Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T09:12:05.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The growth and performance of cotton in a desert environment: II. Dry matter production

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, water and spacing were treatments in two experiments with cotton in 1963 and 1964 in which fruiting points, flowers and bolls were counted and the dry weights and leaf areas of plants were measured at intervals during the season.

Until leaf-area index, L, started to decrease, the equation described how dry weight, W, changed. The equation gave smoothed estimates of crop growth rate, C, which were consistent with estimates of photosynthesis made with de Wit's (1965) model. The relationship between G and L conformed to , derived from Beer's Law, rather than C = aL — bL2 derived from the linear regression of E on L. When L > 3 the crop appeared to use most of the available light, so that C approached a maximum. Treatments initially affected dry-matter production through the numbers and types of branches and nodes, which in turn affected the sinks available and thus the proportion of dry matter reinvested in new leaf. This initial period, when growth was simple to describe in conventional terms, was denned as the vegetative phase of growth.

The start of the reproductive phase of growth overlapped the vegetative phase. The change from one to the other was completed when the rate of dry weight increase of the bolls, CB, equalled C. This indicated that the sink formed by the bolls had increased sufficiently in size to use all the assimilates available for growth. Sink size increased as the crop flowered and was estimated from the product of the number of bolls and the growth rate of a single boll.

When CB equalled C, bolls were shed which prevented the size of the sink to increase beyond the ability of the plant to supply it with assimilates. This agrees with Mason's nutritional theory of boll shedding. Because of the crop's morphology and because age decreased the photosynthesis of the crop, the size of the sink inevitably increased out of phase with the supply of assimilates. The extent to which this was so determined when CB equalled C. It is postulated that environment, genotype and agronomic practice affect yield according to whether they increase or decrease the extent to which the sink size and the supply of assimilates are out of phase.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , August 1969 , pp. 75 - 86
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

Anthony, K. R. M. (1962). In Prog. Rep. Exp. Slas., Emp. Gott. Grow. Corp. Aden Protectorate 1961–62, 10–11.Google Scholar
Baker, D. N. & Meyer, R. E. (1966). Influence of stand geometry on light interception and net photosynthesis on cotton. Crop Sci. 6, 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, H. B. & Ware, J. O. (1958). Cotton, 3rd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc.Google Scholar
Brown, K. J. (1968). Translocation of carbohydrate in cotton: movement to the fruiting bodies. Ann. Bot. N.S. 32, 703–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, F. (1934). Studies in growth analysis of the cotton plant under irrigation in the Sudan. I. The effect of different combinations of nitrogen applications and water supply. Ann. Sot. 48, 877–913.Google Scholar
Dunlap, A. A. (1945). Fruiting and shedding of cotton in relation to light and other limiting factors. Bull. Tex. Agric. Exp. Sta. No. 677.Google Scholar
El-Sharkawy, M., Hesketh, J. & Muramoto, H. (1965). Leaf photosynthetic rates and other growth characteristics among 27 species of Oossypium. Crop Sci. 5, 173–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, F. M. (1931). Root development as related to character of growth and fruitfulness of the cotton plant. J. agric. Res. 43, 875–83.Google Scholar
Eaton, F. M. & Ergle, D. R. (1952). Fibre properties and carbohydrate and nitrogen levels as influenced by moisture supply and fruitfulness. Pl. Physiol. 27, 541–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eaton, F. M. & Joham, H. E. (1944). Sugar movement to roots, mineral uptake and the growth cycle of the cotton plant. Pl. Physiol. 19, 507–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evenson, J. P. (1960). Intraseasonal variation in boll characters in African Upland cotton. Emp. Cott. Or. Rev. 37, 161–77.Google Scholar
Farbrother, H. G. (1952). In Prog. Rep. Exp. Stas, Uganda, 1951–1952, p. 11. Empire Cotton Growing Corporation.Google Scholar
Hearn, A. B. (1969). Growth and performance of cotton in a desert environment. I. Morphological development. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 73, 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, O. V. S. (1937). Growth in height and weight of cotton plants under field conditions. Ann. Bot. N.S. 1, 514–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkinson, J. M. (1964). Studies in the expansion of the leaf surface. IV. The carbon and phosphate economy of a leaf. J. exp. Bot. 15, 125–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, J., Manning, H. L. & Farbrother, H. G. (1958). Crop water requirements of cotton. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 51, 177–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J. E. (1963). The relationship of relative leaf growth rate to net assimilation rate and its relevance to the physiological analysis of plant yield. Nature, Land. 200, 909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jewiss, O. R. & Woledge, J. (1967). The effect of age on the rate of apparent photosynthesis in leaves of tall Fescuse (Festuca arundinacea Schneb) Ann. Bot. N.S. 31, 661–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, E. R. (1962). Interrelations of vegetative and reproductive growth, with special reference to indeterminate plants. Bot. Rev. 28, 353–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, L. J., Saeki, T. V. & Evans, L. J. (1965). Photosynthesis in artificial communities of cotton plants in relation to leaf area. 1. Experiments with progressive defoliation of mature plants. Alist. J. biol. Sci. 18, 1103–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, T. G. (1922). Growth and abscission in Sea Island Cotton. Ann. Bot. 36, 457–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1965). Radiation and crops. Expl Agric. 1, 241–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, D. A. (1965). Photosynthesis by the capsule wall and bracteoles of the cotton plant. Emp. Cott. Or. Rev. 42, 49–51.Google Scholar
Portsmouth, G. B. (1937). Variations in the leaves of cotton plants grown under irrigation in the Sudan Gezira. Ann. Bot. N.S. 2, 277–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijks, D. A. (1965). The use of water by cotton crops in Abyan, South Arabia. J. appl. Ecol. 2, 317–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saeki, T. (1963). In Environmental Control of Plant Growth (ed. Evans, L.T.), pp. 79–94. New York: Academic Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, G. (1960). Variations with age in net assimilation rate and other growth attributes of sugar-beet, potato and barley in a controlled evironmont. Ann. Bot. N.S. 24, 356–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, G. (1963). Varietal differences in photosynthesis of ears and leaves of barley. Ann. Bot. N.S. 27, 155–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1952). Physiological basis of variations in yield. Adv. Agron. 4, 101–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1958). The dependence of not assimilation rate on leaf area index. Ann Bot. N.S. 22, 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wit, C. T. De (1965). Photosynthesis of leaf canopies. Versl. Landbouwk. Onderz. No. 663.Google Scholar