Akdeniz Bölgesi koşullarında, Azaltılmış Mepikuvat Klorür Dozlarının Pamuk (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Verim ve Kalite Özelliklerine Tepkisi

Öz

Amaç: Türkiye'nin Adana ilindeki Doğu Akdeniz Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü'nde pamukta verim ve kalite özelliklerini artırmak amacıyla farklı zamanlarda uygulanan azaltılmış Mepikuvat klorür dozlarının etkisini incelemek için 2022 yılında arazi denemesi kurulmuştur. Materyal ve Yöntem: Araştırmada material olarak Sezener ve Selin çeşitleri kullanılmıştır. Çeşitler ana parsellere, uygulama zamanları (çiçeklenmeden önce ve çiçeklenmeden sonra) alt parsellere ve Mepikuvat klorür konsantrasyonları (0, 40, 40+40 and 80 cc/da) alt-alt parsellere yerleştirilmiştir. Bu çalışma, tesadüf bloklarında bölünen bölünmüş parseller deneme desenine göre 3 tekerrürlü olarak yürütülmüştür. Araştırma Bulguları: Analiz sonuçlarına göre, Sezener yüksek lif verimi (sırasıyla 490.6 vs 447.5 kg/ha), parlaklık (69.8 vs 63.5) ve sarılık (11.9 vs 10.8) bakımından Selin çeşidini geride bırakmıştır. Sezener çeşidinde 80 cc/da uygulamasından en yüksek verim (530.2 kg/ha) verim elde edilmiştir. En düşük verim Selin çeşidinde (360.3 kg/ha) ve en yüksek çeper (%2.60) elde edilirken, Sezener çeşidinde çeper oranı en düşük (%0.57) bulunmuştur. Mepikuvat klorid uygulamasının kalite parametrelerine iki çeşitte farklı etki gösterdiği, ayrıca uygulama zamanına göre etkinin değiştiği belirlenmiştir. Nitekim sarılık parametresinde, diğer kalite parametrelerinin aksine, Selin çeşidi düşük sarılık değerine sahip bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Mepikuvat klorür uygulamasının pamuk bitkilerinin verim ve kalite parametrelerinde bir miktar değişime sebep olabildiği görülmüştür. İstatistik analizlerin çoğu önemsiz çıksa da, bazı interaksiyonların gelecekteki çalışmalara ışık tutabileceği söylenebilir. Türkiye'nin Akdeniz bölgesinde verim ve kalite parametrelerini artırmak için daha fazla araştırmaya ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Ayrıca çeşitler bazında mepikuvat klorid uygulamasının etkisindeki değişikliğin anlaşılması için daha kapsamlı çalışmaların yapılması önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• application time
• cotton
• fiber quality
• fiber yield
• mepiquat chloride

Response to Reduced Doses of Mepiquat Chloride on Yield and Quality Characteristics of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) in the Mediterranean Region of Türkiye

Abstract

Objective: A field study was undertaken to examine the effect of reduced Mepiquat chloride (MC) dosage applied at different times to enhance the yield and quality attributes of cotton at the Eastern Mediterranean Agricultural Research Institute, Adana, Türkiye, during the 2022 cropping season. Material and Methods: A split-split plot experiment following a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications was employed.Varieties (Sezener and Selin) were assigned to the main plots, application times (before and after flowering) to the sub-plots, and MC concentrations (0, 40, 40+40 and 80 cc/da) to the sub-sub-plots. Results: Results shown that Sezener outperformed Selin across metrics: higher fiber yield (490.6 vs 447.5 kg/ha), reflectance (69.8 vs 63.5), and yellowness (11.9 vs 10.8). Under Sezener, the 80 cc/da dosage at 60 days after sowing maximized yield (530.2 kg/ha). Selin showed poorest yield (360.3 kg/ha) and highest trash (2.60%), while Sezener had lowest (0.57%). Mepiquat chloride doses effected quality parameters differently for both varieties. The effect changed within application time. It has been determined that the application of Mepiquat chloride has different effects on the quality parameters in two varieties, and the effect varied according to the time of application. As a matter of fact, in the yellowness parameter, unlike other quality parameters, Selin variety had the lowest, while Sezener had the highest value. Conclusion: Although most effects were not statistically significant, certain variety-application time interactions revealed practical differences that may inform future studies. Therefore, to maximize monetary returns, further research is needed to enhance yield and quality parameters in the Mediterranean region of Türkiye. In addition, more comprehensive studies should be carried out to understand the change in the effect of Mepiquat chloride application on the basis of varieties.

Keywords

• Application time
• cotton
• fiber quality
• fiber yield
• mepiquat chloride

Kaynakça

1. Allen, S. J., Auer, P. D. & Pailthorpe, M. T. (1995). Microbial damage to cotton. Textile Researcj Journal, 65, 379–385. doi:10.1177/004051759506500702.
2. Anonymous, (2014). Uster HVI 1000 Application Handbook, USTER Technologies AG, Switzerland. 2(1), 4-29.
3. Barut, H., Şimşek, T., Irmak, S., Sevilmiş, U. & Aykanat, S. (2017). The Effect of Different Zinc Application Methods on Yield and Grain Zinc Concentration of Bread Wheat Varieties. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 5(8), 898-907.
4. Bennett, B.K., Misra, S.K. & Richardson, J. (2010). A determination of cotton market price and premiums required to justify more lint cleaning in the gin plant. Journal of Cotton Science, 14, 199-204.
5. Boydak, Ç., Kara, O., Arslan, R., Çil, A. N., Çil, A., Barut, H. & Irmak, S. (2019). Effects of Different Zinc and Iron Doses on Yield and Some Yield Components of NC-7 Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 134-142.
6. Bradow, J. M. & Davidonis G. H. (2000). Quantitation of fiber quality and the cotton production-processing interface: A physiologist’s perspective. Journal of Cotton Science, 4, 34-64.
7. Çelik, S. (2023). Assessing Drought Tolerance in a Large Number of Upland Cotton Plants (Gossypium hirsutum L.) under Different Irrigation Regimes at the Seedling Stage. Life, 1-18.
8. Chia, L. (2018). What are the differences between Mepiquat Chloride and Chlormequat Chloride. Plant Hormones. https://www.plantgrowthhormones.com/info/. [Accessed on March 8, 2024].

9. Çinar, V. M. & Ünay, A. (2021). Response to Early Treatment of Chlormequat Chloride in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Adü Ziraat Dergisi, 18(1), 127-131.
10. Collins, G. D., Edmisten, K. L., Wells, R. & Whitaker, J. R. (2017). The effects of mepiquat chloride applied to cotton at early bloom and physiological cutout. Journal of Cotton Science, 21(3), 183-189.
11. Çopur, O., Demirel, U. & Karakuş, M. (2010). Effects of several Plant Growth Regulators on the Yield and Fiber Quality of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca, 38(3), 104-110.
12. Devlet, A. (2021). Modern agriculture and challenges. Frontiers in Life Sciences and Related Technologies, 2(1), 21-29.
13. Dewdney, J.C., Yapp, M. E., Sardarian, R. & Tompkinson, G., (2024). Turkey. https://www.britannica.com/place/Turkey. [Accessed on March 1,2024].
14. Echer, F. R. & Rosolem, C. A. (2012). Plant Growth Regulator Losses in Cotton as Affected by Adjuvants and Rain. Ciência Rural, 42(12), 2138-2144.
15. European Commission, (2020). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Commission Staff Working Document. Turkey 2020 Report, Brussels Erişim adresi https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-10/turkey_report_2020.pdf
16. Gomez, K. A. & Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical procedure for agricultural research. 2nd edition, John Wiley and Sons Co, New York. 680pp.
17. Husein, H. H., Bäumler, R., Lucke, B. & Sahwan, W. (2024). Black Soils in the Eastern Mediterranean: Genesis and Properties. Geographies, 4, 168–181.
18. ICAC, (International Cotton Advisory Committee (2022). Cotton This Month. Erişim adresi https://www.icac.org/Content/PublicationsPdf%20Files/c2e2b3f4_f2c3_48b7_834b_eb5e3e071695/CTM_2022_02_01.pdf.pdf
19. Ikram, M., Rehamn, H. U., Soysal, S., Aamir, M., Islam, M. S., Kumari, A. & Sabagh, A. E. (2022). Impact of climate change on cotton growth and yield. In: Cotton production under abiotic stress. Emine Karademir, Cetin Karademir (eds), iksad publishing house. 5 – 21.
20. Illarionova, K., Grigoryev, S. & Asfondiarova, I. (2019). HVI in implementation of internet technologies for providing quality of textile articles. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 497. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/497/1/012110.
21. Jia, Y., Yang, B., Han, Y., Wang, G., Su, T., Li, X., Lei, Y., Zhi, X., Xiong, S., Xin, M., Li, Y. & Feng, L. (2024). Enhanced Cotton Yield and Fiber Quality by Optimizing Irrigation Amount and Frequency in Arid Areas of Northwest China. Agronomy, 1-15.
22. Kassambara, E. M., Sissoko, S., Diawara, M. O., Teme, N. & Yattara, A. A. (2019). Planting Date Effect on Yield and Fiber Properties in Some Cultivars and Promising Crosses of Cotton (Gossypium Hirsutum L.) in Mali. Journal of Bioanalysis & Biostatistics, 2(1), 1-7.
23. Kemerait, B. (2021). Cotton disease and nematode management: 2021 updates. In P. Roberts & C. Hand (Eds.), 2021 Georgia Cotton Production Guide (Publication No. 124-1, pp. 110–132). University of Georgia Cooperative Extension. Erişim adresi: https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=AP124-1 Khanzada, B. & Khanzada, K.K. (2019). Effect of plant growth regulators on the lint quality of cotton parameters. International Journal of Zoology Studies, 4, 24–26.
24. Khetre, O. S., Shinde, V. S., Asewar, B. V. & Mirza, I. A. B. (2018). Response of growth and yield of Bt cotton to planting densities as influenced by growth regulators. International Journal of Chemical Studies, 6(4), 485- 488.
25. Kılınçoğlu, N., Cevheri, C. İ., Cevheri, C. & Yüsra, N. H. Y. (2021). Effects of exogenous glycine betaine application on some physiological and biochemical properties of cotton (G. hirsutum L.) plants grown in different drought levels. International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Food Sciences, 5(4), 689-700.
26. Kulvir, S., Pankaj, R. & Singh, K. (2015). Dose and time dependent efficacy alteration of different defoliants on seed cotton yield. Journal of Environmental Biology, 36, 891-895.
27. Liu, J., Wang, C., Li, H., Gao, Y., Yang, Y. & Lu, Y. (2023). Bottom-Up Effects of Drought-Stressed Cotton Plants on Performance and Feeding Behavior of Aphis gossypii. Plants, 1-16.
28. Murtza, K., Ishfaq, M., Akbar, N., Hussain, S., Anjum, S. A., Bukhari, N. A., AlGarawi, A. M. & Hatamleh, A. A. (2022). Effect of Mepiquat Chloride on Phenology, Yield and Quality of Cotton as a Function of Application Time Using Different Sowing Techniques. Agronomy, 1-12.
29. NIC (2020). Appendix B: International Organizations and Groups". The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. Archived from the original on 9 April 2008. [Accessed on March 4, 2024].
30. Ozudogru, T. (2021). Cotton Production Economy in the World and Türkiye. Textile and Engineer, 28, 122, 149-161.
31. Patel, B. R., Chaudhary, P. P., Chaudhary, M. M. & Reddy, T. V. (2021). Effect of mepiquat chloride on yield attributes, yield and economics of Bt cotton under high density planting system. Pharma Innovation International Journal, 10(12), 1503-1507.
32. Priyadarshini, M., Kumar, G. S., Nagabhushanam, U. & Reddy, K. P. C. (2023). Effect of Different Doses and Scheduling Time of Plant Growth Regulators and Defoliants on Growth and Yield of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) under High Density Planting System. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change, 13(10), 2252-2260.
33. Priyanka, K., Rekha, M. S., Lakshman, K. & Rao, C. S. (2021). Influence of plant growth regulators in cotton under HDPS. The Pharma Innovation Journal, 10(7), 329-331.
34. Priyanka, K., Rekha, M. S., Lakshman, K. & Rao, C. S. (2022). Effect of plant growth regulators on growth and yield of HDPS cotton. Journal of Cotton Research and Development, 36(1), 65-70.
35. Rehman, T., Tabassum, B., Yousaf, S., Sarwar, G. & Qaisar, U. (2022). Consequences of Drought Stress Encountered During Seedling Stage on Physiology and Yield of Cultivated Cotton. Frontier Plant Science, 13, 1-11.
36. Rosolem, C. A., Oosterhuis, D. M. & Souza, F. S. D. (2013). Cotton response to mepiquat chloride and temperature. Scientia Agricola, 70, 82-87.
37. Samples, C., Dodds, D. M., Catchot, A., Golden, B., Gore, J. & Varco, J. (2015). Determining optimum plant growth regulator application rates in response to fruiting structure and flower bud removal. Journal of Cotton Science, 19(3), 359–367.
38. Sawan, Z. M. (2017). Plant Density; Plant Growth Retardants: Its Direct and Residual Effects on Cotton Yield and Fiber Properties. International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources, 5(3), 555 - 663.
39. Sen, B., Topcu, S., Türkeş, M., Sen, B. & Warner, J. F. (2012). Projecting climate change, drought conditions and crop productivity in Turkey. Climate Research, 52(175), 175-191.
40. Sezener, V., Basal, H., Peynircioglu, C., Gurbuz, T. & Kizilkaya, K. (2015). Screening of cotton cultivars for drought tolerance under field conditions. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 20(2), 223-232.
41. Sezener, V. (2021). Cotton at a glance in Türkiye. In book: Cotton production under abiotic stress. Emine Karademir, Cetin Karademir (eds), iksad publishing house. 129 – 160.
42. Singh, K., Singh, H.P., Rathore, P., Singh, K. & Mishra, S. K. (2017). Manipulations of source sink relationships through mepiquat chloride for enhancing cotton productivity and monetary returns in north western India. Journal of Cotton Research and Development, 31(1), 62-68.
43. Sravanthi, S., Rekha, M. S., Venkateswarlu, B., Rao, C. S. & Jayalalitha, K. (2022). Effect of defoliants on percent defoliation and yield of American cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Research on Crops, 23(2), 458-465.
44. Statista, (2022). Cotton Production by Country 2022 - World Population Review. Erişim adresi: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cotton-production-by-country.
45. Tokel, D., Dogan, I., Hocaoglu-Ozyigit, A. & Ozyigit, I. I. (2022). Cotton Agriculture in Turkey and Worldwide Economic Impacts of Turkish Cotton. Journal of Natural Fibers, 1-22.
46. Tokel, D., Genc, B. N. & Ozyigit, I. I. (2021). Economic impacts of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton. Journal of Natural Fibers, 1–18.
47. USDA, (United States Department of Agriculture). (2022). Agricultural Outlook Forum. (In) The World and United States Cotton Outlook. James J; Stephen; Leslie M and Graham Soley (eds). Erişim adresi: https://www.usda.gov/oce/ag-outlook-forum.
48. Verhalen, L. M., Greenhagen, B. E. & Thacker, R. W. (2003). Lint Yield, Lint Percentage, and Fiber Quality Response in Bollgard, Roundup Ready, and Bollgard/Roundup Ready Cotton. The Journal of Cotton Science, 7, 23–38.
49. Vistro, R., Chachar, Q. I., Chachar, S. D., Chachar, N. A., Laghari, A., Vistro, S. & Kumbhar, I. (2017). Impact of Plant Growth Regulators on the Growth and Yield of Cotton. International Journal of Agricultural Technology, 13(3), 353-362.
50. Wang, L., Lin, M., Han, Z., Han, L., He, L. & Sun, W. (2024). Simulating the Effects of Drought Stress Timing and the Amount Irrigation on Cotton Yield Using the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton Model. Agronomy, 1-21.
51. Watts, D.B., Runion, G.B., Nannenga, K.W.S. & Torbert, H.A. (2014). Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilizer Effects on Cotton Yield and Quality in the Coastal Plains. Agronomy Journal, 106(2), 745-752. World Economic Outlook (WEO) Database (2023). GDP (current US$). Erişim adresi: data.worldbank.org & IMF.org
52. Yasar, S. & Karademir, E. (2021). Determination of the factors limiting cotton fiber quality in Turkey. Journal of Applied Life Sciences and Environment, 185, 85-99.
53. Zafara, S., Afzala, H., Ijaz, A., Mahmood, A., Ayub, A., Nayab, A., Hussaine, S., UL-Hussan, M., Sabir, M. A., Zulfiqar, U., Zulfiqar, F. & Moosaj, A. (2023). Cotton and drought stress: An updated overview for improving stress tolerance. South African Journal of Botany, 161, 258-268.