Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp1 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Effect of fertilizer and growth regulator on yield and yield attributing characters of cotton under high-density planting system

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.11461
Submitted
25 August 2025
Published
17-02-2026

Abstract

The productivity of cotton is stagnant and high-density planting system (HDPS) is the option for increasing productivity, so currently identifying genotypes in the region suited for HDPS along with canopy management to be tested so that enable to reduce the productivity gaps in the rain fed and irrigated farming as well as the diversified cotton growing areas. The present study was carried out to evaluate the effect of growth retardant and nitrogen levels on plant canopy architecture and enhancing productivity under HDPS. Three nitrogen levels (Recommended dose of nitrogen (RDN), 125 % RDN and 150 % RDN) and 3 levels of growth regulators (No growth regulator, mepiquat chloride (MC) at 20 g/ha at 60 days after sowing (DAS) and MC at 60 & 75 DAS) were studied across two HDPS suited genotypes (GISV-272 and GSHV-180) for three consecutive years (kharif 2019 to 2021). The experiment was laid out in split plot design with three replications at Research Farm of Main Cotton Research Station, Navsari Agricultural University, Surat. The plant height, number of sympodia and mean length of sympodia were significantly influenced due to nitrogen level; while, plant height, mean length of sympodia and plant width were significantly influenced due to genotypes. The growth retardant, MC significantly altered plant height, mean length of sympodia and plant width providing ample space for growth and development to both the genotypes under HDPS. The yield attributing traits and seed cotton yield were influenced greatly by the genotype and nitrogen levels. In this study, GISV 272 and 125 % of recommended nitrogen level under HDPS in rain fed region of Gujarat showed better performance and economics.

References

  1. 1. Anonymous. ICAR–All India Coordinated Research Project on Cotton: annual report 2022–23. 2023. p. A-1–A-4.
  2. 2. Mao L, Zhang L, Zhao X, et al. Crop growth, light utilization and yield of relay intercropped cotton as affected by plant density and a plant growth regulator. Field Crops Res. 2014;155:67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.09.02F1
  3. 3. Blaise D, Kranthi KR, Ravindran CD, Thalal K. High plant density can improve productivity of Asiatic cotton (Gossypium arboreum L.). Arch Agron Soil Sci. 2021;67(5)607–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2020.1741553
  4. 4. Reiter MS, Reeves DW, Burmester CH. Cotton nitrogen management in a high-residue conservation system: source, rate, method and timing. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2008;72(5):1330. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2007.0314
  5. 5. Hu T, Liu Z, Jin D, Chen Y, Zhang X, Chen D. Effects of growth regulator and planting density on cotton yield and N, P and K accumulation in direct-seeded cotton. Agronomy. 2023;13:501. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13020501
  6. 6. Zhang XX, Liu SY, Wang P, Zhou LP. Effects of different fertilizations on cotton dry matter accumulation, nutrient uptake and yield. Acta Agric Boreali Occident Sin. 2012;21:107–13. https://doi.org/10.7606/j.issn.1004-1389.2012.08.020
  7. 7. Li L. Problems and countermeasures in cotton production. Agric Technol Equip. 2008;2:28–9. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1673-887X.2008.02.017
  8. 8. Bednarz CW, Shurley WD, Anthony WS, Nichols RL. Yield, quality and profitability of cotton produced at varying plant densities. Agron J. 2005;97:235–40. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2005.0235a
  9. 9. Yin CX, Liu ZQ, Kong LL, Li Q, Zhang L, Hou YP, et al. Reducing nitrogen and increasing rice transplanting density improves yield and nitrogen use efficiency in cold regions. J Agric Resour Environ. 2022;39:1124–32. https://link.cnki.net/doi/10.13254/j.jare.2022.0110
  10. 10. Rademacher W. Growth retardants: effects on gibberellin biosynthesis and other metabolic pathways. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol. 2000;51:501–31. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.51.1.501
  11. 11. Reddy VR, Baker DN, Hodges HF. Temperature and mepiquat chloride effects on cotton canopy architecture. Agron J. 1990;82:190–5. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1990.00021962008200020004x
  12. 12. Reddy VR, Trent A, Acock B. Mepiquat chloride and irrigation effects on cotton growth and development. Agron J. 1992;84:930–3. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1992.00021962008400060004x
  13. 13. Gu S, Evers JB, Zhang L, Mao L, Zhang S, Zhao X, et al. Modelling the structural response of cotton plants to mepiquat chloride and population density. Ann Bot. 2014;114:877–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mct309
  14. 14. Luo H, Zhang Z, Wu J, Wu Z, Wen T, Tang F. Effects of mepiquat chloride and plant population density on leaf photosynthesis and carbohydrate metabolism in upland cotton. J Cotton Res. 2023;6:20:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42397-023-00157-8
  15. 15. Meredith WR Jr, Heitholt JJ, Pettigrew WT, Rayburn ST Jr. Comparison of obsolete and modern cotton cultivars at two nitrogen levels. Crop Sci. 1997;37:1453–7. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700050006x
  16. 16. Dai TT, Sheng JD, Chen BL. Effect of phosphorus fertilizer rate on dry matter accumulation and nutrient distribution in cotton. Cotton Sci. 2010;22:466–70. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-7807.2010.05.014
  17. 17. Jin LL, Xu M, Wang ZS. Relationship between seeding density and NPK fertilization in cotton. Jiangsu Agric Sci. 2017;45:81–4. https://doi.org/10.15889/j.issn.1002-1302.2017.17.021
  18. 18. Chen Y, Heng L, Hu DP, Zhang L, Hua MM, Chen DH, et al. Wheat stubble direct-seeded cotton suitable for density and chemical control under mechanized harvesting. Jiangsu J Agric Sci. 2015;31:1304–11. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2015.06.017
  19. 19. Du MW, Yang FQ, Wu N, Duan LS, Li ZH, Guo ZX, et al. Cotton yield-related traits and regulation by cotton taijin in the Yangtze River region. China Cotton. 2012;39:15–19. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-632X.2012.06.005
  20. 20. Yang CQ, Zhang GW, Liu RX. Effects of planting density and DPC on yield and fibre quality of machine-picked cotton. Jiangsu J Agric Sci. 2016;32:1288-93. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2016.06.015
  21. 21. Marousek J, Marouskova A, Periakaruppan R, Gokul GM, Anbukumaran A, Bohata A, et al. Silica nanoparticles from coir pith improve germination economics. Polymers. 2022;14(2):266. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14020266
  22. 22. Babek M, Nevena M, Josef M, Beata G, Anna M. Biochar–denitrifier interactions reduce N₂O emissions and fertilizer costs. Soil Tillage Res. 2025;248:106405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2024.106405
  23. 23. Priyanka K, SreeRekha M, Lakshman K, Sujani Rao CH. Influence of plant growth regulators in cotton under HDPS. Pharma Innov. 2021;10(7):329–33.
  24. 24. Sabale SS, Lahane GR, Dhakulkar SJ. Effect of plant growth regulators on growth and yield of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2017;6(11):978-89. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.611.115
  25. 25. Watson D. The physiological basis of variation in yield. Adv Agron. 1952;4:101–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60307-7
  26. 26. Panhwar RB, Akbar A, Panhwar BU, Panhwar GA, Bai-li F. Effects of plant spacing and nitrogen levels on cotton yield. Int J Sci Environ Technol. 2018;7(1):313–24.
  27. 27. Ibrahim IAE, Yehia WMB, Saleh FH, Lamlom SF, Ghareeb RY, El-Banna AAA, et al. Impact of plant spacing and nitrogen rates on Egyptian cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.). Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:916734. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.916734
  28. 28. Kipling S, Balkcom C, Monks D, Bednarz SM. Mepiquat chloride applications across nitrogen rates in conservation tillage cotton. J Cotton Sci. 2022;26:1–13. https://doi.org/10.56454/LTOH4319
  29. 29. Patel BR, Chaudhari PP, Chaudhary MM, Patel KP. Effect of mepiquat chloride on Bt cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) under HDPS. Indian J Agron. 2021;66(1):67–73. https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v66i1.2838
  30. 30. Murtza K, Ishfaq M, Akbar N, Hussain S, Anjum SA, Bukhari NA, et al. Effect of mepiquat chloride on cotton phenology, yield and quality. Agronomy. 2022;12:1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12051200
  31. 31. Muhammad I, Khezir H, Noor-ul-Islam. Cotton response to mapiquat chloride and nitrogen under ultra narrow plant spacing. Asian J Plant Sci. 2007;6(1):87–92. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2007.87.92
  32. 32. Chen Z, Tao X, Khan A, Tan DK, Luo H. Biomass accumulation and photosynthetic traits of cotton affected by irrigation and nitrogen. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:173. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00173
  33. 33. Wang L, Mu C, Du M, et al. Mepiquat chloride reduces internode elongation via gibberellic acid suppression in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Plant Sci. 2014;225:15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2014.05.005
  34. 34. Tung SA, Huang Y, Hafeez A, Ali S, Khan A, Souliyanonh B, et al. Mepiquat chloride effects under late sowing and high density. Field Crops Res. 2018;215:59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.09.032
  35. 35. Raja GV, Somasundaram S, Ragavan T, Anantharaju P, Amutha R. Mepiquat chloride and foliar nutrition effects under HDPS. Plant Sci Today. 2024;11(sp 4):1–9. https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.5921
  36. 36. Luo Z, Liu H, Li W, Zhao Q, et al. Reduced nitrogen and increased plant density effects on cotton growth and uptake. Field Crops Res. 2018;218:150–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.01.003
  37. 37. Sisodia R, Khamparia S. American cotton varieties influenced by plant density and fertility. J Cotton Res Dev. 2007;21:35–40.
  38. 38. Dharani K, Ravichandran V, Anandakumar S, Sritharan N, Sakthivel N. Growth retardant and defoliant effects on cotton yield. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2022;34(20):635–44. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2022/v34i2031198
  39. 39. Dong H, Li W, Eneji AE, Zhang D. Nitrogen rate and density effects on cotton senescence in saline soil. Field Crops Res. 2012;126:137–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2011.10.005
  40. 40. Wang Y, Chen W, Chu P, Wan S, Yang M, Wang M, et al. Mapping a major dwarfing QTL in Brassica napus. BMC Plant Biol. 2016;16(1):178. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-016-0865-6
  41. 41. Shahbaz AT, Ying H, Abdul H, Saif A, Andanda L, Muhammad SC, et al. Morpho-physiological and molecular effects of mepiquat chloride in cotton. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2020;20:2073–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-020-00276-0
  42. 42. Afzal MN, Tariq M, Ahmad M, Mubeen K, et al. Cotton lint mass and fibre properties in response to nitrogen and density. Pak J Agric Res. 2019;32(2). https://doi.org/10.17582/journalpjar/2019/322229240
  43. 43. Kliestik T, Kral P, Bugaj M, Durana P. AI-driven digital twin systems in industrial metaverse. Equilib Q J Econ Econ Policy. 2024;19(2):429–61. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.3108
  44. 44. Stefko R, Frajtova Michalikova K, Strakova J, Novak A. Digital twin-based cyber–physical manufacturing systems. Equilib Q J Econ Econ Policy. 2025;20(1):389–425. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.3557
  45. 45. Chatterjee S, Kliestik T, Rowland Z, Bugaj M. Extended-reality industrial metaverse technologies. Oeconomia Copernicana. 2025;16(1):125–61. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.3596
  46. 46. Zvarikova K, Gajanova L, Horak J. CSR performance as competitive advantage in Central Europe. Oeconomia Copernicana. 2024;15(3):991–1020. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.3247
  47. 47. Pavolova P, Bakalar T, Kysela K, Klimek M, Hajduova Z, Zawada M. Investment analysis across industries. Acta Montan Slovaca. 2021;26(1):161–70. https://doi.org/10.46544/AMS.v26i1.14
  48. 48. Akbari M, Loganathan N, Tavokolian H, Mardani A, Streimikiene D. Micro-structural shocks and private investment behavior. Acta Montan Slovaca. 2021;26(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.46544/AMS.v26i1.01

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.