Please wait a minute...
Journal of Integrative Agriculture  2020, Vol. 19 Issue (3): 680-689    DOI: 10.1016/S2095-3119(19)62626-2
Special Issue: 棉花合辑Cotton
Crop Science Advanced Online Publication | Current Issue | Archive | Adv Search |
Architecture of stem and branch affects yield formation in short season cotton
ZHANG Xiang2*, RUI Qiu-zhi2, LI Yuan2, CHEN Yuan2, CHEN Yuan2, ZHANG Xi-ling1, CHEN De-hua2, SONG Mei-zhen1*  
1 Institute of Cotton Research, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences/State Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology, Anyang 455000, P.R.China
2 Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Physiology/Co-Innovation Center for Modern Production Technology of Grain Crops, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225009, P.R.China
Download:  PDF in ScienceDirect  
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  The cotton direct seeding after wheat (rape) harvested is under trial and would be the future direction at the Yangtze River Valley region of China.  The objective of this study was to quantify the effects of branch and stem architecture on cotton yield and identify the optimal cotton architecture to compensate the yield loss due to the reduction of individual production capacity under high planting density in the direst seeding after wheat harvested cropping system.  The characteristics of the stem and branch architecture and the relationships between architecture of the stem and branch with yield formation were studied on eight short season cotton cultivars during 2015 and 2016 cotton growth seasons.  Based on the two years results, three cultivars with different architectures of stem and branch were selected to investigate the effect of mepiquat chloride (MC) application on the architecture of the stem and branch, boll retention, and the yield in 2017.  Significant differences were observed on plant height, all fruiting nodes to branches ratio (NBR) in the cotton plant, and the curvature of the fruiting branch (CFB) among the studied cultivars.  There were three types of stem and fruiting branch structures: Zhong425 with stable and suitable plant height and NBR (about 90 cm and 2.5, respectively), high CFB (more than 10.0), and high boll retention speed and seed cotton yield; Siyang 822 with excessive plant height and NBR, low CFB, and low boll retention speed and seed cotton yield; and other studied cultivars with unstable structure of stem and branch, boll retention speed, and seed cotton yield across years.  And MC application could promote the appropriate plant height and NBR and high CFB and thus resulted in high boll retention speed and the yield.  The results suggested that the suitable plant height and NBR (about 90 cm and 2.5 respectively), and high CFB (more than 10.0), which was related to both genotype and cultural practice, could promote the higher boll retention speed and seed cotton yield.
Keywords:  short season cotton        architecture of the stem and branch        boll retention speed        seed cotton yield        mepiquat chloride  
Received: 21 September 2018   Accepted:
Fund: The study are funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFD0100400 and 2017YFD0201300), the Engineering Science and Technology Innovation Fund of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (2016PCTS-1), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31671613), and the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, China (PAPD).
Corresponding Authors:  Correspondence ZHANG Xi-ling, Tel: +86-372-2562308, Fax: +86-372-2562256, E-mail:; CHEN De-hua, Tel: +86-514-7979357, Fax: +86-514-7996817, E-mail:    
About author:  * These authors contributed equally to this study

Cite this article: 

ZHANG Xiang, RUI Qiu-zhi, LI Yuan, CHEN Yuan, CHEN Yuan, ZHANG Xi-ling, CHEN De-hua, SONG Mei-zhen . 2020. Architecture of stem and branch affects yield formation in short season cotton. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 19(3): 680-689.

Boquet D J, Clawson E L. 2009. Cotton planting date: Yield, seedling survival, and plant growth. Agronomy Journal, 101, 1123–1130.
Bozbek T, Sezener V, Unay A. 2006. The effect of sowing date and plant density on cotton yield. Agronomy Journal, 5, 122–125.
Cathey G W, Meredith W R. 1988. Cotton response to planting date and mepiquat chloride. Agronomy Journal, 80, 463–466.
Cao T V, Pala O, Gérard G, Célestin K, Bernard H. 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 Y, Li Y B, Hu D P, Zhang X, Wen Y J, Chen H D. 2016. Spatial distribution of potassium uptake across the cotton plant affects fiber length. Field Crops Research, 192, 126–133.
Dai J L, Dong H Z. 2014. Intensive cotton farming technologies in China: Achievements, challenges and countermeasures. Field Crops Research, 155, 99–110.
Deol J S, Kaur R, Brar Z S. 2011. Growth and yield of upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) as affected by sowing dates and plant spacings. Environment Ecology, 29, 1886–1888.
Dong H Z, Li W J, Xin C S, Zhang D M. 2010. Late planting of short-season cotton in saline fields of the Yellow River Delta. Crop Science, 50, 292–300.
Dong H Z, Zheng J Y, Zhou J G, Yu Q L. 1994. Optimum combination of severalmajor techniques for summer planting cotton. Cotton Science, 4, 229–231.
Du X B, Chen B L, Shen T Y, Zhang Y X, Zhou Z G. 2015. Effect of cropping system on radiation use efficiency in double-cropped wheat-cotton. Field Crops Research, 170, 21–31.
Feng G Y, Luo H H, Zhang Y L, Gou L, Yao Y D, Lin Y Z, Zhang W F. 2016. Relationship between plant canopy characteristics and photosynthetic productivity in diverse cultivars of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). The Crop Journal, 4, 499–508.
Heitholt J J. 1994. Canopy characteristics associated with deficient and excessive cotton plant population densities. Crop Science, 34, 1291–1297.
Kerby T A, Buxton D R. 1978. Effect of leaf shape and plant population on rate of fruiting position appearance in cotton. Agronomy Journal, 70, 535–538.
Kerby T A, Cassman K G, Keeley M. 1990. Genotypes and plant densities for narrow-row cotton systems. I. Height, nodes, earliness, and location of yield. Crop Science, 30, 644–649.
Lu H Q, Dai J L, Li W J, Tang W, Zhang D M, Egrinya E A, Dong H Z. 2017. Yield and economic benefits of late planted short-season cotton versus full-season cotton relayed with garlic. Field Crops Research, 200, 80–87.
Mao L L, Zhang L Z, Evers J B, van der Werf W, Liu S D, Zhang S P, Wang B M, Li Z H. 2015. Yield components and quality of intercropped cotton in response to mepiquat chloride and plant density. Field Crops Research, 179, 63–71.
Marois J J, Wright D L, Wiatrak P J, Vargas M A. 2004. Effect of row width and nitrogen on cotton morphology and canopy micro-climate. Crop Science, 44, 870–877.
Nuti R C, Viator R P, Casteel S N, Edmisten K L, Wells R. 2006. Effect of planting date, mepiquat chloride, and glyphosate application to glyphosate-resistant cotton. Agronomy Journal, 98, 1627–1633.
Reddy V R, Baker D N, Hodges H F. 1990. Temperature and mepiquat chloride effects on cotton canopy architecture. Agronomy Journal, 82, 190–195.
Reihardt D, Kuhlemerier C. 2002. Plant architecture. EMBO Reports, 3, 846–851.
Reta-Sánchez D G, Fowler J L. 2002. Canopy light environment and yield of narrow row cotton as affected by canopy architecture. Agronomy Journal, 94, 1317–1323.
Ruth K A, Pedro A S, Wang G Y. 2013. Plant architecture influences growth and yield response of upland cotton to population density. Field Crops Research, 145, 52–59.
Sekloka E, Hau B, Gozé E, Lewicki-Dhainaut S, Thomas G, Lancon J. 2007. Effective flowering time variations in upland cotton (Gossypium) at different planting dates and stand densities in Benin. Experimental Agriculture, 43, 173–182.
Trebuil G, Weerathawon P, Nguyen T B. 1993. Preliminary evaluation of promising IRCT glandless cotton varieties in Thailand. Kasetsart Journal Natural Science, 27, 484–493.
Tung S A, Huang Y, Ali S, Hafeez A, Shah A N, Song X H, Ma X L, Luo D, Yang G Z. 2018. Mepiquat chloride application does not favor leaf photosynthesis and carbohydrate metabolism as well as lint yield in late-planted cotton at high plant density. Field Crops Research, 221, 108–118.
Van D S R. 2013. Harvesting & delivering uncontaminated cotton. In: Australian Cotton Production Manual. The Australian Cotton Industry Development & Delivery Team, Australian. pp. 118–124.
Wang X R, Hou Y R, Du M W, Xu D Y, Lu H Y, Tian X L, Li Z H. 2016. Effect of planting date and plant density on cotton traits as relating tomechanical harvesting in the Yellow River valley region of China. Field Crops Research, 198, 112–121.
Wells R, Meredith W R, Williford J R. 1986. Canopy photosynthesis and its relationship to plant productivity in near-isogenic cotton lines differing in leaf morphology. Plant Physiology, 82, 635–640.
Williford J R, Brashears A D, Barker G L. 1994. Harvesting. In: Anthony W S, Mayfield W D, eds., Cotton Ginners Handbook. U.S. Government Printing Office, American. pp. 11–16.
[1] CHEN Yuan, LIU Zhen-yu, HENG Li, Leila I. M. TAMBEL, ZHANG Xiang, CHEN Yuan, CHEN De-hua. Effects of plant density and mepiquat chloride application on cotton boll setting in wheat–cotton double cropping system[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2021, 20(9): 2372-2381.
[2] WANG Shi-hong, MAO Li-li, SHI Jia-liang, NIE Jun-jun, SONG Xian-liang, SUN Xue-zhen. Effects of plant density and nitrogen rate on cotton yield and nitrogen use in cotton stubble retaining fields[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2021, 20(8): 2090-2099.
No Suggested Reading articles found!