Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:34:20.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DRY MATTER ACCUMULATION AND PARTITIONING IN VARIOUS FRACTIONS OF COTTON BOLLS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2013

FEIYU TANG  and
WENJUN XIAO
FEIYU TANG*
Affiliation:
College of Agronomy, Key Laboratory of Crop Physiology, Ecology and Genetic Breeding, Ministry of Education, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China
WENJUN XIAO
Affiliation:
College of Agronomy, Key Laboratory of Crop Physiology, Ecology and Genetic Breeding, Ministry of Education, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China
*
†Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The distribution of dry matter among the fractions of cotton boll (the bur, the fibre and the seed) may have significant impact on fibre biomass per boll, and consequently on lint yield. Little is known on how cotton boll allocates available photosynthetic assimilates to its components. A two-year field study was conducted to ascertain the difference in boll dry matter production and partitioning among three cotton genotypes differing in boll size and lint percentage. The dynamics of dry matter production in all fractions of cotton boll against boll age followed a logistic pattern. The final dry weights of all components were largely due to the duration of dry matter exponential accumulation, and less correlated with the maximal rate of exponential accumulation. Partitioning biomass to the bur differed significantly among these genotypes at 10 days post-anthesis (DPA). The genotypic difference in partitioning biomass to the fibre was originally observed at 24 DPA in 2009, while in 2010, this was observed at 17 DPA. The genotypic difference emerged rather late for the seed ratio compared with the fibre ratio and the bur ratio, which was first observed at 45 DPA in 2009 and at 31 DPA in 2010. These results indicate that management practices may need to be applied to cotton plants prior to 31 DPA to ensure optimal boll size and partitioning. Large boll genotype MM-2 consistently maintained higher seed ratio and lower fibre ratio than two other genotypes (2870 and AX) due to more developing ovules in its boll. These differences contributed to significant difference in lint percentage and less difference in fibre mass per boll between MM-2 and 2870 and AX.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 543 - 555
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Ashley, D. A. (1972). 14C-labeled photosynthate translocation and utilization in cotton plants. Crop Science 12:69–74.Google Scholar
Bednarz, C. W., Nichols, R. L. and Brown, S. M. (2006). Plant density modifications of cotton within-boll yield components. Crop Science 46:2076–2080.Google Scholar
Benedict, C. R. and Kohel, R. J. (1975). Export of 14C-assimilates in cotton leaves. Crop Science 15:367–372.Google Scholar
Benedict, C. R., Smith, R. H. and Kohel, R. J. (1973). Incorporation of 14C-photosynthate into developing cotton bolls, Gossypium hirsutum L. Crop Science 13:88–91.Google Scholar
Boquet, D. J., Moser, E. B. and Breitenbeck, G. A. (1993). Nitrogen effects on boll production of field-grown cotton. Agronomy Journal 85:34–39.Google Scholar
Cui, S. and Liao, Y. (2001). Development of upland cotton lines with high strength fiber. Jiangxi Cottons 23 (2):37–38.Google Scholar
Gipson, J. R. and Joham, H. E. (1968). Influence of night temperature on growth and development of cotton (Gossypium birsutum L.). I Fruiting and boll development. Agronomy Journal 60 (3):292–295.Google Scholar
Hay, R. K. M. (1995). Harvest index: a review of its use in plant breeding and crop physiology. Annals of Applied Biology 26:197–216.Google Scholar
Hendrix, D. L. (1990). Carbohydrates and carbohydrate enzymes in developing cotton ovules. Physiologia. Plantarum 78:85–92.Google Scholar
Horrocks, R. D., Kerby, T. A. and Buxton, D. R. (1978). Carbon source for developing bolls in normal and superokra cotton. New Phytologist 80:335–340.Google Scholar
Hu, H., Zhang, W., Chen, B., Wang, Y., Shu, H. and Zhou, Z. (2008). Changes in C/N ratio of subtending leaf of cotton boll and its relationship with cotton boll dry matter accumulation and distribution. Acta Agronomica Sinica 34 (2):254–260.Google Scholar
Kerby, T. A., Buxton, D. R. and Matsuda, K. (1980). Carbon source-sink relationship within narrow-row cotton canopies. Crop Science 20:208–212.Google Scholar
Leffler, H. R. (1976). Development of cotton fruit I. Accumulation and distribution of dry matter. Agronomy Journal 68 (6):855–857.Google Scholar
Peoples, T. R. and Matthews, M. A. (1981). Influence of boll removal on assimilate partitioning in cotton. Crop Science 21:283–286.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, W. T. and Adamczyk, J. J. Jr. (2006). Nitrogen fertility and planting date effects on lint yield and cry1Ac (Bt) endotoxin production. Agronomy Journal 98:691–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadras, V. O., Bange, M. P. and Milroy, S. P. (1997). Reproductive allocation of cotton in response to plant and environmental factors. Annals of Botany 80:75–81.Google Scholar
Van Iersel, M. W., Harris, W. M. and Oosterhuis, D. M. (1995). Phloem in developing cotton fruits: 6(5)–carboxyfluorescein as a tracer for functional phloem. Journal of Experimental Botany 46:321–328.Google Scholar
Wall, G. W., Amthor, J. S. and Kimball, B. A. (1994). COTCO2: a cotton growth simulation model for global change. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 70:289–342.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Shu, H., Chen, B., McGiffen, M. E. Jr., Zhang, W., Xu, N. and Zhou, Z. (2009). The rate of cellulose increase is highly related to cotton fiber strength and is significantly determined by its genetic background and boll period temperature. Plant Growth Regulation 57:203–209.Google Scholar
Worley, S., Culp, T. W. and Harrell, D. C. (1974). The relative contributions of yield components to lint yield of upland cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. Euphytica 23:399–403.Google Scholar
Xu, L., Li, G., He, X. and Yang, D. (2003). Boll developmental characteristic of “Kemian 2” with high quality. Jiangsu Journal of Agriculture Science 19 (4):218–222.Google Scholar
Zhao, X., Qu, L., Chen, B. and Zhou, Z. (2010). Changes of carbon and nitrogen in the subtending leaf of cotton boll and its relationship to biomass of cotton boll, seed and fiber. Cotton Science 22 (3):209–216.Google Scholar
Zhang, W., Hu, H., Chen, B., Wang, Y., Li, W. and Zhou, Z. (2007). Relationship between genotypic difference of physiological characteristics in leaf subtending boll and boll weight forming.Cotton Science 19 (4):296–303.Google Scholar
Zhou, G., Chen, D. and Wu, Y. (2001). The regulation of fertilizer and DPC for chemical control on the physiological activities of leaf source and enhancement of boll weight in high-yield cotton. Cotton Science 13 (6):356–360.Google Scholar
Zhou, K., Pei, X. and Jiang, H. (1996). Studies on the dynamics of dry matter accumulation of cotton boll at different flower stages. Acta Gossypii Sinica 8 (3):145–150.Google Scholar