Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T11:48:13.157Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Soil Moisture Stress on Two Varieties of Upland Cotton in Israel I. The Coastal Plain Region

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

A. Marani  and
A. Amirav
A. Marani
Affiliation:
Department of Field and Vegetable Crops, Faculty of Agriculture of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
A. Amirav
Affiliation:
Department of Field and Vegetable Crops, Faculty of Agriculture of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Effects of moisture stress during different stages of cotton development were examined in two experiments when temperatures were mild and evapotranspiration less than 6 mm./day. Two varieties of upland cotton, Acala 4–42 and Deltapine Smoothleaf, were affected similarly. Moisture stress at the beginning of flowering reduced growth rate and the numbers of flowers and bolls. During the second half of the flowering period it reduced the percentage of boll retention, boll number, boll weight, seed index, lint index and lint length. Stress during boll development had similar effects and caused earlier maturity. Lint yield was reduced significantly by moisture stress during each of the periods but tensile strength of lint was not affected. Three irrigations, if properly timed so that no appreciable moisture stress occurred, were sufficient for high yields and good quality of lint, and the first could be postponed until after flowering began without any loss in yield.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , July 1971 , pp. 213 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, F., Veihmeyer, F. J. & Brown, L. N. (1942). Bull. Calif. agric. Exp. Stn 668.Google Scholar
Amemiya, M., Namken, L. N. & Gerard, C. J. (1963). Agron. J. 55, 376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bielorai, H. & Shimshi, D. (1963). Israel J. agric. Res. 13, 55.Google Scholar
Bruce, R. R. & Romkens, M. J. M. (1965). Agron. J. 57, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, R. R. & Shipp, C. D. (1962). Agron. J. 54, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christidis, B. G. & Harrison, G. J. (1955). Cotton Crowing Problems. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J., Stanberry, C. O. & Wooton, W. M. (1956). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 20, 246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, K. & Hawkins, R. S. (1942). Bull. Ariz. agric. Exp. Stn 181.Google Scholar
Levin, I. & Shmueli, E. (1964). Israel J. agric. Res. 14, 211.Google Scholar
Marani, A. & Horwitz, M. (1963). Agron. J. 55, 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockton, J. R., Carreker, J. R. & Hoover, M. (1967). Irrigation of Agricultural Lands. Madison, Wisc.: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Thornton, J. F. (1961). Trans. Am. Soc. agric. Engnr. 4, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar