Indian J. Plant Physiol., Vol. XXVI, N:>. 3. pp.264·-275 (September 1983)
PHYSIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS ·OF YIELDING ABILIty
PA~AMETERSCONTROLLING DRY MAnER ACCUMULATION, BOU. NUMBER AND SEED-COTTON YIELD
OEVENORA SINGH* AND S. N. BHARDWAJ Division of Plant Physiology
Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-l10 012 (Received: February 4.1983)
Nine v.arieties of hirsutum cotton, differing in their growth habits, dry matter production and seed;cotton yield. were examined for the compoClerits of seed-cotton yield and dry matter accumulation. Seed-cotton yield is control.led by boll number as well as dry matter produced. The effect. of ,boU number is a direct one, while the dry matter effects yield through boll n~mber. Boll number and boll weight contributed over 95% seed-cotton Yield~ though ,individually the correlation between boll weight and seed-cotton yield was not significant. 8011 number and fruiting points produced were associated with dry matter production. while the boll weight showed its association with fruiting coefficient and the efficiency of the plant to transfer dry matter to the reproductive parts during flowering. A negative correlation was observed between boll number and boll weight and between dry matter and fruiting coefficient. Dry matter production was related mainly with mean leaf area of the plant. It is, therefore. suggested that for achieving higher seed cotton yield. an optimum balance between dry matter and fruiting coefficient is necessary.
In order to effect improvement in yielding ability of a crop and its cultivars a precise unoerstanding of its yield built up is necessary, which is controlled genetically and is·influenced by environmental conditions. The rate and accumula tion of dry' matter' (i,e., total photosynthesis) has been considered' as oQe.
~fthe 'yield determilling parameters (Dastur, 1960) but this alone is not adequate as only 'a portion of it constitutes the economic yield. Thus, in turn, depends on .harvest index or fruiting coefficient (plant yield) (Bhardwaj et al., 1971,1976; Asana, 1976).
In hirsutul1) cottons, the crop yield is known to depend on attributes like botl number, boll weight, lint index and ginning percentage (Patil and Mensikai, 1972; William e~ al., 1913; Worley et al., 1974; Bara, 1973; Bala and Butany, 1971; Butany et aI., 1~66; Vinkataraman and Santhanam, 1962). Out of these,' boll
*Present Address: Central Institute for Cotton Research, Nagpl.lr-440 010.
YIELD ABILITY IN COTTON
number and boll weight are the pivotal parameters. Whife analysing the basis of seed-cotton yield, it is necessary to look into the factors and or processes which control these parameters. The present study was aimed to find out the relationship between boll number and boll weight:with the production of dry matter and fruiting coefficient and to investigate the basis of dry matter production and fruiting coefficient.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Nine varieties of
(Gossyplum hlrsutumL) differing in their growth habit (Table I) wera raised in a field trial in 4.5 m
aspacing of 75
30cm under optimum water and nutrient supply.
TABLE I. Classification of varieties depending upon their growth behaviour
S. No. Growth behaviour Varieties
1 . Tall and spreading H-14
• 2. Tall and semi-spreading Acala 1517V and Hencock
3. Medium and semi-spreading Paymaster. Super Okra and Stoneville 213
4. Dwarf and semi-spreading Cocker 417 and Nectariless
5. Dwarf and compact Lankart 51
Sowing was done on 26th May 1973 and 26th May 1974 and one plant per hill was maintained. Six rows constituted one replication and each variety was replicated three times in a randomised
blockdesign. Data were recorded on leaf
area(mLA) AGR and NAR
atpra-flowering and during flowering phases and on diym.t.raccurnulation, boll number, total fruiting points produced, boll weight
atharvest. Growth parameters were computed adopting the
formula.described by (William and Joseph(1973) and the area of the leaves was estimated by weight method adopting
thecalculation as : . .
Dw(g) of leaf blade
leaf a r e a = - - - -
xArea (cml) of the leaf punch Dw(g) leaf punch
Datawere collected on fruiting-coefficient (ratio of seed-cotton to total dry matter
produced including seed-cotton), perc6nt transfer of dry matter to developing bolls, fruiting effiCienCy (number of fruiting points produced per g of dry matter) and percent boll success (setting).
266 SINGH AND BHAllDW~J
L I • ,
ya O· 371-0-1011 )(
( fl.. 0-)78)
II? 0-8 1'1 '-4
MEAN LEAF AREA (d",1/plant)
DUlliNG O~E "LOW:!iiN"
005 0-11 1-1 1-40
MEAN lEAF AREA (d...'"'/PIDftt)
OURING PRE FLOWERIN.
Fig.,l. Correlations (R') and regression studies between mean leaf area and, vanous other growth parameters during pre- and post-flowering period in cotton.
'H encock' having high mean AGR (0.275 g Per day) also possessed high mean leaf area (1.191 dm2 per plant). On the other hand, variety 'H.:.14', 'Nectariless'
and 'Cocker 41';]' had low mean AGR (O.114 g per day) and afsQ low mean NAR (O.245 g per dml
per day) and lowmean leaf area. (0,847 dm' per plant). This shows that AGR is related primarily with mean feaf area, moreover. low NAR appeared to contribute to low AGR.
rhe varietal performance has been studied in relation to yield and yield determining attributes. Physil)logical (total dry matter produced, and frUiting coefficieflt) and morphological (boll number and boll weight) parameters have been looked into and the data are given in Table II.
YIELD . ABILITY IN COTrON
Yield performanooof rotton·
replications, data represent a mean per plant)
Variety Seed7ootton Dry matter Fruiting Number of Boll weight yield (g) (g) coefficient bolls (harvested) (g)
H-14 47.78 240.67 0.191 19.37 2.43
..Cocker 417 45.20 128.58 0.339· 13.19 3.36
II. Acata 1517 V 28.50 115.56 0.282 8.55 3.35
Stoneville 213 34.29 95.61 0.356 10.65 3.22
Super Okra 35.54 95.54 0.352 10.97 3.08
Lankart 57 29.96 83.64 0.351 7.48 3.94·
Hencock 29.17 77.53 0.377 8.58 3.39
Neclariless 31.50 77.51 0.402 9.87 3.14
Paymaster 29.93 76.09 0.391 8.60 3.45
SEm:i: 5.45 15.62 0.041 1.203 0.25
C.V. (%) 19.39 44.72 18.12 31.73 11.52
was noticed. :-A comparison was also made between different characters in ~ offruiting-coefficie~t. It appears that strong negative association existed between fruiting-coefficient and total dry matter prGduction as welf as between fruiting
~fficient and boH number. On the other hand, average value of boll weight was relatively highef (3.33 g) in the varieties (e;9. 'Paymaster' . ~Nectariless' and 'Hen cock') possessing high fruiting coefficient (j.e., 0.390). Differences in the yield of seed-cotton in comparison with fruiting~coefficient were also seen.
The yierd performance of varieties having the same seed-cotton yield and/or dry matter
wascompared in relation to other yield parameter (Table IJI). 'Cocker 417' and 'H-14' having thesameseed:,cotton yield showed. that they ,differed io respect of number of bolls harvested, boll weight, dry matter produced, fruiting coefficient, number of fruiting parts and fruiting efficiency (number of fruiting point produced per g of dry matter). Yield in 'H-14' is built up through dry matter production which led to the production of more fruiting points and consequently more boOs were harvested~ On the other hand,· 'Cocker 417' which prO,duces almost one half of the'dry matter of 'H.;14' and lower number of fruiting points could yield equal to 'H-14'owing to relati'lely higher'value of bolfweight, fruiting-coefficient and fruiting efficiency. .
SINOH ~ND BHARDWAJ
TABLE 11[, Comptarative study of seed-cotton yield parameters
Varietal pairs Seed-cotton Dry Fruiting Fruiting Fruiting Bolls Boll 8011
yield (g) matter coefficient points efficiency harvested success weight
(g) (No.) (9 OM) (No.) (%) (9)
Cocker 417 45.20 128.58 0.339 74.40 0.579 13.19 17.73 3.36
H'14 47.78 240.67 0.191 116.06 0.482 19.37 16.69 2.43
Difference (%) 5.60 87.1 -43.7 569 -16.8 46.1 -5.9 -27.7
Acata 1517 V 28.50 115.56 0.282 64.19 0.556 8.55 13.32 3.35
Cocker 417 45,28 128.58 0.339 74.40 0.579 13.19 17.73 3.36
Difference (%) 58.5 11.2 20.2 15.9 4.1 54.2 33.1 0.2
Difference (%) 2.6 -3.2 3:1 48.1 52.3 0.2 -32.4 1.7
Nect.riless 31.50 77.51 0.402 .53.03 0.807 9.87 18.61 3.14
Aca:a 1517 V 28.50 115.56 0.282 64.19 0.556 8.55 13.32 a.35
Difference (%) -9.6 49.1 -29.8 21.0 -31.2 13.4 -29.0 6.6
Further, a comparison of varieties having more or less equal yield of seed cotton and dry matter ('Hencock' and 'Paymaster') showed that these varieties posSessed more or less equal number of harvested bolls. boll weight and fruiting coefficient. Yet the differences were seen in the production of fruiting pointS,
fruiting efficiency and percent boll setting. Fruiting efficiency
washigher in 'Pay ma.r', but the effect was negated owing to lower boll success in this variety.
'Nectariless' and 'Acara 1517 V' showed differences in the production of drY matter, but not in seed-cotton yield. 'Nectariless' possessed lower dry matter but higher fruiting-coefficient, higher boiling efficiency and better boll success. In
contrastto this, 'Acara 1517 V' produced more dry matter and fruiting points but fruiting efficiency and percent boll success were lower.
In view of the above observations, coefficient of phenotypic correlations was com puted between different yield parameters (Table IV). It was seen that dry matter production and boll number were correlated positively with seed-cotton yield. On the other hand, fruiting-coefficient and boll weight did not have Significant correla tion with seed-cotton yield.
The dry matter was found positively correlated with boll number, but it was negatively correlated with fruiting-coefficient and boll weight, though the negative assooiation with frUiting-coefficient alone was significant. It was further seen that fruiting-coefficient was found correlated positively with boll weight while the asso ciation between fruiting-coefficient and boll number was negative (though not significant). Boll weight and boll number also showed negative correlation.
YIBLD ABILITY IN CO'M'ON 269
TABLE IV. Coefficient of phenotypic correlations (r values) between different . yield attributes
Correlation Drym3tter Fruiting Bolls Boll weight
between (g) coefficient (No.) (g)
. Seed-cotton 0.6871 0.0053. 0.8009* 0.0211
..Dry matter (g)
Fruiting coefficient Boll (No.)
-0.6908*' 0.8523* -0.3718
-'-0.4486 0.630S* -0.5355
.Significant at 5% probability.
TABLE V. Direct and indirect break-up of phenotypic correlations with seed-cotton yield
Character Dry matter Fruiting Boll (No.) Boll weight Seed cotton
coeffIcient fg) yield (g)
Dry matter (g) 0.4020 -0.2040 0.6905 -0.2014 0.6871
Fruiting -0.2778 0.2953 -0.3061 0.2832 -0.0053
Boll (No.) 0.3426 -0.1116 0.8102 -0.2404 0.8009
Boll weight (g) -0.1803 0.1863 -0.4338 0.4489 0.0211
The different correlations with seed-cotton yield were broken into direct and indirect effects following the path coefficient analysis (Table V). It was revea led that boll number alone contributed directly to seed-cotton yield. On the other hand, the positive correlation between dry matter and seed-cotton was caused indirectly through bon number.
Thedirect positive effect of fruiting-coefficient with seed-cotton yield (though not significant) was through boll weight, which in tum, was negatively correlated with boll number and dry matter production.
(lj) Simple and multiple regression and multiple correlation between
yield and its attributes. Simple and multiple regression equation and multiple correlations of seed-cotton yield with dry matter, fruiting-coefficient boll number and bon weight were computed (Table VI).
It was seen that the highest contribution towards yield (depend variable) was made by dry matter and boll number, while thedired contribution of fruiting coefficient and boll weight was rather marginal (as neither the value for regression coefficient, nor of R' for these characters were significant).
The inter6Ction study of all four characters showed
thatseed-cotton yield could reasonably be estimated by boll number and boll weight (95%) than dry matter and fruiting coefficient (93%). The impact of dry matter and fruiting coeffi~
270 SINGH AND BHARDWAJ
; " t , ,! j ; ; , , , , : : , ; . ? ' . ., : " . . ~ _ ' . ~ , , : . , .' . ' ' .
The four characters considered together contributed to 96%,
oftotalyield. -Here, the "contribution of boll number and boll weight alone was significant. boll number appeared to contribute more towardsthe yield than the boll weight. The above comparison clearly brings about the relative importance of dry matter production and fruiting coefficient on one hand and bon number and boll weight on the other. Among themselves they show negative association. Yield could be equalised if dry matter is more but fruiting coefficient is low. Similarly. the impact of boll number could be mitigated by boll weight.
TABLE VI. Correlation coefficients (R') and regression eqUations of seed-cotton yield as the dependent variable with other attributes
- - - _... _ - - - _ . _ - -
1X2 0.4054 Y=18.133+0.1501 Xl
1X3 0.0803 Y=21.3315+39.5264
1:<4 Y=7.1346+2.5495 Xs
1x5 0.1303 Y~11.4353+ 7 .1280
1X2x3. 0.9309 Y=-33.6078+0.2554X. + 118.7665X. (1.9832) (0.8513)
1x2x4 0.6542 . Y=6.6488 -0.0377Xl -2.9795X, (-0.1600) H>.9400)
1x2X5 0.6926 Y=26.8424+0.1897XI +.12.4513X. (0.0280) (2.6?98)
1 x3x4. Y=-14.7303+58.1908X.+2.7532X,
. (0.4171) (0:8686)
1X3X5 0.1094 Y=11.9127 + 15.4506X.+5.3812X, (0.1108) (0.2426)
P< 4 x 5 0.9547 Y=-39.717 +3.0334X,+ 12.7590X, (0.9570) . (0.5753).
1 x 2x 3 X'l 0.9327 Y=-32.3317 +0.2292Xl+112.8875Xl+0.3~34XJ (0.9719)' (0.8092) (0.1052) 1 x2x3x5 0.9340 Y=-36.3154+0.2535Xl+ 110.1660X.+ 1.7869X.
(1.0]49) (0.7897) '(0.0806) 1 x 2'-'< 4 x 5 0.9547 V--39.6832 -().0023X,+ 3:0594X.+ 12.1416X.
(-0.0437) (0.9554) (O.5438)
1X2X3X4x50.9593 Y=-39.1528+0.0715Xl + 35.3577X.+2.2086X.+ 9.2381X, (0.3033) (0.2534) (0.6968) (0.4166)
Numbers:'!. 2.3.4 and 5 repreSent yield (Y). dry matter (X,). fruiting coefficient (Xt). boll numb(lrs (X.) limd boll weight (Xa), respectively. Values in parentheses gillen under each value are the stand<lrdised
YIELD ABILITY IN COTTON
<,_, _ z
In order to explain the built-up of seed-cotton yield, the involvement of attributes like dry matter production (Dastur, 1960), fruiting coefficient (Bhardwaj
et al.,1971, 1975 a and b; Asana, 1975), boll number, boll weight, lint index and ginning percentage (Butany
et al.,1966; Bhatt
et al.,1967; Manner
Bala, 1973; William
et al.,1973; Worley
et al.,1974) have been suggested.
An analysis of yield contribution of parameters like dry matter production, fruiting-coefficient. boll number and boll weight shows that seed-cotton yield is primarily controlled by the number of bolls (harvested) and the dry matter produ ced, the contribution being 65 and 40%, respectively. Further'the path-coefficient analysis of direct and indirect effects shows that the effect of boll number is a direct one, while dry matter affects yield through boll number. The two characters put together contributed to about 65% of the seed-cotton yield. On the other hand, boll number and boll weight registered a contribution of over 95%, though individ ually the relation of boll weight to seed-cotton yield was not significant. The contribution remains about 96% when all the characters (boll number, boll weight, dry matter and fruiting coefficient) are taken into account. It was noted that here only boll number and boll weight had the significant contributions towards yield of seed-cotton.
Saxena (1963) reported that 86% of the variation in the seed-cotton yield among varieties was caused by boll number and boll weight. Kamalanathan (1966 and 1967) observed that about 65% of the variation in lint yield is caused by the number of seeds per boll and lint index, but the maximum contribution is made by boll number only. Increase in seed-cotton yield has been reported by various workers through boll number (Venkatraman and Santhanam, 1962; Kharche, 1964; Butany
et al.,1966; Manner
et al.,1971; Walin
et al.,1979) and bon weight (Bhaft
et al.,1963; Bala and Butany, 1971; Patil and Mensikai, 1972; Bala, 1973; William
Since boll number and boll weight are the principal yield determining para meters, their built-up. in terms of physiological processes, has been studied. It is seen tbat boll number as well as number of fruiting points were associated with dry matter production, while the boll weight showed its association with fruiting coefficient and efficiency of the plant to transfer dry matter to the reproductive parts during flowering (Fig. 2). It might, therefore, be assumed that dry matter produc tion and fruiting coefficient are the physiological factors which control boll number
and bon weight, respectively. It was also observed that not only boll weight and bolf number were negatively correlated but the association between dry matter and fruiting coefficient, was also of negative nature (Fig. 3).
-fig-2. Correlations (R') and regression studies between· boll weight and fruiting coefficient and boll weight and per cent transfer of dry matter to fruiting parts in cotton.
mean leaf area both during pre-and post-flowering phases of growth (Fig_ 1). EI Sharkawy et
al.(1965) and Muramoto
et al(1965) also reported a positive asso ciation between mean (eaf area and dry matter production.
YIELD ABILITY 1N COTTON
0 2-5 Y': 1.-2760 - 0-0938 ')(
( R2= 0-2873)
I I I
7 10 13 16 19
lU y= 0-4702 - 0 0012 X
u ('il= 0-l.775)
75 95 115 135 U.O
DRY MATTER (g)
Fig. 3_ Correlations (R") and regression studies between boll numbers and_ boll weight and dry matter and fruiting coeHicient in cotton.
274 SINGlI AND BlIAltDWAJ
The present study clearly reveals that seed-cotton yield is governed mainly by two parameters, boll number and boll weight which, in turn, are controlled by dry matter accumUlation and fruiting coefficient. It is, therefore, suggested that for achi eving higher seed-cotton yield, an optimum balance between dry matter production and efficiency of
itstransfer to fruiting parts (i. e., fruiting coefficient) is necessary. A prob into the built-up of these parameters shows that leaf area controls dry matter production, whereas the control of fruiting coefficient lies in the partition ing efficiency of the dry matter between vegetative and reproductive phases of growth during the flowering period.
Asana. R. D. (1975). Physiological research in cotton-past and present. Indian Farming (Advances in Cotton Research), 24 : 17 -19.
Bala, K. K. (1973). Path coefficient analysis in upland cotton (G. hirsutum L).lndian J. ayric. Sci.. 43 :
Bala, K. K. and Butany, W. T. (1971). Correlated response to selection for boll number in upland cotton
(G. hirsutum L). Indian J. agric. Sci., 41 : 920-24.
Bhardwaj, S. N., Nath. V. and Mehra, R. G. (1971). Plant type in relation to fruiting-coefficient in
upland cotton (G. hirsulum L). Indian J. Bgric. Sci., 41 : 519-23.
Bhardwaj, S. N., Ruwali. K. N. and Singh, M. (1975a). Physiological parameters for breeding for higher
seed-cotton productivity in American cottons. Indian J. agric. Sci., 45: 124-27.
Bhardwaj. S. N., Singh. M. and Wankhede, N. P. (1975). Suitability of upland cotton varieties to closer planting and higher yield. Indian J. agric. Sci.• 45 : 239-45.
Bhatt, G. M., Singh, R. B. and Mor, B. R. (1967). Genetic variability in upland cotton (G, hirsutum L).
II. Analysis of yield and its components. Indian J. agric. Sci., 37: 555-59.
Butany, W. T., Singh, M. and Mehra, R. B. (1966). Interrelationships between seme characteristics in
hirsutum cotton. Indian J. Genet. PI. Breed., 21 : 262-68.
Dastur, R. H. (1960). Physiology of cotton plant in 1.1<Iia. A resume of past work and suggestions future research. lecc Scientific Monograph No.4. p. 66.
EI-Shakawy, M. A.. Hesketh. J. D. and Muramato. H. (1965). Leaf photosynthetic rate and other growth
characteristics &mong 26 species of Gossypium. Crop Sci.. 5 : 173-75.
I<amalnathan, S. (1966). Correlation of lint yield and its components in cotton (G. arboreum L.). Madras
agric. J., 54: 611-18.
Kharche, S. G. (1964). Studies on the effect of spacing and levels of nitrogen on the growth. nitrogen uptake and yield of American cotton Variety Burlc 147 (G. hirsutum). Ann. agric. Res. (College of Agric., Nagpur pp. 145-46.
Manner, B. A., Worley, S., Harrel. D. C. and Culp, T. W. (1971). A geometrical apprOach to yield model in upland cotton (G. hirsutum L.). Crop Sci., 11 : 904-06.
Muramato, H .. Hesketh, J. D. and EI-Shaskawy, M. (1965). Relationship among leaf area dellelopment.
photosynthetic rate and rate of dry matter production among American CUltivated cotton and other species. Crop Sci.. 5 : 163-66.
Pati!. M. S. and Menskai, S. W. (1972). Selection index for yield in diploid cotton (G. hefbaceum L.).
Madras aglic. J .• 59 : 660-62.
YIEID ABILITY IN COTrON
Saxena. M. C. (1963). _ Research notes. Studies on the correlation between some characters of cotton cv. 216 F. Indian Cotton Grow. Rev., 17: 33-34.
Venkatraman. N. and Santhanam. V. (1962). Correlation studies on yield components' in combodian cotton (G. hirsulum L.). Indisn Cotton Grow. RIN., 16 : 131-37.
William, R., Meredith, Jr. and Bridge, R. R. (1973). Yield, yield components and fibre property variations of cotton (G. hirsutum L) within and among environments. Crop Sc;., 13 : 307-12. William, C. N. and Joseph. It T. (1973). Ught use in tropical crops, measurement of growth and light
in crop productions in climate soil and crop production, in Humid Tropics II Edn. Oxford Univ. Press, p. 177.