Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:42:02.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and flowering of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) as affected by daylength and temperature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. G. Bhatt
J. G. Bhatt
Affiliation:
Central Institute for Cotton Research, Regional Station, Coimbatore-641003
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Over 14 h of daylight and high day temperature singly or in combination delayed flowering of the upland cotton J 34, whereas the photosensitive variety MCU 5 did not flower under long days alone or long days plus high temperature. These treatments promoted vegetative growth and made the plants tall and bushy. Though the treatments were discontinued 75 days after germination the subsequent reproductive growth was adversely affected with significant reduction in boll weight.

The upland genotypes when grown at latitudes 29° N, 21° N and 11° N flowered progressively earlier and at lower nodes at more southerly latitudes because of reduction in daylength and temperatures. It is concluded that the upland cottons of northern India differ from classical types because daylength together with temperature appeared to determine flowering.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 89 , Issue 3 , December 1977 , pp. 583 - 587
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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

Ashley, D. A., Doss, B. D. & Bennett, O. L. (1963). A method for determining leaf area in cotton. Agronomy Journal 55, 584–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhargava, S. C. & Bhardwaj, S. N. (1969). Effect of photoperiod and sowing time on flowering of cotton. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 39, 553–6.Google Scholar
Bhatt, J. G. (1970). Yield capacity of cotton plant in relation to the production of dry matter. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology 13, 219–24.Google Scholar
Bhatt, J. G., Shah, R. C., Patel, B. D. & Seshadbikathan, A. R. (1976). Responses of cotton genotypes to latitudinal differences. Turrialba 26, 247–52.Google Scholar
Dastub, R. H. (1950). Physiological comparison of American cotton plant in the Punjab and Sind. Indian Cotton Growing Review 4, 1–25.Google Scholar
Hutohinson, J. B. (1959). The Application of Qenetics to Cotton Improvement. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mauney, J. R. (1966). Floral initiation of upland cotton Gossypium hirsutum L. in response to temperatures. Journal of Experimental Botany 17, 452–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauney, J. R. & Phillips, L. L. (1963). Influence of daylength and night temperature on flowering of Gossypium. Botanical Gazette 124, 278–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurbaksh, Singh & Garg, O. P. (1972). Effects of different photoperiodic treatments on flowering in two cultivars of American cotton. Plant and Cell Physiology 13, 245–8.Google Scholar
Tomar, D. P. S., Mehra, R. B., Shttexa, D. S. & Singh, S. P. (1965). Photoperiodic study on cotton. Indian Cotton Journal 19, 378–84.Google Scholar
Waddle, B. M., Lewis, C. R. & Richmond, T. R. (1961). The genetics of flowering response in cotton. III. Fruiting behaviour of Gossypium hirsutum race latifolium in a cross with a variety of cultivated American upland cotton. Genetics 46, 427–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar