Normal ve geç ekimlerde hasada yardımcı farklı kimyasal uygulamalarının pamuk (Gossypium hirsutum L.) bitkisinde verim ve verim unsurlarına etkisi

Year 2022, Volume: 26 Issue: 4, 443 - 457, 26.12.2022

Vedat Beyyavaş , Abdulkadir Melik , Suat Cun

https://doi.org/10.29050/harranziraat.1187473

Abstract

Bu çalışma, 2020 ve 2021 yılları yetiştirme sezonlarında normal ekim (5 Mayıs) ve geç ekimde (5 Haziran) pamukta (Gossypium hirsutum L.) farklı defoliantların verim ve lif teknolojik özelliklerine etkisini belirlemek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Çalışma, Şanlıurfa-Harran Ovası koşullarında Sultantepe köyünde tesadüf bloklarında bölünmüş deneme desenine göre 3 tekerrürlü olarak yürütülmüştür. Denemede bitki materyali olarak Fiona çeşidi kullanılmıştır. Defoliant uygulamalarından Finish Pro 765 (720 g l-1 Ethephon + 45 g l-1 Cyclanilide), Genesiss (200 g l-1(Carfentrazone-ethyl + 30 g l-1 Diuron), Ethephon (720 g l-1), Son Final (480 g l-1 Ethephon+60 g l-1 Cyclanilide) adlı kimyasallar normal ve geç ekimde kozaların %60’nın açtığı dönemde uygulanmıştır. Çalışmada, uygulama öncesi ve uygulama 7, 14 ve 21 gün sonrası yaprak sayısı (adet bitki-1), uygulama öncesi toplam koza sayısı (adet bitki-1), açmış koza sayısı (adet bitki-1) ve uygulama 7, 14 ve 21 gün sonrası açan koza sayısı (adet bitki-1), kütlü pamuk verimi (kg da-1), bitki boyu (cm) ve koza ağırlığı (g) incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın iki yılında da normal ekim (471.69 ve 530.95 kg da-1) geç ekime göre (457.02 ve 448.47 kg da-1) daha fazla kütlü pamuk verimi alınmıştır. Defoliant uygulamalarından Finish Pro 765 (720 g l-1 Ethephon + 45 gr l-1 Cyclanilide) uygulaması kütlü pamuk verimini arttırdığı, koza açtırma ve yaprak dökücü özelliklerinin iyi performans gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

pamuk, defoliant, ekim zamanı, verim, açan koza

Supporting Institution

HÜBAP

Project Number

20112

The effect on yield and yield components of different harvest aid chemical applications in normal and late sowing cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)

Abstract

This study was carried out to determine the effects of different defoliants on yield and fiber technological properties in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) in normal sowing (May 5) and late sowing (June 5). The study was carried out in the Sultantepe village of Eyyübiye district of Şanlıurfa province in the 2020-2021 growing seasons according to the randomized blocks of divided plots experimental design with 3 replications. From defoliant applications, Finish Pro 765 (720 g l-1 Ethephon + 45 g l-1 Cyclanilide), Genesiss (200 g l-1 (Carfentrazone-ethyl + 30 g l-1 Diuron), Ethephon (720 g l-1), Son Final (480 g) l-1 Ethephon+60 gr l-1 Cyclanilide) were applied in normal and late sowing when 60% of the bolls were opened. ın the study, plant height (cm), number of leaves before each application, number of leaves 7, 14 and 21 days after application (number plant-1), number of bolls before application (number plant-1), number of bolls bloomed before application (number plant-1). 7, 14 and 21 days after application, number of bolls (pieces plant-1), seed cotton yield (kg da-1), boll weight (g) and plant height (cm) values were investigated. It was determined that normal sowing (471.69 and 530.95 kg da-1) had higher seed cotton yield (kg da-1) than late sowing (457.02 and 448.57 kg da-1). It has been determined that Finish Pro 765 (720 g l-1 Ethephon + 45 g l-1 Cyclanilide) application, one of the defoliant applications, increases the seed cotton yield, and its boll opening and defoliating properties perform well.

Keywords

cotton, defoliation, sowing date, yield, open boll

Project Number

20112

References

• Ataş, E. (2008). Farklı zamanlarda ekilen pamukta değişik defoliyant uygulama zamanının verim ve kaliteye etkisi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Tarla Bitkileri Anabilim Dalı, (Yüksek lisans tezi), Adana, 64s.
• Awan, H. U., Awan, I. U., Mansoor, M., Khakvani, A. A., Khan, M. A, Ghazanfarullah, & Khattak B. (2012). Effect of defoliant application at different stages of boll maturity and doses of sulfur on yield and quality of upland cotton. Sarhad Journal. Agric. 28(2):245-247s.
• Bachubhai, A., Monpara, D., & Vaghasia, R. (2018). Optimizing sowing time and row spacing for summer sesame growing in semi-arid environments of India. Int. J. Curr. Res. Acad Rev, (4): 122-131s.
• Baran ve Kaynak, (2015). İkinci Ürün Koşullarında Farklı Ekim Zamanlarının Pamuğun (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Bazı Koza ve Lif Teknolojik Özellikleri Üzerine Etkisi. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(1): 1-8s.
• Beyyavaş, V., (2019). The effect of different harvest aiding chemicals on yield and yield components of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Applied Ecology and Envıronmental Research, 17 (2): 2733-2743.
• Bondada B. R., & Oosterhuis D. M. (2001). Conopy photosynthesis, specific leaf weight and yield components of cotton under varying nitrogen supply. Journal of Plant Nitrition, 24:469-477.
• Cathey, G. W. (1985). Conditioning Cotton For Increased Response To Defolıant Chemicals, Field Crops Research (No.10, pp. 347-353). Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam. [http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/35588/PDF], Erişim Tarihi:26.04.2015
• Cathey, G. W., & Meredith, W. R. (1988). Cotton response to planting date and mepiquat chloride. Agron. J. 80: 463-466.
• Çopur, O., Demirel, U., Polat, R., & Gür, M. A., (2010). Effect of different defoliants and application times on the yield and quality components of cotton in semiarid conditions. African Journal of Biotechnology, 9 (14): 2095.
• EDMİSTEN, K. L. (1998). The Cotton Plant. In: 1998 Cotton Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Pub. AG-417.
• Görmüş, O., & Yücel, C. (2002). Different planting date and potassium fertility effects on cotton yield and fiber properties in the Çukurova region, Turkey. Field Crops Research Volume 78, Issues 2–3, November 2002, Pages 141-149.
• Görmüş, Ö. (2014). Fiber Plants (Cotton). – Çukurova University, Deparment of Field Crops. First Edition. Adana, Turkey.
• Görmüş, Ö., Kurt, F., & El Sabagh, A. (2017). Impact of defoliation timings and leaf pubescence on yield and fiber quality of cotton. Journal Agr. Sci.Tech. (2017) Vol. 19:903-915.
• Haliloğlu, H., Beyyavaş, V., & Cevheri, C. İ., (2020). The Effect of Defoliant Application on Yield and Yield Components of Some Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Cultivars at Timely and Late Sowing. International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Food Sciences, 4(2): 157-164.
• Huang, J. (2015). Effects of Meteorological Parameters Created by Different Sowing Dates on Drip Irrigated Cotton Yield and Yield Components in Arid Regions in China. J Horticulture 2: 163. doi:10.4172/2376-0354.1000163
• Hussaın, S., Alı, H., & Hussaın, G. S. (2020). Growth, Productivity and Net Returns of Advanced Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Cultivars as Influenced by Sowing Time under the Agroclimatic conditions of Southern Punjab, Pakistan Applıed Ecology and Envıronmental Research 18(6):7843-7852.
• Kerby, T. A., Supak, J., Banks, J. C., & Snipes, C. (1992). Timing defoliant using nodes above cracked boll. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 155-156.
• Kıllı, F., & Bölek, Y. (2005). Timing of planting is cricial for cotton yield. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B-Soil and Plant Science. 56(2):155-160.
• Kıllı, F. (2005). Effect of early, normal and late planting dates on yield componenets of two cotton cultivars under irrigated conditions of Turkey. Innovative Scientific Information&Services Network Bioscience Research, 2(1):38-42.
• MGM, (2020). Şanlıurfa Meteoroloji Bölge Müdürlüğü İklim Veri Değerleri, Şanlıurfa.
• Ming-Wei, D. U., Xiao-Ming, R., Xiao-Li, T., Liu-Sheng, D., Ming-Cai, Z., Wei-Ming, T., & Zhao-Hu, L. (2013). Evaluation of harvest aid chemicals for the cotton-winter wheat double cropping system. Journal of Integrative Agriculture. 12 (2): 273-282.
• Mrunalini, K. M., Sree, R., & Murthy, V. R. K. (2018). Effectiveness of harvest – aid defoliants and environmental conditions in high density cotton. Int.J.Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci.7(02):2312-2316.
• Muharam, F. M., Bronson, K. F., Maas, S. J., & Ritchie, G. L. (2014). Inter-relationships of cotton plant height canopy width, ground cover and plant nitrogen status indicators. – Field Crops Res. 169: 58-69.
• Qamar, R., Ur-Rehman, A., Javeed, H. M. R., Saqib, M.,Shoaib, M., Ali, A., & Mazhar Ali, M. (2016). Influence of sowing time on cotton growth, yield and fiber quality. International Journal of Biology and Biotechnology. 13(1):59-67.
• Raghavendra ve Reddy, (2020). Raghavendra, T., & Reddy, Y. R. 2020. Efficacy of defoliants on yield and fibre quality of American cotton in semi-arid conditions. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, 54(3), 404-407.
• Silverthoot, J. C. (2001). Crop management for optimum fiber quality and yield. The University of Arizona. Cooperative Extension. [http://cals.arizona.edu/pubs/crops/az1219.pdf], Erişim Tarihi: 11.12.2010
• Singh, K., Rathore, P. (2015). Effect of different defoliants and their rate and time of application on American cotton cultivars under semi-arid conditions of North-Western India. Research on crops 16(2): 258-263 (2015). Prinred on India.
• Suttle, J. C., (1988). Distruption of the polar Auxin transport system in cotton seedlings following treatment with the defoliant Thidiazuron, Plant Physiology, 86, 241-245.
• Tariq, M., Afzal, M. N., Muhammad, D., Ahmad, S., Shahzad, A. N, Kiran, A., & Wakeel, A. (2018). Relationship of tissue potassium content with yield and fiber quality components of Bt cotton as influenced by potassium application methods. Field Crop Res 229:37–43
• Tashaev, (2016). Effect of defoliants and fertilizers on yield and quality of upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J. Cotton Res. Develop. 29:57–60.
• TÜİK, (2021). https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Bitkisel-Uretim-Istatistikleri-2021-37249 Erişim Tarihi: 28.12.2021.
• Wei, H. U., Chen, M. L., Zhao, W. Q., Chen, B. L., Wang, Y. H., Wang, S. S., & Zhao, Z. G. (2017). The effects of sowing date on cottonseed properties at different fruiting-branch positions. – J. Integr. Agric. 16: 1322-1330.
• Worley, S. J. R., Harmon, H. R., Harrel, D. C., & Culp, T.W. (1976). Ontogenetic Model of Coton Yield. Crop Science, 16: 30-34.
• Zhao, W., Wang, Y., Shu, H., Li, J., & Zhou, Z. (2012). Sowing date and boll position affected boll weight, fiber quality and fiber physiological parameters in two cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) cultivars. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 7(45), 6073-6081.