Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
Climate is changing globally nowadays because of extensive crucial human activities. This state along with stark in weather measures ultimately affecting the development and growth of crops due to various kinds of stressful field condition at the same time including biotic and abiotic stresses. Thus, various biotic factors including pathogens, weeds and pests and abiotic factors including temperature, humidity and drought etc. are involved in reduction of cotton yield due to which cotton production significantly reduced. Various biotic factors have direct effect on the cotton production and caused significant reduction in cotton crop yield estimated up to 10 to 30%, while as abiotic factors are even worse than biotic stresses and could cause 50% reduction. So, effective agronomic practices, optimal climate and integrated pest management leads to fruitful crop production to cover this yield gap. This chapter will be broadly useful to design projects aimed with inter and intra-disciplinary collaboration for sustainable cotton production.
State Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Bio-Resources in Yunnan, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China
Xi Gao
State Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Bio-Resources in Yunnan, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China
Deqiang Qin
State Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Bio-Resources in Yunnan, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China
Xiaoping Qin
State Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Bio-Resources in Yunnan, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China
Guoxing Wu*
State Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Bio-Resources in Yunnan, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China
*Address all correspondence to: wugx1@163.com
1. Introduction
Cotton, Gossypium hirsutum is not only the most significant material yarn on worldwide basis, anyway is likewise the primary abroad exchange worker in underdeveloped nations [1]. The complete place that is known for Pakistan is 796,095 km2, around twenty to million are developed and 8.3 million are non-developed soil. Around the globe Pakistan is among the foremost makers of cotton, wheat, sugarcane, rice, dates, mango and oranges. Our chief crops (includes cotton, wheat, sugar cane and rice) contribute 6.5% but trivial crops 2.3% of the nation’s GDP. Pakistan’s agriculture is based on chief crops which report for approximately 24% of the worth supplementary to generally agriculture and 4.67% of the GDP [2]. Developing countries including Pakistan have low yield production of seed cotton as compared to other technologically advanced countries like USA, Australia and China etc. Therefore, high yield of cotton is necessary on consecutive basis [3]. At present, the production of cotton yarn is approximately 25 million metric tons globally per annum basis while the current market value is around 12 billion U.S. dollars [4]. On worldwide basis, four major cotton species are cultivated to the known area for cotton production about 95%, but the key specie is G. hirsutum (upland cotton) that is dominant to other species as well [5]. The fast growing world population definitely demands high production of food and fiber [6]; to meet these requirements intensive agricultural practices have directed too many climatic issues importantly depletion and exhaustion of water and soil resources [7, 8, 9, 10]. Effective agronomic practices, optimal climate and integrated pest management leads to fruitful crop production; as cotton is a perennial shrub from subtropical origin, it could even withstand harsh environmental factors e.g. drought and extreme heat [11]. Various biotic and abiotic factors are involved in reduction of cotton yield due to which cotton production significantly reduced [12]. Nowadays, breath taking climatological changes resulted in extreme weather that ultimately having direct impact on cotton production; while as plant growth reduced by facing various types of stresses in the field conditions. The dominant stresses include weather and soil factors; e.g. (temperature, humidity and rainfall) and (soil biology, altered physical and chemical properties). Generally these factors are consisted of two type’s biotic and abiotic factors; biotic factors includes pathogens, weeds and pests while abiotic factors consists of temperature, humidity and drought etc. [13]. Various biotic factors such as pests and pathogens have direct effect on the cotton production and caused significant reduction in cotton crop yield estimated up to 10 to 30% [14]. While as abiotic factors such as temperature, humidity and drought etc. are even worse than biotic stresses and could cause 50% reduction [13]. GM cotton (BT cotton) was first developed in the mid-1990s and notorious for its adaptability, expressing his success story but still agronomic practices and soil system management is key spot to lessen the stressful field conditions. For sustainable productivity of cotton crop the interaction between genetics and crop agronomy is a worthy point [15].
In this chapter, our main focus is on the role of biotic and abiotic factors for sustainable cotton production. Here, we would also like to explore and summing up information about management of those factors for betterment of cotton production. We will also evaluate and identify some main reviews about the role of these factors in relation to plant response, their manifestation etc.
Biotic factors comprise chiefly insect pests and pathogens that are mainly responsible for reduction of cotton yield [14, 16, 17]; generally accounting the production losses of cotton yield due to insect pests around 84% [17] while for diseases and pathogens up to 30% [14]. The main biotic factors that leads to biotic stress for cotton field include insect pests (chewing and sucking pests) and some pathogens (viruses, bacteria and fungi) and weeds. While at the same time the abiotic factors particularly affect the occurrence of these pests and diseases [18]. Consequently, this situation is accountable for the emergence and incidence of the new pests and pathogens. Coupled with this we are viewing the main biotic factors, their key characteristics and incidence mechanisms and damage modes.
2.1 Categorization of major pests and pathogens of cotton crop
2.1.1 Insect pests
In the world over thirteen hundred and twenty six type of pests that mainly insects found as basis of infestation in cotton [19], whereas 162 different types of insect and mite pests in sub-continent [20]. The cotton crop is attacked by 96 different types of insect pests and mite species during its growth period. These insects and other pests normally observed to nourish on fiber crop in Pakistan [21]. Mainly insect pests of cotton crops consisting of two groups depending upon their mode of damage, insects with chewing mouth parts and insects with piercing sucking type of mouth parts [22]. Chewing insects generally chewed the different parts of cotton plant including cotton bollworms and leaf worms etc. e.g. pink bollworm, American bollworm, armyworm, spotted bollworm, cotton leaf worm etc. Mainly the immature stage of this group damages to cotton crop [14, 22]. Table 1 includes the major chewing pests of cotton crop as given below.
Larvae feed on flower buds, flowers, bolls and the developing seeds within damaged bolls, resulting in the boll rotting, premature or partial boll opening also affects lint quality
Infestations occur sporadically across production regions and within fields. Neonates typically exhibit gregarious feeding behavior on the leaf near the site of oviposition, older larvae can feed within reproductive structures
The other group of cotton pests include pests with sucking mouth parts. In Pakistan, India, China, Japan, Trinidad, Puerto Rico, Australia and Europe the key pests of cotton crop had sucking type of mouth parts are thrips, jassid, whitefly and they cause considerable loss in cotton production [35, 36]. Insects with sucking type of mouth parts became primary pests of cotton crop from the time transgenic cotton (Bt cotton) commercialized in the world [37]. Table 2 includes the major piercing sucking pests of cotton crop as given below.
Common Name
Scientific name, Order: Family
Damage
Reference
Lygus bug
Lygus Hesperus (Knight) Hemiptera; Miridae
Pierce squares, damage anthers and other tissues, bolls shrivel, turn brown, and drop from the plant
Different fungi, bacteria and viruses are the major pathogens in cotton farming system [14]. Bacterial blight is one of the notorious disease of cotton crop caused by bacteria, Xanthomonas citri pv. Malvacearum; most damaging and vital cotton diseases caused by bacteria [55]. Bacterial blight affected the cotton crop in worst manner resulting in defoliation of the plants, stems becomes dark and swollen and even detached that ultimately leads to decrease of fiber quality, decreased coloration and death of plant [56]. Fungal diseases of cotton crop are also much more dynamic caused by various fungal pathogens, for example, Fusarium oxysporum is responsible to cause Fusarium wilt of cotton [57], Verticillium dahlia cause Verticillium wilt of cotton [58], Colletotrichum gossypii cause anthracnose of cotton while Colletotrichum gossypii var. cephalosporioides is reason for ramulosis [59], Mycosphaerella areola source root ramularia gray mildew [60]. The root rots of cotton crop are started by Sclerotium rolfsii and Rhizoctonia solani [61], Alternaria macrospora leads to leaf blight disease [62], while leaf spot of cotton caused by Cercospora gossypina [63] and the target spot of cotton caused by Corynespora cassiicola [64]. The viral diseases of cotton crop mainly includes viruses from Begomovirus family, Begomovirus acts as foundation for disease spread in cotton crop which commonly includes curl disease, leaf crumple and cotton mosaic disease [65]. While as cotton blue disease and atypical cotton blue disease introduced by Polerovirus [66, 67]. Viral diseases of cotton crop are insect transmitted and need vector for transmission in general [65].
Climate is changing globally nowadays because of extensive crucial human activities, while Abiotic stresses are a direct consequence of climate change. Whereas as it’s foreseen to be more breathtaking increase then the average universal temperature [68]. Abiotic factors are of particular importance in regard to sustainable cotton production, because from sowing to harvest all the development stages of cotton plant depend upon abiotic factors for optimum level to grown normally. Abiotic stresses (extreme temperature, relative humidity etc.) cause distress to cotton crop and resulted in substantial decrease in yield of cotton and damage the lint quality [69, 70]. Yield loss in cotton due to the influence of abiotic factors is around 50% [13]. The major particular characteristic of abiotic tensions is their occurrence and acquaintance at the same time, simply they act same upon plant growth and plant defense behaviors that makes it more complex [71]. Keeping in view the roles of abiotic factors (abiotic stresses), here, we will analyze and summarize the effect of those in relation to sustainable cotton farming system.
3.1 Temperature impact
All crops depends upon the optimum temperature for the proper growth and development, so temperature is a chief dynamic for farming of different crops. The growth rate of cotton crop mainly dependent on the temperature, although the cotton plant is basically from tropical origin and can survive in high temperature environments but extremely hot climatic situation resulted in reduction of cotton yield [72]. Extreme temperatures either its cold or hot can ultimately affect the growth or development of cotton crop and could delay or even reduce the cotton production. Minimal changes from optimal conditions could severely effect plant growth, even 2–3°C increase from optimum temperature reduce plant growth and cause decline in yield and biomass along with increase of fiber micronaire [69]. High temperature directly or indirectly affects the growth and development of cotton and leads to drought stress because of higher evaporation from the fields. A study from Arkansas USA proposed the negative correlation between high temperature ranges and cotton production [73]. They found that the high temperature unswervingly disturbs the biology (vegetative ad reproductive stages) of cotton. This influence eventually leads to increase the production of more vegetative portion and lowering the reproductive portion of cotton plants [74]. Particularly reproductive stage of cotton crop also be strongly influenced by some other heat stress related other severe effects; in general the maturing of reproductive parts could be impacted more and cause reduction in the yield. If the temperature is higher than optimum or regular temperature, the first square formation or flowering start and first boll formation or boll opening rate decreased. Retention phase for the squares and bolls mostly decreased under high temperature [75]. Same as high temperature, low temperature also badly effect cotton growth. The development of cotton could be delayed by extreme drops of temperature under 11°C that further resulted into prolonged growth period [16]. Yadav discusses plant reactions to cold stress as well as physiological reactions and strategies for cold tolerance [76]. While at present the main focus of authors for sustainable cotton production is on high temperature under changing climatic situations.
3.2 Drought and salinity effects
Globally changing climate resulted in increase of mean temperature on per annum basis that ultimately leads to more evaporation of water from the soils and directly causing drought. Osmotic condition refers to drought and salinity stress [71]. At present, drought stress is considered among top factors that are responsible for reduction in cotton yield worldwide. Scientists foreseen that the agricultural fields strongly impacted by the drought stress will be double in the current era [77]. They also predicted that the urban, industrial and agricultural lands will face the water short comings and their will be strong competition for the water resources [78]. Cotton production strongly impacted by drought and salinity stress; drought or salinity are the main reason for reduction in cotton yield damage to the lint quality [79, 80]. Cotton plants show notable changes in their morphological and physiological characters in response so severe abiotic stresses. All the parameters including from seed germination to bolls development are impacted negatively by above stresses [69, 79, 80]. Furthermore, if the cotton crop experience those abiotic stresses for long periods of time, ultimately it faces the reduction in yield and damage to lint eminence by decreasing the boll’s mass and fiber development. Thus, it faces already negative impact, also its catabolic processes like photosynthesis also got disturbed that lead to reduction in yield [69, 79, 80]. In general, plants are adaptable to drought stress or other water scarcity conditions by a variety of different internal processes, but most importantly the closing of stomatal glands is first response by numerous crops [78]. Farooq et al. suggested the comprehensive guide on the effect of drought against different crops and their physio-biochemical response [81]. Luis et al. described different biotic and abiotic stresses that could affect plant health (Figure 1) [82].
Figure 1.
Different types of biotic and abiotic stresses that can affect plants. Source: Luis et al. [82].
3.3 Combined effect of abiotic factors
The typical peculiarity of abiotic factors or abiotic stresses is that they affect the plants concurrently and causing a lot of internal and external changes simultaneously [71]. As above described cotton crop is indeterminate in nature, they have a series of systems to adapt the stressful environment. Thus, in stressful environment, for example drought or salinity problem, high temperature or soil with less minerals and nutrients, cotton plant change their behavior to face those critical environment by cracking and detaching the bolls, squares and flowers etc. [83]. Thus, under such stressful circumstances the growth of cotton roots is also limited that could be resulted in low yield [84]. The soils that affected by drought stress have many changes in their physiochemical properties resulting in cracking in the upper portion, superficial crusting and altered soil structure. Thus, in some cases if the coil clay content lowers to minimal level and the kind of clay micronutrients present in it sometimes leads to more than 1 m deeper cracking in soil surface. The lower level of organic matrix in soils lead to soil crusting by damaging soil hydrology [85]. The altered soil structure imparts negative effects on the interaction of soil, plant and water ultimately leading to low efficient irrigation [86]. This caused the deprived development of root network that decreases the biomass production [87].
3.4 Combined effect of biotic and abiotic factors
Various biotic and abiotic factors are involved in reduction of cotton yield due to which cotton production significantly reduced [12]. On worldwide basis, promptly increasing rate of population highly demands the food and fiber needs to be covered by the rigorous agro-farming practices [6]. But simultaneously this situation have become the big cause of global climatic change that lead to severe environment impacts particularly the water and soil resources deployment [7, 8, 9, 10]. This state along with stark in weather measures ultimately affecting the development and growth of crops due to various kinds of stressful field condition at the same time including biotic and abiotic stresses.
The insects are highly dependent on abiotic factors and type of crop for their proper growth and development. The population growth rate is very much during suitable environmental situations and populace abundance is too high. Temperature and relative humidity plays a role in affecting the incidence of these insect pests [88]. Temperature plays a key role in controlling the development of insects and outbreaks of their population [89]. The positive relationship has been found between the population of cotton thrips and environmental factors including degree of hotness, relative humidity and rainfall [90, 91].
Rigorousness of different diseases directly associated with individual functional state of plant, the type of medium or soils, diverse changing weather situations, alike temperature, humidity or rainfall. E.g. during the wet weather condition in sandy type of soils the wilt diseases of cotton occurred more. Same as, high level of moisture and low temperature situation highly favor the growth of blight disease triggered by the P. exigua [92]. While on the other hand, severely cold climatic condition or chilling pressure directly influence the vulnerability of cotton crop by the attack of A. macrospora [93]. Likewise cold weather with low temperature range and high humidity level favor the diseases caused by R. solani and hot weather condition with high degree of hotness with low level of humidity leads the infection by R. bataticola in cotton crop [94].
High degree of hotness have direct impact on the sustainable production of cotton crop while indirect effect is increasing the rate of transpiration of water from the soil that ultimately led to drought stress [95]. Thus, the health of soil or soil condition directly influence the relative degree of drought and hotness stress the plants. While as the lower stomatal activity by plants was observed under highly fertile soils in comparison with low fertile soil [96]. Suzuki et al. described the complete survey of combined biotic and abiotic stress effect to cotton crop [97]. Pandey et al. comprehensively reviewed the Impact of Combined Abiotic and Biotic Stresses on Plant Growth and Avenues for Crop Improvement by Exploiting Physio-morphological Traits (Figure 2) [98].
Figure 2.
Schematic representation of effect of stress combinations on plants. Source: Pandey et al. [98].
In the current scenario, chemical control is the main tactic for pest and disease control, mostly farmers rely on use of synthetic insecticides, fungicides, bactericides and nematicides etc. to reduce pest infestation and disease control. On worldwide basis, to control or manage the pests and diseases conventional chemicals used. Bu however the non-judicious or inappropriate use of these synthetic pesticides have severe impacts on climate overall by damaging human and animal health, environmental degradation, resistance problem among insect pests and killing non target insects. Thus, in this regard it is necessary to design some ecofriendly and effective pest and pathogen management techniques [99] by following pre planned IPM program.
4.1 Integrated pest management
IPM simply refers to management of pests by using multiple control tactics with manipulation according to needs, that is environment friendly and effective management program for agro-ecosystems. The chemical control is the final step in IPM. Because many insecticides have severe environmental hazards, they could have impact on beneficial insects, human health and ecosystem degradation, so in this program selective products could be used. IPM program basically have three major parts; first is the avoidance of pests; second is post sampling and monitoring; the conservation of beneficial factors and other is use of chemical and non-chemical methods to control pests in efficient way [100, 101, 102].
4.2 Pest’s avoidance
For pests avoidance basically one must have comprehensive information about the behavior of particular insect pest, its ecology and biology. This tactic is broader in range and effective against different commodities according to area based pest management programs. The basic purpose of it’s to keep the population of that pest below threshold level, because if the population of that particular pest is above economic threshold, the crop would be damaged by unrecoverable loss. It is important in this tactic to must study well and identify the natural enemies of that pest and also alternative hosts etc. Then management tactics could be designed according to need its set basically the foundation of effective management program. The control measures must include use of pheromones or semio-chemicals and other bio-pesticides in combination for mass trapping by disturbing reproduction cycle of that pest [103, 104].
4.3 Cultural management
For sustainable cotton production cultural control of pests is also of equal importance according to agro based region and climate. Before the sowing of genetically modified cotton, BT cotton, delayed planting in Pakistan was used to manage the pink bollworm to reduce its infestation [105]. Late season planting of cotton in Australia was avoided because of low yield and more vulnerability of cotton to be attacked by late season outbreak of sucking pest and bollworms. The destruction of pupae was followed by plowing to control Helicoverpa armigera [106]. Hussain et al. found high abundance of thrips on early planted cotton in Pakistan. They suggested that because the temperature have positive role in development of thrips and other sucking pests, so, by managing the agronomic factors cotton yield could be enhanced by reducing the infestation of thrips [107]. Regarding these factors pre-planned IPM practices could be designed for effective pest management.
4.4 Crop rotation
Crop rotation is also a conventional method use by many farmers on large scale cotton farming areas. But in different cotton farming systems, crop rotation have both negative and positive impacts on biotic stress factors according to the crop selected [10, 108]. To destruct the disease cycle and pest chain, choice of most appropriate crops for rotation purposes is key in integrated disease management (IDM), however, the release of disease suppressive microbes to dominate the disease are yet a challenge due to various factors [109].
4.5 Host plant resistance (HPR)
Resistance among different kinds of insect pests is an emerging challenge in effective pest management crop as cotton plants confer it due its several traits. While some varieties of cotton that have high leaf hair structure and less gossypol glands are somehow resistance against thrips, although exact mechanism is not clear. Same as some cotton cultivars with okra shaped leaves showed partial resistance against whitefly [106]. So by increasing host plant resistance could be effective as well to manage insect pests. In this regard, [14], summarized detailed biotechnological solutions for sustainable cotton production.
4.6 Sampling and monitoring of pests
The fundamental step in studying population dynamics and decision making for effective pest control strategies is sampling. For different agro farming systems sampling considered to be as primary tool. Correct sampling measures at right time not only helpful in effective pest management program but also used to check and evaluate the management options and their efficiency. In Arizona, with the effective sampling tactics and their implementation, the successful control of whitefly have been achieved [102]. In present situation as Bt cotton have been grown on worldwide basis, so by following efficient sampling procedures beneficial insects (natural enemies) could be conserved as well.
4.7 Conservation of major beneficial insects
Many beneficial insects for cotton farming system have been reported from different countries including Australia that predates and parasitize on cotton pests especially hymenopterans mainly including spiders, true bugs, lacewings, some beetles and hymenopteran parasitoids etc. [110, 111, 112]. But because of limited available methods to increase their populations for their effective use as bio control agents make them hard in this scenario. But it have been found that under unsprayed cotton fields these pests generally effective to low the pest infestations [113], but it depends on the type of pests [114, 115]. The vegetative area is extremely low in many cotton growing regions including Australia [112] that ultimately showing the no provision of refuge sites for natural enemies. That’s why the beneficial insects prefers to migrate to other places for their better survival, for over wintering stage to pass and less competitive food resources [111, 112, 116]. So by planning effective agro farming systems these beneficial insects could be conserved by providing them refuge crops, provision of food baits, inoculative releases, tolerating early season pest attack, resistant varieties, use of selective and appropriate insecticides etc.
4.8 Judicious insecticidal use
Use of synthetic insecticides is the last option in IPM programs, while even the use of different botanicals and other bio pesticides are also avoided to spray in early cotton season, thus the beneficial insects could be conserved. But when the pest population exceeds to economic threshold level, then by relying and designing the appropriate time and schedule of applying sprays only with selective chemicals according to their minimal impact on non-target could help to conserve beneficial insects. Avoidance by blind sprays could also help in IPM program, because the spot treatments within field could conserve natural environment for beneficial insects.
Climate changing is a global issue now and it causing a range of abiotic stresses. The notorious characteristic of abiotic factors is that they occur simultaneously in the environment. In this regard, long term exposure to abiotic stresses resulted in reduced yield ultimately. While adaptability is a major function of living beings. To fight against abiotic stresses or to minimize the effects of different abiotic factors, many plants particularly cotton have developed some defense mechanisms to overcome the impacts of abiotic stresses. These adaptabilities by cotton plants are based on physiological or molecular mechanisms. However, still an integrated management is still needed to overcome these harsh environmental stresses.
5.1 Drought stress management
Drought is among the key limitation factor to suppress sustainable cotton production all over the world. In this regard, to overcome the effects of drought meaningfully, one must know comprehensively the soil conditions by exploration deeply [117]. The growing of commercial scaled upland cotton always show positive association with adequate water supply whenever grown in dry lands [118]. Cotton growing farmers always rely on altered row configuration to minimize the effects of drought stress as basic agronomic measure [119]. While the crop rotation tactic with cereal crops improve the soil health overall by increasing its water storage capacity and accessibility to respective crop [120]. Botanists who are working on plant physiology or molecular technologists should must keep in mind these factors when they are working to develop new innovative tools for management of drought stress. However, Farooq et al. have described the comprehensive review of drought impact on plants and their physiological response [81]. It is scientifically proofed that the highly efficient approach to overcome drought effects and increase the production rate of cotton could only be attained by the appropriate or judicious use of vital natural resources water and soil [121, 122].
5.2 Temperature stress management
Climate change is a global issue now. While this challenging the environment overall by causing abiotic stresses directly. The globally increasing temperature is mainly due to excess carbon dioxide contented in the atmosphere. Thus, the mean increase in degree of hotness globally per annum basis leads to water transpiration from the soil that ultimately resulted in drought and salty soils [71]. Temperature stress directly damages to reproductive and vegetative phase of cotton resulting in low yield [74]; although cotton is a tropical crop and have the ability to absorb severe radiation from the sun, and resulting in high temperature of the crop during high solar intensity. While in this regard, some of the plants show adaptable behavior and respond to temperature stress by developing waxy surfaces to imitate the strong radiations from the sun. But the cotton plants responded by absorption of solar radiation that intensifies osmatic (drought) pressure. Varieties with some appropriate and desired features including dense cuticle structure and profound hairs to lower down the temperature or heat stress could helpful in this regard (CICR 2016). Frequent watering could help to overcome water stress. Recently, some new innovative plant based irrigation systems have been developed by means of temperature sensing remotes through canopy [95]. While the other adverse behavior from cotton plants is the closing of stomata in the night ties that does not allow the cooling effect. In this context, plant breeders and biotechnologists may focus on developing such verities or cultivars that could fight against heat stress. As the roots are vital part to supply water to whole plant, so studying their structure and role is of equal importance and the types of soils as well. Because the sandy soils have less ability to store water for long so this could also aggravate the water and heat stress.
5.3 Role of root morphology to combat above stresses
To overcome the drought effects management tactics may be applied according to soil or plant type. Soil type and state is vital to play key role to help to develop deeper, denser and stronger plant roots to increase the use of available resources. This could ultimately helpful to significantly overcome the severe impacts of heat and drought stress. A comprehensive description on the impacts of different dry lands on roots in relation to development of crop was covered by Whitmore and Whalley [117]. Roots have different morphology among top layer of soil and sub layer of soil according to its thick structure, it could have strong influence on the behaviors of plant; how could they manage different stresses. The plants with roots who have ability to grow more bottomless or deep layers in the soil fight drought stress in a better way [123]. Some latest findings from Australia confirmed that the fine root structure of Bollgard Roundup Ready® genetically modified cultivar, was less than conventional cotton. The production of fine roots was much lower [124]. Bell also found that the cotton roots acquire phosphorus from subsoil instead of topsoil. It is proposed that under drought conditions plants roots could active in bottom and deeper soil layer while inactive at topsoil [125]. But this stressful situation ultimately depleting the P resources among cereal crop soils in Australia where the cotton is also grown [126].
5.4 Role of soil condition to combat above stresses
Different biotic and abiotic factors are directly or indirectly related to occurrence of different diseases, outbreak and survival of insect pests and could lead to complex situation in relation with different crops to manage those pests and pathogens. Thus, the soil type, structure and composition also could adversely affect these factors. In this regard, the altered soil texture severely affects the plant-soil-water relationship and cause the low water uptake by plant roots [86] that ultimately leads to poor growth and development of plant [87]. The adverse impacts of high temperature, dry and saline soils under field could be lessened or by adopting many technological measures. These measures are generally comprised of latest irrigations systems, soil health betterment by different management approaches, and management of crop residues and selection of particular crop cultivar. All the above approaches are usable but not limited to overcome the biotic and abiotic stress. Tillage have facility to alter the soil structure in favor to keep balance between hotness and soil humidity level. Thus, tillage have direct effect on transpiration of water from soil to air and infiltration through deep soil. So, some previous findings have supported that the soils with zero or minimum tillage have bettered structure to fight these stresses by helping undisturbed root development [127]. However, in some specific conditions due to use of heavy machinery on farmland resulted in hard or compacted subsoil layer needs deep tillage for better soil structure for farming. Summing up, the integrated management of biotic and abiotic stresses entails attentive use of available tactics and strongly demands development of stress tolerant varieties by keeping in mind the above described factors. While as Pandey et al. suggested in detail to overcome the combined effect of these stresses (Figure 3) [98].
Figure 3.
Outline of strategies for improving crop performance under combined drought and pathogen stress. Source: Pandey et al. [98].
Globally changing climate ultimately resulting in adverse agro-eco environments. Presently, the multi-dimensional and concurrent impacts of different biotic and abiotic factors limiting the crop growth. Raising of crop nowadays facing multiple stresses at the same time in the field. It makes ultimately hard to find tangible solutions to stand against this situation. Nevertheless, Sustainable management techno-solutions will be necessary to meet the societal requirements in this regard in the cotton-growing areas of the world. Reduction in yield of cotton crop due to multiple stresses in the field condition occurred. Different abiotic factors favoring biotic factors (insects and pathogens) to grow and survive. These factors are intermingled at some point and be reason for strong reduction in cotton yield. Co-occurrence of many stresses affects more to a plant as compared to single stress factor. Integrated pest management, integrated soil and crop management and effective agronomic practices could play a key role to combat the adverse effects of biotic and abiotic factors. Different molecular breeding methods are often used to develop cotton varieties that are resistant to abiotic stresses, whereas various transgenomic techniques mends resistance against different insect pests and pathogen. So, Plant breeders, plant physiologists, and microbiologists should must ponder over this complex situation when they forecasting their investigation approaches. Research on new innovative combinations of agro-eco systems and introduction of bio-techno solutions and persistent stewardship from farm to global farming culture is vital for sustainable cotton production.
References
1.Morris D. The importance of cotton to developing countries. In: Griffon M, editor. Economie des Filières en Régions Chaudes: Formation des Prix ET Échanges Agricoles. Montpellier: Acte du Xe Séminaire d’Économie et de Sociologie, 11-15 September 1989; 1990. pp. 135-146
2.Azam A, Shafique M. Agriculture in Pakistan and its impact on economy—A review. International Journal on Advanced Science and Technology. 2017;103:47-60
3.USDA. Cotton: World Markets and Trade. New York, USA: United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Circular Series, FOP; 2010. pp. 1-10
4.Khan MA, Wahid A, Ahmad M, Tahir MT. World cotton production and consumption: An overview. In: Ahmad S, Hasanuzzaman M, editors. Cotton Production and Uses. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd; 2020. pp. 1-7. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-1472-2_1
5.Trapero C, Wilson IW, Stiller WN, Wilson LJ. Enhancing integrated pest management in GM cotton systems using host plant resistance. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2016;7:500
6.FAO. World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. Rome, Italy: Economic and Social Development Department of FAO; 2002
7.Bunzel K, Schäfer RB, Thrän D, Kattwinkel M. Pesticide runoff from energy crops: A threat to aquatic invertebrates? Science of the Total Environment. 2015;537:187-196
8.Drinkwater LE, Snapp SS. Nutrients in agroecosystems: Rethinking the management paradigm. Advances in Agronomy. 2007;92:163-196
9.Hart MR, Quin BF, Nguyen ML. Phosphorus runoff from agricultural land and direct fertilizer effects. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2004;33:1954-1972
10.Nachimuthu G. Crop Rotation and Soil Health. Spotlight Magazine. Narrabri NSW, Australia: Cotton Research and Development Corporation; 2016. p. 19
11.Arshad Awan Z, Khaliq T, Masood Akhtar M, et al. Building climate resilient cotton production system for changing climate scenarios using the DSSAT model. Sustainability. 2021;13:10495. DOI: 10.3390/su131910495
12.Anonymous. 2005. U.S. Cotton Market Monthly Economic Letter, Cotton Incorporated Strategic Planning. North Carolina, USA: Cotton Incorporated; February-2005
13.Boyer JS. Plant productivity and environment. Science. 1982;218:443-448
14.Tarazi R, Jimenez JL, Vaslin MF. Biotechnological solutions for major cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) pathogens and pests. Biotechnology Research and Innovation. 2020;3:19-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.biori.2020.01.001
15.Fischer RA. Chapter 2 – Farming systems of Australia: Exploiting the synergy between genetic improvement and agronomy. In: Crop Physiology. San Diego: Academic Press; 2009. pp. 22-54
16.Bange M, Baker JT, Bauer PJ, et al. Climate Change and Cotton Production in Modern Farming Systems. Boston: CAB International; 2016. p. 61
17.Kamburova V, Abdurakhmonov IY. Overview of the biosafety and risk assessment steps for insect-resistant biotech crops. In: Emani C, editor. The Biology of Plant-Insect Interactions. In a Compendium for the Plant Biotechnologist. USA: CRC Press; 2018. pp. 178-203. DOI: 10.1201/9781315119571
18.URR M, Qasim M, Bukhari SA, Shaheen T. Chapter 6 – Bt crops: A sustainable approach towards biotic stress tolerance. In: Emerging Technologies and Management of Crop Stress Tolerance. San Diego: Academic Press; 2014. pp. 125-142
19.Atwal AS. Agricultural Pests of South Asia and their Management. Ludhiana, India: Kalyani Publishers; 2002. p. 221
20.Manjunath, TM. Bt cotton in India. In: The technology wins as the controversy wanes. 2004. Available from: www.Monsanto.co.uk/newsukshowlib.html?Wid=8478.
21.Younas M, Yousaf M, Jilani G. Insects and Spider Mite Pests of Cotton in Pakistan. Faisalabad, Pakistan: Monog. PL-480 Dept. Entomol. Univ. Agric; 1980. p. 256
22.Anees M, Shad SA. Insect pests of cotton and their management. In: Ahmad S, Hasanuzzaman M, editors. Cotton Production and Uses. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd; 2020. pp. 177-212. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-1472-2_11
23.Lykouressis D, Perdikis D, Samartzis D, et al. Management of the pink bollworm Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders)(Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) by mating disruption in cotton fields. Crop Protection. 2005;24:177-183
24.AKH S, Abd-El Rahman A. Relative toxicity of some modern insecticides against the pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) and their residues effects on some natural enemies. International journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 2014;3:481-491
26.Kranthi S, Kranthi K, Wanjari R. Influence of semilooper damage on cotton host-plant resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (hub). Plant Science. 2003;164:157-163
27.Jackson R, Bradley J Jr, Van Duyn J. Field performance of transgenic cottons expressing one or two bacillus thuringiensis endotoxins against bollworm, Helicoverpa zea (Boddie). Journal of Cotton Science. 2003;7:57-64
29.Mirmoayedi A, Maniee M, Yaghutipoor A. Control of cotton spiny bollworm, Earias insulana Boisduval, using three bio-insecticides, Bt, Spinosad and neem-Azal. Journal of Entomology. 2010;7:89-94
30.Hajatmand F, Abbasipour H, Amin G, et al. Evaluation of infestation percentage of cotton fields to the spiny bollworm, Earias insulana Boisduval (Lep.: Noctuidae), and its relationship with pheromone traps. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection. 2014;47:1523-1529
31.Ahmad M, Iqbal Arif M. Resistance of Pakistani field populations of spotted bollworm Earias vittella (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to pyrethroid, organophosphorus and new chemical insecticides. Pest Management Science. 2009;65:433-439
32.Hasan W, Ansari M. Evaluation of some insecticides against spotted bollworm, Earias vittella (fab.) on different okra cultivars. Trends in Biosciences. 2010;3:41-44
33.Reed J, Smith D. Droplet size and spray volume affects on insecticide deposit and mortality of Heliothine (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae in cotton. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2001;94:640-647
34.Hardke JT, Jackson RE, Leonard BR, Temple JH. Fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) development, survivorship, and damage on cotton plants expressing insecticidal plant-incorporated protectants. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2015;108:1086-1093
35.Amjad A, Aheer GM. Varietal resistance against sucking insect pests of cotton under Bahawalpur ecological conditions. Journal of Agricultural Research. 2007;45:1-5
36.Aslam M, Razaq MM, Saeed NA, Ahmad F. Comparative resistance of different cotton varieties against bollworm complex. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. 2004;6:39-41
37.Holt J, Mushobizi W, Day RK, Knight JD, Kimani M, Njuki J, et al. A simple Bayesian network to interpret the accuracy of armyworms outbreak forecasts. The Annals of Applied Biology. 2006;148:141-146
38.Cervantes FA, Backus EA, Godfrey L, et al. Characterization of an EPG waveform library for adult Lygus lineolaris and Lygus hesperus (Hemiptera: Miridae) feeding on cotton squares. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 2016;109:684-697
39.Meisner MH, Zaviezo T, Rosenheim JA. Landscape crop composition effects on cotton yield, Lygus hesperus densities and pesticide use. Pest Management Science. 2017;73:232-239
40.Zhang L-J, Cai W-Z, Luo J-Y, et al. Phylogeographic patterns of Lygus pratensis (Hemiptera: Miridae): Evidencee for weak genetic structure and recent expansion in northwest N China. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0174712
41.Anonymous. Mirids, Green, Brown and Crop. Queensland: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries; 2010
42.Hill L. Migration of green mirid, Creontiades dilutus (Stål) and residence of potato bug, Closterotomus norwegicus (Gmelin) in Tasmania (Hemiptera: Miridae: Mirinae: Mirini). Crop Protection. 2017;96:211-220
43.Armes NJ, Jadhav DR, De Souza KR. A survey of insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera in the Indian subcontinent. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 1996;86:499-514
44.Cui H-H, Gu S-H, Zhu X-Q , et al. Odorant-binding and chemosensory proteins identified in the antennal transcriptome of Adelphocoris suturalis Jakovlev. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part D: Genomics and Proteomics. 2016;24:139-145
45.Willrich M, Leonard B, Gable R, Lamotte L. Boll injury and yield losses in cotton associated with brown stink bug (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) during flowering. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2004;97:1928-1934
46.Ahmed R, Nadeem I, Yousaf MJ, et al. Impact of dusky cotton bug (Oxycarenus laetus Kirby) on seed germination, lint color and seed weight in cotton crop. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 2015;3:335-338
47.Li J, Zhu L, Hull JJ, et al. Transcriptome analysis reveals a comprehensive insect resistance response mechanism in cotton to infestation by the phloem feeding insect Bemisia tabaci (whitefly). Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2016;14:1956-1975
48.Amin M, Afrin R, Alam M, et al. Effect of leaf trichomes and meteorological parameters on population dynamics of aphid and jassid in cotton. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research. 2017;42:13-25
49.Bi JL, Ballmer GR, Hendrix DL, et al. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer on cotton whitefly Bemisia argentifolii populations and honeydew production. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 2001;99:25-36
50.Lei T, Khan M, Wilson L. Boll damage by sucking pests: An emerging threat, but what do we know about it. In: Swanepoel A, editor. Cotton Production for the New Millenium. Cape Town: Proceedings 3rd World Cotton Conference (Cape Town, 9-13 March, 2003) CD; 2003. pp. 1338-1344
51.Attique M, Ahmad Z. Investigation of Thrips tabaci Lind. as a cotton pest and the development of strategies for its control in Punjab. Crop Protection. 1990;9:469-473
52.Kakkar G, Kumar V, Seal DR, et al. Predation by Neoseiulus cucumeris and Amblyseius swirskii on and Frankliniella schultzei on cucumber. Biological Control. 2016;92:85-91
53.Prabhakar M, Prasad YG, Vennila S, et al. Hyperspectral indices for assessing damage by the Solenopsis mealybug (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in cotton. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2013;97:61-70
54.Rahmathulla V, Sathyanarayana K, Angadi B. Influence of abiotic factors on population dynamics of major insect pests of mulberry. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 2015;18:215-223
55.Jalloul A, Sayegh M, Champion A, Nicole M. Bacterial blight of cotton. Phytopathologia Mediterranea. 2015;54(2):241-252. DOI: 10.14601/Phytopathol
56.Chohan S, Perveen R, Abid M, Tahir MN, Saji M. Cotton diseases. Research. 2021;4:25. DOI: 10.1186/s42397-021-00100-9
57.Cox KL, Babilonia K, Wheeler T, He P, Shan L. Return of old foes—Recurrence of bacterial blight and Fusarium wilt of cotton. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2019;50:95-103. DOI: 10.1016/J.PBI.2019.03.012
58.Shaban M, Miao Y, Ullah A, Khan AQ , Menghwar H, Khan AH, et al. Physiological and molecular mechanism of defense in cotton against Verticillium dahliae. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2018;125:193-204. DOI: 10.1016/J.PLAPHY.2018.02.011
59.Salustiano ME, Rondon MN, Abreu LM, da Costa S, da Machado JC, Pfenning LH. The etiological agent of cotton ramulosis represents a single phylogenetic lineage within the Colletotrichum gloeosporioides species complex. Tropical Plant Pathology. 2014;39(5):357-367. DOI: 10.1590/S1982-56762014000500002
60.Shete PP, Kasal YG, Perane RR. Screening of the cotton genotypes against ramularia areolaatk. Under field condition. Plant Archives. 2018;18(1):734-736
61.Mehta Y, Marangoni MS, Bocatti RC, Rodrigues HP, Cunha TS, Galbieri R. Systemic acquired resistance of cotton, soybean and common bean to rhizoctonia solani and sclerotium rolfsii induced by shale water seed treatment. American Journal of Plant Sciences. 2015;6(9):1493-1500. DOI: 10.4236/ajps.2015.69148
62.Cia E, Fuzatto MG, Kondo JI, Carvalho LH, Ito MF, Dias FLF, et al. Response of cotton genotypes to the incidence of Alternaria leaf spot. Summa Phytopathologica. 2016;42(4):357-359. DOI: 10.1590/0100-5405/2119
63.Rothrock CS, Woodward JE, Kemerait RC. Diseases. In: Cotton. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: Agron. Monogr. 57. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA; 2015. pp. 465-508. DOI: 10.2134/agronmonogr57.2014.0071
64.Galbieri R, Araújo DCEB, Kobayasti L, Girotto L, Matos JN, Marangoni MS, et al. Corynespora leaf blight of cotton in Brazil and its management. American Journal of Plant Sciences. 2014;5(26):3805-3811. DOI: 10.4236/ajps.2014.526398
65.Naqvi RZ, Zaidi SS, Shahid Mukhtar M, Amin I, Mishra B, Strickler S, et al. Transcriptomic analysis of cultivated cotton Gossypium hirsutum provides insights into host responses upon whitefly-mediated transmission of cotton leaf curl disease. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):1-21. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210011
66.Correa RL, Silva TF, Simões-Araújo JL, Barroso PA, Vidal MS, Vaslin MFK. Molecular characterization of a virus from the family Luteoviridae associated with cotton blue disease. Archives of Virology. 2005;150(7):1357-1367. DOI: 10.1007/s00705-004-0475-8
67.Silva AKF, Romanel E, da Silva FT, Castilhos Y, Schrago CG, Galbieri R, et al. Complete genome sequences of two new virus isolates associated with cotton blue disease resistance breaking in Brazil. Archives of Virology. 2015;160(5):1371-1374. DOI: 10.1007/s00705-015-2380-8
68.Luo Q , Bange M, Braunack M, Johnston D. Effectiveness of agronomic practices in dealing with climate change impacts in the Australian cotton industry – A simulation study. Agricultural Systems. 2016;147:1-9
69.Majeed S, Rana IA, Mubarik MS, et al. Heat stress in cotton: A review on predicted and unpredicted growth-yield anomalies and mitigating breeding strategies. Agronomy. 2021;11:1825. DOI: 10.3390/agronomy11091825
70.Noreen S, Ahmad S, Fatima Z, et al. Abiotic stresses mediated changes in morphophysiology of cotton plant. In: Ahmad S, Hasanuzzaman M, editors. Cotton Production and Uses. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd; 2020. pp. 341-366. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-1472-2_18
71.Rani S, Kumar P, Suneja P. Biotechnological interventions for inducing abiotic stress tolerance in crops. Plant Gene. 2021;27:100315. DOI: 10.1016/j.plgene.2021.100315
72.Ullah K, Khan N, Usman Z, Ullah R, Saleem FY, Shah SAI, et al. Impact of temperature on yield and related traits in cotton genotypes. Journal of Integrative Agriculture. 2016;15:678-683
73.Oosterhuis DM. Yield response to environmental extremes in cotton. In: Oosterhuis DM, editor. Proceedings of the 1999 Cotton Research Meeting and Summaries of Cotton Research in Progress. Vol. 193. Fayetteville, USA: Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station special report; 1999. pp. 30-38
74.Reddy VR, Reddy KR, Baker DN. Temperature effect on growth and development of cotton during the fruiting period. Agronomy Journal. 1991;83:211-217
75.Reddy KR, Davidonis GH, Johnson AS, Vinyard BT. Temperature regime and carbon dioxide enrichment alter cotton boll development and fiber properties. Contribution from the Dep. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State Univ., and the USDA-ARS Southern Regional Res. Ctr., New Orleans, LA. Mississippi Agric. and Forestry Exp. Stn. Paper no. J 9391. Agronomy Journal. 1999;91:851-858
76.Yadav SK. Cold stress tolerance mechanisms in plants. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2010;30:515-527
77.Deeba F, Pandey AK, Ranjan S, Mishra A, Singh R, Sharma YK, et al. Physiological and proteomic responses of cotton (Gossypium herbaceum L.) to drought stress. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2012;53:6-18
78.Tombesi S, Nardini A, Frioni T, Soccolini M, Zadra C, Farinelli D, et al. Stomatal closure is induced by hydraulic signals and maintained by ABA in drought-stressed grapevine. Science Reporter. 2015;5:12449
79.Abdelraheem A, Esmaeili N, O’Connell M, Zhang J. Progress and perspective on drought and salt stress tolerance in cotton. Industrial Crops and Products. 2019;130:118-129. DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.12.070
80.Sharif I, Aleem S, Farooq J, et al. Salinity stress in cotton: Effects, mechanism of tolerance and its management strategies. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants. 2019;25:807-820. DOI: 10.1007/s12298-019-00676-2
81.Farooq M, Wahid A, Kobayashi N. Plant drought stress: Effects, mechanisms and management. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2009;29:185-121
82.Paramo LA, Feregrino-Pérez AA, Guevara R. Sandra Mendoza and Karen Esquivel (2020) nanoparticles in agroindustry: Applications, toxicity, challenges, and trends. Nanomaterials. 2020;10:1654. DOI: 10.3390/nano10091654
83.Williams S, Bange MP. Chapter, 1, the cotton plant. In: Australian Cotton Production Manual 2015. Narrabri, Australia: CRDC and CottonInfo; 2015. pp. 8-10
84.Karamanos AJ, Bilalis D, Sidiras N. Effects of reduced tillage and fertilization practices on soil characteristics, plant water status, growth and yield of upland cotton. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science. 2004;190:262-276
85.Overstreet LF, DeJong-Huges J. The importance of soil organic matter in cropping systems of the Northern Great Plains. University of Minnesota-Extension 2016; Web material. 2016. Available from: http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/tillage/importance-of-soil-organic-matter/
86.Loch RJ, Grant CG, McKenzie DC, Raine SR. Improving Plants’ Water Use Efficiency and Potential Impacts from Soil Structure Change – Research Investment Opportunities, Final report to the National Program for Sustainable Irrigation. CRCIF report number 3.14/1. Toowoomba: Cooperative Research Centre for Irrigation Futures; 2005
87.Wrona AF, Oosterhuis DM, McMichael B. Getting to the root of your crop’s health. Cotton Physiol Today. 1999;10:1-8
88.Aheer GM, Ahmad KJ, Ali A. Role of weather in fluctuating aphid density in wheat crop. Journal of Agricultural Research. 1994;32:295-301
89.Weisser W, Volkl WW, Hassell MP. The importance of adverse weather conditions for behaviour and population ecology of an aphid parasitoid. The Journal of Animal Ecology. 1997;66:386-400
90.Li JZ, Zang HJ, Zang ZM. Observation on the time and spatial dynamics of the diurnal cycle of tobacco thrips. China Journal of Entomology. 1992;18:26-30
91.Shah SIH. Effect of Abiotic Factors on the Incidence and Development of Sucking Insect Pests Complex on Different Advanced Genotypes of Cotton under Unsprayed Conditions [Thesis]. Faisalabad, Pakistan: Dept. Entomol. Univ. Agric; 2003
92.Koenning SR, Abdel Alim FF, Grand LF, Phipps PM. Stem Canker on Cotton Caused by Phoma exigua in North Carolina and Virginia. Plant Disease. Nov 2000;84(11):1251. DOI: 10.1094/PDIS.2000.84.11.1251B. PMID: 30832181
93.Zhao J, Li S, Jiang T, Liu Z, Zhang W, Jian G, et al. Chilling stress—The key predisposing factor for causing Alternaria alternata infection and leading to cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) leaf senescence. PLoS One. 2012;7:e36126
94.Monga D, Raj S. Root Rot Disease of Cotton and its Management. CICR Technical Bulletin no: 3. Nagpur: Central Institute for Cotton Research; 2016
95.White S, Raine SR. A Grower Guide to Plant Based Sensing for Irrigation Scheduling. Toowoomba: National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture Publication, 1001574/6: USQ; 2008
96.Irmak S. Impacts of Extreme Heat Stress and Increased Soil Temperature on Plant Growth and Development. Lincoln: University of Nebraska; 2016
97.Suzuki N, Rivero RM, Shulaev V, Blumwald E, Mittler R. Abiotic and biotic stress combinations. The New Phytologist. 2014;203:32-43
98.Pandey P, Irulappan V, Bagavathiannan MV, Senthil-Kumar M. Impact of combined abiotic and biotic stresses on plant growth and avenues for crop improvement by exploiting physio-morphological traits. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2017;8:537. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.0053
99.Alavanja MCR. Introduction: Pesticides use and exposure extensive worldwide. Reviews on Environmental Health. 2009;24(4):303-309. DOI: 10.1515/REVEH.2009.24.4.303
100.Mensah RK. Development of an integrated pest management programme for cotton. Part 1: Establishing and utilising natural enemies. International Journal of Pest Management. 2002a;48:87-94
101.Mensah RK. Development of an integrated pest management programme for cotton. Part 2: Integrationi of a Lucerne/cotton interplant system, food supplement sprays with biological and synthetic insecticides. International Journal of Pest Management. 2002b;48:95-105
102.Naranjo SE. Impacts of Bt transgenic cotton on integrated pest management. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2011;59:5842-5851
103.Mensah RK, Moore C. Exploitation of semiochemicals for the management of pest and beneficial insects with special emphasis on cotton cropping systems in Australia: A review. Journal of Biological Control. 2011;25(4):253-269
104.Mensah RK, Gregg PC, Del Socorro AP, et al. Integrated pest management in cotton: Exploiting behaviour modifying compounds for managing cotton pests. Crops & Pasture Science. 2013;64:763-773
105.Usman M, Razaq M, Shah F, et al. Impact of planting dates and insecticides treatments on pink bollworm damage to cotton bolls. In: Paper Presented in National Conference, Challenges and Opportunities to Boost the Agriculture in Changing Climate. Multan, Pakistan: Bahdur Sub-Campus, Layyah of Bahauddin Zakariya University; 2017 (29 March 2017)
106.Wilson L, Downes S, Khan M, et al. IPM in the transgenic era: A review of the challenges from emerging pests in Australian cotton systems. Crop and Pasture Science. 2013;64:737-749
107.Hussain M, Ahmad M, Iqbal M, et al. Seasonal outbreak of Thrips tabaci on different cotton cultivars in relation to abiotic factors and different sowing times. International Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences. Jul and Aug 2020. p. 66-75
108.Kirby K, Smith L. Tackling verticilium. Spotlight magazine. Cotton Research and Development Corporation. Winter. 2016;2016:16-18
109.Pereg L, McMillan M. Scoping the potential uses of beneficial microorganisms for increasing productivity in cotton cropping systems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2015;80:349-358
110.Room PM. Seasonal occurrence of insects other than Helicoverpa spp. feeding on cotton in the Namoi valley of New South Wales. Australian Journal of Entomological Society. 1979;16:165-174
111.Mensah RK, Khan M. Use of Medicago sativa (L) interplantings/trap crops in the management of the green mirid, Creontiades dilutus (Stal) in commercial cotton crops in Australia. International Journal of Pest Management. 1997;43:197-202
112.Mensah RK. Habitat diversity: Implications for the conservation and use of predatory insects of Helicoverpa spp. in cotton systems. International Journal of Pest Management. 1999;45:91-100
113.Clark MS, Luna JM, Stone ND, Youngman RR. Generalist predator consumption of army worm and effect of predator removal on damage in no-till corn. Environmental Entomology. 1994;23:617-622
114.Murdoch MM, Cheeson J, Cheeson PL. Biological control in theory and practice. American Naturalist. 1985;125:344-366
115.Wratten SD. The effectiveness of native natural enemies. In: Burn AJ, Croaker TH, Jepson PC, editors. Integrated Pest Management. London: Academic Press; 1987. pp. 89-111
116.Landis DA, Wratten SD, Gurr GM. Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annual Review of Entomology. 2000;45:175-201
117.Whitmore AP, Whalley WR. Physical effects of soil drying on roots and crop growth. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2009;60:2845-2857
118.Constable GA, Hearn AB. Irrigation for crops in a sub-humid environment. Irrigation Science. 1981;3:17-28
119.Payero J, Robinson G, Harris G, Singh D. Water extraction of solid and skip-row cotton. In: 16th Australian Agronomy Conference 14-18th October 2012. NSW: University of New England in Armidale; 2012
120.Hulugalle NR, Scott F. A review of the changes in soil quality and profitability accomplished by sowing rotation crops after cotton in Australian vertosols from 1970 to 2006. Soil Research. 2008;46:173-190
121.Gardner WR, Gardner HR. Plant production and management under drought conditions. Principles of water management under drought conditions. Agricultural Water Management. 1983;7:143-155
122.Ostle NJ, Levy PE, Evans CD, Smith P. UK land use and soil carbon sequestration. Land Use Policy. 2009;26(Suppl 1):S274-S283
123.Ho MD, Rosas JC, Brown KM, Lynch JP. Root architectural tradeoffs for water and phosphorus acquisition. Functional Plant Biology. 2005;32:737-748
124.Hulugalle NR, Broughton KJ, Tan DKY. Fine root production and mortality in irrigated cotton, maize and sorghum sown in vertisols of northern New South Wales, Australia. Soil and Tillage Research. 2015;146(Part B):313-322
125.Bell M. Developing Soil Testing and Fertiliser Response Guidelines to Manage P, K and S Fertility for Irrigated and Dryland Cotton Cropping Systems, Final Report to Cotton Research and Development Corporation. Gatton: Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland; 2015
126.Bell M, Lester D, Smith L, Want P. Increasing complexity in nutrient management on clay soils in the northern grain belt – Nutrient stratification and multiple nutrient limitations. In: 16th Australian Agronomy Conference, 14-18th October 2012. NSW: University of New England in Armidale; 2012
127.Dighton J, Jones HE, Robinson CH, Beckett J. The role of abiotic factors, cultivation practices and soil fauna in the dispersal of genetically modified microorganisms in soils. Applied Soil Ecology. 1997;5:109-131
Written By
Mehboob Hussain, Xi Gao, Deqiang Qin, Xiaoping Qin and Guoxing Wu
Submitted: 10 May 2023Reviewed: 18 May 2023Published: 01 June 2023
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
