The Effect of Row Spacing on Plant Architecture, Yield and Seed Quality of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• M Mounian Ardestani
• F Ghaderi-Far
• E Zeinali
• M. H Ghorbani
• M Gorzin

Gorgan University of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources

10.22067/gsc.v16i2.64400

Abstract

Introduction Adjusting the distance between planting rows is one of the most important aspects of management in the process of crop production. The row spacing is effective on land cover, the amount of radiation, crop competitive ability against weeds, and pests and pathogens population and these methods affect the efficiency of crop production system. In general, row distance in cotton planting is more than other crops, ranged normally between 76 to 102 cm. But today, cotton cultivation in low row spacing (25-50 cm) and very low (row spacing 18-25 cm) is preferred. The advantages include increased potential for higher yield, declined production costs through reducing soil erosion in prone areas, reducing water losses, increased photosynthesis efficiency, reducing the cost of weed control and the possibility of mechanized harvesting which saves time.
Materials and Methods This study was conducted in the factorial experiment in the Randomized Complete Block Design with four replications at research farm (No.1) of Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources (36°49' N, 54°19'E and 12m above sea level), 2012. Experimental treatments included row spacing at three levels (20, 40, and 80 cm), and three cultivars of Sahel, Sepid and Golestan. During the plant growth period changes in plant height, leaf area index and shoot dry weight were measured. Also, in the maturity, some other parameters such as the first boll height from the ground surface, the number of monopodial branches, the number of sympodial branches, the length of the highest monopodial branches, the number and weight of boll and yield were measured. In addition, after the separation of fibers from seeds, accelerated aging tests, germination at low and high temperature (warm and cold tests) and electrical conductivity test were applied to evaluate the seed quality. For better evaluation of seed samples, after warm and cold germination tests, the normal seedling percentages from the two tests were added together (vigor index). Thus, all seeds produced were classified in terms of seed vigor into four categories: excellent, good, medium and weak.
Results and Discussion In this study, structure and geometrical characteristics of the plant were significantly affected by row spacing. Thus, the reduction of row spacing from 80 to 20 cm, reduced plant height and, the number and length of monopodial and sympodial branches. However, the leaf area index, dry matter and boll height increased significantly. Despite significant reduction of boll number and size per plant with the reduction of row distance, lint yield remained unaffected due to an increase in the number of plants and the number of bolls per unit of area. The highest seed quality observed in Golestan cultivar at a row spacing of 20 cm while for the other two cultivars it occurred at row spacing of 40 cm. The lowest seed quality in all three cultivars obtained in row spacing of 80 cm. Based on the seed vigor index (total normal seedlings in warm and cold germination tests) none of the seed samples could be categorized in an excellent group. The Golestan cultivar with row spacing of 20 cm could be placed in a good group and the other seed samples were found to be medium to weak. However, the least seed vigor index was found in Golestan and sepid cultivars in 80 cm row spacing and in Sahel cultivar in 20 cm row spacing. For Sahel cultivar, the maximum seed vigor index obtained in 40 cm row spacing.
Conclusions There are advantages in narrow and ultra-narrow row spacing in comparison of traditional row spacing for cotton planting. These include generally, the reduction of plant height, increased height of boll formation which facilitates mechanized harvesting, and the increase of LAI and dry matter per area. Other advantages are the stability of lint yield and fiber quality, and ultimately increased seed quality in cultivations with lower row spacing.

Keywords

• Plant density
• Plant geometry
• Seed germination and vigor

20.1001.1.20081472.1397.16.2.13.6

---

References

1. Adam, N. M., McDonald, M. B., and Henderlong, P. R. 1989. The influence of seed position planting, and harvesting on soybean seed quality. Seed Science and Technology 17 (1): 143-152.

2. Arunvenkatesh, S., and Rajendran, K. 2013. Evaluation of plant density and cotton genotypes (Gossypium hirsutum L.) on cotton yield and fibre quality. International Journal of Forestry and Crop Improvement 4 (1): 1-5.

3. Atwell, S., Perkins, R., Guice, B., Stewart, W., Harden, J., and Odeneal, T. 1996. Essential steps to successful ultra narrow row cotton production. In Dugger, P. and Richter, D. A, (eds). Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, Nashville, TN. January 9-12, 1996. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. pp. 1210-1211.

4. Beland, M., Widlowski, J. L., Fournier, R. A., Ois Côte, J. F., and Verstraete, M. M. 2011. Estimating leaf area distribution in savanna trees from terrestrial LiDAR measurements. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 151 (9): 1252-1266.

5. Brodrick, R., Bange, M. P., Milroy, S. P., and Hammer, G. L. 2012. Physiological determinants of high yielding ultra-narrow row cotton: Biomass accumulation and partitioning. Field Crops Research 134: 122-129.

6. Buxton, D. R., Briggs, R. E., Patterson, L. L., and Watkins, S. D. 1977. Canopy characteristics of narrow-row cotton as affected by plant density. Agronomy Journal 69: 929-933.

7. Castillo, A. G., Hampton, J. G., and Coolbear, P. 1993. Effect of population density on within canopy environment seed vigour in graden (Pisum satiivum L.). Proceedings of Agronomy Society of New Zealand 23: 99-106.

8. Dai, J., Li, W., Tang, W., Zhang, D., Li, Z., Lu, H., Eneji, A. E., and Dong, H. 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.

9. De Ribou, S. B., Douam, F., Hamant, O., Frohlich, M. W., and Negrutiu, I. 2013. Plant science and agricultural productivity: Why are we hitting the yield ceiling? Plant Science 210: 159-176.

10. Dong, H., Zhang, D., Tang, W., Li, W., and Li, Z. 2005. Effects of planting system, plant density and flower removal on yield and quality of hybrid seed in cotton. Field Crops Research 93 (1): 74-84.

11. Feng, L., Mathis, G., Ritchie, G., Han, Y., Li, Y., Wang, G., Zhi, X., and Bednarz, C. W. 2014. Optimizing irrigation and plant density for improved cotton yield and fiber quality. Agronomy, Soil and Environmental Quality 106 (4): 1111-1118.

12. Ghaderi-Far, F., Soltani, A., and Sadeghipour H. R. 2009. Evaluation of nonlinear regeression models in quantifying germination rate of medicinal pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo L. subsp. Pepo. Convar. Pepo var. styriaca Greb), borago (Borago officinalis L.) and black cumin (Nigella sativa L.) to temperature. Journal of Plant Production 16 (4): 1-19. (in Persian with English abstract).

13. Ghaderi-Far, F., Alimagham, S. M., Sancholi, O., Yousefi-Daz, M., and Miri, A. A. 2012. Yield and fiber quality comparison of cotton planted in ultra narrow row and conventional row. Electronic Journal Crop Production 5 (2): 75-91. (in Persian with English abstract).

14. Gwathmey, C. O., and Clement, J. D. 2010. Alteration of cotton source-sink relations with plant population density and mepiquat chloride. Field Crops Research 116 (1-2): 101-107.

15. Ghorbanpour, E. 2012. Ecophysiological study the competition between velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) planted in conventional and ultra narrow row (UNR) spacings. MSc. Thesis, Agronomy. Gorgan University of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources. (in Persian with English abstract).

16. Hampton, J. G., and TeKrony, D. M. 1995. Handbook of vigor test methods. The International Seed Testing Association, Zurich. 117 pp.

17. Heitholt, J. J., Pettigrew, W. T., and Meredith, W. R. 1992. Light interception and lint yield of narrow-row cotton. Crop Science 32 (3): 728-733.

18. Illipronti, R. A., Lommen, W. J. M., Langerak, C. J., and Struik, P. C. 2000. Time of pod and seed position on the plant contribute to variation in quality of seed within soybean seed lots. Netherlands. Journal of Agricultural Science 48 (2): 165-180.

19. Jost, P. H., and Cothern, J. T. 2000. Growth and yield comparisons of cotton planted in conventional and ultra-narrow row spacings. Crop Science 40 (2): 430-435.

20. Kaggwa-Asiimwe, R., Andrade-Sanchez, P., and Wang, G. 2013. Plant architecture influences growth and yield response of upland cotton to population density. Field Crops Research 145: 52-59.

21. Kong, L. J., Zhang, G. X., and Yao, D. W. 2004. Seed production technology of carrot in foreign countries. China Vegetable 2 (1): 54-56.

22. Mao, L., Zhang, L., Zhao, X., Liu, S., van der Werf, W., Zhang, S., Spiertz, H., and Li, Z. 2014. Crop growth, light utilization and yield of relay intercropped cotton as affected by plant density and a plant growth regulator. Field Crops Research 155 (1): 67-76.

23. McConnell, J. S., Francis, P. B., Stark, C. R., and Glover, R. E. 2008. Plant responses of ultra narrow row cotton to nitrogen fertilization. Journal of Plant Nutrition 31 (6): 1005-1017.

24. Meng, Y., Lv, F., Zhao, W., Chen, J., Zhu, L., Wang, Y., Chen, B., and Zhou, Z. 2016. Plant density influences fiber sucrose metabolism in relation to cotton fiber quality. Acta Physiology of plant 38: 112.

25. Molin,W. T., Boykin, D., Hugie, J. A., Ratnayaka, H. H., and Tracy, M. 2006. Spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) interference in wide row and ultra narrow row Cotton. Weed Science 54 (4): 651-657.

26. Oz, E., Tekin, A. B., Evcim, H. U., and Degirmencioglu, A. 2011. Effect of variety and row spacing on the performance of a cotton picker. Journal of Food and Agricultural Environment 9 (1): 236-242.

27. Ramaan, M. M., Mwakangwale, M. G., Hampton, J. G., and Hill, M. J. 2005. Plant density affects soybean seed quality. Seed Science and Technology 33 (2): 521-525.

28. Smiciklas, K. D., Mullen, R. E., Carlson, R. E., and Knapp, A. D. 1992. Soybean seed quality response to drought stress and pod position. Agronomy Journal 84 (2): 166-170.

29. Speers, J. 2001. Seed and seed quality issues 2001 North Carolina cotton Production Guide. www.Ipm. Ncsu.edu.

30. Xiao-yu, Z., Ying-chun, H., Ya-bing, L., Guo-ping, W., Wen-li, D., Xiao-xin, L., Shuchun, M., and Lu, F. 2015. Effects of plant density on cotton yield components and quality. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 15 (1): 1-13.

31. Zhang, D., Zhang, L., Jianguo Liu, J., Shuo Han, S., Wang, Q., Jochem Evers, J., Liu, J., van der Werf, W., and Li, L. 2014. Plant density affects light interception and yield in cotton grown as companion crop in young jujube plantations. Field Crops Research 169: 132-139.

32. Zaxos, D., Kostoula, S., Khah, E. M., Mavromatis, A., Chachalis, D., and Sakellariou, M. 2012. Evaluation of seed cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) production and quality in relation to the different irrigation levels and two row spacings. International Journal of Plant Production 6 (1): 129-148.