News

a.z
Ghajari, A., Gharanjiki, A., Dieji, A. (2016). Optimizing the nitrogen fertilizer use and row spacing for yield increasing of Cotton cv. Golestan in double-cropping. , 4(1), 47-60. doi: 10.22092/ijcr.2017.109249
Abdolghadir Ghajari; Abdolreza Gharanjiki; Ahmad Dieji. "Optimizing the nitrogen fertilizer use and row spacing for yield increasing of Cotton cv. Golestan in double-cropping". , 4, 1, 2016, 47-60. doi: 10.22092/ijcr.2017.109249
Ghajari, A., Gharanjiki, A., Dieji, A. (2016). 'Optimizing the nitrogen fertilizer use and row spacing for yield increasing of Cotton cv. Golestan in double-cropping', , 4(1), pp. 47-60. doi: 10.22092/ijcr.2017.109249
Ghajari, A., Gharanjiki, A., Dieji, A. Optimizing the nitrogen fertilizer use and row spacing for yield increasing of Cotton cv. Golestan in double-cropping. , 2016; 4(1): 47-60. doi: 10.22092/ijcr.2017.109249

Optimizing the nitrogen fertilizer use and row spacing for yield increasing of Cotton cv. Golestan in double-cropping

پژوهش های پنبه ایران
Article 4, Volume 4, Issue 1, February 2017, Pages 47-60    PDF (936.37 K)
Document Type: Research Paper
DOI: 10.22092/ijcr.2017.109249
Authors
Abdolghadir Ghajari* ; Abdolreza Gharanjiki; Ahmad Dieji
Cotton Research Institute of Iran, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Gorgan, Iran
Abstract
A field experiment was performed to studying interaction effect of nitrogen levels and plant row spacing on yield and yield components of cotton vs. Golestan. After canola harvesting, treatments were arranged and planted by split plots in basic randomized complete blocks design with 4 replications. Plots were 4 nitrogen levels including 0, 50, 100 and 150 percent of recommended fertilizers amounts as main plots and 40, 60, 80 and 100 cm plant row spacing as sub plots. Before planting, fertilizer recommending was determined basis of soil testing in 0-30 cm depth. Results showed significantly increasing yield, plant height and vegetative and reproductive branch lengths. Decreasing plant row spacing decreased boll number per plant, plant height, vegetative and reproductive branch lengths and weed density per square meter so that the lowest boll number per plant, plant height, vegetative and reproductive branch lengths and weed density per square meter were obtained 40 cm plant row spacing. This treatment produced the highest total and first picking yield. On yield increasing, boll number per square meter had the more effect than boll number per plant because plant density increasing in area unit reduced boll number per plant, in contrast, plant density increasing in area unit increased boll number in area unit.
Keywords
Yield components; Fertilizer recommendation; Weed density
References
  1. Bednarz, C.W., Shurley, D.W., Anthony, W.S. and Nichols, R.L .2005. Yield, quality, and profitability of cotton produced at varying plant densities. Agron. J. 97:235-240.
  2. Bell, P.F., Boquet, D.J., Millhollon, E., Moore, S., Ebelhar, W., Mitchell, C.C., Varco, J., Funderburg, E.R., Kennedy, C., Breitenbeck, G.A., Craig, C., Holman, M., Baker, W., and Boquet, D.J. 2005. Cotton in ultra-narrow row spacing Plantdensity and nitrogen fertilizer rates.Agron. J. 97: 279–287.
  3. Borgess, M.C., Vendruscolo, E.P. and Cassiano, G.R. 2015. Nitrogen fertilization in narrow row cotton productivity insecond harvest. Jaboticabal, 43: 4.420-426.
  4. Ghorbanpour, E., Ghaderifar, F. and Gherekhloo, J. 2014. Effect of Row Spacing on Competition of Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.) with Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). JCPP. 4(12): 285-294.
  5. Halevy, J. 1976. Growth rate and nutrient uptake of two cotton cultivars grown under irrigation. Agron. J. 68: 701-705.
  6. Heitholt, J.J. 1995. Cotton flowering and boll retention in different planting configuration and leaf shapes. Agron. J. 87: 997-998.
  7. Jones, M.A. and wells, R. 1998. Fiber yield and quality of cotton growth at two divergent populationdensities. Crop Sci. 38:1190-1195.
  8. Jones, M.A. 2001. Evaluation of ultra-narrow row cotton in South Carolina. p. 522-524. in Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Anaheim, CA. 9-13 Jan. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.
  9. Jost, P.H. and Cothren, J.T. 2000. Growth and yield comparison of cotton planted in convevtional and ultra narrow row spacing’s. Crop Sci. 40: 430-435.
  10. Jost, P.H., and Cothren, J.T. 2001. Phenotypic alteration and crop maturity differences in ultra narrow row conventionally paced cotton. Crop Sci. 41: 1150-1159.
  11. Khlilisamany, M., Khjehpor, M., and Ghlavand, A. 1999. The effect of row spacing and planting density on growth and dry weight accumulation in cotton in Isfahan. Iranian J. Agric. Sci. 29:4.
  12. McConnell, J.S., Kirst, Jr, R.C., Glover, R.E. and Benson, R. 2001. Nitrogen fertilization of ultra - narrow row cotton. Arkansas Soil Fertility Studies. University of Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Series. 490:27-29.
  13. McConnell, J.S. 2003. Relationships between leaf-blade nitrogen and relative seed cotton yields. Crop Sci. 43:1367–1374.
  14. Miry, M., Barzali, M., Ghjery, A. and Rezay, J. 2006. Effects of plant density on quantitative &qualitative characteristics of cotton cultivars in double-cropped after rapeseed. MSc thesis, Islamic Azad University of Bojnord.
  15. Morroe, M.R. and Krieg, D.R. 1990. Cotton management strategies for a short, growing, season environment: water– nitrogen considerations. Agro. J. 82: 52-56.
  16. Nichols, S.P., Snipes, C.E. and Jones, M.A. 2004. Cotton growth, lint yield and fiber qualityas affected by rows pacing and cultivar. J. Cotton. Sci. 8: 1-12.
  17. Panjehkoob, A., Galeshi, S., Zeinali, E. and Ghajari, A. 2007. Effect of late sowing dates and Plant density on yield and yield components of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum cv. Siokra). J. Agric. Sci. Nat. Res. 13:2.
  18. Panjehkoob, A., Galeshi, S., Zeinali, E. and Ghajari, A. 2008. Effect of planting date and density on morphological characteristics of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum cv. Siokra). J. Agric. Sci. Nat. Res. 14: 5.
  19. Pettigrew, W.T. 2002. Improved yield potential with an early planting cotton production system. Agro. J. 94: 997-1003.
  20. Rinehardt, J.M., Edmisten, K.L., Wells, R. and Faircloth, J.C. 2003. Response of ultra-narrow and conventional spaced cotton to variable nitrogen rates. J. Plant Nut. 27: 741–753.
  21. Richard, G.P., Cantrell, R.G. and Zhang, J. 2006. Genticvaration for agronomic and fiber properties in anmtrogressed recombinant inbred population of cotton. Crop. Sci. 46:1311-1317.
  22. Siebert, J.D., Alexander, M.S. and Leonard, B.R. 2006. Comparative growth and yield of cotton planted at various densities and configurations. Agron. J. 98: 562-568.
  23. Silvertooth, J.C., Malavolta, E., Yun– hi, L., Momtaz, A. and Singh, M. 1992. Cotton. In: D.J. Halliday et al. (eds). P.P. 457–471. World fertilizer use manual. IFA. Germany.
  24. Silvertooth, J.C., Edmiston, K.L. and McCarty, W.H. 1999. Production practices. In Cotton (a monograph), C.W. Smith and J.T. Cothren, Eds. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 51-488.
  25. Vories, E.D., Valco, T.D., Bryant, K.J. and Glover, R.E. 2001. Three-year comparison of conventional and ultra narrowrow cotton production systems. Appl. Eng. Agric. 17: 583–589.
  26. Weir, B.L. 1996. Narrow row cotton distribution and rationale. Proceedings beltwide cotton conferences. Nashville, Tennessee. U.S.A. 1: 65-66.
Statistics
Article View: 473
PDF Download: 368


counter
Journal management system. designed by sinaweb