Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T11:14:43.448Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of cultural system (organic and conventional) on growth and fiber quality of two cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) varieties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2010

Dimitrios Bilalis ,
Sotiria Patsiali ,
Anestis Karkanis ,
Aristidis Konstantas ,
Marios Makris  and
Aspasia Efthimiadou
Dimitrios Bilalis*
Affiliation:
Agricultural University of Athens, Department of Crop Science, Iera Odos 75, 11855Athens, Greece.
Sotiria Patsiali
Affiliation:
Agricultural University of Athens, Department of Crop Science, Iera Odos 75, 11855Athens, Greece.
Anestis Karkanis
Affiliation:
Agricultural University of Athens, Department of Crop Science, Iera Odos 75, 11855Athens, Greece.
Aristidis Konstantas
Affiliation:
Agricultural University of Athens, Department of Crop Science, Iera Odos 75, 11855Athens, Greece.
Marios Makris
Affiliation:
Thessaly Ginning S.A., Karditsa43300, Greece.
Aspasia Efthimiadou
Affiliation:
Agricultural University of Athens, Department of Crop Science, Iera Odos 75, 11855Athens, Greece.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Organic cotton is a new industrial crop product. Field experiments were conducted to determine the effects of cultural systems and varieties on the growth, fiber quality and yield components of cotton crop (Gossypium hirsutum L.). The experiments, conducted during 2006 and 2007, were laid out in a split plot design with four replicates, two main plots (organic and conventional system) and two sub-plots (cotton varieties: Athena and Campo). There were no significant differences between the organic and conventional system for cotton growth, yield and fiber quality. The results suggest that the soil N released from both the inorganic (80:40:40 kg ha−1 N:P2O5:K2O) and organic pool (green manure) were sufficient to maintain good growth. Inferior-quality fiber was produced in the variety. Campo, which had the lowest fiber fineness (micronaire), strength, length and reflection. In addition, this variety had the highest fiber elongation and yellowness. There were no significant differences between varieties as far as uniformity and leaf trash ratio are concerned. A positive correlation was observed between fiber strength and length. However, a negative correlation was found between lint yield and fiber strength.

Keywords

organic cottongreen manurevetchfiber qualitylint yieldvarieties
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 228 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

1Avgoulas, C., Bouza, L., Koutrou, A., Papadopoulou, S., Kosmas, E., Makridou, E., Papastylianou, P., and Bilalis, D. 2005. Evaluation of five most commonly grown cultivars (Gossypium hirsutum L.) under Mediterranean conditions: productivity and fibre quality. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 191:1–9.Google Scholar
2Blaise, D. 2006. Yield, boll distribution and fibre quality of hybrid cotton as influenced by organic and modern methods of cultivation. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 192:248–256.Google Scholar
3Dagdelen, N., Basal, H., Yilmaz, E., Gurbuz, T., and Akcay, S. 2009. Different drip irrigation regimes affect cotton yield, water use efficiency and fiber quality in western Turkey. Agricultural Water Management 96:111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Nichols, S.P., Snipes, C.E., and Jones, M.A. 2004. Cotton growth, lint yield, and fiber quality as affected by row spacing and cultivar. Journal of Cotton Science 8:1–12.Google Scholar
5Parvez, E., Hussain, S., Rashid, A., and Nisar, S. 2003. Cooperative effect of organic and synthetic fertilizers on the infestation of sucking and bollworm insect pest complex on different varieties of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Asian Journal of Plant Science 2:17–24.Google Scholar
6Hulugalle, N.R., Nehl, D.B., and Weaver, T.B. 2004. Soil properties, and cotton growth, yield and fibre quality in three cotton-based cropping systems. Soil and Tillage Research 75:131–141.Google Scholar
7WWF. 1999. The impact of cotton on fresh water resources and ecosystems. A preliminary synthesis. Background paper. World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland.Google Scholar
8OTA. 2009. Organic Cotton Facts. Organic Trade Association. Updated February 2010. Available at Web site http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/organic_cotton.htmlGoogle Scholar
9Moran, P.J. and Greenberg, S.M. 2009. Winter cover crops and vinegar for early-season weed control in sustainable cotton. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 32:483–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Thomopoulos, P., Bilalis, D., Konstantas, A., and Efthimiadou, A. 2008. The effect of green manure on root development and cotton yield under Mediterranean conditions. Poster presented at Cultivating the Future Based on Science: 16th Conference of the International Society of Organic Agriculture Research ISOFAR, Modena, Italy, 18–20 June 2008.Google Scholar
11Bilalis, D., Karkanis, A., Efhimiadou, A., Konstantas, A., and Triantafyllidis, V. 2009. Effects of irrigation system and green manure on yield and nicotine content of Virginia (flue-cured) organic tobacco (Nicotiana tabaccum), under Mediterranean conditions. Industrial Crops and Products 29:388–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12IFOAM. 2006. IFOAM Basic standards for Organic Production and Processing. IFOAM, Germany.Google Scholar
13Sidiras, N., Avgoulas, C., Bilalis, D., and Tsougrianis, N. 1999. Effects of tillage and fertilization on biomass, roots, N-accumulation and nodule bacteria of vetch (Vicia sativa cv. Alexander). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 182:209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Sainju, U.P., Whitehead, W.F., Singh, B.P., and Wang, S. 2006. Tillage, cover crops, and nitrogen fertilization effects on soil nitrogen and cotton and sorghum yields. European Journal of Agronomy 25:372–382.Google Scholar
15Arshad, M.A., and Gill, K.S. 1997. Barley, canola and wheat production under different tillage–fallow–green manure combinations on a clay soil in a cold, semiarid climate. Soil and Tillage Research 43:263–275.Google Scholar
16Bilalis, D.J., Sidiras, N., Kakampouki, I., Efthimiadou, A., Papatheohari, Y., and Thomopoulos, P. 2005. Effects of organic fertilization on maize/legume intercrop in a clay loam soil and Mediterranean climate—can the land equivalent ratio (LER) index be used for root development. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment 3:117–123.Google Scholar
17Karkanis, A., Bilalis, D., and Efthimiadou, A. 2007. The effect of green manure and irrigation on morphological and physiological characteristics of Virginia (flue-cured) organic tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). International Journal of Agricultural Research 2:910–919.Google Scholar
18Mohammad, A., and Mahmood, A. 1997. Effects of peanut plants incorporated as green manure on the growth and grain yield of succeeding wheat. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 179:135–138.Google Scholar
19Sangakkara, U.R., Liedgens, M., Soldati, A., and Stamp, P. 2004. Root and shoot growth of maize (Zea mays) as affected by incorporation of Crotalaria juncea and Tithonia diversifolia as green manures. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 190:339–346.Google Scholar
20Mygdakos, E., Patsiali, S., and Mygdakos, G. 2007. Economics of organic growing cotton versus conventional cotton under Greek conditions. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 3(3&4):231–236.Google Scholar
21Swezey, S.L., Goldman, P., Bryer, J., and Nieto, D. 2007. Six-year comparison between organic IPM and conventional cotton production systems in the northern San Joaquin Valley California. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22:30–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Haynes, I. 2006. Le coton bio et/ou equitable: reel avenir ou effet de mode? Biotechnology Agronomy Society Environment 10:361–371.Google Scholar
23Girma, K., Teal, R.K., Freeman, K.W., Boman, R.K., and Raun, W.R. 2007. Cotton lint yield and quality as affected by applications of N, P, and K fertilizers. Journal of Cotton Science 11:12–19.Google Scholar
24Statsoft, Inc. 1996. Statistica for Windows. Statsoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK.Google Scholar
25Pervez, H., Ashraf, M., and Makdum, M.I. 2004. Influence of potassium rates and sources on seed cotton yield components of some elite cotton cultivars. Journal of Plant Nutrition 27:1295–1317.Google Scholar
26Hcritholt, J.J., Meredith, W.R. Jr, and Rayburn, S.T. 1998. Leaf area index of four obsolete and four modern cotton cultivars to two nitrogen levels. Journal of Plant Nutrition 21:2319–2328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Pettigrew, W.T., Meredith, W.R., and Young, L.D. 2005. Potassium fertilization effects on cotton lint yield, yield components, and reniform nematode populations. Agronomy Journal 97:1245–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Gormus, O. 2002. Effect of rate and time of potassium application on cotton yield and quality in Turkey. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 188:382–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Blaise, D., Singh, J.V., Bonde, A.N., Tekale, K.U., and Mayee, C.D. 2005. Effects of farmyard manure and fertilizer on yield, fibre quality and nutrient balance of rainfed cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Bioresource Technology 96:345–349.Google Scholar
30Mandal, U.K., Singh, G., Victor, U.S., and Sharma, K.L. 2003. Green manuring: its effect on soil properties and crop growth under rice–wheat cropping system. European Journal of Agronomy 19:225–237.Google Scholar
31Attia, A.N., Sultan, M.S., Said, E.M., Zina, A.M., and Khalifa, A.E. 2008. Effect of the first irrigation time and fertilization treatments on growth, yield, yield components and fiber traits of cotton. Journal of Agronomy 7:70–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Dagdelen, N., Basal, H., Yilmaz, E., Gurbuz, T., and Akcay, S. 2009. Different drip irrigation regimes affect cotton yield, water use efficiency and fiber quality in western Turkey. Agricultural Water Management 96:111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Wrather, J.A., Philips, B.J., Stevens, W.E., Phillips, A.S., and Vories, E.D. 2008. Cotton planting date and plant population effects on yield and fiber quality in the Mississippi Delta. Journal of Cotton Science 12:1–7.Google Scholar
34Curley, R., Roberts, B., Brooks, B.A., and Knuston, J. 1990. Effect of moisture on moduled seed cotton. In Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, Las Vegas, NV, 9–14 January 1990. National Cotton Council America, Memphis, TN. p. 683–686.Google Scholar
35Smith, C.W., and Coyle, G.D. 1997. Association of fiber quality parameters and within-boll yield components in upland Cotton. Crop Science 37:1775–1779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Ulloa, M., and Meredith, W.R. Jr. 2000. Genetic linkage map and QTL analysis of agronomic and fiber quality traits in an intranspecific population. Journal of Cotton Science 4:161–170.Google Scholar
37Kloth, R.H. 1998. Analysis of commonality for traits of cotton fiber. Journal of Cotton Science 2:17–22.Google Scholar