Fruiting Pattern in Narrow‐Row Cotton¹

Abstract

Previous research with narrow‐row cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) has concentrated on end‐of‐season effects on yield and fiber characteristics with little attention given to seasonal fruiting patterns. Our objective was to monitor the seasonal fruiting pattern of cotton planted at various combinations of row spacings and plant densities. ‘Deltapine 16’ was grown 3 years on one or two rows per beds that were either 76 or 102 cm from center to center with densities of 7.4, 14.8, and 22.2 plants/m2. The plots were divided into flower tagged (tagged plots) and yield portions (yield plots). In the tagged plots, flowers were tagged daily with the date of anthesis. Open bolls were harvested weekly and assigned to weekly flowering intervals before being analyzed for boll and fiber properties. Before harvesting the yield plots, we also took open boll samples to be analyzed for boll and fiber properties. At equivalent plant densities in the yield plots, two rows per bed resulted in up to 11% more seedcotton than one row per bed. Plant density had no significant effect on yield. In the tagged plots, seasonal flower and boll production was higher from two rows per bed than one row per bed with differences ranging from 8 to 22% more flowers and 2 to 12% more bolls, depending upon bed size and plant density. The seedcotton yield advantage of two rows per bed was near maximal from bolls that were set (flowered) by late July; thereafter the production rate on one and two rows per bed was similar. Boll period (time from flowering to open boll) was increased slightly by high plant density. Boll size, lint index, seed index, fiber strength, and fiber fineness from the yield plots were all significantly reduced by increases in plant density, although the average effects were less than 5%. While fruiting pattern and yield were primarily influenced by row spacing, plant density had the greatest influence on boll and fiber properties.

Manipulation of dry matter accumulation and partitioning with plant density in relation to yield stability of cotton under intensive management

“…but heavier fruit production of individual plants, while fruiting site production, fruit retention and boll weight were reduced as population density increased Bednarz et al, 2000;Jones and Wells, 1997). Higher plant densities also produced longer sympodial and monopodial plastocrons (Kerby et al, 1990;Kerby and Buxton, 1978) and longer boll maturation period (Buxton et al, 1979;Galanopoulou-Sendouka et al, 1980). These combined effects resulted in fewer bolls and less seedcotton on a per-plant basis, suggesting that yield stability across a range of population densities is achieved through manipulation of boll occurrence and boll weight under extensive management (Bednarz et al, 2000).…”

“…Plant population density is inversely related to mainstem node number and monopodial branch number (Jones and Wells, 1997;Fowler and Ray, 1977;Buxton et al, 1979). Decreased plant density resulted in greater fruiting site production and fruit retention http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.06.008 0378-4290/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.…”

Configurações de semeadura e produção e qualidade da fibra do algodoeiro

“…Nos últimos anos, devido aos baixos preços internacionais da pluma e ao alto custo de produção, os cotonicultores têm buscado alternativas para viabilizar a continuidade no sistema. Uma dessas alternativas é a utilização de espaçamentos reduzidos, para redução do ciclo da cultura e do uso de defensivos (BUXTON; PETTERSON; BRIGGS, 1979).…”

Phenotypic Alterations and Crop Maturity Differences in Ultra‐Narrow Row and Conventionally Spaced Cotton

“…One concern with the UNRC system is that fiber quality may be sacrificed. Heitholt et al (1992) showed that narrow rows resulted in earlier canopy closure; while Buxton et al (1979) showed that narrow row spacings caused a greater percentage of fruit to be set earlier. Both of these factors, along with reduced boll size observed in high densities (Fowler and Ray, 1977), have the potential to negatively affect fiber quality.…”