Pedigree selection for lint yield at late planting in Egyptian cotton (G . barbadense L

1

Pedigree selection for lint yield at

late planting in Egyptian cotton ( G .

barbadense L. )Mahdy, E.E.;** E.A. Hassaballa;** A.A. Mohamed;* and A. M.

Aly *

** Agron. Dept., Fac. Agric., Assiut University

* Cotton Res. Institute, Agric. Res. Center, Dokki, Giza

AbstractTwo cycles of pedigree selection for lint

yield trait were achieved in two segregatingpopulations of Egyptian cotton ( G . barbadenseL. ) under late planting condition . The geneticmaterials were the F2, F3 , F4 and F5 generationsof the crosses Giza 90 / Giza 85 (pop I ) andGiza 85/Giza 70 (pop II ) . The phenotypiccoefficient of variation (c v ) of lint yield waslarge enough in the F 2 – generation andaccounted for 46.39 and 46.35 % in pop I and inpop II ; respectively .How ever , the c v % ofthe respective parents were very low reflectingtheir purity . Broad sense heritability of lintyield was very high ( 0.99 and 0.99 ) andunreliable in the F2 – generations , whichresults in high expected genetic advance of79.01 and 80.60 % from the mean for pop I and popII ; respectively . After two cycles of selectionthe retained genetic coefficient of variabilitywas 17.55 and 25.20 for pop I and pop II ;respectively ,How ever , the realizedheritability and parent – offspring regression

2

were 0.5509 and 0.3402 for pop I and 0.3016 and0.3388 for pop II ; respectively . In pop I , thedirect observed gain was significant ( p> 0.01 )from the bulk sample ( 10.78 %) and from thebetter parent (18.20 % ) . four superiorfamilies were isolated from pop I and exceededsignificant the better parent and bulk sample inlint yield and correlated traits . In pop IIthree superior families No. 58, No. 101 and No130 showed significant direct gain in lint yield34.96, 38.32 and 58.46 % from the bulk sample ,and 48.30 , 51.99 and 67.54 % from the betterparent , respectively . Family No. 130 , showedsignificant ( p > 0.01 ) correlated gain fromthe better parent of 62.08 , 35.92 , 4.15 , 9.63and 6.70 % for seed cotton yield , number ofbolls / plant , seed index , lint percentage andearliness index ; respectively .

INTRODUCTION

Egyptian cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.) is

considered the best fiber crop in the world and

remains as one of the most important crops in

Egypt. Improvement of early mature and high

yielding as well as high quality cotton varieties

are the principal objectives to all cotton

breeders around the world. Early maturity in

cotton has several advantages. It enables the

cotton crop to develop during periods of more

3

favorable weather; it also helps to fit the crop

into a double-cropping pattern (grown after the

winter crops, for example wheat) without great

effect on yield. Early maturity is also desirable

in irrigated areas, as early maturing plants show

higher water use efficiency than late one so that

it can be grown in new land as Toshki, and escape

from damage of bollworms. Plant breeders are

continuously searching for a more effective and

efficient selection method. Although several

selection methods were used for improving several

traits in cotton, pedigree selection method has

become the most popular of plant breeding

procedures. Most of Egyptian cotton varieties

were produced through this method. Plant breeders

prefer it because it is versatile, relatively

rapid and makes possible the conducting of

genetic studies along with the plant-breeding

work. Younis (1986) found that the pcv and gcv

decreased rapidly after two cycles of pedigree

selection. Singh et al. (1995) found significant

genotypic differences for all traits in the F3

and F4-generations in three crosses. Mustafa et

al. (1995) in 41 strains selected from 10

Egyptian cotton crosses, found high gcv for lint

4

yield/plant in Trial A (9.4%) and intermediate

(7.48%) in Trial B. Lioyd and Bridges (1995)

practiced selection at conventional and late

plantings of cotton, and found significant

genotype variation for all traits. Okasha (1998)

noted high to moderate broad-sense heritability

estimates for all traits in a study of direct

selection for yield and yield components.

Shaheen et al. (2000), Mahdy et al. (2001a and b),

Ahuja et al. (2004), Murthy et al. (2004) and Ahmed

et al. (2006) are in line with the results herein

respect to heritability estimates and coefficient

of variability. Khan et al. (2009) reported broad

sense heritability estimates of 0.98 for seed

cotton yield/plant, 0.96 for boll weight and 0.96

for number of bolls/plant.

Material and methods

The present study was carried out at Assiut

Univ. Exp. Farm during the four summer seasons of

2008 to 2011. The basic materials consisted of

two F2- populations stemmed from crosses between

four Egyptian cotton varieties (Gossypium barbadense

L.). Population I (PopI) stemmed from the cross

(Giza-90 x Giza-85) and population II (Pop II)

from (Giza-83 x Giza-70). In Season 2008; F2-

5

generation, the two aforementioned populations in

the F2 generation were sown on May, 1st in spaced

plants, in row 60 cm apart and 40 cm between

hills within a row. After full emergence three

weeks after planting, the hills were thinned to

one plant /hill. In the four seasons the

recommended cultural practices for cotton

production were adopted throughout the growing

season, except for nitrogen fertilization. Half

of the recommended dose of nitrogen for cotton

production was added after thinning and before

the first irrigation. Data were recorded on 307

and 247 plants from pop I and II; respectively.

At the end of growing season two picks were done

on single plants. The recorded traits in all

seasons were; seed-cotton yield/plant, g., lint

yield/plant, g., lint percentage, number of bolls

/plant, boll weight, g, seed index, lint index,

earliness index (measured as weight of the first

pick / weight of the two picks), and days to

first flower . The best 30 and 25 for earliness

index from pop I and pop II, respectively were

saved. After ginning, five seeds from each of the

307 plants of pop I, and from each of the 247

plants of pop II were bulked to give an

6

unselected bulk sample for each population. In

season 2009; F3-generation; the selected plants

from pop I and pop II, along with the two parents

and the unselected bulk sample were sown on May,

1st in two separate experiments. A randomized

Complete Block Design of three replications was

used. The plot size was one row, 4 m long, 60 cm

apart and 40 cm between hills within a row. After

full emergence, seedlings were thinned to one

plant per hill. After the two picks the best 20

plants from the best 20 families for earliness

index were saved from each population. Season

2010, F4- generation; the weather was very hot in

this season all over the country, and the

infestation of boll worms was very heavy. Hence,

data were not recorded, and the two experiments

were repeated in the next season of 2011 in the

F5 –generation. In season 2011, F5- generation;

sowing date was on May, 1st, 2011. Experimental

design and the plot size were as the previous

seasons. Each experiment involved the two parents

and the unselected bulk sample. Data were

subjected to proper statistical analysis

according to Steel and Torrie (1980). Genotypes

means were compared using Revised Least

7

Significant Differences test (RLSD) according to

El-Rawi and Khalafalla (1980). The phenotypic

(σ2p), genotypic (σ2g) variances, and heritability

in broad sense (H) were calculated according to

Walker (1960). Realized heritability (h2) was

calculated as; h2 = R / S (Falconer, 1989); where

R = response to selection and S = selection

differential. The phenotypic (pcv %) and

genotypic (gcv %) coefficients of variability

were calculated as outlined by Burton (1952).

Narrow sense heritability was calculated as

parent-offspring regression according to Smith

and Kinman (1965).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1- Description of the base populations: The characteristics of the two base

populations (Table 1) indicated sufficient

coefficient of variability in the F2 of pop. I

(46.39%) and in pop. II (46.35%) in the criterion

of selection; lint yield/plant. The coefficient

of variability (cv) of the other traits ranged

from 6.12 to 18.91% in pop. I, and from 12.03 to

34.75% in pop. II for days to first

8

Table 3. Means ,phenotypic coefficient of variability (cv%),heritability in broadsense (H) and expected genetic advance

(ΔG) of the F2 base population I and II for the studied

traits; season 2008.

Seedcottonyield

/plant,g.

Lintyield

/plant,g.

Lintpercentage

No.ofbolls

/plant

Bollweight,g.

Seedindex

Lintindex

Earliness

index

Daysto

first

flower

F2 –population

I

Mean ± SE56.92±1.33

19.41±0.51

33.50±0.18

20.89±0.47

2.73±0.02

9.34±0.07

4.70±0.03

76.94±0.83

63.53±0.22

cv % 40.87

46.39 9.46 39.0

314.94

12.95

12.57

18.91 6.12

Hb 0.99 0.97 0.64 0.93 0.79 0.93 0.57 0.98 0.72

ΔG/Mean% 71.17

79.01

10.69

63.61

21.14

21.29

12.67

32.49 7.81

Giza 90cv % 3.55 6.84 5.51 5.00 4.83 2.49 8.72 3.07 2.86

Mean ± SE 72.60±0.58

23.07±0.35

31.77±0.39

27.60±0.31

2.64±0.03

9.96±0.06

4.65±0.09

72.88±0.5

70.32±0.45

Giza 85Mean ± SE 59

±0.49

19.15±0.37

32.43±0.45

24.16±0.63

2.47±0.05

9.01±0.08

4.33±0.08

67.88±0.5

73.87±0.56

cv % 3.74 8.66 6.26 11.65

9.49 3.94 8.72 3.30 2.80

F2 –population

IIMean ± SE 60.0 21.8 36.5 22.7 2.68 9.00 5.24 68.0 70.3

9

4±1.68

2±0.65

6±0.31

4±0.66

±0.03

±0.08

±0.07

2±1,51

8±0.54

cv % 43.86

46.35

13.48

45.76

16.17

14.75

21.18

34.75

12.03

Hb 0.99 0.97 0.73 0.97 0.81 0.91 0.75 0.99 0.93

ΔG/Mean% 77.53

80.60

17.66

79.69

23.45

24.11

28.46

61.44

20.02

Giza 83cv % 69.9

1±0.71

24.29±0.39

34.74±0.42

26.64±0.32

2.63±0.03

9.65±0.09

5.14±0.09

70.63±0.59

71.22±0.47

Mean ± SE 0.71 0.39 0.42 0.32 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.59 0.47Giza 70

Mean ± SE 53.88±0.60

20.16±0.37

37.46±0.69

18.29±0.44

2.97±0.05

9.78±0.08

5.88±0.15

73.18±0.59

72.29±0.53

cv % 1.44 3.04 2.22 3.62 7.71 2.96 6.59 1.05 1.00ΔG = The expected genetic advance from selection 10 % superior plant.flower and earliness index; respectively.

Otherwise, the cv of all traits of the four

parents was very low, except for lint index

reflecting the high purity of the parents. Broad

sense heritability estimates were very high

except for lint index in pop. I(0.57) which was

intermediate. In consequence, high and unreliable

estimates of expected gains in percentage of the

F2-mean were obtained.

2 - Pedigree selection for lint yield/plant:

2.1- Variability and heritability estimates:

10

Mean squares of the selected families for lint

yield/plant and the other studied traits were

significant (P<0.01) in both of pop. I and pop.

II after two cycles of pedigree selection (Table

2). Where, the gcv and pcv% were high in the two

populations and accounted for 17.55 and 17.66%

for pop. I and 25.20 and 25.39% for pop. II;

respectively, indicating sufficient genetic

variability for further cycles of selection for

lint yield/plant. Generally, the coefficients of

variation for all traits were higher in pp. II

than in pop. I. The close estimates of pcv and

gcv % resulted in very high estimates of broad

sense heritability, which reached to 98.75 and

98.51% for pop. I and II; respectively. This

could be due to tow main causes, firstly,

evaluation of the selection families at one site

for one season inflated the families mean squares

by confounding effects of the interaction among

families, years and locations. The second cause

is the preponderance of dominance and over-

dominance in the early segregating generations.

However, the realized heritability estimates for

lint yield/plant were 0.2543 and 0.5509 for cycle

1 and cycle 2 in population I; respectively

11

(Table 2). Also, heritability estimates from the

parent-offspring regression were 0.3402 and

0.2606 for cycle 1 and cycle 2 selections,

respectively. Likewise, in population II (Table

2), the estimates of realized heritability were

0.2114 for cycle 1, and 0.3016 for cycle 2,

compared to parent offspring regression of 0.1537

and 0.3388 for

the two respective cycles of selection. The wide

differences between broad sense and realized

heritability estimates were interpreted before

and reflect the effect of dominance and over-

dominance in the early segregating generations.

Mahdy (1983a and b) reported sufficient genetic

variability in lint yield/plant, number of

bolls/plant and lint/seed after two cycles of

pedigree selection for lint yield/plant. Younis

(1986) found that the pcv and gcv decreased

rapidly after two cycles of pedigree selection.

Singh et al. (1995) found significant genotypic

differences for all traits in the F3 and F4-

generations in three crosses. Mustafa et al.

(1995) in 41 strains selected from 10 Egyptian

cotton crosses, found high gcv for lint

yield/plant in Trial A (9.4%) and intermediate

12

(7.48%) in Trial B. Lioyd and Bridges (1995)

practiced selection at conventional and late

plantings of cotton, and found significant

genotype variation for all traits. Okasha (1998)

noted high to moderate broad-sense heritability

estimates for all traits in a study of direct

selection for yield and yield components.

Shaheen et al. (2000), Mahdy et al. (2001a and b),

Ahuja et al. (2004), Murthy et al. (2004) and Ahmed

et al. (2006) are in line with the results herein

respect to heritability estimates and coefficient

of variability. Khan et al. (2009) reported broad

sense heritability estimates of 0.98 for seed

cotton yield/plant, 0.96 for boll weight and 0.96

for number of bolls/plant.

2.2- Means and observed gain:

2.2.1- Means and direct observed gain for lint

yield/plant:

Means of the selected families for lint

yield/plant of the two populations are presented

in Tables 3 and 6.

Mean lint yield/plant in pop. I (Table 3)

ranged from 19.23 to 37.12 with an average of

13

26.41 g, while it ranged from 11.21 to 34.06 with

an average of 24.03 g in pop. II (Table 6).

Table 3. Means of the studied traits of the selected families for lint yield/plant in population I; ( season 2011).

NO

Lintyield

/plant,g.

Seedcotton

yield

/plant,g.

Lintpercent

age

No.ofbolls

/plant

Boll weight, g.

Seed

index

Lintindex

Earliness

index

Daystofirst

flower

1 32.59

94.83 34.37 35.3

0 2.69 9.54

5.00 80.83 67.3

4

29 32.08

81.59 39.32 33.0

5 2.47 8.70

5.64 72.47 73.8

8

36 25.34

72.62 34.90 26.6

5 2.73 9.91

5.32 88.17 66.8

4

43 24.17

71.73 33.71 23.7

9 3.02 11.13

5.66 67.56 81.3

2

56 37.12

99.70 37.23 34.4

2 2.90 10.14

6.02 91.08 62.5

6

59 27.15

82.60 32.87 29.0

0 2.85 10.43

5.11 67.24 76.5

3

66 24.11

72.37 33.31 29.1

2 2.49 9.73

4.86 68.33 70.7

7

87 19.23

61.22 31.41 23.3

4 2.62 9.14

4.19 75.68 74.2

8

99 22.45

70.75 31.73 26.6

4 2.66 10.07

4.68 61.58 84.0

5

101 24.30

71.74 33.88 23.4

5 3.06 9.68

4.96 70.53 72.6

9

154 24.61

79.34 31.02 29.8

4 2.66 10.42

4.69 76.68 79.7

3

193 26.36

81.13 32.49 33.1

4 2.45 7.88

3.79 82.11 69.3

1

195 25.83

76.66 33.69 27.7

5 2.76 10.12

5.14 72.72 76.6

2

234 29.97

94.71 31.64 34.2

0 2.77 10.91

5.05 91.56 62.2

1

14

236 22.85

71.20 32.09 26.3

1 2.71 8.84

4.18 63.68 78.5

2

237 20.30

51.50 39.42 19.3

4 2.66 9.83

6.39 69.98 74.2

6

244 23.34

76.51 30.50 25.8

7 2.96 10.61

4.66 65.68 79.9

8

270 32.45

89.55 36.24 28.1

4 3.18 10.87

6.18 69.02 76.7

5

298 30.74

87.45 35.16 30.5

7 2.86 10.33

5.60 76.00 71.5

6

299 23.23

72.30 32.12 26.3

6 2.74 10.05

4.76 79.75 66.3

9

Average 26.41

77.97 33.86 28.3

1 2.76 9.92

5.09 74.53 73.2

8

BULK 23.84

69.50 34.31 26.5

6 2.62 9.17

4.79 71.99 69.5

4

G90 21.80

65.09 33.50 24.9

7 2.61 9.21

4.64 67.72 76.0

3

G85 18.90

61.09 30.94 22.2

5 2.75 8.32

3.73 70.78 79.7

7Rev.LSD0.

05 0.73 1.25 0.87 1.07 0.09 0.10

0.21 1.27 1.29

Rev.LSD0.01 0.97 1.65 1.15 1.42 0.12 0.1

40.28 1.68 1.70

Table 4 .Observed direct and correlated responses afterthe second cycle of pedigree selection of theselected families for lint yield/plant measuredin percentage of the unselected bulk inpopulation I; (season 2011).

Criterion of

selection

Correlated traits

Fam.NO Lintyield /plant, g.

Seedcottonyield

/pla

Lintpercentage

No.of

bolls/plant

Bollweight, g.

Seedindex,g.

Lintindex,g.

Earliness

index

Daystofirst

flower

15

nt,g.

1 36.70*

*36.45** 0.17 32.91

** 2.67 4.03** 4.38* 12.28*

*

-3.16*

*

29 34.56*

*17.40**

14.60**

24.44**

-5.73 -5.13 17.75

** 0.67 6.24

36 6.29** 4.49*

* 1.72 0.34 4.20 8.07** 11.06**

22.48*

*

-3.88*

*

43 1.38 3.21*

* -1.75 -10.43

15.27**

21.37**

18.16** -6.15 16.9

4

56 55.70*

*43.45** 8.51** 29.59

**10.69**

10.58**

25.68**

26.52*

*

-10.04**

59 13.88*

*18.85** -4.20 9.19** 8.78*

*13.74

** 6.68** -6.60 10.05

66 1.13 4.13*

* -2.91 9.64** -4.96 6.11** 1.46 -5.08 1.77

87 -19.34-

11.91

-8.45 -12.12 0.00 -0.33 -

12.53 5.13** 6.82

99 -5.83 1.80 -7.52 0.30 1.53 9.81** -2.30 -14.46 20.87

101 1.93 3.22*

* -1.25 -11.71

16.79** 5.56** 3.55 -2.03 4.53

154 3.23* 14.16** -9.59 12.35

** 1.53 13.63** -2.09 6.51** 14.6

5

193 10.57*

*16.73** -5.30 24.77

**-

6.49-

14.07-

20.8814.06*

*-

0.33

195 8.35** 10.30** -1.81 4.48* 5.34*

*10.36

** 7.31** 1.01 10.18

234 25.71*

*36.27** -7.78 28.77

**5.73*

*18.97

** 5.43* 27.18*

*

-10.54**

236 -4.15 2.45*

* -6.47 -0.94 3.44* -3.60 -12.73 -11.54 12.9

1

237 -14.85-

25.90

14.89**

-27.18 1.53 7.20** 33.40

** -2.79 6.79

244 -2.10 10.09**

-11.10 -2.60 12.9

8**15.70

** -2.71 -8.77 15.01

270 36.12* 28.8 5.63** 5.95** 21.3 18.54 29.02 -4.13 10.3

16

* 5** 7** ** ** 7

298 28.94*

*25.83** 2.48* 15.10

**9.16*

*12.65

**16.91

** 5.57** 2.90

299 -2.56 4.03*

*-

6.38** -0.75 4.58*

* 9.60** -0.63 10.78*

*

-4.53*

*

Average

10.78*

*12.19** -1.31 6.59** 5.34*

* 8.18** 6.26** 3.53** 5.38Rev.LSD0.

05 3.06 1.80 2.54 4.03 3.44 1.09 4.38 1.76 1.86Rev.LSD0.

01 4.07 2.37 3.35 5.35 4.58 1.53 5.85 2.33 2.44* and ** significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels ofprobability ;respectively.

Table 5. Observed direct and correlated responses afterthe second cycle of pedigree selection of theselected families for lint yield/plant measured inpercentage from the better parent in population I; (season 2011).

Criterion of

selection

Correlated traits

Fam.NO

Lintyield /plant, g.

Seedcottonyield /plant, g.

Lintpercent

age

No.of

bolls/plan

t

Bollweight, g.

Seedindex,g.

Lintindex,g.

Earliness

index

Daysto

firstflowe

r

1 49.50** 45.69** 2.60* 41.37*

* -2.18 3.58** 7.76** 14.20**-

11.43*

*

29 47.16** 25.35** 17.37** 32.36*

*-

10.18 -5.54 21.55*

* 2.39** -2.83**

36 16.24** 11.57** 4.18** 6.73** -0.73 7.60** 14.66*

* 24.57**-

12.09*

*

43 10.87** 10.20** 0.63 -4.73 9.82** 20.85*

*21.98*

* -4.55** 6.96

56 70.28** 53.17** 11.13** 37.85*

* 5.45* 10.10*

*29.74*

* 28.68**-

17.72*

*

59 24.54** 26.90** -1.88 16.14*

* 3.64 13.25*

*10.13*

* -5.00** 0.66

66 10.60** 11.18** -0.57 16.62*

* -9.45 5.65** 4.74* -3.46** -6.92**

17

87 -11.79 -5.95 -6.24 -6.53 -4.73 -0.76 -9.70 6.92** -2.30*

99 2.98 8.70** -5.28 6.69** -3.27 9.34** 0.86 -13.00** 10.55

101 11.47** 10.22** 1.13 -6.09 11.27*

* 5.10** 6.90** -0.35 -4.39**

154 12.89** 21.89** -7.40 19.50*

* -3.27 13.14*

* 1.08 8.34** 4.87**

193 20.92** 24.64** -3.01 32.72*

*-

10.91-

14.44-

18.32 16.01** -8.84**

195 18.49** 17.78** 0.57 11.13*

* 0.36 9.88** 10.78*

* 2.74** 0.78

234 37.48** 45.51** -5.55 36.96*

* 0.73 18.46*

* 8.84** 29.36**-

18.18*

*

236 4.82** 9.39** -4.21 5.37** -1.45 -4.02 -9.91 -10.03 3.28

237 -6.88 -20.88 17.67** -22.55 -3.27 6.73** 37.72*

* -1.13 -2.33**

244 7.06** 17.54** -8.96 3.60 7.64** 15.20*

* 0.43 -7.21 5.20

270 48.85** 37.58** 8.18** 12.70*

*15.64*

*18.02*

*33.19*

* -2.49 0.95

298 41.01** 34.35** 4.96** 22.43*

* 4.00* 12.16*

*20.69*

* 7.37** -5.88**

299 6.56** 11.08** -4.12 5.57** -0.36 9.12** 2.59** 12.67**-

12.68*

*

Average 21.15** 19.79** 1.07 13.38 0.36 7.71** 9.70** 5.30** -

3.62**

Rev.LSD0.05 3.35 1.92 2.60 4.29 3.27 1.09 4.53 1.79 1.70

Rev.LSD0.01 4.45 2.53 3.43 5.69 4.36 1.52 6.03 2.37 2.24

* and ** significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels of probability ;respectively.

The average direct observed gain from the bulk

sample was significant (P<0.01) in pop. I and

18

reached 10.78% (5.39% per cycle). Eleven out of

the 20 selected families showed significant

(P<0.01 – P<0.05) direct gain ranged 3.23 for

family No. 154 to 55.70 for family No. 56 (Table

4). The direct observed gain in lint yield/plant

from the better parent; Giza 90 (Table 5) ranged

from 4.82 for family No. 236 to 70.28% for family

No. 56 with an average of 21.15%. Seventeen out

of the 20 selected families showed significant

(P<0.01) direct gain from the better parent in

pop. I. The most superior families in pop. I,

could were families No. 1, No. 56, No. 234 and

No. 298.

In pop. II, eleven selected families showed

significant (P<0.01) direct gain in lint

yield/plant ranged from 8.24 for family No. 189

to 52.46 for family No. 130 with an average of

7.56% from the bulk sample (Table 7).

Furthermore, 14 families showed significant

(P<0.01) direct gain in pop. II from the better

parent Giza 83, which ranged from 7.08 for

family No. 106 to 67.54 for family No. 67.54 with

an average of 18.20% (Table 8). Mahdy (1983b)

achieved observed gain in lint yield/plant after

two cycles of selection in two populations of 8.4

19

and 6.3% from the parent. Younis (1986) indicated

that pedigree selection for lint yield/plant was

the most efficient procedure for improving lint

yield/plant. Mahdy et al. (1987b) reported direct

observed gain in lint yield/plant exceeded the

mid-parent by 32.88%. Lioyd and Bridges (1995),

Mahdy et al. (2001a), El-Okkiah et al. (2008) and

Mahdy et al. (2009) are in agreement with these

results.

2.2.2- The correlated gains in population I (Giza

85 x Giza 90)

Two cycles of pedigree selection for lint

yield/plant in pop. I accompanied with favorable

significant (P<0.01) correlated gains of 12.19%

for seed cotton yield/plant, 5.34% for boll

weight, 6.59% for number of bolls/plant, 8.18%

for seed index, 6.26% for lint index, and 3.53%

from the bulk sample for earliness index (Table

4). Likewise, the correlated gain from the

better parent was significant (P<0.01) for seed

cotton yield/plant (19.79%), number of

bolls/plant (13.38%), seed index (7.71%), lint

index (9.70%), earliness index (5.30%) and days

to first flower (-3.62%) (Table 5).

20

Taking into consideration the direct gain in

lint yield and the correlated gain in earliness

index; the four promising families were family

No. 1, No. 56, No. 234 and No. 298.

It should be recall that eight out of the 20

selected families for lint yield/plant were also

selected for earliness index, and three out of

the four superior families (No. 1, No. 56 and No.

234) were superior for earliness index.

2.2.3- The correlated gains in population II

(Giza 83 x Giza 70):

Selection for lint yield/plant for two cycles

showed significant (P<0.01) increase in seed

cotton yield/plant of 6.73% and seed index of

4.81% from the bulk sample, and decrease in days

to first flower of -7.20% (Table 7). The other

correlated traits showed average insignificant

correlated gains from the bulk sample. The

average of the different traits masked the

superiority of the individual selected families.

Eight of the 20 selected families were superior,

and showed significant or highly significant

correlated gains for seed cotton yield/plant,

earliness index and most of the other traits.

21

These superior families were families No. 58, No.

101, No. 130, No. 145, No. 167, No. 174, No. 190

and No. 198 (Table 7). The correlated gains in

seed cotton yield/plant ranged from 5.60% for

family No. 190 to 46.02% for family No. 130, and

the gains in earliness index ranged from 3.17%

for family No. 101 to 22.32% from the bulk sample

for family No. 58. Furthermore, the

aforementioned eight superior families except No.

101 showed significant (P<0.01) correlated gains

from the better parent in both of seed cotton

yield/plant Table 6. Means of the studied traits of the selected

families for lint yield/plant in population II ;(season 2011).

NO

Seedcotton

yield

/plant,g.

Lintyield/plant, g.

Lintpercentage

No.of

bolls

/plant

Bollweight, g.

Seedindex

Lintindex

Earliness

index

Daysto

first

flower

14 64.91 20.80 32.06 24.6

7 2.63 11.93 5.64 66.90 70.4

1

36 79.27 25.99 32.79 26.5

0 2.99 10.07 4.91 55.70 85.9

9

39 56.99 17.67 31.02 20.9

5 2.72 8.83 3.97 69.51 75.25

58 82.17 30.15 36.70 29.2

9 2.81 9.67 5.60 89.27 66.02

62 40.05 12.90 32.22 15.1

2 2.66 10.58 5.03 66.40 80.9

274 71.1 22.43 31.53 27.5 2.59 10.0 4.64 80.82 69.5

22

1 1 8 9

101 94.11 30.90 32.84 30.6

6 3.07 10.73 5.25 75.29 62.6

0

106 66.97 21.77 32.51 22.7

5 2.94 7.62 3.67 64.51 67.54

114 64.07 20.40 31.84 22.6

2 2.83 10.05 4.70 64.11 73.9

1

130 100.07 34.06 34.04 32.9

2 3.04 10.80 5.58 80.88 82.8

3

145 85.85 29.67 34.56 31.4

2 2.73 10.54 5.57 82.05 65.1

1

167 81.82 29.12 35.60 28.5

8 2.87 10.22 5.65 81.05 67.9

2

174 90.97 31.01 34.10 34.4

7 2.64 8.70 4.50 84.59 88.78

184 38.46 11.21 29.19 13.9

5 2.76 9.77 4.03 55.78 80.44

185 58.84 18.87 32.06 27.4

6 2.15 7.25 3.42 76.43 73.09

189 75.93 24.18 31.84 28.1

3 2.70 11.30 5.28 72.57 69.7

8

190 72.37 24.21 33.46 27.6

8 2.62 8.43 4.24 86.29 65.60

191 72.23 22.03 30.50 23.4

8 3.08 9.97 4.37 84.65 68.09

198 82.05 26.12 31.84 28.9

1 2.84 9.69 4.53 84.74 73.98

206 84.57 27.18 32.15 27.6

4 3.06 9.84 4.67 75.01 70.91

Average 73.14 24.03 32.64 26.2

4 2.79 9.80 4.76 74.83 72.94

BULK 68.53 22.34 32.60 25.0

4 2.74 9.35 4.53 72.98 78.60

G83 61.74 20.33 32.93 24.2

2 2.55 10.37 5.09 75.80 81.2

2

G70 56.15 18.20 32.43 17.6

9 3.18 9.44 4.53 69.87 74.09

Rev.LSD0.05 2.23 1.04 1.27 1.46 0.14 0.24 0.28 2.26 3.63

Rev.LSD0.01 2.95 1.38 1.68 1.93 0.19 0.31 0.37 2.98 4.79

23

Table 7 .Observed direct and correlated responses afterthe second cycle of pedigree selection of the selectedfamilies for lint yield/plant measured in percentageof the unselected bulk in population II; (season2011).

Criterion of

selection

Correlated traits

FAM.NO

Lintyield/plant, g.

Seedcotton

yield/plant, g.

Lintpercentage

No.of

bolls/plant

Bollweight, g.

Seedindex,g.

Lintindex,g.

Earliness

index

Daysto

firstflower

14 -6.89 -5.28 -1.66 -1.48 -4.01 27.59*

*24.50*

* -8.33-

10.42*

*

36 16.34*

*15.67*

* 0.58 5.83* 9.12** 7.70** 8.39** -23.68 9.40

39 -20.90

-16.84 -4.85 -

16.33 -0.73 -5.56 -12.36 -4.75 -4.26

58 34.96*

*19.90*

*12.58*

* 16.97 2.55 3.42** 23.62*

*22.32*

*

-16.01*

*

62 -42.26

-41.56 -1.17 -

39.62 -2.92 13.16*

*11.04*

* -9.02 2.95

74 0.40 3.76* -3.28 9.86** -5.47 7.81** 2.43 10.74*

*

-11.46*

*

101 38.32*

*37.33*

* 0.74 22.44*

*12.04*

*14.76*

*15.89*

* 3.17*-

20.36*

*

106 -2.55 -2.28 -0.28 -9.15 7.30** -18.50

-18.98 -11.61

-14.07*

*

114 -8.68 -6.51 -2.33 -9.66 3.28 7.49** 3.75 -12.15 -5.97*

130 52.46* 46.02* 4.42* 31.47* 10.95* 15.51* 23.18* 10.82* 5.38

24

* * * * * * *

145 32.81*

*25.27*

* 6.01** 25.48*

* -0.36 12.73*

*22.96*

*12.43*

*

-17.16*

*

167 30.35*

*19.39*

* 9.20** 14.14*

* 4.74 9.30** 24.72*

*11.06*

*

-13.59*

*

174 38.81*

*32.74*

* 4.60* 37.66*

* -3.65 -6.95 -0.66 15.91*

* 12.95

184 -49.82

-43.88

-10.46

-44.29 0.73 4.49** -

11.04 -23.57 2.34

185 -15.53

-14.14 -1.66 9.66** -

21.53-

22.46-

24.50 4.73** -7.01**

189 8.24** 10.80*

* -2.33 12.34*

* -1.46 20.86*

*16.56*

* -0.56-

11.22*

*

190 8.37** 5.60** 2.64 10.54*

* -4.38 -9.84 -6.40 18.24*

*

-16.54*

*

191 -1.39 5.40** -6.44 -6.23 12.41*

* 6.63** -3.53 15.99*

*

-13.37*

*

198 16.92*

*19.73*

* -2.33 15.46*

* 3.65 3.64** 0.00 16.11*

* -5.88*

206 21.67*

*23.41*

* -1.38 10.38*

*11.68*

* 5.24** 3.09 2.78 -9.78**

Average 7.56** 6.73** 0.12 4.79 1.82 4.81** 5.08 2.53 -7.20**

Rev.LSD0.05 4.66 3.25 3.90 5.83 5.11 2.57 6.18 3.10 4.62

Rev.LSD0.01 6.18 4.30 5.15 7.71 6.93 3.32 8.17 4.08 6.09

Table 8. Observed direct and correlated responses after thesecond cycle of pedigree selection of the selectedfamilies for lint yield/plant measured in percentagefrom the better parent in population II; ( season2011).

Criterion of

Correlated traits

25

selection

FAM.NO

Lintyield/plant, g.

Seedcottonyield /plant, g.

Lintpercentage

No.of

bolls/plant

Bollweight,

g.

Seedindex,

g.

Lintindex,g.

Earliness

index

Daysto

firstflower

14 2.31 5.13** -2.64 1.86-

17.30**

15.04 10.81*

* -11.74 -4.97*

36 27.84** 28.39** -0.43 9.41** -5.97 -2.89 -3.54 -26.52 16.06

39 -13.08 -7.69 -5.80 -

13.50-

14.47 -14.85 -22.00 -8.30 1.57

58 48.30** 33.09** 11.45** 20.93*

*-

11.64 -6.75 10.02*

* 17.77**-

10.89**

62 -36.55 -35.13 -2.16 -

37.57-

16.35 2.03 -1.18 -12.40 9.22

74 10.33** 15.18** -4.25 13.58*

*-

18.55 -2.80 -8.84 6.62** -6.07*

101 51.99** 52.43** -0.27 26.59*

* -3.46 3.47** 3.14 -0.67-

15.51**

106 7.08** 8.47** -1.28 -6.07 -7.55 -26.52 -27.90 -14.89 -8.84**

114 0.34 3.77* -3.31 -6.61 -11.01 -3.09 -7.66 -15.42 -0.24

130 67.54** 62.08** 3.37 35.92*

* -4.40 4.15** 9.63** 6.70** 11.80

145 45.94** 39.05** 4.95* 29.73*

*-

14.15 1.64 9.43** 8.25**-

12.12**

167 43.24** 32.52** 8.11** 18.00*

* -9.75 -1.45 11.00*

* 6.93** -8.33**

174 52.53** 47.34** 3.55 42.32*

*-

16.98 -16.10 -11.59 11.60** 19.83

184 -44.86 -37.71 -11.36 -

42.40-

13.21 -5.79 -20.83 -26.41 8.57**

185 -7.18 -4.70 -2.64 13.38*

*-

32.39 -30.09 -32.81 0.83 -1.35

189 18.94** 22.98** -3.31 16.14*

*-

15.09 8.97** 3.73 -4.26 -5.82*

190 19.09 17.22** 1.61 14.29* - -18.71 -16.70 13.84** -

26

** * 17.61 11.46**

191 8.36** 16.99** -7.38 -3.06 -3.14 -3.86 -14.15 11.68** -8.10**

198 28.48** 32.90** -3.31 19.36*

*-

10.69 -6.56 -11.00 11.79** -0.15

206 33.69** 36.98** -2.37 14.12*

* -3.77 -5.11 -8.25 -1.04 -4.29**

Average18.20

** 18.46** -0.88 8.34**-

12.26 -5.50 -6.48 -1.28 -1.55Rev.LSD0.0

5 5.12 3.61 3.86 6.03 4.40 2.31 5.50 2.98 4.90Rev.LSD0.0

1 6.79 4.78 5.10 7.97 5.97 2.99 7.27 3.93 6.47* and ** significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels ofprobability ;respectively.

and earliness index. The range of correlated

gain was from 17.22% for family No. 190 to 62.08%

for family No. 130 for seed cotton yield/plant,

and from 6.70% for family No.1 30 to 17.77% for

family No. 58 for earliness index (Table 8).

These results are in agreement with those

reported by Mahdy et al. (2001a), El-Okkiah et al.

(2008), Mahrous (2008) and Mahdy et al. (2009),

they found correlated gains in number of

bolls/plant, boll weight, lint index and seed

index when selection practiced for yield.

REFERENCES

Ahmed, H. M., M. M. Kandhro, S. Laghari and S.Abro. 2006. Heritability and geneticadvance as selection indicators forimprovement in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum

27

L.). J. Bio. Sci., 6: 96-99.Ahuja, S. L., D. Monga, O. P. Tuteja, S. K.

Verma, L. S. Dhayal, and D. Yagya. 2004.Association and path analysis in theselections made from colour lintedGossypium hirsutum cotton germplasm. J.Cott. Res. Rev. 18 (2): 137-140.

Burton, G.W. 1952. Quantitative inheritance ingrasses. 6th Internat. Grassland Cong.Proc. 1: 227-238.

EL-Okkiah A. F. H., M. M. Kassem, G. A. Sary andM. M. EL-Lawendey. 2008. Improving lintyield and its components in earlysegregating generations of Giza 45 x Giza75 cotton cross. Egypt. J. Agric. Res.,86 : 631-641.

El Rawi, K., and A.M. Khalafalla. 1980. Designand Analysis of Agricultural Experiments,El Mousel Univ., Iraq, 19.

Falconer, D.S. 1989. Introduction toQuantitative Genetics, 3rd Ed. Longman.John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Khan, N. U.,G. Hassan, I. A. Khan and W. Ahmad.2009. Genetic variability andheritability in upland cotton. Pak. J.Bot., 41: 1695-1705.

Lioyd M. O., and B.C. Bridges. 1995. Breedingcotton for conventional and late plantedproduction system. Crop Sci., 35: 132 –136.

Mahdy, E.E. 1983a. Selection index in cotton (G.barbadense L.). Assiut J. of Agric. Sci.,14: 267-282.

Mahdy, E.E. 1983b. Relative effectiveness ofpedigree line and recurrent selection for

28

improving lint yield in cotton (G.barbadense L.). Assiut J. of Agric. Sci.,14: 315-325.

Mahdy, E.E., E.A. Hassaballa, M.A. Khalifa, andF.G. Younis. 1987b. Comparative studieson three selection procedures in aninteraspecific population of cotton.Assiut J. of Agric. Sci. 18: 179-195.

Mahdy, E.E., A.A. Ismail, H.Y. Awad, and A.A.Mohamed. 2001a. The relative merits ofbreeding and modified recurrent selectionin improving seed cotton yield in twosegregating populations of Egyptiancotton (G barbadense L.). The 2nd PlantBreed. Conf. Oct. 2, 61-79.

Mahdy, E.E., A.A. Ismail, H.Y. Awad, and A.A.Mohamed. 2001b. The relative merits ofbreeding and modified recurrent selectionin improving earliness in two segregatingpopulations of Egyptian cotton (G.barbadense L.). The 2nd Plant Breed. Conf.Oct. 2, 80-101.

Mahdy, E.E., G.M.K. Hemaida; F.M.F. Abd El-Motagally and A. Mostafa. 2009. Responseto selection for yield under late sowingdate in two populations of Egyptioncotton. Assiut J. of Agric. Sci., 40(Special Issue) : 1-25.

Mahrous, H. 2008. Selection for earliness andlint yield in early and late plantings insome populations of Egyptian cotton. Ph.D. Thesis, Assiut Univ., Egypt.

Murthy, J. S. V. S., S. R Kumari, and N.Chamundeswari. 2004. Genetic variation inyield and yield component in desi cotton

29

(Gossypium herbaceum). J. Cott. Res. Rev.,18 : 36-37.

Mustafa, F.S., M.M. Awaad, and S.I.S. Abou-Zahra.1995. Evaluation of some strains of longstable cotton hybrids at differentlocations in Egypt in 1993 season: lintcotton yield and fiber properties.Proceedings Beltwide Cotton Conferences,San Antonio, TX, USA, January 4-7, (1):586-587.

Okasha, A.A. 1998. Expected and actual gains foryield, yield components and fiber qualityin Giza 45 cotton cultivar. Ann. Agric.Sci. Moshtohor, 36: 1373-1380.

Shaheen, A. M. A., M. A. M. Gomaa, and R.M.Esmail. 2000. Response to selection foryield, yield components and fiberproperties in three Egyptian cottoncrosses. Ann. Agric. Sci. Cairo. 45: 491-506.

Singh, B., G.S. Chahal, and T.H. Singh. 1995.Efficiency of different selectioncriteria for the improvement of seedcotton yield in early segregatinggenerations of (Gossypium hirsutum L.). CropImprov. 22: 61-64. (C.F. Plant breedingAbst.67: 1868, 1997).

Smith, J. D. and M. L.Kinman. 1965. The use ofparent offspring regression as anestimator of heritability . Crop Sci.,5 :595-596.

Younis, F.G. 1986. Comparative studies onselection procedure in cotton. Ph.D.Thesis, Assiut Univ., Egypt.

30

رة� خ�� أ� راعة� ال�مت� ى ال�ز� طن� ال�مصرى ف� ى ال�ق� عر ف� طن� ال�ش� سب' ل�محصول ال�ق� أب' ال�من� خ� ت� الان��د م�هدى ب� ال�ست5 .د. ع�ر� د ال�سلام ح�سب' ال�لة1ا� د ع�ت' .د. ال�ست5 ى م�حمد1، ا� د ال�زاض� أسم ع�ت' و ال�ق� ، د. اب�'

2 و اح�مد م�حمد ع�لى2

وط1 أم�عة� اس�ي5 - ج�' راعة� ة� ال�ز� ك�لي5

طن�2 حوب� ال�ق� - م�عهد ب�' ة� راع�ي5 حوب� ال�ز� مرك�ز� ال�ب'

ى ب`' ص ال�عر ال�ملح�ن� حسeeي5 gرى ل�بeeطن� ال�مص ن� م�ن� ال�ق� ي5 ت� 5eeال�ي عر� ن�� lن� ا ي5 رت�� ي5 �eeب' ع�لى ع�شeeس أب' ال�من� خ� ت� ن�� lن� م�ن� الا ي5 ي5qت� دورت�� ر خ�' ا�أرة� ع�ن� 'eeدمة� ع�ت خ� أي��ت� ال�مeeواد ال�مسeت� �eeرة� وك خ�� أ� �eeراعة� ال�مت روف� ال�ز� vحب� ظ� ل�كx ب�� عر ود� ة� م�حصول ال�ش� ص�ف�ي|ن� ن� ت�' ي5 هخ' ة� م�ن� ال�ت� 'eeج اب�� ولى ن�� رة� الا� ي5 �eeال�عش e. ن� ي5 رت�� ي5 �eeأم�س ل�لعش �eeع وال�خ 'qeeب أل�ت� وال�زا �eeى وال�ت� أب� �eeل ال�ت |eeي ال�ح'

ة� ر� ي5 ة� 90ج' ر� ي5 ة� 85 × ج' ر� ي5 'eي|ن� ج ن� ت�' ي5 هخ' ة� م�ن� ال�ت� 'eج اب�� ة� ن�� 5eي ن�� أ ة� 83 وال�ت� ر� ي5 'eلاف�70 × ج ي� ل الاح�� �eأن� م�عأم �eوك �ى أب� �eeeeل ال�ت |eeeeي ى ال�ح' عر ف� �eeeeول ال�شeeeeة� م�حص ولى و 46.39ل�صeeeeف� رة� الا� ي5 �eeeeة�46.35% ل�لعش 5eeeeي ن�� أ رة�e ال�ت� ي5 �eeeeل�لعش %

اء '�eeeن ة الا� د� �eeeأوة� ه �eeeق عكس ن�� دا ن�' '�eeeص� ج ق� ح� اء م�ت� '�eeeن ى الا� لاف� ف� ي� ل الاح�� �eeeأن� م�عأم �eeeك xك �eeeل وع�لى ال�عكس م�ن� د�أب��ى وص�eلت� �eeل ال�ت |eي ى ال�ح' دا ف� '�eة� ج 5eeعر ع�أل�ي �eول ال�شeeة� م�حص ى ال�عأم ل�صeeف� ال�معن� ي5qت� ن�' ور وك�أن� م�عأم�ل ال�ي�

لى l0.099ا ee، ل 0.098 �eeض ف�� أب' ا� �eeخ ت� ن�� lع م�ن� ا ��eeوق �ى م�ي� ن� وراب� حسeeي5 ة ب�� �eeج� ع�ي gت ن� م�مeeأ ن�� ي5 رت�� ي5 �ee10 ل�لعش%

لى lل ا �eeeeاب� وص ��eeeeن أ ت' ،eeee 79.01م�ن� ال�ي� ة� ع�لى%80.60 5eeeeي ن�� أ ولى وال�ت� رة�e الا� ي5 �eeeeط ل�لعش �eeeeوس % م�ن� ال�مي�ة� 5eeي ©qن أ خ� ت� ن�� lراء دوراب� ا '�eeخ lأ لا 5eeت �ى ك�أف�� وراب� �eeلاف� ال ي� ل الاح�� �eeأن� م�عأم �eeن� ك ي5 ت� ي| أت�© �eeخ ت� ن�� lن� ا ي5 عeeد دورت�� . ون�' ب' ي5 الeeي�رن��

لى lل ا �eeeرى ووص ��eeeخ ،eee 17.55ا� أي��ت�%25.20 �eeeأ كeeeب' ، ك�م ي5 ة� ع�لى الeeeي�رن�� 5eeeي ن�� أ ولى وال�ت� رة�e الا� ي5 �eeeل�لعش %

31

ل �eeeأن� م�عأم �eeeك xك �eeeل ال�عكس م�ن� د� '�eeeدا ون '�eeeة� ج 5eeeعر ع�أل�ي �eeeول ال�شeeeة� م�حص ي5qت� ل�صeeeف� ور �eeeل ال�ي �eee5راب� م�عأمqي د �eeeق ن��أ وك�أن� ض� ق� ح� اء م�ت� ن�' أء ع�لى الا� ت� ن�' خدار الا� ي5qت� م�ن� اب�� ور ي5qت� وم�عأم�ل ال�ي� ور 0.3402 ، 0.5509ال�ي�

ولى و رة� الا� ي5 �eeeى ال�عش ،eee 0.3016ف� ولى0.3388 رة� الا� ي5 �eeeى ال�عش . ف� ب' ي5 ة� ع�لى الeeeي�رن�� 5eeeي ن�� أ رة� ال�ت� ي5 �eeeى ال�عش ف�ة� ) ي5 وان�� �eة� ال�عش �eي دا م�ن� ال�عي5 '�eeا ج 5�eeون ر م�عي� أش� �ى ال�مت' ن� ال�وراب� حسي5 gي'ر10.78ك�أن� ال�ب qeeك ب' الا� % ( وم�ن� الا�

ة�21.15) �eeeeي دا م�ن� ال�عي5 '�eeeeا ج 5�eeeeون ر م�عي� �eeeeأش �ى ال�مت' وراب� �eeeeن� ال حسeeeeي5 gأن� ال�ب �eeeeك �eة 5eeeeي ن�� أ رة� ال�ت� ي5 �eeeeى ال�عش أ ف� �eeeeض ي�5 ( . ا� %ة� ) ي5 وان�� ر ) 7.58ال�عش� كqي' ب' الا� ( وم�ن� الا� ا ع�ن�%18.20 5�eeون د م�عي� ن�5 ر· لاب� ي�� ة� ع�أن�� لاث�� ل ن�� م�كن� ع�ر� % ( ا�

م رe وه�م رق�� ي' qeeeeك ب' الا� ة� والا� ي5 وان�� �eeeeة� ال�عش �eeeeي م 58ال�عي5 م 101 ، رق�� ن�130 ورق�� حسeeeeي5 ع�طeeeeوا ب�� لاء ا� و� �eeeeوه لى lل ا �eeعر وص ة� م�حصول ال�ش� ى ص�ف� �ى ف� ،ee 34.96وراب� 38.32 ee، 58.46ة� و ي5 وان�� �eeة� ال�عش �eeي % م�ن� ال�عي5

48.30 eee، 51.99 eee، م 67.54 لeeeة� رق�� ع�طب� ال�عأن�� د ا� ��eeeب' وق ي5 ر ع�لى الeeeي�رن�� ي' qeeeك ب' الا� 130% م�ن� الا�لى lل ا �eeي'ر وص qeeك ب' الا� اع�ن� الا� 5�eeون ط وم�عي� 'eeب �ى مرن�� ن� وراب� حسeeي5 ،ee 62.08ب�� 35.92 ee، 4.15 ee، 9.63،

رة�6.70 د� 'eeل ال�ت �eeاب� وم�عأم ��eeن أ ت' دد ال�لeeور� ع�لى ال�ي� �eeأب� وع 'eeت ر وال�ي� �eeه طن� ال�ز� أب� م�حصeeول ال�ق� % ل�صeeق�ب' . ي5 رe ع�لى الي�رن�� كي5 ت' ج� وم�عأم�ل ال�ي� ى ال�خلت| ضأف� وي��