ArticleScientific reports2022
Evaluation of genetic gains of some quantitative characters in Egyptian cotton cross (Giza 86 × Menoufi) under water deficit stress.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drought stress reshapes the genetic architecture of fiber quality and developmental traits in Egyptian cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.): a line × tester analysis under contrasting irrigation regimes.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Mode of gene action and heterosis for physiological, biochemical, and agronomic traits in some diverse rice genotypes under normal and drought conditions.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- The effect of using fresh farmyard manure (animal manure) on the severity ofFrontiers in plant science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work was carried out to select cotton genotypes adapted to semi-arid climate conditions cultivated under irrigation for high yields and the standards of the fiber quality properties required by the textile industry. Also to determine the predicted and realized gains from different selection indices to improve some economic characters under water stress conditions. Except for lint percentage and Pressley index, F4 generation reduced PCV and GCV values for all studied characters due to reduction in genetic variability and heterozygosity due to different selection procedures that exhausted a significant part of variability. Except for fiber length and micronaire reading, mean performance in the F4 generation was revealed to be higher than those in the F3 generation for all studied characters. However, micronaire reading was lower (desirable) in F4 than F3 generation. Generally, genotypic correlations were higher than phenotypic correlations. Direct selection for lint index (Ped.3) was the most efficient in improving lint cotton yield/plant and bolls/plant. However, the multiplicative index involving all studied characters (I.5) exhibited the highest values for boll weight. Also, the Ped.2 index (direct selection for lint percentage) proved to be the most efficient in improving seed and lint indexes. Direct selection for lint cotton yield/plant (Ped.1) could produce the highest desirable values for lint percentage and seed per boll with a relatively reasonable yield. A selection index involving yield and its components (I.3) is recommended in improving uniformity index, fiber strength, and micronaire reading. The superior five families released from these indices in F4 generation exceeded the better parent for lint cotton yield/plant, bolls/plant, boll weight, seeds/boll, lint index, and reasonable fiber traits. These families could be continued to further generations as breeding material for developing water deficit tolerant genotypes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.