Humik Asidin Farklı Uygulama Yöntemlerinin Pamukta Verim, Bitki Gelişimi ve Lif Kalitesine Etkisi

Bu çalışma humik asidin farklı uygulama yöntemlerinin pamuktaverim, bitki gelişimi ve lif kalitesine etkisini belirlemek amacıylayürütülmüştür. Araştırma Siirt Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi TarlaBitkileri Bölümü deneme alanında 2016 yılında, tesadüf bloklarıdeneme desenine göre 4 tekrarlamalı olarak yürütülmüş ve denemedemateryal olarak Stoneville 468 pamuk çeşidi ile TKİ Hümas humikasidi kullanılmıştır. Denemede 7 farklı uygulama yer almıştır. Humikasit uygulamalarının kütlü pamuk verimi, lif verimi, bitki başına kozasayısı ve koza kütlü ağırlığı özelliklerine önemli etkisinin olduğubelirlenmiştir. Çiçeklenme gün sayısı, koza açma gün sayısı, bitkiboyu, odun dalı sayısı, meyve dalı sayısı, ilk meyve dalı boğum sayısı,boğum sayısı, boy/nod oranı, koza ağırlığı, 100 tohum ağırlığı, çırçırrandımanı, ilk el kütlü oranı ile lif teknolojik özellikleri üzerineuygulamaların önemli bir etkisinin olmadığı tespit edilmiştir.Çiçeklenme öncesi dönemde yaprağa humik asit uygulaması ile kütlüpamuk verimi, lif verimi ve koza sayısı değerlerinin arttığı, pamuktahumik asit uygulamasının bitkinin çiçeklenme öncesi dönemde yeşilaksama uygulanmasının daha uygun olacağı sonucuna varılmıştır.

Effect of Different Application Methods of Humic Acid on Cotton Yield, Plant Growth and Fiber Quality

This study was carried out to determine the effect of different humic acid application methods on cotton yield, plant development and fiber quality. The study was conducted as randomized complete block design with four replications at the Field Crops Department experiment area, Faculty of Agriculture, Siirt University. Stoneville 468 cotton variety and TKI Humas humic acid were used as material Seven different humic acid applications were performed. The results showed that the seed cotton yield, fiber yield, number of boll per plant and boll seed cotton weight affected from different applications, while days of first flowering, days of first boll opening, plant height, number of monopodial branches per plant, number of sympodial branches per plant, node number of first sympodial branches, number of nodes per plant, height/node ratio, weight of boll, 100 seed weight, ginning percentage, first picking percentage and fiber technological properties not affected from different humic acid applications. The results indicated that application of humic acid at the pre-flowering stage increased the seed cotton yield, fiber yield and number of bolls per plant. It was concluded that application of humic acid at pre-flowering stage to green parts of plants was more appropriate than other applications in cotton.

PDF

___

Ahmed AHH, Darwish E, Hamoda SAF, Alobaidy MG 2013. Effect of Putrescine and Humic Acid on Growth, Yield and Chemical Composition of Cotton Plants Grown Under Saline Stil Conditions. American-Eurasian J. Agric. &Environ. Sci, 13 (4): 479-497.
Anonim 2018. TC Gümrük ve Ticaret Bakanlığı Kooperatifçilik Genel Müdürlüğü, 2017 Yılı Pamuk Raporu (Erişim Tarihi: 03.12.2018).
Anonim 2018b. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Bitkisel Üretim İstatistikleri. (Erişim Tarihi:20.03.2019).
Bakry BA, Taha MH, Abdelgawad ZA, Abdallah MMS 2014. The Role of Humic Acid and Proline on Growth, Chemical Constituents and Yield Quantity and Quality of Three Flax Cultivars Grown Under Saline Soil Conditions. Agricultural Sciences, 5: 1566-1575.
Baskaran R, Kavimani R 2011. Effect of Drip Fertigation on Growth and Yield of Cotton. https://www.icac.org/meetings/wcrc/wcrc5/Pdf_File/ 164.pdf
Başalma D 2014. Effects of Humic Acid on the Emergence and Seedling Growth of Safflower (Carthamus Tinctorius L.). Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, (Special Issue 2): 1402-1406.
Başbağ S 2008. Effects of Humic Acid Application on Yield and Quality of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Asian Journal of Chemistry, 20 (3): 1961-1966.
Boquet DJ, Moser EB 2003. Boll Retention and Boll Size among Intrasympodial Fruiting Sites in Cotton. Crop Sci 43 (1): 195-201.
Esmaili S, Tadayon MR, Tadayyon A, Alhossainy MR 2016. Response of Some Quantitative and Qualitative Traits of Cotton Cultivars to Foliar Application of Humic Acid in Saline Soil. Journal of Oil Plant Production, 3(1): 1-14.
Haroon R, Khattak A, Muhammad D 2010. Seed Cotton Yield and Nutrient Concentrations as Influenced by Lignitic Coal Derived Humic Acid in Salt-Affected Soils. Sarhad J. Agric, 26 (1): 43-49.
Kachroo D 1999. Effects of Humic Acid on Cotton (G. hirsutum L.). Annals of Agricultural Research, 20 (3): 372-373.
Kaptan MA, Aydın M 2012. Humik Asidin Pamuk (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Gelişimi ve Kalite Özellikleri Üzerine Etkileri. SAÜ Fen Edebiyat Dergisi, 1: 291-299.
Karademir E, Karademir Ç, Kireç A 2019. Pamukta Koza Konum ve Dağılımının Verime Etkisi. 1. Uluslararası Harran Multidisipliner Çalışmalar Kongresi, 8-10 Mart 2019. Şanlıurfa
Kaya M, Atak M, Çiftçi CY, Ünver S 2005. Çinko ve Humik Asit Uygulamalarının Ekmeklik Buğday (Triticum aestivum L.)’ da Verim ve Bazı Verim Öğeleri Üzerine Etkileri. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9 (3): 1-8.
Khan AR, Surraiya M 2002. Plant Growth Stimulation of Lignite Humic Acids. Part-III: Effect of Ammonium Humate on Seed Cotton Yield and Fiber Quality. Pakistan Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 45 (5): 291-294.
Kononova MM 1961. Soil Organic Matter, Its Nature, Its Role in Soil Formation and Soil Fertility. Pergamon Press Ltd. Lib. Oxford. https://www.elsevier.com/books/soil-organic-matter /kononova/978-0-08-011470-5
Malik KA, Azam F 1985. Effect of Humic Acid on Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Seedling Growth. Environmental and Experimental Botany. 25: 245- 252.
Moshtaghi EA, Silva JAT, Shahsavar AR 2011. Effects of Foliar Application of Humic Acid and Gibberellic Acid on Mist-Rooted Olive Cuttings. Fruit, Vegetable and Cereal Science and Biotechnology, 5 (Special issue 2): 76-79.
Munro JM 1971. An analysis of earliness in cotton. Cotton Grow. Rev., 48: 28-41.
Ören Y, Başal H 2006. Humik Asit ve Çinko (Zn) Uygulamalarının Pamukta (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Verim, Verim Komponentleri ve Lif Kalite Özelliklerine Etkisi. ADÜ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2): 77 - 83.
Piccolo A, Nardi S, Concheri G., 1992. Structural Characteristics of Humic Substances as Regulated to Nitrate Uptake and Growth Regulation in Plant Systems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 24: 373- 380.
Prado MRV, Weber OLS, Moraes MF, Santos CLR, Tunes MS, Ramos FT 2016. Humic Substances on Soybeans Grown Under Water Stress. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 17 (21): 2405-2413.
Rady MM, Abd El-Mageed TA, Abdurrahman HA, Mahdi AH 2016. Humic Acid Application Improves Field Performance of Cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.) Under Saline Conditions. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 26 (2): 487-493.
Richie GL, Bednarz CW, Jost PH, Brown SM 2004. Cotton Growth and Development. http://www.ugacotton.com/vault/file/UGA-Ext.- Pub.-Cotton-Growth-Development-2004.pdf
Şivka Y 1988.Humik Asit (Herbex)'in Pamuğun N-P Gübrelemesine Etkisi. Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Toprak Ana Bilim Dalı, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, 73 sayfa, Ankara.
Tan KH 2003. Humic Matter in Soil and Environment, Principles and Controversies, Marcel Dekker, Inc. 270 Madison Avenue, New York.
Tejada M, Gonzalez JL 2003. Effects of Foliar Application of a By Product of The Two-Step Olive Oil Mill Process on Maize Yield. Agronomie, 23: 617-623.
Temiz M, Karahan E, Koca YK 2009. Effects of Humic Substances on Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Asian Journal of Chemistry, 21 (3): 1983-1989.
Visser SA 1985. Physiological Action of Humic Substances on Microbial Cells. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 17: 457-462.
Wu J, Jenkins JN, McCarty JC, Zhu J 2004. Genetic association of yield with its component traits in a recombinant inbred line population of cotton. Euphytica 140: 171-179.
Xudan X 1986. The Effect of Foliar Application of Fulvic Acid on Water Use, Nutrient Uptake and Wheat Yield. Journal of Agricultural Research, 37: 343-350.
Xue SC, Liu DC, Tong DY, Han JM, Li YR 1994. Studies on the Effects and Mechanism of Humic Acid (HA) Compound Fertilizer. Journal of Hebei Agricultural University, 17 (1): 24-27.
Wang P, Chang-yan T, Zhang X, Mo H 2012. Effect of Different Humic Acid Liquid Fertilizer on Cotton Growth and Soil Fertility. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas. http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/ CJFDTOTAL-GHDQ201204014.htm,(Erişim Tarihi: 20.03.2019).
Yang A, Liu M, Tang B, Xia Z 1996. Research on The Effect of HA-K Applied to Cotton. China Cottons, 26 (7): 12-14.
Yazdani B, Nıkbakht A, Etemadi N 2014. Physiological Effects of Different Combinations of Humic and Fulvic Acid on Gerbera. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 45:1357–1368.