1 / 17

Plant Growth Regulator Programs in Arizona Cotton

Plant Growth Regulator Programs in Arizona Cotton. Erin L. Taylor and Patrick A. Clay University of Arizona Cooperative Extension . Introduction.

zola
Download Presentation

Plant Growth Regulator Programs in Arizona Cotton

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Plant Growth Regulator Programs in Arizona Cotton Erin L. Taylor and Patrick A. Clay University of Arizona Cooperative Extension

  2. Introduction • Agronomic practices in Arizona cotton production can cause a vegetative growth habit rather than a reproductive one which can lead to decreased yield (Norton et. al., 2006). • To control excessive vegetative growth and help maintain a balance between vegetative and reproductive growth PGR’s are often used (Silvertooth, 2001).

  3. Control of Vegetative Growth • To help maintain a vegetative:reproductive balance mepiquat chloride or mepiquat pentaborate are two common PGR’s used in today’s Arizona cotton production.

  4. Use of Cotton PGR’s • Arizona usage • 1080 (Arizona Department of Agriculture, Ag. Statistics, University of Arizona)

  5. Problems with Excessive Vegetation • Fruit abortion • Decrease in lower boll quality (micronaire) • Delayed Maturity • Late boll set • Low Yield • Smaller bolls

  6. Feedback vs. Scheduled • Feedback • Plant mapping • Height:Node ratio (Silvertooth, 2001) • Fruit Retention (Silvertooth, 2001) • Scheduled • Number of leaves (4-6 leaf stage) • Fruiting Stage • Pin head square • 1st bloom

  7. Objectives • Evaluate Feedback vs. Scheduled Applications • Evaluate New Formulations and Products • Evaluate Yield and Lint Quality

  8. Materials and Methods • U of A Maricopa Ag Center • Dry planted on 20 April 2006 • DP 449 BG/RR at 11 lbs/acre • Plot size 13.33’ (4-40” rows) by 25’ or 30’ • Randomized complete block design with 4 replications • Applications made with CO2 backpack sprayer calibrated to deliver 15 GPA • Harvested on 8 November 2006

  9. PGR I Mepex 8 oz/A fb16 oz/A (pin head) 16 oz/A (as needed) Mepex GinOut 4 oz/A fb 8 oz/A fb16 oz/A (4-6) 8 oz/A fb16 oz/A (pin head) 16 oz/A (as needed) Pentia 8 oz/A fb16 oz/A (pin head) 16 oz/A (as needed) Stance 2 oz/A fb 2 oz/A (pin head) 3 oz/A (as needed) Untreated Feedback vs. Scheduled PGR II Mepex 8 oz/a 14 oz/a Mepex and DC-0050 8 oz/a & 1 qt/a 14 oz/a & 1 qt/a DC-0050 1 qt/a Untreated Check One Application vs. Two Applications Scheduled First bloom Materials and Methods

  10. Data Collected • Height • Node • 1st Fruiting branch • Aborts • Nodes Above White Flower (NAWF) • Nodes Above Cracked Boll (NACB) • Yield • Lint Quality

  11. PGR I - Plant Heights

  12. PGR I – Lint and Quality

  13. PGR II –End of Season Heights

  14. PGR II – Yield and Fiber Characteristics • No differences were observed for Yield, % Lint, Micronaire, Fiber Length, Staple Length, or Uniformity

  15. Discussion PGR I • In the PGR I trial the only differences observed were % lint, micronaire and strength. • % lint showed to be greater in the feedback approach and the untreated control.

  16. Discussion PGR II • Height differences were seen throughout the season with no differences in yield. • The additive provided no added benefit to the Mepex. • The Mepex 16 oz/A rate had an effect on plant height only. • No differences were seen in yield and fiber quality.

  17. Acknowledgements • Bayer Crop Science • DuPont • Dune Company • Maricopa Ag. Center

More Related