Evaluation of the performance of some cotton genotypes in terms of yield and yield components under different environmental conditions

Abstract

In this study, the performance of six cotton genotypes used as materials was investigated in terms of yield and some yield components across four different environments. As a result of the study, it was determined that the differences between genotypes, environments, and genotype × environment interactions for the investigated seedcotton yield, fiber yield, ginning percentage, and seed index were significant at the 1% level. The environment where the highest seedcotton yield, fiber yield, ginning percentage, and seed index were observed was Hatay-2021. In contrast, the lowest seed index was found in Adana-2021. Among the cotton genotypes used as materials, DP332 exhibited the highest performance for seedcotton yield, fiber yield, and ginning percentage, while also standing out with the lowest seed index. In terms of genotype × environment interaction, the DP332 × Hatay-2021 interaction was distinctly superior for seedcotton yield, fiber yield, and ginning percentage. The GGE biplot analysis revealed that the DP332 and F-325 genotypes performed well in terms of yield and yield components and could therefore be recommended for all environments. The study concluded that GGE biplot analysis provided valuable information in determining the yield performance of cotton genotypes under different environmental conditions and in analyzing genotype × environment interactions.

Keywords

• Seedcotton yield
• Fiber yield
• Genotype x environment interaction
• GGE biplot

Farklı çevre koşullarında bazı pamuk genotiplerinin verim ve verim öğeleri yönünden performanslarının değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, materyal olarak kullanılan altı pamuk genotipinin dört farklı çevrede verim ve bazı verim öğelerine ilişkin performansları incelenmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda, incelenen kütlü verimi, lif verimi, çırçır randımanı ve yüz tohum ağırlığı özellikleri yönünden genotipler, çevreler ve genotip x çevre interaksiyonları arasındaki farklılıkların %1 düzeyinde önemli olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmada kütlü verimi, lif verimi, çırçır randımanı ve yüz tohum ağırlığının en yüksek olduğu çevre Hatay-2021 olmuştur. Buna karşın en düşük yüz tohum ağırlığı ise Adana-2021’de saptanmıştır. Materyal olarak kullanılan pamuk genotiplerinden DP332, kütlü verimi, lif verimi ve çırçır randımanı açısından en yüksek performansı sergilerken, en düşük yüz tohum ağırlığı ile de öne çıkmaktadır. Genotip × çevre interaksiyonu bakımından ise kütlü verimi, lif verimi ve çırçır randımanında DP332 × Hatay-2021 interaksiyonu belirgin şekilde öne çıkmıştır. GGE biplot analizi, DP332 ve F-325 genotiplerinin verim ve verim bileşenleri açısından öne çıktığını ve dolayısıyla bütün çevrelerde önerilebileceğini göstermiştir. Çalışma sonucunda, pamuk genotiplerinin farklı çevre koşullarındaki verim performanslarının belirlenmesinde ve genotip × çevre ilişkilerinin analiz edilmesinde GGE biplot analizlerinin yararlı bilgiler sunduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

• Kütlü verimi
• Lif verimi
• Genotip x çevre interaksiyonu
• GGE biplot

References

1. Abd El Samad, H. S., El Hosary, A. A., Shokr, E. S., El-Badawy, M. E., Eissa, A. E. M., & El Hosary, A. A. A. (2017). Selecting high yield and quality cotton genotypes using phenotypic and genotypic stability statistics. Egyptian Journal of Plant Breeding, 21(5), 642-653.
2. Abro, S., Rizwan, M., Rajput, M. T., Sial, M. A., & Deho, Z. A. (2022). Evaluation of upland cotton genotypes for stability over different locations using AMMI and GGE biplot analysis. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 54(5), 1733-1739. https://doi.org/10.30848/PJB2022-5(1)
3. Akışcan, Y. (2025). Genetic progress in cotton fiber yield and its components in Turkey. Field Crops Research, 326, 109878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2025.109878
4. Ali, I., Khan, N. U., Mohammad, F., Iqbal, M. A., Abbas, A., Farhatullah, Bıbı, Z., Ali, S., Khalil, I. A., Ahmad, S., & Rahman, M. (2017). Genotype by environment and GGE-biplot analyses for seed cotton yield in upland cotton. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 49(6), 2273-2283. https://pakbs.org/pjbot/papers/1512402598.pdf
5. Campbell, B. T., & Jones, M. A. (2005). Assessment of genotype × environment interactions for yield and fiber quality in cotton performance trials. Euphytica, 144, 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-005-4336-7
6. Constable, G. A., & Bange, M. P. (2015). The yield potential of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Field Crops Research, 182, 98-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.07.017
7. Farshadfar, E., Rashidi, M., Jowkar, M. M., & Zali, H. (2013). GGE Biplot analysis of genotype × environment interaction in chickpea genotypes. European Journal of Experimental Biology, 3(1), 417-423.
8. Fok, M., & Zhang, G. W. (2014). The application of GGE biplot analysis for evaluating test locations and mega-environment investigation of cotton regional trials. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 13(9), 1921-1933. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(13)60656-5

9. Gul, S., Khan, N. U., Gul, R., Baloch, M., Latif, A., & Khan, I. A. (2016). Genotype by environment and phenotypic adaptability studies for yield and fiber variables in upland cotton. JAPS: Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 26(3).
10. Güvercin, R. Ş., Karademir, E., Karademir, Ç., Özkan, N., Ekinci, R., & Borzan, G. (2017). Bazı pamuk (Gossypium hirsutum L.) genotiplerinin Doğu Akdeniz ve GAP bölgesine uyum yetenekleri ile stabilite analizleri. Harran Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi, 21(1), 41-52. https://doi.org/10.29050/harranziraat.303135
11. Hall, A. J., & Richards, R. A. (2013). Prognosis for genetic improvement of yield potential and water-limited yield of major grain crops. Field Crops Research, 143, 18-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.05.014
12. Kendal, E., & Sayar, S. (2016). The stability of some spring triticale genotypes using biplot analysis. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 26(3), 754-765.
13. Khan, M. A., Wahid, A., Ahmad, M., Tahir, M. T., Ahmed, M., Ahmad, S., & Hasanuzzaman, M. (2020). World cotton production and consumption: An overview. In S. Ahmad & M. Hasanuzzaman (Eds.), Cotton production and uses: Agronomy, crop protection, and postharvest technologies (pp. 1–7). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1472-2_1
14. Li, R., Li, M., Ashraf, U., Liu, S., & Zhang, J. (2019). Exploring the relationships between yield and yield-related traits for rice varieties released in China from 1978 to 2017. Frontiers in Plant Science, 10, 543. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00543
15. McPherson, M. (2022). An application of GGE biplot to cotton variety development. Crop Breeding, Genetics and Genomics, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.20900/cbgg20220001
16. Mızrak, R., Ekinci, R., & Başbağ, S. (2020). İleri pamuk (G. hirsutum L.) hatlarının biplot analiz yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi. Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 30(4), 781-787. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.698594
17. Mudada, N., Chitamba, J., Macheke, T. O., & Manjeru, P. (2017). Genotype × environmental interaction on seed cotton yield and yield components. Open Access Library Journal, 4(11), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1103192
18. Mukoyi, F., Gasura, E., & Makunde, G. S. (2018). Implications of correlations and genotype by environment interactions among cotton traits. African Crop Science Journal, 26(2), 219-235. https://doi.org/10.4314/acsj.v26i2.5
19. Özüdoğru, T. (2023). Durum ve tahmin pamuk 2023 (TEPGE Yayın No. 380). Tarımsal Ekonomi ve Politika Geliştirme Enstitüsü. E-ISBN: 978-605-7599-97-1.
20. Sadabadi, M. F., Ranjbar, G. A., Zangi, M. R., Tabar, S. K., & Zarini, H. N. (2018). Analysis of stability and adaptation of cotton genotypes using GGE Biplot method. Trakia Journal of Sciences, 16(1), 51-61. http://www.uni-sz.bg/
21. JMP. (2012). JMP® Version 10. SAS Institute Inc.
22. Sayar, M. S., Anlarsal, A. E., & Başbağ, M. (2013). Genotype–environment interactions and stability analysis for dry matter yield and seed yield in Hungarian vetch (Vicia pannonica Crantz). Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 18(2), 238-246.
23. Sayar, M. S., & Han, Y. (2015). Mürdümük (Lathyrus sativus L.) hatlarının tohum verimi ve verim komponentlerinin belirlenmesi ve GGE biplot analiz yöntemiyle değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 21(1), 78-92. https://doi.org/10.15832/tbd.80183
24. Scarpin, G. J., Dileo, P. N., Winkler, H. M., Cereijo, A. E., Lorenzini, F. G., Muchut, R. J., Roeschlin, R. A., Acuna, C., & Paytas, M. (2025). Genetic progress in cotton dry matter partitioning in Argentina. Industrial Crops and Products, 225, 120419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2024.120419
25. Subbarayan, S., Anantharaju, P., Thiyagu, K., Manivannan, A., & Banoth, M. (2024). Deciphering genotype performance, genotype and environment interaction of seed cotton yield and ginning outturn using GGE biplot for selection of Gossypium hirsutum for rainfed ecosystem. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4107614/v1
26. Subhan, M., Khan, H. U., & Ahmed, R. O. (2001). Population analysis of some agronomic and technological characteristics of upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 1, 120–123.
27. Yan, W., Hunt, L. A., Sheng, Q., & Szlavnics, Z. (2000). Cultivar evaluation and mega environment investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop Science, 40, 597-605. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2000.403597x
28. Yüksekkaya, Z., & Ünay, A. (2002). Ege bölgesi koşullarında bazı pamuk (Gossypium hirsutum L.) genotiplerinin adaptasyonu ve stabilite analizi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1-2), 39-44. https://doi.org/10.29050/HARRANZIRAAT.303135
29. Zeng, L., Meredith, W. R., Campbell, B. T., Dever, J. K., Zhang, J., Glass, K. M., Jones, A. S., Myers, G. O., & Bourland, F. M. (2014). Genotype-by-environment interaction effects on lint yield of cotton cultivars across major regions in the US cotton belt. Journal of Cotton Science, 18(1), 75-84.
30. Zhu, Y., Zheng, B., Luo, Q., Jiao, W., & Yang, Y. (2023). Uncovering the drivers and regional variability of cotton yield in China. Agriculture, 13(11), 2132. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13112132