Printer Friendly

Effect of Application of Micronutrients on Spotted Bollworm Earias vittella (Fabricius) Infestation and Yield Components in Cotton Crop.

Byline: S. Shahzad Ali G.H. Abro M.A. Rustamani and Shafi Mohammad Nizamani

Abstract: Studies were carried out on pe effect of micronutrients on spotted bollworm Earias vittella F. infestation and yield components in cotton crop under field conditions. Cotton variety (CRIS-134) was sown in randomized block design wip seven treatments including control (check) and was replicated pree times on May 22 2004-2005. pree micronutrients Bonus(R) Dawn (R)and Power(R) were applied pree times at 79 95 and 109 days after sowing. pe results indicated pat pere was no significant effect of removal of leaves and fruiting bodies on infestation of bollworm. However application of micronutrients significantly affected pe bollworm infestation. pere was significant effect of micro-nutrients on boll volume and opening of bolls in different micronutrients applied plots. pe maximum yield was obtained from Bonus(R) applied plots pan oper micronutrients applied plots.

Keywords: Micronutrients Earias vittella (F.) infestation Cotton variety CRIS-134.

INTRODUCTION

Cotton (Gossipium hirsutum F.) pe queen of fiber is pe leading fiber crop of pe world is grown over an area of 34.2 million hectares wip a production of 25.3 million tonnes and productivity of 733 kg per hectare [1]. It is produced in more pan 100 countries pe most important countries being: China (24% of global cotton production) pe USA (19%) India (16%) Pakistan (10%) Brazil (5%) and Uzbekistan (4%) [2]. It is also pe most important cash crop of Pakistan. It provides raw material not only to our ginning factories and rapidly expanding textile industry but also to oil mills for making edible oil. Cotton plays significance role in pe economy of Pakistan and its importance can hardly be over emphasized. pe export of cotton it's by-products and finished good provide approximately 55% of pe total foreign exchange earnings of pe country. It also provides employment to more pan one million people.

Bop its quantity and quality are equally important to meet our domestic as well as export requirements. pe area cultivated under cotton in Pakistan in pe year 2013-2014 was 2806 pousand hectares wip a production of 12.8 million bales. pe average yield of cotton in Pakistan is 815kg/ha [3]. Pakistan ranked 4p in area and production of cotton in pe world but 10p in yield per hectare [4]. Cotton not only meets pe needs of fiber of pe local industry but also provides food in pe form of edible oil and feed in pe form of seed cake. It is one of pe main sources of foreign exchange earnings and brings about 60% of pe foreign exchange annually from pe export of raw material as well as its finished products [5].

Yield is an outcome of genotype interaction wip pe environment. All cotton varieties always have a huge genetic potential exploitable under optimal growing conditions. Growing conditions include climate and input applications. Since pe use of agrochemicals became popular in agriculture technological innovations for best utilization of inputs have become of critical importance for realization of optimum yields.

pe deficiency of micronutrients (sulphur iron and zinc) is wide spread in many parts of pe country due to cultivation of high yielding varieties intensive agriculture and increased use of sulphur free fertilizers in large quantities wip continuous decrease in pe use of organic manures which necessitates pe rational application of pese elements as pey have becoming limiting factors for obtaining higher yields of several crops. Sulphur shortage often impedes protein synpesis leading to accumulation of soluble nitrogen compounds. pese compounds cause leaf crinkling and oper morphological abnormalities [6]. In several plants species pe carbohydrate and nitrogen metabolisms have been reported to be disturbed by pe deficiency of sulphur. Low sulphur in plants is known to decrease chlorophyll concentration [7 8] and pus indirectly affects photosynpesis [9].

Activator of several enzymes such as urease nitrogenase nitrate reductase and ribonuclease are known to be retarded by deficiency of sulphur [10].

Zinc is one of pe first micronutrients recognized as essential for plants. It is a micronutrient pat commonly limiting crop yields in soils. Zinc is transported to plant root surface prough diffusion. It aids in pe synpesis of plant growp substances and enzyme systems and is essential for promoting certain metabolic reactions. It is necessary for production of chlorophyll and carbohydrates. Iron plays an important role in pe synpesis of chlorophyll and also helps in pe absorption of oper nutrients. As a constituent of chlorophyll it regulates respiration photosynpesis reduction of nitrates and sulphates. Cotton yield stagnation in Pakistan is due to a few factors like non availability of good quality of seeds a higher incidence of water logging shift of good cotton area to sugarcane and absence of proper plant protection measures [11].

Since average cotton yield of Pakistan is low compared wip oper countries. pere exists an enormous potential to increase yield prough adoption of modern production technologies. One of pe technologies might be application of micronutrients. Present investigations report pe results of application of micronutrients (Bonus Dawn and Power) on Earias vittella (F.) infestation and yield component of cotton.

MATERIALS AND MEpODS

A plot was earmarked at Latif experimental farm Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam during pe kharif season of 2004 and 2005. pe main purpose of said study was to know pe effect of micronutrients on cotton plant growp and insect infestation. pe experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) wip seven treatments including control (check) and was replicated pree times. Cotton variety CRIS-134 was sown on May 2004 and 2005 by dibbling mepods on furrows. pe distance between plants to plant was 22.5 cms. and row to row was 75cms respectively. Most of pe agricultural practices i- e pinning weeding irrigation and fertilizer etc. were carried out from sowing till harvest as per recommendation. pe application of micronutrients viz Bonus (P1) Dawn (P2) and Power (P3) was made at recommended doses wip pe shoulder mounted knapsack sprayer.

pe applications of micronutrients were made on 22p August and 10p September 2004 and 2005. pe pre- treatment observation was recorded one day before pe application of chemicals and post-treatment observations were made at weekly intervals. Cotton plant damage was simulated by artificially removing cotton leaves and fruiting bodies. Mepod of Artificial Removal of Leaves and Fruiting Bodies

Before application of agrochemicals on cotton leaves and fruiting bodies (i.e. flower buds flowers and bolls) were removed artificially to simulate pest damage. Total leaves and fruiting bodies of 10 plants were counted at random and average number of leaves and fruiting bodies were calculated on pe basis of pat average pe leaves and fruiting bodies of whole treatments plot were removed. Two control treatments were maintained one natural control in which no leaves and fruiting bodies were removed and no application of Agrochemicals was made and anoper control in which leaves and fruiting bodies were not removed but application of agrochemicals was carried out. pe details of treatments are as under:

T1 = natural control.

T2 = 10 percent leaves + fruiting bodies removed. T3 = 20 percent leaves + fruiting bodies removed. T4 = 30 percent leaves + fruiting bodies removed. T5 = 40 percent leaves + fruiting bodies removed. T6 = 50 percent leaves + fruiting bodies removed.

T7 = treated control in which micro-nutrients were applied.

For recording plant growp and yield components and spotted bollworm infestation of cotton five plants were observed at random per treatment. Plant height was recorded in centimeters and volume of bolls (cms) was measured wip pe help of vernier caliper. pe crop maturity was observed on opening of bolls as pe mepod described by Fry [12]. pe data was analyzed statistically.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Plant Height

pe effect of application of micronutrients on cotton plant height (Table 1) indicates pat pere was significant (F=28.26 DF=2125 Pless than 0.05) effect of application of micronutrients on plant height. pe minimum plant height of 84.25 0.31 cm was recorded in Bonus applied plants followed by Dawn and Power micronutrients whereas pe natural control (T1) treatment plants attained pe maximum height in present study.

Table 1: Means ( SE) Yield Parameters after Application of Micronutrients Under Field Conditions During the Years 2004 and 2005

###Micronutrients###Plant height (cm)

###T1###T2###T3###T4###T5###T6###T7

###Bonus###102.660.23###95.550.31###92.400.24###90.540.34###89.250.33###84.250.31###87.090.41

###Dawn###107.330.44###98.370.41###95.460.52###92.180.25###91.700.28###85.890.33###88.160.51

###Power###109.870.34###102.090.2###97.510.32###93.990.36###93.190.29###86.720.42###88.400.35

###Micronutrients###Volume of bolls

###T1###T2###T3###T4###T5###T6###T7

###Bonus###5.190.23###6.160.34###7.480.41###7.500.35###7.790.28###7.650.34###8.230.40

###Dawn###4.850.36###5.150.45###5.600.34###6.28023###7.180.41###7.700.34###7.870.33

###Power###4.880.33###5.030.25###5.150.26###5.580.33###5.990.36###7.100.39###7.640.29

###Micronutrients###Yield (grams per plant)

###T1###T2###T3###T4###T5###T6###T7

###Bonus###61.700.36###65.810.26###69.700.33###73.340.2###79.000.37###88.520.28###91.760.27

###Dawn###58.990.25###62.620.36###68.240.28###69.860.39###73.640.44###78.650.39###85.110.34

###Power###58.270.39###60.590.41###65.560.34###66.730.41###70.570.29###71.490.37###79.970.37

###Plant height###Volume of bolls###Yield (grams per plant)

###Micronutrients###Treatments###Dates###Micronutrients###Treatments###Dates###Micronutrients###Treatments###Dates

F value###28.26###47.5###62.47###41.85###56.9###77.9###42.14###53.05###85.42

P value###0.001###0.001###0.001###0.001###0.001###0.001###0.001###0.001###0.001

Boll Volume

pe two years (2004 and 2005) results revealed pat pere was a significant (F=41.85 DF=2188 Pless than 0.05) effect of application of micronutrients (Table 1) on pe development of boll volume in cotton. pe maximum boll volume of 8.23 cm was found in cotton applied wip Bonus followed by Dawn and Power wip boll size of 7.87cm and 7.64 cm respectively. pe cotton plants (T1) which did not receive any treatments had pe minimum boll size.

Maturity of Cotton

Application of micronutrients during pe years (2004 and 2005) significantly (F=52.77 DF=2188 Pless than 0.05) delayed pe maturity of cotton. pe minimum boll opening percent (16.38%) was found in control plants after 79 days of sowing followed by micronutrients treated plots (Table 2) whereas Bonus treatment significantly delayed pe maturity of cotton plants. Which was (83.64%) after 109 days after sowing. Yield

pe results of two years (2004 and 2005) studies effect of damage simulation and use of micronutrients on cotton yield is shown in (Table 1). pe data indicated pat pere was significant effect of application of micronutrients on yield of cotton (F= 42.14 DF=2188 P 0.05). pe maximum yield was recorded wip pe application of Bonus followed by Dawn Power and minimum yield was recorded in Control plot (T1) receiving no micronutrients treatments. Micronutrients were applied to compensate for damage and enhance crop yield. pere are many studies reported in literature which support findings of present study.

Sawan et al. [13] found P ca and Zn uptake open bolls /plant and boll weight increased wip increasing P Zn and Ca application. Lint percentage and fiber properties were unaffected by fertilizer application. Rehab et al. [14] reported pat application of folifertilzer comprising 22% N 21% P 17% K and small amounts

Table 2: Effect of Application of Micronutrients on Maturity of Cotton Under Field Conditions (% Open Bolls) During the Years 2004 and 2005

###79 days###95 days###109 days

###Micronutrients

###Control###Treated###Control###Treated###Control###Treated

###Bonus###18.44###25.86###77.95###80.66###79.36###83.64

###Dawn###17.05###23.77###76.18###76.42###77.18###78.56

###Power###16.38###21.85###72.81###76.19###73.92###77.34

###Micronutrients###Treatments###Dates

###F value :###52.77###68.53###77.5

###P value :###0.001###0.001###0.001

of Mg Mo Mn B Fe Cu S Zn and N fertilizer increased pe number of open bolls per plant percent lint and yield in comparison to control. Sawan et al. [15] reported pat pe earliness of harvest and yield components increased by foliar application of Cu or Mn 25 mg/L. Lint percentage and fiber properties were not significantly affected. Lei et al. [16] Conducted field experiments wip trace elements fertilizers on cotton. pe lint yield increased 2.8 to 31.2%. Trace elements fertilizers helped to promote reduced shedding of fruiting forms and improved boll size and staple lengp of lint. Lou [17] determined effect of Mn fertilizer on cotton and found pat it increased growp number of sympodia and squares and promoted boll setting and reduced shedding of fruiting forms pus increasing yield. Jai et al. [18] reported pat zinc application (10-15 ppm) increased yield and yield components in cotton.

Table 3: Means (SE) Percent Infestation of Cotton Fruiting Bodies Per Plant after Application of Micronutrients Under

###Field Conditions During the Years 2004 and 2005

###Micronutrients###Treatments

###Week/ month

###(Bonus)###T1###T2###T3###T4###T5###T6###T7

###July 4###5.46###3.06###3.08###2.92###2.64###2.26###2.08

###August 1###5.59###3.15###3.17###2.99###2.71###2.31###2.12

###August 2###5.67###3.20###3.23###3.05###2.75###2.35###2.17

###August 3###5.85###3.29###3.30###3.13###2.83###2.42###2.22

###August 4###6.08###3.42###3.42###3.23###2.93###2.50###2.30

###September 1###6.30###3.55###3.56###3.36###3.04###2.59###2.38

###Mean(S.E)###5.830.12a###3.280.07b###3.290.07b###3.110.06bc###2.820.06c###2.410.05cd###2.210.06d

###(Dawn)###T1###T2###T3###T4###T5###T6###T7

###July 4###5.71###3.48###3.50###3.32###2.99###2.57###2.36

###August 1###5.84###3.56###3.60###3.42###3.08###2.64###2.42

###August 2###5.93###3.63###3.66###3.47###3.14###2.68###2.46

###August 3###6.12###3.73###3.76###3.55###3.21###2.75###2.52

###August 4###6.36###3.87###3.88###3.67###3.32###2.84###2.60

###September 1###6.62###4.02###4.04###3.82###3.45###2.96###2.71

###Mean(S.E)###6.100.13a###3.720.08b###3.740.08b###3.540.07bc###3.200.06c###2.740.05d###2.510.05e

###(Power)###T1###T2###T3###T4###T5###T6###T7

###July 4###5.80###3.54###3.56###3.38###3.04###2.90###2.80

###August 1###5.95###3.63###3.66###3.47###3.14###2.98###2.87

###August 2###6.05###3.70###3.72###3.53###3.20###3.04###2.92

###August 3###6.25###3.80###3.83###3.61###3.27###3.11###2.99

###August 4###6.48###3.94###3.95###3.73###3.38###3.22###3.09

###September 1###6.75###4.10###4.11###3.88###3.50###3.35###3.21

###Mean(S.E)###6.210.14a###3.790.08b###3.810.08b###3.600.07b###3.250.05c###3.100.06cd###2.980.06d

Abro et al. [19] found no significant effect on application of plant growp regulator (NAA) and micronutrients on multiplication of percent infestation of bollworms. However application of plant growp regulator and micronutrients significantly delayed pe maturity of cotton.

Pest Infestation

pe bollworm infestation percentage caused by bollworm shows in Table 3. On application of insecticides (Spinosad and Trizophos) was carried out on 4p August second spray of same insecticides was carried out on 7p September to contain pest infestation.

Results of two years (2004 and 2005) data indicated pat infestation varied from 2.08% in pe beginning of pe cotton season to 6.75% in pe end of pe season. pe analysis of variance showed significant effect of application of micronutrients on bollworm percent infestation (F=25.62 DF=2377 Pless than 0.05). Similarly treatments (F=58.36 DF=2377 Pless than 0.05) and dates (F=77.55 DF=5 377 Pless than 0.05) significantly affect pe bollworm infestation.

Moreover interaction between micronutrients and dates (F=8.40 DF=10377 Pless than 0.05) treatments and dates (F=2.79 DF=30377 Pless than 0.05) and micronutrients treatments and dates (F=1.41 DF=60377 Pless than 0.05) are highly significant.

Furpermore on overall basis analysis of data on weekly observations indicated pat bollworm infestation was significantly lower in Bonus treated treatments followed by Dawn and Power. Application of Spinosad and Trizophos insecticides had played significant role in reduction of bollworm infestation in bop (2004 and 2005) two years.

Cotton crop suffer heavy losses due to pe infestation of sucking and bollworms insect pests from sowing to harvesting stages. Growp regulators and micronutrient application provide resistant against pese pests as well as pese products also compensate pe removal of leaves and fruiting bodies to simulate insect damage (Herbert et al. [20]. Abro et al. [19] found no significant effect on application of plant growp regulator (NAA) and micronutrients on multiplication of percent infestation of bollworms. However application of plant growp regulator and micronutrients significantly delayed pe maturity of cotton. Graham et al. [21] evaluated imidacloprid as a seed treatment insecticides against insect pest in cotton and plant height percent square retention total squares bloom counts and yield increased compared wip control. Ruscoe et al. [22] studied effects of various insecticides on cumulative insect feeding and fruit initiation in cotton and recorded pat application of insecticides decreased pe duration of feeding and resulted pe fruit set. Dale and Hein Richs [23] stated pat insecticides effect plant growp vigor and yield components. Insecticides might influence plant nutrition and cytological and physiological characteristics. Improved plant growp prough insecticide stimulation could influence pe ability of pe host plants to wip stand phytophagous insects. poxton et al. [24] reported pat insecticide treated plots had significantly more bolls set (29%). Boll retention ranged from 22 to 35% in insecticide treated plots compare wip 13-22% in non-treated plots. Lint yield averaged 556 lbs/acre for insecticide treated and 284 Lbs for non-treated plots.

Herbert [25] examined pe control of insect pests in cotton crop wip selected organophosphates carbamates imidacloprid and spinosad and found pat all treatment reduced insect pest's damage and in most cases pe reduction was significant. Almost similar observations were recorded in pe present study.

REFERENCES

[1] Anonymous. All India Co-ordinated Cotton Improvement Project. Annu Rep 2006; 1: 25.

[2] Kooistra KJP Termorhuizen AJ. pe sustainability of cotton consequences for man and environment. Science Shop Wagemingen University and Res Center 2006; 223-260.

[3] GOP. Govt. of Pakistan Economic Survey 2013-14. Econ. Advisor's Wing Finance Div. Islamabad Pakistan 2014; 26.

[4] International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC). World Survey of cotton practices 2005; Vol. 23: 7-9.

[5] GOP. Govt. of Pakistan Economic Survey 2007-08. Econ. Advisor's Wing Finance Div. Islamabad Pakistan 2008.

[6] Tiwari KN Tiwari HL Sharma Dagur BS. Soil sulphur status and crop response to sulphur application in Uttar Pradesh. India Sulphur Agric 1997; 20: 60-70.

[7] Wilson LJ Sadras VO Heimoana SC Gibb D. How to succeed by doing noping cotton compensation after simulated early season pest damage. Crop Sci 2003; 43(6): 2125-2134. http://dx.doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2003.2125

[8] Rao SS Sahu MP. Effect of sulphur and foliar application of chemicals on cold-tolerance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) physiological changes. J Agron Crop Sci 1990; 167: 320-325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.1991.tb00963.x

[9] Harwood Russel. Biosynpesis in: Lipids in Plants and Microbes. George Lllen and Unwin London 1984; 103-114.

[10] Qi BZ. pe effect of sulphur nutrition on some physiological parameters in relation to carbon and nitrogen metabolism wheat and maize. Acta Agron Sin 1989; 15: 31-35.

[11]Ahmad N Rashidi SMMS Rajput A. Efficacy of plant growp regulators to manage pe insect pests of cotton. Asian J Plant Sci 2003; 2(7): 544-547. http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2003.544.547 [12]Fry KE. Earliness factors in pree pima cotton genotypes. Crop Sci 1985; 25: 1020-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1985.0011183X0025000600 29x

[13] Sawan ZM Mahmoud MH Motaz AO. Effect of phosphorus fertilization and foliar application of chelated zinc and calcium on quantitative and qualitative properties of Egyptian cotton (Gosypium barbadense L. var. Giza 75). J Agric Food Chem 1997; 45(8): 3326-3330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf950816x

[14] Rehab FT Gomaa MA Nasseem MG Darwesh GA. Studies on pe effect of foliar and soil applications of some commercial fertilizers on yield and some fiber properties of pe cotton. I- pe effect of foliar and soil application of urea and Folifertil fertilizers on growp yield and yield component of pe cotton plant. Ann Agric Sci Moshtohor 1991; 29(3): 1061-1071.

[15] Sawan ZM Mahmoud MH Greeg BR. Effect of foliar application of chelated cooper and manganese on yield components and fibre properties of Egyptian cotton (Gossypium barbadense). J Agric Sci 1993; 121(2): 199-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600077066

[16] Lei HM Wang YL Fan ZQ Lu QS Shao TA. pe mechanism in yield increase of cotton sprayed wip special trace fertilizers. China-Cottons 1994; 21(6): 13.[17] Lou B. Effect of Mn fertilizer on pe alkaline soils in cotton field. China-Cottons 1994; 21(9): 10-11.

[18]Jai-Kashyap JC Sharm VK Gupta AD Taneja Kashyap J. Effect of Zn of growp and yield characters and uptake by different parts of two cotton cultivars. Agril Sci Digest-Karnal 1997; 17(2): 83-86.

[19] Abro GH Syed TS Unar MA Zhang MS. Effect of application of plant growp regulator and micronutrients on insect pest infestation and yield components of cotton. J Entomol 2004; 1(1): 12-16.

[20] Graham CT Jenkinsand JN McCarty JC Jr. Performance of GAUCHO seed treatment insecticide against early season cotton insect pests. Pro. Beltwide Cotton Conferences San Antonio TX USA 1995; vol. 2: 917-918.[21] Ruscoe JT Andrews GL Phelps JB. Efficacy and duration of early season insecticide applications. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conferences Nashville TN USA 1996; vol. 2: 955-956.

[22]Dale D Heinrichs EA. Crop-insecticide interactions. Ecological agriculture and sustainable development: Volume 1. Proceedings of an International Conference on Ecological Agriculture: Towards Sustainable Development Chandigarh India 1997; vol. 1: 314-340.

[23] paxton PM El-Zik KM Dusek TF Schaefer K. Phenology and yield of MAR cotton genotypes wip and wipout insecticide treatments. Pros. Beltwide Cotton Conferences New Orleans LA USA 1997; vol. 1: 414-418.

[24] Herbert DA Jr. Evaluation of prips damage on maturity and yield of Virginia cotton. Pro. Beltwide Cotton Conferences San Diego California USA 1998; vol. 2: 1177-1180.[25] Herbert DA Abaye AO. Compensation from systematic square removal by Virginia cotton. Pro. Beltwide Cotton Conferences Orlando Florida USA 1999; vol. 2: 968-971
COPYRIGHT 2014 Asianet-Pakistan
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences
Date:Dec 31, 2014
Words:3893
Previous Article:Dielectric Properties of Filled Composites of Epoxy Resin.
Next Article:Antibiotic Sensitivity Pattern of Papogenic Bacterial Isolates From Diseased Clarias gariepinus From Selected Ibadan And Ikorodu Farms.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters