HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gwathmey, C. O. Articles by Larson, J. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Gwathmey, C. O. Articles by Larson, J. A. Agricola Articles by Gwathmey, C. O. Articles by Larson, J. A. Related Collections Weed Management Other Crop Management Other Cropping Systems Cotton Crop Systems

COTTON

Solid and Skip-Row Spacings for Irrigated and Nonirrigated Upland Cotton

^a Dep. of Plant Sci., Univ. of Tennessee, 605 Airways Blvd., Jackson, TN 38301
^b Dep. of Agric. Econ., Univ. of Tennessee, 2621 Morgan Circle Dr., Knoxville, TN 37996

^* Corresponding author (cogwathmey{at}utk.edu).

Producers of upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) are interested in alternative row spacings and planting patterns to improve productivity. We conducted factorial experiments for 3 yr in adjacent irrigated and nonirrigated fields at Milan, TN, of cotton grown in 25-, 76- and 102-cm rows, each planted in a solid and 2 x 1 skip-row pattern. Narrower rows and solid plantings tended to close canopy earlier and more completely, to suppress weed growth, and to mature earlier than in wider rows and skip-row patterns. Incomplete canopy closure in wider skip-row spacings resulted in less weed suppression, but weed growth in skipped rows diminished with narrower row spacing. Skip-row cotton matured later than solid planting, but this effect also diminished with narrower rows. Without irrigation, row spacing and configuration for maximum lint yield depended on growing conditions of the particular year. Under irrigation, however, solid planted 76-cm rows consistently yielded more than either 25- or 102-cm solid or skip-row cotton. With or without irrigation, lint yields were 13 to 15% lower in 102-cm skip-row cotton than in 102-cm solid planting, but yields did not differ between solid and skip-row in narrower rows. Across years and treatments, plant density was the most influential yield component in nonirrigated cotton, but plant density and bolls plant^–1 had similar influence under irrigation. Cotton producers interested in skip-row planting should consider rows spaced 76-cm or less to minimize weed problems and yield loss.

Abbreviations: BG, Bollgard • DAP, days after planting • DP, Deltapine • GLM, General Linear Model • PAR, photosynthetically active radiation • RR, Roundup Ready • SAS, Statistical Analysis System • UNR, ultra-narrow row

All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Received for publication July 9, 2007.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. A. Larson, C. O. Gwathmey, D. F. Mooney, L. E. Steckel, and R. K. Roberts Does Skip-Row Planting Configuration Improve Cotton Net Return? Agron. J., June 2, 2009; 101(4): 738 - 746. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]