Published March 20, 2015
RESEARCH
Evaluating Intraplant Cotton Fiber Variability
Neha Kothari,* Jane Dever, Steve Hague, and Eric Hequet
ABSTRACT
It is well documented that cotton fiber variability
exists across and within cultivars, across envi-
ronments, soil quality, biotic and abiotic stresses.
Having uniform fiber quality is a primary goal for
cotton breeders to enhance profitability and sus-
tainability. The objective of this research was to
identify the within-plant variability in fiber qual-
ity of six diverse genotypes of Gossypium hirsu-
tum and Gossypium barbasense. This research
was conducted in College Station, TX, for 3 yr in
2009, 2010, and 2011 at the Texas A&M AgriL-
ife Research farm. Fiber samples were collected
from individual sympodial branches of the plants
in three replications and ginned on a tabletop
saw gin. Fiber-quality testing was done using
the Advanced Fiber Information System. Statisti-
cal analyses inclusive of ANOVA and best linear
unbiased predictors and fiber correlations were
performed. A distinct pattern of within-plant fiber
variability was observed, with a trend showing
that beneficial traits lie in the bottom sympodial
fruiting positions while the poor-quality bolls
are located at the higher sympodial positions
within the plant. This pattern was seen across all
genotypes in all years. Percentage of difference
in fiber length among the longest and shortest
fibers within the plant showed that ‘FM 832’ had
the maximal within-plant fiber length variability
while ‘DP HTO Pima’ had the least within-plant
length variability. Correlation analyses revealed a
strong negative relationship between fiber length
and standard fineness and a positive relationship
between length and fiber maturity. A positive cor-
relation was observed between short fiber con-
tent, immature fiber content and fiber neps.
564
N. Kothari and J. Dever, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, 1102 East
FM 1294, Lubbock, TX 79403; S. Hague, 370 Olsen Blvd, College
Station, TX 77843; and E. Hequet, Fiber and Biopolymer Research
Institute, 1001 East Loop 289, Lubbock, TX 79409. Received 28 Jan.
2014. Corre­sponding author (neha.kothari@ag.tamu.edu).
Abbreviations: AFIS, Advanced Fiber Information System; BLUP,
best linear unbiased predictor; CSIRO, Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research Organization; FBRI, Fiber and Biopolymer
Research Institute; IFC, immature fiber content; length(n), length (by
number); SFC(n), short fiber content (by number).
C otton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) fiber quality is determined by
multiple biotic, abiotic factors, genetic components, and inter-
action among these components with the growing environment.
These interactions lead to a high degree of variability in fiber qual-
ity across different species and cultivars, within the same cultivars,
within fields, across and within rows, within bales, within a plant,
and even within a single boll. Keeping pace with the requirements
set by spinning and weaving technologies, the need to control
cotton fiber variability along with maximizing yield is urgent
(Clouvel et al., 1998; Davidonis et al., 1999; Wilkins and Jernstedt.,
1999; Davidonis et al., 2004; Bednarz et al., 2006; Krifa, 2012).
Variability in cotton fiber quality and yield has been attributed
to variation in soil pH and organic matter (Johnson et al., 2002;
Elms et al., 2001), moisture content and soil fertility (Pettigrew,
1996; Johnson et al., 1999), and weed pressure and insect pressure
(O’Berry et al., 2009; Reeves et al., 2010). Growing environment
is probably one of the greatest causes of variability in fiber quality
and yield within a genotype. Changes in temperature impact the
metabolism of the plants, which in turn affects boll development.
Published in Crop Sci. 55:564–570 (2015).
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2014.01.0077
© Crop Science Society of America | 5585 Guilford Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publisher. Permission for printing and for reprinting the material contained herein
has been obtained by the publisher.
www.crops.org crop science, vol. 55, march– april 2015
This leads to unpredictable changes in the fiber quality
within developing bolls (Gipson and Joham, 1968; Gipson
and Joham, 1969). Ultraviolet radiation leads to depolymer-
ization of cellulose chains in the fibers, leading to changes
in the overall fiber quality (Morton and Hearle, 1997).
Aside from phenotypically controlled fiber quality, fiber
analysis and textile processing introduce additional sources
of variation (Behery, 1993; Cranmer, 2004; MacAlister and
Rogers, 2005; Faulkner, 2008). When cotton is harvested
with a mechanical stripper, top bolls of the plant are har-
vested, which tend to be immature. When that cotton is
ginned we generate higher short fiber content. With stripper
harvested cotton we use more seed cotton cleaner and more
lint cleaner than with picker harvested cotton. This leads
to further increase in short fiber content (El Mogahzy and
Chewning, 2001). All these factors contribute to variabil-
ity within and among bales of cotton. Variability in cotton
bales coming from physical attributes has been shown to
affect the finished-product quality and manufacturing effi-
ciency (Bradow et al., 1996). Moore (1996) concluded that
to improve and optimize efficiency of blending, spinning,
Figure 1. Harvest design for the trial in College Station, TX, in
and dyeing processes, textile mills require effective descrip-
2009, 2010, and 2011.
tion and measurement of fiber quality traits.
The primary objective of this study was to evaluate hirsutum (PI 528520 or SA 116). It comes from the Mississippi
within-plant variability of fiber quality. Multiple genotypes Obsolete Variety collection and is known for its high micronaire,
were used and planted across 3 yr to understand variability short staple, and late maturity.
across environments. The degree of variability was esti-
mated to partition genotype and environmental effects. Experimental Design
The six cultivars were grown in 2009, 2010, and 2011 at the
Texas A&M AgriLife Research farm at College Station, TX. All
MATERIALS AND METHODS entries were grown in two-row plots (12 m × 1.0 m) with three
Genotypes biological replications in each year. The soil type was Westwood
Six genotypes, ‘Acala 1517-99’, ‘DP HTO Pima’, ‘Fibermax 832 silt loam, a fine-silty, mixed thermic Fluventic Ustochrept, inter-
(FM 832)’, ‘Half and Half ’, ‘Texas Marker-1 (TM-1)’, and ‘West graded with Ships clay, which is a fine, mixed, thermic Udic
Texas Rough’ were selected for this study. These were selected Chromustert. The experiment was arranged in a randomized
on the basis of growing habits, fiber quality, rate of crop matu- complete block design.
rity, and adaptation to College Station, TX.
Acala 1517-99 (PI 612326) is a cultivar with high-quality
Harvest and Fiber Testing
fiber. It has an indeterminate growing habit and dense foliage.
Seed cotton was hand-harvested from all the plants in the trial and
Plant height under normal cultivation generally is moderate
partitioned on the basis of fruiting branch (Fig. 1). Each trial was
relative to other cultivars. It was derived from a cross between
defoliated when at least 75% of all bolls were fully open, after which
B742/E1141 and developed at the New Mexico Agricultural
hand-harvesting was started. All bolls for analysis were harvested
Experimental Station (Cantrell et al., 2000). DP HTO Pima (PI
from first fruiting branch position, and these bolls were harvested
9800192) is a G. barbadense (Pima cotton) variety developed in
separately from each of the sympodial positions within each plant.
the United States and characterized by long and fine fibers typi-
All the plants were harvested at thirteen sympodial positions for
cal of Pima cotton. It exhibits late maturity in College Station,
the three biological replications planted. Seed cotton was ginned
TX. Fibermax 832 (PI 603955) was developed in Australia by the
with a 10-saw laboratory scale gin with no lint cleaning.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
Fiber properties were measured at the Fiber and Biopolymer
(CSIRO) and marketed by Bayer CropScience. It is a cultivar
Research Institute (FBRI), Lubbock, TX, with Advanced Fiber
with an okra leaf, acceptable fiber yield, and high-quality fiber
Information System (AFIS). For AFIS testing, one nonreplicated
(Reid, 1995). Half and Half (PI 528511) was developed in 1936
blended sample was used with 10,000 fibers analyzed per sample.
in Georgia. Known for its short staple and round bolls, this cul-
For sample preparation, a 500-mg tuft of fibers was drawn into a
tivar has higher fiber micronaire values (Brown, 1936). Texas
25-cm length sliver, and 10,000 fibers were measured from that
Marker-1 is a standard reference for American upland (G. hirsu-
sample. Conditioning was tested every day to monitor a possible
tum) cotton. TM-1 (PI 607172 or SA 2269) was selected in 1947
drift of the instrument. Advanced Fiber Information System pro-
from a commercial variety ‘Deltapine 14’, which was originally
vides two categories of length measurements, namely, length by
released in 1941 (Kohel et al., 1970). West Texas Rough is a G.

crop science, vol. 55, march– april 2015  www.crops.org 565

Table 1. Analysis of variance for fiber length (by number) (length[n]), short fiber content (by number) (SFC[n]), neps, fineness,
maturity ratio, standard fineness, immature fiber content (IFC), and trash in 2009, 2010, and 2011 at College Station, TX.

Mean squares

Maturity Standard
Source DF Length(n) SFC(n) Neps Fineness ratio fineness IFC Trash
Year 2 137.17 2877** 129610 2593 0.062 8902** 48.12 26301986
Genotype 5 681.01** 298 664151** 69430** 0.055 71158** 66.50* 6268719
Genotype ´ Year 10 43.47** 222** 45421** 1836** 0.015** 1133** 12.26** 2353808**
Genotype ´ Sympodial 60 1.78 16 8513 93 0.001 32 0.89 157516
Genotype ´ Year ´ Sympodial 136 1.51 15 11165** 93** 0.001 45** 0.77 166676**
Sympodial 12 24.69** 296** 121337** 1941** 0.015** 536** 16.61** 1285771**
Residual Error 397 1.43 18 6587 63 0.001 29 0.85 110770
*Significant at 0.05
**Significant at 0.01.

number and length by weight. Typically 9000 to 15,000 fibers
are individually measured for length parameters. The arithmetic
average of all the measured fibers is then calculated. This param-
eter is called the mean length by number, also referred to as
length(n). Length by weight is calculated from length by number,
assuming that the linear density is constant across length groups.
This research uses the length-by-number-based measurements,
and testing was performed under constant climate-controlled
conditions. The standard temperature for textile testing is 20
±2°C at 65 ±2% relative humidity. Before testing, samples
were arranged in single layers and allowed to equilibrate for 48
h under standard atmospheric conditions. To minimize experi-
mental error, the same technician ran all the samples.
Statistical Analysis
The trial design was statistically analyzed as a split-plot, where
the factorial arrangement of treatments (genotypes) was the main
plot and the thirteen sympodial branches (sympodial) were the
split-plot factor for each year. For this analysis, it was assumed that
sympodial branches were independent sources of variation. Rep-
lications (rep), rep ´ factorial treatments (genotypes), and rep ´
sympodial (branch) were considered random effects. Years, years
´ factorial treatments (genotypes), years ´ sympodial (branch)
were also considered random effects. Factorial effects, geno-
types, and sympodial (branches) were considered as fixed effects.
For the purpose of best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) test-
ing genotypes, sympodial branches, replications (rep), and years
were considered random effects. Best linear unbiased predictors
were estimated to predict the effect generated by each sympodial
branch on the first fruiting position across all entries in all envi-
ronments. Fiber data for the samples were analyzed and ANOVA
with means, standard deviation, and BLUP estimates calculated
using the PROC MIXED SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute, 2012). Mean
separations and least square means were calculated using JMP
genomics 6.0 (JMP, 2012), where years and replications were
treated as random effects. Means were estimated to provide the
actual averaged value across all entries and environments tested
as opposed to BLUPs, which predict the effect generated by each
sympodial branch for all entries and environments. One-way
ANOVA analysis was done for the calculation of percentage of
fiber variability between genotypes using PROC GLM SAS 9.3.
Correlation analysis was done using JMP genomics 6.0 (JMP,
2012) using the restricted maximal likelihood method.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Advanced Fiber Information System analyses indicate a
significant genotype ´ year interaction for all the fiber
traits observed: length(n), short fiber content (by number)
(SFC[n]), fineness, maturity ratio, standard fineness, imma-
ture fiber content [IFC], nep count, trash count) (Table 1).
Conversely, there were no significant effects observed from
genotype ´ sympodial branch interaction for any traits.
Short fiber content (by number) and standard fineness show
significant effects from years, while length(n), nep count,
fineness, standard fineness, and IFC show significant effects
from genotypes. A genotype ´ years ´ sympodial branch
significant effect was observed for nep count, fineness, stan-
dard fineness, and trash count. All fiber traits tested show
highly significant sympodial branch effects.
Best linear unbiased predictor estimates (Table 2) indi-
cate that sympodial branches 1 through 5 had significant or
highly significant positive effects for most of the fiber traits
examined in this study (nep count was significant from
sympodial branches 1 through 4 while trash count showed
increased amounts in the first two sympodial branches).
Sympodial branches 11 through 13 had a highly significant
negative effect on the fiber length(n), SFC(n), maturity ratio,
IFC, and nep count. Sympodial branches 10 though 13 had
a significant negative effect on fiber fineness and standard
fineness. There was no significant effect on fiber length(n),
SFC(n), maturity ratio, IFC, and nep count coming from
sympodial branches 6 through 10. There was no significant
effect observed from sympodial branches 6 through 9 for
fiber fineness and standard fineness. Trash content indicated
elevated levels at the lower sympodial branches and lower
levels at the higher sympodial branches.
Least square means indicated that overall fiber length(n)
was best at the lower sympodial branches (1 through 7)
compared with the upper sympodial branches (8 through
13). Analysis of variance from the mixed model showed a
genotypic and genotype ´ year effect for length(n). For the
purpose of evaluating the overall performance of all geno-
types across the years, we analyzed the least square means
and BLUPs obtained from all years and genotypes for the

566 www.crops.org crop science, vol. 55, march– april 2015

Table 2. Best linear unbiased predictor estimates for fiber length (by number) (length[n]), short fiber content (by number)
(SFC[n]), neps, fineness, maturity ratio, standard fineness, immature fiber content (IFC), and trash in 2009, 2010, and 2011 at
College Station, TX.
Maturity Standard
Sympodial Length(n) SFC(n) Neps Fineness ratio fineness IFC Trash
mm % count/gram mg/kg no. units mg/kg % count/gram
1 0.96** -3.06** -45* 7.31** 0.021** 3.71** -0.70** 333**
2 0.80** -2.81** -50** 8.07** 0.023** 4.09** -0.68** 173*
3 0.62* -2.12* -37* 6.38** 0.018** 3.21** -0.61** 103
4 0.68** -2.41** -42* 5.94** 0.016** 3.07** -0.55** 57
5 0.53* -2.04* -35 5.14* 0.015* 2.47* -0.48* 56
6 0.35 -0.88 -24 1.95 0.005 1.17 -0.21 54
7 0.13 -0.41 -24 0.63 -0.001 0.65 -0.05 -22
8 -0.01 -0.58 -21 -0.32 0.002 -0.79 -0.12 -80
9 -0.06 0.48 -11 -2.68 -0.006 -1.54 0.16 -107
10 -0.31 1.26 10 -4.31* -0.011 -2.48* 0.37 -142*
11 -0.88** 3.04** 68** -8.26** -0.021** -4.42** 0.68** -167**
12 -0.98** 3.15** 67** -9.04** -0.023** -4.92** 0.76** -115
13 -1.82** 6.36** 144** -10.81** -0.038** -4.21** 1.42** -143
* P < 0.05.
** P < 0.01.

multiple sympodial positions tested, keeping into account
the interaction and effects observed in the model.
SFC(n) increased with the higher sympodial positions,
indicating a deterioration in the length parameters as that
observed for length(n). Sympodial branches 1 through 5 had
a reduction of SFC(n), while branches 11 through 13 had an
increase of SFC(n). When dealing with fiber-length-based
traits, the end use of cotton makes it desirable to have long
fibers and less SFC. Cotton fibers receive a premium pric-
ing based on longer lengths and less SFC.
Fiber maturity ratio, fineness, and standard fineness are
treated as a complex of traits that are highly related to each
other. Hequet et al. (2006) have defined fiber standard fine-
ness (Hs) to be the closest measure to the biological fineness
of the cotton fiber and is therefore heritable where H =
fineness and M = maturity ratio. It was observed that fine-
ness and standard fineness were significantly improved by
sympodial branches 1 through 5, while fineness measure-
ments were negatively impacted by sympodial branches 10
through 13. Fiber maturity ratio was significantly improved
by sympodial branches 1 through 5 and significantly
reduced by sympodial branches 11 through 13. The geno-
typic effects observed in the ANOVA come from an inter-
action from DP HTO Pima and Half and Half (standard
fineness) and DP HTO Pima and West Texas Rough (fine-
ness). Least square means showed fiber fineness and stan-
dard fineness were higher in the lower sympodial branches
of the plants, while fibers got finer in the higher sympodial
branches (Table 3). Depending on the range of fineness,
one would generally desire fine and long fibers over coarse
ones for efficient textile spinning. Fineness was significantly
better from sympodial branches 1 through 6, while it was
finer or lower in branches 9 through 13. Fiber maturity ratio
was significantly better in sympodial branches 1 through 6
and significantly lower in branches 9 through 13.
Fiber nep count and IFC are closely related traits
because the presence of immature fibers is associated with
the formation of neps. The American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) (ASTM, 1994, 1994) defines a nep
as “one or more fibers occurring in a tangled and unorga-
nized mass.” Neps are created when fibers become tangled
in the process of harvesting, ginning, and other processing
operations. They can cause difficulty for mills and detract
from the appearance of yarns and fabrics (Davidonis et al.,
2003). It was observed from the BLUP data that fiber nep
count was significantly reduced by sympodial branches 1
through 4, while IFC was reduced by sympodial branches
1 through 5 (Table 2). Nep count and IFC were increased
by sympodial positions 11 through 13. Means (Table 3)
showed lower IFC in sympodial branches 1 through 4 and
much higher proportions in sympodial branches 9 through
13. Neps are reduced in sympodial branches 1 through 9
compared with branches 10 through 13.
In general, fiber quality was better in the bottom half
of the plant compared with the top half. It was frequently
observed (on the basis of the BLUP and least square means
data) that the middle zone of the plants (sympodial branches
6 to 9) showed no significant effect on the overall fiber qual-
ity in the plants. Overall genotype performance showed
that DP HTO Pima had the longest fibers (averaging to
22.82 mm) while Half and Half had the shortest (16.04
mm) (Table 3). It was interesting to see that mean separa-
tions showed five different groups for length(n) for the six
genotypes used in this study indicating genotypic diversity.
It was observed that the highest SFC(n) was also observed
in DP HTO Pima (22.16%), Half and Half (22.05%), and
Acala1517-99 (21.93%). DP HTO Pima also had the high-
est number of fiber neps (340 per gram), while Half and
Half and West Texas Rough had the lowest. Fineness and
standard fineness was distributed into six separate groups by

crop science, vol. 55, march– april 2015  www.crops.org 567

Table 3. Least square means for sympodial branches and genotypes for fiber length (by number) (length[n]), short fiber content
(by number) (SFC[n]), neps, fineness, maturity ratio, standard fineness, immature fiber content (IFC), and trash in 2009, 2010,
and 2011 at College Station, TX.
Maturity Standard
Entry Length(n) SFC(n) Neps Fineness ratio fineness IFC Trash
mm % count/gram mg/kg no. units mg/kg % count/gram
Sympodial 1 21.37 a† 17.10 e 147 cd 177 a 0.940 ab 188 ab 5.09 f 1051 a
Sympodial 2 21.19 ab 17.41 e 141 d 178 a 0.943 a 189 a 5.11 ef 866 ab
Sympodial 3 21.01 ab 18.09 de 155 cd 176 ab 0.938 abc 188 ab 5.19 ef 790 abc
Sympodial 4 21.05 ab 17.82 de 150 cd 176 ab 0.936 abc 188 ab 5.25 ef 737 bcd
Sympodial 5 20.89 abc 18.20 de 157 cd 175 ab 0.935 abc 187 abc 5.33 def 738 bcd
Sympodial 6 20.69 abc 19.42 cde 168 cd 172 abc 0.925 abcd 186 abcd 5.62 cdef 735 bcd
Sympodial 7 20.44 abc 19.91 cde 169 cd 170 bc 0.918 cd 185 abcde 5.78 cde 659 bcd
Sympodial 8 20.28 bcd 19.78 cde 170 cd 169 bc 0.921 bcd 184 bcdef 5.71 cdef 588 cd
Sympodial 9 20.25 bcd 20.86 bcd 181 cd 167 cd 0.913 de 183 cdef 5.99 bcd 559 cd
Sympodial 10 19.98 cde 21.67 bc 201 bc 165 cde 0.909 de 182 def 6.22 bc 512 d
Sympodial 11 19.34 def 23.59 b 260 b 161 de 0.896 ef 180 f 6.56 b 499 d
Sympodial 12 19.22 ef 23.65 b 259 b 161 de 0.895 ef 178 f 6.61 ab 550 cd
Sympodial 13 18.14 f 25.53 a 349 a 158 e 0.875 f 179 ef 7.43 a 527 cd
Genotypes
Acala 1517–99 21.21 c 21.93 a 228 b 154 e 0.907 c 170 e 6.42 b 603 cd
FM 832 22.16 b 19.28 b 171 c 165 d 0.948 a 174 d 5.19 c 467 de
Half and Half 16.04 e 22.05 a 132 d 189 b 0.898 c 210 b 6.09 b 1152 a
DP HTO Pima 22.82 a 22.16 a 340 a 129 f 0.886 d 145 f 7.16 a 788 b
TM-1 21.40 c 19.72 b 168 c 178 c 0.930 b 191 c 5.51 c 673 bc
West Texas Rough 18.14 d 17.18 c 117 d 207 a 0.946 a 219 a 4.64 d 383 e
†
Means with the same letters are not significantly different.

least square means for all six genotypes. West Texas Rough
had the coarsest fibers overall (207 mg/km), while DP HTO
Pima had the finest (129 mg/km). West Texas Rough and
FM 832 had the highest fiber maturity ratio, while DP
HTO Pima had the lowest overall maturity. DP HTO Pima
also had the highest IFC (7.16%), while West Texas Rough
had the lowest (4.64%). Half and Half had the highest trash
content and West Texas Rough had the lowest.
The results of this study have multiple implications
for the various contributors in the cotton industry. From
a cotton breeding point of view, this calls for proper boll
sampling protocols. It also suggests that if fiber quality can
be improved in the upper fruiting branches, breeders may
be able to develop higher quality fibers, thereby increas-
ing yield and value. It is obvious from the BLUPs and least
square means data that the first five sympodial branches
made a positive contribution to the cotton fiber quality,
while branches 10 through 13 caused negative effects. The
“middle zone” of the plants (sympodial branches 6 through
10) remained nonsignificant. Sampling bolls for fiber qual-
ity testing from this zone within plants (sympodial branches
6 through 10) may have potential to provide researchers
with nonbiased fiber data. However, it may still be a chal-
lenge to determine the “middle zone” for sampling, espe-
cially given the diversity of genotypes (yield, fiber quality,
plant height, number of fruiting branches, internode dis-
tance, etc.) commonly found in research programs.
The complex relationships among cotton-fiber-quality
parameters has been well documented (Hequet et al., 2006).
It was interesting to see that the overall best performer in
terms of fiber length(n) was DP HTO Pima (G. barbadense),
while it also produced the greatest amount of undesir-
able fiber components such as SFC(n), neps, and IFC. To
further explore fiber traits, phenotypic correlations were
estimated (Table 4). A highly significant negative correla-
tion (-0.69) was observed between standard fineness and
length(n), suggesting that finer fibers tend to be longer
fibers. Pima cottons are historically known to be long and
fine. However, correlation was stronger and highly signifi-
cant with standard fineness and length(n) compared with
fineness and length(n) (-0.69 versus -0.49), indicating
that not only do fibers have to be fine but they also have
to be mature to retain and improve fiber length. A nega-
tive correlation (-0.49) was also observed between SFC(n)
and length(n), suggesting that the presence of short fibers
reduces overall fiber length. Neps were highly correlated
with fineness, standard fineness, SFC(n), and IFC. Maturity
ratio was negatively correlated with neps (-0.64). These
relationships are likely due to short and immature fibers
getting entangled during fiber processing, which leads to
nep formation. Short fiber content (by number) and IFC
were highly positively correlated (0.80), while SFC(n) was
highly negatively correlated with fiber maturity (-0.79),
indicating that immature fibers are associated with high
SFC in fiber samples. Maturity ratio was negatively corre-
lated to SFC(n) and neps, while it was positively correlated
to length(n) (0.36). The data suggests immature fibers lead
to a higher number of short fibers and neps, while longer
fibers are associated with fine and mature fibers.

568 www.crops.org crop science, vol. 55, march– april 2015

Table 4. Correlations between fiber traits from ‘Acala 1517-99’, ‘DP HTO Pima’, ‘FiberMax 832’, ‘Half and Half’, ‘Texas Marker-1’
(TM-1), and ‘West Texas Rough’ in College Station, TX, in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Length(n), fiber length (by number); SFC(n),
short fiber content (by number); IFC, immature fiber content.
Standard Maturity
Correlations Count Length(n) Neps SFC(n) Fineness IFC fineness ratio
mm per gram % mg/kg % mg/kg no. units
Length(n) (mm) 629 –
Neps (per gram) 629 0.08* –
SFC(n) (%) 629 -0.49** 0.55** –
Fineness (mg/kg) 629 -0.49** -0.71** -0.34** –
IFC (%) 629 -0.21** 0.73** 0.80** -0.68** –
Standard Fineness (mg/kg) 629 -0.69** -0.60** -0.11** 0.95** -0.45** –
Maturity Ratio (no units) 629 0.36** -0.64** -0.79** 0.54** -0.94** 0.27** –
Trash (count) 629 -0.25** 0.05 0.29** 0.00 0.26** 0.14** -0.38**
* P < 0.05.
** P < 0.01.

The environment in which the cotton plant develops
plays a significant role in its fiber quality. In this dataset,
many fiber traits had significant genotype by year interac-
tions. While environmental impacts on fiber quality have
been well documented, results from this study as well as
Table 5. Analysis of variance for percentage of difference in
fiber length (by number) (length[n]) among the longest and
shortest fibers within the plant in College Station, TX, in
2009, 2010, and 2011.
Mean squares

many others (Campbell et al., 2012, Smith et al., 2010, Long Source DF Length(n) % variability
et al., 2013) suggest that fiber-quality parameters such as Genotype 5 81.49*
Year 2 132.84*
length, strength, and elongation are highly heritable traits. Replications 2 26.61
To determine a genetic component for fiber-quality Error 42 33.92
variability within the plant, length(n) was used as a model * P < 0.05.
trait from this data set. The difference between highest and
lowest performers for each genotype in all 3 yr was tabulated, Table 6 Percentage of difference in fiber length (number)
and the percentage of decrease in fiber length was calculated among the longest and shortest fibers within the plant in
Coll­ege Station, TX, in 2009, 2010, and 2011.
relative to the longest fibers in the plant. A year and geno-
type effect was observed in this analysis (Table 5). The least Genotype Percent variability
square means calculation was done with respect to years and %
FM832 22.51 a†
reps as well as for genotypes separated by years. Because we
TM-1 19.41 ab
observed genotype effects in the model, it was evident there West Texas Rough 19.26 abc
was a genetic component associated with the variability of Acala 1517-99 17.13 abc
fiber length. If growing environment was the only contrib- Half and Half 15.44 bc
uting factor to the variability, we would not have seen a DP HTO Pima 14.09 c
genotypic effect in the model. Least square means (Table †
Means with the same letters are not significantly different.

6) suggested that overall, FM 832 (22.50%) had the high-

est percentage variability in fiber length compared with DP
PIMA HTO (14.08%) and Half and Half (14.44%). When
analyzed by year, it was observed that in 2009, West Texas
Rough, FM 832, and TM-1 had significantly higher vari-
ability compared with Acala 1517-99, DP HTO Pima, and
Half and Half. In 2010, DP HTO Pima had the least vari-
ability, while all other genotypes had significantly higher
variability, with FM 832 being the worst (28.40%). In 2011,
DP HTO Pima and Half and Half had the least variability
within the plant while FM 832 had the greatest (19.19%).
To reduce intraplant variability of fiber quality, bolls
should be sampled from the bottom five sympodial branches
and then compared against fiber derived from the upper five
sympodial branches. This comparison will enable research-
ers to understand the extent of variability present within the
genotypes. Calculating the percentage of difference in fiber
trait of interest and running a mean separation could assist the
cotton plant breeder in making better decisions for selection.
CONCLUSIONS
Results from trials at College Station, TX, in 2009, 2010,
and 2011 indicate that cotton-fiber-quality variability exists
within a plant. Fiber quality declined from the bottom sym-
podial branches toward the top. Fiber quality remains of
prime importance to the spinner for efficient, high-quality
textile processing. The goals of the current cotton industry
target high fiber quality along with yield. Reducing the
intraplant fiber variability may be one such approach to
improve fiber quality.
In the College Station length(n) data, the degree of
variability in fiber quality changes among genotypes. In
this trial, DP HTO Pima had the least intraplant variability

crop science, vol. 55, march– april 2015  www.crops.org 569


while FM 832 had the most variability. This strongly sug-
gests a genetic component associated with intraplant fiber
variability and an area in which cotton breeders can work
to improve fiber quality.
Results of these studies can help cotton breeders develop
and implement boll-sampling protocols in research programs,
allowing them to make the best estimate of inherent fiber
quality. This will enable scientists and researchers to make
improved decisions during the selection process. Second,
efforts can be directed into reducing the within-plant vari-
ability in cotton fiber quality using various breeding tools
and technologies available to the cotton plant breeders.
References
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1994. Standard
test methods for length and length distribution of cotton fibers (array
method) (D 1440-90). p. 377–382. In: Annual book of ASTM stan-
dards. Vol. 07.01. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
Bednarz, C., R. Nichols, and S. Brown. 2006. Plant density modi-
fies within-canopy cotton fiber quality. Crop Sci. 46:950–956.
doi:10.2135/cropsci2005.08-0276
Behery, H. 1993. Short fiber content and uniformity index in cotton.
International Cotton Advisory Committee Rev. Article 4. CABI
International, Wallingford, UK.
Bradow, J.M., G.F. Sassenrath-Cole, O. Hinojosa, and L.H. Wartelle.
1996. Cotton fiber physical and physiological maturity variation in
response to genotype and environment. In: Proceedings of the Beltwide
Cotton Conferences, Nashville, TN. 9–12 Jan. 1996. p. 1251–1254.
Brown, H.B. 1936. Cotton varieties recognized as standard commercial
varieties. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 28(1):69. doi:10.2134/agronj1936.000219
62002800010010x
Campbell, B.T., P.W. Chee, E. Lubbers, D.T. Bowman, W.R. Meredith, J.
Johnson, D. Fraser, W. Bridges, and D.C. Jones. 2012. Dissecting gen-
otype × environment interactions and trait correlations present in the
Pee Dee cotton germplasm collection following seventy years of plant
breeding. Crop Sci. 52:690–699. doi:10.2135/cropsci2011.07.0380
Cantrell, R.G., D.L. Auld, E. Bechere, M.D. Ethridge, W.D. Becker,
and E. Hequet. 2000. Registration of TTU 202-1107B and TTU 271-
2155C mutant germplasm lines of upland cotton with improved fiber
quality. Crop Sci. 40:1835–1836.
Clouvel, P., E. Goze, R. Sequeira, J. Dusserre, and M. Cretener. 1998.
Variability of cotton fiber quality. p. 963–966. In: Proceedings of the
2nd world cotton research conference—New frontiers in cotton, 6–12
Sept. 1998.
Cranmer, L.M. 2004. A better understanding of the number of fibers per
seed in cotton. Master’s thesis, Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock, TX.
Davidonis, G., A. Johnson, J. Landivar, and K. Hood. 1999. The cotton
fiber property variability continuum from motes through seeds. Text.
Res. J. 69(10):754–759. doi:10.1177/004051759906901009
Davidonis, G., J. Landivar, and C. Fernandez. 2003. Growth environ-
ment alters fiber properties, motes, neps and white speck frequency.
Text. Res. J. 73:960–964. doi:10.1177/004051750307301105
Davidonis, G., A. Johnson, J. Landivar, and J. Fernandez. 2004. Cotton
fiber quality is related to boll location and planting date. Agron. J.
96:42–47. doi:10.2134/agronj2004.0042
Elms, M., C. Green, and P. Johnson. 2001. Variability of cotton yield
and quality. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 32:351–368. doi:10.1081/
CSS-100103012
El Mogahzy, Y., and C. Chewning. 2001. Cotton fiber to yarn manufac-
turing technology. Cotton Incorporated, Cary, NC.
570 www.crops.org
Faulkner, B. 2008. Comparison of picker and stripper harvesters on irri-
gated cotton on the High Plains of Texas. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas
A&M Univ., College Station, TX.
Gipson, J.R., and H.E. Joham. 1968. Influence of night temperature on
growth and development of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) II. Fiber
properties. Agron. J. 60:296–298. doi:10.2134/agronj1968.000219620
06000030015x
Gipson, J.R., and H.E. Joham. 1969. Influence of night temperature on
growth and development of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) III. Fiber
elongation. Crop Sci. 9:127–129. doi:10.2135/cropsci1969.0011183X0
00900020004x
Hequet, E., B. Wyatt, N. Abidi, and D. Thibodeaux. 2006. Creation of a
set of reference material for cotton fiber maturity measurements. Text.
Res. J. 76(7):576–586. doi:10.1177/0040517506064710
Johnson, R., J. Bradow, P. Bauer, and E. Sadler. 1999. Spatial variability
of cotton fiber yield and quality in relation to soil variability. Proc. of
the Fourth International Conference on Precision Agriculture, 19–22
July 1998, St. Paul.
Johnson, R., R. Downer, J. Bradow, P. Bauer, and E. Sadler. 2002.
Variability in cotton fiber yield, fiber quality, and soil properties in
a southeastern coastal plain. Agron. J. 94:1305–1316. doi:10.2134/
agronj2002.1305
JMP. 2012. Version 6.0. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
Kohel, R., T. Richmond, and C. Lewis. 1970. Description of a genetic
standard for Gossypium hirsutum L. Crop Sci. 10:670–674. doi:10.2135/
cropsci1970.0011183X001000060019x
Krifa, M. 2012. Fiber length distribution variability in cotton bale clas-
sification: Interactions among length, maturity and fineness. Text. Res.
J. 82(12):1244–1254. doi:10.1177/0040517512438124
Long, R., M. Bange, C. Delhom, J. Church, and G. Constable. 2013.
An assessment of alternative cotton fibre quality attributes and their
relationship with yarn strength. Crop Pasture Sci. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1071/CP12382 (accessed 9 Sept. 2014).
MacAlister, D., III, and C. Rogers. 2005. The effect of harvesting proce-
dures on fiber and yarn quality on ultra-narrow-row cotton. J. Cotton
Sci. 9:15–23.
Moore, J.F. 1996. Cotton classification and quality. In: E.H. Glade, Jr.,
L.A. Meyer, and H. Stults, editors, The cotton industry in the United
States, p. 51-57. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Eco-
nomic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 739.
USDA, ERS, Washington, DC.
Morton, W., and J.W.S. Hearle. 1997. Textile institute, physical properties
of textile fibers. 3rd ed. The Textile Institute, Manchester.
O’Berry, N.B., J.C. Faircloth, M.A. Jones, D.A. Herbert, Jr., A.O. Abaye,
T.E. McKemie, and C. Brownie. 2009. Differential responses of cotton
cultivars when applying mepiquat pentaborate. Agron. J. 101:25–31.
doi:10.2134/agronj2007.0333
Pettigrew, W.T. 1996. Low light conditions compromise the quality of
fiber produced. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conferences. National Cotton
Council of America, Memphis, TN. p. 1238-1239.
Reeves, R.B., J.K. Greene, F.P.F. Reay-Jones, M.D. Toews, and P.D.
Gerard. 2010. Effects of adjacent habitat on populations of stink bugs
(Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) in cotton as part of a variable agroecosys-
tem. Environ. Entomol. 39(5):1420–1427. doi:10.1603/EN09194
Reid, P. 1995. Siokra V-15. Plant Varieties Journal. 8:13.
SAS Institute. 2012. SAS/STAT guide for personal computer. Version 9.
3rd ed. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
Smith, C.W., K. Joy, E. Hequet, S. Hague, P.S. Thaxton, and C. Souder.
2010. Fiber properties and mini-spun yarn performance of extra-long
staple upland cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 14:82–90.
Wilkins, T.A., and J.A. Jernstedt. 1999. Molecular genetics of developing
cotton fibers. In: A. Basra, editor, Cotton fibers, chap. 9, p. 231–269.
Hawthorne Press, New York.
crop science, vol. 55, march– april 2015