Evaluation of the Effects of Foliar Sulfur Applications on Yield, Evapotranspiration and Water Use Efficiency of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Under Different Irrigation Regimes

Year 2024, Volume: 21 Issue: 5, 1308 - 1322

Berkant Ödemiş , Batuhan Akgöl , Deniz Can

https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.1454499

Abstract

In this study, it was aimed to determine the effects of foliar sulphur applications on cotton plants exposed to water stress. It was carried out on ‘Carisma’ variety cotton plant with 3 irrigation level, 3 sulfur doses and 3 replicates, except for control treatments, in split plots experimental design in randomized blocks. Sulfur in elemental form was applied at doses of 150 ml da-1 (S1), 250 ml da-1 (S2) and 350 ml da-1 (S3), except for the control (S0) and at I100, I66, I33 irrigation levels of the available capacity and in the non-irrigated treatment (I0). Irrigation water amounts varied between 332-1006 mm and 306-928 mm in the 2015 and 2016, and evapotranspiration ranged between 299-1096 mm and 247- 995 mm, respectively. Evapotranspiration decreased slightly in the first year and increased in the second year as the sulphur doses increased. The highest yields were 5871 kg ha-1 (I100S0) and 6148.7 kg ha-1 (I100S1) in 2015 and 2016, respectively. In comparison to I100, yield decreased by 70%, 39% and 14% in 2015, 67%, 33% and 8% in 2016 in I0, I33 and I66, respectively. Sulphur doses caused yield to decrease in 2015 and increase in 2016. Compared to S0 treatment, yield increased by 14%, 1.9% and 8.6% at S1, S2 and S3 in 2016. With the decrease in ET, yield (relative to I100) decreased by 73%-70% at I0, 52%-39% at I33 and 26%-15% at I66 in the first year, by 75%-67% at I0, 44%-33% at I33 and 20%-8% at I66 in the second year, and by 74%-68% at I0, 48%-36% at I33 and 23%-11% at I66. Water use efficiency (WUE) was approximately the same in sulfur doses, while the lowest was determined at I100 and the highest was determined at I0 and I33. WUE increased as the amount of irrigation water increased in the second year, but did not show a stable change in the first year. The highest WUE was calculated in the first year on I33 (6.3 kg ha-1mm-1) and in the second year on I0 (7.5 kg ha-1mm-1). Sulphur doses did not cause a significant difference in WUE and the highest WUE was determined at S0 (6.0 kg ha-1mm-1) in the first year and in the second year at S1 (6.5 kg ha-1mm-1). Sulphur doses did not affect leaf sulphur concentration in the first year, but statistically in the second year. Mean of two years, the highest leaf sulphur concentration was measured in S3.

Keywords

Drought tolerance, Foliar application, Sulfur, Irrigation level, Cotton

Ethical Statement

There is no need to obtain permission from the ethics committee for this study.

Supporting Institution

TUBITAK Turkish Scientific and Technical Research Council

Project Number

214O254

Thanks

This study was carried out within the scope of the project supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) (Project No: 214O254).

Farklı Sulama Rejimleri Altında Yapraktan Kükürt Uygulamalarının Pamuğun (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Verim, Evapotranspirasyon ve Su Kullanım Randımanına Etkilerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, su stresine maruz bırakılmış pamuk bitkisine yapraktan kükürt uygulamalarının etkilerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma, Carisma çeşidi pamuk bitkisinde 3 sulama düzeyi, 3 kükürt dozunda 3 tekerrürlü olarak tesadüf bloklarında bölünmüş parseller deneme deseninde yürütülmüştür. Denemede, elverişli kapasitenin 3 farklı sulama düzeyinde (I100, I66, I33) ve susuz konuda (I0) pamuk bitkilerine tanık (S0) konusu dışında 150 ml da-1 (S1), 250 ml da-1 (S2) ve 350 ml da-1 (S3) dozlarında elementel formda kükürt uygulanmıştır. Sulama suyu miktarları 2015 ve 2016’da sırasıyla 332-1006 mm ile 306-928 mm, evapotranspirasyon 299-1096 mm ile 247- 995 mm arasında değişmiştir. Evapotranspirasyon (ET), kükürt dozları arttıkça ilk yıl azalmış, ikinci yılda ise artmıştır. En yüksek verim 2015 ve 2016’da sırasıyla 5871.3 kg ha-1 (I100S0) ve 6148.7 kg ha-1 (I100S1) ölçülmüştür. I100'e göre verim 2015’de I0, I33 ve I66 konularında sırasıyla %70, %39 ve %14, 2016’da %67, %33 ve %8 azalmıştır. Kükürt dozları verimin ilk yıl azalmasına ikinci yılda artmasına neden olmuştur. Verim 2016’da (S0’a göre) S1, S2 ve S3 dozlarında %14,%1.9 ve %8.6 artmıştır. ET'deki azalma ile verim (I100’e göre) ilk yıl I0'da %73 - %70, I33'te %52 - %39 ve I66'da %26 - %15, ikinci yılda ise I0'da %75-67, I33'te %44-%33 ve I66'da %20-%8 ve ortalama I0'da %74 - %68, I33'te %48 - %36 ve I66'da %23 - %11 azalmıştır. Su kullanım etkinliği (WUE), kükürt dozlarında yaklaşık aynı, sulama konularında en düşük I100’de en yüksek I0 ve I33’ de belirlenmiştir. İkinci yılda sulama suyu miktarı arttıkça WUE artmış ancak ilk yıl kararlı bir değişim göstermemiştir. En yüksek WUE ilk yıl I33 konusunda (6.3 kg ha-1mm-1) ikinci yıl I0 konusunda (7.5 kg ha-1mm-1) hesaplanmıştır. Kükürt dozları WUE’nde önemli bir fark oluşturmamış ve en yüksek WUE ilk yıl S0 konusunda (6.0 kg ha-1mm-1) ikinci yıl S1 konusunda (6.5 kg ha-1mm-1) belirlenmiştir. Kükürt dozları yaprak kükürt konsantrasyonunu ilk yıl etkilemezken ikinci yılda istatistiksel olarak etkilemiştir. İki yılın ortalamasına göre en yüksek yaprak kükürt konsantrasyonu S3 konusundan ölçülmüştür.

Keywords

Kuraklık toleransı, Yapraktan uygulama, Kükürt, Sulama düzeyi, Pamuk

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma için etik kuruldan izin alınmasına gerek yoktur.

Supporting Institution

TÜBİTAK Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu

Project Number

214O254

Thanks

TÜBİTAK Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu

References

• Akgöl, B. (2012). Inheritance of drought resistance, yield and quality parameters in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). (Ph.D. Thesis) Çukurova University, The Institute of Natural Sciences, Adana, Türkiye. (In Turkish)
• Bek, Y. and Efe, E. (1988). Experimental Design and Methods I. Çukurova University, Faculty of Agriculture 71: 395. (In Turkish)
• Can, D. (2017). The investigation of possibilities of use of irrigation water requirements related to pan and soil moisture deficiency in drought and sensitive cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) varieties. (MSc Thesis) Mustafa Kemal University, The Institute of Natural Sciences, Hatay, Türkiye. (In Turkish)
• Çetin, O. and Bilgel, L. (2002). Effects of different irrigation methods on shedding and yield of cotton. Agricultural Water Management, 54(1): 1-15.
• Chan, K. X., Wirtz, M., Phua, S. Y., Estavillo, G. M. and Pogson, B. J. (2013). Balancing metabolites in drought. The Sulfur Assimilation Conundrum, 18(1): 18-29.
• Dağdelen, N., Yılmaz, E., Sezgin, F. and Gürbüz, T. (2006). Water-yield relation and water use efficiency of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and second crop corn (Zea mays L.) in western Turkey. Agricultural Water Management, 82(1-2): 63-85.
• Dietz, K. J. (1989). Recovery of spinach leaves from sulfate and phosphate deficiency. Journal of Plant Physiology, 134(5): 551-557.
• Duke, S. H. and Reisenauer, H. M. (1986). Roles and requirements of sulfur in plant nutrition. Sulfur in Agriculture, 27: 123-168.
• Ertek, A. and Kanber, R. (2003). Effects of different irrigation programs on the lint out-turn of cotton under drip irrigation. Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 6: 106-116.
• Fernandez, V. and Eichert, T. (2009). Uptake of hydrophilic solutes through plant leaves: current state of knowledge and perspectives of foliar fertilization. Critical Reviews in Plant Science, 28:36–68.
• Fernandez, V., Bahamonde, H.A., Peguero-Pina, J. J., Gil-Pelegrín, E., Sancho-Knapik, D., Gil, L., Goldbach, H. E. and Eichert, T. (2017). Physico-chemical properties of plant cuticles and their functional and ecological significance. Journal of Experimental Botany, 68 (19): 5293–5306.
• Fernandez, V., Sotiropoulos, and T., Brown, P. (2013). Foliar Fertilization: Scientific Principles and Field Practices. International Fertilizer Industry Association 28, Paris, France. ISBN 979-10-92366-00-6
• Garg, B. K., Burman, U. and Kathju, S. (2004). The influence of phosphorus nutrition on the physiological response of moth bean genotypes to drought. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 167(4): 503-508.
• Ghaznavi, A. F. and Abdolshahi, R. (2011). Study on effect of potassium sulfate application on drought tolerance of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Plant Ecophysiology, 3: 87-93.
• Guin, G., Dunlap, J. R. and Brummett, D. L. (1990). Influence of water deficit on the abscisic acid and indole- 3- acetic acid contents of cotton flower buds and flowers. Plant Physiology, 93(3): 1117-1120.
• Howell, T. A., Davis, K. R., McCormick, R. L., Yamada, H., Walhood, V. T. and Meek, D. W. (1984). Water use efficiency of narrow row cotton. Irrigation Science, 5:195-214.
• Hu, Y., Burucs, Z. and Schmıdhalter, U. (2008). Effect of foliar fertilization application on the growth and mineral nutrient content of maize seedlings under drought and salinity. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 54(1): 133-141.
• Hussein, F., Janat, M. and Yakoub, A. (2011). Assessment of yield and water use efficiency of drip irrigated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) as affected by deficit irrigation. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 35(6): 611-621.
• Jie, X., Dong, Q. and Li-Na, Z. (2008). Effects of sulfur nutrition on the chlorophyll content of maize leaf under zinc and drought stress. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2008: 1-2.
• Kacar, B. and Katkat, V. (2007). Plant Nutrition. Nobel Publications. Ankara, Turkey. (In Turkish)
• Kannan, S. and Charnel, A. (1986). Foliar transport of in organic nutrients. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 4(4): 341-375.
• Karam, F., Lahoud, R., Masaad, R., Daccache, A., Mounzer, O. and Rouphael, Y. (2006). Water use and lint yield response of drip irrigated cotton to the length of irrigation season. Agricultural Water Management, 85(3): 287-295.
• Kazgöz Candemir, D. and Ödemiş, B. (2018). Effects of foliar sulfur applications in reducing water stress applied to the cotton plant (Gossypium hirsutum L.) during different development periods. Horticultural Studies, 35(2): 161-172 (In Turkish).
• Kowalenko, C. G., Bittman, S., Neilsen, G. H., Kenney, E., Hunt, D. E. and Neilsen, D. (2014). Potential for improving sulfur tests on agricultural soils in contrasting ecoregions of British Columbia, Canada. Geoderma Regional, 1: 10-20.
• Krieg, D. R. (1997). Genetic and Environmental Factors Affecting Productivity of Cotton. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, 2:1347, 7-10 January, National Cotton Council of America, New Orleans, L.A., U.S.A.
• Lina, Z., Dong, Q., Lili, S. and Wei-Jie, Y. (2005). Effects of sulfur fertilization on the contents of photosynthetic pigments and MDA under drought stress. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 12:148-156.
• Loka, D. A. and Oosterhuis, D. M. (2012). Water stress and reproductive development in cotton. In: Flowering and Fruiting in Cotton, Eds: Cordova: Oosterhuis, D. M. and Cothren, J. T. The Cotton Foundation Cordova, Tennessee, U.S.A.
• Ma, Q. F., Turner, D. W., Levy, D. and Cowling, W. A. (2004). Solute accumulation and osmotic adjustment in leaves of brassica oilseeds in response to soil water deficit. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 55(9): 939-945.
• Malhi, S. S., Schoenau, J. J. and Grant, C. A. (2005). A review of sulphur fertilizer management for optimum yield and quality of canola in the Canadian Great Plains. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 85(2): 297-307.
• Marschner, H. (1995). Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. Academic Press. New York, U.S.A.
• Ödemiş, B., Akışcan Y., Akgöl B. and Can D. (2022). The effects of foliar sulfur application under water stress conditions on yield, evapotranspiration and some physiological properties of cotton. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 27(2): 202-212. https://doi.org/10.37908/mkutbd.1076251 (In Turkish)
• Oguz, M. C., Aycan, M., Oguz, E., Poyraz, I. and Yildiz, M. (2022). Drought stress tolerance in plants: interplay of molecular, biochemical and physiological responses in important development stages. Physiologia, 2: 180–197.
• Oosterhuis, D. (2009). Foliar Fertilization: Mechanisms and Magnitude of Nutrient Uptake. Proceedings of the Fluid Forum, Phoenix, AZ, 15-17 February, Arizona, U.S.A.
• Oosterhuis, D. M., Hampton, R. E. and Wullschleger, S. D. (1991). Water deficit effects on the cotton leaf cuticle and the efficiency of defoliants. Journal of Production Agriculture, 4(2): 260-265.
• Öztürk, İ. and Korkut, K. Z. (2018). Drought effects on yield and yield components in different growing periods of some bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 15(2): 128-137. (In Turkish)
• Pettigrew, W. T. (2004). Physiological consequences of moisture deficit stress in cotton. Crop Science, 44(4): 1265-1272.
• Singh, K., Rathore, P., Singh Brar, A. and Kumar Mishra, S. (2021). Drip fertigation improves seed cotton yield, water productivity and profitability of cotton raised under high density planting system in semi-arid environment. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 33(9): 781-793.
• Stevens, W. E., Johnson, J. R., Varco, J. J. and Parkman, J. (1992). Tillage and winter cover management effects on fruiting and yield of cotton. Journal of Production Agriculture, 5(4): 570-575.
• Ünlü, M., Kanber, R., Koç, D. L., Tekin, S. and Kapur, B. (2011). Effects of deficit irrigation on the yield and yield components of drip irrigated cotton in a Mediterranean environment. Agricultural Water Management, 98(4): 597-605.
• Ürkmez, İ., Sevim, A. and Çatık, A. N. (2024). The relationship between agriculture and carbon dioxide emission in Türkiye: a non-linear evidence. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 21(1): 94-109.
• Wullschleger, S. D. and Oosterhuis, D. M. (1987). Electron microscope study of cuticular abrasion on cotton leaves in relation to water potential measurements. Journal of Experimental Botany, 38(4): 660–667.
• Wullschleger, S. D. and Oosterhuis, D. M. (1989). The occurrence of an internal cuticle in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) leaf stomates. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 29(2): 229-235.
• Xinhua, Y., Gwathmey. O., Main, C. and Johnson, A. (2011). Effects of sulfur application rates and foliar zinc fertilization on cotton lint yields and quality. Agronomy Journal, 103(6): 1794-1803.
• Yavuz, M. Y. (1993). The effects of different irrigation methods on the yield and water use efficiencies of cotton. (Ph.D. Thesis) Çukurova University, Natural and Applied Sciences Agricultural, Structure and Irrigation, Adana, Türkiye. (In Turkish)
• Yazar, A., Sezen, S. M. and Sesveren, S. (2002). LEPA and trickle irrigation of cotton in the southeast anatolia project area in Turkey. Agricultural Water Management, 54(3): 189-203.
• Zonta, J. H., Brandão, Z. N., Rodrigues, J. I. S. and Sofiatti, V. (2017). Cotton response to water deficits at different growth stages. Revista Caatinga, 30(4): 980-990.