Comparison of cotton harvesters performance affected by variety and plant density in Fars province

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Agricultural Engineering Research Department, Fars Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center

Abstract

The spread of mechanical cotton harvesting can cause significant changes in the conventional cotton production process from the point of planting pattern and variety. A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the cotton picker and stripper performance as affected by in conjunction with plant density and cultivar from 2019 to 2020. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with split-split plot arranged in three replications. The cotton harvester were in two levels of spindle picker cotton (PC) and finger stripper cotton (SC) as the main plot, three cultivars as the subplot include: Macsa (V1), Golestan (V2), Hekmat (V3) and the plant density (PP1:10, PP2:13, PP3:16 plant m2) as sub-sub plot. The results showed that cotton harvester, variety and plant density had a significant effect on performance indexes of cotton harvester. The maximum effective field capacity and material capacity belonged to finger stripper harvester. The results also revealed that the PC treatment on average decreased ground loss by 38.9% and increased harvesting efficiency by 3.5% compared to SC treatment. As the plant density was increased from 10 to 16 plant m2 in SC treatment, the ground loss and stalk loss were decreased (22.3 and 50.5, respectively). The highest seed cotton yield was observed in the V2× PP2 interaction. According to our findings and based on the seed cotton yield and crop losses, application of PP2 treatment in combination with V2 and V1 treatments were seen suitable in the cotton growing regions of Fars province.

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, W.S., Anthony, D.W., and Nichols, R.L.  (2005). Yield, quality, and profitability of cotton produced at varying plant densities. Agronomy  Journal. 97: 235-240.
Boquet, D.J. (2005). Cotton in ultra-narrow row spacing Plantdensity and nitrogen fertilizer rates. Agronomy Journal. 97:279-287.
Darawsheh, M.K.., Chachalis, D., Aivalakis, G., and Khah, E. M. (2009). Cotton row spacing and plant density cropping systems II. Effects on seedcotton yield, boll components and lint quality. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment. 7 (3-4): 262-265.
Egli, D.B. 1998. Alternation in plant growth and dry matter distribution in soybean. Agronomy Journal. 80: 86-90.
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., S. A. Marey, A. E. and Sayed-Ahmed, I. F..(2017). Influence of mechanical harvesting process on productivity and quality of cotton fiber. Journal of Soil Science and Agricultural Engineering. 8 (6): 301-306.
Faircloth, J. C., Hutchinson, R., and Price, P. (2004). An evaluation of alternative cotton harvesting methods in northeast Louisiana: a comparison of the brush stripper and spindle harvester. Journal of Cotton Science. 8 (2): 55-61.
Faulkner, W. B., Wanjura, J. D., Hequet, E. F., and Parnell, J. (2011). Evaluation of modern cotton harvest systems on irrigated cotton: fiber quality. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2 (4): 50-513.
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)
Ghajari, A., and Akramghaderi, F. (2006). Influnce of row spacing and population density of yield and yield components of three cotton cultivars in Gorgan. Journal of. Agricultural Science. 12: 844-852. (In Persian)
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.
Hongven, Z., and Min, K.. (2012). Effects of speed ratio value of rubber-bar on cotton harvesting performance. Advance Material Research. 383-390.
 Jafari, M.A., Rezaee Asl, A., and  Nowrozieh, Sh. (2019). Investigate the efficiency of cotton harvester in new cotton cultivars. Iranian Journal of Cotton Research. 6 (2): 75-94. (In Persian)
Jahanian, M., Azadbakht, M., Nowrouzieh, Sh., Asghari, A. (2020). Determination of the required force to pick cottonseed from four cotton varieties boll in three different harvesting time. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR. 22 (1): 68-75.
Jones, M. A., and wells, R. (1997). Drymatter 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.
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.
Öz, Erdal., Behiç Tekin., A., Ünal Evcim, H., and Değirmencioğlu, A. (2011). Effect of variety and row spacing on the performance of a cotton picker. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment. 9 (1): 236- 242.
OZ, Erdal. 2005. Harvesting performance of a tractor mounted mechanical cotton picker. Journal of  Agricultural Engineering. 3 (2): 119-126.
Porter, W.M., Wanjura, J.D., Taylor, R. K., and Buser, M. D. (2017). Tracking Cotton Fiber Quality and Foreign Matter through a Stripper Harvester. Journal of Cotton Science 21: 29-39
Prasad, J., Kapur, T., Patil, P. J., and Jaiswal, B.N. (2007). Performance evaluation of spindle type cotton picker. Journal of Agricultural Engineering. 44 (1): 12-16.
Rezaei Asl, A., Nowrouzieh, Sh., and Taghizadeh-Alisaraei, A. (2013). Study and comparison of mechanical and manual garvesting performance in two cotton varieties Varamin and Sahel cultivar. Mechanical Sciences in agricultural machinery, 1(1): 19-24. (In Persian)                                                              
Roozbeh, M., and Zahiri, M. (2019). Effects of Harvesting Direction and Row Spacing on the Cotton Stripper Performance in Irrigated Cotton Fields. Journal of Cotton Science. 23:90–96
Roozbeh, M., and Jowkar, L. (2020). Effect of planter type and seed variety on seedling emergence uniformity and seed cotton yield in Fars province. Iranian Journal of Cotton Research. 7(2): 43-62. (In Persian)
Saeidirad, M.H., Mahdinia, A., Zarifneshat, S., Nazarzadeh, S., and Ramazani-Moghadam, M.R. (2018). Technical and economical evaluation of self peopelled and tractor mounted cotton pickers. Agricultural Mechanization and Systems Research. 18 (69)::97-108. (In Persian)
Spurlock, S. R.., Parvin, D.W., and Cooke, F.T. (1991). Impacts of scrapping on harvest costs. Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Conference. San Antonio., TX. Jan 6-10. p. 417-419
Wanjura, J.D., Gary, R., Gregory, A., Pelletier, H.J. (2012). Influence of Grid Bar Shape on Field Cleaner Performance – Field Testing. Journal of Cotton Science. 16: 255-267
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 fac-tors in boll period. Acta Gossypii Sinica 12: 122–126 (in Chinese, with English abstract).
Zhao, D., and Oosterhuis, D.M. (1995). Effects of shading and PGR-IV on cotton photosynthesis, boll retention and components of yield. Division of Agriculture University of Arkansas. 172:121-125. 
Agricultural Mechanization
Volume 7, Issue 1
March 2022
Pages 35-47

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 July 2022
  • Accept Date: 16 July 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics