Solid and Skip‐Row Spacings for Irrigated and Nonirrigated Upland Cotton

Abstract

Producers of upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) are interested in alternative row spacings and planting patterns to improve productivity. We conducted factorial experiments for 3 yr in adjacent irrigated and nonirrigated fi elds at Milan, TN, of cotton grown in 25-, 76-and 102-cm rows, each planted in a solid and 2 × 1 skip-row pattern. Narrower rows and solid plantings tended to close canopy earlier and more completely, to suppress weed growth, and to mature earlier than in wider rows and skip-row patterns. Incomplete canopy closure in wider skip-row spacings resulted in less weed suppression, but weed growth in skipped rows diminished with narrower row spacing. Skip-row cotton matured later than solid planting, but this eff ect also diminished with narrower rows. Without irrigation, row spacing and confi guration for maximum lint yield depended on growing conditions of the particular year. Under irrigation, however, solid planted 76-cm rows consistently yielded more than either 25-or 102-cm solid or skip-row cotton. With or without irrigation, lint yields were 13 to 15% lower in 102-cm skip-row cotton than in 102-cm solid planting, but yields did not diff er between solid and skip-row in narrower rows. Across years and treatments, plant density was the most infl uential yield component in nonirrigated cotton, but plant density and bolls plant −1 had similar infl uence under irrigation. Cotton producers interested in skip-row planting should consider rows spaced 76-cm or less to minimize weed problems and yield loss.

Weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) through weed-crop competition: A review

“…In a study, there was a significant yield advantage for 76 cm row spacing compared to 25 and 102 cm row spacing (Gwathmey et al, 2008). Weed suppression in 76 cm row spacing was on par with 25 cm and superior to 102 cm row spacing, indicating planting in intermediate rows can be more effective in terms of yield and weed suppression (Gwathmey et al, 2008). The results of this study are very pertinent and indicate that the benefits of narrow row and high plant density can vary with locations.…”

“…In a study, a 35% reduction in weed biomass was achieved from twin-rows spaced at 38 cm compared to 102 cm standard row. Similarly, significant weed suppression was achieved in cotton planted at 25 cm and 75 cm row spacing compared to 102 cm rows (Gwathmey et al, 2008). In another study in Florida, two row spacing, 76 cm and twin row spacing (19 cm between rows and 76 cm between two sets of rows) both at a density of 7 plants m À2 were compared (Stephenson and Brecke, 2010).…”

“…Amaranthus retroflexus L was supressed significantly under 25 and 76 cm row spacing compared to 102 cm spacing Weed interface on yield was not studied Gwathmey et al, 2008 Cotton planted at 38 cm and 76 cm rows Weed suppression rating was 99 and 89 for 38 and 76 cm row spacing, respectively a .…”

“…In some situations, intermediate row spacing may be advantageous regarding crop yield and weed control. In a study, there was a significant yield advantage for 76 cm row spacing compared to 25 and 102 cm row spacing (Gwathmey et al, 2008). Weed suppression in 76 cm row spacing was on par with 25 cm and superior to 102 cm row spacing, indicating planting in intermediate rows can be more effective in terms of yield and weed suppression (Gwathmey et al, 2008).…”

Does Skip‐Row Planting Configuration Improve Cotton Net Return?

“…In response to increasing seed costs, technology fees, and other production costs, farmers have experimented with alternative row spacings and planting configurations as a way to lower production costs and maintain yield levels. Skip‐row planting configuration, in which selected rows are left unplanted, is one alternative that has received increased attention (Gwathmey et al, 2008). For example, a 2 × 1 skip‐row pattern refers to two planted rows adjacent to one skipped row of the same width (Parvin et al, 1999).…”