|
|
|
|
|
| Effects of planting dates and shading on carbohydrate content, yield, and fiber quality in cotton with respect to fruiting positions |
| ZHAO Wen-qing, WU You, Zahoor Rizwan, WANG You-hua, MA Yi-na, CHEN Bing-lin, MENG Ya-li, ZHOU Zhi-guo |
| Key Laboratory of Crop Physiology Ecology and Production Management, Ministry of Agriculture/Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Modern Crop Production (JCIC-MCP), Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, P.R.China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Two cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) cultivars, Kemian 1 (cool temperature-tolerant) and Sumian 15 (cool temperature-sensitive) were used to study the effects of cool temperature on carbohydrates, yield, and fiber quality in cotton bolls located at different fruiting positions (FP). Cool temperatures were created using late planting and low light. The experiment was conducted in 2010 and 2011 using two planting dates (OPD, the optimized planting date, 25 April; LPD, the late planting date, 10 June) and two shading levels of crop relative light rate (CRLR, 100 and 60%). Compared with fruiting position 1 (FP1), cotton yield and yield components (fiber quality, leaf sucrose and starch content, and fiber cellulose) were all decreased on FP3 under all treatments. Compared with OPD-CRLR 100%, other treatments (OPD-CRLR 60%, LPD-CRLR 100%, and LPD-CRLR 60%) had significantly decreased lint yield at both FPs of both cultivars, but especially at FP3 and in Sumian 15; this decrease was mainly caused by a large decline in boll number. All fiber quality indices decreased under late planting and shading except fiber length at FP1 with OPD-CRLR 60%, and a greater reduction was observed at FP3 and in Sumian 15. Sucrose content of the subtending leaf and fiber increased under LPD compared to OPD, whereas it decreased under CRLR 60% compared to CRLR 100%, which led to decreased fiber cellulose content. Therefore, shading primarily decreased the “source” sucrose content in the subtending leaf whereas late planting diminished translocation of sucrose towards cotton fiber. Notably, as planting date was delayed and light was decreased, more carbohydrates were distributed to leaf and bolls at FP1 than those at FP3, resulting in higher yield and better fiber quality at FP1, and a higher proportion of bolls and carbohydrates allocated at FP3 of Kemian 1 compared to that of Sumian 15. In conclusion, cotton yield and fiber quality were reduced less at FP1 compared to those at FP3 under low temperature and low light conditions. Thus, reduced cotton yield and fiber quality loss can be minimized by selecting low temperature tolerant cultivars under both low temperature and light conditions.
|
|
Received: 24 May 2017
Accepted:
|
| Fund: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31271654, 31401327, 31471444), the Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest, China (201203096), and the Jiangsu Overseas Research & Training Program for University Prominent Young & Middle-aged Teachers and Presidents, China (2016). |
|
Corresponding Authors:
Correspondence ZHOU Zhi-guo, Tel/Fax: +86-25-84396813, E-mail: giscott@njau.edu.cn
|
Cite this article:
ZHAO Wen-qing, WU You, Zahoor Rizwan, WANG You-hua, MA Yi-na, CHEN Bing-lin, MENG Ya-li, ZHOU Zhi-guo.
2018.
Effects of planting dates and shading on carbohydrate content, yield, and fiber quality in cotton with respect to fruiting positions. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 17(05): 1106-1119.
|
| Ahmadi A, Joudi M, Janmohammadi M. 2009. Late defoliation and wheat yield: Little evidence of post-anthesis source limitation. Field Crops Research, 113, 90–93.Anjum R, Soomro A, Bano S, Chang M, Leghari A. 2002. Fruiting position impact on seedcotton yield in American cotton. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 1, 153–155.Arshad M, Wajid A, Maqsood M, Hussain K, Aslam M, Ibrahim M. 2007. Response of growth, yield and quality of different cotton cultivars to sowing dates. Pakistan Journal of Agriculturl Science, 44, 2.Ashley D A. 1972. 14C-Labelled photosynthate translocation and utilization in cotton plants. Crop Science, 12, 69–74.Bondada B R, Oosterhuis D M. 2001. Canopy photosynthesis, specific leaf weight, and yield components of cotton under varying nitrogen supply. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 24, 469–477.Bozbek T, Sezener V, Unay A. 2006. The effect of sowing date and plant density on cotton yield. Journal of Agronomy, 5, 122–125.Cao T, Oumarou P, Gawrysiak G, Klassou C, Hau B. 2011. Short-season cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) may be a suitable response to late planting in sub-Saharan regions. Field Crops Research, 120, 9–20.Chen J, Lv F, Liu J, Ma Y, Wang Y, Chen B, Meng Y, Zhou Z. 2014a. Effects of different planting dates and low light on cotton fiber length formation. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 36, 2581–2595.Chen J, Lv F, Liu J, Ma Y, Wang Y, Chen B, Meng Y, Zhou Z, Oosterhuis D M. 2014b. Effect of late planting and shading on cellulose synthesis during cotton fiber secondary wall development. PLoS ONE, 9, e105088.Chen Q, Zhang F, Wang Y, Kenji K. 2003. The physiologic reaction of cucumber to low temperature and low light intensity. Agricultural Sciences in China, 2, 200–205.Davidonis G H, Johnson A S, Landivar J A, Fernandez C J. 2004. Cotton fiber quality is related to boll location and planting date. Agronomy Journal, 96, 42–47.Delmer D P, Amor Y. 1995. Cellulose biosynthesis. The Plant Cell, 7, 987–1000.Delmer D P, Haigler C H. 2002. The regulation of metabolic flux to cellulose, a major sink for carbon in plants. Metabolic Engineering, 4, 22–28.Dong H, Li W, Tang W, Li Z, Zhang D, Niu Y. 2006. Yield, quality and leaf senescence of cotton grown at varying planting dates and plant densities in the Yellow River Valley of China. Field Crops Research, 98, 106–115.Dong H, Xin C, Li W, Tang W, Zhang D. 2010. Late planting of short-season cotton in saline fields of the Yellow River Delta. Crop Science, 50, 292–300.Dusserre J, Crozat Y, Warembourg F R, Dingkuhn M. 2002. Effects of shading on sink capacity and yield components of cotton in controlled environments. Agronomie, 22, 307–320.Echer F R, Rosolem C A. 2015. Cotton yield and fiber quality affected by row spacing and shading at different growth stages. European Journal of Agronomy, 65, 18–26.Gao X, Wang Y, Zhou Z, Oosterhuis D M. 2012. Response of cotton fiber quality to the carbohydrates in the leaf subtending the cotton boll. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 175, 152–160.Grindlay D J C. 1997. Towards an explanation of crop nitrogen demand based on the optimization of leaf nitrogen per unit leaf area. Journal of Agricultural Science, 128, 377–396.Gu L, Wang X, Zhou Z, Chen D, Xu L, Zhou R, Liu Y. 2010. Researches of high yield cotton cultivations in Jiangsu province. China Cotton, 37, 14–16. (in Chinese)Guy C L, Huber J L, Huber S C. 1992. Sucrose phosphate synthase and sucrose accumulation at low temperature. Plant Physiology, 100, 502–508.Heitholt J. 1997. Floral bud removal from specific fruiting positions in cotton: Yield and fiber quality. Crop Science, 37, 826–832.Hendrix D L. 1993. Rapid extraction and analysis of nonstructural carbohydrates in plant tissues. Crop Science, 33, 1306–1311.Hu H B. 2007. Genotypic differences in the changing of the matters involved in cotton fiber thickening development and its relationship to fiber strength. MSc thesis, Nanjing Agricultural University, China. (in Chinese) Hu W, Ma Y, Lv F, Liu J, Zhao W, Chen B, Meng Y, Wang Y, Zhou Z. 2016. Effects of late planting and shading on sucrose metabolism in cotton fiber. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 131, 164–172.Iqbal M, Ahmad S. 2003. Effect of different sowing dates on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) cultivar. Asian Journal of Plant Science, 2, 461–463.Jiang G, Meng Y, Chen B, Bian H, Zhou Z G. 2006. Effects of low temperature on physiological mechanisms of cotton fiber strength forming process. Journal of Plant Ecology, 30, 335–343. (in Chinese)Jenkins J, McCarty J, Parrott W. 1990a. Effectiveness of fruiting sites in cotton: Yield. Crop Science, 30, 365–369.Jenkins J, McCarty J, Parrott W. 1990b. Fruiting efficiency in cotton: Boll size and boll set percentage. Crop Science, 30, 857–860.Kuai J, Liu Z, Wang Y, Meng Y, Chen B, Zhao W, Zhou Z, Oosterhuis D M. 2014. Waterlogging during flowering and boll forming stages affects sucrose metabolism in the leaves subtending the cotton boll and its relationship with boll weight. Plant Science, 223, 79–98.Liu J, Ma Y, Lv F, Chen J, Zhou Z, Wang Y, Abudurezike A, Oosterhuis D M. 2013. Changes of sucrose metabolism in leaf subtending to cotton boll under cool temperature due to late planting. Field Crops Research, 144, 200–211.Liu J, Meng Y, Chen B, Zhou Z, Ma Y, Lv F, Chen J, Wang Y. 2015a. Photosynthetic characteristics of the subtending leaf and the relationships with lint yield and fiber quality in the late-planted cotton. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 37, 79.Liu J, Meng Y, Chen J, Lv F, Ma Y, Chen B, Wang Y, Zhou Z, Oosterhuis D M. 2015b. Effect of late planting and shading on cotton yield and fiber quality formation. Field Crops Research, 183, 1–13.Lu G, Dai J, Li W, Tang W, Zhang D, Eneji A E, Dong H. 2017. Yield and economic benefits of late planted short-season cotton versus full-season cotton relayed with garlic. Field Crops Research, 200, 80–87.Lv F, Liu J, Ma Y, Chen J, keyoumu Abudurezikekey A, Wang Y, Chen B, Meng Y, Zhou Z. 2013. Effect of shading on cotton yield and quality on different fruiting branches. Crop Science, 53, 2670–2678.Ma Y, Wang Y, Liu J, Lv F, Chen J, Zhou Z. 2014. The effects of fruiting positions on cellulose synthesis and sucrose metabolism during cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) fiber development. PLoS ONE, 9, e89476.Pettigrew W. 1995. Source-to-sink manipulation effects on cotton fiber quality. Agronomy Journal, 87, 947–952.Pettigrew W. 1996. Low light condition compromise the quality of fiber produced. In: Dugger P, Richter D A, eds., Proceeding of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences. National Cotton Council of America, USA. pp. 1238–1239.Pettigrew W. 2001. Environmental effects on cotton fiber carbohydrate concentration and quality. Crop Science, 41, 1108–1113.Roussopoulos D, Liakatas A, Whittington W. 1998. Cotton responses to different light-temperature regimes. Journal of Agricultural Science, 131, 277–283.SassenrathCole G, Lu G, Hodges H, McKinion J. 1996. Photon flux density versus leaf senescence in determining photosynthetic efficiency and capacity of Gossypium hirsutum L. leaves. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 36, 439–446.Savitch L, Gray G, Huner N. 1997. Feedback-limited photosynthesis and regulation of sucrose-starch accumulation during cold acclimation and low-temperature stress in a spring and winter wheat. Planta, 201, 18–26.Shu H, Zhou Z, Xu N, Wang Y, Zheng M. 2009. Sucrose metabolism in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) fibre under low temperature during fibre development. European Journal of Agronomy, 31, 61–68.Updegraff D M. 1969. Semimicro determination of cellulose in biological materials. Analytical Biochemistry, 32, 420–424.Wang Q, Wang Z, Song X, Li Y, Guo Y, Wang J, Sun X. 2005. Effects of shading at blossoming and boll-forming stages on cotton fiber quality. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 16, 1465–1468. (in Chinese)Wang Y, Shu H, Chen B, McGiffen Jr M, Zhang W, Xu N, Zhou Z. 2009. The rate of cellulose increase is highly related to cotton fiber strength and is significantly determined by its genetic background and boll period temperature. Plant Growth Regulation, 57, 203–209.Williamson R E, Burn J E, Hocart C H. 2002. Towards the mechanism of cellulose synthesis. Trends in Plant Science, 7, 461–467.Wullschleger S D, Oosterhuis D M. 1990. Photosynthetic carbon production and use by developing cotton leaves and bolls. Crop Science, 30, 1259–1264.Yeates S J, Constable G A, McCumstie T. 2010. Irrigated cotton in the tropical dry season. III: Impact of temperature, cultivar and sowing date on fibre quality. Field Crops Research, 116, 300–307.Zhao D, Oosterhuis D. 1994. Effects of shading on cotton photosynthesis, yield and yield components. In: Oosterhuis D M, ed., Proceeding of Arkansas Cotton Research Meeting. Special Report. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, USA. pp. 131–135.Zhao D, Oosterhuis D. 2000. Cotton responses to shade at different growth stages: Growth, lint yield and fibre quality. Experimental Agriculture, 36, 27–39.Zhao W, Wang Y, Shu H, Li J, Zhou Z. 2012. Sowing date and boll position affected boll weight, fiber quality and fiber physiological parameters in two cotton (Gossypium Hirsutum L.) cultivars. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 7, 6073–6081. |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
