Please wait a minute...
Journal of Integrative Agriculture  2022, Vol. 21 Issue (9): 2577-2587    DOI: 10.1016/j.jia.2022.07.008
Special Issue: 棉花合辑Cotton
Crop Science Advanced Online Publication | Current Issue | Archive | Adv Search |
Cotton maturity and responses to harvest aids following chemical topping with mepiquat chloride during bloom period

QI Hai-kun1, DU Ming-wei1, MENG Lu1, XIE Liu-wei1, A. Egrinya ENEJI2, XU Dong-yong3, TIAN Xiao-li1, LI Zhao-hu1

1 Engineering Research Center of Plant Growth Regulator, Ministry of Education/College of Agronomy and Biotechnology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, P.R.China

2 Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Wildlife Resources Management, University of Calabar, Calabar 540271, Nigeria

3 Hebei Cottonseed Engineering Technology Research Center, Hejian 062450, P.R.China

Download:  PDF in ScienceDirect  
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

本研究于2019-2020年开展了田间试验,研究DPC化控封顶时期和剂量对喷施脱叶催熟剂(50%噻苯•乙烯利悬浮剂,简称TE,2250 g hm-2)前吐絮率(9月中下旬,药前吐絮率)及TE施用后14天脱叶性状和吐絮率的影响。结果表明,2019年(棉株长势相对正常)晚封顶(T3期,接近生理终止,白花以上节位约为5.0,较当地人工打顶晚7天)与早封顶(T1期,盛花期,较当地人工打顶早7天)和中期封顶(盛花期后7天,与当地人工打顶时间相同)相比,药前吐絮率显著降低5.9%-11.2%;高剂量DPC(270 g hm-2)封顶与低(90 g hm-2)、中(180 g hm-2)剂量DPC封顶相比,药前吐絮率显著降低22.0%。2020年(棉株后期长势偏旺)T3期封顶的药前叶片数虽然少于T1期和T2期,但药后14天的残留叶片数较多,脱叶率较T1和T2期封顶降低23.2%-27.2%;高剂量DPC封顶的药前叶片数与中、低剂量DPC封顶相似,但药后14天的残留叶片数最多,脱叶率较低、中剂量DPC封顶降低15.0%-21.7%。此外,2020年晚封顶主要影响果枝叶片(包括主茎叶)的脱落,而高剂量DPC封顶对果枝叶(包括主茎叶)和营养枝叶片的脱落均有影响。综上,花铃期应用DPC进行化控封顶对棉花熟性和脱叶催熟效果有一定影响,且具体结果与植株生长状态有关。为避免延迟成熟和降低叶片对脱叶催熟剂的敏感性,DPC化控封顶时间不宜过晚,也不宜采用高剂量DPC进行封顶。在黄河流域棉区,建议于盛花期~盛花期后7天左右(当地常年人工打顶时间)应用90-180 g hm-2 DPC进行化控封顶


Early maturity, complete defoliation and boll opening are essential for the efficient machine harvesting of cotton.  Chemical topping, involving one extra application of mepiquat chloride (MC) in addition to its traditional multiple-application strategy, may be able to replace manual topping.  However, it is not known whether this chemical topping technique will influence maturity or cotton responses to harvest aids.  In this 2-yr field study, we determined the effects of the timing of chemical topping using various rates of MC on boll opening percentage (BOP) before application of harvest aids (50% thidiazuron·ethephon suspension concentrate, referred to as TE), and the defoliation percentage (DP) and BOP 14 days after TE application.  The results indicated that late chemical topping (near the physiological cutout, when the nodes above white flower is equal to 5.0) significantly decreased BOP before TE by 5.9–11.2% compared with early (at peak bloom) or middle (seven days after peak bloom) treatments in 2019, which was a relatively normal year based on crop condition.  Also, a high MC rate (270 g ha–1) showed a significantly lower (22.0%) BOP before TE than low (90 g ha–1) or medium (180 g ha–1) rates.  In 2020, which was characterized by stronger vegetative growth in the late season, the late chemical topping reduced the number of leaves before TE application relative to early or middle treatments, but had lower DP (23.2–27.2%) 14 days after TE application.  The high MC rate showed a leaf count before TE application that was similar to the low and medium rates, but it showed the most leaves after TE and much lower (15.0–21.7%) DP in 2020.  These results suggest that late timing of chemical topping and a high MC rate decreased the sensitivity of leaves to harvest aids.  Further analysis indicated that the late chemical topping mainly affected the leaf drop from the mainstem and fruiting branches where the late regrowth occurred, and the high MC rate reduced leaf shedding from these parts and also from the vegetative branches.  In conclusion, chemical topping with MC during the bloom period affected cotton maturity and responses to harvest aids in different ways according to the crop condition.  To avoid the risks of delayed maturity and poor defoliation after the application of harvest aids, chemical topping should not be performed too late (i.e., near the physiological cutout) by using MC at more than 180 g ha–1.  The optimum timing of chemical topping probably varies from peak bloom to around seven days later, and the safest MC rates for chemical topping should be less than 180 g ha–1.

Keywords:  cotton       mepiquat chloride        thidiazuron        ethephon        defoliation        maturity  
Received: 07 January 2021   Accepted: 18 March 2021
Fund: This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFD0100306) and the China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA (CARS-15-16).  
About author:  Received 7 January, 2021 Accepted 18 March, 2021 QI Hai-kun, E-mail:; Correspondence TIAN Xiao-li, Tel: +86-10-62734550, E-mail:; LI Zhao-hu, E-mail:

Cite this article: 

QI Hai-kun, DU Ming-wei, MENG Lu, XIE Liu-wei, A. Egrinya ENEJI, XU Dong-yong, TIAN Xiao-li, LI Zhao-hu. 2022. Cotton maturity and responses to harvest aids following chemical topping with mepiquat chloride during bloom period. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 21(9): 2577-2587.

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.
Boman R K, Kelley M, Keeling W, Wanjura J D, Baughman T. 2009. High plains and northern rolling plains cotton harvest-aid guide. [2020-02-12].
Bourland F M, Benson N R, Vories E D, Tugwell N P, Danforth D M. 2001. Measuring maturity of cotton using nodes above white flower. The Journal of Cotton Science, 5, 1–8.
Cathey G W, Luckett K E. 1982. Accelerated cotton boll dehiscence with growth regulator and desiccant chemicals. Field Crops Research, 5, 113–120. 
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. The Journal of Cotton Science, 21, 183–189. 
Dong H Z, Li W J, Li Z H, Tang W, Zhang D M. 2003. Review on utilization of vegetative branches of cotton plants. Cotton Science, 15, 313–317. (in Chinese)
Du M W. 2012. Cotton cultivars suitable for mechanical harvesting and harvest aids application technology in Huanghuaihai Cotton Region. Ph D thesis, China Agricultural University, China. (in Chinese)
Du M W, Ren X M, Tian X L, Duan L S, Zhang M C, Tan W M, Li Z H. 2013. Evaluation of harvest aids chemicals for the cotton–winter wheat double cropping system. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 12, 273–282.
Duan L S, He Z P. 1996. Effects of DPC on leaf development and active oxygen metablism in cotton leaf. Cotton Science, 8, 312–315. (in Chinese)
Eder Z P, Singh S, Fromme D D, Mott D A, Ibrahim A M H, Morgan G D. 2017. Cotton harvest aids regimes and their interaction with cotton cultivar characteristics impacting leaf grade. Agronomy Journal, 78, 907–913.
Gwathmey C O, Clement J D. 2010. Alteration of cotton source-sink relations with plant population density and mepiquat chloride. Field Crops Research, 109, 2714–2722.
Hake S J, Hake K D, Kerby T A. 1996. Preharvest/harvest decisions. In: Hake S J, Kerby T A, Hake K D, eds., Cotton Production Manual. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publisher. University of California, Auckland, California. pp. 73–81.
Han H Y, Deng F J, Li B C, Lin H, Yu Y, Kong X H, Yang L Y. 2010. Comprehensive cultivation techniques for high yield and high efficiency of hybrid cotton in Northern Xinjiang. China Cotton, 37, 31–32. (in Chinese)
Han H Y, Du M W, Wang F Y, Chen B, Tian X L. 2019. Effects of DPC+ application dose on agronomic and economic traits of cotton in Northern Xinjiang. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 32, 327–330. (in Chinese)
He Z P, Song S S, Li P M. 1991. The regulatary action of plantgrowth retardant-DPC on the physiological function of cotton leaf. Journal of Beijing Agricultural University, 17, 21–26. (in Chinese)
He Z P, Xi H D, Yang B F, Li P M, Han B W. 1984. The key to get good yield of cotton by inducing the response to DPC towards a planned direction and in planned strength. Acta Agriculturae Universitatis Pekinensis, 10, 19–28. (in Chinese)
Kerby T A. 1985. Cotton response to mepiquat chloride. Agronomy Journal, 77, 515–518.
Li F, Wang X, Wang X R, Du M W, Zhou C J, Yin X F, Xu D Y, Lu H Y, Tian X L, Li Z H. 2016. Cotton chemical topping with mepiquat chloride application in the north of Yellow River Valley of China. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 49, 2497–2510. (in Chinese)
Liang F B, Yang C X, Sui L L, Xu S Z, Yao H S, 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.
Malik M, Makhdum M I. 2002. Use of thidiazuron as harvestaid in early and late planted cotton. International Journal of Agricultural and Biology, 4, 71–73.
Mccarty J C, Hedin P A. 1994. Effects of 1,1-dimethyl piperidinium chloride on the yields, agronomic traits, and allelochemicals of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), a 9-year study. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 42, 2302–2304.
Reddy A R, Reddy K R, Hodges H F. 1996. Mepiquat chloride (PIX)-induced changes in photosynthesis and growth of cotton. Plant Growth Regulator, 20, 179–183. 
Ren X M, Zhang L Z, Du M W, Evers J B, Werf W V, Tian X L, Li Z H. 2013. Managing mepiquat chloride and plant density for optimal yield and quality of cotton. Field Crops Research, 149, 1–10.
Snipes C E, Baskin C C. 1994. Influence of early defoliation on cotton yield, seed quality, and fiber properties. Field Crops Research, 37, 137–143.
Supak J R, Snipes C E. 2001. Cotton Harvest Management: Use and Influence of Harvest Aids. Cotton Foundation, Memphis, USA. pp. 21–50.
Suttle J C, Hultstrand J F. 1991. Ethylene-induced leaf abscission in cotton seedlings - The physiological bases for age-dependent differences in sensitivity. Plant Physiology, 95, 29–33.
Wilson Jr D G, York A C, Edmisten K L. 2007. Narrow-row cotton response to mepiquat chloride. The Journal of Cotton Science, 11, 177–185.
Xu L H, Yang C Q, Li G F, Yang D Y. 2006. Effects of exogenous hormones on boll setting and fiber quality of high quality cotton. Cotton Science, 18, 294–298. (in Chinese)
Xu S Z, Zuo W Q, Chen M Z, Sui L L, Dong H Y, Jiu X L, Zhang W F. 2017. Effect of drip irrigation amount on the agronomic traits and yield of cotton grown with a chemical topping in Northern Xinjiang, China. Cotton Science, 29, 345–355. (in Chinese)
Zhang J, Zhang Y S, Xing J P, Yu H Y, Zhang R, Chen Y Y, Zhang D L, Yin P, Tian X L, Wang Q, Duan L S, Zhang M C, Peters R C, Li Z H. 2020. Introducing selective agrochemical manipulation of gibberellin metabolism into a cereal crop. Nature Plants, 6, 67–72.
Zhang L C, Zhang H W, Wang L, Fu X Q, Chen T G, Wang J, Gu Y Q. 2020. Influence of different boll shell physical parameters on mechanical properties of machine-harvested cottons. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 36, 30–37. (in Chinese)
Zhao Q, Zhang J S, Zhou C J, Yun Y L, Li S L, Tian X L. 2011. Chemical detopping increases the optimum plant density in cotton. Cotton Science, 23, 329–333. (in Chinese)
Zhao W C, Du M W, Xu D Y, Lu H Y, Tian X L, Li Z H. 2017. Interactions of single mepiquat chloride application at different growth stages with climate, cultivar, and plant population for cotton yield. Crop Science, 57, 1713–1724.
Zhou T T, Xiao Q G, Du R, Han X Q, Zhang G Q, Wang G B. 2020. Research advances on cotton harvest aids in China. Cotton Science, 32, 170–184. (in Chinese)

[1] WANG Le, LIU Yang, WEN Ming, LI Ming-hua, DONG Zhi-qiang, CUI Jing, MA Fu-yu. Growth and yield responses to simulated hail damage in drip-irrigated cotton[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2022, 21(8): 2241-2252.
[2] CHEN Yuan, LIU Zhen-yu, HENG Li, Leila I. M. TAMBEL, ZHANG Xiang, CHEN Yuan, CHEN De-hua. Effects of plant density and mepiquat chloride application on cotton boll setting in wheat–cotton double cropping system[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2021, 20(9): 2372-2381.
[3] MENG Lu, ZHANG Li-zhen, QI Hai-kun, DU Ming-wei, ZUO Yan-li, ZHANG Ming-cai, TIAN Xiao-li, LI Zhao-hu. Optimizing the application of a novel harvest aid to improve the quality of mechanically harvested cotton in the North China Plain[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2021, 20(11): 2892-2899.
[4] ZHANG Xiang, RUI Qiu-zhi, LI Yuan, CHEN Yuan, CHEN Yuan, ZHANG Xi-ling, CHEN De-hua, SONG Mei-zhen . Architecture of stem and branch affects yield formation in short season cotton[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2020, 19(3): 680-689.
[5] WANG Fang-yong, HAN Huan-yong, LIN Hai, CHEN Bing, KONG Xian-hui, NING Xin-zhu, WANG Xu-wen, YU Yu, LIU Jing-de . Effects of planting patterns on yield, quality, and defoliation in machine-harvested cotton[J]. >Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2019, 18(9): 2019-2028.
No Suggested Reading articles found!