Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T05:32:48.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The growth and performance of rain-grown cotton in a tropical upland environment: I. Yields, water relations and crop growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

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

Summary

The effects of environment and genotype on growth and yield of cotton were studied in three experiments done at Namulonge, Uganda, from 1966 to 1969. Treatments were date of sowing, variety, fertilizer, plant population and water. Variety BPA66 sown in June at 4–10 plants m-2 outyielded other varieties, sowing dates and population densities. Compound fertilizer at l.25 t ha-1 increased yield by 15% and irrigation increased yield by 38%. The soil water deficit (CSWD) was calculated from meteorological data, and the relative water content (RWC) of the plants was measured. CSWD did not affect growth until a critical value (CD) was reached, which increased from 20 to 50 mm as the crop aged. When CD was reached RWC was s0·094 at dawn and 0·83 at 1400 h. Growth stopped when CSWD > CD, except while any rain, insufficient to make CSWD < CD, was being consumed. Days while such rain was being consumed and days when CSWD < CD were added to give the effective numbers of growing days which accounted for differences in numbers of mainstem nodes caused by sowing date and spacing, and for differences in plant dry weight and leaf area caused by sowing date. Variation in light transmitted by the crop canopy depended on leaf area index (L) alone; spacing, fertilizer and CSWD had no independent effects. The measured extinction coefficient was 1.1 compared with 0·9 predicted by de Wit's (1965) model. Measured value of crop growth rate (C) agreed with values predicted by the de Wit model for the vegetative phase. Spacing and fertilizer only affected C through L. During the reproductive phase C became much less dependent on L, and the form of the relationship changed. Some varieties including BPA66 had a greater net assimilation rate. Maximum C was expected when L ~ 3, but L was seldom > 2. Crops sown at current and previously recommended spacings had sparse canopies and did not fully use light available for dry matter production.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , August 1972 , pp. 121 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

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

Anderson, M. C. (1964). Light relations of terrestial plant communities and their measurement. Biol. Rev. 39, 425–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, M. H. (1968). Prog. Rep. Exp. Stns Colt. Res. Corp. Uganda. 1966–7 et seq.Google Scholar
Arnold, M. H. (1970a). Prog. Rep. Exp. Stns Cott. Res. Corp. Uganda, 1968–70, 7–9.Google Scholar
Arnold, M. H. (1970b). In Agriculture in Uganda, ed. Tothill, J. D.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, M. H., Costelloe, B. E. & Church, J. M. F. (1968). BPA and Satu, Uganda's two new cotton varieties. Cott. Grow. Rev. 45, 162–74.Google Scholar
Baker, D. N. & Hesketh, J. D. (1969). Respiration and the carbon balance in cotton (Qossypium hirsutum L.). Proc. 23rd Cott. Defoliation and Physiology Conf., Beltwide Cotton Production Research Conferences, pp. 60–64.Google Scholar
Cowan, I. R. (1965). Transport of water in the soilplant-atmosphere system. J. appl. Ecol. 2, 221—39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crafts, A. S. (1968). Water deficits and physiological processes. In Water Deficits and Plant Growth (ed. Kozlowski, T. T.), vol. II, pp. 85–133. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dale, J. E. (1961). The effects of hour of day, solar radiation, temperature and leaf water-content on stomatal behaviour. Ann. Bot. N.S. 25., 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farbrother, H. G. (1952 et seq.). Prog. Rep. Exp. Stns Cott. Res. Corp. Uganda, 1951–2 to 1955–6.Google Scholar
Farbrother, H. G. (1957). On an electrical resistance technique for the study of soil moisture problems in the field. Cott. Grow. Rev. 34, 71–89.Google Scholar
Gates, C. T. (1968). In Water Deficits and Plant Growth (ed. Kozlowski, T. T.), vol. II, pp. 135–190. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hearn, A. B. (1969a). The growth and performance of cotton in a desert environment. I. Morphological development of the crop. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 73, 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hearn, A. B. (1969b). The growth and performance of cotton in a desert environment. II. Dry matter production. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 73, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hearn, A. B. (1969c). The growth and performance of cotton in a desert environment. III. Crop performance. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 73, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hearn, A. B. (1969d). Prog. Rep. Exp. Stns Cott. Res. Corp. Uganda, 1968–9, pp. 41–3.Google Scholar
Hearn, A. B. (1970). Prog. Rep. Exp. Stns Cott. Res. Corp. Uganda, 1969–70, pp. 36–40.Google Scholar
Hearn, A. B. (1972a). Cotton spacing experiments in Uganda. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 78, 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hearn, A. B. (1972b). Growth and performance of raingrown cotton in a tropical upland environment. II. The relationship between growth and yield. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 79, 137–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, A. P. & Freeman, P. R. (1967). Growth analysis using frequent small harvests. J. appl. Ecol. 4, 553–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SirHutchinson, J., Manning, H. L. & Farbrother, H. G. (1958). Crop water requirements of cotton. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 51, 177–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, P. A. (1964). Some effects of artificial shading on the growth of upland cotton seedlings. Cott. Grow. Rev. 41, 100–11.Google Scholar
Jones, E. (1968). Prog. Rep. Exp. Stns Colt. Res. Corp. Uganda, 1966–7, pp. 40–1 et seq.Google Scholar
Ludwig, L. J., Saeki, T. V. & Evans, L. T. (1965). Photosynthesis in artificial communities of cotton plants in relation to leaf area. 1. Experiments with progressive defoliation of mature plants. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 18, 1103–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namken, L. N. (1964). The influence of crop environment on the internal water balance of cotton. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 28, 12–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namken, L. N. (1965). Relative turgidity technique for scheduling cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) irrigation. Agron. J. 57, 38–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penman, H. L. (1970). Woburn irrigation. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 75, 69–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijks, D. A. (1964). Prog. Rep. Exp. Stns Cott. Res. Corp. Uganda, 1962–3.Google Scholar
Rijks, D. A. (1967). Optimum sowing date for yield; a review of work in the BP52 cotton area of Uganda. Cott. Grow. Rev. 44, 247–52.Google Scholar
Saeki, T. V. (1963). In Environmental Control of Plant Growth (ed. Evans, L. T.), pp. 79–94. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slatyer, R. O. (1955). Studies of the water relations of crop plants grown under natural rainfall in northern Australia. Aust. J. agric. Res. 6, 365–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slatyer, R. O. (1957). The influence of progressive increases in total soil moisture stress on transpiration, growth, and internal water relationships of plants. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 10, 320–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slatyer, R. O. (1967). Plant-Water Relationships. New York: Academic press.Google Scholar
Stern, W. R. (1965). The seasonal growth characteristics of irrigated cotton in a dry monsoonal environment. Aust. J. agric. Res. 16, 347–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, C. B. (1967). Measurement of evapotranspiration. In Irrigation of Agricultural Lands (ed. Hagan, R. M., Haise, H. R. and Edminster, T. W.), pp. 534–74. Madison, Wis., U.S.A. American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Troughton, J. H. (1969). Plant water status and carbon dioxide exchange of cotton leaves. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 22, 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vernon, A. J. & Allison, J. C. S. (1963). A method of calculating net assimilation ratio. Nature, Lond. 200, 814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherley, P. E. (1951). Studies in the water relations of the cotton plant. II. Diurnal and seasonal fluctuations and environmental factors. New Phytol. 50, 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wit, C. T. De (1965). Photosynthesis of leaf canopies. Versl. landbouwh. Onderz. no. 663.Google Scholar