Journal list menu

Volume 61, Issue 4 p. 2467-2477
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative study of transgenic and nontransgenic cotton

Linghe Zeng

Corresponding Author

Linghe Zeng

USDA-ARS, Crop Genetics Research Unit, 141 Experiment Station Rd., Stoneville, MS, 38776 USA

Correspondence

Linghe Zeng, USDA-ARS, Crop Genetics Research Unit, 141 Experiment Station Rd., Stoneville, MS 38776, USA

Email: [email protected]

Contribution: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, ​Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author
Jixiang Wu

Jixiang Wu

South Dakota State Univ., Brookings, SD, 57007

Contribution: Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author
Fred M. Bourland

Fred M. Bourland

Univ. of Arkansas, Northeast Res. & Ext. Center, Keiser, AR, 72351

Contribution: Data curation, ​Investigation, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author
B. Todd Campbell

B. Todd Campbell

USDA-ARS, Water and Plant Conservation Research Unit, 2611 W. Lucas St., Florence, SC, 29506 USA

Contribution: Data curation, ​Investigation

Search for more papers by this author
Jane K. Dever

Jane K. Dever

Texas AgriLife Research Center, Texas A&M Univ., Lubbock, TX, 79403

Contribution: Data curation, ​Investigation, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author
Steve Hague

Steve Hague

Dep. of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX, 77843

Contribution: Data curation, ​Investigation

Search for more papers by this author
Gerald O. Myers

Gerald O. Myers

Louisiana State Univ., LSU Agric. Center, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803

Contribution: Data curation, ​Investigation, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author
Tyson B. Raper

Tyson B. Raper

West TN Res. & Ed. Center, Univ. of Tennessee, Jackson, TN, 38301

Contribution: Data curation, ​Investigation

Search for more papers by this author
Wayne Smith

Wayne Smith

Dep. of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX, 77843

Contribution: Data curation, ​Investigation, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author
Jinfa Zhang

Jinfa Zhang

New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces, NM, 88003

Contribution: Data curation, ​Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 06 April 2021
Citations: 3

Assigned to Associate Editor Vasu Kuraparthy.

Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation by the USDA.

Abstract

The environmental impact of genetically modified crops has been extensively investigated. However, few reports on the influence of transgenic traits on genetic structure have been reported in the literature. It is unknown how or if transgenic cultivars have affected genotypic variation in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) since its rise to dominance in cotton production. In this study, the genotypic variance components, g, of lint yield (LY) and fiber quality were compared among transgenic and nontransgenic cotton in the USDA Regional High Quality (RHQ) tests from 2002 through 2018. The popular transgenic and nontransgenic cultivars/lines developed by the major private and public cotton breeding programs in the United States during this period were included. Testing cycles within the RHQ protocol consist of standardized control cultivars plus experimental entries. Variance components were dissected in each testing year within six such testing cycles. Lint yield of the transgenic cotton was generally higher than nontransgenic cotton. Fiber quality of the nontransgenic cotton was generally higher than the transgenic cotton. For LY, the proportion of g to the total variance was lower in the transgenic cotton than in the nontransgenic cotton, but the difference diminished in the recent two cycles. The proportion of g was lower in the transgenic cotton compared with the nontransgenic cotton for fiber length, fiber strength, fiber uniformity, and micronaire. The discrepancy between the two types of cotton in the RHQ tests reflects the influences of differential breeding schemes in the private and public breeding programs on means and genotypic variance of LY and fiber quality.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.