Breeding upland cotton for resistance to the tarnished plant bug

  • Published on
    03-Jan-2017

  • View
    219

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

<ul><li><p>Field Crops Research, 21 (1989) 227-238 227 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., AmsterdAm - - Printed in The Netherlands </p><p>Breeding Upland Cotton for Resistance to the Tarnished Plant Bug </p><p>M.R. MILAM', J.N. JENKINS 2, J.C. McCARTY, Jr. 2 and W.L. PARROTT 2 </p><p>~Northeast Research Station (Macon Ridge), LAES, Rt. 5, Box 244, Winnsboro, LA 71295 (U.S.A.) 2Crop Science Research Lab., Mississippi State, MS 39762 (U.S.A.) </p><p>(Accepted 10 March 1989) </p><p>ABSTRACT </p><p>Milam, M.R., Jenkins, J.N., McCarty, J.C. Jr. and Parrott, W.L., 1989. Breeding upland cotton for resistance to the tarnished plant bug. Field Crops Res., 21: 227-238. </p><p>The tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois), reduces yield and delays ma- turity in cotton, Gossypiurn hirsutum L., in many parts of the southeastern cotton belt. The objectives of this study were: a) to determine the response of six cotton strains to this pest; b) to obtain information on gene action conditioning this response to tarnished plant bugs; and c) to select progeny in the presence of tarnished plant bugs for early-season yielding ability. </p><p>The six strains evaluated were: Bulgarian 3279, Deltapine 7146N, DES-06, ORH 78-75, Stone- ville 213 frego, and Coker 420 smooth nectariless. The four crosses utilized were: Deltapine 7146NBulgarian 3279 (cross 1), Stoneville 213 fregoBulgarian 3279 (cross 2), Coker 420 smooth nectariless X ORH 78-75 (cross 3), and DES-06ORH 78-75 (cross 4). </p><p>Resistance is based on the relative seedcotton yield and yield loss at first harvest in unsprayed plots as compared to insecticide-treated plots. </p><p>Generation-mean analyses indicate that crosses 1, 2, and 4 appear to have genes segregating for resistance to the tarnished plant bug. Dominant gene action was primarily responsible for seed- cotton yield and percentage of total seedcotton at first harvest (earliness), and boll weight. In- heritance of lint percentage was primarily additive. </p><p>Several selected progeny tested under plant-bug infestations produced higher seedcotton yields at first harvest than their higher-yielding parent or control cultivar. Early maturity (higher per- cent of total seedcotton at first harvest) was maintained in most selections when plant bugs were present. Growing progeny under high levels of plant bugs allows both the elimination of the most susceptible lines and the identification of lines with resistance to the tarnished plant bug. </p><p>INTRODUCTION </p><p>The t a rn i shed p lan t bug, Lygus lineolaris (Pal isot de Beauvois) , is an eco- nomic pest on cot ton , Gossypium hirsutum L., in m a n y par t s of the southeas t - ern Un i t ed Sta tes co t ton belt. Reduc t ion in yield and delayed ma tu r i t y are associa ted with t a rn i shed p lan t bug damage early in the f rui t ing season. </p></li><li><p>228 </p><p>Laster and Meredith (1974) identified genetic variability in cotton for re- sistance to the tarnished plant bug. Jenkins et al. (1977b) evaluated a wide range of cotton lines for resistance to the tarnished plant bug and classified 30 as more resistant than standard commercial cultivars. The pubescence of five lines from Trinidad was apparently associated with resistance. Earliness as well as unidentified resistance factors were associated with the resistance in three lines each from Greece and Turkey. Jenkins and Parrott (1976) reported that Timok 811 and four okra-leaf, frego bract, hairy (ORH) lines from the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station MAR cotton breeding program were resistant to the tarnished plant bug. The resistance noted was associated with rapid fruiting and early maturity. Lambert (1977) reported that five early- maturing lines from Bulgaria (73, 3279, 3996, 4521, and 6111 ) were resistant. Nectariless cottons had fewer tarnished plant bugs than nectaried cottons (Meredith et al., 1973; Meredith 1976; Schuster et al., 1976). </p><p>Additive gene action for resistance to the tarnished plant bug was reported in progeny of'Stoneville 213' X 'Coker 201' (Meredith and Laster, 1975). Dom- inant gene action for late-season production was detected. Earliness and the ability to yield in the presence of large numbers of tarnished plant bugs were inherited additively in the cross 'Stoneville 213' 'Timok 811' (Jenkins et al., 1977a). Dominant gene action was indicated for late-season recovery. Two F3 progeny were earlier and higher-yielding than Stoneville 213 when plant bugs were present. </p><p>Objectives of this research were: a) to determine the relative response of six cotton strains to Lygus lineolaris; b) to obtain information on gene action con- ditioning resistance to tarnished plant bugs; and c) to select progeny in the presence of tarnished plant bugs for early-season yielding ability and accept- able agronomic traits. </p><p>MATERIALS AND METHODS </p><p>Six genetic stocks were used as parents. 'Deltapine 7146N '1 (DPLN) and 'Coker 420 smooth nectariless' (CN) are both nectariless strains. 'Bulgarian 3279' (3279) is an early-maturing upland cotton that sustained little yield-loss from plant bugs (Lambert, 1977). 'Stoneville 213 frego' (ST 213 fg) is an ex- perimental frego bract line in a Stoneville 213 background. The frego bract trait is normally susceptible to tarnished plant bugs (Lincoln et al., 1971). DES-06 (DES) has good yielding ability and is 10-14 days earlier than full- season cultivars. ORH 78-75 (ORH) is an okra-leaf, frego bract, hairy line with early maturity. </p><p>1Mention of a cultivar, trademark, or proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee or war- ranty of the product of the USDA and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of the other products that may also be suitable. </p></li><li><p>229 </p><p>Differences in yield and relative maturity in plots with and without tar- nished plant bugs measured resistance to that insect. This technique gauges the ability of the plant to mature bolls when continuous populations of tar- nished plant bugs are allowed to damage the plant during the early season. Early maturity is more desirable than late recovery during most years. The tarnished plant bug is not an economic pest except during the early season. Seedcotton rather than lint yield was measured, since lint percentage was also segregating in these crosses. Maturity is expressed as the percentage of cotton picked in the first of two harvests. Plots were harvested with a mechanical harvester modified for small plots. Lint percentage and boll weight were de- termined from a 25-boll sample taken from each plot. </p><p>All plots were grown on the Plant Science Research Center at Mississippi State, Mississippi in a Leeper silty clay loam, a member of the fine, montmor- rillonitic, non-acid, thermic, Vertic Haplaquepts. </p><p>The four crosses studied were: DPLN X 3279; ST 213 fgX 3279; CN &gt;&lt; ORH; and DES X ORH. Within each cross, six generations (P1, P2, F1, F2, BCP1, and BCP2) were produced and evaluated. </p><p>To achieve the differences in yield and maturity, high and low levels of tar- nished plant bugs were established. The high level was achieved by planting four rows of cotton (two plots) bordered by two rows of mustard (Brassica juncea (L.) Czern and Coss). The mustard was used as a nurse crop to attract and accumulate large numbers of tarnished plant bugs early in the season (Laster and Meredith, 1974). The low level was maintained by planting four rows of cotton bordered by two blank rows and by spraying with insecticide for the entire season. Insects and plant responses for the high and low plant-bug levels were monitored until the spray program was initiated to control the boll weevil, A nthonomus grandis (Boheman), bollworm, Heliothis zea (Boddie) or tobacco budworm, Heliothis virescens (Fabricius) in the high plant-bug re- gime. A randomized complete block design with four replications was used for each genetic study with a split, 2-way whole-plot arrangement. Tarnished plant- bug levels were whole plots and the two parents and four hybrid generations were sub-plots. </p><p>The six populations for genetic studies from each of the four crosses were planted in mid-May, 1979. The field plots consisted of two rows spaced 1 m apart and 6.1 m long. Plots with the low level of tarnished plant bugs were sprayed weekly from 7 July until the tests were terminated. Plots with the high level of tarnished plant bugs were not sprayed with insecticides before 1 Au- gust. The plots were harvested on 10 and 31 October, respectively. </p><p>The generation-mean analysis suggested by Meredith and Bridge (1972) was used to determine gene action. The genetic components were calculated as follows: </p></li><li><p>230 </p><p>A-- (2P1- P2 -bBCPI -BCP2) 2 / ~ 2 </p><p>= ( - i0 P1 - 10 P2 + 14 F1 + 2 F2 + 2 BCPI + 2 BCP2) 2 / D / r </p><p>A x A = (2 F2-BCP1 -BCP2) 2 / ~ 2 </p><p>Where A is the coefficient in the orthogonal comparisons and r is number of replications per mean. The A estimate is the linear regression of performance on additive genetic value; the D estimate is the linear regression of perform- ance on heterozygosity. The estimates of A and D parameters are independent and uncorrelated only if residual epistasis (Res) is not significant. The F-test was used to determine the significance of the genetic effects. </p><p>In addition to the genetic analysis, progeny were evaluated from selected generations within each cross for resistance to the tarnished plant bug and for agronomic performance. Open-pollinated seed from 10 individual randomly selected plants was harvested from each of two segregating populations within each cross. From crosses 1 and 2, the populations sampled were the F2 and BC to 3279, and from crosses 3 and 4, populations were the F2 and BC to CN and DES, respectively. Seed from these plants was self-pollinated one generation before evaluation. The progeny from each cross plus the two parents consti- tuted the 22 entries in each study. In 1980, selections were grown under the high level of plant bugs only. In 1981, the progeny selected for further evalua- tion were grown under both plant-bug levels. </p><p>In 1980 and 1981, the selection studies were planted on 9 May and 30 April, respectively. Field plots were the same as for the genetic analysis. Plant-bug control was begun on 2 and 15 July, respectively, in 1980 and 1981. Plots were harvested on 18 September and 10 October in 1980. In 1981, plots were har- vested on 23 September. </p><p>RESULTS AND DISCUSSION </p><p>Visual observation of plant-bug activity and plant damage in these tests plus insect counts from companion plots indicated that high and low levels of tar- nished plant bugs were established in 1979. However, the generation X tar- nished plant-bug level interactions were not significant for most parameters studied. We thus analyzed the yield and maturity data separately for each level of tarnished plant bugs. Lint percentage and boll weight were averaged over plant-bug levels. </p><p>Seedcotton yield, percent seedcotton at first harvest (maturity), lint per- centage, and boll weight for all genetic populations in each cross are presented </p></li><li><p>231 </p><p>in Table 1. Tarnished plant bugs decreased yield and delayed maturity for all generations for the first harvest. The relative ranking of the parents (from least to greatest yield loss ) are: 3279, DPLN, DES, ORH, ST 213 fg, and CN. Although CN has the nectariless trait, its smooth leaves increase its sensitivity to plant bugs. </p><p>Dominant gene action was involved in the inheritance of seedcotton yield, maturity, and boll weight. However, in cross 1 (Table 2 ), additive gene action was a significant component of seedcotton at first harvest and total seedcotton ( - TPB ), percent first harvest ( + TPB ), lint percentage, and boll weight. A X A epistasis was also significant for seedcotton at first harvest and percent first harvest ( + TPB) . In cross 2 (Table 2), additive gene action made significant contributions for seedcotton at first harvest, total seedcotton, and percent first harvest ( + T P B ) . A XA epistasis also influenced percent first harvest ( + T P B ) , lint percentage, and boll weight. In cross 3 (Table 2), additive ef- fects and A X A epistasis were noted for percent first harvest ( + TPB) and ( - TPB) , respectively. Additive and A &gt;</p></li><li><p>TA</p><p>BL</p><p>E 1</p><p>Mea</p><p>n pe</p><p>rfor</p><p>man</p><p>ce o</p><p>f ge</p><p>nera</p><p>tion</p><p>s in</p><p> fou</p><p>r cr</p><p>osse</p><p>s w</p><p>ith</p><p> ( +</p><p> TP</p><p>B) </p><p>and</p><p> wit</p><p>ho</p><p>ut </p><p>( - </p><p>TP</p><p>B) </p><p>tarn</p><p>ish</p><p>ed p</p><p>lan</p><p>t bu</p><p>gs, </p><p>1979</p><p> t~</p><p> t~</p><p>Gen</p><p>erat</p><p>ion </p><p>t </p><p>Res</p><p>ista</p><p>nce*</p><p>* S</p><p>eedc</p><p>otto</p><p>nofi</p><p>rst </p><p>Yie</p><p>ld </p><p>See</p><p>dcot</p><p>ton-</p><p>tota</p><p>l </p><p>leve</p><p>l - </p><p>TP</p><p>B </p><p>+ T</p><p>PB</p><p> - </p><p>TP</p><p>B </p><p>loss</p><p> + </p><p>TP</p><p>B </p><p>- T</p><p>PB</p><p>(%) </p><p>(kg</p><p>/ha)</p><p>Fim</p><p>tpic</p><p>k </p><p>+T</p><p>PB</p><p> -T</p><p>PB</p><p>(%) </p><p>Lin</p><p>t </p><p>(%) </p><p>Boll </p><p>weig</p><p>ht </p><p>(g) </p><p>1. D</p><p>PL</p><p>N(P</p><p>~) </p><p>R </p><p>79 </p><p>1329</p><p> 16</p><p>84 </p><p>355 </p><p>1733</p><p> 18</p><p>02 </p><p>77 </p><p>94 </p><p>40.7</p><p> 32</p><p>79 (</p><p>P2)</p><p> R</p><p> 87</p><p> 11</p><p>86 </p><p>1359</p><p> 17</p><p>3 14</p><p>23 </p><p>1500</p><p> 83</p><p> 91</p><p> 32</p><p>.1 </p><p>F~ </p><p>93 </p><p>1840</p><p> 19</p><p>84 </p><p>142 </p><p>2186</p><p> 20</p><p>96 </p><p>84 </p><p>95 </p><p>36.8</p><p> F2</p><p> 71</p><p> 13</p><p>62 </p><p>1914</p><p> 55</p><p>2 17</p><p>33 </p><p>2028</p><p> 79</p><p> 94</p><p> 36</p><p>.9 </p><p>BC</p><p>P, </p><p>73 </p><p>1631</p><p> 22</p><p>33 </p><p>602 </p><p>1917</p><p> 23</p><p>66 </p><p>85 </p><p>94 </p><p>38.6</p><p> B</p><p>CP</p><p>2 96</p><p> 19</p><p>20 </p><p>1992</p><p> 72</p><p> 21</p><p>68 </p><p>2107</p><p> 89</p><p> 95</p><p> 34</p><p>.9 </p><p>LSD</p><p>o.o5</p><p> 46</p><p>8 39</p><p>2 n.</p><p>s. </p><p>426 </p><p>6 n.</p><p>s. </p><p>0.9 </p><p>2. S</p><p>T2</p><p>13</p><p>fg(P</p><p>~) </p><p>S 31</p><p> 47</p><p>0 15</p><p>40 </p><p>1070</p><p> 71</p><p>9 16</p><p>93 </p><p>65 </p><p>91 </p><p>37.3</p><p> 32</p><p>79 (</p><p>P2)</p><p> R</p><p> 79</p><p> 10</p><p>82 </p><p>1365</p><p> 28</p><p>3 13</p><p>12 </p><p>1540</p><p> 83</p><p> 89</p><p> 32</p><p>.8 </p><p>F~ </p><p>67 </p><p>1465</p><p> 21</p><p>76 </p><p>711 </p><p>1676</p><p> 22</p><p>80 </p><p>87 </p><p>95 </p><p>35.8</p><p> F2</p><p> 82</p><p> 13</p><p>27 </p><p>1628</p><p> 30</p><p>1 15</p><p>79 </p><p>1758</p><p> 84</p><p> 93</p><p> 34</p><p>.7 </p><p>BC</p><p>P1 </p><p>59 </p><p>1057</p><p> 17</p><p>85 </p><p>728 </p><p>1377</p><p> 19</p><p>38 </p><p>77 </p><p>92 </p><p>36.4</p><p> B</p><p>CP</p><p>2 66</p><p> 12</p><p>95 </p><p>1961</p><p> 66</p><p>6 15</p><p>60 </p><p>2128</p><p> 83</p><p> 92</p><p> 34</p><p>.7 </p><p>LSD</p><p>o.o5</p><p> 34</p><p>0 40</p><p>1 43</p><p>1 43</p><p>4 5 </p><p>3 0.</p><p>9 </p><p>3. C</p><p>N(P</p><p>~) </p><p>S 21</p><p> 37</p><p>9 18</p><p>12 </p><p>1433</p><p> 11</p><p>61 </p><p>2020</p><p> 50</p><p> 90</p><p> 40</p><p>.7 </p><p>OR</p><p>H(P</p><p>2) </p><p>S 32</p><p> 55</p><p>2 17</p><p>46 </p><p>1194</p><p> 97</p><p>0 18</p><p>51 </p><p>57 </p><p>94 </p><p>37.3</p><p> F1</p><p> 46</p><p> 98</p><p>4 21</p><p>58 </p><p>1174</p><p> 15</p><p>33 </p><p>2285</p><p> 64</p><p> 94</p><p> 39</p><p>.3 </p><p>F2 </p><p>40 </p><p>771 </p><p>1906</p><p> 11</p><p>35 </p><p>1273</p><p> 20</p><p>48 </p><p>61 </p><p>93 </p><p>37.1</p><p> B</p><p>CP</p><p>I 39</p><p> 76</p><p>0 19</p><p>30 </p><p>1170</p><p> 12</p><p>93 </p><p>2107</p><p> 59</p><p> 92</p><p> 39</p><p>.1 </p><p>BC</p><p>P2 </p><p>44 </p><p>839 </p><p>1891</p><p> 10</p><p>52 </p><p>1314</p><p> 20</p><p>43 </p><p>64 </p><p>93 </p><p>37.4</p><p> LS</p><p>Do.</p><p>o5 </p><p>167 </p><p>240 </p><p>226 </p><p>240 </p><p>9 2 </p><p>0.9 </p><p>4. D</p><p>ES</p><p> (P</p><p>1) </p><p>R </p><p>65 </p><p>759 </p><p>1171</p><p> 41</p><p>2 11</p><p>18 </p><p>1373</p><p> 68</p><p> 85</p><p> 40</p><p>.5 </p><p>OR</p><p>H(P</p><p>2) </p><p>S 44</p><p> 66</p><p>0 14</p><p>92 </p><p>832 </p><p>946 </p><p>1605</p><p> 70</p><p> 93</p><p> 38</p><p>.0 </p><p>F1 </p><p>68 </p><p>1179</p><p> 17</p><p>44 </p><p>565 </p><p>1498</p><p> 18</p><p>80 </p><p>79 </p><p>93 </p><p>39.9</p><p> F2</p><p> 62</p><p> 95</p><p>1 15</p><p>27 </p><p>576 </p><p>1260</p><p> 16</p><p>56 </p><p>76 </p><p>92 </p><p>38.7</p><p> B</p><p>CP</p><p>~ </p><p>72 </p><p>1084</p><p> 15</p><p>08 </p><p>424 </p><p>1466</p><p> 16</p><p>70 </p><p>74 </p><p>90 </p><p>39.4</p><p> B</p><p>CP</p><p>2 59</p><p> 86</p><p>3 14</p><p>74 </p><p>611 </p><p>1154</p><p> 16</p><p>07 </p><p>75 </p><p>81 </p><p>37.8</p><p> LS</p><p>Do.</p><p>o5 </p><p>269 </p><p>327 </p><p>255 </p><p>n.s.</p><p> n.</p><p>s. </p><p>5 0.</p><p>8 </p><p>5.86</p><p> 4.</p><p>97 </p><p>6.11</p><p> 5.</p><p>95 </p><p>5.93</p><p> 5.</p><p>57 </p><p>0.35</p><p>5.33</p><p> 5.</p><p>07 </p><p>5.65</p><p> 5.</p><p>38 </p><p>5.80</p><p> 5.</p><p>66 </p><p>0.45</p><p>5.63</p><p> 5.</p><p>77 </p><p>6.20</p><p> 6.</p><p>05 </p><p>6.28</p><p> 6.</p><p>19 </p><p>O.4</p><p>0 </p><p>6.04</p><p> 5.</p><p>77 </p><p>6.33</p><p> 6.</p><p>32 </p><p>6.45</p><p> 6.</p><p>30 </p><p>n.s.</p><p>tDP</p><p>LN</p><p> = D</p><p>elta</p><p>pine</p><p> 714</p><p>6N; </p><p>3279</p><p> =B</p><p>ulg</p><p>aria</p><p>n 3</p><p>279;</p><p> ST</p><p> 213</p><p> fg</p><p>= S</p><p>tone</p><p>vill</p><p>e 21</p><p>3 fr</p><p>ego;</p><p> CN</p><p>=C</p><p>ok</p><p>er </p><p>neet</p><p>aril</p><p>ess;</p><p> OR</p><p>H=</p><p>OR</p><p>H </p><p>78-7</p><p>5 an</p><p>d D</p><p>ES</p><p> = D</p><p>ES</p><p>-06.</p><p>~*R</p><p> = r</p><p>esis</p><p>tant</p><p>; S </p><p>= su</p><p>scep</p><p>tibl</p><p>e. </p></li><li><p>233 </p><p>TABLE 2 </p><p>Mean-square estimates for genetic parameters with ( + TPB) and without ( - TPB) tarnished plant bugs </p><p>Genetic Parameter* Seedcotton-first Seedcotton-total First pick Lint Boll cross ( % ) weight </p><p>+ T P B - T P B + T P B - T P B +TPB - T P B (g) </p><p>A 0.0 63.8* - - 59.9* 215.2"* - - 349.5** 3.7** D 170.1"* 180.7"* - - 170.3"* 248.6** - - 1.3 2.9** A A 72.6* 21.0 - - 23.4 376.3** - - 0.1 0.2 Res 20.1 50.0* - - 50.6* 11.4 - - 2.1 0.1 Error 15.5 14.8 - - 17.4 33.7 - -...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >