Next Article in Journal
Temporal and Spatial Dynamics of Carbon Storage in Qinghai Grasslands
Next Article in Special Issue
Humate Combined with Film-Mulched Ridge-Furrow Tillage Improved Carbon Sequestration in Arid Fluvo-Aquic Soil
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Agricultural Management Practices on the Temporal Variability of Soil Temperature under Different Crop Rotations in Bad Lauchstaedt-Germany
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/agronomy12051200
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Mepiquat Chloride on Phenology, Yield and Quality of Cotton as a Function of Application Time Using Different Sowing Techniques

by
Khadija Murtza
1,
Muhammad Ishfaq
2,3,
Nadeem Akbar
2,*,
Saddam Hussain
2,*,
Shakeel Ahmad Anjum
2,
Najat A. Bukhari
4,
Amal Mohamed AlGarawi
4 and
Ashraf Atef Hatamleh
4
1
Department of Botany, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38040, Pakistan
2
Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38040, Pakistan
3
Department of Plant Science, University of California, 1 Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA
4
Department of Botany and Microbiology, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(5), 1200; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12051200
Submission received: 5 March 2022 / Revised: 4 May 2022 / Accepted: 10 May 2022 / Published: 17 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Maximizing Crop Yield and Resource Use Efficiency: Innovative Agronomic Practices)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Mepiquat chloride (MC) is a plant growth regulator used to manage the rampant vegetative growth of cotton. A two-year field experiment was conducted at the Postgraduate Agricultural Research Station, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan, during 2017 and 2018 to investigate the influence of MC applied at different times on phenology, morphology, lint yield and quality of cotton cultivated using different sowing techniques. MC was applied 50 days after sowing (DAS), 60 DAS and 70 DAS to cotton planted in flat fields (flat sowing), ridges (ridge sowing) and beds (bed sowing). The interactive effect of MC application time and sowing technique did not influence crop phenology, morphology, and lint yield and quality. It was revealed that the crop planted on beds took fewer days to flower (10%) as compared to that on the flat field, and the bed-sown crop produced a higher number of opened bolls (60%) and was characterized by a higher boll weight (32%) and seed cotton yield (50%) in comparison to the flat-sown crop. A late application of MC (at 70 DAS) caused a significant reduction in the time to flowering (8%), with a simultaneous increase in the number of opened bolls (60%), boll weight (32%), ginning out turn (8%) and lint yield (27%) as compared to MC application at 50 DAS. In terms of lint quality, cotton planted on beds had better fiber uniformity (8%) compared to that on the flat field, while MC applied at 70 DAS produced better fiber fineness by 27% in comparison to MC applied earlier. Overall, cotton planting on beds and MC application at 70 DAS may help improve cotton yield and fiber quality and may help in the mechanical picking of cotton.

1. Introduction

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), a natural fiber, is cultivated across the globe as an annual crop specifically for lint, oil, animal feed, and as an industrial commodity [1,2]. It is also the most important cash crop in Asian countries including India and Pakistan and many Latin American countries [3]. Similar to other countries, cotton plays an imperative role in Pakistan economy as it is a source of earning for millions of people involved in the farming, textile, ginning, oil, and garments industries of Pakistan [4,5,6,7].
The cotton plant has the unique characteristic of indeterminate growth; hence, the growing environment, e.g., planting density or planting technique, has a strong influence on its morphological adaptation [8,9,10,11]. In a sub-tropical climate, excessive rainfall during the crop’s growth, despite good management practices in warm and sunny days enhancing the crop’s growth, may result in self-shading, increased insect pest attack (rotting of bolls and cotton leaf curl virus), and reduced yield [12,13,14]. Besides having a complex growth behavior, cotton plants are very sensitive toward field management and adverse climatic conditions [15]. Among agronomic practices, planting technique and application of plant growth regulator have prime importance because they not only influence the growth, yield, and quality of cotton but also help maintain a good crop stand, improving radiation use efficiency, and modulating plant canopy [16,17,18,19].
To ensure a balanced crop growth and development as well as a high crop yield, an effective sowing technique is required that can provide favorable soil conditions with suitable temperature, moisture content, and least resistance to root penetration [20]. Nevertheless, each sowing technique has its pros and cons in different environmental conditions; therefore, it is imperative to determine the suitability and performance of different sowing techniques on a site-specific basis. The conventional sowing technique (flat sowing) of cotton is inefficient due to poor germination and reduced water use efficiency and crop yields [21]. Conversely, improved sowing techniques (bed sowing and ridge sowing) not only ensure better germination and optimum crop stand but also increase the resource (land, light, fertilizer, and water) use efficiency [22,23]. Similarly, bed sowing allows good drainage during the rainy season, better weed control, no crust formation, and a higher lint yield [24,25,26,27]. Similarly, the ridge sowing technique of cotton offers better emergence and root penetration, soil moisture contents, higher yields, and improvement in soil properties compared to flat sowing [20,28,29,30].
Extensive vegetative growth can be managed by topping and thinning; however, these techniques are labor-intensive [31]. In case of labor scarcity, the use plant growth regulators is an important agronomic tool to manage cotton plants foliage by tuning the plant’s hormonal balance, transforming canopy stature, and improving the source–sink relationship [32,33,34,35]. Mepiquat chloride (MC) is one of the most extensively used plant growth regulator for cotton across the globe to manage plant height and to attain better production [36,37,38]. The foliar application of MC inhibits the biosynthesis of gibberellic acid as it can be easily absorbed from the leaves and diffuse into the whole plant body [35,39]. The application of MC induces morphological alterations in terms of reduced intermodal distance [40], plant height [41], number of nodes [33], and height-to-node ratio [42], while increasing light interception, source–sink ratio, and photoassimilate partitioning [39,43,44,45]. Moreover, MC application also increases flower and fruit retention on the lower branches due to better light interception by the lower leaves [40,46,47].
Yield attributes, lint quality, and phenology were previously studied using different sowing techniques; however, information about the influence of MC on crop phenology, yield attributes, and lint quality of cotton cultivated using different sowing techniques is not available. Moreover, previous research studies in advanced countries have warranted an investigation of the influence of MC applied at different times on cotton grown in Punjab, Pakistan. The objective of this study was to explore the influence of MC application at different times on phenology, plant stature, yield attributes, and lint quality of cotton grown using different sowing techniques.

2. Results

2.1. Crop Phenology

The analysis of the data revealed that floral bud initiation and boll maturation periods (in 2017) were not influenced by any of the examined factor (sowing technique or MC application) or their interaction. However, days to flowering were significantly influenced by sowing technique and MC application, but their interactive effect was non-significant (Table S1).
The bed sowing technique and MC application at 70 DAS reduced the time taken from floral bud initiation to flowering and to boll maturation (data not shown). However, a significant reduction (by 10%) in days to flowering was observed in bed sowing as compared to flat sowing, across the years (Table 1). Similarly, on average, MC application at 70 DAS reduced the time to flowering by 8% as compared to MC application at 50 DAS (Table 1).

2.2. Morphological Traits

Different sowing techniques substantially influenced plant height (in 2018), sympodial branches, total number of bolls plant−1, and opened bolls plant−1, but monopodial branches and un-opened bolls plant−1 were not influenced by the sowing technique across the years. However, MC application time influenced all these morphological attributes significantly, except for un-opened bolls plant−1 across the years (Table 1 and Table 2). The highest values of plant height, sympodial branches, total bolls plant−1, and opened bolls plant−1 were recorded for the bed sowing technique and were either statistically similar to those recorded for ridge sowing or significantly higher than those obtained for flat sowing (Table 1). On average, the bed sowing technique increased the plant height, sympodial branches, total bolls plant−1, and opened bolls plant−1 by 7%, 24%, 43%, and 60%, respectively, in comparison to the flat sowing technique. Regarding the MC application, application of MC at 50 DAS reduced plant height, sympodial branches as well as total bolls plant−1 and opened bolls plant−1 as compared to a late application of MC. On average, MC application at 70 DAS increased opened bolls plant−1 by 60% as compared to MC application at 50 DAS (Table 1).

2.3. Yield Attributes

All yield attributes were substantially influenced by the sowing technique except for GOT in both years of experimentation. Similarly, the MC application timing influenced the yield attributes significantly, except for boll weight in 2017 and GOT in 2018 (Table 2 and Table 3). It was recorded that the highest seed cotton yield plant−1, boll weight, lint yield, 100-cotton seed weight, and final cotton yield were recorded from bed sowing, and the values were either statistically comparable to those found for ridge sowing or higher than those obtained for ridge sowing. Bed sowing of cotton increased the seed cotton yield plant−1, boll weight, lint yield, 100-cotton seed weight, and final cotton yield by 50%, 32%, 39%, 29%, and 50%, respectively, in comparison to flat sowing (Table 2 and Table 3). As regards MC, application of MC at 70 DAS increased seed cotton yield plant−1 (23%), boll weight (32%), GOT (8%), lint yield (27%), 100-cotton seed weight (16%), and final cotton yield (23%) as compared to MC application at 50 DAS (Table 2 and Table 3).

2.4. Lint Quality

The data on lint quality showed that different sowing techniques only influenced fiber length substantially in 2017 and fiber uniformity in both years of experimentation. However, the MC application timing only influenced fiber fineness significantly only in 2017 (Table 3). It was observed that flat planting of cotton was associated with the lowest values of fiber length, fiber strength, fiber uniformity, and fiber fineness. However, on average, bed sowing increased fiber uniformity by 8%, while ridge sowing increased fiber length by 9% in comparison to flat sowing. MC application at 70 DAS increased fiber fineness by 27% as compared to the earlier application of MC (Table 3).

3. Discussion

The present study revealed that the sowing technique significantly influenced cotton’s days to flower (Table 1), fiber length, and most morphological and yield attributes significantly (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). Similarly, an early MC application (50 DAS) influenced cotton’s morphological attributes (Table 1), while a late application (70 DAS) influenced fiber fineness and yield attributes significantly (Table 2 and Table 3). The yield attributes were worse in 2017 as compared to 2018, possibly due to unexpected weather conditions (Figure 1). Reduced yield attributes might be ascribed to more rainfall and higher relative humidity at the start of the reproductive stage, which promoted insect pest attacks.

3.1. Sowing Techniques

It was observed that the in-bed planting technique produced early flowering (Table 1) and boll maturation, which might be attributed to better aeration and increased uptake of nutrients related to better root growth and development [48].
Similarly, in comparison to flat sowing, the bed sowing technique improved the morphological attributes, i.e., plant height (Table 1) [28], sympodial branches (Table 1) [49], total bolls plant−1 (Table 1) [50] and opened bolls plant−1 (Table 1) [51]; this might be attributed to increased root proliferation and nutrients acquisition and improved soil physical indices (soil moisture), with a reduction of the contact of water to the plant stem [52]. Moreover, the bed sowing technique increased the yield and yield-related traits, i.e., boll weight (Table 2) [53], 100-cotton seed weight (Table 2) [54], lint yield (Table 2) [24], seed cotton yield [29,50,55]. However, the sowing technique did not influence the number of monopodial branches and GOT, as also discussed by Maqbool [56], Akbar et al. [50], and Ali [57]. Similarly, fiber strength, fiber uniformity, and fiber fineness remained similar for different sowing techniques (Table 3), as also reported by Cao et al. [58] and Ehsanullah et al. [17], who stated that different sowing techniques did not influence the lint quality traits. Conversely, Ehsanullah et al. [17] found that fiber length was significantly influenced by the sowing technique.

3.2. Mepiquat Chloride Application

This study revealed that MC application at 70 DAS reduced the days to flowering (Table 1), which could be due to the fact that MC inhibited the plant vegetative growth and altered photoassimilate translocation toward the reproductive organs [58,59]. Similarly, Biles and Cothren [60] reported that the application of MC improved the growth of the reproductive parts by regulating plant development, with the benefit of increased flowering. Tung et al. [61] suggested that MC application also helped in retaining a balance between reproductive and vegetative growth, as any variation in the metabolic or physiological pathway could influence the photoassimilate translocation and partitioning.
An early application of MC (50 DAS) reduced the morphological attributes of cotton (Table 1), which might be attributed to a decrease in cell elongation due to inhibition of gibberellin biosynthesis [35,62,63,64]. However, late application of MC (at 70 DAS) increased the total number of bolls plant−1 (Table 1) [65], opened bolls plant−1, boll weight, 100-cotton seed weight, lint yield (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3) [66] and seed cotton yields (Table 2) [9,67] which might be attributed to an alteration in canopy structure and source–sink ratio and to a fine-tuning of plant’s hormonal balance [35]. Pettigrew and Johnson [47] highlighted that MC induced flower production in the early season, while Nuti et al. [40] and Prince et al. [68] stated that MC helped to retain bolls on lower branches. The increased retention of bolls on lower branches could be due to increased light penetration to the lower branches or to an alteration of photoassimilate translocation towards boll development [46]. Similarly, Nawalagatti et al. [69] reported that MC application at the flowering and square development stages has the potential to enhance the final yields by accelerating the flowering and improving the fruit yield percentage [59]. A late application of MC increased the cotton yield, possibly due to a reduction in regrowth and an enhancement of leaf maturity [70].
The application of MC at different times did not have any influence on GOT, fiber length, fiber strength, and uniformity, as also concluded by Khanzada and Khanzada [71] who reported a non-significant influence of plant growth regulators (MC) on GOT and fiber quality.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Experimental Site and Soil Characteristics

This field-based study was conducted at the Postgraduate Agricultural Research Station (Latitude = 32.26° N, Longitude = 73.04° and Altitude = 184 m), University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan, during the summer seasons of 2017 and 2018. The soil of the experimental site belongs to the Lyallpur soil series, Haplic Yermosols (FAO classification) mixed, aridisol–fine–silty, and Haplarged, hyperthermic Ustalfic (USDA classification) classes. The physico-chemical and biological indices of the soil are detailed in Table 4. The weather data of the experimental site during the course of studies are presented in Figure 1.

4.2. Design and Treatments

The experiment was conducted in a split-plot arrangement with three replications. Three sowing techniques, i.e., flat sowing = S1, ridge sowing = S2, and bed sowing = S3, were allocated and randomized in main plots, while in sub-plots, mepiquat chloride (150 mL ha−1) was applied at three different times: 50 days after sowing (DAS) = T1, 60 DAS = T2, and 70 DAS =T3. Each sub-plot contained 8 rows of cotton having an inter-row spacing of 75 cm and an inter-plant spacing of 30 cm. The gross plot size of each experimental unit was 10 m × 6 m.

4.3. Experimental Material

Delinted seeds of the high-yielding cotton line PB-896 were obtained from the Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Fertilizers (Urea, diammonium phosphate = DAP, and Muriate of Potash = MOP), herbicides, and all pesticides used during the study were acquired from the Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. Mepiquat chloride was obtained from Bayer Crop Science, Pakistan.

4.4. Field Management

Each year, the field was irrigated with soaking irrigation (4-acre inch depth) before the preparation of the seedbed. Stubbles of the previous crop (Egyptian clover) and weeds were incorporated with a moldboard plow. The field was plowed and planked when soil mellowness was considered physically suitable. Ridger and bed shaper were used to build ridges (75 cm apart ridges) and beds (bed width 75 cm, and bed-to-bed distance of 75 cm). Before sowing of the crop, a uniform dose of fertilizer was applied in all experimental units. Nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium were applied at the rate of 200, 115, and 95 kg ha−1, respectively. Sowing of the crop was accomplished in all treatments on 26th and 27th May of 2017 and 2018 using 20 kg ha−1 seed rate. The delinted cotton seeds were sown using the manual hill-drop sowing method for the ridge and bed sowing techniques, while a single-row hand drill was used for flat sowing. For flat sowing, the inter-row spacing was maintained at 75 cm. Four to five seeds were dropped on each hill when using the ridge and bed sowing techniques and covered with soil. At the four-leaf stage, (BBCF identification code = 14) [72], the seedlings were manually thinned to maintain similar plant populations for all sowing techniques. Similarly, hoeing was performed at the vegetative side shoot development stage (BBCF identification code = 25) by using a spade to keep the research area free from weeds, for earthing up, and to break hard surfaces among the rows of crop. Foliar application of mepiquat chloride 5SL was carried out at pre-defined crop times (50, 60 and 70 days after sowing) using a manual Knapsack sprayer having a hollow cone-type nozzle. The crop was irrigated using canal water as per crop requirement, while other management practices (insecticides, weedicides application) are not detailed because all were accomplished according to local agronomic practices.
Cotton picking was carried out at 50% boll opening, while the last picking was carried out on 10th and 18th November of 2017 and 2018, respectively.

4.5. Data Recorded

Data on crop phenology, agronomic, yield, yield component, and lint quality were recorded using standard procedures.

4.5.1. Crop Phenology

Five plants were tagged before mepiquat chloride foliar application to record the phenological data. The dates of floral bud initiation, flowering, and boll maturation period were recorded by estimating the number of days taken to accomplish these phenological stages.

4.5.2. Morphological Features, Yield and Yield Component

Five plants were tagged in each experimental unit (before mepiquat chloride foliar application) to measure plant height (cm), monopodial and sympodial branches, total bolls plant−1, opened bolls plant−1, and un-opened bolls plant−1, which were averaged. Before the 2nd harvesting, 50 fully matured and opened bolls were handpicked from each experimental unit, sun-dried, and manually ginned to determine single boll weight (g) as indicated in Equation (1), ginning out turn (GOT) percentage in Equation (2), lint yield (g) as indicated in Equation (3), and 100-seed cotton weight (g). The formulas to calculate each trait are shown below. Data regarding plant height and monopodial and sympodial branches were recorded at the 2nd harvesting (10th November in 2017 and 18th November in 2018), while data regarding the bolls were obtained at 50% boll opening and final harvesting, and then the average was calculated.
Single boll weight (g) = (Seed cotton weight of 50 bolls (g))/50
GOT (%) = (Weight of cotton lint (g))/(Weight of seed cotton (g)) × 100
Lint yield (g) = (Lint weight of 50 bolls (g))/(Seed cotton weight of 50 bolls(g)) × 100
Similarly, 100 cotton seeds from each experimental unit were obtained to measure the 100-seed cotton weight, presented in grams. For seed cotton yield hectare−1 (kg), cotton seeds from each experimental unit were handpicked two times in each year (21st October, 10th November in 2017, and 21st October, 18th November in 2018). The produce of each experimental unit was sun-dried, manually ginned, and weighed to obtain lint yield (Equation (3)) and total yield, expressed in kg ha−1.

4.5.3. Lint Quality

Fiber length and fiber strength were measured by following the method of Moore [73] and expressed in cm and g tex−1, respectively. Fiber length is the upper half mean length of the fiber, while fiber strength (g/tex) represents the force needed to breakdown the fibers of unit linear density. Fiber uniformity (%) and fiber fineness (μg inch−1) were measured by using a spin lab high volume HVI-900 instrument, as detailed by Ehsanullah et al. [17].

4.6. Statistical Analysis

The data obtained were analyzed using statistics 10, a computer program, Fisher’s ANOVA technique, and Tukey’s (HSD) test at 5% probability level, comparing the treatments’ means [74]. The interactive effect of the sowing technique and mapiquat chloride application time was non-significant, so only the main factors are presented in the tables.

5. Conclusions

The major objective of this study was to investigate the influence of MC application timing on phenology, morphology, yield attributes, and lint quality of cotton cultivated using different sowing techniques. The results revealed that the bed sowing technique not only reduced the days to flowering and the boll maturation period but was also associated with the highest values of morphological attributes, yield and yield-related traits, and fiber uniformity. For ridge sowing, most of cotton morphological traits and yield-related traits were either lower or statistically similar to those obtained with the bed planting technique. However, cotton performance in terms of phenology, yield attributes, and quality was poor when it was sown using flat sowing technique. As regards MC, the early application of MC at 50 DAS decreased the rampant vegetative growth of cotton but did not increase the yield and yield -related attributes. Contrarily, the late application of MC reduced the days to flowering significantly, while increasing the yield and yield-related traits. Moreover, the late application of MC increased the fiber fineness but did not influence the other quality traits of lint, crop phenology, and GOT. In short, it can be concluded that the bed sowing technique and MC application at 70 DAS could be useful to promote cotton mechanization in developing countries like Pakistan.

Supplementary Materials

The following is available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy12051200/s1, Table S1: Variance components and Tukey’s HSD values (p ≤ 0.05) for phenological attributes of cotton under the influence of different mepiquat chloride application times and different sowing techniques.

Author Contributions

N.A., S.H. and S.A.A. conceived and designed the experiments; K.M. and M.I. carried out experiments; K.M. performed the quality traits; M.I., N.A. and S.A.A. analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. N.A.B., S.H., A.M.A. and A.A.H. revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Researchers supporting project number (RSP-2021/229) King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their sincere appreciation to the Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP-2021/229), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Constable, G.A.; Bange, M.P. The yield potential of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Field Crop. Res. 2015, 182, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dhokne, A.; Zingare, M.; Mahure, A.; Lutade, S. Design and fabrication of cotton boll picker machine. Inter. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2017, 4, 1907–1908. [Google Scholar]
  3. Fortucci, P. The contribution of cotton to economy and food security in developing countries. In Cotton and Global Trade Negotiations Sponsored by the World Bank and ICAC; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2002; Volume 8, pp. 8–9. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ibrahim, M.; Akhtar, J.; Younis, M.; Riaz, M.A.; Anwar-ul-Haq, M.; Tahir, M. Selection of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) genotypes against NaCl stress. Soil Environ. 2007, 26, 59–63. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ozyigit, I.I.; Kahraman, M.V.; Ercan, O. Relation between explant age, total phenols and regeneration response in tissue cultured cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2007, 6, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Government of Pakistan. Pakistan Economic Survey; Economic Advisors Wing Finance Division: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2018.
  7. Nawaz, M.; Anjum, S.A.; Ashraf, U.; Khan, I.; Hussain, S.; Zohaib, A.; Hubiao, Y.; Zhiyong, W. Assessment of cropping system productivity, profitability and economic efficiency of wheat. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2020, 2, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Oosterhuis, D. Physiology and nutrition of high yielding cotton in the USA. Inf. Agronômicas 2001, 95, 18–24. [Google Scholar]
  9. Mao, L.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, X.; Liu, S.; van der Werf, W.; Zhang, S.; Spiertz, H.; Li, Z. Crop growth, light utilization and yield of relay intercropped cotton as affected by plant density and a plant growth regulator. Field Crop. Res. 2014, 155, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, X.; Han, Y.; Wang, G.; Feng, L.; Wang, Z.; Yang, B.; Du, W.; Lei, Y.; Xiong, S.; Zhi, X.; et al. Response of cotton fruit growth, intraspecific competition and yield to plant density. Eur. J. Agron. 2020, 114, 125991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Liu, Z.-Y.; Chen, Y.; Li, Y.-B.; Chen, C.; Ma, Y.-X.; Chen, D.-H.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, M. Construction of optimum number of fruiting nodes benefit high yield in cotton population. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2020, 158, 113020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Siebert, J.D.; Stewart, A.M.; Leonard, B.R. Comparative growth and yield of cotton planted at various densities and configurations. Agron. J. 2006, 98, 562–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Aphalo, P.J.; Ballaré, C.L. On the Importance of Information-Acquiring Systems in Plant-Plant Interactions. Funct. Ecol. 1995, 9, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, L.; Mu, C.; Du, M.; Chen, Y.; Tian, X.; Zhang, M.; Li, Z. The effect of mepiquat chloride on elongation of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) internode is associated with low concentration of gibberellic acid. Plant Sci. 2014, 225, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ali, M.A.; Mushtaq, A.; Mueen-ud-Din, Y.K.; Yamin, M. Effect of nitrogen and plant population levels on seed cotton yield of newly introduced variety CIM-497. J. Agric. Res. 2007, 45, 289–298. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ali, M.; Ali, L.; Waqar, M.Q.; Ali, M.A. Bed planting: A new crop establishment method for wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in cotton-wheat cropping system of Southern Punjab. Int. J. Agric. Appl. Sci. 2012, 4, 8–14. [Google Scholar]
  17. Shahzad, M.A.; Anjum, S.A.; Zohaib, A.; Ishfaq, M.; Warraich, E.A. Effect of different sowing methods and planting densities on growth, yield, fiber quality and economic efficacy of cotton. Pak. J. Agric. Res. 2017, 30, 212–219. [Google Scholar]
  18. Echer, F.R.; Rosolem, C.A. Plant growth regulator losses in cotton as affected by adjuvants and rain. Ciencia Rural 2012, 42, 2138–2144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhao, W.; Du, M.; Xu, D.; Lu, H.; Tian, X.; Li, Z. Interactions of Single Mepiquat Chloride Application at Different Growth Stages with Climate, Cultivar, and Plant Population for Cotton Yield. Crop Sci. 2017, 57, 1713–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Krause, U.; Koch, H.-J.; Maerlaender, B. Soil properties effecting yield formation in sugar beet under ridge and flat cultivation. Eur. J. Agron. 2009, 31, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hussain, T.; Jehanzeb, J.T.; Siddiqui, B.N. Effect of different irrigation levels on the yield and yield components of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) under two sowing methods. J. Biol. Sci. 2003, 3, 655–659. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ali, L.; Ehsanullah. Water use efficiency of different planting methods in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J. Agric. Res. 2007, 45, 299–306. [Google Scholar]
  23. Quanqi, L.; Yuhai, C.; Mengyu, L.; Xunbo, Z.; Baodi, D.; Songlie, Y. Water potential characteristics and yield of summer maize in different planting patterns. J. Plant Soil. Environ. 2008, 54, 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Dong, H.; Li, W.; Tang, W.; Zhang, D. Furrow Seeding with Plastic Mulching Increases Stand Establishment and Lint Yield of Cotton in a Saline Field. Agron. J. 2008, 100, 1640–1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ahmed, A.U.H.; Ali, R.; Zamir, S.I.; Mehmood, N. Growth, yield and quality performance of cotton cultivar BH-160 (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2009, 19, 189–192. [Google Scholar]
  26. Iftikhar, T.; Babar, L.K.; Zahoor, S.; Khan, N.G. Impact of land pattern and hydrological properties of soil on cotton yield. Pak. J. Bot. 2010, 42, 3023–3028. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ashraf, M. Promising Land and Water Management Practices: A Manual; International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA): Islamabad, Pakistan, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ozpinar, S.; Isik, A. Effects of tillage, ridging and row spacing on seedling emergence and yield of cotton. Soil Tillage Res. 2004, 75, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gursoy, S.; Sessiz, A.; Karademir, E.; Karademir, C.; Kolay, B.; Urgun, M.; Malhi, S.S. Effects of ridge and conventional tillage systems on soil properties and cotton growth. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2011, 5, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Aslam, M.; Ahmed, T.; Sanghi, A.H.; Khalid, L. Demonstration and evaluation of the effect of the yield response of seed cotton yield to various planting methods in ecological zone of Rahim Yar Khan. Int. J. Adv. Res. Biol. Sci. 2018, 5, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tung, S.A.; Huang, Y.; Hafeez, A.; Ali, S.; Khan, A.; Souliyanonh, B.; Song, X.; Liu, A.; Yang, G. Mepiquat chloride effects on cotton yield and biomass accumulation under late sowing and high density. Field Crop. Res. 2018, 215, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cothren, J.T. Use of growth regulators in cotton production. In Challenging the Future. World Cotton Research Conference-1, Brisbane, Australia, 14–17 February 1994; Constable, G.A., Forrester, N.W., Eds.; CSIRO: Canberra, Australia; pp. 6–24.
  33. Siebert, J.D.; Stewart, A.M. Influence of Plant Density on Cotton Response to Mepiquat Chloride Application. Agron. J. 2006, 98, 1634–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Souza, F.S.; Rosolem, C.A. Rainfall intensity and mepiquat chloride persistence in cotton. Sci. Agric. 2007, 64, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rosolem, C.A.; Oosterhuis, D.M.; De Souza, F.S. Cotton response to mepiquat chloride and temperature. Sci. Agricola 2013, 70, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Kerby, T.A. Cotton Response to Mepiquat Chloride. Agron. J. 1985, 77, 515–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Oosterhuis, D.M.; Egilla, J.N. Field evaluation of plant growth regulators for effect on the growth and yield of cotton. In Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, Nashville, TN, USA, 9–12 January 1996; Dugger, P., Richter, D., Eds.; National Cotton Council: Memphis, TN, USA, 1996; pp. 1213–1215. [Google Scholar]
  38. Gencsoylu, I. Effect of Plant Growth Regulators on Agronomic Characteristics, Lint Quality, Pests, and Predators in Cotton. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2009, 28, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rademacher, W. Growth retardants: Effects on Gibberellin Biosynthesis and Other Metabolic Pathways. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2000, 51, 501–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Nuti, R.C.; Viator, R.P.; Casteel, S.N.; Edmisten, K.L.; Wells, R. Effect of Planting Date, Mepiquat Chloride, and Glyphosate Application to Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton. Agron. J. 2006, 98, 1627–1633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. O'Berry, N.B.; Faircloth, J.C.; Jones, M.A.; Herbert, D.A.; Abaye, A.O.; McKemie, T.E.; Brownie, C. Differential Responses of Cotton Cultivars when Applying Mepiquat Pentaborate. Agron. J. 2009, 101, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nichols, S.P.; Snipes, C.E.; Jones, M.A. Evaluation of row spacing and mepiquat chloride in cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 2003, 7, 148–155. [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhao, D.; Oosterhuis, D.M. Pix Plus and Mepiquat Chloride Effects on Physiology, Growth, and Yield of Field-Grown Cotton. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2000, 19, 415–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yeates, S.J.; Constable, G.A.; McCumstie, T. Cotton growth and yield after seed treatment with mepiquat chloride in the tropical winter season. Field Crop. Res. 2005, 93, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yang, G.-Z.; Luo, X.-J.; Nie, Y.-C.; Zhang, X.-L. Effects of Plant Density on Yield and Canopy Micro Environment in Hybrid Cotton. J. Integr. Agric. 2014, 13, 2154–2163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hake, K.; Kerby, T.A.; McCarthy, W.; O'Neal, D.; Supak, J. Physiology of PIX [R]. In Physiology Today; Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service; Louisiana State University Agric. Center: Baton Rouge, LA, USA; The National Cotton Council of America: Memphis, TN, USA, 1991; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  47. Pettigrew, W.T.; Johnson, J.T. Effects of different seeding rates and plant growth regulators on early-planted cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 2005, 9, 189–198. [Google Scholar]
  48. Fahong, W.; Xuqing, W.; Sayre, K. Comparison of conventional, flood irrigated, flat planting with furrow irrigated, raised bed planting for winter wheat in China. Field Crop. Res. 2004, 87, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chauhan, S.K. Seeding technique under saline water irrigation for cotton-wheat rotation. Res. J. Agric. Anim. Sci. 2007, 22, 430–437. [Google Scholar]
  50. Akbar, H.M.; Akram, M.; Hassan, M.W.; Hussain, M.; Rafay, M.; Ahmad, I. Growth, yield and water use efficiency of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) sown under different planting techniques. Cust. Agronegocio 2015, 11, 142–160. Available online: www.custoseagronegocioonline.com.br (accessed on 4 March 2022).
  51. Goyne, P.J.; McIntyre, G.T. Improving on Farm Irrigation Water Use Efficiency in the Queensland Cotton and Grain Industries; A project of QDPI; Agency for Food and Fiber Sciences, Farming System Institute and Australian Cotton CRC: Dalby, Australia, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  52. Anwar, M.M.; Gill, M.I.; Zaki, M.S. Effect of bed-furrow planting on cotton crop. Pak. Cottons. 2003, 47, 41–46. [Google Scholar]
  53. McAlavy, T.W. Researchers Investigate Cotton Irrigation Strategies; Agricultural Communications, Texas; A & M University System: College Station, TX, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  54. Nadeem, M.A.; Ali, A.; Tahir, M.; Naeem, M.; Chadhar, A.R.; Ahmad, S. Effect of nitrogen levels and plant spacing on growth and yield of cotton. Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci. 2010, 8, 121–124. [Google Scholar]
  55. Gill, M.I. Bed and furrow planting method ensures profitable seed cotton yield. Pak. Cotton Grower. 1999, 3, 10–11. [Google Scholar]
  56. Maqbool, M.M.; Tanveer, A.; Ali, A.; Ahmad, R. Effect of sowing methods and herbicides on weeds and yield of cotton. Pak. J. Bot. 2001, 33, 383–387. [Google Scholar]
  57. Ali, L. Bio-economic studies on water economy and water use efficiency in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) planted under different methods. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2008, 44, 571–574. [Google Scholar]
  58. Cao, Y.; He, J.; Yan, Y.; Feng, Z.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, Y. Effect of water deficit on cotton characteristics. China Cotton. 2003, 30, 29–30. [Google Scholar]
  59. Gwathmey, C.O.; Craig, C.C. Managing Earliness in Cotton with Mepiquat-type Growth Regulators. Crop Manag. 2003, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Biles, S.P.; Cothren, J.T. Flowering and Yield Response of Cotton to Application of Mepiquat Chloride and PGR-IV. Crop Sci. 2001, 41, 1834–1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tung, S.A.; Huang, Y.; Ali, S.; Hafeez, A.; Shah, A.N.; Song, X.; Ma, X.; Luo, D.; Yang, G. Mepiquat chloride application does not favor leaf photosynthesis and carbohydrate metabolism as well as lint yield in late-planted cotton at high plant density. Field Crop. Res. 2018, 221, 108–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sawan, Z.M.; Sakr, R.A. Response of Egyptian cotton (Gossypium barbadense) yield to 1,1-dimethyl piperidinium chloride (Pix). J. Agric. Sci. 1990, 114, 335–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Brar, Z.S.; Anupam, S.; Thakar, S. Response of hybrid cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to nitrogen and canopy modification practices. Indian J. Agron. 2000, 45, 395–400. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ritchie, G.; Ziehl, A.; Shurley, D.; Sexton, L. Effects of varying irrigation and mepiquat chloride application on cotton height, uniformity, yield, and quality. In Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, Nashville, TN, USA, 8–11 January 2008; National Cotton Council of America: Memphis, TN, USA, 2008; pp. 103–108. [Google Scholar]
  65. Livingston, S.D.; Anderson, D.J.; Wide, L.B.J.; Hickey, L.J. Use of foliar application of pix, PGR-IV and PCHA in low rate multiple applications for cotton improvement under irrigated and dry land conditions. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1992, 3, 1055–1066. [Google Scholar]
  66. Zakaria, M.; Sawan, M.; Amal, H.E. Response of yield, yield component and fiber properties of Egyptian cotton (Gssypium barbadense L.) to nitrogen fertilization and foliar applied potassium and mepiquat chloride. J. Cotton Sci. 2006, 10, 224–234. [Google Scholar]
  67. Gwathmey, C.O.; Clement, J.D. Alteration of cotton source–sink relations with plant population density and mepiquat chloride. Field Crop. Res. 2010, 116, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Prince, W.B.; Livingston, C.W.; Fernandez, C.J. Effects of planting date and mepiquat chloride on cotton growth, lint yield, and fiber quality in the south Texas coastal plains. Proceeding of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, San Antonio, TX, USA, 4–7 January 2000; National Cotton Council of America: Memphis, TN, USA, 2000; p. 681. [Google Scholar]
  69. Nawalagatti, C.M.; Doddamani, M.B.; Jyothi, R.H.; Chetti, M.B. Effect of plant growth regulators on growth, biochemical traits, yield and yield attributes in Bt cotton. J. Ecofriendly Agric. 2011, 6, 25–28. [Google Scholar]
  70. Collins, G.D.; Edmisten, K.L.; Wells, R.; Whitaker, J.R. The Effects of Mepiquat Chloride Applied to Cotton at Early Bloom and Physiological Cutout. J. Cotton Sci. 2017, 21, 183–189. [Google Scholar]
  71. Khanzada, B.; Khanzada, K.K. Effect of plant growth regulators on the lint quality of cotton parameters. Int. J. Zool. Stud. 2019, 4, 24–26. [Google Scholar]
  72. Meier, U. Growth Stages of Mono-and Dicotyledonous Plants; Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry: Berlin, Germany, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  73. Moore, J.F. Cotton Classification and Quality. In The Cotton Industry in the United States; USDA-ERS Agricultural Economical Report No. 739; Glade, J.R., Meyer, L.A., Stuits, H., Eds.; U.S. Goverment Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1996; pp. 51–57. [Google Scholar]
  74. Steel, R.G.D.; Torrie, J.H.; Dicky, D.A. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. A Biometrical Approach, 3rd ed.; McGraw Hill Book Company Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 352–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 12 01200 g001 550
Figure 1. Weather data for the experimental site during the cotton season of 2017–2018.
Figure 1. Weather data for the experimental site during the cotton season of 2017–2018.
Agronomy 12 01200 g001
Table
Table 1. Influence of different sowing techniques and timing of mepiquat chloride application on phenological and morphological traits of cotton.
Table 1. Influence of different sowing techniques and timing of mepiquat chloride application on phenological and morphological traits of cotton.
TreatmentDays to Flowering (Days)Plant Height (cm)Monopodial BranchesSympodial BranchesBolls Palnt−1Opened Bolls Palnt−1
201720182017201820172018201720182017201820172018
Sowing Techniques (S)
Flat sowing62.9 a64.7 a89.8 a93.7 b1.41 a1.58 a17.7 b20.1 b23.3 b26.0 b17.3 b18.6 b
Ridge sowing59.3 ab61.8 ab95.9 a96.3 ab1.60 a1.78 a21.5 b24.5 ab30.2 ab33.3 ab23.9 ab25.9 ab
Bed sowing56.6 b58.6 b99.1 a98.1 a1.72 a1.91 a26.5 a28.5 a33.9 a36.8 a27.3 a30.1 a
HSD (p ≤ 0.05)3.863.7916.63.370.630.784.635.887.587.647.598.34
Mepiquat chloride application timing (MC)
50 days after sowing62.4 a64.6 a87.6 b88.0 b1.44 b1.62 b18.9 b21.2 b26.3 b29.8 b20.9 b22.7 b
60 days after sowing59.5 ab61.4 ab95.6 ab97.3 a1.57 ab1.75 ab22.3 ab24.3 ab29.0 ab31.6 b22.4 b24.5 ab
70 days after sowing56.8 b59.1 b101.7 a102.8 a1.71 a1.89 a24.5 a27.6 a32.1 a34.8 a25.1 a27.4 a
HSD (p ≤ 0.05)4.604.3313.57.560.620.154.374.433.533.152.292.94
Analysis of variance
Sourcedf
S2****ns*nsns*******
MC2*******************
S × MC4nsnsnsnsnsnsnsnsnsnsnsns
df = Degree of freedom; ns = not significant at p > 0.05; * = Significant at p < 0.05; ** = Significant at p < 0.01; HSD = Honestly significant difference; Values sharing same lettering (in superscript lowercase letters) for a parameter are statistically similar (p ≤ 0.05) by the Tukey’s HSD test; cm = centimeter.
Table
Table 2. Effect of different sowing techniques and timing of mepiquat chloride application on morphological and yield-related attributes of cotton.
Table 2. Effect of different sowing techniques and timing of mepiquat chloride application on morphological and yield-related attributes of cotton.
TreatmentUn-Opened Bolls Plant−1Seed Cotton Yield Plant−1 (g)Boll Weight (g)Ginning out Turn (%)Lint Yield (g)
2017201820172018201720182017201820172018
Sowing Techniques (S)
Flat sowing6.06 a7.45 a48.5 b52.1 b2.4 b2.6 b31.7 a35.1 a20.8 b23.1 b
Ridge sowing6.67 a7.21 a59.0 b62.5 b3.1 a3.2 a34.2 a36.4 a23.5 b25.9 b
Bed sowing6.67 a6.72 a73.1 a77.9 a3.2 a3.5 a37.2 a38.3 a29.4 a31.8 a
HSD (p ≤ 0.05)2.591.1613.714.70.480.555.906.705.145.86
Mepiquat chloride application timing (MC)
50 days after sowing5.61 a6.87 a53.6 b57.0 b2.6 a2.8 b32.0 b35.9 a22.2 b24.2 b
60 days after sowing6.67 a7.06 a61.0 ab65.2 ab2.9 a3.2 a34.9 ab36.8 a23.3 b26.1 ab
70 days after sowing7.11 a7.46 a66.1 a70.3 a3.1 a3.3 a36.1 a37.1 a28.3 a30.7 a
HSD (p ≤ 0.05)1.861.369.159.820.570.382.952.514.194.91
Analysis of variance
Sourcedf
S1nsns*******nsns***
MC5nsns**ns****ns***
S × MC5nsnsnsnsnsnsnsnsnsns
g = gram; df= Degree of freedom; ns = not significant at p > 0.05; * = Significant at p < 0.05; ** = Significant at p < 0.01; HSD = Honestly significant difference; Values sharing same lettering (in superscript lowercase letters) for a parameter are statistically similar (p ≤ 0.05) by the Tukey’s HSD test.
Table
Table 3. Effect of different sowing techniques and timing of mepiquat chloride application on yield and lint quality-related attributes of cotton.
Table 3. Effect of different sowing techniques and timing of mepiquat chloride application on yield and lint quality-related attributes of cotton.
Treatment100-Cotton Seed Weight (g)Cotton Yield (kg ha−1)Fiber Length (mm)Fiber Strength (g tex−1)Fiber Uniformity (%)Fiber Fineness (μg inch−1)
201720182017201820172018201720182017201820172018
Sowing Techniques (S)
Flat sowing3.6 b3.9 b1844 b1982 b22.6 b23.9 a23.2 a22.4 a45.0 b46.2 a3.6 a3.7 a
Ridge sowing4.2 ab4.5 ab2244 b2376 b25.9 a24.6 a23.3 a22.6 a46.7 b47.1 ab3.9 a4.3 a
Bed sowing 4.7 a5.0 a2779 a2960 a22.8 b25.3 a23.6 a22.9 a50.2 a48.6 a4.5 a4.7 a
HSD (p ≤ 0.05)0.640.725205601.471.742.843.112.542.011.311.13
Mepiquat chloride application timing (MC)
50 days after sowing3.8 b4.1 b2038 b2168 b22.9 a23.9 a22.1 a22.2 a45.6 a45.9 a3.3 b3.9 a
60 days after sowing4.3 ab4.6 ab2318 ab2478 ab23.8 a24.5 a23.7 a22.8 a47.2 a47.8 a4.1 ab4.2 a
70 days after sowing4.4 a4.8 a2510 a2673 a24.6 a25.5 a24.3 a22.9 a49.1 a48.3 a4.7 a4.5 a
HSD (p ≤ 0.05)0.630.57347.83732.853.164.154.155.475.470.790.76
Analysis of variance
Sourcedf
S1********nsnsns***nsns
MC5****nsnsnsnsnsns**ns
S × MC5nsnsnsnsnsnsnsnsnsnsnsns
g = gram; kg ha−1 = kilogram per hectare; mm = millimeter; g tex−1 = grams per tex; μg inch−1 = micrograms per inch; df = Degree of freedom; ns = not significant at p > 0.05; * = Significant at p < 0.05; ** = Significant at p < 0.01; HSD = Honestly significant difference; Values sharing same lettering (in superscript lowercase letters) for a parameter are statistically similar (p ≤ 0.05) by the Tukey’s HSD test.
Table
Table 4. Physico-chemical indices of the experimental soil for the years 2017 and 2018.
Table 4. Physico-chemical indices of the experimental soil for the years 2017 and 2018.
Characteristics2017 and 2018UnitsStatus
(0–15 cm)(15–30 cm)
TextureSandy Loam
Chemical analysis
pH8.207.95 Medium alkaline
EC1.031.28dS m−1Non-saline
Exchangeable sodium0.490.37mmol 100 g−1Normal
Total nitrogen0.050.04%Low
Available phosphorus08.908.2mg kg−1Low
Exchangeable potassium180156mg kg−1Medium
Organic matter0.980.72%Low
Boron0.630.32mg kg−1Deficient
Zinc1.981.12mg kg−1Deficient
Ferrous7.934.98mg kg−1Adequate
Each value indicates the average soil analysis values for both years 2017 and 2018.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Murtza, K.; Ishfaq, M.; Akbar, N.; Hussain, S.; Anjum, S.A.; Bukhari, N.A.; AlGarawi, A.M.; Hatamleh, A.A. Effect of Mepiquat Chloride on Phenology, Yield and Quality of Cotton as a Function of Application Time Using Different Sowing Techniques. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12051200

AMA Style

Murtza K, Ishfaq M, Akbar N, Hussain S, Anjum SA, Bukhari NA, AlGarawi AM, Hatamleh AA. Effect of Mepiquat Chloride on Phenology, Yield and Quality of Cotton as a Function of Application Time Using Different Sowing Techniques. Agronomy. 2022; 12(5):1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12051200

Chicago/Turabian Style

Murtza, Khadija, Muhammad Ishfaq, Nadeem Akbar, Saddam Hussain, Shakeel Ahmad Anjum, Najat A. Bukhari, Amal Mohamed AlGarawi, and Ashraf Atef Hatamleh. 2022. "Effect of Mepiquat Chloride on Phenology, Yield and Quality of Cotton as a Function of Application Time Using Different Sowing Techniques" Agronomy 12, no. 5: 1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12051200

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop