Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-03T06:33:19.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yield and Plant Development of Reduced Cotton Stands in Malawi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

G. A. Matthews ,
J. G. Rowell  and
P. Beeden
G. A. Matthews
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council of Malawi, Makoka Research Station, Thondwe, Malawi
J. G. Rowell
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council of Malawi, Makoka Research Station, Thondwe, Malawi
P. Beeden
Affiliation:
Chikwawa Cotton Development Project, Malawi Government
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Yield response to a range of plant densities (0·7–7·2 plants m.−2) achieved by uprooting plants at random was curvilinear, with an optimum plant density of 3·3 plants m.−2 at which fertilizer increased the yield at Makoka by over 1000 kg. ha.−1 to 2227 kg. ha.−1. There was no interaction between fertilizer and plant density. At Ngabu there was no response to fertilizer. Top dressing was effective on unfertilized cotton at Makoka, but filling in was ineffective at both sites. A method of partitioning components of yield is described which illustrates the stages of plant development which benefitted or were adversely affected by the different agronomic practices.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 1972 , pp. 33 - 48
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

REFERENCES

Brown, P. (1967). A. Rep. Dept. Agric. 1963–4. Part II. Gov. Printer, Zomba, Malawi.Google Scholar
Burton, J. (1963). Gatooma Research Station, A. Rep. 1962–3—cyclostyled report.Google Scholar
Emerson, P. L. (1968). Biometrics 24, 695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hearn, A. B. (1969). J. agric. Sci. 73, 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesketh, J. D. & Low, A. (1968). Cott. Gr. Rev. 45, 243.Google Scholar
MacDonald, D., Fielding, W. L. & Ruston, D. F. (1947). J. agric. Sci. 37, 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, G. A. (1970). A. Rep. Agric. Res. Council Malawi, 1969.Google Scholar
Matthews, G. A. & Beeden, P. (in press).Google Scholar
Matthews, G. A. & Tunstall, J. P. (1967). Cott. Gr. Rev. 44, 269.Google Scholar
Matthews, G. A. & Tunstall, J. P. (1968). Cott. Gr. Rev. 45, 115.Google Scholar
Munro, J. M. & Farbrother, H. G. (1969). Cott. Gr. Rev. 46, 261.Google Scholar
Rowell, J. G. (1971). Components of Yield. Biometrics Bull. 4 (mimeoed) Agric. Res. Council Malawi.Google Scholar
Tunstall, J. P. & Matthews, G. A. (1966). Cott. Gr. Rev. 43, 121.Google Scholar