Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Field Crops Research, 21 (1989) 227-238 227 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., AmsterdAm - - Printed in The Netherlands
Breeding Upland Cotton for Resistance to the Tarnished Plant Bug
M.R. MILAM', J.N. JENKINS 2, J.C. McCARTY, Jr. 2 and W.L. PARROTT 2
~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.)
(Accepted 10 March 1989)
ABSTRACT
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.
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.
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 7146N×Bulgarian 3279 (cross 1), Stoneville 213 frego×Bulgarian 3279 (cross 2), Coker 420 smooth nectariless X ORH 78-75 (cross 3), and DES-06×ORH 78-75 (cross 4).
Resistance is based on the relative seedcotton yield and yield loss at first harvest in unsprayed plots as compared to insecticide-treated plots.
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.
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.
INTRODUCTION
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.
228
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).
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.
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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
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.
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.
229
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.
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.
The four crosses studied were: DPLN X 3279; ST 213 fgX 3279; CN >< ORH; and DES X ORH. Within each cross, six generations (P1, P2, F1, F2, BCP1, and BCP2) were produced and evaluated.
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.
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.
The generation-mean analysis suggested by Meredith and Bridge (1972) was used to determine gene action. The genetic components were calculated as follows:
230
A-- (2P1- P2 -bBCPI -BCP2) 2 / ~ 2
= ( - i0 P1 - 10 P2 + 14 F1 + 2 F2 + 2 BCPI + 2 BCP2) 2 / D / r
A x A = (2 F2-BCP1 -BCP2) 2 / ~ 2
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.
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.
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.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
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.
Seedcotton yield, percent seedcotton at first harvest (maturity), lint per- centage, and boll weight for all genetic populations in each cross are presented
231
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.
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 ><A effects also were shown for lint percentage. Additive gene action was noted in cross 4 (Table 2 ) for seedcotton at first harvest and total seedcotton ( - TPB ), total seedcotton and first-pick percentage ( + TPB ). Differences in gene action were noted when comparing the genetic material under the two plant-bug levels. Additive and residual epi- static effects were shown for lint percentage.
Results of these studies differ from those of Meredith and Laster (1975) and Jenkins et al. (1977a). In this study, dominant gene action was of a higher magnitude than that reported in those studies. The genetic backgrounds and the various morphological traits involved in this study may have been respon- sible for these differences. Some of these parents were more sensitive to plant bugs than those they used. The F1 in crosses 2, 3, and 4 were heterozygous for frego bract (intermediate between frego and normal bract expression) and were less sensitive than the frego parents. The nectariless trait was probably of little value in the segregating populations since pure populations are usually needed for resistance to the tarnished plant bug. In addition, we conducted the genetic analysis for resistance on the populations grown under high levels of plant bugs whereas Meredith and Laster (1975) and Jenkins et al. (1977a) conducted their analyses on the interaction means.
Seedcotton yield, maturity, lint percentage, and boll weight for F5 and BC1P2F3 progeny from crosses I and 2 are presented in Table 3. In cross 1, entries 1, 4, 7, and 9 produced significantly more seedcotton at first harvest and total seedcotton than 3279. All 20 entries were significantly earlier than DPLN, but only one was significantly earlier than 3279. Nine of 20 entries produced significantly more seedcotton at first harvest, but none produced significantly more total seedcotton than DPLN. In cross 2, entries 3, 12, 14, 15, and 19 produced significantly more seedcotton at first harvest than 3279, and all 20 produced significantly more than ST 213 fg. For total seedcotton, 10
TA
BL
E 1
Mea
n pe
rfor
man
ce o
f ge
nera
tion
s in
fou
r cr
osse
s w
ith
( +
TP
B)
and
wit
ho
ut
( -
TP
B)
tarn
ish
ed p
lan
t bu
gs,
1979
t~
t~
Gen
erat
ion
t
Res
ista
nce*
* S
eedc
otto
nofi
rst
Yie
ld
See
dcot
ton-
tota
l
leve
l -
TP
B
+ T
PB
-
TP
B
loss
+
TP
B
- T
PB
(%)
(kg
/ha)
Fim
tpic
k
+T
PB
-T
PB
(%)
Lin
t
(%)
Boll
weig
ht
(g)
1. D
PL
N(P
~)
R
79
1329
16
84
355
1733
18
02
77
94
40.7
32
79 (
P2)
R
87
11
86
1359
17
3 14
23
1500
83
91
32
.1
F~
93
1840
19
84
142
2186
20
96
84
95
36.8
F2
71
13
62
1914
55
2 17
33
2028
79
94
36
.9
BC
P,
73
1631
22
33
602
1917
23
66
85
94
38.6
B
CP
2 96
19
20
1992
72
21
68
2107
89
95
34
.9
LSD
o.o5
46
8 39
2 n.
s.
426
6 n.
s.
0.9
2. S
T2
13
fg(P
~)
S 31
47
0 15
40
1070
71
9 16
93
65
91
37.3
32
79 (
P2)
R
79
10
82
1365
28
3 13
12
1540
83
89
32
.8
F~
67
1465
21
76
711
1676
22
80
87
95
35.8
F2
82
13
27
1628
30
1 15
79
1758
84
93
34
.7
BC
P1
59
1057
17
85
728
1377
19
38
77
92
36.4
B
CP
2 66
12
95
1961
66
6 15
60
2128
83
92
34
.7
LSD
o.o5
34
0 40
1 43
1 43
4 5
3 0.
9
3. C
N(P
~)
S 21
37
9 18
12
1433
11
61
2020
50
90
40
.7
OR
H(P
2)
S 32
55
2 17
46
1194
97
0 18
51
57
94
37.3
F1
46
98
4 21
58
1174
15
33
2285
64
94
39
.3
F2
40
771
1906
11
35
1273
20
48
61
93
37.1
B
CP
I 39
76
0 19
30
1170
12
93
2107
59
92
39
.1
BC
P2
44
839
1891
10
52
1314
20
43
64
93
37.4
LS
Do.
o5
167
240
226
240
9 2
0.9
4. D
ES
(P
1)
R
65
759
1171
41
2 11
18
1373
68
85
40
.5
OR
H(P
2)
S 44
66
0 14
92
832
946
1605
70
93
38
.0
F1
68
1179
17
44
565
1498
18
80
79
93
39.9
F2
62
95
1 15
27
576
1260
16
56
76
92
38.7
B
CP
~
72
1084
15
08
424
1466
16
70
74
90
39.4
B
CP
2 59
86
3 14
74
611
1154
16
07
75
81
37.8
LS
Do.
o5
269
327
255
n.s.
n.
s.
5 0.
8
5.86
4.
97
6.11
5.
95
5.93
5.
57
0.35
5.33
5.
07
5.65
5.
38
5.80
5.
66
0.45
5.63
5.
77
6.20
6.
05
6.28
6.
19
O.4
0
6.04
5.
77
6.33
6.
32
6.45
6.
30
n.s.
tDP
LN
= D
elta
pine
714
6N;
3279
=B
ulg
aria
n 3
279;
ST
213
fg
= S
tone
vill
e 21
3 fr
ego;
CN
=C
ok
er
neet
aril
ess;
OR
H=
OR
H
78-7
5 an
d D
ES
= D
ES
-06.
~*R
= r
esis
tant
; S
= su
scep
tibl
e.
233
TABLE 2
Mean-square estimates for genetic parameters with ( + TPB) and without ( - TPB) tarnished plant bugs
Genetic Parameter* Seedcotton-first Seedcotton-total First pick Lint Boll cross ( % ) weight
+ T P B - T P B + T P B - T P B +TPB - T P B (g)
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 - - 0.9 0.1
A 136.0"* 2.2 119.3"* 1.0 1451.8"* 12.2 91.6"* 0.3* D 238.2** 283.8** 233.0** 242.9** 1163.5"* 251.3"* 2.3 1.5"* A ×A 9.7 30.3 5.2 38.4 128.1" 0.1 3.2* 0.7** Res 5.9 10.6 13.1 10.2 6.2 4.9 0.6 0.2 Error 8.3 14.5 13.3 16.9 25.8 8.3 0.8 0.1
A 0.0 2.7 8.5 13.6 313.6"* 1.8 57.8** 0.0 D 81.3"* 68.6** 98.1"* 58.7** 614.3"* 60.6** 0.0 1.9"* A×A 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.2 1.3 43.3** 7.1"* 0.2 Res 1.3 2.3 1.8 1.6 42.2 6.5 9.1"* 0.3 Error 2.0 5.2 3.6 5.2 67.4 4.8 0.7 0.1
A 10.1 48.9* 27.3* - - - - 310.5" 34.8** - - D 105.8 95.1"* 102.4"* - - - - 108.5" 0.6 - - A ×A 0.2 0.9 1.0 - - - - 3.9 0.1 - - Res 3.1 0.4 7.0 - - - - 9.1 11.2"* - - Error 5.2 9.6 4.7 - - - - 19.9 0.6 - -
*. **Significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 level of probability, respectively. *A = Additive; D = dominance; A X A = additive X additive; Res-- residual epistasis.
o f 20 l i n e s p r o d u c e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r y i e l d s t h a n 3279 a n d 19 o f 20 p r o d u c e d
s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r y i e l d s t h a n S T 213 fg. O n l y e n t r y 13 w a s s i g n i f i c a n t l y ea r -
l i e r t h a n 3279, b u t a l l 20 w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y e a r l i e r t h a n S T 213 fg. T h e B C to
3279 p r o g e n y g e n e r a l l y w e r e h i g h e r - y i e l d i n g u n d e r h i g h l eve l s o f p l a n t b u g s
a n d e a r l i e r - m a t u r i n g t h a n t h e F5 s e l e c t i o n s . L i n t p e r c e n t a g e fo r p r o g e n y in
c r o s s e s 1 a n d 2 w e r e g e n e r a l l y l o w e r t h a n t h e s e f r o m t h e o t h e r c ro s se s . T h i s is
a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e l ow l i n t p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e r e s i s t a n t p a r e n t , 3279. B o l l w e i g h t s
w e r e w i t h i n a n a c c e p t a b l e r a n g e in c r o s s e s 1 a n d 2.
S e e d c o t t o n y i e ld , m a t u r i t y , l i n t p e r c e n t a g e , a n d bo l l w e i g h t for F4 a n d
B C 1 P I F 3 p r o g e n y f r o m c r o s s e s 3 a n d 4 a r e p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 4. I n c r o s s 3,
e n t r i e s 15 a n d 17 p r o d u c e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y m o r e s e e d c o t t o n a t f i r s t h a r v e s t t h a n
C N a n d O R H , r e s p e c t i v e l y . E n t r y 20 p r o d u c e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y m o r e t o t a l s e e d -
c o t t o n t h a n C N a n d a l l 20 e n t r i e s p r o d u c e d m o r e t h a n O R H . F o u r e n t r i e s w e r e
TA
BL
E 3
Mea
n p
erfo
rman
ce o
f ra
nd
om
F5
and
BC
1P2F
3 p
rog
eny
fro
m c
ross
es 1
an
d 2
wh
en g
row
n w
ith
tar
nis
hed
pla
nt
bu
gs
t~
¢..o
Cro
ss I
C
ross
2
Gen
erat
ion
E
ntr
y
See
dco
tto
n
Fir
st
Lin
t B
oll
G
ener
atio
n
En
try
(k
g h
a-
~ )
pic
k
(%)
wei
gh
t (%
) (g
) F
irst
T
ota
l
See
dco
tto
n
(kg
ha
-' )
Fir
st
To
tal
Fir
st
pic
k
(%)
Lin
t (%
) B
oll
w
eig
ht
(g)
F~
1 27
38
3108
88
34
.3
5.29
F5
1
2 22
34
2880
78
35
.6
4.61
2
3 21
99
2404
92
33
.9
4.90
3
4 25
65
2973
86
35
.2
5.51
4
5 24
03
2791
86
36
.0
5.32
5
6 22
89
2657
86
36
.4
4.71
6
7 25
90
3092
84
37
.1
5.37
7
8 22
01
2481
89
33
.4
4.95
8
9 26
20
2967
88
33
.5
4.68
9
10
2458
28
22
87
34.8
5.
10
10
2 24
30
2818
86
35
.0
5.04
x
BC
,P2F
3 11
20
52
2636
78
32
.3
5.60
B
C~P
2F3
11
12
2308
26
17
88
35.8
4.
50
12
13
2289
27
22
84
34.5
5.
08
13
14
2296
27
32
84
32.6
5.
29
14
15
2275
28
29
80
34.8
4.
81
15
16
2115
28
29
75
33.7
5.
11
16
17
2129
25
26
84
35.3
4.
32
17
18
2295
26
36
87
32.1
4.
80
18
19
2239
27
15
83
32.7
5.
12
19
20
2175
25
96
84
34.3
4.
52
20
2217
26
84
83
33.8
4.
92
2 D
PL
N
1878
28
12
67
37.0
5.
66
ST
21
3fg
32
79
2107
25
71
82
34.1
4.
36
3279
LSD
o.o5
41
5 36
4 8
1.5
0.32
LS
Do.
o5
1967
13
78
2285
20
99
2062
15
93
1626
19
44
1713
17
85
1845
2058
23
38
2193
24
03
2334
22
15
1942
19
11
2398
19
84
2178
97
7 20
00
230
2638
21
70
2781
26
36
2477
25
46
2340
27
41
2597
25
09
2544
2622
27
45
2485
29
11
2703
27
26
2596
25
34
2784
24
63
2657
20
99
2459
157
75
64
82
8O
83
63
70
71
66
71
73
79
85
88
83
86
81
75
75
86
81
82
47
81 6
33.8
34
.1
34.5
33
.4
34.3
31
.0
36.0
34
.7
33.9
32
.9
33.9
33.0
34
.3
32.9
32
.6
33.0
33
.8
32.3
33
.0
33.6
30
.5
32.9
38
.5
34.2
1.6
4.32
5.
05
4.85
5.
42
5.41
4.
77
4.41
4.
66
4.91
4.
26
4.81
4.83
5.
05
4.47
5.
15
5.08
4.
85
5.13
5.
36
5.03
5.
30
5.03
4.
61
4.62
0.40
TA
BL
E 4
Mea
n p
erfo
rman
ce o
f ra
nd
om
F4
and
BC
~P
,F3
pro
gen
y f
rom
cro
sses
3 a
nd
4 w
hen
gro
wn
wit
h t
arn
ish
ed p
lan
t b
ug
s
Cro
ss 3
C
ross
4
Gen
erat
ion
E
ntr
y
See
dco
tto
n
Fir
st
Lin
t B
oll
Gen
erat
ion
E
ntr
y
(kg
ha
- ' )
p
ick
( %
) w
eig
ht
(%)
(g)
1st
To
tal
See
dco
tto
n
(kg
ha
-1)
1st
To
tal
Fir
st
pic
k
(%)
Lin
t (%
) B
oll
w
eig
ht
(g)
F4
BC
,P,F
3
LSD
oo5
1 22
78
2958
77
36
.6
5.09
F4
1
2 21
69
2753
79
35
.8
5.13
2
3 18
14
2536
72
36
.4
5.07
3
4 16
58
2592
64
38
.5
5.52
4
5 21
67
2883
75
38
.2
5.35
5
6 16
94
2599
65
37
.4
5.58
6
7 21
75
2788
78
36
.2
5.27
7
8 23
71
2984
80
37
.6
4.89
8
9 19
69
2882
68
37
.4
5.21
9
10
2421
29
63
82
37.9
5.
10
10
2072
27
94
74
37.2
5.
22
11
2037
28
05
73
37.7
4.
74
BC
1P1F
3 11
12
20
87
2753
76
36
.9
5.20
12
13
22
58
2703
84
36
.3
5.54
13
14
24
02
2970
81
36
.1
4.96
14
15
19
45
2729
71
36
.2
4.99
15
16
22
06
2866
77
37
.5
4.97
16
17
21
03
2854
74
35
.1
5.32
17
18
22
07
2864
77
37
.1
5.09
18
19
20
50
2998
68
37
.5
4.99
19
20
22
66
3111
73
37
.8
4.93
20
2
2156
28
65
75
36.8
5.
07
£
CN
17
15
2741
63
39
.7
4.83
D
ES
O
RH
16
14
2156
75
38
.1
5.27
O
RH
318
330
5 1.
3 0.
32
LSD
o.o5
1998
23
81
2254
23
89
1957
21
87
2388
24
84
2423
24
63
2292
2522
23
02
2452
22
83
2326
22
47
2349
25
27
2467
23
91
2387
2337
19
80
274
2958
27
27
2878
27
24
2406
26
21
2783
29
89
2869
29
75
2793
3099
28
62
2902
28
75
2830
28
85
2778
29
90
2698
27
80
2870
2933
23
66
275
68
87
78
88
81
83
86
83
85
83
82
81
8O
85
79
82
78
85
85
91
86
83
8O
84 6
39.1
37
.4
36.3
38
.1
37.1
37
.2
37.1
35
.8
37.4
37
.2
37.3
40.6
37
.3
38.6
36
.7
37.8
35
.7
37.4
36
.4
36.0
37
.4
37.4
39.1
37
.6
1.4
4.99
5.
21
5.01
4.
78
4.86
5.
31
5.00
4.
90
5.13
5.
32
5.05
5.11
5.
27
5.27
5.
27
5.22
4.
90
4.90
5.
04
4.96
5.
11
5.11
5.27
5.
19
n.s.
t~
¢.
~ cj~
236
TABLE 5
Mean yield performance of selected progeny grown with ( ÷ TPB) and without ( - TPB) tar- nished plant bugs
Cross Selection* Generation Seedcotton-total
+ T P B - T P B 2
1 1 Fs 3233 3732 3482 2 Fs 2896 3780 3338 4 Fs 3214 3836 3525 5 F6 3261 3668 3465 7 F6 3265 3794 3529
3174 3762 3468
2 3 Fs 2701 3178 2940 8 F6 3292 3904 3598
12 BCIP2F4 2843 3783 3313 14 BC1P2F4 3299 3742 3520 19 BC1P2F4 2973 3762 3368
3022 3674 3348
3 5 Fs 3669 3837 3763 8 Fs 3243 3616 3429
10 Fs 3188 3697 3442 19 BC1P1F4 3799 4106 3952 20 BC1P1F4 3108 3617 3362
2 3401 3775 3590
4 1 Fs 3036 3831 3433 10 Fs 3404 3823 3613 11 BC1P1F4 3597 3992 3794 13 BC1P1F4 3500 4108 3804 18 BC1P1F4 3670 3651 3661 2 3441 3881 3661
ST 213 3170 3800 3485 DPLN61 2949 3677 3313
LSDo.o5 Selection 473 LSDo.o5 Selection × TPB n.s.
*ST = Stoneville; DPLN = Deltapine.
s i g n i f i c a n t l y e a r l i e r t h a n O R H a n d 18 o f t h e 20 w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y e a r l i e r t h a n
C N . T h e s u c c e s s in s e l e c t i n g h i g h e r - y i e l d i n g p r o g e n y in t h i s c r o s s m a y be t h e
r e s u l t o f s e l e c t i n g p l a n t s w i t h l e a f p u b e s c e n c e s u c h as t h a t f o u n d in O R H . I n c r o s s 4, n o e n t r y p r o d u c e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y m o r e s e e d c o t t o n t h a n D E S , b u t 16 p r o d u c e d m o r e t h a n O R H a t f i r s t h a r v e s t . N o e n t r y p r o d u c e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y
237
more total seedcotton than DES, but 18 produced more than ORH. Five selec- tions were significantly earlier in maturity than DES but only entry 19 was earlier than ORH. Lint percentages in crosses 3 and 4 were generally lower than that of their best parent, but we consider them acceptable. Boll weights were also within an acceptable range in crosses 3 and 4.
In 1981, several selections from these crosses were compared with commer- cial cultivars both with and without tarnished plant bugs. Seedcotton yields for these progeny are presented in Table 5. The selection by tarnished plant- bug interaction is not significant. However, 14 of the 20 selections produced more total seedcotton than ST 213 when plant bugs were present. When plant bugs were controlled, 8 of 20 produced more total seedcotton than ST 213. When averaged over plant-bug levels, entry 19 from cross 3, and entries 11 and 13 from cross 4, produced the highest seedcotton yields but were not signifi- cantly different from ST 213.
Selection for early-season yielding ability and early maturity in the presence of a high level of tarnished plant bugs appears feasible in these crosses. These lines, however, have not been selfed to homozygosity, and our results were obtained from one year at one location for each generation. Several of these selections produced more seedcotton at first harvest than their parents and, in general, were as early in maturity. Growing progeny with high levels of tar- nished plant bugs allows both the elimination of the most susceptible lines and identification of lines with resistance to this pest.
REFERENCES
Jenkins, J.N. and Parrott, W.L., 1976. Plant bug resistance in upland cotton. In: J.M. Brown (Editor), Proc. Beltwide Cotton Production/Mechanization Research Conf., Las Vegas, NV, 5-7 January 1976. Nat. Cotton Council, Memphis, TN, p. 87.
Jenkins, J.N., McCarty, J.C. Jr. and Parrott, W.L., 1977a. Inheritance of resistance to tarnished plant bugs in a cross of Stoneville 213 by Timok 811. In: J.M. Brown (Editor), Proc. Beltwide Cotton Production/Mechanization Research Conf. Atlanta, GA, 10-12 January 1977. Nat. Cotton Council, Memphis, TN, p. 97.
Jenkins, J.N., Parrott, W.L. and Latson, L.N., 1977b. Evaluation of cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., lines for resistance to the tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris. Miss. Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull., 89: 1-9.
Lambert, L., 1977. Characterization of cotton for resistance to boll weevil, tobacco budworm, tarnished plant bug, and and bandedwing white fly. Ph.D. Thesis, Mississippi State Univ. (Library of Congress Card No. Mic. 77-28,555 ) Xerox Univ. Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI (Diss. Abstr. Int. 38B: 3,3034).
Laster, M.L. and Meredith, W.R. Jr., 1974. Evaluating the response of cotton cultivars to tar- nished plant bug injury. J. Econ. Entomol., 67: 686-688.
Lincoln, C., Dean, G., Waddle, B.A., Yearian, W.C., Phillips, J.R. and Roberts, L., 1971. Resis- tance of frego type cotton to boll weevil and bollworm. J. Econ. Entomol., 64: 1326-1327.
Meredith, W.R. Jr., 1976. Nectariless cottons. In: J.M. Brown (Editor), Proc. Beltwide Cotton
238
Production/Mechanization Conf., Las Vegas, NV, 7-8 January 1976. Nat. Cotton Council, Memphis, TN, pp. 34-37.
Meredith, W.R. Jr. and Bridge, R.R., 1972. Heterosis and gene action in cotton, Gossypium hir- sutum L. Crop Sci., 12: 304-310.
Meredith, W.R. Jr. and Laster, M.L., 1975. Agronomic and genetic analysis of tarnished plant bug tolerance in cotton. Crop Sci., 15: 535-538.
Meredith, W.R. Jr., Laster, M.L., Ranney, C.D. and Bridge, R.R., 1973. Agronomic potential of nectariless cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J. Environ. Qual., 2: 141-144.
Schuster, M.D., Lukefahr, M.J. and Maxwell, F.G., 1976. Impact of nectariless cotton on plant bugs and natural enemies. J. Econ. Entomol., 69: 400-402.
