化学打顶对中国黄河流域棉区棉花发育、产量及品质的影响

doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63559-6

Journal of Integrative Agriculture ›› 2022, Vol. 21 ›› Issue (1): 78-90.DOI: 10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63559-6

所属专题：棉花合辑Cotton

化学打顶对中国黄河流域棉区棉花发育、产量及品质的影响

收稿日期:2020-04-09 接受日期:2020-11-17 出版日期:2022-01-01 发布日期:2022-01-01

Effects of chemical topping on cotton development, yield and quality in the Yellow River Valley of China

ZHU Ling-xiao^1*, LIU Lian-tao^1*, SUN Hong-chun¹, ZHANG Yong-jiang¹, ZHANG Ke¹, BAI Zhi-ying¹, LI An-chang¹, DONG He-zhong², LI Cun-dong¹

¹ College of Agronomy, Hebei Agricultural University/State Key Laboratory of North China Crop Improvement and Regulation/Key Laboratory of Crop Growth Regulation of Hebei Province, Baoding 071001, P.R.China
² Cotton Research Center, Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinan 250100, P.R.China

Received:2020-04-09 Accepted:2020-11-17 Online:2022-01-01 Published:2022-01-01
About author:ZHU Ling-xiao, E-mail: 574740516@qq.com; LIU Lian-tao, E-mail: liulitday@126.com; Correspondence LI Cun-dong, Tel: +86-312-7521316, E-mail: auhlcd@163.com * These authors contributed equally to this study.
Supported by:
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31571610 and 31871569) and the Modern Technology System of the Agricultural Industry in Hebei, China (HBCT2018040201).

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

打顶是棉花栽培广泛应用的农艺措施由于其无限生长的习性。在不同的打顶方法中，人工打顶似然费时费力，但在黄河流域应用较为普遍。本研究旨在研究不同打顶处理对棉花发育、产量和品质的影响。本研究为两年（2015-2016）大田实验，设置三种打顶方式：人工打顶（MT），化学打顶（CT）（缩节铵），不打顶（NT）处理。我们发现CT处理的株高、果枝数及上部果枝长度要显著低于NT处理。CT处理的叶绿素含量与NT处理相比无显著差异，在生育后期要高于MT处理。CT处理通过降低赤霉素和脱落酸含量来促进棉株发育，并且抑制了主茎的顶端发育。和MT处理相比，CT处理显著增加了营养器官的生物量。最重要的是，CT和MT处理间的产量和品质并无显著差异。上述结果表明，化学打顶是一种简便、有效的打顶方法，可在我国黄河流域代替人工打顶。

Abstract: Topping is a cultivation method that is widely practiced due to the indeterminate growth character of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Among the different methods of accomplishing topping, manual topping is common in the Yellow River Valley of China, although it is time- and labor-intensive. The objective of this study was to characterize the responses of cotton to different topping treatments with respect to development, yield and quality. This study included field experiments from 2015 to 2016 with three different topping methods: manual topping (MT), chemical topping (CT) using mepiquat chloride, and a non-decapitation treatment (NT). We found that the plant height, the number of fruiting branches and the length of upper fruiting branches of cotton treated with CT were significantly lower than NT. The chlorophyll content of cotton treated with CT was not significantly different from NT, but was higher than that of MT in the later season. CT enhanced plant development with reduced endogenous gibberellic acid and abscisic acid contents, and the apical development of the main stem was inhibited. Compared with MT, CT significantly increased the biomass of the vegetative parts. Most importantly, there were no significant differences in the yield or fiber quality between MT and CT. These findings suggested that CT, a simplified and effective topping method, could be utilized as an alternative in the Yellow River Valley of China.

Key words: cotton , topping , development , yield , fiber quality

. 化学打顶对中国黄河流域棉区棉花发育、产量及品质的影响[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2022, 21(1): 78-90.

ZHU Ling-xiao, LIU Lian-tao, SUN Hong-chun, ZHANG Yong-jiang, ZHANG Ke, BAI Zhi-ying, LI An-chang, DONG He-zhong, LI Cun-dong . Effects of chemical topping on cotton development, yield and quality in the Yellow River Valley of China[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2022, 21(1): 78-90.

参考文献

Ayd N, Arslan S. 2018. Mechanical properties of cotton shoots for topping. Industrial Crops & Products, 112, 396–401.
Biles S P, Cothren J T. 2001. Flowering and yield response of cotton to application of mepiquat chloride and PGR-IV. Crop Science, 41, 1834–1837.
Cathey G W, Meredith W R. 1988. Cotton response to planting date and mepiquat chloride. Agronomy Journal, 80, 463–466.
Constable G A, Bange M P. 2015. The yield potential of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Field Crops Research, 182, 98–106.
Cook D R, Kennedy C W. 2000. Early flower bud loss and mepiquat chloride effects on cotton yield distribution. Crop Science, 40, 1678–1684.
Cothren J T, Oosterhuis D M. 2010. Use of growth regulators in cotton production. In: Physiology of Cotton. Springer, New York. pp. 289–303.
Dai J L, Dong H Z. 2014. Intensive cotton farming technologies in China achievements, challenges and countermeasures. Field Crop Research, 155, 99–110.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2019. Production/Yield quantities of seed cotton in world. [2020-03-16]. http://www.fao.org/faostat/zh/#data/QC/visualize
Gwathmey C O, Clement J D. 2010. Alteration of cotton source–sink relations with plant population density and mepiquat chloride. Field Crops Research, 116, 101–107.
He Y, Fukushige H, Gan H S. 2002. Evidence supporting a role of jasmonic acid in Arabidopsis leaf senescence. Plant Physiology, 128, 876–884.
Kerby T A. 1985. Cotton response to mepiquat chloride. Agronomy Journal, 77, 515–518.
Li J, Song M Z, Gui H P, Zhang X L. 2016. Research development of cotton chemical regulation. China Cotton, 43, 1–5. (in Chinese)
Li X, Sun X Y, Song X L, Sun S J, Chen E Y, Zhang M L. 2013. Effect of control release nitrogen fertilizer on quality of cotton bolls and fiber in different fruiting branches. Cotton Science, 25, 316–322. (in Chinese)
Li X, Zhu C H, Xia K, Gan L J. 2007. Effects of methyl octanoate, methyl decanoate and 6-BA on topping in cotton. Cotton Science, 1, 72–74. (in Chinese)
Liang F B, Yang C X, Sui L L, Xu S Z, Zhang W F. 2020. Flumetralin and dimethyl piperidinium chloride alter light distribution in cotton canopies by optimizing the spatial configuration of leaves and bolls. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 19, 1777–1788.
Lu H, Dai J, Li W, Tang W, Zhang D M, Eneji A, Dong H Z. 2017. Yield and economic benefits of late planted short-season cotton versus full-season cotton relayed with garlic. Field Crops Research, 200, 80–87.
Mao L, Zhang L, Jochem B E, Werf W, Liu S, Zhang S, Wang B, Li Z. 2015. Yield components and quality of intercropped cotton in response to mepiquat chloride and plant density. Field Crops Research, 179, 63–71.
Mao L, Zhang L, Sun X, Werf W, Jochem B E, Zhao X, Zhang S, Song X, Li Z. 2018. Use of the beta growth function to quantitatively characterize the effects of plant density and a growth regulator on growth and biomass partitioning in cotton. Field Crops Research, 224, 28–36.
Mao L, Zhang L, Zhao X, Liu S, Werf W, Zhang S, Huub S, Li Z. 2014. Crop growth, light utilization and yield of relay intercropped cotton as affected by plant density and a plant growth regulator. Field Crops Research, 155, 67–76.
Mccarty J C, Hedin P A. 1994. Effects of 1,1-dimethylpiperidinium chloride on the yields, agronomic traits, and allelochemicals of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), a nine year study. Journal of Agricultural & Food Chemistry, 42, 2302–2304.
McConnell J S, Baker W H, Frizzell B S, Varvil J J. 1992. Response of cotton to nitrogen fertilization and early multiple applications of mepiquat chloride. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 15, 457–468.
National Bureau of Statistics. 2019. Sown area of farm crops. China Statistical Yearbook. [2020-03-16]. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2019/indexch.htm (in Chinese)
O’Berry N B, Faircloth J C, Jones M A, Herbert D A, Abaye A O, Thomas E M, Brownie. 2009. Differential responses of cotton cultivars when applying mepiquat pentaborate. Agronomy Journal, 101, 25–31.
Owen G C, Chism C C. 2003. Managing earliness in cotton with mepiquat-type growth regulators. Crop Management, 2, 1–8.
Rademacher W. 2000. Growth retardants: Effects on gibberellin biosynthesis and other metabolic pathways. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology, 51, 501–531.
Reddy A R, Reddy K R, Hodges H F. 1996. Mepiquat chloride (PIX)-induced changes in photosynthesis and growth of cotton. Plant Growth Regulation, 20, 179–183.
Reddy K R, Boone M L, Reddy A R, Hodges H F, Turner S B, James M M. 1995. Developing and validating a model for a plant growth regulator. Agronomy Journal, 87, 1100–1105.
Ren X, Zhang L, Du M, Evers J B, Werf W, Tian X, Li Z. 2013. Managing mepiquat chloride and plant density for optimal yield and quality of cotton. Field Crops Research, 149, 1–10.
Renou A, Téréta I, Togola M. 2011. Manual topping decreases bollworm infestations in cotton cultivation in Mali. Crop Protection, 30, 1370–1375.
Rosolem C A, Oosterhuis D M, Souza F S. 2013. Cotton response to mepiquat chloride and temperature. Scientia Agricola, 70, 82–87.
Siebert J D, Stewart A M. 2006. Influence of plant density on cotton response to mepiquat chloride application. Agronomy Journal, 98, 1634–1639.
Souza J G, Silva J V. 2014. Partitioning of carbohydrates in annual and perennial cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Journal of Experimental Botany, 38, 1211–1218.
Stewart A M. 2005. Suggested guidelines for plant growth regulator use on Louisiana cotton. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, AgCenter Publication. 2918.
Stuart B L, Isbell V R, Wend C W, Abernathy J R. 1984. Modification of cotton water relations and growth with mepiquat chloride. Agronomy Journal, 76, 651–655.
Tung S A, Huang Y, Hafeez A, Ali S, Khan A, Souli B, Song X, Liu A, Yang G. 2018. Mepiquat chloride effects on cotton yield and biomass accumulation under late sowing and high density. Field Crops Research, 215, 59–65.
Wang W, Chen P, Lv J, Chen L, Sun Y. 2018. Transcriptomic analysis of topping-induced axillary shoot outgrowth in Nicotiana tabacum. Gene, 646, 169–180.
Xian X L, Zheng X H, Xue L Y, Wu F M. 2014. Effects of the chemical topping agent flumetralin on the growth and development of cotton. Rural Science & Technology, 6, 21–23. (in Chinese)
Xu X, Taylor H M. 1992. Increase in drought resistance of cotton seedlings treated with mepiquat chloride. Agronomy Journal, 84, 569–574.
Yang Y, Ouyang Z, Yang Y, Liu X. 2008. Simulation of the effect of pruning and topping on cotton growth using COTTON2K model. Field Crops Research, 106, 126–137.
York A C. Cotton cultivar response to mepiquat chloride. 1985. Agronomy Journal, 75, 663–667.
Zhang D M, Zhang Y J, Li C D, Dong H Z. 2018. On light and simplified cotton cultivation. Cotton Science, 31, 163–168. (in Chinese)
Zhang L, Werf W V, Zhang S, Li B, Spiertz J H. 2008. Temperature-mediated developmental delay may limit yield of cotton in relay intercrops with wheat. Field Crops Research, 106, 258–268.
Zhang S, Cothren J T, Lorenz E J. 1990. Mepiquat chloride seed treatment and germination temperature effects on cotton growth, nutrient partitioning, and water use efficiency. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation, 9, 195–199.
Zhang X L, Wang J D. 2010. Progress of analytic method of determination of chlormequat chloride and mepiquant chloride. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 10, 2091–2096. (in Chinese)
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.

化学打顶对中国黄河流域棉区棉花发育、产量及品质的影响

Effects of chemical topping on cotton development, yield and quality in the Yellow River Valley of China

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 0

编辑推荐

Metrics