Performance evaluation of cotton picker affected by twin-row planting pattern, variety and plant density in Fars province

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Agricultural Engineering Research Institute

2 Agriculture Jihad Organization of Fars

Abstract

Background and objectives: The performance of cotton pickers can be affected by various factors such as field and crop conditions. In this study, the effect of planting patterns, plant density and cultivar on the cotton picker performance and also determining the most appropriate combination of them in the south of Iran were investigated.
Materials and methods: The experimental design was done as split-split plot based on a randomized complete block with three replications at the Darab Agricultural Research Station, during the 2019 to 2020 growing season. The planting patterns were in two levels of twin-row (TR) and single row planting (SR) as the main plot, three cultivars as the subplot include Macsa (V1), Golestan (V2), Hekmat (V3) and the plant spacing (PD1:10, PD2:13, PD3:16 cm) as sub-sub plot. Results: The planting pattern, variety and plant spacing had a significant effect on performance indexes of cotton picker harvester. The highest harvester efficiency was observed for single row planting treatment. The minimum effective field capacity and harvester efficiency was observed for twin-row planting system. The PD3 treatment increased ground loss by 54.5% compared to PD1 treatment. The PD3 treatment increased ground loss by 54.5% compared to PD1 treatment.
Conclusion: With regard to mean comparisons of grain yield and seed cotton loss, the single row planting pattern in combination of V2 × PD2 and V3 × PD2 were seen suitable in the south of Fars province and areas with similar climate.

Keywords

References

Baker, K.D. and Hughs, E. 2010. Optimizing spindle speed for cotton pickers. In Proc. 2010 Beltwide Cotton Conf. New Orleans, Louisiana.
Bednarz, C.W., Shurley, D.W., Anthony, W.S., and Nichols, R.L. 2005. Yield, quality, and profitability of cotton produced at varying plant densities. Agronomy Jornal. 97: 235-240.

Blaise, D.,Kranthi, K.R., Ravindran, C.D., and Thalal, K. 2021. High plant density can improve the productivity of rainfed Asiatic cotton (Gossypium arboreum L.). Archives Agronomy and Soil Science. 67 (5): 607- 619.

Boquet, D.J. 2005. Cotton in ultra-narrow row spacing Plantdensity and nitrogen
fertilizer rates. Agronomy Journal. 97:279–287.
Buehring, N.W., Willcutt, M.H., Columbus, E.P., Phelps, J.B., and Ruscoe, A.F. 2006. Yield and plant characteristics as influenced by spindle picker narrow and wide row patterns; three years progress report. p. 1864–1870. In Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., San Antonio, TX. 3-6 Jan. 2006. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.
Buehring, N.W., Dobbs, R.R., Harrison, M.P., Willcutt, M.H., and Spurlock, S.R. 2009. Non-irrigated spindle picker 15-inch and wide-row cotton production systems analysis. MAFES Bull. No. 1178. Miss. State Univ., Office of Agricultural Communications, Mississippi State, MS.
Culpepper, A.S. and York, A.C. 2000. Weed management in ultra-narrow row cotton. Weed Technology. 14:19-29.
EL-Sayed, G. H., El-Shazly, A. E., and El- Yamani, A. E. 2008. Factor affecting mechanical cotton harvesting and fiber quality. Egyption Journal Agriculture Research. 86 (6): 2407-2323.
El-Yamani, A. E., Marey, S. A., and Sayed-Ahmed, I. F. 2017. Influence of mechanical harvesting process on productivity and quality of cotton fiber. Jornal Soil Science Agriculture Engineering. 8 (6): 301-306.
Faulkner, W. B., Wanjura, J. D., Hequet, E. F., and Shaw, B. W. 2008. Effects of harvesting method on foreign matter content and yarn quality from irrigated cotton on the high plain. Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Conference. P. 612-619. Memphis. Tennessee.
Ghajri, A., and Akram ghaderi, F. 2006. Influence of row spacing and population density on yield and yield components of three cotton cultivars in Gorgan. Journal Agriculture Science. 12 (4): 833- 843. (in Persian with English abstract)
Ghajary, A., Miry, A.S., Zangy, M.R., and Soltany, S. 2011. Determination of the best suitable planting pattern and plant density of early maturing cotton cultivars following canola harvesting. Journal of Crop Production. 4 (4): 103- 121. (in Persian with English abstract)
Gwathmey, C.O., and Clement, J.D. 2010. Alteration of cotton source-sink relations withplant population density and mepiquat chloride. Field Crops Research. 116: 101–107.
Harrison, M.P., Buehring, N.W., Dobbs, R.R., and Willcutt, M.H. 2006. Narrow row spindle picker cotton response to bed systems and seeding rates. p. 1665–1667. In Proc.
Jafari, M. A., Rezaee Asl, A., and Nowrozieh, Sh. 2019. Investigate the efficiency of cotton harvester in new cotton cultivars. Iranian Jornal Cotton Research. 6 (2): 75- 94. (in Persian with English abstract)
Jahanian, M., Azadbakht, M., Nowrouzieh, Sh., and  Asghari, A.. 2020. Determination of the required force to pick cottonseed from four cotton varieties boll in three different harvesting time. Agriculture Engineering International: CIGR. J. 22 (1): 68- 75.
Jones, M. A., and wells, R. 1997. Dry matter allocation and fruiting patterns of cotton growth at two divergent plant populations. Crop Science. 37: 797-802. 
Jost, P.H., and Cothren, J.T. 2001. Phenotypic alterations and crop maturity differences in ultra-narrow row and conventionally spaced cotton. Crop Science. 41, 1150–1159.
Kamel, A.S., El-Habbak, K.E., El-Masry, M.A., El-Mihi, M.M., and Gaber, E.A. 1991. Effect of crops and planting methods on growth, yield and tield components of cotton. Annals Agricultural Science Moshtohor. 29: 689-698.
Karnei, J.R. 2005. The agronomics and economics of 15-inch cotton. p. 601. In Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., New Orleans, LA. 4–7 Jan. 2005. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.
Kevin, D., and Hughs, S.E. 2006. Spindle speed effects on cotton quality. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, Meeting presentation, Paper Number: 061079.
Nelson, K.A. 2007. Glyphosate application timings in twin- and single-row corn and soybean spacings. Weed Technology. 21:186–190.
Noroozieh, Sh., Mobli, H., Ghannadha, M. and Oghabi, H. 2003. An investigation of the effect of forward speed and cutting height on quantity and quality of harvested lint by cotton picker in varamin cultivar. Jornal of Agricultural Science. 13 (1): 63-69. (in Persian)
OZ, Erdal. 2005. Harvesting performance of a tractor mounted mechanical cotton picker. J. Agric.Eng. 3 (2): 119-126.
Öz, Erdal., A. Behiç Tekin., H. Ünal Evcim, and A. Değirmencioğlu. 2011. Effect of variety and row spacing on the performance of a cotton picker.J. Food Agriculture Environment. 9 (1): 236- 242.
Porter, W.M., Wanjura, J. D., Taylor, R. K., Boman, R. K., and Buser, M. D. 2017. Tracking cotton fiber quality and foreign matter through a stripper harvester. The Journal of Cotton Science. 21:29–39
Prasad, J., Kapur, T., Patil, P. G., and Jaiswal, B. N. 2007. Performance evaluation of spindle type cotton picker. Journal Agriculture Engineering. 44 (1): 12-16.
Ravinder, R.A., and Majumdar, G. 2013. Evaluation of portable cotton picker. International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research, Volume 2, Issue 1, ISSN 1473-2319.
Reddy, K.N., Burke, I.C., Boykin, J.C., and Williford, J.R. 2009. Narrow-row cotton production under irrigated and non-irrigated environment: plant population and lint yield. Journal Cotton Science. 13:48-55.
Reddy, K.N. and Boykin, J.C. 2010. Weed control and yield comparisons of twin- and single-row Glyphosateresistant cotton production systems. Weed Technology. 24:95-101.
Roozbeh, M., and Jokar, L. 2019. Effect of planter type and seed variety on seedling emergence uniformity and irrigated seed cotton yield in Fars province. Iranian Jornal Cotton Research. 7 (2): 43- 62. (in Persian with English abstract)
Roozbeh, M., and Zahiri, M. 2020. Effects of harvesting direction and row spacing on the cotton stripper performance in irrigated cotton fields. Journal Cotton Science. 23:90–96.
Rezaei Asl, A., Nowrouzieh, Sh., Taghizadeh-Alisaraei, A. 2013. Study and comparison of mechanical and manual harvesting performance in two cotton varieties Varamin and Sahel cultivar. Mechanical Sciencees in Agricultural Machinery. 1(1): 19- 24. (in Persian with English abstract)
Soltani, S., Nowrozieh, Sh., Zangi, M.R., and Heravi, P. 2021. Evaluation of planting patterns on mechanical harvest performance and quality of cluster cotton varieties. Iranian Journal of Cotton Researches. 9 (1): 233- 244.
Sorensen, R.B., Lamb, M.C., and Butts, C.L. 2006. Row pattern, plant density, and nitrogen rate effects on corn yield in the southeastern US. Crop Manage. Available at http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/sub/cm/
Stephenson, IV. D. O. and Brecke, B. J. 2010. Weed management in single- vs. twin-row cotton (Gossypium hirsutum).Weed Technology. 24:275-280.
Stephenson, D. O., Thomas Barber, IV. L., and Bourland, F.M. 2011. Effect of twin-row planting pattern and plant density on cotton growth, yield, and fiber quality. Journal Cotton Science. 15: 243-250.
Vories, E. D. and Glover, R. E. 2006. Comparison of growth and yield components of conventional and ultra-narrow row cotton. Journal Cotton Science. 10: 235-243.
Willcutt, M.H., Buschermohle, M.J., Huitink, G.W., Barnes, E.M., Wanjura, J.D., and Searcy, S.W. 2010. The Spindle-type cotton harvester. Texas A&M Agrilife Research and Extension Center, Lubbuck, TX.
Wilson, D.G., York, A.C., and Edmisten, K.L. 2007. Narrow-row cotton response to mepiquat chloride. Journal Cotton Science. 11:177–185.
Zhou, Z.G., Meng, Y.L., Shen, Y.Q., and Jia, Z.K. 2000. Study of the relationship between boll weight in wheat—cotton double cropping and meteorlogical factors in boll period. Acta Gossypii Sinica. 12 (3): 122–126 (in Chinese, with English abstract).

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics