Foliar Applied Boron not only Enhances Seed Cotton Yield but also Improves Fiber Strength and Fineness of Cotton Cultivars
Muhammad Ashfaq Wahid
1,*, Muhammad Saleem
2, Shahbaz Khan
3, Sohail Irshad
4, Mumtaz Akhtar Cheema
1,5, Muhammad Farrukh Saleem
1, Haroon Zaman Khan
1, Madad Ali
6, Ali Bakhsh
7, Zuhair Hasnain
8, Sara T. Alrashood
9and Sulaiman Ali Alharbi
101Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
2Department of Agriculture (Extension and Adaptive Research) Punjab, Pakistan
3Department of Agronomy, Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan, Pakistan
4In-Service Agricultural Training Institute, Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan
5Grenfell Campus - Boreal Ecosystems Research Initiative, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Corner Brook, Canada
6Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
7Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan, Pakistan
8Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
9Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
10Department of Botany and Microbiology, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
*Author for correspondence; E-mail: [email protected]
Received: 16 October 2020/ Revised: 23 March 2021/ Accepted: 25 March 2021
Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is as famous as “White Gold” due to its high quality fiber. Boron (B) is one of essential micronutrients involved directly or indirectly in many plant processes. Cotton growth, yield and quality are intensely influenced with B application. A 2 years field based study was conducted to explore the impact of foliar applied B (0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 kg ha-1) on productivity and quality of cotton cultivars (FH-113, MNH-786, and CIM-496). Outcomes of the experiment reflected that application of various levels of B significantly influences the growth and quality attributes of cotton cultivars. Crop growth rate, plant height, sympodial branches per plant, seed cotton weight per boll, and seed cotton yield were recorded at maximum by application of B at 1.5 kg ha-1 during both growing seasons. Quality parameters including fiber strength and fineness were also improved by foliar application at 1.5 kg ha-1. Among the cotton cultivars, FH-113 performed better regarding productivity, yield and quality of produce during the years of cultivation.
Maximum field benefits or net returns were obtained by foliar applied B at 1.5 kg ha-1 in cultivar FH-113 during experimental years. Findings of current experimentation indicated that foliar application of B at 1.5 kg ha-1 is considered economical to produce good quality of fiber with enhanced seed cotton yield.
Keywords: boron, cotton; fiber strength; fineness; yield.
Abbreviations: CGR—crop growth rate, DAP—di-ammonium phosphate, DAS—days after sowing, HVI—high volume instrument
INTRODUCTION
Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is considered an important cash crop because it is a good source of animal feed, fiber, and oil (Constable and Bange 2015). Leading cotton production countries in the world includes Pakistan, China, USA, and India (USDA 2015). Cotton is also known as “White Gold” due to its high quality fiber.
It has a share of about 80% in domestic edible oil production (Government of Pakistan 2018). Over the last
decade, increase in its yield has been negligible because of multiple factors like augmented cropping intensity, low yielding varieties, increased pest pressure, poor accessibility of quality seed, and inappropriate use of inorganic fertilizers, water shortage, mainly deficiency of some of the micronutrients in soil (Ibrahim et al. 2005;
Hafeez et al. 2018; Tanga et al. 2020; Gondal et al. 2021).
Efficient crop production is not only depended on potential cultivars. However, the effective field management characterized with appropriate and June 2021
balanced inputs is also indispensable. Nutrients are the most important inputs particularly under irrigated conditions, and their proper management is crucial for a successive plant stand and effective crop growth (Hu et al. 2016). According to Anon (1996), increase in seed yield and lint quality was found with the use some of the micronutrients and growth regulators. Deficit of any nutrient in soil leads to stunted growth of plants even though all other nutrients are in excess.
Among essential micronutrients, boron (B) has pivotal role in the transmission of sugars and certain nutrients from source to sink and it is directly or indirectly related to many plant processes. It has dynamic role in pollination and seed formation (Siddiky et al. 2007). It is essential at all stages of plant growth and critically so during fruit development – especially with today’s fast- fruiting, high-yielding varieties. Supplying adequate boron will help cotton in the development and retaining of more squares, increasing of bloom pollination and boll set, moving of nutrients, and sugars from leaves to the fruit (Bogiani et al. 2013), production of strong, well- developed fibers, and speeding maturity (Rashidi and Seilsepour 2011; Seilsepour et al. 2013). Cotton requires high B and its deficiency resulted in lower yield (Shorrocks 1992). Dong (1995) also reported an increase in growth and yield of cotton in B application.
Photosynthate translocation is restricted from vascular bundles to other plant parts resulted in less growth and irregular reproductive parts development because of B deficiency in rhizosphere (Wang and Zhou 1992). B can be supplemented to soil, either by soil or foliar application (Padbhushan and Kumar 2014). Calcareous soils are ineffective to application of micronutrients like boron, zinc, iron, copper, and manganese because these nutrients remain distant from plant roots due to high pH. In such cases, foliar application of micronutrients is quite a submissive technique that increases the availability of these nutrients to plants (Rab and Haq 2012). For foliar application, there is no effect of p H of soil for the availability of nutrients to plants (Ali 2012). According to Ali et al. (2007), foliar application of nutrients is proficient and cost effective. This method is gaining more popularity all over the world (Liew et al. 2012). Foliar application of micronutrients is cost effective and a proficient way to meet deficiencies resulting in increase in quality and yield (Asad et al. 2003). Quick plant response, increased suitability, and better placement of nutrients are some of the advantages of foliar application over soil application (Rimar et al. 1996).
Kumar et al. (2018) reported that application of B improved seed cotton yield, plant height, number of
sympodial and monopodial branches, boll weight, number of boll per plant, and root biomass. B uptake by seed cotton and roots was also increased through soil applied B. All of the soil with applied B levels resulted in significant increase in mean available B content in soils.
There was a highly significant and positive correlation between seed cotton yield and number of sympodial branch per plant, mean boll weight, number of boll per plant, and B uptake by seed cotton. Although the role of B in improving the performance of different field crops is known, however, very few experiments have been conducted to evaluate the role of foliage applied B in improving the yield, quality of cotton, and economic analysis with cost benefit ratio. Thus, this study determined the impact of foliage applied B on growth, seed cotton yield, fiber strength, and fineness of different cotton cultivars.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experiment Particulars
This study was conducted for two years at the Agronomic Research area, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. The experiment was perform on a sandy loam soil. Before sowing the crop, soil samples were collected to a depth of 30 cm and were analyzed for various physicochemical properties (Table 1). Experiment was laid in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with split-plot arrangement. For the experiment, cotton cultivars (FH-113, MNH-786 and CIM-496) were kept in Tables 1. Physico-chemical analysis of soil (on dry weight basis).
Parameters Year-I Year-II
A. Mechanical Analysis of Soil
Sand (%) 67 65
Silt (%) 16 16
Clay (%) 17 19
Soil Texture Sandy Loan
B. Chemical Analysis of Soil
Saturation 38 37
EC (d Sm-1) 1.66 1.69
pH 8.2 8.1
Organic matter (%) 0.72 0.74
Total nitrogen (%) 0.05 0.05
Available P (ppm) 5.25 5.34
Available K (ppm) 175 175
Available B (ppm) 0.46 0.47
main plots while foliar application of B (0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 kg ha-1) was kept in sub plots. Experiment was quad replicated.
Crop Husbandry
Seedbed was prepared by cultivating the soil 2 to 3 times with tractor mounted cultivator followed by planking.
Crop was sown on June 5, 2009 and May 29, 2010. Sowing was done manually with single row cotton drill in 75 cm apart rows. In order to adjust the recommended plant population, thinning was done at 28 and 26 DAS in 2009 and 2010 by pulling out the extra plants manually. Plant to plant distance was adjusted up to 25 cm and gross plot size was 7.5 × 5 m. Seed rate was used at 8 kg ha-1. Seed was delinted with conc. H2SO4. In the experiment except B, dose of fertilizer was applied as per recommendation i.e. 115-60-60 kg ha-1 of NPK in the form of urea, di- ammonium phosphate (DAP) and potassium sulphate (K2SO4), respectively. The total amount of P, K along with 1/3 N was applied at the time of sowing. Remaining N was applied at first irrigation and at flowering in equal splits. Four foliar sprays of B in the form of boric acid (17%) were applied. For foliar spray, dose of boric acid was divided into four equal parts and were sprayed at four stages by dissolving in water at 300 L ha-1. The first foliar application was done at the time of flower initiation (60 DAS) and then subsequent sprays were applied with interval of 15 days, at 75, 90, and 105 DAS. The total eight irrigations were applied in addition to rainfall. First irrigation was applied 35 and 33 days after sowing (DAS) the crop while the subsequent irrigations were applied according to field condition and need of the crop. Pre- emergence weedicide (Dual Gold at 500 mL/acre) and also hoeing twice was applied to keep the crop free of weeds to avoid weed-crop competition. Standard insecticides/
pesticides were applied according to complexion of the pests/insects/bollworms. All other agronomic practices were kept normal and uniform for all the treatments in the experiment.
Growth Parameters
Crop growth rate is defined as the rate of dry matter accumulation per unit ground area and expressed g m-² day-1. Dry weight (m-2) was recorded at a regular interval of 20 days. Sampling was initiated at 30 DAS and terminated after 130 DAS. These dry weights were used to calculate the CGR at these stages. It was calculated by the formula described by Hunt (1978) as,
CGR = W2-W1/T2-T1
where W1 = dry weight m-2 at first harvest, W2 = dry weight m-2 at second harvest, T1 = time of first harvest, and T2 = time of second harvest.
Yield Parameters
At maturity, the height of five randomly selected plants was measured in cm from the base of the plant to the tip of the main stem with measuring tape and average was taken for one plant. The branch which bears at least one functional sympodial branch was considered as monopodial branch and such branches were counted from five randomly selected plants before the start of picking. The average of five plants was recorded as number of monopodial branches per plant. Fruiting branches arising from the main stem or from the monopodial branches were counted before the start of picking in five randomly selected plants, and the average value was recorded as number of sympodial branches per plant. To determine the seed cotton per boll, 20 bolls were selected at random from each treatment replication wise for average boll weight were picked. The seed cotton separated from these 20 bolls was weighed and averaged to calculate seed cotton weight per boll (in grams). The seed cotton yield per ha was calculated by using the seed cotton yield obtained from net plot area (4.5 × 3 m) and added the seed cotton weight of already separated 20 bolls. Seed cotton yield of each plot was converted to kg ha-1.
Quality Parameters
All the fiber quality traits i.e. fiber strength, micronaire/
fineness were studied by putting a 20 g sample of lint in a latest computerized High Volume Instrument (HVI) USTER-900A in fiber testing laboratory, in the Fiber technology department, University of Agriculture Faisalabad. Fiber strength is the tensile strength of fiber which is measured in g/tex. Micronaire is the fineness fibers which is expressed in μg/inch. To determine the oil contents, seed samples were acid delinted and were dried at 40° for 24 hours. Total soluble salts were estimated according to standard methods described by US Salinity Laboratory Staff (1954).
Statistical Analysis
Collected data were analyzed statistically using Fisher’s analysis of variance technique. Difference among treatments’ means were compared using least significant difference test at 5% probability level (Steel et al. 1997).
RESULTS
Crop growth rate (CGR) was significantly (P < 0.05) influenced by the different levels of foliar applied boron (B) and among the cotton cultivars. All the levels of foliar applied B enhanced CGR, however, maximum CGR was recorded by applying B at 1.5 kg ha-1 throughout the growing season, while less CGR was found in control (Fig. 1). CGR gradually increased up to 110 days after sowing, after that, a decline was found in CGR. Among the cultivars, FH-113 performed better and comparatively recording maximum CGR, while minimum CGR was found in CIM-496. Same trend of CGR was also recorded in the second year of the experiment (Figure 1). Plant height was significantly improved by all the foliar applied treatments and was influenced by the cultivars, but their interaction was found non-significant. Foliar application of B at 1.5 kg ha-1 produced maximum plant height which was statistically at par with the application of 1 kg of B ha-1 (Table 2).
Minimum plant height was recorded in control treatment which was also statistically at par with application of 2 and 2.5 kg of B ha-1.
Monopodial branches per plant differed significantly among cultivars, while foliar applied B levels and their interaction does not influenced the monopodial branches during both years. Concerning cotton genotypes, the genotype FH-113 showed significantly higher number of
monopodial branches per plant as compared with the other two hybrids during the years (Table 2). The number of monopodial branches per plant of cotton among the cotton cultivars varied statistically in the order i.e. FH-113
> MNH-786 > CIM-496 during both years. Data regarding sympodial branches shows significant results for main effects, and the non-significant interaction for sympodial branches per plant during both years (Table 3). Among cotton genotypes, FH-113 produced statistically higher number of sympodial branches per plant than CIM-496 but statistically at par with MNH-786 during 1st year and showed similar results in 2nd year with MNH-786 and CIM-496. Foliar applied B levels 1.0 and 1.5 kg ha-1 exhibited equal number of sympodial branches per plant but significantly higher as compared with B control during 2nd year. In 1st year, foliar applied B rates of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 kg ha-1 showed statistically equal number of sympodial branches per plant (Table 3). Seed cotton weight per boll was significantly affected by the cultivars and foliar applied B levels, while the interaction of these two was non-significant during both years (Table 3).
Regarding the data of seed cotton yield, cotton cultivars FH-113 produced significantly maximum seed cotton yield as compared with MNH-786 and CIM-496 while later, the two cultivars behaved similarly in producing seed cotton yield during both years (Table 4).
The B levels 1.0 and 1.5 kg ha-1 exhibited statistically equal seed cotton yield but significantly higher over control
Fig. 1. Impact of foliar applied boron on crop growth rate of cotton cultivars.
followed by B levels of 0.5, 2.0, and 2.5 kg ha-1 which showed statistically equal seed cotton yield during both years (Table 4). Data showing the influence of foliar applied B on the fiber strength of different cotton cultivars is presented in table 4. Results revealed that fiber strength differed significantly among cotton cultivars by B levels, but their interaction was significant during both years.
The cotton cultivar FH-113 exhibited significantly higher fiber strength over MNH-786 and CIM-496 with similar behavior with the two cotton cultivars. In relation to B rates, significantly higher fiber strength was observed in all the foliar applied B rates as compared with B control but most of the foliar applied boron rates i.e. 0.5-2.0 kg ha-1 resulted statistically equal in fiber strength during both years. The foliar application of B at 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 2.5 kg ha-1 show also equal response for fiber length in 2009 while in 2010, B rates of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.5 kg ha-1 behaved similarly (Table 4).
Micronaire values of cotton fibers indicated significant main effect of B levels and cotton genotypes in the first year, while in the second year, the main effect of B on micronaire was significant, but for the cotton genotypes it was found to be non-significant. Interaction of these two was non-significant during both years. FH-113 gave significantly higher micronaire values as compared with MNH-786 and CIM-496 during the first year, while micronaire values were not influenced significantly by cotton cultivars during second year. As for the B levels, 1.5 kg ha-1 produced significantly higher micronaire values as compared to control, but it exhibited statistically equal micronaire values to 0.5 kg ha-1 during the 1st year and 0.5 and 1.5 kg ha-1 during the second year (Table 5).
Interactive effect of foliar applied treatments and cultivars was found statistically significant regarding total soluble salts. All the foliar applied treatments reduced the accumulation of soluble salts (Table 5). Maximum accumulation was recorded in cultivar FH-113 under Table 2. Impact of foliar applied boron on plant height and monopodial branches per plant of cotton cultivars (FH-113, MNH-786 & CIM-496) .
Parameters Plant Height (cm) Monopodial Branches per Plant
Years Year-I Year-II Year-I Year-II
Cultivars FH 113 MNH
786 CIM
496 Mean (T) FH 113 MNH
786 CIM
496 Mean (T) FH 113 MNH
786 CIM
496 Mean (T) FH 113 MNH
786 CIM 496 Mean (T) Control 115.7 102.2 94.45 104.1 D 127.8 114.3 106.6 116.2 D 2.51 0.81 0.26 1.2 2.63 0.9 0.27 1.27
0.5 119.1 105.4 97.5 107.3 BC 131.1 117.5 109.6 119.4 BC 2.52 1.07 0.2 1.27 2.65 1.15 0.27 1.36 1 121.6 108.6 98.97 109.7 AB 133.7 120.7 111.1 121.8 AB 2.46 1.05 0.21 1.24 2.65 1.12 0.27 1.35 1.5 122.1 110.1 101.4 111.2 A 134.4 122.2 113.5 123.4 A 2.41 1.05 0.2 1.22 2.6 1.17 0.23 1.34 2 117.8 105.9 95.95 106.5 CD 129.9 118 108.1 118.7 CD 2.52 1.08 0.23 1.28 2.61 1.17 0.23 1.34 2.5 116.5 104.8 95.48 105.6 CD 128.6 117 107.7 117.8 CD 2.57 1.09 0.2 1.29 2.58 1.15 0.21 1.31 Mean (C) 118.8 A 106.2 B 97.2 C 130.9 A 118.29 B 109.43 C 2.50 A 1.03 B 0.22 C 2.62 A 1.11 B 0.25 C
LSD T = 2.488, C = 3.279, T×C = NS T = 2.869, C = 3.584, T×C = NS T = NS, C = 0.281, T×C = NS T = NS, C = 0.162, T×C = NS
Table 3. Impact of foliar applied boron on sympodial branches per plant and seed cotton weight per boll of cotton cultivars (FH-113, MNH-786 & CIM-496).
Parameters Sympodial Branches per Plant Seed Cotton Weight per Boll (g)
Years Year-I Year-II Year-I Year-II
Cultivars FH 113 MNH
786 CIM
496 Mean (T) FH
113 MNH 786 CIM
496 Mean (T) FH 113 MNH
786 CIM 496 Mean
(T) FH 113 MNH
786 CIM
496 Mean (T) Control 19.45 19.35 17.92 18.91 C 21.44 20.55 19.1 20.36 D 2.26 2.3 2.06 2.21 C 2.24 2.23 2.42 2.30 C
0.5 21.82 19.72 19.1 20.22 ABC 21.74 21.49 19.85 21.02 CD 2.64 2.42 2.24 2.43 BC 2.54 2.53 2.67 2.58 AB 1 23.05 20.65 19.6 21.10 AB 25.4 23.74 19.43 22.85 AB 2.79 2.52 2.42 2.58 AB 2.7 2.65 2.72 2.69 A 1.5 23.32 21.02 19.8 21.38 A 24.99 24.74 21.05 23.58 A 2.86 2.85 2.53 2.75 A 2.82 2.7 2.76 2.76 A 2 20.42 19.32 18.6 19.45 BC 24.1 22.69 18.5 21.76 BC 2.69 2.4 2.2 2.44 BC 2.75 2.45 2.46 2.56 ABC 2.5 20.15 19.55 18.8 19.50 BC 22.84 21.19 18.74 20.91 CD 2.61 2.33 2.13 2.36 BC 2.33 2.19 2.44 2.32 BC Mean (C) 21.37 A 19.94 AB 18.97 B 23.41 A 22.39 A 19.44 B 2.65 A 2.47 A 2.27 B 2.57 2.46 2.57
LSD T = 1.732, C = 1.754, T×C = NS T = 1.387, C = 1.316, T×C = NS T = 0.302, C = 0.184, T×C = NS T=0.261, C = NS, T×C = NS
control treatment which were statistically at par with MNH-786 and CIM-496 during the first year of the experiment. Similar trend was also found during the second year of the experiment with regards to the total soluble salts (Table 5).
Economic Analysis
Economic analysis of application of boron levels to cotton cultivars is presented in Table 6 and 7. It is shown that B application increased the net benefits than control in all the cultivars. Net income obtained in 2010 was higher as compared to the 2009. However, maximum field benefits or net returns were obtained by foliar applied B at 1.5 kg ha-1 in cultivar FH-113 during both experimental years. It is clear from Tables 6 and 7, the maximum cost benefit ratio was recorded with foliar applied B at 1.5 kg ha-1 in cultivar FH-113 during both years. While the minimum cost benefit ratio was found in control plot of CIM-496 during both years of experiment.
DISCUSSION
Crop growth rate of cotton cultivars have significantly been improved by different foliar applied B rates which might be due to role of B in cell division and elongation.
Moreover, B plays role in carbohydrate metabolism and translocation which help to form more protoplasm. Vasil (1964) reported that micronutrient application improved crop growth rate that might be due to better consumption of carbohydrates to form more protoplasm. Foliar applied micronutrients help in changing growth and physiological features of cotton, and adequate supply of B is required for optimal cotton growth as it has particular role in cell division and cell metabolism (Radhika et al.
2012). Among the cotton cultivars, FH-113 resulted in significantly higher crop growth rate (Fig. 1) which might be due to genetic differences among the different cultivars. The results are in line with Ehsan et al. (2008) who stated that cotton genotypes varied significantly for Table 4. Impact of foliar applied boron on seed cotton yield and fiber strength of cotton cultivars (FH-113, MNH-786 & CIM-496).
Parameters Seed Cotton Yield (kg ha-1) Fiber Strength (g/tex)
Years Year-I Year-II Year-I Year-II
Cultivars FH 113 MNH
786 CIM
496 Mean (T) FH 113 MNH
786 CIM
496 Mean (T) FH 113 MNH
786 CIM
496 Mean (T) FH 113 MNH
786 CIM
496 Mean (T) Control 2182 1728 1698 1869 C 2250 1763 1761 1925 D 21.62 19.95 19.9 20.49 21.92 20.12 19.67 20.58 C
0.5 2468 1923 1869 2087 B 2558 1970 1962 2163 C 22.45 21.45 20.22 21.38 22.85 21.7 20.55 21.70 ABC 1 2586 1988 1924 2166 AB 2675 2069 2053 2265 AB 23 22.72 20.65 22.13 23.22 23.1 21.05 22.45 AB 1.5 2676 2076 1998 2250 A 2762 2142 2110 2338 A 23.47 23.1 21.17 22.58 24 23.55 22.2 23.25 A 2 2521 1953 1900 2125 B 2626 2006 1983 2205 BC 22.85 22.55 20.62 22 23.07 22.9 21.1 22.36 AB 2.5 2465 1908 1855 2076 B 2554 1950 1942 2149 C 22.07 21.9 20.12 21.37 22.37 22.22 20.1 21.57 BC Mean (C) 2483 A 1929 B 1874 B 2570 A 1983 B 1968 B 22.58 21.95 20.45 22.91 A 22.27 A 20.78 B
LSD T = 109.42, C = 71.417, T×C = NS T = 100.86, C = 132.18, T×C = NS T = 1.545, C = NS , T×C = NS T = 1.574, C = 1.286, T×C = NS
Table 5. Impact of foliar applied boron on micronaire value/fineness and total soluble salts of cotton cultivars (FH-113, MNH- 786 & CIM-496).
Parameters Micronaire Value/Fineness (µg/inch) Total Soluble Salts
Years Year-I Year-II Year-I Year-II
Cultivars FH 113 MNH
786 CIM
496 Mean (T) FH 113 MNH
786 CIM 496 Mean
(T) FH
113 MNH 786 CIM
496 Mean (T) FH
113 MNH 786 CIM
496 Mean (T) Control 4.2 4.02 3.84 4.02 B 4.47 4.27 4.47 4.41 C 29.01 a 28.21 a 27.06 a 28.09 30.11 a 29.31 a 28.16 a 29.19
0.5 4.5 4.14 4.02 4.22 B 4.77 4.4 4.65 4.61 BC 26.76 b 26.56 ab 25.51 ab 26.27 27.86 b 27.66 b 26.61 ab 27.37 1 4.76 4.25 4.3 4.44 AB 4.94 4.72 4.65 4.77 AB 23.81 c 24.96 bc 24.86 b 24.54 24.91 c 26.06 bc 25.96 b 25.64 1.5 5.07 4.8 4.72 4.87 A 5.17 5.08 4.77 5.01 A 22.56 c 23.46 cd 22.61 c 22.87 23.66 c 24.56 c 23.71 c 23.97 2 4.42 4.4 4.25 4.36 B 4.79 4.7 4.87 4.79 AB 19.61 d 19.16 e 19.71 d 19.49 20.71 d 20.26 e 20.81 d 20.59 2.5 4.27 4.17 4.12 4.19 B 4.52 4.37 4.6 4.50 BC 22.51 c 21.91 d 23.81 bc 22.74 23.61 c 23.01 cd 24.91 c 23.84 Mean (C) 4.54 A 4.30 B 4.21 B 4.78 4.67 4.59 24.04 24.04 23.92 25.14 25.14 25.02
LSD T = 0.434, C = 0.239, T×C = NS T = 0.227, C = NS, T×C = NS T = NS, C = NS, T×C = 2.136 T = NS, C = NS, T×C = 2.217
various growth characters and these variations could be attributed to the difference in genetic make-up of crop plants.
Plant height is an important morphological trait of cotton. Although it is primarily controlled by genetic and predominant environmental conditions but the genetic expression could be variable under differential managerial practices. The results are supported by Ehsan et al. (2008) who reported that cotton genotypes varied significantly for plant height and these variances can be attributed to the genetic make-up of crop plants. Ahmed et al. (2013) observed that the increase in plant height was due to the increase in distance between nodes and internodes of the main stem. Results of the study corroborate with the results of Zhao and Oosterhuis (2003); Dordas (2006); and Ahmed et al. (2013). Anwar et al. (2002) and Copur (2006) who also exhibited significant changes among genotypes for plant height. The improvement of plant height by boron application is due to its relative involvement in various physiological processes essential for plant growth and development.
The lack of any nutrient in the soil can be an obstacle to growth, even when all other nutrients are surplus in the soil (Soleymani and Shahrajabian 2012).
Monopodial branches are indirect fruit bearing branches of cotton and influenced by genetics. Different foliar applied B rates (0.5, 2.0, and 2.5 kg ha-1) and control
treatments gave similar number of sympodial branches.
It might be due to the deficiency of B and adverse effects of higher B rates that ultimately influence the normal physiological processes of cotton crop that results in lesser number of sympodial branches per plant of cotton.
The dose of B higher than 1.5 kg ha-1 might have toxic impact on the cotton growth. The increase in the number of sympodial branches per plant was due to its positive influence on cell elongation and division, cell wall biosynthesis, and protein, amino acid, and nitrate metabolism (Blevins and Lukaszewski 1998). Fontes et al.
(2008) reported similar trend of results for different cultivars of Brazilian cotton. Boron deficiency reduces the growth of vegetative and reproductive plant parts influenced by timing and magnitude of B deficiency (Dell and Huang, 1997).
Sympodial branches are productive or direct fruit bearing branches and influenced by genetics and environment. The results regarding sympodial branches are supported by Ehsan et al. (2008) who reported a significant variation among cotton cultivars for production of sympodial branches. Copur (2006) also reported differences among cotton cultivars for sympodial branches per plant of cotton. Seed cotton weight per boll is one of the important yield contributing traits of cotton. Seed cotton yield is the most important factor for the economic point of view. It is the cumulative Table 6. Effect of foliar applied boron on economic analyses of cotton cultivars during 2009.
Treatments
(Cultivar × B level) Seed Cotton
Yield kg ha-1 Value
Rs. ha-1 Cotton Sticks
Value Gross Income Rs.
ha-1 Total Cost
Rs. ha-1 Net Return
Rs. ha-1 Cost Benefit Ratio
FH-113 × 0.0 kg B ha-1 2182 163650 10000 173650 147136 26514 1.18
FH-113 × 0.5 kg B ha-1 2468 185100 10000 195100 149116 45984 1.31
FH-113 × 1.0 kg B ha-1 2586 193950 10000 203950 150256 53694 1.36
FH-113 × 1.5 kg B ha-1 2676 200700 10000 210700 151256 59444 1.39
FH-113 × 2.0 kg B ha-1 2521 189075 10000 199075 151031 48044 1.32
FH-113 × 2.5 kg B ha-1 2465 184875 10000 194875 151301 43574 1.29
MNH-786 × 0.0 kg B ha-1 1728 129600 10000 139600 143866 -4266 0.97
MNH-786 × 0.5 kg B ha-1 1923 144225 10000 154225 145391 8834 1.06
MNH-786 × 1.0 kg B ha-1 1988 149100 10000 159100 146266 12834 1.09
MNH-786 × 1.5 kg B ha-1 2076 155700 10000 165700 147256 18444 1.13
MNH-786 × 2.0 kg B ha-1 1953 146475 10000 156475 147191 9284 1.06
MNH-786 × 2.5 kg B ha-1 1908 143100 10000 153100 147516 5584 1.04
CIM-496 × 0.0 kg B ha-1 1698 127350 10000 137350 142716 -5366 0.96
CIM-496 × 0.5 kg B ha-1 1870 140250 10000 150250 144126 6124 1.04
CIM-496 × 1.0 kg B ha-1 1924 144300 10000 154300 144946 9354 1.06
CIM-496 × 1.5 kg B ha-1 1998 149850 10000 159850 145866 13984 1.1
CIM-496 × 2.0 kg B ha-1 1900 142500 10000 152500 145926 6574 1.05
CIM-496 × 2.5 kg B ha-1 1855 139125 10000 149125 146251 2874 1.02
expression of yield contributing traits like plant population, number of bolls per plant, and boll weight.
Seed cotton yield has increased by all of the foliar applied B rates compared with B control during both years.
The cotton cultivar also showed differences in their genetic potential for seed cotton yield. The increase in seed cotton yield was due to its direct influence on flower development, pollen germination and fertilization, seed development, and fruit abscission (Dell and Huang 1997;
Brown et al. 2002). Ahmed et al. (2013) reported that boron fertilizer increased total fruiting positions and reduced fruit shedding, leading to more intact fruits per unit crop area and resulted in increased seed cotton yield.
Rashid and Rafique (2002) reported that increase in seed cotton yield was due to more cotton boll bearing with boron fertilization, which resulted in higher yield of seed cotton.
Agarwal et al. (1981) linked the increase in yield due to boron application as its direct role in process of fertilization, pollen-producing capacity of anther, viability of pollen grain, pollen germination, and pollen tube growth. The beneficial effect of B on yield was consistent with the results of others in berseem (Khurana et al., 2012) and green gram (Kaisher et al. 2010). Ehsan et al. (2008) also revealed that different cotton cultivars exhibited different seed cotton yield which can be attributed to differences in their genetic make-up.
Hofs et al. (2006) and Copur (2006) also reported differences in seed cotton yield among different cultivars. Foliar application of B and cotton genotypes resulted in improvement of fiber strength. Cotton cultivars varied in fiber strength that might be due to differences in their genetic potential as one variety performs better under certain climatic conditions than the other one (Ehsan et al. 2008). The improvement of fiber strength by foliar application of boron might be due to its adequate supply to cotton that play role in reproductive growth, carbohydrate metabolism, transport of sugar, and nutrients from leaves to fruit.
Galadima et al. (2003) revealed that cotton cultivars exhibited significant differences for fiber strength. Cotton cultivars varied significantly in their genetics for utilization of micronutrients (Irshad et al. 2004) and crop species varied in their efficiency for nutrient uptake and utilization (Marschner 1995). Cotton cultivars also varied in their genetic potential for utilization of other resources that ultimately affect its fiber quality. Small amounts of boron are prerequisite to maintain the process of growth and development of cotton fibers in the boll (Stewart 1986) and fiber quality (micronaire) (Heitholt 1994) and its deficiency caused development of abnormal fibers which have been witnessed in cultured ovules (Birnbaum et al. 1977) and smaller fibers in the field (Sankaranarayanan et al. 2010).
Table 7. Effect of foliar applied boron on economic analyses of cotton cultivars during 2010.
Treatments (Cultivar × B Level) Seed Cotton Yield
kg ha-1 Value
Rs. ha-1 Cotton Sticks
Value Gross Income
Rs. ha-1 Total Cost
Rs. ha-1 Net Return
Rs. ha-1 Cost Benefit Ratio
FH-113 × 0.0 kg B ha-1 2250 225000 10000 235000 147476 87524 1.59
FH-113 × 0.5 kg B ha-1 2558 255800 10000 265800 149841 115959 1.77
FH-113 × 1.0 kg B ha-1 2675 267500 10000 277500 150976 126524 1.84
FH-113 × 1.5 kg B ha-1 2762 276200 10000 286200 151961 134239 1.88
FH-113 × 2.0 kg B ha-1 2626 262600 10000 272600 151831 120769 1.8
FH-113 × 2.5 kg B ha-1 2554 255400 10000 265400 152021 113379 1.75
MNH-786 × 0.0 kg B ha-1 1763 176300 10000 186300 144041 42259 1.29
MNH-786 × 0.5 kg B ha-1 1970 197000 10000 207000 145901 61099 1.42
MNH-786 × 1.0 kg B ha-1 2069 206900 10000 216900 146946 69956 1.48
MNH-786 × 1.5 kg B ha-1 2142 214200 10000 224200 147861 76339 1.52
MNH-786 × 2.0 kg B ha-1 2006 200600 10000 210600 147731 62869 1.43
MNH-786 × 2.5 kg B ha-1 1950 195000 10000 205000 148001 56999 1.39
CIM-496 × 0.0 kg B ha-1 1761 176100 10000 186100 143031 43069 1.3
CIM-496 × 0.5 kg B ha-1 1962 196200 10000 206200 144861 61339 1.42
CIM-496 × 1.0 kg B ha-1 2053 205300 10000 215300 145866 69434 1.48
CIM-496 × 1.5 kg B ha-1 2110 211000 10000 221000 146701 74299 1.51
CIM-496 × 2.0 kg B ha-1 1983 198300 10000 208300 146616 61684 1.42
CIM-496 × 2.5 kg B ha-1 1942 194200 10000 204200 146961 57239 1.39
The results of this study are supported by Ahmad et al. (2009) who reported that foliar application of B resulted in improvement of micronaire values by 7.4 to 32.8% for various cotton cultivars. Application of B, via soil applied or foliage, significantly improved the seed as well as oil yield in oil seed crops (Khan et al. 2016). Oil contents of cotton seed were not influenced by cotton cultivars and foliar applied B rates. It might be because of the similar genetic make-up of cotton cultivars for oil content.
Cost benefit ratio is important to farmers because they are interested in seeing the increase in net returns with a given increase in total costs. Different B application levels significantly affect the benefit cost ratio (Table 6 and 7). The maximum benefit cost ratio with 1.5 kg ha-1 B application rate was due to more seed cotton yield than any other treatment. These results are in line with those reported by Roberts et al. (2000) who reported maximum cost benefit ratio was obtained by B application. The higher dose of B application adversely affected the cotton growth and quality. The dose higher than B may have toxic impacts on the cotton growth linked with reduced productivity and quality of cotton produce.
CONCLUSION
Findings of this experiment indicated that foliar application of B at 1.5 kg ha-1 is considered economical to produce good quality of fiber with enhanced seed cotton yield. The foliar application of boron at 1.5 kg ha-1 is more responsive with regards to the enhanced productivity and improved quality of cotton. Quality parameters including fiber strength and fineness were also improved by foliar application at 1.5 kg ha-1. Among the cotton cultivars, FH-113 performed better regarding productivity, yield, and quality produce. Maximum field benefits or net returns were obtained by foliar applied B at 1.5 kg ha-1 in cultivar FH-113 during the experimental years.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding this manuscript. The authors also extend their appreciation to the Researchers supporting project number (RSP-2020/103), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
REFERENCES CITED
AGARWAL SC, SHARMA PN, CHATTERJEE C, SHARMA CP. 1981. Development and enzymatic
changes during pollen development in boron- deficient maize plants. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 3:
229-336.
AHMAD S, AKHTAR LH, AHMAD S, IQBALAND N,NASIM M. 2009. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) varieties responded differently to foliar applied boron in terms of quality and yield. Soil Environ. 28: 88-92.
AHMED N, ABID M, RASHID A, ALI A, AMMANULLAH M. 2013. Boron requirement of irrigated cotton in a typic haplocambid for optimum productivity and seed composition. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 44: 1293–309.
ALI A, MAHMOOD IA, HUSSAIN F, SALIM M. 2007.
Response of rice to soil and foliar application of K2SO4 fertilizer. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture. 23: 15- 19.
ALI A. 2012. Effect of iron nutrient care sprayed on foliage at different physiological growth stages on yield and quality of some durum wheat (Triticum durum L.) varieties in sandy soil. Asian Journal of Crop Science. 4: 139-149.
ANON. 1996. Boron important for pollen, fertilization and fruit set. Boron Agric. 16: 1-2.
ANWAR AM, GILL MI, MUHAMMAD D, AFZAL MN.
2002. Evaluation of cotton varieties at different doses of nitrogen fertilizer. Pak. J. Cottons. 46: 35-41.
ASAD A, BLAMEY F, EDWARDS D. 2003. Effects of boron foliar applications on vegetative and reproductive growth of sunflower. Annals of Botany.
92: 565–570.
BIRNBAUM EH, DUGGER WM, BEASLEY CA. 1977.
Interaction of boron with components of nucleic acid metabolism in cotton ovules culture in vitro. Plant Physiol. 59: 1034-1038.
BLEVINS DG, LUKASZEWSKI KM. 1998. Boron in plant structure and function. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology. 49:481–500.
BOGIANI JC, AMARO ACE, ROSOLEM CA. 2013.
Carbohydrate production and transport in cotton cultivars grown under boron deficiency. Scientia Agricola. 7: 442–48.
BROWN PH, BELLALOUI N, WIMMER MA, BASSIL ES, RUIZ J, HU H, FEFFER H, DANNEL F, ROMHELD V. 2002. Boron in plant biology. Plant Biology. 4: 205–
23.
CONSTABLE GA, BANGE MP. 2015. The yield potential of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Field Crops Res.
182: 98–106.
COPUR O. 2006. Determination of yield and yield components of some cotton cultivars in semi- arid conditions. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 9: 2572-2578.
DELL B, HUANG L. 1997. Physiological response of plants to low boron. Plant and Soil. 193:103–20.
DONG JF. 1995. The yield increasing ability of spraying cotton with boron. J. Henan Agric. Sci. 3: 6.
DORDAS C. 2006. Foliar boron application affects lint and seed yield and improves seed quality of cotton grown on calcareous soils. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 76: 19- 28.
EHSAN F, ALI A, NADEEM MA, TAHIR M, MAJEED A.
2008. Comparative yield performance of new cultivars of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Pak. J.
Life Soc. Sci. 6: 1-3.
FONTES RLF, MEDEIROS JF, NEVES JCL, CARVALHO OS, MEDEIROS JC. 2008. Growth of brazilian cotton cultivars in response to soil applied boron. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 31: 902–18.
GALADIMA A, HUSMAN SH, SILVERTOOTH JC. 2003.
Plant population effect on yield and fiber quality of three upland cotton varieties at Maricopa Agricultural Center.
GONDAL MR, SALEEM MY, RIZVI SA, RIAZ A, NASEEM W, MUHAMMAD G, HAYAT S, IQBAL M.
2021. Assessment of drought tolerance in various cotton genotypes under simulated osmotic settings.
Asian Journal of Agriculture and Biology. https://
doi.org/10.35495/ajab.2020.08.437
GOVT. OF PAKISTAN. 2018. Economic survey of Pakistan 2018. Finance division. Economic advisory wing, Islamabad, Pakistan.
HAFEEZ A, ALI S, MA X, TUNG SA, SHAH AN, LIU A, AHMED S, CHATTHA MS, YANG, G. 2018.
Potassium to nitrogen ratio favors photosynthesis in late-planted cotton at high planting density. Ind.
Crops Prod. 124, 369–381.
HEITHOLT JJ. 1994. Supplemental boron, boll retention percentage, ovary carbohydrates, and lint yield in modern cotton genotypes. Agron. J., 86: 492-497.
HOFS JL, HAU B, MARAIS D. 2006. Boll distribution patterns in Bt and non-Bt cotton cultivars: I. Study on commercial irrigated farming systems in South Africa. Field Crops Res. 98: 203-209.
HU W, JIANG N, YANG J, MENG Y, WANG Y, CHEN B, ZHAO W, OOSTERHUIS DM, ZHOU Z. 2016.
Potassium (K) supply affects K accumulation and photosynthetic physiology in two cotton (Gossyp ium hirsutum L.) cultivars with different K sensitivities. Field Crops Res. 196, 51–63.
HUNT R. 1978. Plant growth analysis. Studies in Biology Series No. 96. Edward Arnold Ltd., London, U.K.
IBRAHIM M, NIAZ A, NADEEM MY. 2005. Cotton and wheat responded to boron on high pH calcareous soils in Pakistan. In: C. J., plant nutrition for food security, human health and environ. Protection, 290- 291. Tsinghua University press. Printed in Beijing, China.
IRSHAD M, GILL MA, AZIZ T, RAHMATULLAH, AHMAD I. 2004. Growth response of cotton cultivars to zinc deficiency stress in chelator-buffered nutrient solution. Pak. J. Bot. 36: 373-380.
KAISHER MS, RAHMAN MA, AMIN MHA, AMANULLAH ASM, AHSANULLAH ASM. 2010.
Effects of sulphur and boron on the seed yield and protein content of mungbean. Bangladesh Research Publications Journal 3: 1181–86.
KHAN S, REHMAN HR, WAHID MA, SALEEM MF, CHEEMA MA, BASRA SMA, NADEEM M. 2016.
Boron fertilization improves seed yield and harvest index of Camelina sativa L. By affecting source-sink.
Journal of Plant Nutrition. 39(12): 1681-1687.
KHURANA MPS, SADANA US, MANCHANDA JS, DHALIWAL SS. 2012. Response of berseem (Trifolium alexandrium) to boron application in alluvium derived soil. Journal of Research Punjab Agricultural University 49: 223–26.
KUMAR S, KUMAR D, SEKHON KS, CHOUDHARY OP. 2018. Influence of levels and methods of boron application on the yield and uptake of boron by cotton in a calcareous soil of Punjab.
Communications in soil science and plant analysis.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2018.1431268-.
LIEW YA, OMAR SR, HUSNI MHA, ZAINAL AMA, ASHIKIN NPA. 2012. Effects of foliar applied copper and boron on fungal diseases and rice yield.
Pertanika Journal of Tropical Agricultural Sciences.
35: 339-349.
MARSCHNER H. 1995. Mineral nutrition of higher plants. 2nd. ed. Academic Press, London.
PADBHUSHAN R, KUMAR D. 2014. Influence of soil and foliar applied boron on green gram in calcareous
soils. International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Biotechnology. 7: 129–136.
RAB A, HAQ I. 2012. Foliar application of calcium chloride and borax influences plant growth, yield, and quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruit. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 36: 695-701.
RADHIKA, HEMALATHA KS, KATHARINE SP, MARAGATHAM S, KANIMOZHI A. 2012. Foliar application of micronutrinets in cotton - a review.
Research and reviews: J. Agri. Allied Sci. 2: 23-29.
RASHID A, RAFIQUE E. 2002. Boron deficiency in cotton grown in calcareous soils of Pakistan, II: Correction and criteria for foliar diagnosis. In Boron in Plant and Animal Nutrition, eds. H. E. Goldbach, P. H. Brown, B. Rerkasem, T. Thellier, M. A. Wimmer, and R. W.
Bell, 357–62. New York: Academic Kluwer/Plenum.
RASHIDI M, SEILSEPOUR M. 2011. Effect of different rates of boron on yield and quality of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 7:758–62.
RIMAR J, BALLA P, PRINCIK L. 1996. The comparison of application effectiveness of liquid fertilizers with those in solid state in conditions of the east slovak lowland region. Rostlinna Vyroba. 42: 127–132.
ROBERTS RK, GESMAN JM, HOWARD DD. 2000. Soil and foliar applied boron in cotton production. J.
Cotton Sci. 4: 171-177.
SANKARANARAYANAN K, PRAHARAJ CS,
NALAYINI P, BYOPADHYAY KK, GOPALAKRISHNAN N. 2010. Effect of magnesium, zinc, iron and boron application on yield and quality of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L). Indian J. Agric.
Sci., 80: 699-703.
SEILSEPOUR M, RASHIDI M, SOMANI PY. 2013.
Influence of different application rates of boron on biological growth and fibre quality of cotton.
American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural &
Environmental Sciences. 13: 548–52.
SHORROCKS VM. 1992. Boron - a global appraisal of the occurrence, diagnosis and correction of boron deficiency. In: Portech, S. (ed.), Proc. Int. Symptoms on the role of sulphur, magnesium and micronutrients in balanced plant nutrition, The Sulphur institute, Washington, D.C. pp. 39-53.
SIDDIKY MA, HALDER NK, AHAMMAD KU, ANAM K, RAFIUDDIN M. 2007. Response of brinjal to zinc and boron fertilization. Int. J. Sustainable Agric. Tech.
3: 40-45.
SOLEYMANI A, SHAHRAJABIAN MH. 2012. The effects of Fe, Mn and Zn foliar application on yield, ash and protein percentage of forage sorghum in climatic condition of Esfahan. Inter. J. Bio. 4: 3-7.
STEEL RGD, TORRIE JH, DICKEY DA. 1997. Principles and procedure of statistics. A biometrical approach 3rd Ed McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc., New York, pp. 352- 358.
STEWART JM. 1986. Integrated events in the flower and fruit. In. Cotton physiology. In J.R. Mauney and J.M.
Stewart (eds.) pp. 261-297.
TANGA M, LEWU FB, OYEDEJI AO, OYEDEJI OO.
2020. Yield and morphological characteristics of Burdock (Arctium lappa L.) in response to mineral fertilizer application. Asian J. Agric. Biol. 8(4): 511- 518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35495/ajab.2019.11.524.
US SALINITY LABORATORY STAFF. 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 60. US Government Printing Office. Washington, DC.
[USDA] UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 2015. Cotton: World Markets and Trade. Retrieved 14 Oct 2016 from https://
www.fas.usda.gov/data/cotton-world-markets- andtrade.
VASIL IK. 1964. Effect of boron on pollen germination and pollen tube growth. In: Pollen physiology and fertilization. Liskens, H. F. (Ed.). North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam. pp. 107–119.
WANG YH, ZHOU XF. 1992. The effects of boron on the anatomical structures of cotton petioles. In: Portch, S.
(ed.), Proc. Int. Symposium on the role of sulphur, magnesium and micronutrients in balanced plant nutrition. The Sulphur Institute, Washington, D.C pp.
70-80.
ZHAO D, OOSTERHUIS DM. 2003. Cotton growth and physiological responses to boron deficiency. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 26: 855–67.
