|
|
|
|
|
| Effects of planting patterns on yield, quality, and defoliation in machine-harvested cotton |
WANG Fang-yong1, HAN Huan-yong1, LIN Hai1, CHEN Bing1, KONG Xian-hui1, NING Xin-zhu1, WANG Xu-wen1, YU Yu1, LIU Jing-de2 |
1 Cotton Research Institute, Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural and Reclamation Science/Northwest Inland Region Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology and Genetic Breeding, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Shihezi 832000, P.R.China
2 Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural and Reclamation Science, Shihezi 832000, P.R.China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The aim of this study was to elucidate the effects of different machine-harvested cotton-planting patterns on defoliation, yield, and fiber quality in cotton and to provide support for improving the quality of machine-harvested cotton. In the 2015 and 2016 growing seasons, the Xinluzao 45 (XLZ45) and Xinluzao 62 (XLZ62) cultivars, which are primarily cultivated in northern Xinjiang, were used as study materials. Conventional wide-narrow row (WNR), wide and ultra-narrow row (UNR), wide-row spacing with high density (HWR), and wide-row spacing with low density (LWR) planting patterns were used to assess the effects of planting patterns on defoliation, yield, and fiber quality. Compared with WNR, the seed cotton yields were significantly decreased by 2.06–5.48% for UNR and by 2.50–6.99% for LWR, respectively. The main cause of reduced yield was a reduction in bolls per unit area. The variation in HWR yield was –1.07–1.07% with reduced bolls per unit area and increased boll weight, thus demonstrating stable production. In terms of fiber quality indicators, the planting patterns only showed significant effects on the micronaire value, with wide-row spacing patterns showing an increase in the micronaire values. The defoliation and boll-opening results showed that the number of leaves and dried leaves in HWR was the lowest among the four planting patterns. Prior to the application of defoliating agent and before machine-harvesting, the numbers of leaves per individual plant in HWR were decreased by 14.45 and 25.00% on average, respectively, compared with WNR, while the number of leaves per unit area was decreased by 27.44 and 36.21% on average, respectively. The rates of boll-opening and defoliation in HWR were the highest. Specifically, the boll-opening rate before defoliation and machine-harvesting in HWR was 44.54 and 5.94% higher on average than in WNR, while the defoliation rate prior to machine-harvesting was 3.45% higher on average than in WNR. The numbers of ineffective defoliated leaves and leaf trash in HWR were the lowest, decreased by 33.40 and 32.43%, respectively, compared with WNR. In conclusion, the HWR planting pattern is associated with a high and stable yield, does not affect fiber quality, promotes early maturation, and can effectively decrease the amount of leaf trash in machine-picked seed cotton, and thus its use is able to improve the quality of machine-harvested cotton.
|
|
Received: 13 September 2018
Accepted:
|
| Fund: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31560342), the Major Science and Technology Projects of Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, China (2016AA001-2), and the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2017YFD0201900). |
|
Corresponding Authors:
Correspondence YU Yu, Tel: +86-993-6683745, E-mail: xjyuyu021@sohu.com; LIU Jing-de, E-mail: liujdbtny@sina.com
|
| About author: WANG Fang-yong, E-mail: fangywang425@163.com; |
Cite this article:
WANG Fang-yong, HAN Huan-yong, LIN Hai, CHEN Bing, KONG Xian-hui, NING Xin-zhu, WANG Xu-wen, YU Yu, LIU Jing-de .
2019.
Effects of planting patterns on yield, quality, and defoliation in machine-harvested cotton. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 18(9): 2019-2028.
|
Baker S H. 1976. Response of cotton to row patterns and plant populations. Agronomy Journal, 68, 85–88.
Bednarz C W, Bridges D C, Brown S M. 2000. Analysis of cotton yield stability across population densities. Agronomy Journal, 92, 128–135.
Bednarz C W, Shurley W D, Anthony W S, Nichols R L. 2005. Yield, quality, and profitability of cotton produced at varying plant densities. Agronomy Journal, 97, 235–240.
Brodrick R, Bange M P, Milroy S P, Hammer G L. 2010. Yield and maturity of ultra-narrow row cotton in high input production systems. Agronomy Journal, 102, 843–848.
Brown L C, Hyer A H. 1954. A preliminary report on the influence varying periods of darkness on the defoliability of several varieties of cotton. In: Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Defoliation Conference. USA. p. 44.
Buxton D R, Briggs R E, Patterson L L, Watkins S D. 1977. Canopy characteristics of narrow-row cotton as influenced by plant density. Agronomy Journal, 69, 929–933.
Cathey G W, Luckett K E, Rayburn S T. 1982. Accelerated boll dehiscence with growth regulator and desiccant chemicals. Field Crops Research, 5, 113–120.
Dai J L, Li W J, Tang W, Zhang D M, Li Z H, Lu H Q, Eneji A E, Dong H Z. 2015. Manipulation of dry matter accumulation and partitioning with plant density in relation to yield stability of cotton under intensive management. Field Crops Research, 180, 207–215.
Dong H Z, Li W J, Eneji A E, Zhang D M. 2012. Nitrogen rate and plant density effects on yield and late-season leaf senescence of cotton raised on a saline field. Field Crops Research, 126, 137–144.
Faircloth J C, Edmisten K L, Wells R, Stewart A M. 2004. Timing defoliation applications for maximum yields and optimum quality in cotton containing a fruiting gap. Crop Science, 44, 158–164.
ICR, CAAS (Institute of Cotton Research, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences). 2013. Cultivation of Cotton in China. Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers, Shanghai. p. 884. (in Chinese)
Li J F, Liang F B, Chen H C, Wang C, Zhang W F, Kang P. 2016. Effect of plant and row spacing on agronomic characters and yield of machine-picked cotton. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 53, 1390–1396. (in Chinese)
Li J F, Wang C, Liang F B, Chen H C, Tian J S, Kang P, Zhang W F. 2017. Row spacing and planting density affect canopy structure and yield in machine-picked cotton in Xinjiang. Cotton Science, 29, 157–165. (in Chinese)
Liu S H, Peng Y, Peng X F, Luo Z, Dong H Z. 2016. Effects of regulated deficit irrigation and plant density on plant growth and yield and fiber quality of cotton in dry land area. Cotton Science, 28, 184–188. (in Chinese)
Lou S W, Zhao Q, Gao Y G, Guo R S, Abuli K M, Zhang J S. 2010. The effect of different density to canopy-microclimate and quality of cotton. Cotton Science, 22, 260–266. (in Chinese)
Marois J J, Wright D L, Wiatrak P J, Vargas M A. 2004. Effect of row width and nitrogen on cotton morphology and canopy microclimate. Crop Science, 44, 870–877.
Mccarty W. 1995. Defoliation, the art and the science. Mid-South Farmer, 2, 12–14.
Ren X M, Zhang L Z, Du M W, Evers J B, Werf W V D, Tian X L, Li Z H. 2013. Managing mepiquat chloride and plant density for optimal yield and quality of cotton. Field Crops Research, 149, 1–10.
Siebert J D, Stewart A M, Leonard B R. 2006. Comparative growth and yield of cotton planted at various densities and configurations. Agronomy Journal, 98, 562–568.
Snipes C E, Baskin C C. 1994. Influence of early defoliation on cotton yield, seed quality, and fiber properties. Field Crops Research, 37, 137–143.
Snipes C E, Cathey G W. 1992. Evaluation of defoliant mixtures in cotton. Field Crops Research, 28, 327–334.
Tian X L, Duan L S, Li Z H, Wang B M, He Z P. 2004. Physiological bases of chemical accelerated boll maturation and defoliation in cotton. Plant Physiology Communications, 40, 758–762. (in Chinese)
Williamson E B, Riley J A. 1961. Interrelated effects of defoliation, weather and mechanical picking on cotton quality. Transactions of the ASAE, 4, 164–165, 169.
Xie Z L, Xu H, Cao J Q. 2014. Effect of ginned cotton cleaning times on machine picked cotton spinning property. Cotton Textile Technology, 42, 17–20. (in Chinese)
Xu H, Li Y, Du W D, Xie Z L, Cao J Q, Lei J X, Jia D, Zhong M. 2015. Questions and suggestions of machine picked cotton. Shanghai Textile Science & Technology, 43, 65–68. (in Chinese)
Xu H, Xia X. 2009. Property comparison between machine picked cotton and hand picked cotton. Journal of Textile Research, 30, 5–10. (in Chinese)
Xu X X, Lei J F, Gao L L, Zheng H, Li G, Wang L H, Suo Z C, Li J, Zhang J S. 2017. Effects of different row spacing patterns on growth and photosynthetic production of machine-harvested cotton. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 35, 51–56. (in Chinese)
Yu S X, Zhou Y L, He L. 2015. Development of mechanization of cotton production in the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps. China Cotton, 42, 1–4, 7. (in Chinese)
Zhang D M, Luo Z, Liu S H, Li W J, Tang W, Dong H Z. 2016. Effects of deficit irrigation and plant density on the growth, yield and fiber quality of irrigated cotton. Field Crops Research, 197, 1–9.
Zhang L J. 2013. Quality analysis between mechanical harvesting and hand harvesting cotton. China Cotton, 40, 16–19. (in Chinese) |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
