Research Article

Effect of Sowing Dates and Genotypes on Yield and Yield Contributing Traits of Upland Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)

Muhammad Zubair Ishaq1, Umar Farooq1, Muhammad Asim Bhutta2*, Saghir Ahmad2, Amna Bibi2, Hafeez UR Rehman3, Umar Farooq3, Javaria Ashraf4 and Samaria Nisar4

1Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Faculty of Agricultural Science and Technology, Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan, Pakistan; 2Cotton Research Institute, Multan, Pakistan; 3Cotton Research Station, Sahiwal, Pakistan; 4Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, University College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan.

Received | September 02, 2021; Accepted | October 06, 2021; Published | November 01, 2021

*Correspondence | Muhammad Asim Bhutta, Cotton Research Institute, Multan, Pakistan; Email: bhuttabreeder@gmail.com

Citation | Ishaq, M.Z., U. Farooq, M.A. Bhutta, S. Ahmad, A. Bibi, H.U. Rehman, U. Farooq, J. Ashraf and S. Nisar. 2022. Effect of Sowing dates and genotypes on Yield and Yield Contributing traits of Upland Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 38(1): 16-25.

DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2022/38.1.16.25

Keywords | Sowing dates, Seed cotton yield, Correlation, Heat map, Climate change

Introduction

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is an important cash crop that generates a large amount of revenue in Pakistanthrough export of textile products (Ahmad et al., 2009; Abro et al., 2015). In addition to fiber, it also gives usseed cake and oil. In Pakistan, agriculture is the backbone of the economy and cotton shares 0.8 in GDP during 2019-20 (Economic survey of Pakistan, 2020). The cotton area was increased during 2019-20 from 2.373 to 2.527 million hectares (about 6.5 percent). However, the seed cotton yield was declined from 9.861 to 9.178 million bales (about a 6.9 percent decrease), and an average seed cotton yield was 618 kgha-1. The decline in cotton production was due to climate change, biotic and abiotic factors, including harsh weather conditions, higher insect pest infestation, unpredictable rain patterns, high temperature during the reproductive phase and accessibility of water (Economic survey of Pakistan, 2020).

Globally, Climate changes have a negative effect on agriculture production due to the increase in average temperature, precipitation, and humidity (Lobell and Field 2007; Abbas, 2020). The usage of land increases to produce feed and fiber (Solomon et al., 2007). Climate change significantly affects fiber production. The cotton crop grows in a hot and tropical environment, but when the temperature goes above 32°C, it affects the developmental stages of plants. In Pakistan, cotton faces a temperature of 40 to 45 °C during the growth development stages, which significantly affects the yield contributing traits and seed cotton yield (Abbas, 2020). Cotton crop is sensitive to change in temperature during flowering and boll development (Ali et al., 2020). The metrological data showed that an unexpected rain pattern was observed (Figure 1a). Relative humidity was increase as compared to the precipitation (Figure 1b). The mean temperature data of the previous ten years showed that temperature ranged from 25.05 to 39.05°C (Figure 1c and d).

Globally, cotton faces high temperatures greater than 35°C during a growing period, significantly affecting plants development, growth, and seed cotton yield (Abro et al., 2015). Cotton is usually cultivated in hot areas of Pakistan (Riaz et al., 2013). The cultivars recommended for cotton-growing areas face high temperatures(50°C) during May and June. The seed cotton yield, fiber, shoot growth, and development were significantly reduced due to adverse environmental conditions (Khan et al., 2014; Farooq et al., 2018).

Predictable components for sustainable cotton production include many factors, the time of sowing is one of them. The seed cotton yield and yield contributing traits are mainly affected by the sowing time (Gecgel et al., 2007). Cultivars interaction with sowing dates is an essential method to assess the crop quality and seed cotton yieldin a specific environment (Campbell and Jones, 2005). As we mentioned earlier, cotton production was significantly decreased in recent years due to climate change, biotic, abiotic stresses, and inappropriate selection of cultivars for specific agro-ecological regions (Arshad et al., 2001; Zia-ul-Hassan et al., 2014). In this scenario, there is a need to optimize the sowing date of cotton because it plays a significant role in the seed cotton yield of the crop (Deho et al., 2012). Potential cultivars for better quality and seed cotton yield would be evaluated by sowing at different dates (early, normal, and late sowing). Early and late sowing of cultivars adversely affects the seed cotton yield contributing traits and seed cotton yield (Usman and Ayatullah, 2016). Early sowing of cotton cultivars leads to more vegetative growth instead of

 

seed cotton yield (Iqbal et al., 2012) and plants face an adverse environment (high temperature) during the reproductive phase that will cause the significant seed cotton yield reduction (Rahman et al., 2007). Its worth mentioning that that cotton plants with relatively shorter growing period are also low yielders (Elayan et al., 2015).

Optimum sowing date for cotton cultivars is an important yield determining factor because it can not only improve seed cotton yield but also improves insect pest management (Karavina et al., 2012). Suitable sowing time increased the seed cotton yield due to prolong period of flowering before onset of any biotic and abiotic stress that leads to healthy plant, that enhanced the efficiency of moisture and nutrient uptake which was helpful in boll formation and maturation (Tahir et al., 2009). Likewise, early sowing in May increases seed cotton yield by 45% compared to late sowing in June, with improved yield traits (Farid et al., 2017). Moreover, the development and growth of cotton are affected by management practices and environmental conditions. The maturity is influenced by the date of plantation and the population of plants (Edmisten, 2007; Faircloth, 2007). Therefore, there is need to optimize the sowing dates of cotton plants which would give enough time to plant to complete its vegetative and reproductive phases timely and help in the management of insect and diseases of cotton (Ali et al., 2005), specifically cotton leaf curl virus. At the reproductive stage of the cotton plant, the yield was reduced by about 80 percent due to the high insect infestation (Pedigo et al., 2004). Cotton plant boll retention and fiber quality were significantly reduced above 40°C and 30°C, respectively. Boll size and maturity are negatively associated with the high temperature (Abbas, 2020). Late sowing caused the decrease offiber strength, maturity, and length (Arshad et al., 2001). The cultivars response toward the sowing dates were differential. Therefore, there cotton cultivars should be evaluated for an appropriate sowing time to obtain maximum possible yield. Keeping in view the above narrated facts, the purpose of this experiment was to identify suitable genotypes and suitable planting date and their interactions with seed cotton yield and yield contributing traits of upland cotton production.

Materials and Methods

Experimental site

This experiment was conducted at Cotton Research Station, Sahiwal, Pakistan during 2019 and 2020. The longitude and latitude were 72.680o, 32.119o respectively.

Planting material

The planting material consist of four varieties, SLH-8, FH-Lalazar, CIM-622 and FH-142. Out of four varieties, two varieties (FH-Lalazar and FH-142) was developed by Ayoub Agriculture Research Institute Faisalabad, CIM-622 developed by Central Cotton Institute Multan and SLH-8 was developed by Cotton research Station, Sahiwal.

Meteorologic data

The average temperature was 31.98, minimum and maximum temperature was 25.04 and 38.92, respectively during cotton growing season of both years. The precipitation and relative humidity was 1.14 and 34.20, respectively during cotton growing season of both years (Figure 2).

 

Experimental design

Plant material was grown using a split-plot arrangement in a randomized complete block design with three replications. The main plot comprised six sowing dates with an interval of 15 days starting from 16th March, i.e. (16thMarch, 1st and 16th April, 1st and 16th May, and 1st June). Furthermore, the subplot consisted of four varieties, SLH-8, FH-Lalazar, CIM-622, FH-142, and the plot size was 18580.60 x 6967.73cm2.

Cultural practices

Seeds of these varieties were delinted using sulfuric acid (1kg sulfuric acid per 10kg seed). All agronomic practices were uniformly applied to all plots except the sowing date. Thinning was done 30 days after sowing.

 

Table 1: Analysis of variance (mean squares) seed cotton yield and yield contributing traits as influenced by sowing date and different genotypes during 2019 and 2020.

Source	DF	PH	NBP	BW	SCYP
2019
Replication	2	213.69	10.43	0.11	510257
Variety	3	1859.49**	799.43**	0.65	737444*
Error a	6	18.12	30.52	0.25	113093
Sowing	5	6831.85**	1001.52**	2.09**	4420515**
Variety* Sowing	15	83.92**	42.67	0.11	500537**
Error b	40	20.76	23.07	0.13	133023
2020
Replication	2	40.89	12.02	0.07	106557
Variety	3	921.87**	436.39**	0.24	2287383**
Error a	6	43.14	24.67	0.14	190938
Sowing	5	6081.54**	316.67**	3.77**	5879484**
Variety* Sowing	15	92.14**	40.87	0.09	523913**
Error b	40	35.43	23.13	0.11	99032
2019-2020
Replication	2	220.7	18.91	0.18	496606
Variety	3	2673.6**	1200.42**	0.81	2496679**
Error a	6	44.5	21.72	0.36	274008
Sowing	5	12744.3**	1191.14**	5.65**	10190000**
Variety* Sowing	15	128.1**	74.22	0.15	900913**
Error b	40	39.1	61.64	0.11	130017

** significance at 1%, * significance at 5%; Df: Degree of Freedom, PH: Plant height (cm), NBP: Number of bolls plant-1, BW: Boll weight, SCYP: Seed cotton yield plant-1(kg ha-1).

 

Data observation

On maturity, data were collected for plant height (PH) in centimeter, number of bolls per plant (NBP-1), boll weight (BW) in grams, and seed cotton yield (SCY) in kg ha-1.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using the split-plot design using the method given by Steel and Torrie (1980). Correlation analysis was performed using the method given by Peterson et al. (2018). Heat map was developed using the complex heat map package (Gu et al., 2016) Analysis was performed using the R studio version 1.4.1717.

Results and Discussion

Analysis of variance revealed that, genotypes had highly significant variation for plant height and number of bolls per plant in both years 2019 and 2020. Seed cotton yield was found significant, and boll weight was non-significant in both years. Variation due to sowing dates was also highly significant for plant height, NB/P, BW, SCY in 2019 and 2020. However, the interaction of sowing dates and genotypes was significant for PH and SCY in both years. Both year data were polled and analyzed and observed that variation due to genotypes and interaction between sowing dates and genotypes was highly significant for PH, NB/P, and SCY. Variation due to genotypes was found significant for all studied traits (Table 1).

The mean data showed that PH was approximately the same in both years with minor differences, given in Table 2. PH ranged between 84.29 to 144.16 cm, and the maximum PH was observed at the sowing date of 16 March in both years. Furthermore, the lowest PH value was observed during the sowing of 01- June, as shown in given in Table 2. The mean performance of PH showed that in 2020, PH was increased compared to 2019 with a minor difference. The maximum average PH value was shown by SLH-8 that was 138.99 cm, and the minimum average value was observed in CIM-622, which was 119.20 cm. CIM-622 showed an increase in PH in 2020 (121.70 cm) compared to 2019 (116.70 cm). Similarly, FH-142 PH was also increased during 2020 (127.12 cm) compared to 2019 (123.37 cm). FH-Lalzar showed a reduction in PH during 2020 (131.49 cm) compared to 2019 (133.69 cm), as given in Table 2. NBP-1 was 31.86 during 2019 and reduced to 21.36 in 2020. NBP-1 was ranged between 14 to 32.21. The highest NBP-1 was observed at the sowing date of 16-March 2019 was 38.75. The lowest value of NBP-1 was observed during 01-June-2020, which was 14.166, as given in Table 2. The maximum value of NBP-1 showed by SLH-8 (34.94) as compared to the other genotypes. NBP-1 was reduced in 2020 as compared to 2019 in all studied varieties. Maximum NBP-1 was observed in SLH-8 during 2019 (41.61) compared to the 2020 (28.28) with an average of 34.94, as given in table 2. BW was increased in 2020 as compared to 2019 from 3.27 to 3.34 g. Seed cotton yield was also increased from 1741.96to 1583.63 kg ha-1, as given in Table 2. BW was ranged between 2.38 to 3.75 g. The highest BW was observed during the sowing date of 16-March 2020 was 3.80 g. In contrast, the 01 June sowing date showed the lowest boll weight

 

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Yield contributing and Seed cotton yield by sowing dates of Cotton.

Sowing dates	Boll weight		Number of bolls plant-1		Plant height		Seed cotton yield (kgha-1)
	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020
	Mean
16-Mar	3.710	3.803	38.750	25.000	147.740	140.600	2194.900	2278.200
01-Apr	3.448	3.578	38.332	26.100	140.620	145.620	2021.200	2379.600
16-Apr	3.485	3.685	36.915	24.835	141.940	139.740	2037.000	2287.000
01-May	3.203	3.480	34.750	22.333	133.370	140.940	1500.600	1692.200
16-May	3.270	3.208	26.998	15.750	123.320	125.640	1043.100	1084.800
01-Jun	2.503	2.273	15.415	14.168	82.685	85.903	704.930	729.930
Standard Deviation
16-Mar	0.235	0.146	9.763	6.196	16.937	7.533	413.460	547.720
01-Apr	0.398	0.314	10.629	9.343	13.048	13.048	307.980	351.440
16-Apr	0.097	0.097	8.376	4.881	9.287	3.669	839.420	1020.600
01-May	0.187	0.274	5.152	6.310	9.883	12.440	229.370	330.320
16-May	0.187	0.153	5.184	4.534	6.897	6.029	50.490	83.742
01-Jun	0.319	0.090	2.392	1.937	8.419	5.403	233.370	233.370
Standard Error of Mean
16-Mar	0.117	0.073	4.882	3.098	8.469	3.767	206.730	273.860
01-Apr	0.199	0.157	5.315	4.672	6.524	6.524	153.990	175.720
16-Apr	0.048	0.048	4.188	2.440	4.643	1.834	419.710	510.280
01-May	0.093	0.137	2.576	3.155	4.941	6.220	114.680	165.160
16-May	0.094	0.077	2.592	2.267	3.449	3.014	25.245	41.871
01-Jun	0.160	0.045	1.196	0.968	4.210	2.701	116.690	116.690
Minimum Value
16-Mar	3.480	3.680	31.330	19.330	126.870	131.870	1741.400	1766.400
01-Apr	2.910	3.110	30.330	18.330	127.870	132.870	1712.200	2070.600
16-Apr	3.400	3.600	31.000	21.000	130.870	135.870	1167.200	1192.200
01-May	3.040	3.240	30.000	16.670	120.870	125.870	1288.900	1313.900
16-May	3.080	2.990	21.000	11.330	113.870	118.870	1011.500	1036.500
01-Jun	2.220	2.200	13.000	12.330	75.870	80.870	388.630	413.630
Maximum Value
16-Mar	4.020	4.010	52.670	32.670	167.330	150.130	2656.300	2981.300
01-Apr	3.870	3.790	54.000	39.670	155.870	160.870	2393.500	2858.900
16-Apr	3.600	3.800	49.330	31.670	151.130	142.870	3138.000	3423.100
01-May	3.430	3.790	42.000	31.330	143.870	153.130	1760.900	2119.200
16-May	3.450	3.340	33.330	22.000	129.730	132.800	1118.600	1210.200
01-Jun	2.900	2.400	18.330	16.670	94.130	92.000	923.910	948.910
Coefficient of Variation
16-Mar	6.321	3.825	25.196	24.782	11.465	5.358	18.837	24.041
01-Apr	11.531	8.784	27.729	35.799	9.279	8.960	15.237	14.769
16-Apr	2.777	2.626	22.690	19.653	6.543	2.626	41.208	44.624
01-May	5.827	7.863	14.826	28.257	7.410	8.827	15.285	19.520
16-May	5.721	4.772	19.202	28.786	5.593	4.799	4.840	7.720
01-Jun	12.755	3.958	15.519	13.671	10.182	6.290	33.106	31.972

 

Table 3: Performance of varieties on different sowing dates.

Variety	Sowing date	Plant height		Number of bolls plant-1		Boll weight		Seed cotton yield per plant (kg ha-1)
		2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020
CIM 622	16-Mar	126.87	131.87	38.33	27.33	3.48	3.68	1741.42	1766.42
	01-Apr	131.87	136.87	34.67	22.67	3.51	3.71	1712.23	2070.56
	16-Apr	130.87	135.87	31.00	21.67	3.41	3.61	1678.16	1703.16
	01-May	120.87	125.87	32.67	20.00	3.04	3.24	1288.87	1313.87
	16-May	113.87	118.87	28.33	15.67	3.08	3.28	1021.23	1046.23
	01-Jun	75.87	80.87	16.33	14.67	2.22	2.22	923.91	948.91
SLH 8	16-Mar	167.33	150.13	52.67	32.67	4.02	4.01	2656.27	2981.27
	01-Apr	155.87	160.87	54.00	39.67	3.87	3.79	1833.88	2858.88
	16-Apr	151.13	142.87	49.33	31.67	3.60	3.80	2164.78	3423.11
	01-May	137.87	153.13	42.00	31.33	3.43	3.63	1760.89	2119.22
	16-May	129.73	132.80	33.33	22.00	3.41	3.22	1118.55	1210.22
	01-Jun	94.13	92.00	18.33	12.33	2.90	2.40	826.58	851.58
FH Lalazar	16-Mar	152.87	139.00	32.67	20.67	3.75	3.73	1973.78	1932.12
	01-Apr	146.87	151.87	34.33	23.73	2.91	3.11	2393.49	2418.49
	16-Apr	147.87	137.33	34.00	25.00	3.40	3.60	1167.21	1192.21
	01-May	143.87	148.87	34.33	21.33	3.06	3.26	1327.80	1686.13
	16-May	126.80	123.00	25.33	14.00	3.14	3.34	1011.50	1036.50
	01-Jun	83.87	88.87	13.00	16.67	2.62	2.20	680.60	705.60
FH 142	16-Mar	143.87	141.40	31.33	19.33	3.59	3.79	2408.09	2433.09
	01-Apr	127.87	132.87	30.33	18.33	3.50	3.70	2145.32	2170.32
	16-Apr	137.87	142.87	33.33	21.00	3.53	3.73	3138.02	2829.68
	01-May	130.87	135.87	30.00	16.67	3.28	3.79	1624.64	1649.64
	16-May	122.87	127.87	21.00	11.33	3.45	2.99	1021.23	1046.23
	01-Jun	76.87	81.87	14.00	13.00	2.27	2.27	388.63	413.63

 

value, 2.27 g, during 2020, as shown in given in Table 2. In both years, the maximum value of BW showed by SLH-8 was 3.54 and 3.48 g compared to the other genotypes. In both years, the average BW was ranged between 3.18 to 3.51 g. However, the highest BW was observed in SLH-8 (3.51 g), as given in Table 3. SCY was ranged between 717.42 to 2236 kg ha-1. Maximum SCY was 2278.22 kg ha-1 during the sowing of 16 March 2021, and the minimum value was 704.92 kg ha-1 during the sowing date of 01-June 201, as given in Table 3.

The SCY rangedfrom 1434.58 to 1983.77 kg ha-1, and maximum value showed by SLH-8 was 1726.82 and 2240.71 kg ha-1 during 2019 and 2020, as given in Table 3. During the sowing of 01-April 2019, CIM-622 showed the SCY of 1741.42 kg ha-1. While SLH-8 was best performed in both years during the sowing date of 16 April, SCY was 2164.78 and 3423 kg ha-1. FH-Lalazarwas best performed in both years during the sowing of 01-April, and SCY was 2393.49 and 2418 kgha-1. FH-142 was also best performed on sowing of 16 April in both years; SCY was 3138.02 and 2829 kgha-1, respectively, as given in Table 3.

The results of correlation analysis showed that PH was positively and highly significantly correlated with NBP-1 (0.67), BW (0.86), and SCY (0.75). SCY was also positively and highly significantly correlated with the BW (0.73) and NBP-1 (0.53), as given in Table 4.

 

Table 4: Correlation (Pearson) between yield contributing and seed cotton yield of both years.

	PH	NBP	BW	SCYP
PH	1.00
NBP	0.67**	1.00
BW	0.86**	0.55**	1.00
SCYP	0.75**	0.53**	0.73**	1.00

 

The heat map clustered the sowing dates of March, April, and May into cluster 2, and sowing during 01 June was clustered into cluster 1. BW, PH, NBP were clustered into group 1 and SCY into the 2ndcluster during 2019. While heat map of 2020, PH and BW were grouped into 1st group and NBP-1 and SCY into 2nd group. The heat map also revealed that cotton sowing during 01-June significantly affected the SCY and yield contributing traits. Cotton sowing during 16 March, 01 April, and 16 April showed a significant increase in the seed cotton yield and yield contributing traits of both years. May sowing of cotton somehow affects the seed cotton yield, as shown in Figure 3.

 

For breeding purposes, the selection of plant material plays a vital role in the relationship between traits. An ideal structure for the cotton plant is essential for achieving a higher seed cotton yield. Furthermore, temperature also impacted crop emergence and early standing growth (Hussain et al., 2012). But cotton growers always focused on the time of plantation for agronomic concerns to get maximum production. This experiment shows that early sowing of cotton on March 16th produced more seed cotton yield than late sowing of the cotton crop (Figure 3). In Pakistan, early sowing of cotton provides favorable weather conditions for flowering and fruit development (Ali et al., 2009).

The temperature of colder nights might be harmful for the retention of bolls and plant growth reported by (Yeates et al., 2013). Furthermore, the reduced productivity in seed cotton yield and yield-related traits was due to the later dates of sowing in the field and might be due to the poor weather conditions, which mainly affected the reproductive stage because of falling temperature (Lakkineni et al., 1994; Kaur et al.,2019).

The date of sowing affects the PH and SCY, and had significant variation was observed. SLH-8 shows maximum height in 2019 and shows maximum seed cotton yield in 2020 as compared with other varieties. Furthermore, the interaction between genotypes and sowing dates was significant only for PH and SCY in both years, and this interaction also created a crucial role in both years. In our study, it was observed that PH and SCY were reduced due to late sowing. The reduction in PH and SCY was mainly due to high temperature and insect infestation (Qamar et al., 2016).

The temperature at 30 °C provides a favorable environment for boll development at maximum capacity. Maximum NBP-1 was attained in optimum temperature because of mean temperature during the boll and flowering period with higher photosynthesis that was mainly dependent on sowing date (Reddy, 1992). Furthermore, cotton crop faces the minimum temperature in late sowing, but this will not be supportive in proper boll development. However, it will increase the population of insects (Ali et al., 2004).

Cotton plants require a different quantity of water uptake for better growth. Young ones usually tolerate the drier weather conditions and trying to produce flowers in stress water conditions. However, when the flowers come out from their buds, the requirement for water uptake significantly increases. For the first fourteen days after flowering, water scarcity causes the boll to fall off from the plant (Cotton Foundation, 2018).

Sowing dates played an essential role in obtaining a higher seed cotton yield. Higher temperature significantly affects the production of SCY (Saeed et al.,2014; Ahmed et al., 2014). Our findings showed that cotton BW showed maximum difference related to sowing dates. The BW was significantly affected by sowing dates, and it showed that it might be due to genotype and environment interaction (Zeng et al., 2014).

As compared to vegetative growth, the growth of boll was temperature sensitive. The increase in NBP-1 also increases the SCY. NBP-1 contribute in the SCY, these traits was significantly correlated with each and other (Copur, 1999; Baran, 2013; Copur and Yuka, 2016).

The correlation between four traits in different sowing dates showed significant differences. As the PH was positively and significantly correlated with NBP-1, BW, and SCY. These results were also similar to the findings of Khalid et al. (2018) and Salahuddin et al. (2010). SCY was positively and significantly correlated with NBP-1 and BW (Arshad et al., 2007). Therefore, the plants with these traits will simplify the selection process for desired plants in SCY improvement. Sowing date have a big impact on cotton cultivars. The growth and developmental characteristics of late-sown cotton were significantly reduced (Ali et al., 2021).

Conclusions and Recommendations

It was observed that maximum seed cotton yield has been obtained on the sowing date of 16th March during both years. In genotypes, SLH-8 was the best performing variety among all studied genotypes. The seed cotton yield in both years was ranged between 1434.58 and 1983.77 kgha-1, and maximum seed cotton yield was observed for SLH-8 in 2019 and 2020 (1726.82 and 2240.71 kgha-1, respectively). Correlation analysis showed that plant heigh was positively and highly significantly correlated with number of bolls plant-1, boll weight, and seed cotton yield. Seed cotton yield was also positively and highly significantly correlated with the boll weight and number of bolls plant-1.

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to researchers of Cotton Research Station Sahiwal, for their valuable feedback and assistance in the experiment designing and layout; and all the working staff of the who helped during this research.

Novelty Statement

This study highlights that under the environmental conditions (high temperature and unpredicted rain pattern) of Sahiwal, sowing of cotton after 1st June will affect drastically the reduce of seed cotton yield. Therefore, according to current weather conditions, the best time for cotton sowing in the Sahiwal zone is 16th March.

Author’s Contribution

Muhammad Zubair Ishaq: Designed the experiments and wrote the first draft.

Umar Farooq: Measured the observations.

Muhammad Asim Bhutta: Conducted this research.

Saghir Ahmad, Amna Bibi, Hafeez UR Rehman and Umar Farooq: Assisted in preparation of the draft of this paper.

Javaria Ashraf and Samaria Nisar: Proofread the article and finalized the draft.

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

Abbas, S. 2020. Climate change and cotton production: an empirical investigation of Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pol. Res., 27: 29580-29588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09222-0

Abro, S., M.T. Rajput, M.A. Khan, M.A. Sial and S.S. Tahir. 2015. Screening of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) genotypes for heat tolerance. Pak. J. Bot., 47:2085-2091.

Ahmad, A.U.H., R. Ali, S.I. Zamir and N. Mahmood. 2009. Growth, yield and quality performance of cotton cultivar BH-160 (Gossypium hirsutum L.) as influenced by different plant spacing. J. Anim. Plant Sci., 19(4): 189-192.

Ahmed, D., Z. Tunio, S.Q. Chachar and F.C. Oad. 2014. Impact of sowing dates and picking stages on yield and seed maturity of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) varieties. Sarhad J. Agric., 30(4): 404-410.

Ali, A., R. Qamar, M.E. Safdar, S. Saleem, S. Ullah, M.A. Javed and S.W. Hasan. 2021. Development and growth: influence of sowing dates on performance of cotton cultivars. Pak. J. Agric. Res., 34(1): 23-28. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjar/2021/34.1.23.28

Ali, H., M.N. Afzal and D. Muhammad. 2009. Effect of sowing dates and plant spacing on growth and dry matter partitioning in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Pak. J. Bot., 41(5): 2145-2155.

Ali, M., Q. Mohyud-din, M.A. Ali, S. Sabir and L. Ali. 2004. Cotton yield as influenced by different sowing dates under the climatic conditions of Vehari–Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 4: 644-646.

Ali, S., T.M. Khan, A. Shakeel and M.F. Saleem. 2020. Genetic basis of variation for physiological and yield contributing traits under normal and high temperature stress in Gossypium hirsutum L. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 57(6): 1491-1501.

Arshad, M., N. Illahi, M. Afzal, R. Ali and M. Hanif. 2001. Effect of planting dates on fiber characters of three upland cotton varieties. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 4(4): 313-315.

Bange, M.P. and S.P. Milroy. 2004. Growth and dry matter partitioning of diverse cotton genotypes. Field Crop. Res., 87(1): 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2003.09.007

Baran, F.O. 2013. The effects of different planting date on agronomical and technological properties in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) under short season production conditions. Adnan Menderes University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, MSc Thesis, Aydın, Turkey (in Turkish).

Bardak A., Yüksel, B. Hatice and Çokkizgin. 2014. Genetic analysis of fiber traits in cotton. KSU J. Nat. Sci., 17(1). https://doi.org/10.18016/ksujns.86557

Campbell, B.T. and M.A. Jones. 2005. Assessment of genotype × environment interactions for yield and fiber quality in cotton performance trials. Euphytica, 144(1): 69-78.

Copur, O. 1999. Research on the effects of different planting dates on flowering, yield, yield components and earliness criteria of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) at the Harran Plain conditions. Harran University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, PhD Thesis, Sanlıurfa, Turkey (in Turkish).

Copur, O. and A. Yuka. 2016. Determination of yield and yield components of cotton varieties (Gossypium hirsutum L.) grown as second crop after the wheat. YuzuncuYil Univ. J. Agric. Sci., 26(2): 245-253.

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

Economic Survey of Pakistan. 2019-20. In: Government of Pakistan. Finance Division Economic Adviser’s Wing, Islamabad.

Edmisten, K.L., A.C. York, F.H. Yelverton, J.F. Spears, D.T. Bowman, J.S. Bacheler, S.R. Koenning, C.R. Crozier, A.D. Meijer, A.B. Brown and A.S. Culpepper. 2007. Cotton information. North Carolina state university cooperative extension Publ. AG-417. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Elayan, E.D., A.M.A. 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. American-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci., 15(5): 754-763.

Faircloth, J.C., D.A.Jr. Herbert, P.M. Phipps and M. Roberts. 2008. Virginia Cotton Production Guide, 2008.

Farid, M.A., M. Ijaz, S. Hussain, M. Hussain, O. Farooq, A. Sattar, A. Sheraz, A. Wajid, A. Ullah and M.R. Faiz. 2017. Growth and yield response of cotton cultivars at different planting dates. Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci., 15(3): 158-162.

Farooq, J., M. Khalid, W.A. Muhammad, R.M. Atiq, J. Imran, P.M.I. Valentin and N. Nawaz. 2015. High temperature stress in cotton Gossypium hirsutum L. ELBA Bioflux, 7(1): 34-44.

Farooq, U., J. Amin, M. Qasim, M. Ismail, U. Majeed, M. A. Tahir, H. Haider, W. Hussain, and M. Imran. 2018. A Review on hereditary qualities assorted variety of American cotton. Agric. Sci., 9(05): 587-608. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2018.95041

Gecgel, U., M. Demirci and E. Esendal. 2007. Fatty acid composition of the oil from developing seeds of different varieties of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc., 84: 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11746-006-1007-3

Gu, Z., R. Eils and M. Schlesner. 2016. Complex heatmaps reveal patterns and correlations in multidimensional genomic data. Bioinformatics, 32(18): 2847-2849. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btw313

Hussain, M., G. Shabir, M. Farooq, K. Jabran and S. Farooq. 2012. Developmental and phenological responses of wheat to sowing dates. Pak. J. Agric. Sci., 49: 459-468.

Iqbal, J., S.A. Wajid, A. Ahmad and M. Arshad 2012. Comparative studies on seed cotton yield in relation to nitrogen rates and sowing dates under diverse Agro-Environment of punjab. Pakistan J. Sci., 64(1): 59-63.

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.

Kaur, V., S.K. Mishra, K. Singh, K.K. Gill and R.K. Pal. 2019. Performance of Bt and non Bt cotton cultivars under different sowing environment of southwestern Punjab. J Cotton Res. Dev., 33(1): 93-98.

Khalid, M.A., T.W. Malik, N. Fatima, A. Shakeel, I. Karim, M. Arfan, S. Merrium and P. Khanum. 2018. Correlation of economic traits in upland cotton. Acta Sci. Agric., 2(10): 59–62.

Khan, N., F.M. Azhar, A.A. Khan and R. Ahmad. 2014. Measurement of canopy temperature for heat tolerance in Upland cotton: variability and its genetic basis. Pak. J. Agric. Sci., 51(2).

Lakkineni K.C., S.N. Bhardwaj and Y.P. Abrol. 1994. Effect of temperature on early growth and seed yield in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 64:653-654.

Lobell D.B. and C.B. Field. 2007. Global scale climate-crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming. Environ. Res. Lett., 2(1): 014002 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002

Pedigo, L.P., Rice and R.K. Krell, 2021. Entomology and pest management. Waveland Press.

Peterson, B.G., P. Carl, K. Boudt, R. Bennett, J. Ulrich, E. Zivot, D. Cornilly, E. Hung, M. Lestel, K. Balkissoon and D. Wuertz. 2018. Package ‘performanceanalytics’. R Team Cooperation. 3:13-14.

Qamar, R., A. Rehman, H.M.R. Javeed, M. Saqib, M. Shoaib, A. Ali and M. Ali. 2016. Influence of sowing time on cotton growth, yield and fiber quality. Int. J. Biotech., 13(1): 59-67.

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(2): 475-483.

Reddy, K.R., H.F. Hodges and V.R. Reddy. 1992. Temperature effects on cotton fruit retention. Agron. J., 84(1): 26-30. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1992.00021962008400010006x

Riaz, M., J. Farooq, G. Sakhawat, A. Mahmood, M.A. Sadiq and M. Yaseen. 2013. Genotypic variability for root/shoot parameters under water stress in some advance lines of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Genet. Mol. Res., 12: 552-561. https://doi.org/10.4238/2013.February.27.4

Saeed, F., S.A. Kang and M. Amin. 2014. Performance of genotypes at different sowing dates on yield and quality traits in Gossypium hirsutum. Int. J. Agric. Crop Sci., 7 (5): 274-278.

Salahuddin, S., S. Abro, A. Rehman and K. Iqbal. 2010. Correlation analysis of seed cotton yield with some quantitative traits in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Pak. J. Bot., 42(6): 3799-3805.

Solomon, S., M. Manning, M. Marquis, M. and D. Qin. 2007. Climate change 2007-the physical science basis: Working group I contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.

Steel, R.G.D. and J.H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York

Tahir, M., A. Ali, M.A. Nadeem, A. Hussain and F. Khalid. 2009. Effect of different sowing dates on growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties in district Jhang, Pakistan. Pakistan J. Life Soc. Sci., 7: 66-69.

Usman, K. and N.K. Ayatullah. 2016. Genotype-by-sowing date interaction effects on cotton yield and quality in irrigated condition of Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 48(5): 1933-1944.

Yeates, S.J., M.F. Kahl, A.J. Dougall and W.J. Müller. 2013. The impact of variable, cold minimum temperatures on boll retention, boll growth and yield recovery of cotton. J. Cotton Sci., 17: 89-101.

Zeng, L., W.R.M. Jr., B.T. Campbell, J.K. Dever, J. Zhang, K.M. Glass, A.S. Jones, G.O. Myers and F.M. Bourland. 2014. Breeding and genetics. Genotype-by-environment interaction effects on lint yield of cotton cultivars across major regions in the U.S. cotton belt. J. Cotton. Sci. 18:75-84

Zia-ul-Hassan, K.A. Kubar, I. Rajpar, A.N. Shah and A.A. Maitlo. 2014. Evaluating potassium-use-efficiency of five cotton genotypes of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 46(4): 1237-1242.