Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:17:00.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Direction and Distance on Cross Pollination in Egyptian Cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

Hassan E. Galal ,
H. A. Abou-El-Fittouh  and
Gadd Morshed
Hassan E. Galal
Affiliation:
Bahtim Agricultural Experiment Station, Bahtim
H. A. Abou-El-Fittouh
Affiliation:
Division of Design and Statistical Analysis, Department of Agriculture, Giza
Gadd Morshed
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, El-Azhar University, Cairo, U.A.R.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The effect on cross pollination of four directions and six distances from the marker variety in Egyptian cotton was investigated. The percentage of cross pollination did not differ appreciably in the different directions but there were significant differences in cross fertilization among the six distances. A linear relation was observed between cross pollination per cent and distance up to 8.8 m. from the marker variety. Implications of these findings on various aspects of cotton breeding methodology are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 1972 , pp. 67 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Afifi, A., Abdel-Bari, A., Kamel, S. A. & Heikal, I. (1965). Bahtim Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 80. Egyptian Agricultural Organization.Google Scholar
Afzal, M. & Khan, H. (1950). Agron. J. 42, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balls, W. L. (1912). The Cotton Plant in Egypt. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. & Cox, G. M. (1960). Experimental Designs. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Fikry, M. A. (1931). Roy. Agric. Soc. Egypt (Tech. Sec.) Bull. 18.Google Scholar
Fryxell, P. (1956). J. Hered. 47, 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grout, R. A. (1955). Am. Bee J. 95, 10.Google Scholar
Loden, H. D. & Richmond, T. R. (1951). Econ. Bot. 5, 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, O. A., Simpson, D. M. & Duncan, E. N. (1944). J. Agric. Res. 68, 347.Google Scholar
Simpson, D. M. (1954). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 1094.Google Scholar
Simpson, D. M. & Duncan, E. N. (1956). Agron. J. 48, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, S. G. (1953). J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 69, 86. (Quoted from Biol. Abst. 1954, Vol. 24.)Google Scholar
Stephens, S. G. & Finker, M. D. (1953). Econ. Bot. 7, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, N. J. (1966). Emp. Cott. Grow. Rev. 43, 18.Google Scholar