Please wait a minute...
Journal of Integrative Agriculture  2019, Vol. 18 Issue (9): 2019-2028    DOI: 10.1016/S2095-3119(19)62604-3
Crop Science Advanced Online Publication | Current Issue | Archive | Adv Search |
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
Download:  PDF in ScienceDirect  
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
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.
Keywords:  machine-harvested cotton        planting patterns        defoliation        yield        quality  
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:; LIU Jing-de, E-mail:   
About author:  WANG Fang-yong, E-mail:;

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)
[1] DAI Shou-fen, CHEN Hai-xia, LI Hao-yuan, YANG Wan-jun, ZHAI Zhi, LIU Qian-yu, LI Jian, YAN Ze-hong. Variations in the quality parameters and gluten proteins in synthetic hexaploid wheats solely expressing the Glu-D1 locus[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2022, 21(7): 1877-1885.
[2] TU De-bao JIANG Yang, ZHANG Li-juan, CAI Ming-li, LI Cheng-fang, CAO Cou-gui. Effect of various combinations of temperature during different phenolgical stages on indica rice yield and quality in Yangtze River Basin in China[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2022, 21(10): 2900-2909.
[3] MENG Lu, ZHANG Li-zhen, QI Hai-kun, DU Ming-wei, ZUO Yan-li, ZHANG Ming-cai, TIAN Xiao-li, LI Zhao-hu. Optimizing the application of a novel harvest aid to improve the quality of mechanically harvested cotton in the North China Plain[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2021, 20(11): 2892-2899.
[4] CHEN Bing-yu, LI Qi-zhai, HU Hui, MENG Shi, Faisal SHAH, WANG Qiang, LIU Hong-zhi . An optimized industry processing technology of peanut tofu and the novel prediction model for suitable peanut varieties[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2020, 19(9): 2340-2351.
[5] LI Qiang, CHANG Xu-hong, MENG Xiang-hai, LI Ding, ZHAO Ming-hui, SUN Shu-luan, LI Hui-min, QIAO Wen-chen. Heat stability of winter wheat depends on cultivars, timing and protective methods[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2020, 19(8): 1984-1997.
[6] ZHENG Jian, LI Sheng-e, Maratab ALI, HUANG Qi-hui, ZHNEG Xiao-lin, PANG Lin-jiang.
Effects of UV-B treatment on controlling lignification and quality of bamboo (Phyllostachys prominens) shoots without sheaths during cold storage
[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2020, 19(5): 1387-1395.
[7] Muhammad ISHFAQ, Nadeem AKBAR, shakeel Ahmed ANJUM, Muhammad ANWAR-UL-HAQ. Growth, yield and water productivity of dry direct seeded rice and transplanted aromatic rice under different irrigation management regimes[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2020, 19(11): 2656-2673.
[8] LI Xiang-ling, GUO Li-guo, ZHOU Bao-yuan, TANG Xiang-ming, CHEN Cong-cong, ZHANG Lei, ZHANG Shao-yun, LI Chong-feng, XIAO Kai, DONG Wei-xin, YIN Bao-zhong, ZHANG Yue-chen . Characterization of low-N responses in maize (Zea mays L.) cultivars with contrasting nitrogen use efficiency in the North China Plain[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2019, 18(9): 2141-2152.
[9] ZHANG Da-zhong, Rabia Begum Panhwar, LIU Jia-jia, GONG Xiang-wei, LIANG Ji-bao, LIU Minxuan, LU Ping, GAO Xiao-li, FENG Bai-li. Morphological diversity and correlation analysis of phenotypes and quality traits of proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) core collections[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2019, 18(5): 958-969.
[10] Ji-Eun Kim, Byung-Kee Baik, Chul Soo Park, Jae-Han Son, Chang-Hyun Choi, Youngjun Mo, Tae-Il Park, Chon-Sik Kang, Seong-Woo Cho . Relationship between physicochemical characteristics of Korean wheat flour and quality attributes of steamed bread[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2019, 18(11): 2652-2663.
[11] WEI Hai-yan, CHEN Zhi-feng, XING Zhi-peng, ZHOU Lei, LIU Qiu-yuan, ZHANG Zhen-zhen, JIANG Yan, HU Ya-jie, ZHU Jin-yan, CUI Pei-yuan, DAI Qi-gen, ZHANG Hong-cheng. Effects of slow or controlled release fertilizer types and fertilization modes on yield and quality of rice[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2018, 17(10): 2222-2234.
[12] ZHANG Qiang, ZHOU Bei-bei, LI Min-ji, WEI Qin-ping, HAN Zhen-hai. Multivariate analysis between meteorological factor and fruit quality of Fuji apple at different locations in China[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2018, 17(06): 1338-1347.
[13] GONG A-na, SHI Ai-min, LIU Hong-zhi, YU Hong-wei, LIU Li, LIN Wei-jing, WANG Qiang. Relationship of chemical properties of different peanut varieties to peanut butter storage stability[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2018, 17(05): 1003-1010.
[14] ZHANG Xiao, ZHANG Bo-qiao, WU Hong-ya, LU Cheng-bin, Lü Guo-feng, LIU Da-tong, LI Man,. Effect of high-molecular-weight glutenin subunit deletion on soft wheat quality properties and sugar-snap cookie quality estimated through near-isogenic lines[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2018, 17(05): 1066-1073.
[15] TIAN Jing-shan, ZHANG Xu-yi, ZHANG Wang-feng, LI Jian-feng, YANG Yan-long, DONG Heng-yi, JIU Xing-li, YU Yong-chuan, ZHAO Zhan, XU Shou-zhen, ZUO Wen-qing. Fiber damage of machine-harvested cotton before ginning and after lint cleaning[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2018, 17(05): 1120-1127.
No Suggested Reading articles found!