Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. sp4 (2025): Recent Advances in Agriculture by Young Minds - III

Relationship and dissection of compact plant architecture traits amenable for mechanical harvesting in cotton

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.11096
Submitted
4 August 2025
Published
31-10-2025

Abstract

The need for mechanical harvesting in cotton production has become paramount as labor costs continue to rise. Efficient machine harvesting requires short and compact cotton plants. This study developed ten F1 populations by crossing five Indian-origin cotton genotypes using a half-diallel mating design. Field trials were conducted in two seasons, Kharif 2022 and summer 2023, at Coimbatore, India. Significant genetic variability was observed across all plant architecture traits, with strong G × E interactions (P ≤ 0.01), highlighting clear opportunities for breeding compact high-yielding cotton types. A consistent negative correlation between plant height and seed cotton yield in both environments suggested that shorter plants provided greater yield stability. An ideal plant height of 75-110 cm was identified as the most suitable for mechanized harvesting. Within this ideal range, architecture traits such as zero monopodia, internode and branch lengths showed a consistent negative association with yield, while plant density, sympodial branch origin and number were positively linked to higher yield. Stepwise regression identified the groups of mainstem internode (1st-4th nodes) and sympodial branch lengths (lower, middle, upper) as key yield-influencing traits, offering targets for breeding compact, high-performing cotton types. Pooled values indicated an ideal mean mainstem internodes lengths (MIL) of approximately 5.2 cm and sympodial branches lengths (SBL) of approximately 19.9 cm, with shorter internodes enhancing plant sturdiness and uniformity, while reduced sympodial length improved canopy openness, light penetration and harvest efficiency with minimal trash intake. The findings provide practical recommendations on compact plant architecture traits, particularly ideal internode and branch lengths, to enhance yield potential and facilitate mechanical harvesting in cotton.

References

  1. 1. Reinhardt D, Kuhlemeier C. Plant architecture. EMBO Rep. 2002;3(9):846-51. https://doi.org/10.1093/embo-reports/kvf177
  2. 2. Madhu B, Sivakumar S, Manickam S, Murugan M, Rajeswari S, Boopathi NM. Improvising cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) genotypes for compact plant architecture traits suitable for mechanical harvesting. Indian J Genet Plant Breed. 2023;83(03):398-406. https://doi.org/10.31742/ISGPB.83.3.12
  3. 3. Yan W, Du M, Zhao W, Li F, Wang X, Eneji AE, 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
  4. 4. Venugopalan MV, Prakash AH, Kranthi KR, Rachana Deshmukh RD, Yadav MS, Tandulkar NR. Evaluation of cotton genotypes for high density planting systems on rainfed vertisols of central India. In: World Cotton Research Conference-5, Mumbai, India. Excel India Publishers. 2011;341-46.
  5. 5. Gunasekaran M, Premalatha N, Kumar M, Mahalingam L, Sakthivel N, Senguttuvan K, et al. Cotton CO17-A short duration, high yielding compact variety suitable for high density planting system. Electron J Plant Breed. 2020;11(4):993-1000. https://doi.org/10.37992/2020.1104.162
  6. 6. Williford JR, Brashears AD, Barker GL. Harvesting. In: Anthony WS, Mayfield WD, editors. Cotton Ginners Handb. Collingdale (PA): DIANE Publishing. 1994. p. 11–16.
  7. 7. Van der Sluijs MHJ. Harvesting and delivering uncontaminated cotton. Australian cotton production manual-2015. Narrabri, NSW: Cotton Research and Development Corporation. 2015;119-25.
  8. 8. Tilak R, Thind SK, Grewal IS. Correlation and path coefficient analysis of yield with yield attributing characters in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Environ Ecol. 2017;35(2C):1228-32.
  9. 9. Farias FJ, Carvalho LP, Silva Filho JL, Teodoro PE. Correlations and path analysis among agronomic and technological traits of upland cotton. Genet Mol Res. 2016;15(3):15038239. http://doi.org/10.4238/gmr.15038239
  10. 10. Pace PF, Cralle HT, El-Halawany SH, Cothren JT, Senseman SA. Drought-induced changes in shoot and root growth of young cotton plants. J Cotton Sci. 1999;3(4):183-87.
  11. 11. Oosterhuis DM. Day or night high temperatures: A major cause of yield variability. Cotton Grower. 2002;46(9):8-9.
  12. 12. Su J, Li L, Zhang C, Wang C, Gu L, Wang H, et al. Genome-wide association study identified genetic variations and candidate genes for plant architecture component traits in Chinese upland cotton. Theor Appl Genet. 2018;131:1299-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-018-3079-5
  13. 13. Kaggwa-Asiimwe R, Andrade-Sanchez P, Wang G. Plant architecture influences growth and yield response of upland cotton to population density. Field Crops Res. 2013;145(1):52-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.02.005
  14. 14. Wang X, Hou Y, Du M, Xu D, Lu H, Tian X, et al. 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;198:112-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.09.010
  15. 15. Konduru S, Yamazaki F, Paggi M. A study of mechanization of cotton harvesting in India and its implications. J Agril Sci Tech B. 2013;3(11B):789-97.
  16. 16. de Mendiburu F, de Mendiburu MF. Package agricolae. R Package. 2019;1(3).
  17. 17. Anderson VL, McLean RA. Design of experiments: a realistic approach. CRC Press. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315141039
  18. 18. Wei T, Simko V, Levy M. Package corrplot. Statistician. 2017;56(316):24.
  19. 19. Lumley T, Miller A. Package LEAPS: Regression subset selection. R package version. 2020;3.
  20. 20. Bourgou L, Dever JK, Sheehan M, Kelly CM, Diané SK, Sawadogo M. Diallel crosses of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) from Burkina Faso and Texas A & M AgriLife Research-1-Analysis of agronomic traits to improve elite varieties from Burkina Faso. Agronomy. 2022;12(4):939. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12040939
  21. 21. Baxevanos D, Goulas C, Rossi J, Braojos E. Separation of cotton cultivar testing sites based on representativeness and discriminating ability using GGE biplots. Agronomy J. 2008;100(5):1230-36. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2007.0363
  22. 22. Ali I, Khan NU, Mohammad F, Iqbal MA, Abbas A, Farhatullah ZB, et al. Genotype by environment and GGE-biplot analyses for seed cotton yield in upland cotton. Pak J Bot. 2017;49(6):2273-83.
  23. 23. Xu NY, Fok M, Zhang GW. The application of GGE biplot analysis for evaluating test locations and mega-environment investigation of cotton regional trials. J Integr Agric. 2014;13(9):1921-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(13)60656-5
  24. 24. Bhailume MS, Borole DN, Magar NM. Correlation and path analysis between seed cotton yield and its attributing characters studies in desi cotton. J Cotton Res Dev. 2016;30(1):29-31.
  25. 25. Pujer SK, Siwach SS, Sangwan RS, Sangwan O, Jagdish Deshmukh JD. Correlation and path coefficient analysis for yield and fibre quality traits in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L). J Cotton Res Dev. 2014;28(2):214-16.
  26. 26. Rauf SA, Khan TM, Sadaqat HA, Khan AI. Correlation and path coefficient analysis of yield components in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Int J Agric Biol. 2004;6(4):686-88.
  27. 27. Tariq M, Khan AM, Idrees G. Correlation and path coefficient analysis in upland cotton. Sarhad J Agric (Pak). 1992;8(1):341-51.
  28. 28. Khan MD, Chaudry NA, Saleem M. Association of various characters in parents and hybrids of G. hirsutum. J Pak Cotton. 1979;24(1):253-61.
  29. 29. Singh RB, Gupta MP, Mor BR, Jain DK. Variability and correlation studies on yield and quality characters in hirsutum cotton. Indian J Genet. 1968;28(2):216-22.
  30. 30. Alkuddsi Y, Patil SS, Manjula SM, Patil BC, Nadaf HL, Nandihali BS. Association analysis of seed cotton yield components and physiological parameters in derived F1 inter specific crosses of cotton. Biosci Methods. 2013;4(1):23-33. https://doi.org/10.5376/bm.2013.04.0005
  31. 31. Soomro ZA, Larik AS, Kumbhar MB, Khan NU, Panhwar NA. Correlation and path analysis in hybrid cotton. SABRAO J Breed Genet. 2008;40(1):49-56.
  32. 32. Patil HV, Deosarkar DB, Arbad SK. Correlation and path analysis in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J Cotton Res. 2017;31(1):19-23.
  33. 33. Reddy KB, Reddy VC, Ahamed ML, Naidu TC, Srinivasarao V. Correlation and path coefficient analysis in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J Res ANGRAU. 2015;43(1/2):25-35.
  34. 34. Wu JR, Hu XM, Zhu QG. A study on the effect of PIX with different seed treatment on the growth of cotton. China Cotton. 1986;2(1):28-29.
  35. 35. Fernandez CJ, Cothren JT, McInnes KJ. Partitioning of biomass in well-watered and water stressed cotton plants treated with mepiquat chloride. Crop Sci. 1991;31(5):1224-28. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183X003100050029
  36. 36. Kerby TA, Bourland FM, Hake KD. Physiological rationales in plant monitoring and mapping. In: Stewart JMcD, Oosterhuis DM, Heitholt JJ, Mauney JR, editors. Physiology of cotton. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. 2010. p. 304-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3195-2
  37. 37. Marois JJ, Wright DL, Wiatrak P. Effect of row width and nitrogen on cotton morphology and canopy microclimate. Crop Sci. 2004;44(3):870-77. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004.8700
  38. 38. Heitholt JJ. Canopy characteristics associated with deficient and excessive cotton plant population densities. Crop Sci. 1994;34(5):1291-97. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1994.0011183X003400050028x

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.