3.8 Article

Impact of short-term exposure to cold night temperatures on early development of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)

Journal

AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
Volume 55, Issue 6, Pages 655-664

Publisher

C S I R O PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/AR03221

Keywords

simulation; model; OZCOT; cold shock

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Regression analysis of field data has indicated that minimum daily temperatures below 11degreesC delay the development of cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) seedlings beyond what would be expected based on the accumulated degree-day sum. In Australian cotton production systems, events where the minimum daily temperature falls below this value are referred to as 'cold shocks'. The number of cold shocks is used by growers and advisors in assessing retardation of crops in their areas. However, this effect has not been tested explicitly. The aim of this work was to empirically assess effects of cold shock on pre-flower development of cotton plants. Cotton seedlings were grown in controlled-temperature glasshouses. Plants were transferred to cold chambers ranging from 5 to 22degreesC during the night period for durations from 3 to 10 days. Negative effects were not seen until plants had been exposed to at least 10 nights at 10degreesC, or for at least 5 nights at 5degreesC. When differences were generated it did not delay development to first square any more than 4 days, nor was the effect consistent. These differences translated into delays to first flower, but had little effect on plant morphology, or on dry weight measured soon after flowering. In one experiment, a significant reduction in leaf photosynthesis was measured at two times of day on the day after cold shock at 5degreesC. Improving understanding of the effects of temperature extremes on cotton growth and development will help in developing more functional decision-support tools and field management strategies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available