Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T19:13:46.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of fallow hoeing on cotton yields in rotations in the Sudan Gezira

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. Ferguson ,
A. Y. Kordofani  and
P. Roberts
H. Ferguson
Affiliation:
Research Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Wad Medani, Sudan
A. Y. Kordofani
Affiliation:
Research Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Wad Medani, Sudan
P. Roberts
Affiliation:
Research Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Wad Medani, Sudan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The average yields of irrigated long-staple cotton in the three-course rotations: dura, fallow, cotton, D-F-C; lubia, fallow, cotton, L-F-C; and fallow, fallow, cotton, F-F-C, were studied over 12 years in an experiment in the Sudan Gezira; the fallows (resting land) were either hoed or were left uncultivated during the rainy season, so that the effects of the operation of hoeing on the subsequent cotton yields could be measured.

Where the fallows were unhoed L-F-C yielded more cotton than F-F-C, which gave at first higher yields than D-F-C, although this difference had disappeared by the end of the period. Fallow hoeing increased yields in all rotations; this response was maintained in D-F-C and L-F-C. In F-F-C the response to hoeing either fallow diminished steadily in time and whilst the higher response to hoeing both fallows also decreased, its rate of decrease was no greater than when only one fallow was hoed. The response to hoeing fluctuated considerably from year to year. In all rotations these fluctuations were associated with rainfall and the relationships have been expressed in the form of regression equations; separate equations were necessary for each rotation as the relationships were quite distinct.

The variety X1730 A out-yielded Domains Sakel. There were interactions between the varieties and the other treatments, but these interactions were such that the varieties differed more at higher levels of yield and did not modify the above conclusions appreciably.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , October 1960 , pp. 143 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

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

Cochran, W. G. (1939). J.R. Statist. Soc. (Suppl.), 6, 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, F. (1943). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 11, 1.Google Scholar
Crowther, F. (1948). Agriculture in the Sudan, ed. Tothill, J. D., Ch. xx. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crowther, F. & Cochran, W. G. (1942). J. Agric. Sci. 32, 390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, H. (1952). World Crops, 4, nos. 1, 2 and 3.Google Scholar
Ferguson, H. (1953). Emp. Cot. Gr. Rev. 30, no. 4.Google Scholar
Jewitt, T. N. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 47, 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, R. J. V. (1958). Nature, Lond., 182, 1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D. (1953). J. Agric. Sci. 43, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar