Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dvmhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T06:18:33.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cotton radiation use efficiency response to plant growth regulators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2012

E. D. GONIAS ,
D. M. OOSTERHUIS  and
A. C. BIBI
E. D. GONIAS*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 1366 Altheimer Dr, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
D. M. OOSTERHUIS
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 1366 Altheimer Dr, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
A. C. BIBI
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 1366 Altheimer Dr, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: egonias@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Plant growth regulators are widely used in cotton production to improve crop management. Previous research has demonstrated changes in crop growth, dry matter (DM) partitioning and lint yield of cotton after the application of plant growth regulators. However, no reports are available demonstrating the effect of plant growth regulators on light interception and radiation use efficiency (RUE). Field studies were conducted in Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA in 2006 and 2007. RUE was estimated for the period between the pinhead square stage (PHS) of growth and 3 weeks after first flower (FF+3) from plots receiving three applications of the nitrophenolate and mepiquat chloride with Bacillus cereus plant growth regulators (Chaperone™) at 7·19 g a.i./ha and Pix Plus® at 41·94 g a.i./ha compared with an untreated control. No differences between the Chaperone treatment and the untreated control were found in the present study. However, Pix Plus significantly reduced plant height (both 2006 and 2007) and leaf area (2007 only), and altered the canopy structure of the crop as recorded by increased values of canopy extinction coefficient. Although DM accumulation was found not to be affected by plant growth regulator treatments, RUE was significantly increased after Pix Plus application, by 33·2%. RUE was increased because less light was intercepted by the Pix Plus treatment for the same biomass production, and this is probably a result of changes in photosynthetic capacity of the leaves and changes in light distribution throughout the canopy.

Type
Crops and Soils Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 150 , Issue 5 , October 2012 , pp. 595 - 602
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Cahoon, J., Ferguson, J., Edwards, D. & Tacker, P. (1990). A microcomputer-based irrigation scheduler for the humid mid-South region. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 6, 289–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, J. N. & Biscoe, P. V. (1978). Radiation absorption, growth and yield of cereals. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gausman, H. W., Rittig, F. R., Namken, L. N., Rodriguez, R., Escogar, E. D. & Garza, M. V. (1978). Effects of 1,1-dimethylpiperidinium-chloride on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Leaf Chlorophyll, Size, and Structure. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the Plant Growth Regulator Working Group, 19–23 August 1987, Blacksburg, VA (Ed. Rahman, M. A.), pp. 137–145. Longmont, CO: Agricultural Research Center.Google Scholar
Goudriaan, J. (1988). The bare bones of leaf-angle distribution in radiation models for canopy photosynthesis and energy exchange. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 43, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gwathmey, C. O., Wassel, O. M. & Michaud, C. E. (1995). Pix effects on canopy light interception by contrasting cotton varieties. In Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, 4–7 January 1995, Memphis, Tennessee (Eds Richter, D. A. & Armour, J.), pp. 1153. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Hake, K., Kerby, T., McCarty, W., O'Neal, D. & Supak, J. (1991). Physiology of Pix. Cotton Physiology Today 2, 1–4.Google Scholar
Hodges, H. F., Reddy, V. R. & Reddy, K. R. (1991). Mepiquat chloride and temperature effects on photosynthesis and respiration of fruiting cotton. Crop Science 31, 1302–1308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerby, T. A. (1985). Cotton response to mepiquat chloride1. Agronomy Journal 77, 515–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiniry, J. R., Jones, C. A., O'Toole, J. C., Blanchet, R., Cabelguenne, M. & Spanel, D. A. (1989). Radiation-use efficiency in biomass accumulation prior to grain-filling for five grain-crop species. Field Crops Research 20, 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, J. H., Oosterhuis, D. M. & Brown, R. S. (2004). Chaperone™ results from the Tri-State Delta. Proceedings of the 2004 Beltwide Cotton Conference, 6–9 January 2004, San Antonio, TX (Eds Dugger, P. & Richter, D.), pp. 2194–2198. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Milroy, S. P. & Bange, M. P. (2003). Nitrogen and light responses of cotton photosynthesis and implications for crop growth. Crop Science 43, 904–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, S. P., Bange, M. P. & Sadras, V. O. (2001). Profiles of leaf nitrogen and light in reproductive canopies of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Annals of Botany 87, 325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monsi, M. & Saeki, T. (1953). Uber den lichtfaktor in den pflanzengesselschaften und seine bedeutung fur die stoff produktion. Japanese Journal of Botany 14, 22–52.Google Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1977). Climate and efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 281, 277–294.Google Scholar
Oosterhuis, D. M. & Brown, R. S. (2005). Increased nitrogen and protein content with the growth regulator Chaperone™. In Plant Nutrition for Food Security, Human Health and Environmental Protection (Eds Li, C. J., Zhang, F. S., Dobermann, A., Hinsinger, P., Lambers, H., Li, X. L., Marschner, P., Maene, L., McGrath, S., Oenema, O., Peng, S. B., Rengel, Z., Shen, Q. R., Welch, R., von Wiren, N., Yan, X. L. & Zhu, Y. G.), pp. 1158–1159. Beijing, China: Tsinghua University Press.Google Scholar
Oosterhuis, D. M., McConnel, J. S. & Bonner, C. M. (1991). Height, yield and maturity responses of cotton to PixTM in Arkansas. Proceedings of the 1991 Arkansas Cotton Research Meeting, Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station. Special Report 149, pp. 41–45. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar
Pinter, P. J., Kimball, B. A., Mauney, J. R., Hendrey, G. R., Lewin, K. F. & Nagy, J. (1994). Effects of free-air carbon dioxide enrichment on PAR absorption and conversion efficiency in cotton. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 70, 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, V. R., Baker, D. N. & Hodges, H. F. (1990). Temperature and mepiquat chloride effects on cotton canopy architecture. Agronomy Journal 82, 190–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, T. (1980). The Organic Constituents of Higher Plants, 4th edn. North Amherst, MA: Cordus Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, W. D. & Gerik, T. J. (1991). Radiation use efficiency among cotton cultivars. Agronomy Journal 83, 655–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadras, V. O. (1996). Cotton responses to simulated insect damage: radiation-use efficiency, canopy architecture and leaf nitrogen content as affected by loss of reproductive organs. Field Crop Research 48, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadras, V. O. & Wilson, L. J. (1997). Growth analysis of cotton crops infested with spider mites: I. Light interception and radiation use efficiency. Crop Science 37, 481–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanhill, G. (1976). Cotton. In: Vegetation and the Atmosphere (Ed. Monteith, J. L.), pp. 121–150. New York: Academic 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 chloride1. Agronomy Journal 76, 651–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, H., Gausman, H. W., Ritting, F. R., Namken, L. N., Escobar, D. E. & Rodriquez, R. R. (1980). Effect of mepiquat chloride on cotton plant leaf and canopy structure and dry weight of its components. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Production Research Conference, 6–10 January 1980, St. Louis, MO, USA (Ed. Brown, J. M.), pp. 32–34. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Zhao, D. & Oosterhuis, D. M. (2000). Pix Plus and mepiquat chloride effects on physiology, growth, and yield of field-grown cotton. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation 19, 415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar