Growth and yield response of cotton varieties under different methods of fertilizer application

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/10/2016
Views (1038)
current_issue_feature_image
publication_file

Growth and yield response of cotton varieties under different methods of fertilizer application

Sikandar Ali Jamro, Ahmad Naqi Shah, Muhammad Irfan Ahmad, G. M. Jamro, Aaqil Khan, Waheed Ahmed Siddiqui, Alam Sher, Ghulam Ali Bugti
J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 9(4), 198-206, October 2016.
Copyright Statement: Copyright 2016; The Author(s).
License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Abstract

The cotton crop field experiment was conducted during khraif season 2012 in Soil Chemistry Section, at Agriculture Research Institute, Tandojam Sindh Pakistan. Objective of this study to evaluate the two cotton varieties (CRIS-234 and NIAB-78) were checked for the best performance against two fertilizer application methods (broadcasting method and strip method) in a three replicated randomized complete block design having net plot size of 424m2. It was noted that all the growth and yield contributing characters of cotton crop were significantly (P<0.05) affected without the exception of monopodial branches plant-1which showed non-significant (P>0.05) response to different fertilizer application methods but significant results shows (P<0.05) to varieties. It was concluded that that strip method of fertilizer application is most effective where the cotton plants utilized nutrients more efficiently and resulted higher seed cotton yields as compared to broadcasting method; whereas, cultivar NIAB-78 proved its superiority in terms of seed cotton yield and lint quality traits over its companion variety CRIS-234. It is suggested that for maximization of seed cotton yield and lint quality, the crop may be fertilized through strip fertilizer application method; and variety NIAB-78 may preferably be adopted over CRIS-234. The data thus collected were subjected to statistical analysis using Analysis of variance technique and LSD (Least Significant Test) to determine the superiority of treatment means using Mstat-C Computer Statistical Software, following Gomez and Gomez (1984).

Don Eckert DR. 2010. Efficient Fertilizer Use of Nitrogen Pp. 1-19.

Dorothy M. Stolton S. 1999. Organic cotton: From field to final product pp. 1-21.

Ebelhar MW, Welch RA. 1996. Cotton response to multiple split applications of nitrogen. p. 1345–1348. In P. Dugger and D. Richter (Ed.) 1996 Proc. Belt wide Cotton Conf. Nashville, TN. 9-12 Jan. 1996. Nat. Cotton Counc. Am. Memphis TN.

Gomes AK, Gomez AA. 1984. Statiscial procedures for agricultural research (2nd Edition). John Wiley and Sones. New yark.

Go P. 2015. Agricultural statistics of Pakistan 2014-2015. Government of Pakistan, Minstry of food, Agriculture and livestock, economic wing, Islamabad Pkistan.

Imran M, Shakeel A, Farooq J, Saeed A, Faroo A, Riaz M. 2011. Gentetic studies of fiber quality parameter and earlines related traits in upland cotton (Gossypium hirstum L.). AAB Bioflex 3(3), 151-159.

Milford GFJ, Armstrong MJ, Jarvis PJ, Houghton BJ, Bellett-Travers DM, Jones J, Leigh RA. 2000. Effects of potassium fertilizer on the yield, quality and potassium of ftake of sugar beet crops grown on soils of different potassium status. Journal of Agricultural Science 135, 1-10.

Moore SH. 1998. Optimum soil-applied nitrogen levels on a high pH alluvial soil. J. Plant Nutr 21(6), 1139-1144.

Nour A. 2015. Review nitrogen utilization features in cotton crop. 10.4236/ajps.67105 987-1002.

Sawan ZM, Mahmoud H. El-Guibali AH. 2006. Response of yield, yield components and fibre properties of Egyptian cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.) to Nitrogen fertilization and foliar applied potassium and mepiquat chloride. J. Cotton Sci 10, 224-234.

Setatou HB, Simonis AD. 1996. Effect of time and rate of nitrogen application on cotton. Fertilizer Res 43, 49-53.

Related Articles

Using chitosan made from modified chitosan (Crab shells) for dye adsorption, equilibrium, kinetic, and response surface methods

M. Priyanga, V. Gomathi Priya, P. Bhuvaneswari, T. Shanmuga Vadivu, S. Viswanathan, G. Annadurai, R. Soranam*, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(2), 85-98, February 2026.

Effects of logging regimes on woody species diversity and stand structure in community forests adjacent to the Dja biosphere reserve, Cameroon

Nanga Charnelle Prudence*, Angoni Hyacinthe, Menyene Etoundi Laurent Florent, Ifo Averti Suspense, Nkemnkeng Francoline Jong, Mbolo Marie Marguerite, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(2), 76-84, February 2026.

Analysis of soil physicochemical characteristics and heavy metal concentrations in Lourdes, Alubijid, Misamis Oriental

Prosibeth G. Bacarrisas*, Romeo M. del Rosario, Angelo Mark P. Walag, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(2), 49-58, February 2026.

Tick-borne blood parasites in small ruminants: An epidemiological study of Anaplasma sp. and Babesia sp. in Cagayan, Philippines

Kathlyn B. Cruz*, Jhaysel G. Rumbaoa, Mary Ann M. Santos, Bryan Jerome R. Bassig, John Michael U. Tabil, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(2), 34-48, February 2026.

Diversity, spatial and seasonal distribution of gastropod molluscs in Taï national park (Côte d’Ivoire): Influence of environmental factors

Doue Obin*, Memel Jean-Didié, Kouadio Behegbin Habib Herbert, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(2), 20-33, February 2026.

Assessment of heavy metal levels in spring water of Dansolihon, Cagayan de Oro City

Faith M. Guimary*, Romeo M. Del Rosario, Angelo Mark P. Walag, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(2), 12-19, February 2026.

Evaluating curriculum alignment, accuracy, and readability of ‘environmental disaster, sanitation, and waste management

Analyn I. Diola*, Priscilla R. Castro, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(2), 1-11, February 2026.