Crop Science Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (13)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jost, P. H.
Right arrow Articles by Cothren, J.T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Jost, P. H.
Right arrow Articles by Cothren, J.T.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Jost, P. H.
Right arrow Articles by Cothren, J.T.
Crop Science 40:430-435 (2000)
© 2000 Crop Science Society of America

CROP ECOLOGY, PRODUCTION & MANAGEMENT

Growth and Yield Comparisons of Cotton Planted in Conventional and Ultra-Narrow Row Spacings

Philip H. Josta and J.Tom Cothrena

a Texas A&M University, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, College Station, TX 77843-2474 USA

fil{at}tamu.edu


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
 REFERENCES
 
Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) growers are faced with rising production costs and static or declining crop prices. One strategy with potential for reducing production costs entails growing cotton in ultra-narrow rows with elevated plant populations. A 2-yr field study was conducted in the Brazos Bottoms near College Station, TX to determine the differences in vegetative growth and yield parameters of cotton grown in ultra-narrow and conventionally spaced rows. Four row spacings of 19, 38.1, 76.2, and 101.6 cm were planted with populations of 39.4 to 45.8, 18.2 to 20.7, 13.1 to 13.6, and 7.9 to 9.9 plants m-2, respectively. At crop maturity, plant height and node counts were reduced in the cotton grown in the 19-cm row spacing. Canopy closure occurred more rapidly in the 19- and 38.1-cm row spacings than in the wider row spacings. In 1997, a relatively wet growing season, yields were not affected by the row-spacing treatments. In 1998, a dry growing season, yields in the 19- and 38.1-cm row spacings were greater than those in the wider row spacings. The 19-cm row spacing had 84.6% of the harvestable bolls at the first fruiting position and 76.1% of the bolls on Nodes 6 through 10, both percentages being significantly greater than those observed in the wider row spacings. Fiber length tended to be reduced in the 19-cm row spacing relative to the other row spacings. Ultra-narrow row cotton appears to be a viable option for producers to attempt to reduce costs while maintaining yields.

Abbreviations: DAP, days after planting • UNRC, ultra-narrow row cotton • V/R, vegetative to reproductive biomass ratios


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
 REFERENCES
 
COTTON PRODUCERS are presently faced with rising production costs and static or declining returns for their commodity. To combat these problems, producers are continually searching for alternative methods to optimize profit. One option is growing cotton in drastically reduced row spacings and increased plant populations. Currently this practice is termed ultra-narrow row cotton (UNRC).

Ample research on this production strategy dates back to the 1950s. From the 1950s through the 1970s cotton produced in this manner was referred to as "broadcast cotton" or "narrow row–high population cotton" (Lewis, 1971). The goal for producing cotton in this fashion was the same then as it is now, to reduce production costs. Lewis (1971) concluded that the reduction in production costs with UNRC would be derived from shortening the growing season. Because flowers are produced at regular intervals, he reasoned that with increased populations fewer bolls per plant would be necessary to maintain yields at current levels. Therefore, if fewer bolls were needed to maintain yields, the time required to set a crop would be reduced. Similarly, current researchers examining this topic state that a shortened fruiting window could reduce the number of insecticide applications needed to protect the fruit (Allen et al., 1998). Lewis (1971) further contended that cotton produced in an ultra-narrow row system would exhibit its fruiting structures at nearly identical developmental stages throughout the season. This growth characteristic is in contrast to conventionally spaced cotton, which has fruit at several different developmental stages at any particular time during the season. A more synchronized fruiting pattern could possibly lead to more effective chemical control of insects and regulation of the plant with plant growth regulators, possibly enhancing the ability to increase yields. Also, producing cotton in ultra-narrow rows may shift the indeterminate growth habit to a more determinate one. Yield increases were obtained with ultra-narrow row production compared with conventional row spacings in earlier studies (Briggs et al., 1967; Hoskinson et al., 1974).

Ultra-narrow row cotton has been defined with various row spacings and plant populations. The row-spacing constraints vary from 20.3 to 30.5 cm (Snipes, 1996) and have also been defined as <25.4 cm (Atwell, 1996). Generally, plant populations in UNRC production are >24.7 plants m-2 (Perkins, 1998). In the past, acceptance of the UNRC system was limited due to the lack of an effective over-the-top herbicide, as well as to increased presence of boll rot due to excess vegetative growth (Wannamaker, 1971). Problems with weed control have diminished with the advent of herbicide-resistant cotton cultivars (Gerik et al., 1998; Snipes, 1996), and mepiquat chloride (1,1-dimethylpiperidinium chloride) can be used to control excess vegetative growth (Atwell, 1996).

The ability to circumvent problems identified in earlier research with UNRC has led to a renewed interest in this production strategy, the renewed interest being primarily due to the possibilities for a shortened growing season and increased yields. Moreover, with current transgenic cultivars, UNRC production has been shown to promote faster growth rates and to produce more fruiting sites earlier in the growing season (Kreig, 1996). In addition, dryland UNRC has been shown to increase yields by 37% compared with cotton grown in 76.2-cm row spacings (Gerik et al., 1998), and maturation time has been reduced by as much as 12 d (Cawley et al., 1998).

Closer row spacings and elevated plant populations in UNRC also lead to more rapid canopy closure than in conventionally spaced cotton (George, 1971). Rapid canopy closure, in turn, leads to reduced weed competition (Snipes, 1996), increased light interception (Kreig, 1996), and potentially decreased soil water evaporation. In West Texas, Kreig (1996) determined that up to 40% of the available water supply is lost through soil evaporation in traditional row spacings. Ultra-narrow row cotton may allow a greater proportion of the total water supply to be acquired by the plant rather than being lost to evaporation from the soil.

Fiber quality may also be affected by row spacings. Heitholt et al. (1992) showed that narrow rows resulted in earlier canopy closure, and Buxton et al. (1979) showed that narrow row spacings caused a greater percentage of fruit to be set earlier than in wide rows. Both of these factors have the potential to affect fiber quality. Heitholt et al. (1993) demonstrated a small decrease in fiber length with cotton grown in 0.5-m rows compared with that grown in 1.0-m rows. However, other studies have failed to show detectable influences of narrow or ultra-narrow row spacings on fiber quality traits (Smith et al., 1989; Gerik et al., 1998).

A 1-yr study similar to our 2-yr study was conducted in the late 1970s (Fowler and Ray, 1977). In that study the equidistant spacing of cotton was evaluated for two different cotton cultivars. One observation from that study was that breeding for a lower vegetative/reproductive biomass ratio (V/R) may be a key factor in cotton adapted for narrow-row, high-population cotton. Plant breeders have expended considerable effort in the past 20 yr to accomplish this goal. Meredith and Wells (1989) indicated that much of the yield increase from the newer cultivars was due to the decreased V/R ratio.

The availability of transgenic herbicide-resistant cotton cultivars alleviates the weed control problems encountered in the past with UNRC production and has spurred new interest in this subject. In addition, UNRC studies in the past were conducted with cultivars available at the time. While the predominant goal of UNRC is to reduce production costs, an agronomic and physiological evaluation of this system in comparison with a conventional system is also of interest. This study was conducted to compare the effects of ultra-narrow row spacings with high populations to conventional row spacings and populations for various vegetative and reproductive growth parameters using a recently available transgenic cotton cultivar.


   Materials and methods
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Materials and methods
Results and discussion
 REFERENCES
 
Experiments were established in 1997 and 1998 at the Buffalo Ranch near College Station, TX to compare the growth and yield parameters of `Stoneville BXN-47' cotton when planted in four different row spacings of 19, 38.1, 76.2, and 101.6 cm. Plant populations in these row spacings ranged from 39.4 to 45.8, 18.2 to 20.7, 13.1 to 13.6, and 7.9 to 9.9 plants m-2, respectively. These populations were chosen because they are typical for the production region in the conventional 76.2- and 101.6-cm spacings. In addition, current literature recommends the use of these elevated populations in the 19-cm row spacing (Perkins, 1998). The population of the 38.1-cm spacing was half that of the 19-cm row spacing. Soil type is a Ships clay (very-fine, mixed, active, thermic Chromic Hapludert).

In both years, the cotton was flat-planted. In 1997, the 76.2- and 101.6-cm row spacings were obtained with two planters set on the respective spacings. The 19- and 38.1-cm row spacings were obtained with a grain drill. In 1998, the 101.6-cm row spacing was obtained with the planter used in 1997. The 19-, 38.1-, and 76.2-cm row spacings were established with a planter set on 38.1-cm row spacings. Alternate planter units were disengaged to achieve the 76.2-cm row spacing. The 19-cm spacing was established by splitting the first 38.1-cm pass with a second pass of the planter.

Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Plots were 15.2 m long and consisted of 30, 15, 8, and 6 rows in the 19-, 38.1-, 76.2-, and 101.6-cm row spacings, respectively. In both years, the cotton was grown under irrigated conditions with other cultural inputs applied consistent with local agronomic practices. A pivot sprinkler was used as the irrigation source. Because this study was conducted in a grower's field in both years, the irrigation schedule and amount were at the discretion of the producer.

Data collected included various measurements of vegetative and reproductive growth parameters. Vegetative growth data consisted of height and node counts at 49 and 61 d after planting (DAP) and at harvest ({approx}150 DAP). Percentage of canopy closure over the middle of the row was estimated with a LI-COR LAI-2000 Plant Canopy Analyzer (LI-COR, Lincoln, NE; LI-COR, 1990) at 49, 61, and 73 DAP. Closure was calculated from two measurements taken with the canopy analyzer, one above and one below the canopy. From these readings the instrument then calculates the fraction of the radiation that penetrates the foliage compared with the observation made above the crop canopy (LI-COR, 1990). The dry weight biomass of leaves, stems, and fruit were determined at 73 DAP.

Yield parameters examined consisted of lint, boll distribution patterns, and lint percentage. Plots were harvested by hand, and lint percentage was determined using a laboratory gin. Vegetative to reproductive biomass ratios were calculated by dividing the amount of vegetative biomass at 73 DAP by the final seed-cotton yield. All biomass measurements were made on a dry weight basis. Lint quality was determined by subjecting 50-g fiber samples to high volume instrument testing at the International Textile Center located at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, TX. Fiber characteristics reported include micronaire, uniformity, length, and strength.

Statistical Analysis
Analyses of variance are presented for all data in Tables 1 through 3 . Means were separated using Duncan's Multiple Range Test at a significance level of 0.05. When significant row spacing x year interactions were detected for a measured parameter, those means were presented separately by year. However, when possible, means were combined across both years. Homogeneity of error variances were tested as described in Gomez and Gomez (1984). When the test for homogeneity of error variances was not significant, the pooled error term was used to test the spacing x year interaction and the spacing factor. When the test for homogeneity of error variances was significant, the spacing x year term was used to test the spacing factor. Percentage of canopy closure at 61 DAP (Table 1) and lint percentage (Table 2) were the only parameters for which the spacing x year interaction was not significant but for which the test for homogeneous error terms was significant.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1 Mean squares for height, number of nodes, and canopy closure in cotton in a 2-yr row spacing treatment study

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2 Mean squares for cotton biomass, lint yield, boll distribution, lint percentage, and V/R{dagger} ratios in a 2-yr row spacing study{ddagger}

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3 Mean squares for fiber characteristics of cotton in a 2-yr row spacing study

 

   Results and discussion
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
REFERENCES
 
Height and Node Counts
Prior to crop maturity, no differences were observed in height among any of the treatments (Table 4) . At 49 DAP heights ranged from 19.6 to 21.4 cm among the treatments, and at 61 DAP the range was 37.5 to 40.5 cm. However, at maturity the plants in the 19-cm spacing were at least 10 cm shorter than the plants in the 76.2- and 101.6-cm spacings. Plants in the 38.1-cm spacing were also significantly shorter than the plants in the 76.2-cm spacing at maturity. These results are similar to those of Fowler and Ray (1977), who observed that cotton plant height was reduced by 20 cm when grown in 12.7-cm row spacing, compared with a 50.8-cm spacing. However, several other researchers have documented that ultra-narrow spacing has no effect on plant height (Atwell, 1996; Gwathmey, 1996; Gerik, 1998). It is important to consider though that in these cited studies, lower plant populations were examined than those used in our study.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4 Effect of row spacing treatments on plant height and total node counts at 49 d after planting (DAP), 61 DAP, and at harvest

 
Node counts followed a trend similar to that of the height data in that, prior to crop maturity, no differences were detected among treatments in the number of nodes. At 49 and 61 DAP, node counts were virtually identical among the treatments; however, by maturity plants in the 19-cm spacing averaged at least 2.5 fewer nodes than plants in all other row spacings. Kerby (1998) also found that ultra-narrow spacings had five fewer nodes than did wide row spacings. In contrast, Gerik (1998) showed row spacings had no effect on the number of nodes per plant.

A benefit commonly associated with growing cotton in ultra-narrow row spacings is that crop maturity is reached earlier than in cotton grown in wider, more conventional row spacings (Cawley et al., 1998). Time to crop maturity was not measured in this experiment. However, if cotton grown in ultra-narrow row spacings matures earlier than the cotton grown in the wider spacings, it may explain the reduction in height and node counts observed at the end of the season for the 19-cm row spacing in these experiments.

Canopy Closure and Vegetative Biomass
At 49 DAP, the 19-cm row spacing had 51% canopy closure whereas all other treatments had 20.2% or less canopy closure (Table 5) . By 61 DAP, the treatments with the greatest amount of canopy closure were the 19- and 38.1-cm row spacings, with 92.7 and 76% closure, respectively. At this time, the 76.2- and 101.6-cm row spacings provided only 51 and 32% closure, respectively. At 73 DAP, neither the 76.3-cm nor the 101.6-cm spacing had attained 75% canopy closure. These data indicate that canopy closure occurs more rapidly in the ultra-narrow row spacings than in the conventional row spacings, an observation also made by George (1971). More rapid canopy closure offers the cotton crop potential advantages, such as increased light interception (Burmester, 1996; Kreig, 1996) and reduced weed competition (Snipes, 1996). It is also possible that rapid canopy closure may decrease soil water evaporation (Kreig, 1996).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 5 Effect of row spacing treatments on percentage of canopy closure during the growing season and on leaf and vegetative biomass at cut-out

 
Differences in the rapidity of canopy closure among treatments were examined relative to the amount of leaf biomass present at 73 DAP (Table 5). On a per plant basis, the amount of leaf biomass was significantly less for the 19-cm row spacing than for all other row spacing treatments. These data appear to be in contrast to the canopy closure data. However, on a per square meter basis, the 19-cm row spacing had significantly more vegetative biomass than all other treatments. These data show that the differences in canopy closure are not explained on a per plant basis. The rapid closure of the canopy in the ultra-narrow row spacings was due to the presence of more, but smaller, plants in close proximity, which in effect provided more leaves per unit land area.

Yield
Yields ranged from 1296 to 1458 kg lint ha-1 in 1997, with no differences among the treatments (Table 6) . In 1998, the 19- and 38.1-cm row spacings yielded at least 197 kg ha-1 more lint than the wider row spacings.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 6 Effect of row spacing treatments on yield, boll distribution, lint percentage, and vegetative/reproductive biomass ratios (V/R)

 
Environmental conditions were quite different between the 2 yr in which this study was conducted. More than 200 mm of rainfall was received from 9 April to 31 August in 1997; less than 100 mm was received in this same time in 1998 (Fig. 1A) . In addition, higher temperatures in 1998 resulted in significantly more heat unit accumulation in 1998 than in 1997 (Fig. 1B).



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1 (A) Accumulated rainfall and (B) heat units for 1997 and 1998

 
The deficit of rainfall and the elevated temperatures in 1998, relative to 1997, contributed to the overall reduction in yield observed in 1998. These factors can also be related to the increase in yield with the 19-cm row spacings compared with the 76.2- and 101.6-cm row spacings in 1998. These data are in direct contrast with Culp et al. (1974), who projected that in a hot, dry year yields would be more adversely affected in UNRC.

In both years, the 19-cm row spacing had significantly fewer bolls per plant than all other row spacing treatments (Table 6). More important, however, were the influences of the row spacing treatments on the boll distribution patterns. In the 19-cm row spacing treatment nearly 85% of the total harvestable bolls were at the first fruiting position; in all other row spacings <62% of the bolls were at this position (Table 6). Atwell (1996) and Kerby (1998) made a similar observation that a higher percentage of bolls were set at the first fruiting position in ultra-narrow row spacings. First-position bolls are set earlier than the second- or third-position bolls on the same branches. In addition, the 19-cm row spacing treatment had 76% of the total bolls set on Nodes 6 through 10, compared with <55% at these nodes in the other treatments. This does not indicate that the 19-cm spacing set bolls earlier on lower fruiting branches, but rather that fewer bolls were set later in the season on higher nodes in this treatment. Collectively, these data suggest that planting cotton in 19-cm row spacings may afford the plant a drought-avoidance mechanism through setting the majority of the bolls earlier, prior to the onset of moisture-limiting conditions of mid to late summer. In the wider row spacings, bolls continue to set on higher nodes and at more distal fruiting positions later in the season during the periods of limited moisture availability. In both years the study plots were irrigated; however, it was not possible to meet the water demands of the crop in 1998. The boll distribution patterns discussed above may also contribute to the decreased time to maturity in the 19-cm row spacing observed by Cawley et al. (1998).

The yield increase observed in the 38.1-cm row spacing in this study can be explained by the inherent increases in the number of bolls per unit area associated with the elevated plant population in this treatment, compared with the 76.2- and 101.6-cm row spacings.

Lint percentage tended (P = 0.06) to be greater in the UNRC treatments than in the conventional row spacings (Table 6), which also contributed to the higher yields from the ultra-narrow row spacings (Table 6). Both ultra-narrow row spacings had 42% or greater lint percentage. The wider row spacings had lint percentages of 40.7% or less. Whether this elevated lint percentage was due to decreased seed size or to increased lint production was not determined. It is important to note, however, that all plots were hand picked, removing the effect of machine harvesting efficiency.

Vegetative/Reproductive Biomass Ratios
Ratios relating the amount of vegetative biomass to reproductive biomass were calculated to determine the amount of vegetative tissue required to produce a unit of yield (Table 6). This determination was especially important since fewer bolls were produced per plant in the 19-cm row spacing, indicating that each individual plant was less productive than plants in the wider row spacings. Elevated V/Rs are related in part to high plant populations (Mauney, 1986). Variations in the V/R ratios among row spacing treatments were observed in 1997 and 1998. The 19-cm row spacing tended (P = 0.08) to require more units of vegetative growth to produce a unit of reproductive growth than either wide row spacing in 1997. The opposite was true in 1998, when the ultra-narrow row spacings tended (P = 0.06) to require fewer units of vegetative biomass to produce a unit of reproductive biomass.

A more important factor than the differences in the V/R ratios between the row spacing treatments was that the amount of vegetative biomass required to produce a unit of reproductive growth varied among the treatments across the 2 yr. The vegetative biomass requirement for the 19- and 38.1-cm row spacings was consistent between the 2 yr. However, the 76.2- and 101.6-cm row spacings required 66 to 90% more vegetative biomass, respectively, to produce a unit of reproductive growth in the dry year of 1998 as compared with the relatively wet year of 1997.

The consistency of the vegetative biomass requirement in the ultra-narrow row spacings supports the theory of drought avoidance discussed above. The V/R ratios are not altered by a wet or dry growing season in the ultra-narrow row spacings. This observation arises from the majority of the bolls being set early in the season in the ultra-narrow row spacings, thus avoiding the effects of drought. These data further suggest that less plant growth in general (reproductive and vegetative) occurs late in the season in the ultra-narrow row spacings, possibly due to these spacings reaching a resource plateau, such as the availability of photosynthate and moisture. In comparison, bolls continue to be set and additional vegetative biomass is produced during the late season in the wider row spacings, causing the V/R to be more affected in these treatments.

Lint Quality
Micronaire, a measure of fiber fineness and maturity, did not differ between treatments, with readings ranging from only 5.1 to 5.2 (Table 7) . Other researchers evaluating the effects of row spacing on micronaire (Smith et al., 1989; Gerik et al., 1998) have made similar observations. Fiber uniformity was decreased in both the 19- and 76.2-cm row spacings compared with the 101.6-cm row spacing. The decrease in fiber uniformity in the 19-cm row spacing compared with the fiber produced by plants in the wider row spacings also may have been influenced by a lack of photosynthate production or less available moisture.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 7 Effect of row spacing treatments on various fiber quality measurements

 
Fiber length and strength measurements were not consistent between years; therefore, these means are presented separately by year (Table 7). The 101.6-cm row spacing produced significantly longer fibers than all other row spacing treatments in 1997. The 19-cm row spacing had fiber lengths significantly shorter than all other treatments in 1998. Again this observation may be due to a lack of moisture or available C during elongation in the ultra-narrow row spacings. No differences in fiber strength between the row spacing treatments were detected in either year.

The use of a finger-stripper to harvest ultra-narrow row spacings generates higher trash or bark content in the harvested seed-cotton, leading to decreased lint percentage (Perkins and Atwell, 1996). Therefore, the influence of harvesting method on fiber quality in ultra-narrow rows, which was not examined in this study, must be addressed if UNRC production is to be widely accepted.Li-Cor 1989

Received for publication February 4, 1999.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
 REFERENCES
 




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
R. P. Viator, C. O. Gwathmey, J. T. Cothren, J. T. Reed, E. D. Vories, R. C. Nuti, K. L. Edmisten, and R. Wells
Influence of Ultranarrow Row and Conventional Row Cotton on the Last Effective Boll Population
Agron. J., August 11, 2008; 100(5): 1327 - 1331.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
C. O. Gwathmey, L. E. Steckel, and J. A. Larson
Solid and Skip-Row Spacings for Irrigated and Nonirrigated Upland Cotton
Agron. J., May 7, 2008; 100(3): 672 - 680.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
E. L. Clawson, J. T. Cothren, D. C. Blouin, and J. L. Satterwhite
Timing of Maturity in Ultra-Narrow and Conventional Row Cotton as Affected by Nitrogen Fertilizer Rate
Agron. J., February 29, 2008; 100(2): 421 - 431.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
E. L. Clawson, J. T. Cothren, and D. C. Blouin
Nitrogen Fertilization and Yield of Cotton in Ultra-Narrow and Conventional Row Spacings
Agron. J., January 3, 2006; 98(1): 72 - 79.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
D. J. Boquet
Cotton in Ultra-Narrow Row Spacing: Plant Density and Nitrogen Fertilizer Rates
Agron. J., January 1, 2005; 97(1): 279 - 287.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Crop Sci.Home page
J. J. Marois, D. L. Wright, P. J. Wiatrak, and M. A. Vargas
Effect of Row Width and Nitrogen on Cotton Morphology and Canopy Microclimate
Crop Sci., May 1, 2004; 44(3): 870 - 877.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Crop Sci.Home page
P. H. Jost and J. T. Cothren
Phenotypic Alterations and Crop Maturity Differences in Ultra-Narrow Row and Conventionally Spaced Cotton
Crop Sci., July 1, 2001; 41(4): 1150 - 1159.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (13)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jost, P. H.
Right arrow Articles by Cothren, J.T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Jost, P. H.
Right arrow Articles by Cothren, J.T.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Jost, P. H.
Right arrow Articles by Cothren, J.T.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality		 The Plant Genome