Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T01:57:22.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EVALUATION OF TRANSPLANTING BT COTTON IN A COTTON–WHEAT CROPPING SYSTEM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2016

MUHAMMAD ASGHAR SHAH ,
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ  and
MUBSHAR HUSSAIN
MUHAMMAD ASGHAR SHAH
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan The UWA Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, LB 5005 Perth, WA 6001, Australia College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
MUBSHAR HUSSAIN
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan
*
††Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Cotton–wheat is an important cropping system in South Asia. Introduction of BT cotton has caused the time conflict between sowing of BT cotton and wheat harvest in this cropping system. Wheat is harvested in late April but the best planting time of BT cotton is mid-March, which indicates a time conflict of 30–45 days between two crops in the region. However, this conflict can be managed by raising the cotton nursery and transplanting 30–45 days old seedlings in the field after wheat harvest. This two years field study was conducted to assess the economic feasibility of transplanting BT cotton in BT cotton–wheat cropping system at two locations (Multan, Vehari) in the cotton belt of Punjab, Pakistan. The BT cotton–wheat cropping systems included in the study were; flat sown wheat (FSW) – zero-tilled cotton (ZTC), FSW – conventional-tilled cotton (CTC), ridge sown wheat (RSW) – ridge-transplanted cotton (RTC) (30 days old seedlings), RSW – RTC (45 days old seedlings), bed sown wheat (BSW) – bed-transplanted cotton (BTC) (30 days old seedlings) and BSW – BTC (45 days old seedlings). BSW produced more grain yield than RSW and FSW during both years at both locations. Likewise, BTC (45 days old seedlings) had higher production at both sites during both years. The overall productivity of BT cotton–wheat, in terms of net income, benefit: cost ratio and marginal rate of returns, was the maximum from transplanting 45 days old cotton seedlings on beds after BSW during both years at both sites. Sowing cotton as ZTC following FSW was the least productive cropping system. In conclusion, transplanting 45 days seedlings of BT cotton on beds during late April after harvest of BSW wheat may be opted to manage the time conflict and improve the productivity of BT cotton–wheat cropping system in Punjab, Pakistan.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 227 - 241
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Abro, G. H., Syed, T. S., Tnuio, G. M. and Khuro, M. A. (2004). Performance of transgenic Bt. cotton against insect pest infestation. Biotechnology 3:5–81.Google Scholar
Anwar, M. M., Gill, M. I. and Zaki, M.S. (2003). Effect of bed-furrow planting on cotton crop. The Pakistan Cottons 47:41–46.Google Scholar
Bange, M. P. and Milroy, S. P. (2001). Timing of crop maturity in cotton: Impact of dry matter production and partitioning. Field Crops Research 2:143–155.Google Scholar
Braim, M. A., Chaney, K. and Hodgson, D. R. (1992). Effect of simplified cultivation on the growth and yield of the spring barley on sandy loam soil. 2: Soil physical properties and root-growth, root–shoot relationships, inflow rates of nitrogen and water-use. Soil and Tillage Research 22:173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CIMMYT. (1988). From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics Training Manual, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Mexico, DF.Google Scholar
Das, T. K., Bhattacharyya, R., Sudhishri, S., Sharma, A. R., Saharawat, Y. S., Bandyopadhyay, K. K., Sepat, S., Bana, R.S., Aggarwal, P., Sharma, R. K., Bhatia, A., Singh, G., Datta, S. P., Kar, A., Singh, B., Singh, P., Pathak, H., Vyas, A. K. and Jat, M. L. (2014). Conservation agriculture in an irrigated cotton–wheat system of the western Indo-Gangetic Plains: Crop and water productivity and economic profitability. Field Crops Research 158:24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farooq, M., Flower, K., Jabran, K., Wahid, A. and Siddique, K. H. M. (2011). Crop yield and weed management in rainfed conservation agriculture. Soil and Tillage Research 117:172–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farooq, M. and Nawaz, A. (2014). Weed dynamics and productivity of wheat in conventional and conservation rice-based cropping systems. Soil and Tillage Research 141:1–9 Google Scholar
Farooq, M. and Siddique, K. H. M. (2015). Conservation Agriculture. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, P. R. and Gupta, R. K. (2003). Resource conserving technologies for wheat in the rice-wheat system. In Improving Productivity and Sustainability of Rice-Wheat Systems: Issues and Impact, 149–172 (Eds Ladha, J. K., Fischer, K. S., Hossain, M., Hobbs, P. R. and Hardy, B.). Maidson, Wis, USA: ASA Special Publication No. 65. American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Jahromi, A. M. and Mahboubi, M. (2012). Evaluate the cotton transplantation and its impact on yield performance components in saline lands. Advances in Environmental Biology 6:1304–1306.Google Scholar
Javed, M. I., Sultan, A. A., Hassan, S. and Asghar, A. (2009). An efficiency analysis of Punjab's cotton-wheat system. Lahore Journal of Economics 14:97–124.Google Scholar
Kaspar, T. C., Radke, J. K. and Laflen, J. M. (2001). Small grain cover crops and wheel traffic effects on infiltration, runoff, and erosion. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 56:160–164.Google Scholar
Khan, M. B., Yousaf, F., Hussain, M., Haq, M. W., Lee, D.-J. and Farooq, M. (2012). Influence of planting methods on root development, crop productivity and water use efficiency in maize hybrids. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 72:556–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, R., Aggarwal, S. K. and Nanwal, R. K. (2007). Effect of planting systems, seed rates and nitrogen levels on bread wheat (Triticum aestivum). The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 77:669–671.Google Scholar
Men, X., Ge, F., Liu, X. and Yardin, E. N. (2003). Diversity of arthropod communities in transgenic Bt. and non-transgenic cotton agro-ecosystems. Environmental Entomology 32:270–275.Google Scholar
Qin, R., Stamp, P. and Richner, W. (2006). Impact of tillage on maize rooting in a Cambisol and Luvisol in Switzerland. Soil and Tillage Research 85:50–61.Google Scholar
Quanqi, L., Chen, Y., Liu, M., Xunbo, Z., Yu, S. and Dong, B. (2008). Effects of irrigation and planting patterns radiation use efficiency and yield of winter wheat in North China. Agricultural Water Management 95:469–476.Google Scholar
Rajakumar, D., Gurumurthy, S., Pandian, B. J. and Thiyagarajan, G. (2010). Population dynamics and nutrient spray on the yield and economics of direct sown and transplanted hybrid cotton. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 44:206–210.Google Scholar
Reeves, D. W. (1997). The role of soil organic matter in maintaining soil quality in continuous cropping systems. Soil and Tillage Research 43:131–167.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D, Torrie, J. H. and Dicky, D. A. (1997). Principles and Procedures of Statistics: a Biometrical Approach, 3rd edn. 352–358. New York, USA: McGraw Hill, Inc. Book Co.Google Scholar
Sun, Z. D. and Wang, M. J. (1996). Effect on cotton boll setting and yield by transplanting with pot and by film-mulching. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis 8:141–145.Google Scholar
Zhu, X. H. and Gao, Q. (1993). Synthetic evaluation of fruit sites and branching in cotton sown or transplanted after wheat harvest. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University 16:6–10.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Shah supplementary material

Tables S1-S3

Download Shah supplementary material(File)
File 20 KB