Path analysis based on genetic association of yield components and insects pest in upland cotton varieties.

Gossypium hirsutum L. is also called upland cotton or Mexican cotton. It is the most widely cultivated species of cotton in the whole world. Globally, about 90% of all cotton production comes from the cultivars derived from this species. Some genetic parameters like monopodial branches per plant, sympodial branches per plant, sympodial branch length, bolls per plant, boll weight, sympo-boll distance, Ginning Out Turn%, staple length (rg = 0.9199**), and fiber strength along with seed cotton yield were evaluated for their potential utilization via selection in seed cotton yield improvement. Significant positive genetic correlations were estimated for monopodial branches per plant (rg = 0.9722**), sympodial branches per plant (rg = 0.7098**), sympodial branch length (rg = 0.617**), bolls per plant (rg = 0.8271**), boll weight (rg = 0.8065**), sympo-boll distance (rg = 0.6507**), Ginning Out Turn (GOT)% (rg = 0.7541**), staple length (rg = 0.9199**), and fiber strength (rg = 0.7534**) with seed cotton yield. A path analysis of all the yield traits under study revealed strong positive direct effects of monopodial branch length (1.1556), sympo-boll distance (0.8173) and staple length (0.7633), while plant height exerted a highly strong direct negative effect (-1.2096) on yield. It is concluded that a direct selection based on monopodial branch length and sympo-boll distance, and staple length is effective, whereas, monopodial branch length, and sympodial branch length are good selection indicators via bolls per plant for yield improvement in cotton.

Introduction

Gossypium hirsutum L. also known as upland cotton [1] or Mexican cotton, is the most widely cultivated species of cotton in the world. Globally, ~90% cotton production comes from the cultivars derived from this species. Most commonly short staple cotton is the characteristic of upland cotton. To overcome this scientist are working to get extra-long stapple in upland cotton [2]. Upland cotton is primarily used in making denim jeans as well as flannel cloth [3]. Scientist are working on genetic variations in upland cotton to overcome different issues and challenges like salt tolerance [4], fiber traits [5], resistance against bacterial blight [6] and insect resistance [7]. Presence of different secondary endosymbionts in whitefly also determine the virus infection severity [8]. A part from adoption of water saving techniques like drip irrigation and use of sprinkler systems to cultivate cotton [9] new varieties of upland cotton should be developed through breeding and genetic modification which are drought tolerant. Though whitefly control by use of RNAi against candidate genes is found quite effective [10] some varieties which are tolerant to attack of whitefly should be raised through breeding. Some new varieties which are high yielding and are adopted to severe temperature zone are being introduced like RH-647 [11]. A pleotropic gene effect could embrace a change in one character that is most often accompanied by changes in the expression of several others traits either in same direction or antagonistic way; therefore, deriving a basic knowledge of genetic perspectives of various traits, magnitude and direction of reciprocal genetic association is very important [12, 13]. Cotton breeders forfeit great efforts and breeding approaches through illustrating genetic basis of gene mechanism, inherited association of either individual per collaborative impact of various agronomic and economic traits for genetic manipulations in breeding population [14]. Practically, simple correlation does not explain the causes, origin and pathway of interrelationship of genetic parameters for depiction of effective selection parameters for evaluation of breeding material [15, 16]. Seed cotton yield is polygenic and highly intricate trait for improvement is under collaborative impact of various quantitative characters association hence, a path coefficient analysis helps to measure and engrave the direct and indirect effects of various component traits for decisive evaluation of yield component contribution to economic yield [13, 17, 18].

Several cotton breeders previously worked out the direct and indirect effect of various plant traits in yield improvement. Genetic correlations of various economic traits with yield and reported positive and significant genotypic correlation of staple length, lint% and fiber fineness with yield and strong direct effects of lint%, staple length and fiber fineness on yield were estimated [19]. In 2004 significant positive genetic correlation of boll per plant with seed cotton yield and direct contribution bolls per plant and sympodial branches per plant manifested maximum positive direct effect on seed cotton yield were estimated [20]. Highly significant positive correlation of boll weight, boll per plant, plant height and seed index with seed cotton yield and maximum direct effect of boll weight and seed index to yield were also reported [21]. Another study revealed a positive and highly significant correlation of sympodial branches per plant, boll per plant, boll weight, plant height and yield [22]. Genetic correlations and path coefficient analysis for seed oil, yield and fiber quality traits in Gossypium hirsutum L were studied and revealed positive significant correlation with number of sympodial branches per plants, bolls per plant, boll weight and GOT % with yield and estimated a positive direct effect exerted by boll weight and sympodial branches per plant on seed cotton yield [23]. The significant positive correlation positive direct effect of sympodial branches per plant, bolls per plant and boll weight and negative correlation of monopodial branches per plant with seed cotton yield was reported in 2010 [15]. Moreover, it was suggested that monopodial branches per plant, sympodial branches per plant, bolls per plant and boll weight as good indicators of effective selection in cotton breeding programs. In correlations and path analysis of fifteen genotypes and six upland cotton traits, Salahuddin et al., 2010 reported positive correlation of sympodial branches per plant, bolls per plant, boll weight, GOT % and lint index to yield and strong positive direct effect of bolls per plant and boll weight on seed cotton yield. Positive significant correlation of bolls per plant, sympodial branches per plant, plant height, lint index and boll weight to yield was also studied [24]. Positive correlation and maximum direct effects of sympodial

Materials and methods

Experiment location

The study was conducted in experimental area of Cotton Research Institute, Khanpur, Punjab, Pakistan. The overall climatic conditions of this area are hot severe summer and dry atmosphere.

Experiment design

Experiment was conducted according to Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications. A total 34 genotypes of a breeding population were grown in field conditions by two successive years of 2019 and 2020. Each Plot area was 28 × 10 ft2 separated with a path of 5ft were sown at beds with R×R distance and P× P distance of 9 inch throughout season maintaining of all the recommended agronomic practices of fertilizer application, irrigation and crop protection measures that were followed from sowing till maturity and harvesting. On harvesting of mature crop data were recorded in each entry for 25 randomly selected plants on crop maturity for recording of data and agronomic data for monopodial branches per plant (MBP), monopodial branch length (MBL), sympodial branches per plant (SBP), sympodial branch length (SBL), sympo-boll distance, (SBD), bolls per plant (BP) Plant height and 50 Boll weight. Means were computed in each replication for each entry. The seed cotton samples of 50 bolls of all the plants in each entry were subjected to ginning by a single roller electrical gin in the laboratory on individual plant basis. After ginning of 50g seed-cotton, ginning out turn (GOT) % of samples were estimated. Lint samples were subjected to further fiber traits like staple length (SL), fiber strength (tpsi), (FS) and fiber fineness (FF) micronaire by using spinlab ® HVI-900 at Cotton Research Station (CRS) Multan, Pakistan. Means of the replicated form of recorded data computed simply generating in Microsoft Office® 2007. Phenotypic correlations among traits were calculated from mean values and genetic variance was obtained from the combined analysis of variance for each replication. The genetic and phenotypic components of correlation were determined to establish the association among all the characters vis a vis to seed cotton yield as shown in (Table 2). The genetic correlations were further subjected to derive direct, residual and indirect influence of each character towards plant yield as shown in (Table 3).

Table 2

Estimated genetic and phenotypic coefficients of correlation for various agronomic and fiber traits towards yield of upland cotton.

Variables		MBL (cm)	SBP	SBL (cm)	PH (cm)	BP	BW (g)	SBD (cm)	GOT%	SL (mm)	FF) (mic)	FS (g per tex)	Yield (Kg)
MBP	rg	0.94**	0.060	0.19	‒0.39	0.67**	0.042	‒0.00	‒0.80**	‒0.09	‒0.18	‒0.73**	0.97**
	rp	3.93**	0.55	‒1.7	‒4.97	4.31	‒0.02	‒0.03	‒0.75	‒3.21*10−3	0.19	‒0.35	‒2.08
MBL (cm)	rg		0.01	0.15	0.33*	‒0.27	0.01	0.02	‒0.00	0.06	2.02*10−3	0.16	0.22*
	rp		2.332*10−3	0.07	0.29	‒0.19	3.81*10−3	0.02	‒0.01	0.04	0.18	2.02*10−3	‒0.14
SBP	rg			0.39*	‒0.65**	0.542**	0.10	0.02	0.01	0.12	0.02	‒0.9.10**	0.70**
	rp			0.72**	‒1.54**	0.075	0.16	‒5.03*10−4	0.02	0.05	0.02	‒0.94	2.12
SBL (cm)	rg				0.27*	0.59**	0.029	‒0.77*10−4	‒0.167	9.91*10−4	‒0.63*10−5	.28*	0.61**
	rp				0.20	0.41	0.02	‒0.77*10−4	‒0.18	9.91*10−4	0.29	‒6.31*10−4	1.08**
PH (cm)	rg					0.09	‒1.385*10−3	3.22*10−3	‒0.03	0.038	1.61*10−3	0.07	‒0.05
	rp					0.09	‒1.384*10−3	3.21*10−3	‒7.06*10−3	2.977*10−2	1.61*10−3	0.06	0.01
BP	rg						0.343*10–4	0.012	‒0.60*10−4	0.034	‒0.35*10−4	0.03	0.82**
	rp						3.431*10−3	1.26*10−2	‒6.04*10−3	6.8*10−4	‒3.35*10−3	8.2*10−4	‒0.13
BW (g)	rg							0.26*	0.29*	0.354*	0.13	‒0.68**	0.80**
	rp							0.24*	0.80**	1.10**	0.09	0.38*	3.42**
SBD (cm)	Rg								0.27*	0.07	0.02	‒0.53**	0.65**
	rp								0.07	‒0.28*	0.08	0.30*	0.55**
GOT %	rg									‒0.04	0.04	‒0.44**	0.75**
	rp									‒0.18	0.07	‒0.71**	-0.07
SL (mm)	rg										0.05	0.75**	0.91**
	rp										2.69*10−3	1.31**	2.68**
FF (mic.)	rg											0.02	-0.26
	rp											0.02	-0.93**
FS (tpsi)	rg												0.87**
	rp												1.82**

MBP = Monopodial branches per plant, MBL = monopodial branch length(cm), SBP = sympodial branches per plant, SBL = sympodial branch length, PH = plant height(cm), BP = bolls per plant, BW = boll weight(g), SBD = sympo-boll distance(cm), GOT = ginning out turn%, SL = staple length(mm), FF = fiber finesse (micronair), FS = fiber strength (tpsi), rg = genotypic correlation, rp = phenotypic correlation

** highly significant

* significant.

Table 3

Direct (diagonal) and indirect (off-diagonal) genetic effect of yield components.

Variables	MBP	MBL (cm)	SBP	SBL (cm)	PH (cm)	BP	BW (g)	SBD (cm)	GOT %	SL (mm)	FF (mic.)	FS (tpsi)	rg
MBP	‒0.54	0.88	‒0.02	0.12	0.48	0.46	0.02	‒0.00	‒0.31	‒0.07	0.09	‒0.13	0.97
MBL (cm)	‒0.51	1.15	‒0.00	0.09	‒0.40	‒0.18	0.00	0.02	‒0.00	0.046	‒0.00	0.02	0.22
SBP	‒0.03	0.02	‒0.42	0.25	0.79	0.37	0.05	0.02	0.00	0.09	‒0.31	‒0.14	0.70
SBL (cm)	‒0.10	0.17	‒0.17	0.63	‒0.33	0.41	0.01	‒0.00	‒0.05	0.00	0.00	0.03	0.61
PH (cm)	0.21	0.38	0.28	0.17	‒1.20	0.06	‒0.00	0.00	‒0.01	0.029	‒0.00	0.01	‒0.05
BP	0.36	‒0.31	‒0.23	0.37	‒0.11	0.69	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.026	0.00	0.00	0.82
BW (g)	‒0.02	0.01	‒0.04	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.54	0.21	0.09	0.270	‒0.06	‒0.20	0.80
SBD (cm)	0.00	0.02	‒0.21	‒0.20	‒0.10	0.10	0.14	0.81	0.08	0.056	‒0.01	‒0.07	0.65
GOT %	0.54	‒0.00	‒0.00	‒0.20	0.04	0.00	0.16	0.22	0.31	‒0.03	‒0.12	‒0.15	0.75
SL (mm)	0.05	0.06	‒0.25	0.0006	‒0.04	0.02	0.19	0.05	‒0.01	0.76	‒0.02	0.09	0.91
FF (mic)	0.09	0.00	‒0.01	0.00	‒0.00	0.00	0.07	0.01	0.01	0.03	‒0.50	0.00	‒0.26
FS (g per tax)	0.56	0.18	0.47	0.18	‒0.29	0.22	‒0.47	‒0.44	‒0.23	0.57	‒0.01	0.13	0.87

Results

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed highly significant differences p≤0.01 and p≤0.05 for monopodial branches per plant; monopodial length, sympodial branches per plant, sympodial length, plant height, bolls per plant, boll weight, sympo-boll distance, GOT%, fiber finesse, fiber strength and finally yield were evaluated for significant variations exist among the genotypes of breeding population as shown in (Table 1).

Table 1

Estimates of genetic variability from Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

SOV	df	MBP	MBL (cm)	SBP	SBL (cm)	PH (cm)	BP	BW (g)	SBD (cm)	GOT %	SL (cm)	FF (mic)	FS (g per tex)	Yield (Kg)
∑δ 2 Replication	2	0.030	1581.7	1.757	131.453	5288.21	66.19	0.057	0.031	1.488	1.533	10.715	0.172	132.93
∑δ 2 Genotypes	33	14.03	2244.8	112.85	532.316	12531.40	3183.68	15.90	9.99	457.67	215.58	1002.96	5.55	14577.5
∑δ 2 Error	67	7.83	3493.9	159.24	987.47	10681.06	3510.83	5.11	5.43	117.09	94.48	750.84	8.03	10538
Total	102	21.89	7320.5	273.85	1651.24	28500.68	6760.71	21.07	15.46	576.26	311.59	1764.52	13.76	25248.4
S.D	-	0.46	8.514	1.647	4.04	16.79	8.18	0.45	0.39	2.38	1.75	4.18	0.36	15.81
S.E	-	0.04	0.843	0.163	0.40	1.66	0.81	0.045	0.039	0.237	0.174	0.41	0.037	1.56
CV%	-	23.24	9.96	8.11	20.25	11.58	18.98	9.78	12.63	3.53	4.42	9.24	6.73	8.69

df = degree of freedom, MS = Mean squares, SOV = Source of variation, ∑δ2 = sum of squares. S.D = standard deviation, S.E = standard error, CV% coefficient of variation.

Coefficients of genetic correlations

The estimated phenotypic correlation coefficients were comparatively lower in magnitude than genotypic correlation for their corresponding coefficients of correlation. Monopodial branches per plant was strongly and significantly correlated with monopodial branch length as (rg = 0.94**), bolls per plant (0.67**) with yield (rg = 0.97**), while it was strongly negatively correlated with GOT% (rg = —0.80**), fiber strength (rg = —0.73**), and moderately with plant height (rg = -0.39). Negligible association with all other characters were reported in the current study (Table 2). Monopodial branch length was estimated to be positively correlated with plant height as (rg = 0.33) and cotton yield as (rg = 0.22) and moderate negative association of the character with number of bolls per plant (rg = -0.27) as shown in Table 2. Sympodial branches per plant was estimated to impend a positive genetic association with other economic traits like sympodial branch length (rg = 0.39), bolls per plant (rg = 0.54) and seed cotton yield as (rg = 0.70**), while highly significant negative genetic correlation plant height as (rg = -0.65), and fiber strength was (rg = —0.9.10**), while exhibited a negligible association with all other characters under investigation as shown in (Table 2). Sympodial branch length exhibit positive moderate genetic correlation with plant height was (rg = 0.27), fiber strength as (rg = 0.28), and significant positive correlation with bolls per plant (rg = 0.59), and seed cotton yield as (rg = 0.61**), whereas negligible association with all other characters under investigation as shown in (Table 2). As far as plant height and traits are concerned it exhibited negligible and genetic associations with all traits understudy and finally bolls per plant exerted a positive correlation with seed cotton yield (rg = 0.82**) as shown in (Table 2). The boll weight was estimated to exhibit a positive association with sympo-boll distance as (rg = 0.261), with GOT% as (rg = 0.29), staple length (rg = 0.35*). Finally, it possessed significant positive correlation with seed cotton yield as (rg = 0.80**), while a significant negative association of boll weight with fiber strength (rg = 0.68**) as shown in (Table 2). Sympo-boll distance exerted moderate positive correlation with GOT % (rg = 0.27), and highly significant positive association with yield as (rg = 0.65**), and strong negative association with fiber strength (rg = -0.53**) as shown in (Table 2). As far as GOT% exhibit a strong positive association to seed cotton yield as (rg = 0.75**) and significant negative association of the character under inference with fiber strength as (rg = -0.44*) shown in (Table 2). Staple length has been estimated for strong positive genetic correlation with fiber strength as (rg = 0.75**) and seed cotton yield as (rg = 0.91**). Whereas, fiber finesse has moderate negative genetic correlation to seed cotton yield (rg = -0.26) and negligible association with fiber strength as shown in (Table 2) and fiber strength was estimated to be significantly and strongly associated to seed cotton yield (rg = 0.87**) is illustrated in (Table 2).

Path analysis of yield components

Estimated genetic correlations were analyzed by partial regression equation to estimate direct and indirect effect of each individual trait understudy towards finally dependent trait like yield. Path analysis revealed logical and conclusive results of the study as monopodial branches per plant exerted a strong negative direct effect as (-0.54) but exhibited a strong positive indirect effect via monopodial branch length, plant height and bolls per plant as shown in (Table 3). Monopodial branch length exerted a positively strong direct effect was estimated as (1.15) on yield as key component and a moderate negative indirect effect via plant height (-0.4038) while other characters remained negligible as shown in (Table 3). Path analysis revealed a significantly strong negative direct effect of plant height was estimated as (-1.20), as compared it contributed quantitatively weak positive indirect effects via other traits understudy as shown in (Table 3). Bolls per plant exerted synchronously a strong positive direct effect on yield as (0.69) and indirectly by monopodial branches per plant. Sympo-boll distance exerted strong positive direct effect on yield as (0.81) with very negligible association or indirect effect via other plant traits As far as GOT% is concerned, path analysis revealed its moderate positive direct effect as yield component that impact a strong indirect effect via monopodial branches per plant as shown in (Table 3). Staple length exerted a positively strong direct effect on yield as (0.76) and very negligible contributions effected via other traits. Fiber finesse has been evaluated to exert a strong negative direct effect on yield and exhibited negligible effects indirectly via affecting other traits as shown in (Table 3). Finally, fiber strength has been estimated negligible direct effect on yield while it has been revealed an active component of yield via effecting strongly and positively correlated with other traits like monopodial branches per plant, sympodial branches per plant, and staple length synchronously and negatively effecting via other traits like boll weight sympo-boll distance and GOT% as shown in (Table 3).

Discussion

Genetic variability in breeding material is a prime requisition of execution of an effective plant breeding program and selection strategies [18]. The breeding material that has been evaluated in this study acquired sufficient genetic variability for all the traits under study. We found strong positive correlation of monopodial branches per plant sympodial branches per plant, bolls per plant and boll weight and results of this study are in agreement with [21-24]. Our results partially deflected from [19] who reported significant and positive genetic correlation of staple length and fiber finesse to yield while we estimated significant and positive correlation estimates of fiber strength with seed cotton yield. Although, our results are in contrary with recently reported results of [25] they reported bolls per plant manifested highly strong direct positive effect on yield while micronaire value exhibited a moderate positive effect on yield. The other way, GOT% and uniformity ratio had strong negative direct effect following boll weight that had moderate negative direct effect on yield. The reported traits like bolls per plant, boll weight, lint yield per plant, GOT% and micronaire were suggested as robust indicators in selection of high yielding genotypes under saline conditions for improvement of seed cotton yield by [25].

A Path coefficient analysis is highly capable to simplify the exact interrelationship and contribution of each component effect on highly dependent variable like yield. Therefore, breeders are inclined to wisely focus on the set of components which shows high direct effect on yield and selection for those traits with positive moderate indirect effects to synchronize the selection efficiency. From path analysis and a careful review of the genetic correlations to harmonize the results, it is concluded that yield of cotton plant could be very effectively enhanced through direct selection of monopodial branch length, sympo-boll distance, staple length solely as these traits are independent of each other and not affecting antagonistically seed cotton yield via indirect effects. Secondly, an indirect selection is very effective for sympodial branch length via with bolls per plant. Conclusively, we suggest monopodial length, Sympo-boll distance and sympodial branch length as potential selection criterion for manipulation to improve the seed cotton yield.

In this study, we worked out the significance of three new genetic parameters via path analysis as yield components in aim to tentative manipulation of effective genetic parameters via selection in seed cotton yield improvement.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

7 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-23192PATH ANALYSIS BASED ON GENETIC ASSOCIATION OF YIELD COMPONENTS IN UPLAND COTTON VARIETIES METHDOLOGY USED IN SCREENING AND EVALUATION OF TWO DIVERSE BREEDING POPULATIONS WITH THE RELEASE OF RH-662 AND RH-668PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bashir,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

I have now received comments from 2 reviewers both of which have recommended major revisions to your manuscript.

Most of the sections need a thorough rewriting.

Abstract must be rewritten with providing the details of the breeding populations.

There are no clear hypothesis and objectives.

The MM section must be split in different sub sections.

Tables must be corrected as suggested.

Language of the paper must be polished.

The manuscript must be formatted according to formatting guidelines of Plos one

If you are willing to do the work required, I will reconsider your paper for publication.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 22 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shahid Farooq, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author “Mussarat Shaheen, Muhammad Yousaf Ali, Sagheer Atta”

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have reviewed the manuscript PATH ANALYSIS BASED ON GENETIC ASSOCIATION OF YIELD COMPONENTS IN UPLAND COTTON VARIETIES METHDOLOGY USED IN SCREENING AND EVALUATION OF TWO DIVERSE BREEDING POPULATIONS WITH THE RELEASE OF RH-662 AND RH-668 submitted by the authors. It is a well-designed study and deserved publication. However, some minor changes are needed which are given as under;

- Revise title

- Add MM part in the abstract

- Condense introduction section and add clear hypothesis and objectives

- Add details of statistical analysis of the data

- Please incorporate latest citation in the discussion section

- Format paper according to Plos ONe

- The paper can be accepted after incorporating these changes.

Reviewer #2: I have reviewed the manuscript "PATH ANALYSIS BASED ON GENETIC ASSOCIATION OF YIELD COMPONENTS IN UPLAND COTTON VARIETIES METHDOLOGY USED IN SCREENING AND EVALUATION OF TWO DIVERSE BREEDING POPULATIONS WITH THE RELEASE OF RH-662 AND RH-668".

I have annotated the attached file and asked for plenty of revisions over there. I give some of my recommendations as under;

1. The title of the manuscript is written wrong.

2. There is no opening/introductory sentence in the abstract section. There should be 1-2 sentences representing why study was necessary.

3. The abstract is full of abbreviations and new terminologies. These should be explained.

4. Introduction section has a bit of unnecessary informations. In fact, 30% of the introduction can be shifted to Discussion section.

5. According to my readings; the correlation of studied traits have already been reported in different studies. Perhaps, this should be tested in breeding populations to select the best one is the research gap. However, this research gap has not been indicated in the introduction section. There are no objectives/hypothesis given at the end of introduction section. Please revise your introduction section very carefully.

6. The MM section should be split into different parts. There are no information where the study was conducted. Soil and climatic attributes are also missing.

7. Statistical analysis needs a better explanation. The current explanation is vague.

8. Results need a clear writing style. Currently a correlation has been explained in 5-6 lines long sentences with the use of while 3-4 times within a sentence. Therefore, please get your manuscript edited from a NATIVE speaker.

9. The discussion is supported by a few old references in the first paragraph. There are no logics given for the obtained results. Therefore, this section must be completely rewritten.

10. Whole manuscript is not formatted according to author guidelines of Plos One. Please format your paper according to guidelines.

11. Tables need a careful attention. There are unnecessary spaces which must be deleted.

12. Tables should be incorporated within the text where these are cited for the first time.

I would like to see the revised version of the paper.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-23192_reviewer.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

Submitted filename: manuscript.docx

Click here for additional data file.

17 Oct 2021

Reviewer #1:

Sr.no. Comments Response

Revise title

Now revised

Add MM part in the abstract

Now added

Condense introduction section and add clear hypothesis and objectives

Now formatted as suggested

Add details of statistical analysis of the data

Now added in material & method section

Please incorporate latest citation in the discussion section incorporated

Format paper according to Plos ONe

Now formatted

The paper can be accepted after incorporating these changes Request for acceptance

Reviewer #2:

The title of the manuscript is written wrong. Now corrected

There is no opening/introductory sentence in the abstract section. There should be 1-2 sentences representing why study was necessary.

Introductory senestances are added

The abstract is full of abbreviations and new terminologies. These should be explained. Now corrected

Introduction section has a bit of unnecessary information. In fact, 30% of the introduction can be shifted to Discussion section.

Incorporated as suggested

According to my readings; the correlations of studied traits have already been reported in different studies. Perhaps, this should be tested in breeding populations to select the best one is the research gap. However, this research gap has not been indicated in the introduction section. There are no objectives/hypothesis given at the end of introduction section. Please revise your introduction section very carefully.

Now objectives and hypothesis is added in introduction section

The MM section should be split into different parts. There are no information where the study was conducted. Soil and climatic attributes are also missing.

Now split into different parts

Statistical analysis needs a better explanation. The current explanation is vague.

Better explanation is now added

Results need a clear writing style. Currently a correlation has been explained in 5-6 lines long sentences with the use of while 3-4 times within a sentence. Therefore, please get your manuscript edited from a NATIVE speaker.

Corrected now

The discussion is supported by a few old references in the first paragraph. There are no logics given for the obtained results. Therefore, this section must be completely rewritten.

Now new references are added

Whole manuscript is not formatted according to author guidelines of Plos One. Please format your paper according to guidelines.

Now formatted

Tables need a careful attention. There are unnecessary spaces which must be deleted.

Tables are now corrected

Tables should be incorporated within the text where these are cited for the first time.

done

Submitted filename: Reviewer comments response letter.docx

Click here for additional data file.

22 Nov 2021

PATH ANALYSIS BASED ON GENETIC ASSOCIATION OF YIELD COMPONENTS AND INSECTS PEST IN UPLAND COTTON VARIETIES

PONE-D-21-23192R1

Dear Dr. Bashir,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Shahid Farooq, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers have now commented on your revised manuscript and recommended accepting it. Therefore, your manuscript has been accepted for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All comments made by me on the first draft of this manuscript have been properly resolved by the authors. Therefore, the manuscript can. be accepted according to my opinion.

Reviewer #2: All questions asked by me for the manuscript PATH ANALYSIS BASED ON GENETIC ASSOCIATION OF YIELD COMPONENTS AND INSECTS PEST IN UPLAND COTTON VARIETIES has been answered properly by the authors. I recommend accepting the manuscript in its current form.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

17 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-23192R1

PATH ANALYSIS BASED ON GENETIC ASSOCIATION OF YIELD COMPONENTS AND INSECTS PEST IN UPLAND COTTON VARIETIES

Dear Dr. Bashir:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Shahid Farooq

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE