Next Article in Journal
Understanding Activation Effects on Low-Temperature Biochar for Optimization of Herbicide Sorption
Previous Article in Journal
Seed Coating with Thyme Essential Oil or Paraburkholderia phytofirmans PsJN Strain: Conferring Septoria Leaf Blotch Resistance and Promotion of Yield and Grain Isotopic Composition in Wheat
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 9
Issue 10
10.3390/agronomy9100587
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Relationships between Plant Architecture Traits and Cotton Yield within the Plant Height Range of 80–120 cm Desired for Mechanical Harvesting in the Yellow River Valley of China

by
Wei Yan
1,†,
Mingwei Du
1,†,
Wenchao Zhao
1,2,
Fang Li
1,
Xiangru Wang
1,3,
A. Egrinya Eneji
4,
Fuqiang Yang
1,
Jian Huang
1,
Lu Meng
1,
Haikun Qi
1,
Guojuan Xue
1,
Dongyong Xu
5,
Xiaoli Tian
1,* and
Zhaohu Li
1,*
1
State Key Lab of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry/Engineering Research Center of Plant Growth, Regulator/College of Agriculture and Biotechnology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
2
Institute of Cotton Research, Dezhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Dezhou 25300, China
3
Institute of Cotton Research of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Anyang 455000, China
4
Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Wildlife Resources Management, University of Calabar, 540271 Calabar, Nigeria
5
Hebei Cottonseed Engineering Technology Research Center, Hejian 062450, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These two authors contribute equally to this work.
Agronomy 2019, 9(10), 587; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9100587
Submission received: 5 September 2019 / Revised: 23 September 2019 / Accepted: 25 September 2019 / Published: 26 September 2019
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Mechanical harvesting has become inevitable for cotton production in China due to the rising labor cost in the country. It usually requires a moderate plant height and compact plant architecture. Correlation and stepwise regression were employed to analyze databases of our 24 field experiments between 2010 and 2017 in Hebei Province. The purpose is to identify the relationships between plant architecture traits and seed cotton yield within natural plant height range (58.6–163.2 cm) or preferred plant height range (80–120 cm) for mechanical harvesting in the Yellow River Valley of China, and define some important factors affecting seed cotton yield. Under natural plant height range across all experiments, there was a significantly negative correlation (r = −0.452) between plant height and yield. On limited plant height range desired for mechanical harvesting, the degree of this negative correlation decreased to r = −0.366. The correlation of plant height with seed cotton yield varied greatly with year, cultivar, plant density and mepiquat chloride (MC) application. Moreover, stepwise regression analysis picked internode length of the 1st (generally including 1st–7th mainstem node from bottom), 2nd (8th–12th node) and 4th (above 17th node) mainstem section and the length of lower fruiting branch (LFB) as significant factors influencing seed cotton yield under plant height range of 80–120 cm. The results have implications for precise control of cotton plant architecture preferred for mechanized harvesting in China.

1. Introduction

Plant architecture, defined as the three-dimensional organization of the above-ground plant part, significantly affects the light interception and radiation use efficiency in the crop canopy, and thus determines plant growth, biomass production and partitioning, and yield potential [1]. Moreover, plant architecture greatly influences ease of agronomic management, including harvest [2,3].
In terms of the suitable plant type for cotton, the shorter plants are better choices for mechanical harvesting since taller plants are often associated with excessive vegetative growth and later maturity, which can cause harvesting difficulties [4]. Experiences from the United States and Australia showed that the plant height should be less than 120 cm for spindle-pickers and less than 80 cm for stripper-pickers [5,6]. In addition, data from the Northwest Inland Cotton region of China showed that the height of the first sympodial branch should exceed 20 cm to reduce the intake of residual plastic mulch which is widely used for cotton production in China. Other cotton plant architecture attributes such as height to node ratio (i.e., the internode length), and length of sympodial branches have direct and/or indirect effect on cotton yield and harvest efficiency [7,8,9,10,11]. However, there is little information on the effects of more detailed plant architectural attributes such as the length of all mainstem internodes and all fruiting branches on yield. Especially, it’s unclear how these effects are when plant height is regulated to fit the range of 80–120 cm.
Environmental factors such as rainfall and temperature substantially influence cotton plant architecture [12,13,14]. For instance, drought often results in reduced plant height and node numbers [15,16,17]. Also, cotton genotypic differences in plant architecture are usually observed [18]. As an important agronomic management, plant density can affect canopy development and yield by altering the light interception within the canopy and regulating the amount of resources (e.g., water, nutrients, and soil volume) available per plant [19,20,21]. Mepiquat chloride (MC), a type of plant growth retardant, has been widely used for cotton production to reduce plant height as well as the length of internode and sympodial branch, and thus create more compact plants [22,23,24,25,26]. Nevertheless, little is known of how weather conditions, cultivar, and agronomic management affect the relationship between cotton plant architecture and yield. In China, mechanical harvesting of cotton has become inevitable to cope with labor-shortages and high-cost of cotton production [21,27]. To enhance mechanization of cotton harvesting in China, we explored the key plant architecture traits influencing cotton yield under the plant height range desired for mechanical harvesting in the Yellow River Valley, a traditional cotton growing area in China. We determined the correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield under both natural (58.6–163.2 cm) and specific (80–120 cm) range of plant height suitable for mechanical harvesting, and analyzed its responses to year (weather conditions), cultivar, plant population and MC application. In addition, we identified some plant architecture traits significantly affecting yield using stepwise regression under both natural and limited plant height range. The results would be helpful for precise management and crop breeding in terms of plant architecture aiming to mechanically harvest cotton in China.

2. Materials and Methods

Analysing data collected across a range of sites, in different fields, with different weather conditions, and different management practices, can offer useful insight into which factors are most influential in determining the impact of treatment [28].
The data in this study were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city (38°41’ N 116°09´ E and elevation 11 m), Hebei Province, China from 2010 to 2017 (except 2015). The monthly average precipitation, air temperature, and sunshine duration during the growing seasons (from May to September) are presented in Table 1. The relevant information (year, cultivar, plant density, MC application, fertilizers and irrigation) on each experiment is shown in Table 2.
Topping (removing the shoot apex and the uppermost young leaf) is a routine practice for cotton production in China. The topping date is generally in late July (about one week after the peak bloom stage). Chemical control of insects and weeds was conducted according to the local agronomic practices.
Five to ten randomly selected plants per plot were tagged at harvest for measuring plant height and length of mainstem internodes and fruiting branches using steel tape. Plant height was measured from the cotyledonary node to the shoot apex in all 24 experiments. The length of fruiting branches was measured in 15 experiments, and length of mainstem internodes was measured in 9 experiments (Table 2). Plants from the inner rows of each plot were hand-picked twice in early October and at the end of October or early November, to determine seed cotton yield.

Statistical Analysis

According to the amount of data available from 24 field experiments (Table 2), some important factors such as weather (mainly rainfall during growing season), cultivar, plant density and MC application were selected to do relevant analysis in this study.
Correlation analysis (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used to investigate the relationships of plant height and other architecture attributes with yield. Stepwise regression analysis (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was employed to study the impacting factors of architecture traits on seed cotton yield, the entry and stay points were set at 0.05.
To simplify the analysis, the mainstem internodes and fruiting branches were grouped. The mainstem was separated into four sections. The part appearing prior to squaring was defined as the 1st section (generally including 1st–7th node from bottom); the other part was evenly divided into three sections, namely the 2nd (generally including 8th–12th node), 3rd (13th–17th node) and 4th (above 17th node) sections. Also, fruiting branches were evenly grouped into three from bottom up—the lower (generally including 1st–5th fruiting branch, LFB), middle (6th–10th fruiting branch, MFB) and upper (above 10th fruiting branch, UFB) fruiting branches.
The scatter plots of plant height over seed cotton yield were created in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Correlation between Plant Height and Seed Cotton Yield

Correlation analysis is a simple and effective method for extracting knowledge from a large quantity of data.
The plant height ranged from 58.6 to 163.2 cm across the 24 field experiments. The mean plant height was 111.1 cm, and the correlation between height and seed cotton yield was significantly negative (r = −0.452) (Figure 1A). However, when we limited the height range to 80–120 cm which is preferred for mechanical harvesting [5,6], the mean plant height reduced to 104.6 cm and the negative correlation decreased (r = −0.366) (Figure 1B), suggesting that shorter plants and narrower range of height may produce more stable yields.
The correlation of plant height with seed cotton yield was affected by year, cultivar, plant density and MC application. Within the natural range, the negative correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield occurred in most years but not in 2011 and 2014 (Figure 2A, Table 3). Instead, a significantly positive correlation (r = 0.304) was observed in the dry year of 2014 which had shorter plants (97.0 cm) even irrigation of about 450 m3 ha−1 was supplemented. When the plant height was limited to the preferred range of 80–120 cm for mechanical harvesting, the mean plant height decreased or increased depending on years (Table 3). Moreover, the correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield varied greatly in 2013 and 2014 when plant height range was limited (Figure 2B). For example, the correlation in 2013 changed from significantly negative (r = −0.195) to significantly positive (r = 0.346), and that in 2014 changed from significantly positive (r = 0.304) to non-significant (Table 3).
Also, there were great genotypic differences in the correlation of plant height with seed cotton yield. Within the range of natural plant height, six of the cultivars from eight showed significantly negative correlations (Figure 3A; Table 4). There was no correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield for cultivar of XS17 and SCRC28 which had both shorter plants and smaller CVs (Table 4). When analyzed within the preferred height range of 80–120 cm, the CVs for all cultivars were smaller than those within the natural height range, whereas the mean height increased or decreased depending on cultivars (Table 4). Four of the cultivars (XS17, SCRC28, SCRC36 and Han7860) showed little correlations between plant height and yield; and the correlations for XK4, SK126, CCRI60 and GX3 were still negative (Figure 3B, Table 4).
Within the natural height range, all plant densities showed significantly negative correlation between plant height and yield (Figure 4A, Table 5). Compared with higher plant densities, the negative correlation decreased to r = −0.198 at the lowest plant density (5.2 plants m−2), which is perhaps associated with its smaller CV. When the plant height was limited to 80–120 cm, both plant height CV and the mean height at each plant density reduced (Figure 4B, Table 5). In addition, there was no longer a correlation between height and seed cotton yield at the lowest density, and the extent of negative correlation at the other three higher plant densities decreased (Figure 4B, Table 5).
MC is usually used to reduce cotton plant height and create a compact plant structure [22,23,29,30]. In this study, the plants treated with MC was 37.8 cm and 8.4 cm shorter than control plants under natural and preferred ranges (Table 6). Within the natural height range, plants treated with MC showed a smaller negative correlation (r = −0.408) between height and seed cotton yield than control (r = −0.539) (Figure 5A, Table 6), which is possibly attributed to the reduced height under MC. When analyzed within the preferred height range for mechanized harvesting (80–120 cm), the extent of negative correlation of plant height with yield decreased (Figure 5B, Table 6).

3.2. Stepwise Regression between Plant Architecture Traits and Seed Cotton Yield

Within the natural plant height range, the mean internode length on the 1st mainstem section was the shortest (3.6 cm), and internodes on the 2nd and 3rd section were nearly twice as long as the 1st section (6.7–6.9 cm), the mean internode length on the 4th section was medium (5.9 cm; Table 7). With regard to fruiting branches, the mean length of MFB (25.9 cm) was slightly longer than that of LFB (24.6 cm), while UFB was the shortest (20.2 cm). When the plant height range was limited to 80–120 cm, the length of the above traits all decreased, especially internodes of the 3rd mainstem section and the length of MFB and UFB (Table 7).
Stepwise regression analysis under the natural plant height range (58.6–163.2 cm) picked internode length of the 3rd mainstem section, length of UFB, length of the 1st and 2nd mainstem section as significant factors of seed cotton yield from all seven architecture traits. When tested individually, their R2 were 28.3%, 17.8%, 3.8% and 0.0% respectively. However, the final optimized model (Equation (1)) indicates the length of UFB explains the most variation in yield difference, followed by internode length of the 2nd, 3rd, and 1st mainstem section. These four architecture traits explained 45.0% of variance (R2) in seed cotton yield. From the values of partial correlation coefficient of each traits, it appears that shorter UFB, shorter internode of the 3rd, and 1st mainstem section but longer the 2nd mainstem section will increase seed cotton yield.
Y = 4922.2 − 45.7X1 + 211.9X2 − 164.7X3 − 66.3X4
where X1, X2, X3 and X4 indicates the length of UFB, internode length of the 2nd, 3rd, and 1st mainstem section, respectively.
Under the limited plant height range (80–120 cm) preferred for mechanical harvesting, internode length of 1st, 2nd, and 4th mainstem section, and the length of LFB are significant factors influencing seed cotton yield. Their R2 were 21.3%, 13.2%, 6.7% and 0.4% respectively while tested individually. As shown in Equation (2), the internode length of the 2nd mainstem section is the most important trait affecting yield, then followed by the length of LFB, internode length of the 1st, and 4th mainstem section; and the longer internode of 2nd, and 4th mainstem section but the shorter LFB and internode of the 1st mainstem section will lead to increased yield. These four traits explained 40.5% of variance in yield.
Y = 5176.3 + 214.7X1 − 54.7X2 − 345.7X3 + 90.3X4
where X1, X2, X3 and X4 indicates internode length of the 2nd mainstem section, the length of LFB, internode length of the 1st and 4th mainstem section, respectively.

4. Discussion

Cotton plant height is associated with yield potential in different aspects. Firstly, taller plants have more fruiting branches and more fruit sites [29,30,31], which is advantageous for yield potential. Secondly, taller plants have excessive vegetative growth which can result in closed canopy, more fruit abscission and boll rot in lower, even middle canopy. Thirdly, in some special situations characterized by severe fruit loss in lower and/or middle canopy, taller plants may have better compensation growth in the upper canopy. Due to these contrasting relationships between plant height and yield, the correlation between height and cotton yield varies greatly in the literature. Several researchers proposed that plant height is negatively correlated with seed cotton yield [32,33,34,35,36], while some showed a positive correlation between them [7,9,30,37,38]. Also, some others have suggested no correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield [8,31].
However, long-term databases can potentially provide useful information regarding this issue, as data can be collected in a number of weather and agronomic situations, within the same region [28]. In fact, the use of long-term databases has been considered a useful way of teasing apart complex relationships and causality in scientific studies [39,40] despite of their varying levels of quality and consistency [39]. In this study, we found an overall significantly negative correlation (r = −0.452) between plant height and seed cotton yield across 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017. Additionally, the correlations varied considerably with years, cultivars, plant densities and MC application.

4.1. Correlation between Plant Height and Seed Cotton Yield Varied among Years, Cultivars, Plant Densities and MC Application

The correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield showed qualitative changes across years. Different from most years, the year of 2014 witnessed a significantly positive correlation of plant height with yield (Figure 2, Table 3). This may be attributed to much less precipitation and longer duration of sunshine in June to August in 2014 (Table 1), which resulted in a shorter plant height (97.0 cm) but an increased fruit retention (data not shown) and seed cotton yield (Table 3).
In terms of cultivars, plant densities and MC application, the correlations were either significantly negative or not significant (Table 4,Table 5,Table 6). We found that cultivars with less vegetative growth potential (such as XS17 and SCRC28) and cultural practices which could reduce plant height or its variation (such as lower plant density at 5.2 plants m−2 and MC application) showed non-significant or weak negative correlations between plant height and yield, i.e., a relatively stable yield. Also, Gaju et al. [41] found that the correlation between some physiological traits and winter wheat yield varied with cultural practices, it was not significant under high soil nitrogen fertility, but was significant under low-nitrogen fertility.
In order to examine whether the preferred height range (80–120 cm) for mechanical harvesting influence cotton yield potential, we explored the correlation of plant height with seed cotton yield at this range. The results showed that the degree of negative correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield decreased (r = −0.366) compared with that without plant height limitation (r = −0.452). It seems that if the grower could regulate plant height to fit the range of 80–120 cm, the relationship between plant height and yield would became weak.
Moreover, the correlation between plant height and yield varied substantially in some years when the height was limited to 80–120 cm. Most notably, the correlation in 2013 changed from significantly negative (r = −0.195) to significantly positive (r = 0.346). This is probably associated with the wet weather in July in 2013, which resulted in excessive vegetative growth that means more fruit sites and greater ability to compensate for early fruits loss.

4.2. Plant Architecture Attributes (Except Plant Height) Impacting Seed Cotton Yield

The plant height determines the canopy size to a larger extent, but mainstem internode length and length of fruiting branches determine whether cotton canopy is evenly distributed and has adequate light penetration. However, there are few reports about their relationships with cotton yield [36,42].
In the present study, we examined how mainstem internode length and length of fruiting branches affect cotton yield using stepwise regression. Under natural plant height range, seed cotton yield tended to higher with shorter UFB and internodes of the 1st and 3rd mainstem section but longer internodes of the 2nd mainstem section.
Kerby et al. [43] reported that the height-to-node ratio (HNR, i.e., mean internode length) for nodes developed prior to squaring (i.e., the 1st main stem section in this study) will reflect spring temperatures more than management decisions, and a low HNR value may not limit yield potential because the important leaves that will supply majority of assimilates to bolls are not yet developed. However, we obtained a different result: the shorter internodes of the 1st mainstem section, the greater the cotton yield. This might because the shorter internode length of this part is usually accompanied by larger roots at the early growth stage [44,45], which would be advantageous for yield potential through effective uptake of water and nutrients.
According to plant mapping, internodes of the 2nd mainstem section elongated from early squaring to early bloom. Normally, cotton plants grow fastest during this period [43,46], and sufficient growth would result in more fruit sites and avoid rapid bloom and premature senescence.
Based on the rate at which new nodes appear and the elongation duration of internodes (plant mapping), most internodes of the 3rd section on the main stem elongate from peak squaring to peak bloom. This period is characterized by rapid vegetative growth and large appearance of fruits, and thus requires a fine-tuned source-to-sink balance. If the internodes of this section were longer, the vegetative growth would be vigorous during this period, and more assimilates would be partitioned into vegetative structures at the expense of fruits. This will prevent the earlier growth transition from the vegetative to reproductive phase, and thus reduce cotton yield [47].
With respect to the length of UFB, it can be expected that longer UFB will make a heavy canopy that often brings about fewer and/or small early fruits [48].
Interestingly, while plant height range was limited to 80–120 cm, plant architecture attributes that may influence cotton yield differs with those under natural plant height range. Internode length of the 1st and 2nd mainstem section is still remained, that of the 3rd mainstem section is discarded, but that of the 4th mainstem section is added with a positive partial correlation coefficient. Additionally, the length of UFB is discarded but the length of LFB is added with a negative partial correlation coefficient.
Generally, internodes of the 4th mainstem section start to elongate prior to peak bloom and stagnate after manual topping. The longer internodes of this section suggest the greater ability of plants to produce sufficient photosynthates in concert with fruit requirements during later growth period. Also, some reports documented that high cotton yield is often accompanied by high biomass accumulation after peak bloom [49,50]. As comparison with that under natural plant height range, the mean length of MFB and UFB decreased by around 10% when plant height range was limited to 80–120 cm, whereas that of LFB only decreased by 2.8%. We speculate that the length of LFB becomes the major factor deteriorating light condition within canopy under limited plant height range, thus the shorter LFB will benefit light penetration into the bottom of crop canopy as well as early season fruit retention and filling [51].
Taken together, these results suggest that when growers in the Yellow River Valley region of China try to regulate plant height to fit the range of 80–120 cm desired for mechanical harvesting, they need to pay close attention to internode length of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th mainstem section and the length of LFB. Based on the length range (except abnormal values) of these architecture attributes and their partial correlation coefficient in Equation (2), their suitable length, in turn, should be 2.2–4.7 cm, the shorter the better; 2.2–9.9 cm, the longer the better; 1.3–8.9 cm, the longer the better; 10.0–44.0 cm, the shorter the better.

5. Conclusions

There was a significantly negative correlation between cotton plant height and seed cotton yield, but this correlation varied according to year, cultivar, plant density and MC application. When the plant height was limited to the preferred range for mechanical harvesting (80–120 cm), the degree of negative correlation between plant height and cotton yield decreased. In addition, we identified internode length of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th mainstem section and the length of LFB as significant factors affecting seed cotton yield under plant height range of 80–120 cm using stepwise regression analysis, and described their suitable length.

Author Contributions

Methodology, M.D.; formal analysis, A.E.E.; investigation, W.Z., X.W., F.L., J.H., L.M., F.Y., H.Q., G.X., D.X.; writing—review and editing, W.Y.; supervision, X.T. and Z.L.; project administration, X.T. and Z.L.

Funding

This research was funded by by the program of the Modern Agricultural Industry Technology System of China (CARS-18-18).

Acknowledgments

We thank Cui Zuo, Xiaofang Yin and Baoquan Guo, of Cotton Seed Engineering Technology Research Center of Hebei Province, for advice on field management. We are grateful to Xinghu Song of China Agricultural University for providing assistance in part of statistical analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Reinhard, D.; Kuhlemeier, C. Plant architecture. EMBO Rep. 2002, 3, 846–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Maddonni, G.A.; Otegui, M.E.; Cirilo, A.G. Plant population density, row spacing and hybrid effects on maize canopy architecture and light attenuation. Field Crops Res. 2001, 71, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Stewart, S. Suggested Guidelines for Plant Growth Regulator Use on Louisiana Cotton; Publication Number 2919; Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service: Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ma, J.J.; Pei, W.F.; Ma, Q.F.; Geng, Y.H.; Liu, G.Y.; Liu, J.; Cui, Y.P.; Zhang, X.; Wu, M.; Li, X.G.; et al. QTL analysis and candidate gene identification for plant height in cotton based on an interspecific backcross inbred line population of Gossypium hirsutum  ×  Gossypium barbadense. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2019, 132, 2663–2676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Williford, J.R.; Brashears, A.D.; Barker, G.L. Harvesting. In Cotton Ginners Handbook; Anthony, W.S., Mayfield, W.D., Eds.; DIANE Publishing: Collingdale, PA, USA, 1994; pp. 11–16. [Google Scholar]
  6. Van Der Sluijs, R. Harvesting & delivering uncontaminated cotton. In Australian Cotton Production Manual; The Australian Cotton Industry Development & Delivery Team: Geelong, Australia, 2013; pp. 118–124. [Google Scholar]
  7. Alkuddsi, Y.; Patil, S.S.; Manjula, S.M.; Patil, B.C.; Nadaf, H.L.; Nandihali, B.S. Association analysis of seed cotton yield components and physiological parameters in derived F1 inter specific crosses of cotton. Biosci. Methods 2013, 4, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Reddy, K.B.; Reddy, V.C.; Ahmed, M.L.; Naidu, T.C.M.; Srinivasarao, V. Correlation and path coefficient analysis in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Int. J. Pure Appl. Biosci. 2015, 3, 70–80. [Google Scholar]
  9. Farias, F.J.C.; Carvalho, L.P.; Silva Filho, J.L.; Teodoro, P.E. Correlations and path analysis among agronomic and technological traits of upland cotton. Genet. Mol. Res. 2016, 15, gmr.15038239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Raj, T.; Thind, S.K.; Grewal, I.S. Correlation and path coefficient analysis of yield with yield attributing characters in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Environ. Ecol. 2017, 35, 1228–1232. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bartimote, T.; Quigley, R.; Bennett, J.M.; Hall, J.; Brodrick, R.; Tan, D.K.Y. A comparative study of conventional and controlled traffic in irrigated cotton: II. Economic and physiological analysis. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 168, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Reddy, K.R.; Hodges, H.F.; McKinion, J.M.; Wall, G.W. Temperature effects on Pima cotton growth and development. Agron. J. 1992, 84, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Oosterhuis, D.M. Day or night high temperatures: A major cause of yield variability. Cotton Grow. 2002, 46, 8–9. [Google Scholar]
  14. Monteiro, J.E.B.A.; Sentelhas, P.C.; Chiavegato, E.J. Microclimate and ramulosis occurrence in a cotton crop under three plant population densities in Southern Brazil. Agriscientia 2006, 23, 45–53. [Google Scholar]
  15. Malik, R.S.; Dhankar, J.S.; Turner, N.C. Influence of soil water deficits on root growth and cotton seedlings. Plant Soil 1979, 53, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pace, P.F.; Cralle, H.T.; El-Halawany, S.H.M.; Cothren, J.T.; Sensem, S.A. Drought-induced changes in shoot and root growth of young cotton plants. J. Cotton Sci. 1999, 3, 183–187. [Google Scholar]
  17. Pettigrew, W.T. Moisture deficit effects on cotton lint yield, yield components, and boll distribution. Agron. J. 2004, 96, 377–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Su, J.J.; Li, L.B.; Zhang, C.; Wang, C.X.; Gu, L.J.; Wang, H.T.; Wei, H.L.; Liu, Q.B.; Huang, L.; Yu, S.X. Genome-wide association study identified genetic variations and candidate genes for plant architecture component traits in Chinese upland cotton. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2018, 131, 1299–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Heitholt, J.J.; Sassenrath-Cole, G.F. Inter-plant competition: Growth responses to plant density and row spacing. In Physiology of Cotton; Steward, J.M., Oosterhuis, D., Heitholt, J.J., Mauney, J.R., Eds.; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 179–186. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kaggwa-Asiimwe, R.; Andrade-Sanchez, P.; Wang, G.Y. Plant architecture influences growth and yield response of upland cotton to population density. Field Crops Res. 2013, 145, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, X.R.; Hou, Y.R.; Du, M.W.; Xu, D.Y.; Lu, H.Y.; Tian, X.L.; Li, Z.H. Effect of planting date and plant density on cotton traits as relating to mechanical harvesting in the Yellow River valley region of China. Field Crops Res. 2016, 198, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. He, Z.P.; Xi, H.D.; Yang, B.F.; Li, P.M.; Han, B.W. The key to get good yield of cotton by inducing the response to DPC towards a planned direction and in planned strength. Acta Agric. Univ. Pekin. 1984, 10, 19–28, (In Chinese, with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  23. Kerby, T.A. Cotton response to mepiquat chloride. Agron. J. 1985, 77, 515–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Reddy, A.R.; Reddy, K.; Hodges, H. Mepiquat chloride (PIX)-induced changes in photosynthesis and growth of cotton. Plant Growth Regul. 1996, 20, 179–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhao, D.; Oosterhuis, D.M. Pix Plus and mepiquat chloride effects on physiology, growth, and yield of field-grown cotton. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2000, 19, 415–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Siebert, J.D.; Stewart, A.M. Influence of plant density on cotton response to mepiquat chloride application. Agron. J. 2006, 98, 1634–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dai, J.L.; Kong, X.Q.; Zhang, D.M.; Li, W.J.; Dong, H.Z. Technologies and theoretical basis of light and simplified cotton cultivation in China. Field Crops Res. 2017, 214, 142–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Stetkiewicz, S.; Burnetta, F.I.; Ennosc, R.A.; Toppa, C.F.E. The impact of fungicide treatment and Integrated Pest Management on barley yields: Analysis of a long term field trials database. Eur. J. Agron. 2019, 105, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pujer, S.K.; Siwach, S.S.; Sangwan, R.S.; Sangwan, O.; Deshmukh, J. Correlation and path coefficient analysis for yield and fiber quality traits in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J. Cotton Res. 2014, 28, 214–216. [Google Scholar]
  30. Bhailume, M.S.; Borole, D.N.; Magar, N.M. Correlation and path analysis between seed cotton yield and its attributing characters studies in deshi cotton. J. Cotton Res. 2016, 30, 29–31. [Google Scholar]
  31. Patil, H.V.; Deosarkar, D.B.; Arbad, S.K. Correlation and path analysis in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J. Cotton Res. 2017, 31, 19–23. [Google Scholar]
  32. Christidis, B.G.; Harrison, G.J. Cotton Growing Problems; McGraw Hill Book Co, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1955. [Google Scholar]
  33. Singh, R.B.; Gupta, M.P.; Mar, B.R.; Jain, D.K. Variability and correlation studies in yield and quality characters in hirsutum Cotton. Indian J. Genet. 1968, 28, 216–222. [Google Scholar]
  34. Khan, M.D.; Chaudry, N.A.; Saleem, M. Association of various characters in parents and hybrids of G. hirsutum. L. Pak. Cottons 1979, 24, 253–261. [Google Scholar]
  35. Tariq, M.; Khan, M.A.; Idress, G. Correlation and path coefficient analysis in upland cotton. Sarhad J. Agric. 1992, 8, 341–351. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rauf, S.; Khan, T.M.; Sadaqat, H.A.; Khan, A.I. Correlation and path coefficient analysis of yield components in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2004, 6, 686–688. [Google Scholar]
  37. Larik, A.S.; Kakar, A.A.; Naz, M.A.; Sheikh, M.A. Character correlation and path analysis in Gossypium hirsutum L. Sarhad J. Agric. 1999, 15, 269–274. [Google Scholar]
  38. Soomor, Z.A.; Larik, A.S.; Kumbhar, M.B.; Khan, N.U. Correlation and path analysis in hybrid cotton. Sabrao J. Breed. Genet. 2008, 40, 49–56. [Google Scholar]
  39. Clutton-Brock, T.; Sheldon, B.C. Individuals and populations: the role of longterm, individual-based studies of animals in ecology and evolutionary biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. Amst. 2010, 25, 562–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Lindenmayer, D.B. Value of long-term ecological studies. Austral Ecol. 2012, 37, 745–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gaju, O.; Allard, V.; Martre, P.; Le Gouis, J.; Moreau, D.; Bogard, M.; Hubbart, S.; Foulkes, M.J. Nitrogen partitioning and remobilization in relation to leaf senescence, grain yield and grain nitrogen concentration in wheat cultivars. Field Crops Res. 2014, 155, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Alishah, O.; Bagherieh-Najjar, M.B.; Fahmideh, L. Correlation, path coefficient and factor analysis of some quantitative and agronomic traits in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Asian J. Biol. Sci. 2008, 1, 61–68. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kerby, T.A.; Bourland, F.M.; Hake, K.D. Physiological rationales in plant monitoring and mapping. In Physiology of Cotton; Stewart, J.M., Oosterhuis, D., MHeitholt, J.J., Mauney, J.R., Eds.; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 304–317. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wu, J.R.; Hu, X.M.; Zhu, Q.G. A study on the effect of pix with different seed treatment on the growth of cotton. China Cotton 1986, 2, 28–29. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  45. Fernández, C.J.; Cothren, J.T.; McInnes, K.J. Partitioning of biomass in well-watered and water-stressed cotton plants treated with mepiquat chloride. Crop Sci. 1991, 31, 1224–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mao, S.C. The modernization of cotton planting techniques in China. China Cotton 2010, 9, 203–204. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  47. Heitholt, J.J. Canopy characteristics associated with deficient and excessive cotton plant population densities. Crop Sci. 1994, 34, 1291–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Constable, G.A. Growth and light receipt by main-stem cotton leaves in relation to plant density in the field. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1986, 37, 279–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Constable, G.A.; Gleeson, A.C. Growth and distribution of dry matter in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1977, 28, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, D.H. Population quality and regulation in cotton. In Crop Population Quality; Ling, Q.H., Ed.; Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers: Shanghai, China, 2005; pp. 293–386. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  51. Marois, J.J.; Wright, D.L.; Wiatrak, P.J.; Vargas, M.A. Effect of row width and nitrogen on cotton morphology and canopy micro-climate. Crop Sci. 2004, 44, 870–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 09 00587 g001 550
Figure 1. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield under the natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm (A) and limited range of 80–120 cm (B). Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
Figure 1. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield under the natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm (A) and limited range of 80–120 cm (B). Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
Agronomy 09 00587 g001
Agronomy 09 00587 g002 550
Figure 2. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield in different years under the natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm (A) and limited range of 80–120 cm (B). Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
Figure 2. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield in different years under the natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm (A) and limited range of 80–120 cm (B). Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
Agronomy 09 00587 g002
Agronomy 09 00587 g003 550
Figure 3. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield for different cultivars under the natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm (A) and limited range of 80–120 cm (B). XK4: Xinkang 4; SK126: Shikang 126; GX3: Guoxin 3; XS17: Xinshi 17. Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
Figure 3. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield for different cultivars under the natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm (A) and limited range of 80–120 cm (B). XK4: Xinkang 4; SK126: Shikang 126; GX3: Guoxin 3; XS17: Xinshi 17. Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
Agronomy 09 00587 g003
Agronomy 09 00587 g004 550
Figure 4. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield at different plant densities under the natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm (A) and limited range of 80–120 cm (B). Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
Figure 4. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield at different plant densities under the natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm (A) and limited range of 80–120 cm (B). Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
Agronomy 09 00587 g004
Agronomy 09 00587 g005 550
Figure 5. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield for mepiquat chloride (MC) application and control (CK) under the natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm (A) and limited range of 80–120 cm (B). Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
Figure 5. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield for mepiquat chloride (MC) application and control (CK) under the natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm (A) and limited range of 80–120 cm (B). Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
Agronomy 09 00587 g005
Table
Table 1. Weather data during cotton growing season in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China in 2010–2017.
Table 1. Weather data during cotton growing season in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China in 2010–2017.
YearPrecipitation (mm)Average Air Temperature (°C)Sunshine Duration (h)
MayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberMayJuneJulyAugustSeptember
201052.17.486.3195.852.321.725.728.424.920.0282.5296.4244.7198.8184.0
201167.247.2151.2150.833.620.626.827.625.618.9303.2298.4283.5264.7213.0
20125.679.5242.5119.2131.322.625.126.824.118.8237.4193.3163.7181.1210.4
201326.580.1279.196.739.220.924.626.226.520.2258.2187.3187.0238.8184.3
201438.030.042.493.019.622.925.628.226.020.8316.8297.9297.6302226.2
201627.140.9274.051.416.419.925.626.625.721.1283.8274.9216.9213.3248.2
201724.458.3166.8212.69.823.025.327.425.621.4342.8324.0277.5275.8286.3
Table
Table 2. Databases of the 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China in 2010-2017.
Table 2. Databases of the 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China in 2010-2017.
YearCultivarDensity (plants m−2)MC (g ha−1)Irrigation (mm)Nitrogen (kg ha−1)P2O5 (kg ha−1)K2O (g ha−1)Mean Plant Height (cm)Mean Seed Cotton Yield (kg ha−1)N1N2N3N4
2010GX35.20, 58801861380, 45–180104.93295.924000
2010GX35.20, 58801861380, 45–180113.53231.248000
2010GX35.20, 58801861380, 45–180111.43130.825000
2010GX3, GX85.20, 58801861380, 45–180111.43448.236000
2011GX35.20, 60001861380, 45–180110.43361.112000
2011GX35.20, 60001861380, 45–180112.83612.949000
2012GX3, XK46.0, 9.0, 11.735701861380, 45–180128.12609.7545400
2013GX39.0, 11.7312012312890120.53192.436363636
2013SK1266.0, 9.0, 11.731200, 21012890110.43223.3545400
2013SCRC36, Han78606.0, 11.70, 3.75–180012312890138.83144.8300300300300
2014SCRC36, Han78606.0, 11.70, 3.75–1805012312890106.65145.1300300300300
2014SK1266.0, 9.0, 11.7153500, 2101289075.94622.2545400
2014GX3, SK1266.0, 9.0, 11.7153501231289078.25095.6545400
2014SK1266.0, 9.0, 11.70, 140–394501231289082.64431.736000
2016SK1269.042500, 105, 21013890111.64158.536363636
2016SK1269.00, 140–394012013890103.33851.148484848
2016XS176.0, 9.0, 11.742500, 105, 2101389097.94502.072727272
2016SCRC36, XK46.0, 11.70, 140–49101201389099.43928.3808000
2016CCRI60, XK411.7425012013890110.72870.112012000
2017SK1269.0527012013890118.84158.536363636
2017SK1269.00, 140–394012013890115.53426.148484848
2017SCRC289.052701201389098.63461.411201120
2017SCRC289.052701201389098.14522.710810800
2017CCRI609.0, 11.75270120138901133234.4120000
GX3: Guoxin 3; GX8: Guoxin 8; XK4: Xinkang 4; XS17: Xinshi17; SK126: Shikang126. MC: mepiquat chloride. N1: The amount of data of plant height; N2: The amount data of fruiting branch length; N3: The amount data of height to node ratio produced prior to squaring; N4: The amount of data of height to node ratio produced after squaring.
Table
Table 3. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield in different years under natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm and limited range of 80–120 cm. Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
Table 3. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield in different years under natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm and limited range of 80–120 cm. Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
YearPlant Height: 58.6–163.2 cmPlant Height: 80–120 cm
rMean (cm)Coefficient of Variation (%)nSeed Cotton Yield (kg ha−1)rMean (cm)Coefficient of Variation (%)nSeed Cotton Yield (kg ha−1)
2010−0.324 *111.013.41563291.2−0.244 *101.88.4963383.2
2011−0.077 ns112.311.7603562.6−0.096 ns104.48.7383565.6
2012−0.312 *128.16.4542609.7———10—
2013−0.195 *133.210.83743160.10.346 *111.54.7783321.8
20140.304 *97.020.43845016.30.061 ns100.911.72205110.8
2016−0.459 *104.716.73353702.8−0.554 *103.710.22773716.8
2017−0.200 *104.713.34543722.7−0.156 *103.59.94003727.3
ns: non-significant at the 0.05 probability level; * significant at the 0.05 probability level.
Table
Table 4. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield for different cultivars under natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm and limited range of 80–120 cm. Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
Table 4. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield for different cultivars under natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm and limited range of 80–120 cm. Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
CultivarPlant Height: 58.6–163.2 cmPlant Height: 80–120 cm
rMean (cm)Coefficient of Variation (%)nSeed Cotton Yield (kg ha−1)rMean (cm)Coefficient of Variation (%)nSeed Cotton Yield (kg ha−1)
SCRC36−0.551 *98.817.03104283.20.058 ns102.610.31335057.6
Han7860−0.700 *126.517.32703737.80.025 ns104.410.3914750.0
XK4−0.672 *109.014.71823318.6−0.617 *1059.01423452.6
SK126−0.414 *98.823.73574039.0−0.331 *102.112.21773835.8
CCRI60−0.243 *112.18.71803047.4−0.292 *110.96.21503045.2
GX3−0.646 *111.015.72633480.0−0.454 *103.410.11433542.5
XS17−0.186 ns97.910.9724502.0−0.101 ns995.0674498.6
SCRC280.004 ns96.411.71644136.50.015 ns97.99.11474113.2
ns: non-significant at the 0.05 probability level; * significant at the 0.05 probability level. XK4: Xinkang 4; SK126: Shikang 126; GX3: Guoxin 3; XS17: Xinshi 17.
Table
Table 5. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield at different plant densities under natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm and limited range of 80–120 cm. Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
Table 5. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield at different plant densities under natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm and limited range of 80–120 cm. Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
Density (plants m−2)Plant Height: 58.6–163.2 cmPlant Height: 80–120 cm
rMean (cm)Coefficient of Variation (%)nSeed Cotton Yield (kg ha−1)rMean (cm)Coefficient of Variation (%)nSeed Cotton Yield (kg ha−1)
5.2−0.198 *111.312.81923373.3−0.139 ns102.68.81223423.1
6.7−0.584 *115.620.64084041.9−0.162 *101.710.51864492.5
9.0−0.316 *105.116.66083873.7−0.178 *102.410.64553908.4
11.2−0.449 *114.018.76093672.7−0.392 *106.59.43443861.3
ns: non-significant at the 0.05 probability level; * significant at the 0.05 probability level.
Table
Table 6. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield for mepiquat chloride (MC) application and control (CK) under natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm and limited range of 80–120 cm. Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
Table 6. Correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield for mepiquat chloride (MC) application and control (CK) under natural plant height range of 58.6–163.2 cm and limited range of 80–120 cm. Data were collected from 24 field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2010–2017.
TreatmentPlant Height: 58.6–163.2 cmPlant Height: 80–120 cm
rMean (cm)Coefficient of Variation (%)nSeed Cotton Yield (kg ha−1)rMean (cm)Coefficient of Variation (%)nSeed Cotton Yield (kg ha−1)
CK−0.539 *131.712.24033646.6−0.352 *111.46.52654469.3
MC−0.408 *93.916.814143817.4−0.360 *103.010.19063837.1
ns: non-significant at the 0.05 probability level; * significant at the 0.05 probability level.
Table
Table 7. The length of mainstem internodes and fruiting branches and their coefficient of variation. Data were collected from 15 (length of fruiting branch) and 8 (length of mainstem internode) field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2013–2017.
Table 7. The length of mainstem internodes and fruiting branches and their coefficient of variation. Data were collected from 15 (length of fruiting branch) and 8 (length of mainstem internode) field experiments conducted in Hejian city, Hebei Province, China, in 2013–2017.
Plant Architecture AttributesPlant Height: 58.6–163.2 cmPlant Height: 80–120 cm
Mean (cm)Coefficient of Variation (%)nMean (cm)Coefficient of Variation (%)n
1st3.621.98673.519.6478
2nd6.922.77556.522.4372
3rd6.726.27555.723.1372
4th5.926.17555.531.5372
LFB24.631.0128923.931.2720
MFB25.934.9128923.432.3720
UFB20.248.6128917.843.2720
1st: the internodes on the main-stem appearing prior to squaring; 2nd, 3rd, 4th: the internodes that appear after squaring were evenly divided into three groups successively from bottom up, namely the 2nd, 3rd, 4th internode; LFB, MFB, UFB: the fruiting branches were evenly divided into three groups from bottom up, namely the lower fruiting branches (LFB), middle fruiting branches (MFB), and upper fruiting branches (UFB).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yan, W.; Du, M.; Zhao, W.; Li, F.; Wang, X.; Eneji, A.E.; Yang, F.; Huang, J.; Meng, L.; Qi, H.; et al. Relationships between Plant Architecture Traits and Cotton Yield within the Plant Height Range of 80–120 cm Desired for Mechanical Harvesting in the Yellow River Valley of China. Agronomy 2019, 9, 587. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9100587

AMA Style

Yan W, Du M, Zhao W, Li F, Wang X, Eneji AE, Yang F, Huang J, Meng L, Qi H, et al. Relationships between Plant Architecture Traits and Cotton Yield within the Plant Height Range of 80–120 cm Desired for Mechanical Harvesting in the Yellow River Valley of China. Agronomy. 2019; 9(10):587. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9100587

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yan, Wei, Mingwei Du, Wenchao Zhao, Fang Li, Xiangru Wang, A. Egrinya Eneji, Fuqiang Yang, Jian Huang, Lu Meng, Haikun Qi, and et al. 2019. "Relationships between Plant Architecture Traits and Cotton Yield within the Plant Height Range of 80–120 cm Desired for Mechanical Harvesting in the Yellow River Valley of China" Agronomy 9, no. 10: 587. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9100587

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop