Effects of Fruit Load, Temperature, and Relative Humidity on Boll Retention of Cotton<sup>1</sup>

Ehlig, C. F.; LeMert, R. D.

doi:10.2135/cropsci1973.0011183x001300020006x

Cited by 39 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Boll retention is complex and can be affected by many interacting factors such as genetics, physiology, nutrition, water stress, temperature, competition for photosynthates, insects or a combination of any of these [3] [13] [14] [15] [16]. These same factors can also affect boll weight.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Plant Density on Boll Retention and Yield of Cotton in the Mid-South

McCarty¹,

Jenkins²,

Hayes³

et al. 2017

AJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) plants being grown per unit of land area has gained attention due to the technology fees associated with seed containing value added traits. We investigated boll retention, yield, and yield components of cotton grown with reduced stands of 20% to 40% from the uniform planting pattern of four seeds per 30.5 cm of row. Five field experiments were conducted from 2012-2014 using eight treatments arranged in a randomized complete design with six replications. Yield and yield component data were collected. The plant one-row skip one-row treatment resulted in significant yield losses across all five experiments compared to the uniform planting pattern. Treatments with 20% stand reductions did not result in lower total yields; however, each plant in these treatments had to produce two additional bolls to maintain yield. Treatments which had at least 61 cm skips, 40% stand reduction, resulted in lower yields. Treatments had minor affects on boll weight, and lint percentage. The uniform planting pattern produced 67% of its yield from position one bolls compared to about 50% for treatments with reduced stands. Reduced stand treatments produced about 20% of their yield on monopodial branches compared to 10% for the uniform treatment. With modern precision planting equipments, opportunities exist to reduce seed rate and maintain yield; however, many production risk factors must also be considered before a reduced seeding rate is adopted.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Plant Density on Boll Retention and Yield of Cotton in the Mid-South

McCarty¹,

Jenkins²,

Hayes³

et al. 2017

AJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One possibility for the contradictions of our regional study with that of the work conducted by Bourland et al (1992) is that our study included diverse regions throughout the U.S. Cotton Belt, while their study was conducted only in Arkansas and may not have had much diversity in environmental factors. Environmental factors such as soil type, drought, temperature fluctuations, cloudy weather, insects, and disease affect boll number, boll load, boll distribution patterns, earliness, and cutout timing (Jost and Cothren, 2000; Ehlig and Lemert, 1973; Tharp, 1960). Bourland et al (2001) analyzed a series of experiments including the stresses of varying levels of thrips, different nitrogen rates on three cultivars, and cultivar yield evaluation with three Arkansas locations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More recently, cutout has been defined by the flowering of the LEBP (Bourland et al, 1992). Fruit load has been shown to be the primary factor determining the initiation of cutout during a season (Ehlig and Lemert, 1973). Cutout as a distinct physiological stage is often difficult to determine because of the time required to adequately assess boll number and flowering rate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Ultranarrow Row and Conventional Row Cotton on the Last Effective Boll Population

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Th e last eff ective boll population (LEBP) is the basis for many cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) management decisions such as defoliation timing. Th e objective of this research was to determine the last eff ective boll population based on fi rst position bolls for both ultranarrow row cotton (UNRC), grown in rows spaced 25 cm or less, and conventional cotton (CONC) grown in rows spaced 96 to 102 cm. Experimental sites included locations in North Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas. At each site, UNRC and CONC plots were planted in a RCB design. At fi rst fl ower, 15 plants per plot were fl agged for subsequent fl ower tagging. On each fl agged plant, all fi rst position fl owers were tagged every 2 d throughout the reproductive stage with date and nodes above white fl ower (NAWF) data for each plant. Tagged bolls were handpicked, sorted, counted, and seedcotton was weighed and recorded by NAWF for each plot. Th e last eff ective boll population was considered that NAWF position where cotton could be economically produced. Cotton could be produced economically at NAWF 2 and 3 for UNRC and CONC, respectively. Lint yield did not diff er signifi cantly between UNRC and CONC across site-years. Th e UNRC produced the majority of seedcotton on NAWF 3 to 5, while CONC produced the most seedcotton at NAWF 4 to 6. Boll numbers showed a similar pattern. Th ese data demonstrate that physiological cutout occurred at NAWF <5 in both UNRC and CONC.R.P. Viator, USDA-ARS-SRRC, Sugarcane Res. Lab.,

show abstract

“…Flower production was not significant when added as a covariate in the analysis of variance of boll number presented in Table 3. These relationships presumably reflect the negative feedback between boll load and flower retention (6,9,21).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are strong indications that the negative feedback of boll load on fruiting dynamics is fundamental to the compensation mechamism (6,24). Thus there is reason to expect an interaction between water stress and fruit loss in their effect on fruiting dynamics, and the demonstration of such an interaction may have important management implications.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservative Response and Stress‐Damage Interactions in Cotton Reproductive Development

Ungar¹,

Kletter

Genizi

1992

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing costs of inputs in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) have highlighted the need for more sophisticated within‐season management of the crop. The objective of this study was to investigate the interaction between the timing of water stress and simulated pest damage in their effects on cotton yield and yield components. A field experiment was repeated throughout 5 yr on a Gan Shmuel vertisol (clayey, montmorillonitic, calcareous, thermic Typic Chromoxerert). Treatments comprised a control [post‐emergence irrigations at first flower (f), f+23, and f+38 d]; a delay in this sequence from the first (f+ 8, f+ 33, and f+ 47 d), second (f, f+ 32, and f+ 46 d), or third irrigation (f,f+23, and f+48 d); four irrigations (f−9,f+ 12,f+ 27, and f+ 40 d); and severe mid‐season stress (f−10, f+ 23, and f+38 d). Total irrigation amount was constant. The dates of the six irrigation schedules were repeated with pest damage simulated by the early removal of 120 floral buds meter−2. There was a significant stress‐damage interaction in flower, boll, and fiber production. In comparison with the undamaged control, boll production was reduced by damage alone and by stress alone. All stress‐damage combinations, however, restored boll production to the control level. Only severe mid‐season stress without damage, reduced seed cotton yield. Treatment effects were detected despite an underlying conservatism in crop response, whereby flower retention was inversely related to flower production. This resulted in low variability of boll number. The effect of boll number on yield was in turn buffered by boll weight. Consequently, irrigation scheduling and the control of pests that damage fruiting bodies cannot be optimized independently.

show abstract

Effects of Fruit Load, Temperature, and Relative Humidity on Boll Retention of Cotton¹

Cited by 39 publications

References 0 publications

Effects of Plant Density on Boll Retention and Yield of Cotton in the Mid-South

Effects of Plant Density on Boll Retention and Yield of Cotton in the Mid-South

Influence of Ultranarrow Row and Conventional Row Cotton on the Last Effective Boll Population

Conservative Response and Stress‐Damage Interactions in Cotton Reproductive Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Effects of Fruit Load, Temperature, and Relative Humidity on Boll Retention of Cotton1

Cited by 39 publications

References 0 publications

Effects of Plant Density on Boll Retention and Yield of Cotton in the Mid-South

Effects of Plant Density on Boll Retention and Yield of Cotton in the Mid-South

Influence of Ultranarrow Row and Conventional Row Cotton on the Last Effective Boll Population

Conservative Response and Stress‐Damage Interactions in Cotton Reproductive Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Effects of Fruit Load, Temperature, and Relative Humidity on Boll Retention of Cotton¹