Agricultural Science Digest

  • Chief EditorArvind kumar

  • Print ISSN 0253-150X

  • Online ISSN 0976-0547

  • NAAS Rating 5.52

  • SJR 0.156

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Full Research Article

Influence of Cultivation Methods and Crop Geometry on Yield Attributes of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) 

Anbarasi Murugesan1,*
1Department of Agronomy, Jaya Agricultural College, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Thiruvallur-631 210, Tamil Nadu, India.

ABSTRACT

Background: The cost of labour in India is constantly rising, so mechanization in cotton production will be critical in keeping costs under control. There will also be an increase in production as a result of high density. Thus, an attempt has been made through this study to compare the impact of mechanization in cotton with high-density planting to conventional farming methods with high-density planting.

Methods: The experiment was laid out in a split-plot design and replicated thrice. The treatments comprised of two cultivation methods viz., mechanized cultivation (M1) and conventional cultivation (M2), assigned in main plot and four spacings viz., 45 cm x 15 cm (1,48,148 plants/ha) (S1), 60 cm x 15 cm (1,11,111 plants/ha) (S2), 75 cm x 15 cm (88,888 plants/ha) (S3) and 75 cm x 30 cm (44,444 plants/ha) (S4) in the subplot.

Result: The results of this study revealed that cotton under mechanized cultivation with the closer spacing of 45 cm x 15 cm (M1S1) recorded fewer yield-attributing parameters, but because of their high plant population per unit area, it recorded a higher seed cotton yield than the other treatment combinations.

INTRODUCTION

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), white gold is one of the most important crop throughout the history of India and it also plays an important social and economic role in Indian society in the present age. The world cotton production is 96.5 million bales of 480 lb, in which India has emerged as the world’s first producer of cotton accounting for 26.4 million 480 lb. bales, followed by China, the United States and Pakistan. India is also the second largest consumer and exporter representing 5.3 and 5.8 million 480 lb. bales in 2015-16 (USDA, 2016). Although, India is the largest producer of cotton, the second-largest exporter and the second-largest consumer of cotton, demand for cotton is expected to remain robust in India.
       
The major driven factor for low productivity in India is rainfed cultivation, small farm size, increasing pest and disease, inadequate inputs, lack of awareness about modern cultivation practices among Indian farmers, lack of irrigation facilities, lack of proper timing of field operations and too much dependence on labour to cultivate cotton (Majumdar, 2012). In most of the developing countries, especially in India cost of labour hiring is swiftly escalating. Mechanization in cotton production will definitely play a key role by keeping the expenditure under control.
       
The labour requirement for planting cotton is higher, which is next to harvesting operation; usually, cotton sown manually consumes more seed rate and labour cost. Therefore machine sowing is needed to avoid labour dependence (Vaiyapuri, 2004). Sowing cotton with an inclined plate planter saves 46.2 and 97.1 per cent saves in labour cost and time, respectively (Chandel et al., 2010). Weeding is another important laborious practice; by adopting power weeder could cover an area of one hectare in a day of 8 hr. It comes only one-third of weeding cost incurrred by manual laboures (Tajuddin, 2006). Drip irrigation and fertigation in cotton help to the farmers to reduce the cost of cultivation, especially in labour-intensive operations such as weeding and irrigation, which reduces the cost of irrigation by 50 per cent (Narayanamoorthy, 2008).
       
Among all operations, cotton picking is the most difficult, tiresome and tedious. The average labour requirement in the conventional practice of hand-picking of cotton in India was reported to be about 517 man-hr/ha (Prasad et al., 2004). It was not only a tedious job, but also ten times costlier than irrigation and twice costlier than the weeding operation (Prasad and Majumdar, 1999). A person can pick about 15 to 20 kg/day of seed cotton, compared to an average picking of 870 to 2180 kg/day by a single row spindle type cotton picker (Sandhar, 1999). Farmers in India still use traditional methods of cultivation of cotton crop, which leads to considerably low productivity. Along with the above reasons, the shortage of labour in some areas of India, which are rapidly industrializing, impacts the profitability of cotton crops. Within this context, a better understanding of the Indian cotton sector and the impact of mechanization on cotton cultivation need to be assessed.
       
The manipulation of row spacing, plant density and the spatial arrangements of cotton plants, to obtain higher yield has been attempted by agronomists for several decades in many countries. The most commonly tested plant densities range from 5 to 15 plants/m2 (Kerby  et al., 1990) resulting in a population of 50000 to 150000 plants/ha. The concept of high-density cotton planting, more popularly called Ultra Narrow Row (UNR) cotton was initiated by Briggs et al., (1967). An obvious advantage of this system is its earliness (Rossi et al., 2004). The UNR cotton plants produce fewer bolls/plant than conventional cotton but retained a higher percentage of the total number of well-opened bolls per unit area in the first sympodial position and a lower percentage in the second position (Vories and Glover, 2006).
       
The high-density planting system (HDPS) is now being conceived as an alternative production system with the potential to improve productivity and profitability, increasing input use efficiency, reducing input costs and minimizing the risks associated with the current cotton production system in India. It unites with mechanization by boosting the production owing to synchronized maturity, which enables mechanized picking. Thus, an attempt has been made in this study to check the influence of mechanization in cotton with high-density planting compared with conventional cultivation method with high-density planting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Field experiments were conducted at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore during summer 2015 and 2016. The soil of the experimental site was sandy clay loam in texture, belonging to Typic Ustropept series. The nutrient status of soil at the beginning of the experiment was low in available nitrogen (210 kg/ha), medium in available phosphorus (12.6 kg/ha) and high in available potassium (429 kg/ha). The experiment was laid out in split plot design, replicated thrice and the same layout was maintained during both years of the study. Cultivation methods were assigned to the main plot and crop geometries were assigned to subplots. Main plot treatments were two cultivation methods viz., mechanized cultivation (M1) and conventional cultivation (M2). The subplot treatments had four spacings viz., 45 cm x 15 cm (S1), 60 cm x 15 cm (S2), 75 cm x 15 cm (S3) and 75 cm x 30 cm (S4). For the mechanized cultivation method, crops were raised on flatbed and the major cultivation practices from sowing to harvest were done with machines, whereas in the conventional cultivation method, crops were raised by ridges and furrow systems and the cultivation practices from sowing to harvest were done according to the crop production guide of TNAU (CPG, 2012). The machines used for mechanized cultivation system were, sowing with inclined plate planter, weeding with a power weeder, irrigation and fertigation with a micro-irrigation system and harvesting with the portable battery-operated cotton picker. Cotton variety Surabhi was used as a test crop. The observation on yield attributes and yield were recorded.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Yield attributes of cotton
 
The yield attributing characters including the number of sympodial branches/plant, number of fruiting points/plant, number of bolls/plant, boll setting percentage and boll weight ultimately determine the seed cotton yield and were significantly influenced by cultivation methods and plant geometries (Table 1). 

Table 1: Effect of cultivation methods with varying crop geometries on yield attributes of cotton.


 
Number of sympodial branches/plant
 
Cotton under mechanized cultivation (M1) recorded more sympodial branches (12.5 and 11.9/plant in 2015 and 2016, respectively) compared to conventional cultivation (M2) (Table 1). This increase in sympodial branches might be due to timely field operations with machinery, including weeding with a power weeder, which reduced weed competition and allowed the crop to utilize growth factors more effectively. This resulted in more sympodial branches and a higher yield (Nithya and Chinnusamy, 2013). Similar findings were reported by Bhalerao et al., (2008).  Additionally, drip fertigation under mechanized cotton cultivation likely improved nutrient uptake, boosting photosynthesis and the translocation of nutrients to reproductive parts compared to conventional soil-applied nutrients (Grieesha, 2003; Raskar, 2004). Kalaichelvi et al. (2017) and Suresh Kumar et al., (2016) also found that mechanized system improved growth and yield due to better nutrient and water management.
       
Among the crop geometries, wider spacing with a low population produced more number of sympodial branches/plant than closer spacing with a high population. Crop geometry of 75 cm x 30 cm (S4) produced a significantly greater number of sympodial branches (15.3 and 14.5/plant in 2015 and 2016, respectively) due to lability of space for lateral expansion of branches and the chance to enhance auxiliary buds of the plant compared to closer plant and row spacing recorded more competition for space, light and nutrient. These observations were consistent with the findings of Bhalerao et al., (2008). The reduced number of sympodial branches (8.8 and 8.3/plant in 2015 and 2016, respectively) was registered with spacing 45 cm x 15 cm (S1), followed by spacing 60 cm x 15 cm (M2). The decrease in sympodia with increasing plant density in cotton due to competition for light, moisture, nutrients, space and congestion induced more vertical growth through nodal elongation. As a result, the majority of the photosynthates consumed in vertical growth limit lateral branching. These results are in accordance with those reported by Narayana et.al., 2008; Sowmiya and Sakthivel (2018).
       
A significant interaction between cultivation method and crop geometry was observed in the sympodial branches/plant. A greater number of sympodial branches/plant was registered with the mechanized cultivation method at the spacing of 75 cm x 30 cm (M1S4), whereas the minimum number of sympodial branches/plant was registered with conventional cultivation method with a spacing of 45 cm x 15 cm (M2S1). This might be due to reduced competition for resources like nutrients, light and spacing etc. (Kalaichelvi, 2008; Baskar, 2014).
 
Number of fruiting points/plant
 
Fruiting points are crucial for assessing the cotton yield efficiency. Cultivation methods had significantly influenced number of fruiting points/plant in both the years of study (Table 1). Mechanized cultivation (M1) recorded higher fruiting points (35.2 and 33.3 per plant in 2015 and 2016, respectively) compared to conventional cultivation. This increase was due to better nutrient absorption, efficient light interception and reduced weed competition (Narayan et al., 2008). With fewer weeds, the crop had better access to nutrients, enhancing growth factors like leaf area index (LAI) and dry matter production (DMP), ultimately leading to more fruiting points. These results align with the findings of Sureshkumar (2014).
       
Considering the crop geometry, wider spacing of 75 cm x 30 cm (S4) and 75 cm x 15 cm (S3) resulted in more fruiting points/plant (49.4 and 47.4; 30.9 and 29.2, respectively) compared to closer spacings. This supports the findings of Krishnaswamy and Iruthayaraja (1983), who observed that higher plant densities tend to increase fruiting points.
       
In the interaction effect, the mechanized cultivation with wider spacing of 75 cm x 30 cm (M1S4) recorded higher number of fruiting points/plant, than the other treatment combinations. The minimum number of fruiting points/plant was registered in conventional cultivation method with spacing 45 cm x 15 c m (M2S1). Similar observations were made by Ramesh et al., (2018), who reported that mechanized systems enhance nutrient uptake and light interception, leading to higher fruiting efficiency. Likewise, Kumar and Prasad (2017) found that wider plant spacing reduces intra-plant competition and promotes better reproductive development.
 
Number of bolls/plant
 
The number of bolls/plant was significantly influenced by cultivation methods and crop geometry and their interaction effect during both the years of study (Table 1). Among the cultivation methods, mechanized cultivation method (M­1) registered a significantly higher number of bolls (14.3 and 13.2/plant, respectively during summer 2015 and 2016) compared to the conventional cultivation method (M2). It might be due to enhanced availability and uptake of nutrients under drip fertigation leading to enhanced photosynthesis, expansion of leaves and translocation of nutrients to reproductive parts compared to the conventional method of soil application of nutrients. Similar findings were also recorded by Grieesha (2003).
       
In crop geometry, wider spacing of 75 cm x 30 cm (S4) recorded more number of bolls (22.4 and 20.6/plant) during summer 2015 and 2016. A minimum number of bolls was registered under spacing of 45 cm x 15 cm (S1). This might be due to better light interception and lesser competition among the intra rows which leads to statistically improved mature bolls/plant in case of wider spacing. A similar result was agreed with Narayana et al., (2007).
       
In interaction effect, mechanized cultivation method with wider spacing of 75 cm x 30 cm (M1S4) recorded a higher number of bolls/plant than the other treatment combinations, whereas a minimum number of bolls/plant registered was with conventional cultivation method with spacing 45 cm x 15 cm (M2S1). This result supports earlier research indicating that mechanized systems combined with optimal plant spacing maximize boll development (Kumar et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2017).
 
Boll setting percentage
 
A significantly higher boll setting percentage (38.8 and 38.5) was observed under mechanized cultivation (M1) than the conventional during 2015 and 2016, respectively. This improvement can be attributed to better resource availability and reduced plant stress under mechanized systems, as reported by Sendouka et al., (1980). Mechanized cultivation, particularly with drip irrigation, has been shown to enhance boll retention by minimizing stress factors such as nutrient deficiencies and water scarcity (Kumar et al., 2016).
       
Reduction in boll setting percentage was recorded with high density planting under closer spacing  (45 cm x 15 cm and 60 cm x 15 cm) than the low density planting under wider spacing (75 cm x 15 cm and 75 cm x 30 cm) due to less number of fruiting points and number of bolls. Greater interplant competition under closer spacing might have been led to the shedding of fruiting bodies (Sendouka et al., 1980).
       
In interaction effect, mechanized cultivation method with wider spacing of 75 cm x 30 cm (M1S4) recorded higher boll setting percentage than the other treatment combinations. Minimum boll setting percentage was registered with conventional cultivation method with spacing 45 cm x 15 cm (M2S1). This confirms that optimal plant spacing combined with efficient cultivation methods significantly improves boll retention and overall yield potential.
 
Boll weight
 
Cultivation methods did not significantly influence boll weight during both years of study (Table 2). This aligns with the findings of Kalaichelvi (2009), who also reported no significant difference in boll weight between mechanized and conventional methods. Similarly, the interaction between cultivation methods and crop geometry showed no notable effect on boll weight.
       
Crop geometry, however, showed a clear impact on boll size. Wider spacing 75 cm × 30 cm (S4) produced larger bolls (4.6 g and 4.5 g in 2015 and 2016, respectively) compared to closer spacing 45 cm × 15 cm (S1), which resulted in smaller bolls (4.3 g and 4.2 g). This difference can be attributed to increased competition for essential resources such as nutrients, water, and light in higher plant densities, as noted by Ogola et al., (2006). Although wider spacing produced larger bolls, the lower plant population per unit area offset this advantage in terms of overall yield. Similar findings were reported by Sharma et al., (2019), who observed that increased plant density leads to smaller boll sizes due to heightened competition for resources.
 
Seed cotton yield
 
Cotton under mechanized cultivation resulted in significantly higher seed cotton yields of 2323 and 2262 kg ha-1 in 2015 and 2016, respectively, compared to conventional cultivation (Table 2). This might be due to efficiency of mechanization, which enables faster, less labour-intensive and timely operations, enhancing overall productivity and land use efficiency (Yadav et al., 2014). Additionally, the precise application of water and nutrients through drip fertigation contributed to improved crop growth and yield attributes, leading to higher yields (Raskar, 2004). These findings are consistent with those of Singh et al., (2017), who reported that mechanization significantly improves yield through efficient resource management.

Table 2: Effect of cultivation methods and crop geometries on boll weight and seed cotton yield of cotton.


       
Among the crop geometries, closer spacing of 45 cm x 15 cm (S1) recorded higher seed cotton yield (2512 and 2462 kg ha-1 on 2015 and 2016, respectively) compared to other spacings. It was comparable with the spacing of 60 cm x 15 cm (S2), which recorded 2349 and 2299 kg ha-1 in the respective years. The higher plant population per unit area contributed to increased yield, compensating for the lower number of bolls per plant. In contrast, wider spacings, despite producing more bolls per plant, resulted in lower seed cotton yield due to the reduced plant population. These findings align with those of Shashi Kumar and Ramachandra (2019) and Srinivasa Rao  et al. (2020), who also observed that higher plant densities lead to greater overall yield despite reduced individual plant productivity.
       
The interaction between cultivation methods and crop geometry significantly influenced seed cotton yield. Mechanized cultivation combined with closer spacing of 45 x 15 cm (M1S1) registered higher seed cotton yield than the other treatment combinations and was comparable with mechanized cultivation with 60 cm x 15 cm spacing (M1S2) during both 2015 and 2016. Conversely, conventional cultivation under wider spacing of 75 x 30 cm (M2S4) resulted in lower seed cotton yield. These results align with the findings of Bhardwaj et al., (2020), who reported that increased plant population density positively impacted overall yield, even with fewer bolls per plant. Similar results were also documented by Verma et al., (2020), who emphasized that optimizing plant density enhances yield despite variations in boll retention.

CONCLUSION

Based on the experimental results, it can be concluded that cotton cultivation under mechanized conditions with crop geometry of 45 cm ´ 15 cm (M1S1) proves to be a promising method for achieving higher yields. This approach significantly enhances yield attributes, including the number of sympodial branches, fruiting points and bolls per plant. It holds considerable potential for improving cotton yield and profitability, especially in response to rising labor costs in India.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, for providing the experimental field and laboratory facilities that were essential in making this study possible.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest related to this research.

REFERENCES


  1. Baskar, P. (2014). Influence of crop geometry and drip fertigation on growth and yield of Bt cotton, Ph.D., Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.

  2. Bhalerao, P.D., Gawande, P.P., Ghatol, P.U. and Patil, P.R. (2008). Performance of Bt cotton hybrids for various spacing under rainfed condition. Agric. Sci. Digest. 28(1): 54-56.

  3. Bhardwaj, P., Meena, R., and Choudhary, S. (2020). Influence of plant population on cotton yield under different cultivation systems. Journal of Agronomy. 58(2): 198-204.  

  4. Briggs, R.E., Patterson, L.L. and Massey, G.D. (1967). Within and between row spacing of cotton. Arizona Annual Report, Univ. of Arizona Agric. Ext. Service, Arizona. pp. 6-7. 

  5. Chandel, R.,  Dixit, A. and Manes, G.S. (2010). Comparative evaluation of tractor operated inclined plate planter and happy seeder for cotton sowing in standing stubble condition, J. Instn. Engrs. 91: 3-6. 

  6. CPG, (2012). Crop production guide published by Directorate of agriculture, Chennai and Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.

  7. Grieesha, G. (2003). Crop establishment studies to increase yield in irrigated cotton (cv. MCU 12), M.Sc., Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.

  8. Grieesha, G. (2003). Effect of drip fertigation on cotton growth and yield. Agricultural Water Management. 62(2): 145- 150. 

  9. Kalaichelvi, K. (2009). Bt cotton response to plant geometry and fertilizer levels J. Cotton Res. Dev. 23(1): 96-99.

  10. Kalaichelvi, K. (2008). Effect of plant spacing and fertilizer levels on insect pests in Bt cotton hybrid, Indian J. Ent. 70(4): 356-359. 

  11. Kerby, T.A., Cassman, K.G. and M. Keekey, M. (1990). Genotypes and plant densities for narrow-row cotton system. I. Height, nodes, earliness and location of yield, Crop Sci. 30(3): 645-649. 

  12. Krishnaswamy, S., and Iruthayaraja, P. (1983). Spacing and plant density effects on fruiting points in cotton. Agricultural Science Digest. 3(4): 210-215. 

  13. Kalaichelvi, S., Baskar, R. and Narayana, P. (2017). Effect of mechanized cultivation on cotton yield attributes. Agricultural Science Digest. 37(2): 88-92. 

  14. Kalaichelvi, S. (2009). Influence of crop geometry and cultivation practices on yield attributes of cotton. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 54(3): 245-249. 

  15. Kumar, R., Sharma, S. and Singh, P. (2019). Effect of plant density on boll size in cotton. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 53(4): 321-326. 

  16. Kumar, R., Singh, P., and Meena, S. (2016). Effect of mechanized cultivation on boll retention in cotton. Agricultural Science Digest. 36(4): 245-250. 

  17. Kumar, S., and Prasad, L. (2017). Effect of plant spacing on reproductive organ development in cotton. Agricultural Reviews. 39(2): 98-104. 

  18. Majumdar, G. (2012). Mechanization of cotton production in India. CICR Technical Bulletin. pp. 1-22. 

  19. Narayan, R., Sharma, K., and Patel, V. (2008). Influence of mechanized cultivation on nutrient uptake and light interception in cotton. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 53(2): 112-118. 

  20. Narayana, P., Lakshman, S., and Nair, V. (2007). Impact of plant spacing on cotton growth and yield under different cultivation methods. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 52(1): 73-76. 

  21. Narayana, E., Hema, K., Srinivasalu, K., Prasad, N.V.V.S.D. and Rao, N.H.P. (2008). Performance of Bt cotton hybrid (NCS-145 Bt) to varied spacing and fertilizer levels in vertisol under rainfed conditions, J. Indian Soc. Cotton Improv. 33: 33-36. 

  22. Narayana, E., Hema, K., Srinivasulu, K., Prasad, N.V.V.S.D. and Rao, N.H.P. (2007). Agronomic evaluation of Gossipium hirsutum hybrids for varied spacings and nitrogen levels in vertisols under rainfed conditions, J. Cotton Res. Dev. 21(2): 197- 200.

  23. Narayanamoorthy, A.  (2008). Economics of drip irrigated cotton: A synthesis of four case studies, Indian J. Agric. Econ. 563(3): 487-500.

  24. Nithya, C. and Chinnusamy. C. (2013). Evaluation of weed control efficacy and seed cotton yield in transgenic cotton, Indian J. Applied Res. 3(6): 10-12. 

  25. Ogola, J. B., Mathews, C., and Nyabundi, J. (2006). Effect of plant density on boll development and yield in cotton. Journal of Crop Science. 42(2): 134-138. 

  26. Prasad, J. and Majumdar, G. (1999).Present practices and future needs for mechanization of cotton picking in India, Agric. Engg. Today. 23(5 and 6): 1-20.

  27. Prasad, J., Kapur, T., Majumdar, G., Sandhar, N.S., Patil, P.G., Shukla, S.K., Jaiswal, B.N. and Patil, A.B. (2004). Technology and equipment for harvesting, cleaning and ginning of cotton. Technical Bulletin No. CIAE/2004/113. NATP on adoption and refinement of cotton picker and cleaning system, CIAE, Bhopal.

  28. Raskar, B.S. (2004). Effect of irrigation methods, fertilizer levels and green manuring on yield and nutrient balance in summer cotton, J. Cotton Res. Dev. 18(2): 180-83. 

  29. Ramesh, K., Rao, S., and Mehta, N. (2018). Impact of mechanized cultivation on cotton yield efficiency. Journal of Agricultural Research. 72(3): 178-185. 

  30. Rossi, J., Novick, G., Murray, J., Landivar, J., Zhang, S., Baxevanos, D., Mateos, A., Kerby, T., Hake, K. and Krieg, D. (2004). Ultra narrow row cotton: Global Perspective and Reduce Pesticide use Proceedings of the Technical Seminar of the 3rd Plenary Meeting of the ICAC: How to improve yields, Mumbai, India, Nov. : 7-11.

  31. Sandhar, N.S. (1999). Present practices and future needs of mechanization of cotton picking/ harvesting in India. Paper presented in Indo Uzbek Workshop on “Agricultural Research” held at CIAE, Bhopal Nov. 15-16. 

  32. Sharma, D., Kumar, V., and Meena, R. (2017). Effect of crop geometry on boll formation in cotton. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 51(6): 447-452. 

  33. Sharma, R., and Verma, K. (2015). Impact of plant spacing on fruit retention in high-density cotton planting. Legume Research.  38(2): 102-108. 

  34. Sharma, R., Meena, S. and Verma, K. (2019). Impact of plant spacing on boll size under different cultivation methods. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 53(4): 378-383. 

  35. Singh, H., Sharma, P., and Gupta, R. (2017). Impact of mechanization on cotton productivity. Agricultural Reviews. 39(4): 250- 258. 

  36. Suresh, K.R., and Sakthivel, N. (2016). Impact of mechanized practices on crop growth in cotton. Legume Research. 39(4): 215-218.

  37. Sendouka, S., Bilalis, D., and Zannis, D. (1980). Influence of plant density on fruiting body retention in cotton. Journal of Agronomy Research. 22(3): 178-185. 

  38. Shashi Kumar, C. and Ramachandra, C. (2019). Growth and yield of cotton as influenced by planting geometry and genotypes under high density planting system., Int. J.Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 8(5): 2073 -2077. 

  39. Sowmiya, R. and Sakthivel, N. (2018). Effect of Planting Geometry on Growth and Yield of cotton, Madras Agric. J. 105(1-3): 30-32. 

  40. Sureshkumar, K. (2014). Integrated weed management in hybrid brinjal, M.Sc., Thesis, Agricultural College and Research Institute, TNAU, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India. 

  41. Srinivasa, R.S., Reddy, K.R. and Prasad, P. (2020). Impact of crop geometry on yield and resource efficiency in cotton. Journal of Plant Sciences. 77(4): 310-317. 

  42. Tajuddin, A. (2006). Design, development and testing of engine operated weeder, Agric. Engg. Today. 30(5 and 6): 25-29.

  43. USDA, (2016). United States Department of Agriculture, USDA’s 92nd Annual Agricultural outlook forum.  Paper presented in Crystal Gateway Marriott Hotel, Arlington, Virginia, February 26: 1-16.

  44. Verma, S., Patel, D., Choudhary, A. (2020). Influence of plant density and mechanization on cotton yield. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 35(1): 112-118. 

  45. Vaiyapuri, K. (2004). Studies on inter cropping unconventional green manures in irrigated hybrid cotton, Ph.D., Thesis. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. 

  46. Vories, E.D. and Glover, R.E. (2006). Comparison of growth and yield components of conventional and ultra- narrow row cotton, J. Cotton Sci. 10: 235-243. 

  47. Yadav, D.S., Singh, P. and Sharma, R.K. (2014). Mechanization and its impact on cotton productivity. Journal of Agricultural Engineering. 51(2): 165-172. 
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)