Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T06:34:00.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Egyptian cotton (Gossypium barbadense) yield to 1,1-dimethyl piperidinium chloride (Pix)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Z. M. Sawan  and
R. A. Sakr
Z. M. Sawan
Affiliation:
Col ton Research Institute, Agricultural Research Centre, Ministry of Agriculture, Giza, Egypt
R. A. Sakr
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Botany and Plant Pathology, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Two field experiments were conducted in Egypt in 1985 and 1986 to examine the responses of yield and its components and fibre quality in the Egyptian cotton cultivar Giza 75 to the spray application of 0, 10, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 mg of 1,1-dimethyl piperidinium chloride (Pix)/litre at 90 days or at 90 and 110 days after sowing. Number of opened bolls/plant, boll weight, seed and lint index, seed cotton yield/plant, seed cotton and lint yield/ha and yield earliness increased, but lint percentage decreased after Pix application. The number of opened bolls/plant increased after one application, but there was no effect from a further application. There were no effects of concentration or number of applications of Pix on any fibre property.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 114 , Issue 3 , June 1990 , pp. 335 - 338
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

American Society for Testing Materials (1979). Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Part 33: Textiles, Fibers, Zippers. Philadelphia: ASTMGoogle Scholar
Cathey, G. W. & Meredith, W. R. Jr, (1988). Cotton response to planting date and mepiquat chloride. Agronomy Journal 80, 463–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gausman, H. W., Walter, H., Stein, E., Rittig, F. R., Leamer, R. W., Escobar, D. E. & Rodriguez, R. R. (1979). Leaf CO2 assimilation and chlorophyll ratios of Pix-treated cotton. Proceedings, 6th Annual Meeting of Plant Growth Regulator Working Group, pp. 117–125Google Scholar
Heydendorff-Scheel, R. C. von, Schott, P. E. & Rittig, F. R. (1983). Mepiquat-chloride, a plant growth regulator for cotton. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz 90, 585–590.Google Scholar
Kerby, T. A. (1985). Cotton Response to mepiquat chloride. Agronomy Journal 77, 515–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1980). Statistical Methods. 7th edn.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Stuart, B. L., Isbell, V. R., Wendt, C. W. & Abernathy, J. R. (1984). Modification of cotton water relations and growth with mepiquat chloride. Agronomy Journal 76, 651–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varela, G. R. & Vallejo, R. R. (1982). Effect of the growth regulator mepiquat chloride on the main agronomic characteristics and fibre quality of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Revista del Instiluto Colombiano Agropecuario 17, 1–9. (from Field Crop Abstracts (1985) 38, Abst. 1879).Google Scholar
Walter, H., Gausman, H. W., Rittig, F. R., Namken, L. N., Escobar, D. E. & Rodriguez, R. R. (1980). Effect of mepiquat chloride on cotton plant leaf and canopy structure and dry weights of its components. Beltwide Cotton Production Research Conference Proceedings, p. 32. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council.Google Scholar
York, A. C. (1982). Interaction of nitrogen rates, plant populations, and varieties with Pix. Beltwide Cotton Production Research Conference Proceedings, p. 58. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council.Google Scholar
York, A. C. (1983). Response of cotton to mepiquat chloride with varying N rates and plant populations. Agronomy Journal 75, 667–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar