM-109 × CRIS-9 CIM-109 × BH-36 CIM-109 × FH-682 CIM-109 × CIM-1100 CIM-109 × CIM-240 Figure 1b. parental & stadard cultivars for plant height (cm) F1s Economic heterosis (%) . height in a 6 × 6 diallel cross of upland cotton. F2s and parents. Heterobeltiosis in F1s and F2s. F1s. and inbreeding depression in F2s for plant -10 -15 -20 35 30 25 20 15 10 -5 5 0 6 x 6 diallel hybrids in upland cotton 6 x 6 diallel hybrids in upland cotton F2s Means F1s Means 30 F1s Heterosis F2s Heterosis 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 F1s & F2s heterosis (%) over better parents & F2s inbreeding depression (%) for plant height -40 156 Mean values of F1s.156 Figure 1a.

F2s heterosis (%) over better parents & F2s inbreeding -40 157 depression (%) for sympodia plant -1 FH-682 Figure 2b. parental & standard cultivars for sympodia plant F1s Economic heterosis (%) -1 CRIS-9 × BH-36 CRIS-9 × FH-682 CRIS-9 × CIM-1100 CRIS-9 × CIM-240 CRIS-9 × CIM-109 BH-36 × CRIS-9 BH-36 × FH-682 BH-36 × CIM-1100 BH-36 × CIM-240 BH-36 × CIM-109 FH-682 × CRIS-9 FH-682 × BH-36 FH-682 × CIM-1100 FH-682 × CIM-240 FH-682 × CIM-109 CIM-1100 × CRIS-9 CIM-1100 × BH-36 CIM-1100 × FH-682 CIM-1100 × CIM-240 CIM-1100 × CIM-109 CIM-240 × CRIS-9 CIM-240 × BH-36 CIM-240 × FH-682 CIM-240 × CIM-1100 CIM-240 × CIM-109 CIM-109 × CRIS-9 CIM-109 × BH-36 CIM-109 × FH-682 CIM-109 × CIM-1100 CIM-109 × CIM-240 . Mean performance of F1s. F2s. and inbreeding depression in F2s for sympodia per plant in a 6 × 6 diallel cross of upland cotton. Heterobeltiosis in F1s and F2s.Figure 2a. and F1s economic heterosis for 35 30 25 20 15 10 F2s Inbreeding depression -5 5 0 CIM-473 CRIS-9 × BH-36 CRIS-9 × FH-682 CRIS-9 × CIM-1100 CRIS-9 × CIM-240 CRIS-9 × CIM-109 BH-36 × CRIS-9 BH-36 × FH-682 BH-36 × CIM-1100 BH-36 × CIM-240 BH-36 × CIM-109 FH-682 × CRIS-9 FH-682 × BH-36 FH-682 × CIM-1100 FH-682 × CIM-240 FH-682 × CIM-109 CIM-1100 × CRIS-9 CIM-1100 × BH-36 CIM-1100 × FH-682 CIM-1100 × CIM-240 CIM-1100 × CIM-109 CIM-240 × CRIS-9 CIM-240 × BH-36 CIM-240 × FH-682 CIM-240 × CIM-1100 CIM-240 × CIM-109 CIM-109 × CRIS-9 CIM-109 × BH-36 CIM-109 × FH-682 CIM-109 × CIM-1100 CIM-109 × CIM-240 F1s Economic Heterosis CRIS-9 6 x 6 diallel hybrids in upland cotton BH-36 F2s Means CIM-1100 F1s Means CIM-240 CIM-109 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 80 F1s 60 40 20 0 -20 F1s. sympodia per plant in a 6 × 6 diallel cross of upland cotton. 6 x 6 diallel hybrids in upland cotton F2s Heterosis Mean values for F1s. F2s & parents.

F2s and parents.5 1 0. and F1s economic heterosis CIM-473 CRIS-9 BH-36 for boll weight in a 6 × 6 diallel cross of upland cotton. Mean performance of F1s.158 Figure 3a. F2s Means CIM-1100 CIM-240 F1s Means CIM-109 4 3. -10 -15 -20 -25 F1s Economic Heterosis -30 20 15 10 -5 5 0 6 x 6 diallel hybrids in upland cotton Mean values for F1s.5 3 2. parental & standard cultivars for boll weight (g) CRIS-9 × BH-36 CRIS-9 × FH-682 6 x 6 diallel hybrids in upland cotton F1s Economic heterosis (%) .5 2 1. Heterobeltiosis in F1s and F2s. and inbreeding depression in F2s for boll weight in a 6 × 6 diallel cross of upland cotton. F2s heterosis (%) over better parents & F2s inbreeding depression (%) for boll weight -30 158 FH-682 CRIS-9 × BH-36 CRIS-9 × FH-682 CRIS-9 × CIM-1100 CRIS-9 × CIM-240 CRIS-9 × CIM-109 BH-36 × CRIS-9 BH-36 × FH-682 BH-36 × CIM-1100 BH-36 × CIM-240 BH-36 × CIM-109 FH-682 × CRIS-9 FH-682 × BH-36 FH-682 × CIM-1100 FH-682 × CIM-240 FH-682 × CIM-109 CIM-1100 × CRIS-9 CIM-1100 × BH-36 CIM-1100 × FH-682 CIM-1100 × CIM-240 CIM-1100 × CIM-109 CIM-240 × CRIS-9 CIM-240 × BH-36 CIM-240 × FH-682 CIM-240 × CIM-1100 CIM-240 × CIM-109 CIM-109 × CRIS-9 CIM-109 × BH-36 CIM-109 × FH-682 CIM-109 × CIM-1100 CIM-109 × CIM-240 F2s Inbreeding depression CRIS-9 × CIM-1100 CRIS-9 × CIM-240 CRIS-9 × CIM-109 BH-36 × CRIS-9 BH-36 × FH-682 BH-36 × CIM-1100 BH-36 × CIM-240 BH-36 × CIM-109 FH-682 × CRIS-9 FH-682 × BH-36 F2s Heterosis FH-682 × CIM-1100 FH-682 × CIM-240 FH-682 × CIM-109 CIM-1100 × CRIS-9 CIM-1100 × BH-36 CIM-1100 × FH-682 CIM-1100 × CIM-240 CIM-1100 × CIM-109 CIM-240 × CRIS-9 CIM-240 × BH-36 CIM-240 × FH-682 CIM-240 × CIM-1100 CIM-240 × CIM-109 CIM-109 × CRIS-9 CIM-109 × BH-36 CIM-109 × FH-682 CIM-109 × CIM-1100 CIM-109 × CIM-240 Figure 3b.5 0 30 F1s Heterosis 20 10 0 -10 -20 F1s. F2s.

F2s heterosis (%) over better parents & F2s -60 159 inbreeding depression (%) for bolls plant -1 FH-682 bolls per plant in a 6 × 6 diallel cross of upland cotton.Figure 4a. BH-36 Figure 4b. Heterobeltiosis in F1s and F2s. and F1s economic heterosis for CIM-473 CRIS-9 × BH-36 CRIS-9 × FH-682 CRIS-9 × CIM-1100 CRIS-9 × CIM-240 CRIS-9 × CIM-109 BH-36 × CRIS-9 BH-36 × FH-682 BH-36 × CIM-1100 BH-36 × CIM-240 BH-36 × CIM-109 FH-682 × CRIS-9 FH-682 × BH-36 FH-682 × CIM-1100 FH-682 × CIM-240 FH-682 × CIM-109 CIM-1100 × CRIS-9 CIM-1100 × BH-36 CIM-1100 × FH-682 CIM-1100 × CIM-240 CIM-1100 × CIM-109 CIM-240 × CRIS-9 CIM-240 × BH-36 CIM-240 × FH-682 CIM-240 × CIM-1100 CIM-240 × CIM-109 CIM-109 × CRIS-9 CIM-109 × BH-36 CIM-109 × FH-682 CIM-109 × CIM-1100 CIM-109 × CIM-240 CRIS-9 F1s Economic Heterosis CIM-1100 CIM-240 CIM-109 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 80 F1s Heterosis F2s Heterosis 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 F1s. F2s & parents. and inbreeding depression in F2s for bolls per plant in a 6 × 6 diallel cross of upland cotton. -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 CRIS-9 × BH-36 CRIS-9 × FH-682 CRIS-9 × CIM-1100 CRIS-9 × CIM-240 CRIS-9 × CIM-109 BH-36 × CRIS-9 BH-36 × FH-682 BH-36 × CIM-1100 BH-36 × CIM-240 BH-36 × CIM-109 FH-682 × CRIS-9 FH-682 × BH-36 FH-682 × CIM-1100 FH-682 × CIM-240 FH-682 × CIM-109 CIM-1100 × CRIS-9 CIM-1100 × BH-36 CIM-1100 × FH-682 CIM-1100 × CIM-240 CIM-1100 × CIM-109 CIM-240 × CRIS-9 CIM-240 × BH-36 CIM-240 × FH-682 CIM-240 × CIM-1100 CIM-240 × CIM-109 CIM-109 × CRIS-9 CIM-109 × BH-36 CIM-109 × FH-682 CIM-109 × CIM-1100 CIM-109 × CIM-240 F2s Inbreeding depression 6 x 6 diallel hybrids in upland cotton 60 50 40 30 20 10 6 x 6 diallel hybrids in upland cotton F1s Means F2s Means Mean values for F1s. parental & standard F1s Economic heterosis (%) cultivars for bolls plant -1 . Mean performance of F1s. F2s.

BH-36 cotton yield per plant in a 6 × 6 diallel cross of upland cotton. parental & standard cultivars for seed cotton yield (g) 0 160 F1s Economic heterosis (%) . Heterobeltiosis in F1s and F2s. and inbreeding depression in F2s for seed 60 40 160 F2s Inbreeding depression 6 x 6 diallel hybrids in upland cotton F1s Economic Heterosis 140 120 F1s Heterosis F2s Heterosis 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 200 F1s.Figure 5a. and F1s economic heterosis CIM-473 CRIS-9 for seed cotton yield per plant in a 6 × 6 diallel cross of upland cotton. F2s Means 6 x 6 diallel hybrids in upland cotton F1s Means FH-682 CIM-1100 CIM-240 CIM-109 CRIS-9 × BH-36 CRIS-9 × FH-682 CRIS-9 × CIM-1100 CRIS-9 × CIM-240 CRIS-9 × CIM-109 BH-36 × CRIS-9 BH-36 × FH-682 BH-36 × CIM-1100 BH-36 × CIM-240 BH-36 × CIM-109 FH-682 × CRIS-9 FH-682 × BH-36 FH-682 × CIM-1100 FH-682 × CIM-240 FH-682 × CIM-109 CIM-1100 × CRIS-9 CIM-1100 × BH-36 CIM-1100 × FH-682 CIM-1100 × CIM-240 CIM-1100 × CIM-109 CIM-240 × CRIS-9 CIM-240 × BH-36 CIM-240 × FH-682 CIM-240 × CIM-1100 CIM-240 × CIM-109 CIM-109 × CRIS-9 CIM-109 × BH-36 CIM-109 × FH-682 CIM-109 × CIM-1100 CIM-109 × CIM-240 CRIS-9 × BH-36 CRIS-9 × FH-682 CRIS-9 × CIM-1100 CRIS-9 × CIM-240 CRIS-9 × CIM-109 BH-36 × CRIS-9 BH-36 × FH-682 BH-36 × CIM-1100 BH-36 × CIM-240 BH-36 × CIM-109 FH-682 × CRIS-9 FH-682 × BH-36 FH-682 × CIM-1100 FH-682 × CIM-240 FH-682 × CIM-109 CIM-1100 × CRIS-9 CIM-1100 × BH-36 CIM-1100 × FH-682 CIM-1100 × CIM-240 CIM-1100 × CIM-109 CIM-240 × CRIS-9 CIM-240 × BH-36 CIM-240 × FH-682 CIM-240 × CIM-1100 CIM-240 × CIM-109 CIM-109 × CRIS-9 CIM-109 × BH-36 CIM-109 × FH-682 CIM-109 × CIM-1100 CIM-109 × CIM-240 -20 -40 -60 20 0 Figure 5b. F2s. Mean performance of F1s. F2s heterosis (%) over better parents & F2s inbreeding depression (%) for seedcotton yield -60 Means values for F1s. F2s and parents.

7 (CRIS-9 × BH-36) to 77. the positive heterosis for seed cotton yield was recorded in thirteen hybrids over better parent. Tang et al. (1993) and Khan et al.2%). F2 hybrids having extra ordinary performance could also be used as such for F2 crop to increase the seed cotton yield on per unit area as suggested by Baloch et al. 2004). Basal and Turgut (2003) and Khan et al. (2000). F2 hybrid heterosis in cotton has been reported by several workers (Wang and Pan. Li et al. Wei et al. Wang and Li. CIM-240 × CIM-1100. (2007) observed valuable heterosis for boll number and boll size and their studies also revealed greatest heterosis in seed cotton yield. FH-682 × CIM-1100. based on population mean. CIM-1100 derivatives) revealed better performance hence positive selection can provide better opportunity for further improvement. The range of high parent heterosis was 0. In the F2 generation (Figure 5b). F2 hybrids have greater genetic variation and might result in a greater range of adaptation relative to their parents and F1 hybrids (Meredith and Brown. 2002.9 to 44. The abrupt drop in F2 yield traits was due to inbreeding depression and segregation. Khan. Xing et al. All the F2 genotypes showed inbreeding depression (-1. BH-36 × CIM-1100 and CRIS-9 161 .. which can lead to cultivar improvement. 2002) also reported that the average heterosis of F2 over mid-parent. CIM-1100 hybrids (except as a maternal parent with CIM-240) manifested highly significant heterosis over the better parent (55. Dong et al.. 2000. 1998.g. Sixteen hybrids exhibited significant heterosis over the best parent. (2000 and 2009). F1 and F2 hybrids developed from cultivar CIM-1100 like. 2000. 2000. Soomro and Kalhoro (2000). Wu et al. (2001. F2 hybrids with lower inbreeding depression in yield expressed superior performance over well-adapted cultivars (Meredith 1990).2% (CRIS-9 × CIM-1100) (Figure 5b). even after inbreeding depression.. The results also showed that in F2s. suggested that little inbreeding depression exists for F2 and F3 generations and it is possible to screen and select high yielding F2 hybrids.22%). (1999) and Yuan et al. 1991.0% (CIM-1100 × FH-682). CIM-109 × CIM-1100.75 to 115. 2003) and F2s can express at least 50% of the economic heterosis shown by F1 hybrids. Hassan et al. in which eleven hybrids showed significant heterobeltiosis. Khan et al. CONCLUSION Cultivar CIM-1100 expressed exceptionally better performance when crossed as paternal or maternal parent with other five cultivars. twenty F1 hybrids showed positive heterosis over better parents and the yield increase ranged from 0.8 (CIM-109 × BH-36) to 115. some promising population (e. 1993. (2007) also reported that F1 hybrids with high heterosis were also associated with higher inbreeding depression.In the case of seed cotton yield per plant.

C. Principles of cultivar development.R.D. Heterosis and combining ability for yield components and fiber quality parameters in a half diallel cotton (G.J. New York pp. REFERENCES Aguiar.. 115119. hirsutum L. Biotechnol. Govt.C. J. Cook. Performance of F1 hybrids from intra-hirsutum crosses of upland cotton. W.V. performed well and exceeded all other the hybrids. Diallel analysis of upland cotton cultivars. Z. C. Sci. Agric.J. For. Z. U. J..H. some promising populations (CIM-1100 derivatives) expressed better performance. H. Bull. and I. Macmillan Publishing Company Inc. of Pakistan. 7: 353-359. Zhang (2007). Year Book. J. 27: 207-212. even after inbreeding depression.H. Dept. Fehr.C. 36: 38-40. and D. Appl.A.) population. which suggest the use of F2 populations as a hybrid crop to increase the seed cotton yield. Results also suggested that F1 hybrids with elevated heterosis were associated with higher inbreeding depression. Tunio and A. 1947:127. (1909). Federal Bureau of Statistics (FBS). M. Heterosis in yield. but moderate type of F1 heterosis produced more stable F2 populations. Freire and L. check and parental cultivars for all the morpho-yield traits. and their reciprocals (except CIM-1100 × CIM-240). E. Pak.S.M.. Vol. suggesting that selection can provide an opportunity to improve the performance of F2 hybrids. (1987). endotoxin expression and some physiological parameters in Bt transgenic cotton. Li. thus outperformed the better parental and check cultivars. Lakho (1993). Ind.F. 1: Theory and Technique. P. G. Agric. In the F2 generation. Federal Bureau of Statistics (FBS. Penna. Melo (2007). suggesting a wide range of adaptation and many exhibited extra-ordinary performance. Both positive and negative heterotic values were expressed for all traits. Li. Crop Breed.162 × CIM-1100. Tang. Basal. W. Ministry of Economic Affairs and Statistics. Res. Turk. signifying the potential of F1 and F2 hybrids for improvement. Results also revealed that the F1 and F2 cross combinations between good and medium to poor performing parents had relatively high heterotic effects. F2 hybrids manifested larger heterogeneity and genetic variations. Plant Breed. H. W. Dong. 2010). 162 .R. Suppressed and intensified characters in cotton hybrids. 126:169-175. Turgut (2003). Islamabad. Baloch..

3: 2013-2015. J. N. Kandasamy. and M. Marwat. and G. Hassan and G. hirsutum L. Mahmood (2000). 11: 53-62. W.W. 92:17-22. A. Assessment of useful heterosis in glandless G. Yield and fiber-quality potential for secondgeneration cotton hybrids. S. X. A. Agric.B. G. N. Hassan. 32: 65-68. Parveen. Heterosis and inbreeding depression and mean performance in segregating generations in upland cotton.. R. 15: 563-568. G. Khan. Acta Agron. 26: 919-924.A. 163 . and M. J.).. Eur. N. Heterosis and combining ability of cottons originating from different regions of the United States.U. Genetic analysis.B.). and A. its components. Kalhoro (2000). Khan. 17: 531–546. Eur.. Khan.A... Hybrid vigor (F1) and inbreeding depression (F2) for some economic traits in crosses between glandless and glanded cotton. A. Aiman. S. Sci. Meredith. Raveendran. Sci. N. Li. Cotton Sci.R. A. The Pak.D. and J. Jr. The Pak. Kumbhar. Res. Univ. and M..B. Ph. 30: 1045-1048. G. and J.). N. Bot. Morphology and yield traits.U. Hassan. Parveen. Cottons 44: 13-23. Song. Study of heterosis in upland cotton-II.R. Kumbhar. Combining ability and heterosis for yield traits in cotton (G. J. Jayaramachandran (2005). Performance of cotton F1 hybrids and its relation to the mean yield of advanced bulk generations.U. Abro. Khan and A. Saeed (2009). Khan (1999).H. W. Y. Sarhad J. Kumbhar. Aiman. Pak.B. Khan. Madras Agric. K. Abro.S. Khan. H. Roupakias (1999). its components and lint % in upland cotton. 2: 77-84. fiber and oil quality traits in upland cotton (G.Y. and M. Tandojam. hirsutum cotton strains through their performance in hybrid combination. Razzaq (1999). J. M. Combining ability analysis to identify suitable parents for heterosis in seed cotton yield. Pak.U. Agron. T. N...R. M. Soomro.S. Sindh Agric. J. I. Shen. Xu (2000). Brown (1998). Crops Prod. G. Meredith. hirsutum). Kang.K. (2000). R. W. Muthu. Hassan. Soomro. M.Galanopoulou-Sendouca.B. U.D Dissertation. (1990). H. G. 29: 108115. hirsutum L. Selection crosses with heterosis for F2 generation of hybrids in upland cotton (G. hirsutum). Exploitation of heterosis can combat cotton leaf curl virus (CLCuV) incidence in cotton (G. (2003).K.R. Kumbhar. G. Mahmood. M.U. Combining ability and heterobeltiotic estimates in a diallel cross of cotton (G. Crop Sci. combining ability and heterotic studies for yield. Khan. Cottons 43: 21-33. Pakistan.P. Sin. Ind. Saeed (2007). W. Khan. U.U. G. Jr. Hassan. M. Ravikesavan. hirsutum L. Hu. Biol.

14: 269-272.L. Zhang.Z. Zhang. L. 17:18-23.P.1. Wang (2000). Guo and C.Z. J.Z. Y.C.164 Tang. J.H. Xing..J. hirsutum L.Z. Heterosis and gene action of boll weight and lint percentage in high quality fiber property varieties in upland cotton. Pan. 12: 6-11. Pan (1991). and X. 10: 713-715. Heterosis performance of yield and fibre quality in F1 and F2 hybrids in upland cotton. Agric. Pang. Sin. J. F2 hybrids of host plant germplasm and cotton cultivars . J.. T.Z.. X. L. W. Sin. Field performance of F1 hybrids. Heterosis and combining ability for lint yield and yield components. Zhang. Jing. Zhu and T. Li (2000). Plant Breed.H. and L. Xing. S. Study on the heterosis and combining ability of transgenic Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton. Yuan. 123: 285-289. Progresses on hybrid cotton and its future studies.L.M. Wei. X.P. Guo. Sin. Heterosis of pre-forest lint yield of hybrid between cultivars or lines within upland cotton (G. Guo. X.E.C. Y. 28:196-202. J. Emery and P.M. Tang (2001). Sci.N. Jing.). J. Yuan and H.A. Rice (1970). Yuan.Z.L. Wynne. I..Z.T. Acta Agron. 33: 111-112.C. Sin. Wu.. Studies of the inheritance of seed qualities and the exploitation of F2 heterosis in low gossypol strains in upland cotton. Wang (2002). S.. D.P.L. Li.M. Watson (1993). Crop Sci. 33: 700-705. 164 . Zhao.G.L. and J. Q.R. Guo. W. II.Z. Cotton Sci. Cotton Sci. C.J. Yin. Crop Sci. J. Combining ability estimates in Arachis hypogeae L. C.Q. Genetic analysis of heterosis and inbreeding depression in upland cotton..J. B. Wang. Zhang (2004). Jenkins. Pan and R. J. R.R. T. J. Kohel (2002). McCarty and C.D. Y. 28: 471-81. Acta Genet.J. Wang. Y. Acta Agron.