International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research
Abbreviation: IJIAAR | ISSN (Online): 2602-4772 | DOI: 10.29329/ijiaar

Original article    |    Open Access
International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research 2024, Vol. 8(4) 336-353

Effect of Water Deficit and Sulfur Doses on Fiber Yield and Quality in Cotton

Berkant Ödemiş, Batuhan Akgöl, Deniz Can & Yaşar Akışcan

pp. 336 - 353   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijiaar.2024.1109.6

Publish Date: January 02, 2025  |   Single/Total View: 18  |  Single/Total Download: 23


Abstract

The study was carried out in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (Amik Plain) using the Carisma cotton variety with a randomized block design, split plots, and three replications. Various irrigation levels were implemented: full field capacity (I100), 66% (I66), 33% (I33), and non-irrigated (I0). Additionally, sulfur doses were applied as foliar sulfur at 150 ml da⁻¹ (S1), 250 ml da⁻¹ (S2), 350 ml da⁻¹ (S3), and a control (S0). The impact of these treatments was evaluated based on factors such as fiber yield, evapotranspiration, leaf sulfur concentration, and fiber quality characteristics.

Evapotranspiration (ET) ranged from 299 mm to 1096 mm in the first year and from 247 mm to 995 mm in the second year. In comparison to the control (K0), evapotranspiration slightly decreased with increasing sulfur doses in the first year but increased in the second year. Water restriction led to a reduction in both fiber yield and evapotranspiration in both years. Fiber yield decreased in the first year but increased in the second year with higher sulfur doses. The highest fiber yield was observed in the fully irrigated (I100) treatments in both years (227.2 kg da⁻¹ and 230.2 kg da⁻¹). Among sulfur doses, the highest fiber yield was obtained with S0 (175.8 kg da⁻¹) in the first year and S1 (185.5 kg da⁻¹) in the second year. With an increase in water restriction, ginning percentage efficiency improved in the first year but displayed an inconsistent trend in the second year. The highest ginning percentage efficiency was achieved with the S2 dose in the first year and the S1 dose in the second year, on average.

The effects of irrigation water deficit and sulfur doses on fiber quality varied by year. Water stress influenced the spinning consistency index, fiber fineness, fiber length, and fiber uniformity in both years. In the first year, short fiber content and fiber strength were affected, while in the second year, fiber elongation and fiber brightness showed significant changes. Sulfur doses had fewer effects on the parameters; in the first year, fiber fineness and yellowness were impacted, whereas in the second year, the spinning consistency index, fiber uniformity, short fiber content, and fiber strength were influenced.

Keywords: Cotton, Water deficit, Sulfur, Fiber quality traits


How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Odemis, B., Akgol, B., Can, D., & Akiscan, Y. (2024). Effect of Water Deficit and Sulfur Doses on Fiber Yield and Quality in Cotton. International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research, 8(4), 336-353. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijiaar.2024.1109.6

Harvard
Odemis, B., Akgol, B., Can, D. and Akiscan, Y. (2024). Effect of Water Deficit and Sulfur Doses on Fiber Yield and Quality in Cotton. International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research, 8(4), pp. 336-353.

Chicago 16th edition
Odemis, Berkant, Batuhan Akgol, Deniz Can and Yasar Akiscan (2024). "Effect of Water Deficit and Sulfur Doses on Fiber Yield and Quality in Cotton". International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research 8 (4):336-353. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijiaar.2024.1109.6

References
  1. Abbas, Q., & Ahmad, S. (2018). Effect of different sowing times and cultivars on cotton fiber quality under stable cotton-wheat cropping system in Southern Punjab, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Life & Social Sciences, 16(2), 77-84. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anonymous (2013). Aydın ticaret borsası 2013 yılı pamuk raporu. http://aydinicaretborsasi.org .tr/pdf/pamuk-raporu.pdf [Google Scholar]
  3. Anonymous (2017). [Title not provided]. http://www.cukobirlik.com.tr/?tekd=777&ikid=1& syf=*PAMUK*23.03.2017 16:19 [Google Scholar]
  4. Anonymous (2024a). [Title not provided]. https://kadirbolukbasi.wordpress.com/2008/08/09/ pamuk-lif/ [Google Scholar]
  5. Anonymous (2024b). Classification of cotton. America’s Cotton Producers and Importers. Service marks/trademarks of Cotton Incorporated. https://www.cottoninc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Classification-of-Cotton.pdf [Google Scholar]
  6. Ackerson, R. C. (1985). Osmoregulation in cotton in response to water-stress. III. Effects of phosphorus fertility. Plant Physiology, 77, 309–312. [Google Scholar]
  7. Akgöl, B. (2012). Pamukta (Gossypium hirsutum L.) verim, kalite ve kuraklığa dayanıklılık özelliklerinin kalıtımı. [Doctoral dissertation, Çukurova University]. [Google Scholar]
  8. Alhalabi, K. (2007). Suriye ve Türkiye’de üretilen pamuk liflerinin özelliklerinin ve eğrilme yeteneklerinin karşılaştırılmalı incelemesi. [Master's thesis, Çukurova University, Adana]. [Google Scholar]
  9. Avşar, O., & Karademir, E. (2022). Evaluation of quality parameters in cotton production (Gossypium hirsutum L.) under water stress conditions. Journal of Applied Life Sciences and Environment, 55(1), 45-61. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bakhsh, A., Rehman, M., Salman, S., & Ullah, R. (2019). Evaluation of cotton genotypes for seed cotton yield and fiber quality traits under water stress and non-stress conditions. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 35(1), 161-170. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bastug, R., & Tekinel, O. (1989). Water production functions of cotton under limited irrigation water conditions. Doga Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 13, 163-168. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bek, Y., & Efe, E. (1988). Araştırma ve deneme metotları I. Çukurova Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi, Ders Kitabı: No:71, 395 s. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bos, M. G., Richard, K., Allen, G., & Molden, D. J. (2009). Evapotranspiration: Water requirements for irrigation and the environment. [Google Scholar]
  14. Brück, H., Payne, W. A., & Sattelmacher, B. (2000). Effects of phosphorus and water supply on yield, transpirational water-use efficiency, and carbon isotope discrimination of pearl millet. Crop Science, 40, 120–125. [Google Scholar]
  15. Burt, C. M., O’Connor, K., & Ruehr, T. (1995). Fertigation. Irrigation Training and Research Center, California Polytechnic State University. [Google Scholar]
  16. Campbell, B. T., & Bauer, R. J. (2007). Improving the precision of cotton performance trials conducted on highly variable soils of the southeastern USA coastal plains. Plant Breeding, 126, 622–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2007.01397.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. Chan, K. X., Wirtz, M., Phua, S. Y., Estavillo, G. M., & Pogson, B. J. (2013). Balancing metabolites in drought. The Sulfur Assimilation Conundrum, 18(1), 18–29. [Google Scholar]
  18. Çoşkun, Z. (2015). Harran ovasında damla sulamanın pamuk verimine etkisi. [Master's thesis, Harran University]. [Google Scholar]
  19. Davis, R. F., Earl, H. J., & Timper, P. (2014). Effect of simultaneous water deficit stress and Meloidogyne incognita infection on cotton yield and fiber quality. Journal of Nematology, 46(2), 108-118. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dietz, K. J. (1989). Recovery of spinach leaves from sulfate and phosphate deficiency. Journal of Plant Physiology, 134, 551-557. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fox, R. L., Olson, R. A., & Rhoades, H. F. (1964). Evaluating the sulfur status of soils by plants and soil tests. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, 28, 243-246. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hu, Y., Burucs, Z., & Schmidhalter, U. (2008). Effect of foliar fertilization application on the growth and mineral nutrient content of maize seedlings under drought and salinity. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 54, 133–141. [Google Scholar]
  23. Jie, X., Dong, Q., Li-Na, Z., & Zhou, L. (2008). Effects of sulfur nutrition on the chlorophyll content of maize leaf under zinc and drought stress. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kacar, B., & Katkat, V. (2007). Bitki besleme. Nobel Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  25. Karademir, Ç., Karademir, E., Ekinci, R., & Berekatoğlu, K. (2011). Yield and fiber quality properties of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) under water stress and non-stress conditions. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(59), 12575-12583. [Google Scholar]
  26. Karam, F., Lahoud, R., Masaad, R., Daccache, A., Mounzer, O., & Rouphael, Y. (2006). Water use and lint yield response of drip irrigated cotton to the length of irrigation season. Agricultural Water Management, 85, 287–295. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kazgöz, C. D. (2017). Yapraktan uygulanan farklı kükürt dozlarının pamuk bitkisinin (Gossypium hirsutum L.) değişik gelişme dönemlerindeki su stresinin azaltılması üzerine etkileri. [Master's thesis, Mustafa Kemal University, Hatay]. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kazgöz Candemir, D., & Odemis, B. (2021). Effects of foliar sulfur applications on the quality of cotton plant fiber under water stress conditions. Fibres & Textiles in Eastern Europe, 29(6), 37-43. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0015.2720 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Krieg, D. R. (1997). Genetic and environmental factors affecting productivity of cotton. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Production Research Conference, 1347. [Google Scholar]
  30. Li-Na, Z., Dong, Q., Li-Li, S., & Wei-Jie, Y. (2005). Effects of sulfur fertilization on the contents of photosynthetic pigments and MDA under drought stress. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica. [Google Scholar]
  31. Loka, D. A. (2012). Effect of water-deficit stress on cotton during reproductive development. [Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville]. [Google Scholar]
  32. Loka, D. A., & Oosterhuis, D. (2012). Water stress and reproductive development in cotton. Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704. [Google Scholar]
  33. Loka, D. A., & Oosterhuis, D. M. (2014). Water-deficit stress effects on pistil biochemistry and leaf physiology in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). South African Journal of Botany, 93, 131–136. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lokhande, S., & Reddy, K. R. (2014). Reproductive and fiber quality responses of upland cotton to moisture deficiency. Agronomy Journal, 106(3), 1060-1069. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj13.053 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. Luz, M. J., Bezerra, J. R. C., Barreto, A. N., Santos, J. W., & Amorim, N. M. S. (1997). Effect of water stress on cotton yield and fibre quality. Revista de Oleaginosas e Fibroras, 1, 125-133. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ma, Q. F., Turner, D. W., Levy, D., & Cowling, W. A. (2004). Solute accumulation and osmotic adjustment in leaves of Brassica oilseeds in response to soil water deficit. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 55, 939–945. [Google Scholar]
  37. Mahmood, S., Irfan, M., Raheel, F., & Hussain, A. (2006). Characterization of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) varieties for growth and productivity traits under water deficit conditions. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 8, 796-800. [Google Scholar]
  38. Marur, C. J. (1991). Comparison of net photosynthetic rate, stomatal resistance, and yield of two cotton cultivars under water stress. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 26, 153-161. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mathangadeera, R. W., Hequet, E. F., Kelly, B., Dever, J. K., & Kelly, C. M. (2020). Importance of cotton fiber elongation in fiber processing. Industrial Crops and Products, 147, 112217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112217 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Osborne, S., & Banks, J. C. (2006). The effects of water stress during bloom on lint yield, fiber quality and price. Beltwide Cotton Conferences, San Antonio, Texas, 1679-1780. [Google Scholar]
  41. Orgaz, F., Mateos, L., & Fereres, E. (1992). Season length and cultivar determine optimum evapotranspiration deficit in cotton. Agronomy Journal, 84, 700-706. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ödemiş B., Akışcan Y., Akgöl B., Can D. (2022) Su stresi koşullarında uygulanan yapraktan kükürt uygulamasının pamuğun verim, bitki su tüketimi ve bazı fizyolojik özelliklerine etkileri. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 27(2) : 202-212. DOI: 10.37908/mkutbd.1076251 [Google Scholar]
  43. Özgen, B. (2002). Comparison of quality characteristics of yarns spun from Aegean cotton fibres and their mixtures with Southeast Anatolian cotton fibre. [Master's thesis, Dokuz Eylul University]. [Google Scholar]
  44. Penna, J. C. V., Verhalen, L. M., Kirkham, M. B., & McNew, R. W. (1998). Screening cotton genotypes for seedling drought tolerance. Plant Genetics, Genetics and Molecular Biology, 21(4), 433-440. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-47571998000400023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Pettigrew, W. T. (2004). Physiological consequences of moisture deficit stress in cotton. Crop Science, 10.2135/cropsci2004.1265. [Google Scholar]
  46. Studer, C. (1993). Interactive effects of N-, P-, K-nutrition and water stress on the development of young maize plants. [Ph.D. thesis, ETH Zurich, Switzerland]. [Google Scholar]
  47. Wiggins, M. S., Leib, B. G., Mueller, T. C., & Main, C. L. (2014). Cotton growth, yield, and fiber quality response to irrigation and water deficit in soil of varying depth to a sand layer. Journal of Cotton Science, 18, 145-152. [Google Scholar]
  48. Xinhua, Y., Gwathmey, O., Main, C., & Johnson, A. (2011). Effects of sulfur application rates and foliar zinc fertilization on cotton lint yields and quality. Agronomy Journal, 103(6), 1794-1803. [Google Scholar]
  49. Zonta, J. H., Brandão, Z. N., Rodrigues, J. I. S., & Sofıattı, V. (2017). Cotton response to water deficits at different growth stages. Mossoró, 30(4), 980–990. [Google Scholar]
  50. Nazar, A., Iftikhar, M., Shahbaz, B., & Ishaq, W. (2012). Influence of irrigation water types and stress levels on cotton fiber and yarn quality for different varieties. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 49(4), 597-601. [Google Scholar]