Research Article

Performance of Early and Late Planting Cotton Genotypes under Agro-Ecological Conditions of Multan, Punjab, Pakistan

Muhammad Iqbal1, Muhammad Mahmood Iqbal1*, Saghir Ahmad1, Athar Mahmood2, Muhammad Akram1, Hammad Husnain1, Muhammad Shahid1, Saeed Ahmad1, Ali Raza1, Ansar Hussain3, Allah Ditta Abid4, Qaisar Abbas5, Mussarrat Hussain5, Muhammad Akram6 and Muhammad Umair Hassan2

1Cotton Research Institute, Multan, Pakistan; 2Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan; 3Ghazi University Dera Ghazi Khan, Pakistan; 4Department of Plant Protection, Malair Halt Karachi, Pakistan; 5Entomological Research Station, Multan, Pakistan; 6Agronomic Research Institute, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Received | March 16, 2021; Accepted | June 15, 2021; Published | June 27, 2021

*Correspondence | Muhammad Mahmood Iqbal, Cotton Research Institute, Multan, Pakistan; Email: mahmkhokhar@gmail.com

Citation | Iqbal, M., M.M. Iqbal, S. Ahmad, A. Mahmood, M. Akram, H. Husnain, M. Shahid, S. Ahmad, A. Raza, A. Hussain, A.D. Abid, Q. Abbas, M. Hussain, M. Akram and M.U. Hassan. 2021. Performance of early and late planting cotton genotypes under agro-ecological conditions of Multan, Punjab, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research, 34(3): 569-579.

DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjar/2021/34.3.569.579

Keywords | Adaptation, Cotton leaf curl virus, Fiber strength, Germplasm, Ginning out turn

Introduction

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) being the king of fibers occupies central position in the modern commerce. It plays an imperative role in Pakistan’s economy nonetheless, per hectare yield of Pakistan is lower than the other cotton producing countries. Cotton crop has a share of 0.8% in national GDP while it has a contribution of 4.1% in total value added in agriculture (GoP, 2020). In the countries like Pakistan which is vulnerable to climate change, selection of climate resilient crop management practices plays an appreciable role to achieve the desired yield (Deho et al., 2012). The wrong selection of management consideration can cause a significant reduction in final yield. Abiotic factors such as rainfall, temperature, and irradiance are the main ecological factors influencing cotton growth and development (Bradow and Davidonis, 2000; Chen et al., 2012). Sowing time is an imperative management option to reduce the impact of abiotic factors like drought and heat stress (Hassan et al., 2020a). Deciding the growing season length through sowing date is of remarkable importance (Huang, 2016; Muhsin et al., 2021) owing to fact it has significant impact on crop vegetative and reproductive growth (Hallikeri et al., 2009). The cotton sown in early season faces the hottest period during their reproduction phase which cause a significant reduction in yield (Rahman et al., 2007). Moreover, in late planted cotton flowering and maturity are exposed to high rainfall, low temperature and shorter growth period which in turn reduce the cotton yield and quality (Elayan et al., 2015).

An ever-increasing global population calls for agricultural production systems and cultivars that are productive in unreliable weather patterns and are more efficient in utilization of resources in scenarios of climate change, heat and drought stress (Hassan et al., 2020b). The cultivation of suitable cultivar plant a crucial role in growth and final productivity (Chattha et al., 2017, 2020; Hassan et al., 2018, 2019a, b, 2020c; Ilyas et al., 2021). Varieties with varied yield potentials are available but their production potential could not be attained under field conditions (Reynolds and Tuberosa, 2008). Yield reduction is mainly due to the cultivation of varieties without considering their behavior under particular sowing environments (Nasim et al., 2010). Cotton cultivars are highly responsive to specific environmental conditions including the day length, specific humidity, temperature and rainfall (Shah et al., 2010). They behave differently to their surrounding environments regarding yield, fiber properties and disease incidence (Moser et al., 2000). Therefore, selection of suitable, aggressive and resistant crop species are the agronomic approaches employed to take yield advantages under varied environmental conditions (Devita et al., 2017). In the changing climatic conditions; selection of superior cotton genotypes according to the varied sowing environment is the dire need of the time. Therefore, two years study was conducted to match suitable time of sowing for Bt cotton genotypes in order to get the higher yield and quality.

Materials and Methods

Experimental site and soil

Two years field study was carried out at cotton research institute, Multan. The soil samples from different parts of soil were collected and analyzed to determine different soil properties by following the methods of Homer and Pratt (1961). The soil was silt loam (sand 29%; silt 53%; clay 18%) with EC 1.8 dSm−1, pH 8.1, soil organic matter (0.64%), available nitrogen total phosphorus and exchangeable potassium were 0.04%, 7.8 mg kg-1 169 mg kg-1 respectively. The prevailed weather conditions during the study period are presented in Table 1.

Planting material and experimental details

Four cotton genotypes IUB-13, MNH-1016, MNH-1020 and MNH-1026 were sown at eight different sowing times viz 1st March, 16th March, 1st April, 16th April, 1st May, 16th May, 1st June and 16th June. MNH-1016, MNH-1020 and MNH-1026 were Bt cultivars of cotton research institute, Multan whereas seeds of Bt cultivar IUB-13 were collected from Islamia University, Bahawalpur. The experiment was performed in randomized complete block design with split plot arrangement and was repeated thrice. For both years net plot dimensions were 3 ×10 m.

Crop husbandry

Two cultivations followed by one rotavation were made for soil preparation. After that one laser land leveling followed by two cultivations were done for seed bed preparation. Beds and furrows each of 2.5 feet width were made by tractor mounted bed planter. Delinted cotton seeds were manually sown with row and plant space of 75 and 30 cm respectively. For successful stand establishment re-irrigation after 3 days was done in the furrows and then subsequent irrigations were applied at 7-21 days interval depending upon weather conditions and crop requirement un-till crop maturity. Phosphorus and potassium were applied as basal dose while nitrogen was applied in three splits i.e. at sowing, flowering and boll formation. Thinning at four leaf stage was done to get the desired and healthy plant population. Insect population was maintained under economic threshold level through recommended insecticides.

Observations

Growth and yield parameters

In each plot, ten plants were marked branches and nodes were counted and averaged. At maturity plant height was determined from tagged plants with meter rod and balls/plant were counted and averaged. Randomly selected 25 opened bolls were picked, weighed and obtained weight was divided with 25 to get the boll weight in grams. Each plot was manually picked three times, weighed and added together along with the weight of 25 opened bolls to determine the seed cotton yield and later on converted into t ha-1.

Crop development

Crop phenological parameter such as time to squaring, flowering and boll opening were determined by daily visual observation of tagged plants in each plot. Each phenological stage was considered when 50% of the tagged plants attained that stage.

Cotton leaf curl virus infestation

Fortnight data of cotton leaf curl virus was taken from infested plants showing disease symptoms. Leaves with small and main vein thickness, curling and small ‘enation’ were considered as an infected and percentage of infected plants was calculated by following methods of Akhtar et al. (2010).

Quality parameters

Seed cotton samples were sun dried, weighed and ginning was done with the ginning machine. The lint of each collected sample was weighed and ginning out turn (a ratio of lint to seed cotton yield) was determined in percentage. A sub sample of lint (50 g) was taken for determining the micronaire, staple length and fiber strength. High volume instrument spectrum-1 (HVI) was used for determining these physical fiber properties.

Statistical analysis

The data on different collected traits were analyzed by ANNOVA and differences amid the treatments were compared with least significant difference test at 5% probability level (Steel et al., 1997).

Results and Discussion

Growth

Plant growth parameters were significantly affected by different sowing dates. During first year, maximum plant height (153.6 cm) and nodes per plant (47.19) were recorded when cotton was sown on 1st April that was statistically same with 16th March sown cotton (Table 2). Minimum plant height (105.4 cm) and nodes per plant were recorded in crop sown on 16th June sowing (Table 2). Among cotton genotypes, MNH-1026 had highest height and nodes per plant whereas plants of IUB-13 had lowest height and nodes per plant during first year (Table 2). During second year, maximum plant height was noted in genotype MNH-1026 when sown on 1st May and highest nodes per plant were recorded in same genotype in 1st and 16th March sowing date that was statistically same with 1st April, 16th April, 1st May and 16th May sowing date with MNH-1026. Moreover, minimum plant height and nodes per plant were recorded in cotton genotype MNH-1016 when sown at 16th June during second year (Table 2).

 

Table 1: Weather data of the experimental site during cotton growing seasons 2018 and 2019.

Months	Rainfall (mm)		Relative humidity (%)		Temperature (°C)
					Mean maximum		Mean minimum		Mean
	2018	2019	2018	2019	2018	2019	2018	2019	2018	2019
March	0	24	75.9	78.1	31.29	26.55	16.87	14.35	24.08	20.45
April	8	17	59.7	69.9	36.80	35.90	22.37	21.80	29.58	28.85
May	4	13	45.1	52.1	40.81	40.55	26.65	25.06	33.73	32.81
June	4	55	48.2	39.5	41.20	43.13	29.03	29.30	35.12	36.22
July	6	21	68.6	59	38.58	39.52	29.48	29.97	34.03	34.74
August	3	46	71.8	71.8	37.16	38.00	28.94	28.45	33.05	33.23
September	0	28	64.8	67.9	36.33	38.33	26.83	28.80	31.58	33.57
October	0	38	68	74.6	33.97	33.45	21.16	20.52	27.56	26.98

Source: Cotton Research Institute, Multan, Pakistan.

 

 

 

Crop development

Plant mapping data during first year reveal that early sown cotton (March and April) had highest number of squares during the month of July and August whereas late sown cotton (May and June) had highest squares during the month of August and September (Figure 1). However, during second year, early sown cotton had highest squares during August and late sown had during September. Among cotton genotypes during first year highest squares were recorded in the month of August for all genotypes but highest were recorded in IUB-13 followed by MNH-1020. MNH-1020 also had highest squares during July when compared with other genotypes for highest squares during July (Figure 1). Phenological data of crop development verified that during first year lowest time for squaring was noted in MNH-1016 sown on 1st April that was statistically same with the same sowing date with varieties IUB-13 and MNH-1020. During second year, lowest squaring time and boll opening time was recorded in MNH-1020 and highest was noticed in MNH-1026 sown 1st May (Table 3).

 

Yield and yield attributes

Cotton genotypes and sowing dates had significant differences for bolls/plant and boll weight in both studied years (Table 2). For sowing dates, highest bolls per plant and boll weight were recorded in 1st April sown cotton that was statistically similar to 16th April sowing during first year. Among cotton genotypes highest bolls/plant (36.63) and boll weight (3.90 g) were recorded in cotton genotype MNH-1020 during both years and lowest bolls were noticed in IUB-13 and boll weight was recorded in MNH-1026 during both years (Table 2). In first year of study, highest seed cotton yield was obtained when cotton was planted on 1st April that was statistically similar to seed cotton yield obtained from 16th March sowing. During second year, 16th March sown cotton had highest seed cotton yield that was similar to seed cotton yield obtained from 1st March and 1st April sowing date. Among cotton cultivars, MNH-1020 produced highest seed cotton yield during first year and MNH-1016 during second year, however, it was statistically similar to seed cotton yield obtained from MNH-1020 during second year. Lowest seed cotton yield was recorded in IUB-13 during first year and but statistically similar to IUB-13 during second year (Table 2).

 

Cotton leaf curl virus infestation (%)

Genotype and sowing environment interaction had significant impact on the infestation of cotton leaf curl virus during both years. Graphical representation of cotton leaf curl virus showed that during first year early sown cotton (March-April) had lowest virus infection during the month of July whereas late sown cotton faced early virus attack during the month of July limiting plant growth and development. During second year early sown cotton was least infected by virus during July, August and September compared to late sowing (Figure 4). During first year, lowest virus infestation was recorded in cotton cultivar MNH-1020 planted on 1st March that was statistically similar to the 1st April with same variety. Highest virus infestation was recorded in cotton cultivar IUB-13 sown on 16th June 2019. During second year, cotton cultivar MNH-1020 planted on 16th April was least effected with virus whereas same variety sown on 1st May exhibited greatest virus infestation (Figure 4).

 

 

Cotton fiber quality

MNH-1020 had highest ginning out turn (41.1, 39.3) and staple length (28.7, 29.23 cm) whereas IUB-13 had lowest GOT (38.90, 36.63%) and staple length (27.6, 26.80 cm) during both years. During second year, cotton cultivar MNH-1026 had highest staple length (30.90 cm) when planted on 16th June. Lowest staple length was attained in cotton cultivar IUB-13 with 16th April sowing statistically similar with 1st April sowing (Table 4). Lowest Mike maximum value was recorded in cotton genotype MNH-1016 that was statistically same with MNH-1020 during both years. For sowing dates 1st March sowing had least mike similar with 16th March and 16th April. Cotton sown on 1st June had greatest Mike (Table 2). Fiber of MNH-1020 had greatest strength during both years. 16th March sown cotton had greatest fiber strength whereas 16th May sown cotton has lowest fiber strength (Table 2).

Results of two years field trials confirmed that along with genetic makeup varied sowing environments also had significant impact on the growth and quality traits and cotton yield. Genotypes with diverse background vary in terms of growth and development (Bange and Milroy, 2004). Plant height and nodes per plant were highest in MNH-1026 because of genetic difference (Boquet and Clawson, 2009) but sowing window from 1st March to 30th April (Early sown cotton) also had highest expression of these growth parameters (Table 2) owing to environmental conditions prevailed during growth of crop. Advance sowing had early climatic support of higher sunshine hours, effective rainfall and total water used by crop (Table 1) that caused better crop growth (Patil et al., 2009).

Data regarding cotton leaf curl virus infestation revealed that during August and September 2018 cotton leaf curl virus infestation was highest compared to 2019 (Figure 4). High rainfall during second year may be the reason of low attack CLCV during second year. However, growing of resistant genotype with advanced sowing date is vital to reduce the attack of cotton leaf curl (Karavina et al., 2012). Low infestation of CLCV on cotton genotype MNH-1020 when planted early increased seed cotton yield (Table 2) whereas high infestation of cotton leaf curl virus on late planted IUB-13 decreased its yield (Table 2). Due to enhanced growth, early sown cotton (March-April) withstands the attack of leaf curl virus (Pedigo 2004). Moreover, early plantation escaped from virus stress (Figure 4) during peak flowering time (Figure 2) while late planted crop hitted very earlier by CLCV and infestation becomes severe during peak flowering period resulting in reduction in yield (Gormus and Yucel, 2002).

 

Table 3: Interactive effect of sowing date and cultivar on time to squaring, flowering and boll opening in cotton.

Treatments			Time to squaring (Days)				Time to flowering (Days)			Time to boll opening (Days)
			2018		2019		2018		2019	2018	2019
1st March	IUB-13	39.00ghi		44.00defg		54.00jk		64.67bcd		88.33hijk	99.00efgh
	MNH-1016	41.00ef		48.00a		57.00f		68.33a		88.00hijk	101.67cdef
	MNH-1020	39.33gh		46.67ab		57.00f		67.67a		87.33ijk	102.00cde
	MNH-1026	38.00hijk		46.22abc		54.33jk		67.11ab		86.33k	101.83cde
16th March	IUB-13	39.33gh		42.67fghi		55.00hijk		62.67def		88.33de	94.67ijk
	MNH-1016	37.00kl		41.67hi		55.33ghij		61.00fg		88.00hijk	97.33ghij
	MNH-1020	41.67de		42.00ghi		56.33fgh		64.67bcd		88.33hijk	94.67ijk
	MNH-1026	38.67ghij		42.11fghi		54.67ijk		62.67def		88.67ghijk	95.44hijk
1st April	IUB-13	34.67mn		40.67ij		47.67o		57.00hi		87.67ijk	93.67jk
	MNH-1016	33.33n		42.00ghi		53.67kl		59.00gh		87.00ijk	98.00fghi
	MNH-1020	34.67mn		41.00ij		50.33n		58.67gh		87.00ijk	95.00ijk
	MNH-1026	35.00m		41.22hi		50.33n		58.22h		87.00ijk	95.56hijk
16th April	IUB-13	34.67mn		38.33k		52.00m		57.00hi		86.67jk	95.00ijk
	MNH-1016	37.67ijk		37.33kl		55.33ghij		57.00hi		86.33k	95.00ijk
	MNH-1020	40.00fg		37.67k		52.33lm		54.33j		86.33k	91.67kl
	MNH-1026	35.33m		35.67lm		52.00m		55.33ij		86.33k	103.33cd
1st May	IUB-13	46.00bc		37.00kl		62.67c		51.00k		87.67ijk	83.00m
	MNH-1016	45.67c		40.67ij		64.33b		55.00ij		91.00defg	89.67l
	MNH-1020	47.00abc		35.00m		67.00a		51.67k		89.00fghij	81.00m
	MNH-1026	46.33bc		38.33k		66.33a		55.67ij		90.33efgh	114.33a
16th May	IUB-13	47.00abc		46.67ab		57.33ef		66.67ab		86.33k	98.00fghi
	MNH-1016	47.33ab		43.33efgh		62.00c		62.67def		88.33hijk	100.67defg
	MNH-1020	47.00abc		42.33fghi		60.33d		61.67ef		89.33fghi	101.33def
	MNH-1026	48.33a		39.00jk		62.67c		66.33ab		93.00cd	107.33b
1st June	IUB-13	41.67de		43.33efgh		58.67e		56.67hij		92.00de	96.00hij
	MNH-1016	43.00d		42.67fghi		60.33d		62.00ef		91.33def	97.33ghij
	MNH-1020	43.00d		44.33cdef		61.33cd		56.67hij		89.33fghi	95.67hij
	MNH-1026	43.00d		45.67bcd		60.33d		63.67cde		88.67ghijk	102.67cde
16th June	IUB-13	35.67lm		46.67ab		55.33ghij		65.00bcd		93.33cd	102.67cde
	MNH-1016	35.33m		47.00ab		56.67fg		68.00a		95.00bc	103.00cd
	MNH-1020	37.33jk		45.33bcde		56.00fghi		66.00abc		97.67a	102.67cdee
	MNH-1026	40.00fg		46.33abcd		56.33fgh		58.33h		96.67ab	105.33bc
LSD≤0.05P		1.56		1.97		1.42		2.55		2.45	3.78

Figures sharing the same letter for a parameter in a year do not differed significantly at p≤0.05, NS= Non significant.

 

Yield determining parameters such as bolls/plant and boll weight were greater during first year because of decrease in monthly mean temperature during July, August and September (peak flowering period) and low rainfall compared to second years (Table 1). An increase in temperature had profound effect on flower shedding and boll retention (Fisher, 1975). However, cotton plants sown early have the ability to compensate better by producing new floral parts and convert them into yield traits compared to late planted plants (Table 2). Because of extended growth period due to early planting, plants received additional soil moisture and nutrients which favored the more balls to mature (Huang and Ji, 2016). Early planted cotton had improved boll size (Table 2) owing to accretion of more assimilates and prolonged period for ball development as well as maturity (Pettigrew, 2002; Nuti et al., 2006). Whereas late-planted cotton had more flowers and bolls later in the growing season (Figure 2) with low temperature (Table 1) lengthened the period from sowing to boll opening (Table 3) which delayed maturity and reduced yield (Elayan et al., 2015; Wanga et al., 2016).

 

Table 4: Interactive effect of sowing date and cultivars on plant height, number of nodes, bolls per plant, cotton leaf curl virus infestation and staple length in cotton.

Treatments		Plant height (cm)		Nodes per plant		Bolls per plant		Cotton leaf curl virus infestation (%)		Staple length (mm)
		2018	2019	2018	2019	2018	2019	2018	2019	2018	2019
1st March	IUB-13	147.3	141.1 h-j	42.37	52.23b-d	37.27	31.50b-d	44.67e-h	28.33f-h	27.2	26.52j
	MNH-1016	150.7	128.9 jk	42.63	49.97c-f	38.27	32.90a-d	41.33 f-j	11.33k-m	27.8	28.25d-i
	MNH-1020	151.9	158.6 d-g	44.47	52.87b-d	40.57	35.47ab	25.00l	14.67kl	28.3	29.48a-d
	MNH-1026	154	179.9 bc	46.6	58.63a	38.83	31.57b-d	40.67f-j	26.67g-i	27.6	27.63e-j
16th March	IUB-13	147.5	132.4 i-k	45.83	46.33e-g	37.53	32.47a-d	43.33 f-i	24.33g-i	27.4	27.38g-j
	MNH-1016	150.5	142.4 g-j	46.8	48.87d-f	38.7	35.27a-d	40.00 f-j	9.67k-m	28	28.42d-h
	MNH-1020	151.8	155.2 e-h	47.03	44.97f-h	41.07	36.53a	35.67i-k	7.33mn	28.4	29.82abc
	MNH-1026	154.7	174.3 cd	48.57	58.63a	38.87	32.93a-d	40.00f-j	22.00h-j	27.8	27.30g-j
1st April	IUB-13	148.1	141.7 g-j	44.07	44.48f-h	40.17	33.00a-d	43.00 f-j	21.33ij	27.3	26.37j
	MNH-1016	154.1	125.0 j-l	47.27	39.85h-j	41.83	34.00a-c	35.67 jk	8.33l-n	28.6	28.67c-g
	MNH-1020	155.5	167.2 c-e	47.6	52.13b-d	43.47	35.77ab	25.67l	34.00d-f	28.8	28.62c-g
	MNH-1026	156.5	173.9cd	49.83	53.90a-d	41.67	33.10a-d	51.33cde	38.33cd	27.6	27.57f-j
16th April	IUB-13	144.4	126.9j-l	42.87	41.55gh	40.07	29.80c-e	37.73 h-k	37.33cd	27.6	26.13j
	MNH-1016	151.1	134.9i-k	45.27	42.14gh	42.07	32.20a-d	37.67 h-k	6.67mn	28.2	28.23d-i
	MNH-1020	154.5	165.9c-f	45.93	51.23b-e	43.13	36.13ab	35.43jk	3.00n	29	28.58c-g
	MNH-1026	158	175.6cd	47.8	52.06b-d	41.2	29.87cde	40.00f-j	40.33b-d	27.8	29.50a-d
1st May	IUB-13	143.6	104.7m-o	39.1	35.15j-l	34.2	28.90de	45.67 d-g	40.33b-d	27.8	26.90h-j
	MNH-1016	146	118.8k-m	41.7	40.67hi	37.2	29.27cde	39.67f-j	29.33fg	28.6	28.70 c-g
	MNH-1020	147.3	148.6f-i	41.63	45.30f-h	38.97	30.17cde	31.33kl	48.33a	28.7	28.60c-g
	MNH-1026	147.8	200.1a	43	56.56ab	36	32.60a-d	38.67g-k	11.67k-m	28.2	29.27b-d
16th May	IUB-13	123.1	90.2op	38.5	31.75k-m	28.53	16.23g	57.67bc	45.33ab	28.2	27.00h-j
	MNH-1016	137	110.0l-n	39.77	35.96i-k	31.33	21.80f	44.67e-h	23.33g-i	28.7	29.27b-d
	MNH-1020	139.3	135.5i-k	42.23	41.55gh	35.1	26.00ef	41.67f-j	34.67c-f	29.1	29.13c-e
	MNH-1026	141.1	197.0ab	42.73	54.93a-c	34.07	29.57c-e	46.67d-f	15.67jk	28	29.07b-f
1st June	IUB-13	119.5	87.3op	35.1	30.42lm	17.97	14.57gh	59.93b	34.67c-f	27.6	27.40g-j
	MNH-1016	122.5	82.9pq	36.57	29.56m	24.2	16.03g	47.07d-f	34.67c-f	28.1	30.40ab
	MNH-1020	120.5	109.5l-n	34.83	35.05j-l	26.37	16.50g	43.83e-h	46.00ab	29	30.30ab
	MNH-1026	125.8	157.4d-h	38.17	45.15f-h	19.9	26.10ef	55.73bc	29.67e-g	27.9	30.00a-c
16th June	IUB-13	99.9	64.5qr	30.43	22.23no	17.67	8.77i	76.00a	40.67bc	27.9	26.73ij
	MNH-1016	107.6	61.8r	31.57	20.91o	22.8	10.33hi	53.00bcd	41.00bc	28.3	29.97a-c
	MNH-1020	106.4	82.4pq	32.37	27.11mn	24.33	10.90hi	46.67def	37.33cd	28.5	29.33b-d
	MNH-1026	108	95.7n-p	32.5	28.22m	20.33	9.40i	59.00b	36.00c-e	28.1	30.90a
LSD≤0.05P		NS	18.473	NS	5.49	NS	4.7432	NS	6.58	NS	1.52

Figures sharing the same letter for a parameter in a year do not differed significantly at p≤0.05, NS= Non-significant.

 

Highest ginning out turn, fiber strength as well as staple length in cotton genotype MNH-1020 (Table 2) authenticated that genetic makeup of cultivars plays a major role in the fiber strength and length (Jordan, 2001) and lint index (O’Berry et al., 2009). The quantity of deposited cellulose determines the fiber strength, fineness and maturity (Ramey, 1999). The cultivars having the long molecules of cellulose has the higher fiber strength owing to presence of few breaking points in lint and superior cross linking amid the fibers (Jordan, 2001). Fiber quality mainly influenced by cultivars, whilst management considerations are the secondary one (Bednarz et al., 2005). Ginning out turn was not effected with late or early planting during both years (Table 2). Similar results were noticed by Braunack et al. (2012). However, micronaire value declined in early sowing compared to later sowing (Table 2). Early planting avoid decline in macronaire value (Deho et al., 2012). Late planted cotton had more yellow and grey fiber owing to late harvesting which exposes the fiber to different environment conditions not favorable for development of fiber (Duckett et al., 1999). Early sown cotton had highest fiber strength compared to late sown (Table 2). Late planted cotton reached at maturity later in the season and farmers harvest the immature cotton have low fiber strength and poor dye uptake capacity (Bradow and Bauer, 1997).

Conclusions and Recommendations

For varied sowing dates, increased expression of yield and yield related parameters due to decreased incidence of cotton leaf curl virus disease argued that cotton sowing window should be from 1st March to 16th April for maximum and quality harvest. Among cotton genotypes MNH-1020 has the potential to perform better under arid conditions where low rainfall and high temperatures are the main characteristics.

Novelty Statement

The rapid climate changes direly need the optimization of agronomic practices to ensure the better crop yield and quality. The sowing time is an important management consideration which plays a significant role in the final cotton yield and quality. However, limited studies are conducted to determine the optimum sowing time for cotton cultivars grown in Agro-Ecological Conditions of Multan. Therefore this study determine the suitable planting time for sowing of different cotton cultivars under Agro-Ecological Conditions of Multan.

Author’s Contribution

Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Mahmood Iqbal: Conducted the experiment and wrote the original draft.

Saghir Ahmad, Athar Mahmood, Muhammad Akram, Saeed Ahmad, Ali Raza, Ansar Hussain, Allah Ditta Abid, Qaisar Abbas, Mussarrat Hussain, Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Umair Hassan: Reviewed and edited the article.

Hammad Husnain and Muhammad Shahid: Helped in Data collection.

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

Akhtar, K.P., S. Haider, M.K.R. Khan, M. Ahmad, N. Sarwar, M.A. Murtaza and M. Aslam. 2010. Evaluation of Gossypium species for resistance to leaf curl burewala virus. Ann. App. Biol., 157: 135-147.

Bange, M.P. and S.P. Milroy. 2004. Growth and dry matter partitioning of diverse cotton genotypes. Field Crops Res., 87: 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2003.09.007

Bednarz, C.W., W.D. Shurley, W.S. Anthony and R.L. Nichols. 2005. Yield, quality, and profitability of cotton produced at varying plant densities. Agron. J. 97, 235–240.

Boquet, D.J. and E.L. Clawson. 2009. Cotton planting date: Yield, seedling survival, and plant growth. Agron. J. 101: 1123-1130. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2009.0071

Bradow, J.M. and G.H. Davidonis. 2000. Quantitation of fiber quality and the cotton production- processing interface: A physiologist’s perspective. J. Cot. Sci., 4: 34-64.

Bradow, J.M. and P.J. Bauer. 1997. How variety and weather determine yarn properties and dye uptake. Beltwide cotton conf., new orleans, LA. 7–10 Jan. National Cotton Counc. Am. Memphis, TN, pp. 560–564.

Braunack, M.V., M.P. Bange and B.D. Johnston. 2012. Can plating data and cultivar selection improve use efficiency of cotton systems? Field Crop Res., 137: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.08.018

Chen, X., D. Min, T.A. Yasir and Y.G. Hu. 2012. Evaluation of 14 morphological, yield-related and physiological traits as indicators of drought tolerance in Chinese winter bread wheat revealed by analysis of the membership function value of drought tolerance (MFVD). Field Crops Res., 137:195-201.

Chattha, M.U., I. Khan, M.U. Hassan, M. Nawaz, M.B. Chattha, N.H. Ahamd, M. Usman, M. Kharal and A.U. Khan. 2017. Agronomic appraisal of amaranth accessions under semiarid conditions of Pakistan. Pak. Life Soc. Sci., 15(3): 144-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(02)00121-1

Chattha, M.U., M.U. Hassan, I. Khan, M.B. Chattha, M. Aamer, M. Nawaz, S.A. Anjum, U. Ashraf and M. Kharal. 2020. Impact of planting methods on biomass production, chemical composition and methane yield of sorghum cultivars. Pak. J. Agric. Sci., 57(1): 43-51.

Deho, Z.A., S. Laghari, S. Abro, S.D. Khanzada and Fakhuruddin. 2012. Effect of sowing dates and picking intervals at boll opening percent, yield and fiber quality of cotton cultivars. Sci. Tech. Dev., 31(3): 288-293.

Devita. P., S.A. Colecchia, I. Pecorella and S. Sai. 2017. Reduced inter-row distance improves yield and competition against weeds in a semi-dwarf durum wheat variety. Eur. J. Agro. 85: 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.02.003

Duckett, K.E., L. Cheng, T. Sapaletalova, M. Watson and H. Ghorashi. 1999. Color grading of cotton measurement (Part I). In Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Orlando, FL. 3-7 Jan. 1999 p. 645-650.

Elayan, E.D., A.M.A. Sohair, S.D. Abdalla, S.D. Nadia and A.E.F. Wageda. 2015. Effect of delaying planting date on yield, fiber and yarn quality properties in some cultivars and promising crosses of Egyptian cotton. Am. Eur. J. Agric. Environ. Sci., 15(5): 754-763.

Fisher. W.D. 1975. Heat induced sterility in upland cotton. Proceedings of the 27th Cotton Improvement Conference, National Cotton Council, Memphis, Tenn. Pp. 85.

Gormus, O. and C. Yucel. 2002. Different planting date and potassium fertility effects on cotton yield and fiber properties in the Çukurova region, Turkey. Field Crops Res., 78: 141-149.

Govt. of Pakistan (GOP), Economic Survey of Pakistan. 2020. Ministry of food, agriculture and livestock, Islamabad, pp. 17-22.

Hallikeri, S.S., H.L. Halemani, V.C. Patil, Y.B. Palled, B.C. Patil and I.S. Katageri. 2009. Influence of sowing time and moisture regimes on growth, seed cotton yield and fiber quality of Bt–cotton. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22: 985-991.

Hassan, M.U., M. Aamer, M.U. Chattha, M.A. Ullah, S. Sulaman M. Nawaz, W. Zhiqiang, M. Yanqin and H. Guoqin. 2017. The role of potassium in plants under drought stress: Mini review. J. Basic Appl. Sci., 13: 268-271. https://doi.org/10.6000/1927-5129.2017.13.44

Hassan, M.U., M.U. Chattha, A. Mahmood and S.T. Sahi. 2018. Performance of sorghum cultivars for biomass quality and biomethane yield grown in semi-arid area of Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Poll. Res., 25(13): 12800-12807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1575-4

Hassan, M.U., M.U. Chattha, M.B. Chattha, A. Mahmood and S.T. Sahi. 2019a. Chemical composition and methane yield of sorghum as influenced by planting methods and cultivars. J. Anim. Plant Sci., 29(1): 251-259.

Hassan, M.U., M.U. Chattha, L. Barbanti, M.B. Chattha, A. Mahmood, I. Khan and M. Nawaz. 2019b. Combined cultivar and harvest time to enhance biomass and methane yield in sorghum under warm dry conditions in Pakistan. Indus. Crops Prod., 132: 84-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.02.019

Hassan, M.U., M.U. Chattha, L. Barbanti, A. Mahmood, M.B. Chattha, I. Khan, S. Mirza, S.A. Aziz, M. Nawaz and M. Aamer. 2020. Cultivar and seeding time role in sorghum to optimize biomass and methane yield under warm dry climate. Indus. Crops Prod., 145: 111983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.111983

Hassan, M.U., M.U. Chattha, I. Khan, M.B. Chattha, L. Barbanti, M. Aamer, M.M. Iqbal, M. Nawaz, A. Mahmood, A. Ali and M.T. Aslam M.T, 2020a. Heat stress in cultivated plants: Nature, impact, mechanisms, and mitigation strategies-a review. Plant Biosys. 155: 211-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2020.1727987

Hassan, M.U., M. Aamer, M.U. Chattha, T. Haiying, B. Shahzad, L. Barbanti, M. Nawaz, A. Rasheed, A. Afzal, Y. Liu and H. Guoqin. 2020b. The critical role of zinc in plants facing the drought stress. Agriculture, 10(9): 396. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10090396

Homer, D.C. and P.F. Pratt. 1961. Methods of analysis for soils, plants and waters. Davis: University of California, Davis.

Huang, J. and F. Ji. 2015. Effects of climate change on phenological trends and seed cotton yields in oasis of arid regions. Int. J. Biometeorol., 59: 877-888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-014-0904-7

Ilyas, M., I. Khan, M.U. Chattha, M.U. Hassan, M. Zain, W. Farhad, S. Ullah, A. Shah, S. Ahmed, B. Khan and M. Adeel. 2020. Evaluating the effect of zinc application methods on growth and yield of wheat cultivars. J. Innov. Sci., 6(2): 150-156. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.jis/2020/6.2.150.156

Jordan, A.G., 2001. Management to increase strength. In: Cotton physiology today Newsletter. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., 12: 1-8.

Karavina, C., R. Mandumbu, C. Parwada and T. Mungunyana. 2012. Variety and planting date effects on the incidence of bollworms and insect sucking pests of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Res. J. Agric. Sci., 3(3): 607-610.

Moser H.S., M. Closkey, J.C Silvertooth and P. Dugger, 2000. Performance of transgenic cotton varieties in Arizona. Proc. Beltw. Cotton Conf. San Antonio, USA, 1: 497- 499.

Muhsin, M., M. Nawaz, I. Khan, M.B. Chattha, S. Khan, M.T. Aslam, M.M. Iqbal, M.Z. Amin, M.A. Ayub, U. Anwar, M.U. Hassan and M.U. Chattha. 2021. Efficacy of seed size to improve field performance of wheat under late sowing conditions. Pak. J. Agric. Res., 34(1): 247-253. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjar/2021/34.1.247.253

Nasim, W. 2010. Modeling the impact of climate change on nitrogen use efficiency in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) under different agro-climatic conditions of Punjab-Pakistan. PhD Thesis, University of Agriculture Faisalabad-Pakistan. Pp. 90-121.

Nuti, R.C., R.P. Viator, S.N. Casteel, K.L. Edmisten and R. Wells. 2006. Effect of planting date, mepiquat chloride, and glyphosate application to glyphosate-resistant cotton. Agron. J., 98: 1627-1633. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2005.0360

O’Berry, N.B., J.C. Faircloth, M.A. Jones, D.A. Herbert, A.O. Abaye, T.E. McKemie and C. Brownie. 2009. Differential responses of cotton cultivars when applying mepiquat pentaborate. Agron. J., 101: 25–31. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2007.0333

Patil, D.V., D.B. Deosarkar and S.G. Patil. 2009. Study of Bt and non-Bt cotton hybrids for yields and quality characters under normal and delay-sown condition. J. Cotton Res. Dev., 23(2): 199-203.

Pedigo, L.P., 2004. Entomology and pest management. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Pettigrew, W.T., 2002. Improved yield potential with an early planting cotton production system. Agron. J., 94: 997-1003. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2002.0997

Rahman, H.R., S.A. Malik, M. Saleem and F. Hussain. 2007. Evaluation of seed physical traits in relation to heat tolerance in upland cotton. Pak. J. Bot., 39: 475-483.

Ramey, H.H. 1999. Classing of fiber. In C.W. Smith and J.T. Cothren (ed.) Cotton: origin, history, technology, and production. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 709-727.

Reynolds, M. and R. Tuberosa. 2008. Translational research impacting on crop productivity in drought prone environments. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol., 11: 171-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2008.02.005

Saddique, Q., H. Cai, W. Ishaque, H. Chen, H.W. Chau, M.U. Chattha M.U. Hassan, I. Khan, M and J. He. 2019. Optimizing the sowing date and irrigation strategy to improve maize yield by using CERES (Crop Estimation through Resource and Environment Synthesis)-maize model. Agron., 9(2): 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9020109

Shah, M.K.N., S.A. Malik, N. Murtaza, I. Ullah, H. Rahman, U. Younis. 2010. Early and rapid flowering coupled with shorter boll maturation period offers selection criteria for early crop maturity in upland cotton. Pak. J. Bot., 42: 3569-3576.

Steel, R.G.D., J.H. Torrie and D.A. Dickey. 1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A biometrical Approach (3rd Edi). McGraw-Hill, New York.

Wanga, X., H. Yuru, D. Mingwei, X. Dongyong, L. Huaiyu, T. Xiaoli and L. Zhaohu. 2016. Effect of planting date and plant density on cotton traits as relating to mechanical harvesting in the yellow river valley region of China Xiangru. Field Crops Res., 198: 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.09.010