Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-vrt8f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T04:21:17.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and performance of cotton in a desert environment: I. Morphological development of the crop

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. B. Hearn
A. B. Hearn
Affiliation:
Cotton Research Corporation, Cotton Research Station, Namulonge, P.O. Box 7084, Kampala, Uganda
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Variety, sowing date, irrigation water and plant spacing were the variables in five experiments over three seasons in southern Arabia. The results are used to develop the idea that morphological change and increase in dry weight—two aspects of the growth of cotton which are often studied separately—must be linked to explain or predict crop performance.

A straight line related the number of flower buds counted at any time to the number of mainstem nodes on a plant. The mainstem was therefore a simple parameter for the effect of age, temperature and water on the development of plant structure. The relationship was explained by a model in which fruiting branches compete with one another. The structure of the crop plants, as measured by the types and number of nodes, developed along a course in time determined by variety and spacing at a rate dependent on temperature. The rate decreased with age, but was independent of the quantity of water available, until a critical amount had been used, when development stopped abruptly.

Accumulated day degrees accounted for the differences between dates of sowing in the subsequent production of nodes. This relationship was consistent with work on temperature elsewhere. Date of sowing effected the position of the first fruiting branch in the variety Bar XL 1 but not in Wild's Early. The position of the first fruiting branch and spacing affected the number of vegetative branches. Wider spaced plants produced flower buds faster only because they had more fruiting branches, a result in turn of more vegetative branches. The ratio between the mean rates of production of nodes on vegetative branches, and on fruiting branches were varietal constants and agreed with results elsewhere in contrasting conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , August 1969 , pp. 65 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

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

Amin, J. V. & Powell, B. D. (1966). Low temperature damage in cotton. Proc. XXth Cott. Defoliation and Physiology Conf. p. 260.Google Scholar
Anon. (1965). Abyan Board General Manager's Report for the year ended 30 Sept. 1965. Abyan Board, Giar, South Arabia.Google Scholar
Anthony, K. B. M., Ogborn, J. E. A. & Proctor, J. H. (1961). Factors affecting cotton yield in the Aden Protectorate. Emp. Cott. Or. Rev. 38, 161–71.Google Scholar
Bailey, M. A. & Trought, T. (1925). The development of the Egyptian cotton plant. Bull. Minist. Agric. Egypt tech. scient. Serv. no. 60.Google Scholar
Balls, L. (1912). The Cotton Plant in Egypt. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Brettell, J. H. (1966). Eleven years' work in Abyan (South Arabia) by Entomologists of the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation. Emp. Cott. Gr. Rev. 43, 286–305.Google Scholar
Buie, T. S. (1929). The fruiting habit of the cotton plant. Bull. S. Carol. Agric. Emp. Stn. p. 261.Google Scholar
Crowther, F. (1944). Studies in growth analysis of the cotton plant under irrigation in the Sudan. III. A comparison of plant development in the Sudan Gezira and in Egypt. Ann. Bot. N.S. 8, 213–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farbrother, H. G. (1961). In Prog. Rep. Exp. Stns Emp. Cott. Grow. Corp., Uganda, 1960–1, pp. 26–31.Google Scholar
Farbrother, H. G. (1962). Crop water use studies at El Kod. Unpublished report, Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, London.Google Scholar
McClellan, C. K. & Neely, J. W. (1931). The order rate and regularity of blooming in the cotton plant. J. agric. Res. 42, 751–63.Google Scholar
McCloud, D. E., Bula, R. L. & Show, R. H. (1964). Field crop physiology. Adv. Agron. 16, 1–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, H. C., Hubbard, J. W. & Becket, R. E. (1927). Growth and development of cotton plants at Greenville, Texas. Circ. U.S. Dep. Agric. No. 401.Google Scholar
Mauney, J. R. & Phillips, L. L. (1963). Influence of day length and night temperature on flowering of Gossypium. Bot. Gaz. 124, 278–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauney, J. R. (1966). Floral initiation of Upland cotton Gossypium hirsutum L. in response to temperature. J. exp. Bot. 17, 452–9.Google Scholar
Rijks, D. A. (1965). The use of water by cotton crops in Abyan, South Arabia. J. appl. Ecol. 2, 317–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, W. R. (1965). The seasonal growth characteristics of irrigated cotton in a dry monsoonal environment. Aust. J. agric. Res. 16, 347–66.Google Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1952). The physiological basis of variation in yield. Adv. Agron. 4, 101–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar