Reproducibility of check cultivar performance as affected by seed source

by Jimmy X. Zumba and Gerald O. Myers

Department of Agronomy and Environmental ManagementLouisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.

Conventional Vs. TransgenicTransgenic cotton 2006 2005– AZ 86.93 % - AZ 82 %– CA 59.44 % - CA 43.5 %– LA 99.38 % - LA 95 %– MS 99.29 % - MS 95 %– TX 74.87 % - TX 63.5 %– USA 87.64 % - USA 82 %

Conventional (Non-Transgenic) cotton in the US in 2006– 18 out of the 154 marketed Upland cotton varieties were

conventional

Most popular conventional varieties in LA– FM 958, FM 832, DP 493, DP 491, DP 393, ST 474

Who breeds for conventional varieties?– Mainly by public universities– Small effort by private companies

Conventional breeding programs– Rudimentary seed processing– Different seed treatment (insecticide, fungicide)

Conventional commercial checks– Unavailable (e.g. PSC 355)– Better seed processing?– Better seed treatments (insecticide, fungicide)?

Conventional Vs. Transgenic

Reduction of the number of conventional (non-transgenic) varieties and their acreage planted, represents a growing problem for conventional cotton breeding programs if the benchmark check varieties become unavailable.

Justification

• Evaluate the purity and stability of performance of retained commercial seeds.

• Evaluate the seed selection and treatment of commercial checks in relation with retained commercial seeds

Objective

• 3 locations in 2006: Alexandria, Bossier City and Saint Joseph, LA.

• 2006 Advance Yield Trials (22 entries including checks)

• New DP 393, DP 493 and FM 958, and same retained varieties seeds from 2005 crop.

• Seed treatment (Baytan® and AllegianceTM FL)

• RCBD with 2 rows 40 ft long plots

Material and Methods

• Seedcotton yield• Lint Index• Fiber characteristics:

– Length– Strength– Micronaire– Elongation– Uniformity– Short Fiber Index

Parameters measured

Seedcotton Yield and Lint Index

Name LbsLA04307063 2661LA04307066 2620DP393 2613LA04307062 2553LA04307004 2527DP393 Retained 2488LA04307003 2441DP493 Retained 2409LA00405033 2403LA04307064 2376DP493 2374FM958 Retained 2374LA04307061 2360LA04307047 2334LA04307027 2327LA04307059 2297LA04307015 2257LA04307035 2232LA04307065 2218LA04307014 2213LA04307054 2123FM958 2108

Name Lbs

DP393 2613 a

DP393 Retained 2488 a

DP493 Retained 2409 a

DP493 2374 a

FM958 Retained 2373 ab

FM958 2107 b

Location Lbs

Alexandria 2997 a

Bossier City 2169 b

Saint Joseph 1965 c

Location Lint index (%)

Alexandria 39.5 a

Bossier City 40.1 a

Saint Joseph 40.5 a

NAME Lint index (%)

DP493 43.8 a

DP493 Retained 43.3 ab

DP393 41.7 ab

FM958 Retained 41.4 ab

FM958 40.0 b

DP393 Retained 37.3 b

Name Lbs

"New" 2365 a

Retained 2423 a

Name Lint index (%)

"New" 41.8 a

Retained 40.6 a

Fiber characteristicLocation Length (UHM)

Alexandria 1.195 a

Bossier City 1.123 b

Saint Joseph 1.102 c

Name Length (UHM)

FM958 1.156 a

FM958 Retained 1.148 a

DP393 1.136 ab

DP393 Retained 1.121 bc

DP493 Retained 1.118 bc

DP493 1.111 c

Location Strength (GTEX)

Alexandria 34.9 a

Bossier City 31.1 b

Saint Joseph 30.1 c

Name Strength (GTEX)

DP393 32.8 a

DP393 Retained 31.9 ab

FM958 31.5 ab

FM958 Retained 30.8 bc

DP493 30.6 bc

DP493 Retained 30.2 c

Location MIC

Bossier City 4.85 a

Saint Joseph 5.14 b

Alexandria 5.15 b

Name MIC

FM958 4.9 a

DP393 4.9 a

DP393 Retained 4.9 a

FM958 Retained 5.0 ab

DP493 Retained 5.1 b

DP493 5.1 b

Name Length (UHM)

"New" 1.134 a

Retained 1.129 a

Name Strength (GTEX)

"New" 31.6 a

Retained 31.0 a

Name MIC

"New" 5.0 a

Retained 5.0 a

Fiber characteristic

Location SFI (%)

Alexandria 3.1 a

Bossier City 5.3 b

Saint Joseph 5.7 c

Name SFI (%)

DP393 4.0 a

DP393 Retained 4.6 ab

FM958 4.7 ab

FM958 Retained 5.3 bc

DP493 Retained 5.9 bc

DP493 6.1 c

Location Elongation (%)

Bossier City 8.2 a

Alexandria 7.9 b

Saint Joseph 7.7 c

Name Elongation (%)

DP393 9.3 a

DP393 Retained 9.1 a

DP493 7.4 b

DP493 Retained 7.3 bc

FM958 Retained 7.0 c

FM958 6.9 c

Location Uniformity (%)

Alexandria 85 a

Bossier City 83 b

Saint Joseph 82 c

Name Uniformity (%)

DP393 84.4 a

FM958 84.0 ab

DP393 Retained 83.9 ab

FM958 Retained 83.5 bc

DP493 83.5 bc

DP493 Retained 83.1 c

Name SFI (%)

"New" 4.9 a

Retained 5.3 a

Name Elongation (%)

"New" 7.9 a

Retained 7.8 a

Name Uniformity (%)

"New" 84.0 A

Retained 83.5 B

• Stability of performance is not lost when retaining commercial seed checks in one year

• The processing of retained seed was not affected in comparison with the commercial seeds

Conclusion

Mr. Ivan Dickson (LSU Cotton Fiber Lab)Mr. David Caldwell (Red River Research Station)Mr. James Hayes (Red River Research Station)Mr. Brad Guillory (Dean Lee Research Station)Mr. Alfonso Coco (Northeast Research Station)Dr. Jack E. Jones

Acknowledge