Next Article in Journal
Detection and Positioning of Camellia oleifera Fruit Based on LBP Image Texture Matching and Binocular Stereo Vision
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Chloride Salicylic Acid Ionic Liquids on Cotton Topping and High-Temperature Resistance
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Pedoclimate and Agronomical Management on Yield and Quality of Common Wheat Varieties (Triticum aestivum L.) in Afghanistan
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effect of New Nano-Released 1,1-Dimethyl-Piperidinium Chloride (DPC) Drip Application on Cotton Agronomic Traits
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Brief Report

The Correlation of Machine-Picked Cotton Defoliant in Different Gossypium hirsutum Varieties

1
Cash Crops Research Institute of Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Science (XAAS), Urumqi 830001, China
2
Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, Fifth Division, Eighty-Third Regiment, Economic Development Office, Jinhe 833400, China
3
Engineering Research Centre of Cotton, Ministry of Education/College of Agriculture, Xinjiang Agricultural University, 311 Nongda East Road, Urumqi 830052, China
4
Cotton Group, Plant Breeding and Genetics Division, Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB), NIAB-C Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences (PIEAS), Nilor Islamabad Pakistan, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Agronomy 2023, 13(8), 2151; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13082151
Submission received: 5 June 2023 / Revised: 17 July 2023 / Accepted: 19 July 2023 / Published: 16 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Chemical Regulation and Mechanized Cultivation Technology of Cotton)

Abstract

:
Cotton mechanized harvesting is the development direction of cotton production. The rapid development of mechanized cotton harvesting in Xinjiang has significantly increased the efficiency of cotton harvesting and reduced the harvesting cost. However, in the rapid development of mechanized cotton harvesting, there are also the problems of net yield, recovery rate and poor harvesting quality, which lead to the poor quality competitiveness of mechanized cotton harvesting. In order to solve the problem of mechanized cotton loss, the key is to reduce the problem of cotton miscellaneous, and breed cotton varieties suitable for mechanized harvesting. The purpose of this study was to clarify the key trait correlation of defoliation through the establishment and association analysis of foliation and deciduous phenotype indicators in cotton. In this study, the phenotypic indexes of defoliation and deciduous traits were established through the comprehensive analysis of the defoliation rate of 273 cotton germplasm resources and other 11 related phenotypic traits in the field, in order to provide guidance for the breeding and production of cotton varieties collected by breeders. In addition to peeling rate, an analysis of the association between 11 agronomic parameters and peeling rate and hanging rate revealed that the number of effective branches, chlorophyll SPAD value, fruit branch angle, and hanging rate have substantial correlation in 3 years. Hence The hanging rate, fruit branch angle, effective branch number, and chlorophyll SPAD value can be used as the evaluation indicators of varieties for peeling ability trait index.

1. Introduction

China is a large cotton consumer, but it is also a mega cotton producer. Cotton is a labor-intensive field cash crop, with various field production processes, from planting to the collection of more than 20 workers per. The situation of high cost, low efficiency and poor quality makes China’s cotton production facing severe challenges, and it is urgent and significant to accelerate the realization of the full mechanization of cotton production. Cotton harvesting through mechanization is a systematic engineering process based mainly on the combination of agricultural machinery and agronomy, research of cotton varieties breeding, planting, plant protection, chemical control, top leaf ripening, and mechanical harvest. The second major technology has been clear for the mechanised cotton planting mode, to raise the level of cotton production and mechanisation. In recent years, due to the transfer of rural labor force, the sharp rise of labor prices and the requirement for high-quality of cotton, the cotton planting in Xinjiang has encountered many difficulties. At the same time, the CPC (Communist Party of China) Central Committee and the government of the autonomous region have actively guided new technologies, new models and new methods in Xinjiang for production practice and exploration, and strive to break through the existing bottlenecks and realize the full mechanization, high efficiency, standardization and green cotton production in Xinjiang. At present, mechanical cotton mining has been widely promoted in the cotton area of Xinjiang, China. By 2020, the area of Xinjiang cotton machine mining had increased to 28.176 million mu, while the area of northern Xinjiang machine mining had reached to 15 million mu, representing a 60% increase. However, there are two main problems restricting the promotion progress of mechanized cotton mining. First, China has not introduced any technical measures such as peeling and ripening for the mutual application of cotton varieties [1]. Second, although blind introduction leads to high yield, the germplasm resources themselves are not sensitive to defoliation agent, with low defoliation rate, poor quality, high miscellaneous rate and low net recovery rate, and the number of ginning cleaning process also increases greatly, which damages the fiber quality of cotton and greatly reduces the grade and quality of cotton [2]. Mechanical harvesting may reduce the fiber density [3]. Due to its unique ecological and climatic conditions, high large-scale planting and high-level mechanization operation, Xinjiang is by far the most suitable agricultural production area to promote and implement remote sensing technology and precision agriculture in China [4]. Lv Xin [5]. It is proposed that the GIS decision support system can provide fertilization decision and consultation for cotton, and can better cooperate with mechanized production. With Chen Xuegeng [6], the promotion of the proposed precision planting technology in Xinjiang cotton planting level to a new level, will bring greater economic and social benefits, and will solve the key problems in the cotton precision engineering system.
The influence of cotton varieties on the effect of mechanical cotton picking and removing leaves is mainly manifested in three aspects. The advantage of the short reproductive period variety is its early maturity, high spitting rate, good leaf effect, good boll weight, yield, and maturity despite having a minor impact is beneficial to machines. The varieties with long fertility period, thick leaf blade mature late and the leaf effect is poor, while the boll weight, yield, quality, and maturity influences are not machine friendly. On the other hand, mechanized cotton picking demands compact cotton plant type, short fruit branches, “fried sticks” fewer with concentrated bolls, middle and lower leaves suitable for dosing, strong peeling effect, and ultimately this plant type is ideal for peeling agent spraying and mechanical harvesting operations. The third factor is the sensitivity of cotton varieties. Cotton cultivars that are defoliation sensitive grow quickly, have a high cotton boll spitting rate, a good defoliation effect resulting a high net production rate, and suffer minimal cotton quality loss throughout the mechanical cotton picking process. Many factors determining the effect of defoliation have been discovered by domestic and international researchers in recent years. For example, Wang Xiaojing et al. found that the defoliation agent interfered with the balance of hormones in the plant to achieve the purpose of defoliation [7]. Similarly, Hu Junxia sprayed the cotton and she found that the peeling rate of cotton was significantly improved, and the yield was slightly increased [8]. Song Min and Qu Yanying analyzed the correlation between the machine-picked cotton plant type and the defoliation rate, and found that when the fruit branches were decreased significantly, but the effect of the leaves on the defoliation effect was not obvious [9]. Zhang Qiang, Zhao Bingmei and others evaluated the mechanical cotton varieties with good defoliation effect through cluster analysis [10]. In the field research results, Zhu Yijie and the Hong-xia Zhao team discovered that after leaf rate effect difference is significantly different in different crop varieties. Leaf soluble sugar concentration and soluble protein content levels change dramatically between varieties, and there is a significant negative association between leaf rate and soluble sugar content in each variety [11]. Zhou Tingting et al. found that leaves of some cotton varieties withered after the spraying of foliation agent, but did not fall, resulting in high mixed rate [12]. Defoliation agent is absorbed through cotton leaves, and it can finally act on the petiole off the layer, affecting the hormone balance, soluble sugar content and a series of physiological reactions to achieve the purpose of defoliation. The density of fruit branches will affect the absorption and utilization efficiency of defoliation agent in cotton [13].
Different cotton varieties have different sensitivity to cotton foliage agent, and the indicators to measure the sensitivity of mechanized cotton varieties are unclear. In this study, we comprehensively analyzed the defoliation rate, pruning rate and agronomic traits of 273 Gossypium hirsutum varieties around the world, and evaluated the key traits of defoliation and foliation, and selected the cotton varieties with good defoliation traits and suitable for mechanical picking; and provided material basis and theoretical reference for the genetic improvement and breeding of new varieties (Appendix A).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Materials

The experiment was carried out in 2019–2021 in the sixth group of Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences (80°50′31″ E, 40°30′13″ N, for 2021), and the experimental varieties were provided by the Cash Crops Research Institute of Xinjiang University of Agricultural Science and Technology. There are 273 Gossypium hirsutum varieties evaluated comprising both local and foreign germplasm (Figure 1). Mechanical cotton mining with submembrane drip irrigation was employed to plant all 273 accessions of Gossypium hirsutum materials used in the test study in 6 rows with plot design (66 cm length × 10 cm width). Each variety was sown in triplicate, with random areas of, 3 m long, and comprising of 150,000 plants/mu as per theoretical basis. The field management was the same as the field production. The formulation of leaf agent provided by China Agricultural University, is thiabene-ethylene oxide (50% total active ingredients, 10%, 40%), 150 mL/667 m2, and was sprayed through the UAV spray injection, so that each blade is attached to the drug liquid. A total of two injections were applied through Specific time in 11 September and 21 September.

2.2. Investigation of Traits and Methods

According to the cotton DUS test index, 10 consecutive evenly balanced cotton plants were selected in each replicate to collect the agronomic trait data, and the average value of the three replicates was finally calculated as the phenotypic value of the trait. The specific survey traits and survey methods used in the present study were i.e.
Fertility period (BD): growth period includes seedling stage, bud stage, flowering stage and batting stage. Growth period The date when the index of each period of the survey reached 50%.
Plant height (PH): On 8 September, the distance between the cotyledon node of the cotton plant and the top of the main stem (after topping) was measured using a tape measure.
Number of effective branches (EFB): On 8 September, after topping, the number of all effective fruit branches on a cotton plant is liquidated.
Number of fruit knots (FN): On 8 September, the distance between the cotyledon node of the cotton plant and the tip of the main stem (after topping) was measured using a tape measure.
Total leaf number (NB): The total number of main stem leaves and fruit branches of cotton plant was calculated before defoliating agent was applied on 10 September.
Determination of chlorophyll SPAD value (Chl): On 8 September, SpAD-502 chlorophyll meter (Minolta, JPN) was used to determine the SPAD value of chlorophyll content in functional leaves of cotton (measured two leaves of the main stem after topping). The SPAD value was measured once in the main vein and on both sides of the leaves, and the average value was taken three times.
Leaf area (LA): On 8 September, LA-S leaf area measuring instrument was used to measure the leaf area of upper, middle and lower leaves respectively.
Number of beginning nodes (HFNFB): On 8 September, from the number of cotyledon nodes (cotyledon nodes count 0) to the first fruit branch, between the number of nodes is the number of beginning nodes.
Initial node height (HFNFH): On 8 September, the distance between the cotyledon node and the first fruit branch was measured with a tape measure.
Fruit branch Angle (FBA): On 8 September, the Angle between the first fruit node and the main stem of the upper four branches was measured with a protractor.
Leaf inclination (LIA): On 8 September, a protractor was used to measure the included Angle between the normal direction and the Z-axis direction of the leaf surface, that is, the included Angle between the leaf (main stem inverted 4 functional leaves) and the main stem.
Number of leaves remaining after first application (NFS): Number of leaves remaining investigated on 15 September.
Number of remaining leaves after second application (NSS): Number of remaining leaves investigated on 25 September.
Total number of hanging branches and leaves: The number of “dead but not falling” ground leaves and the number of “falling and hanging” leaves of cotton plants were investigated on 25 September.

2.3. Data Statistics and Analysis

For data summary and statistical calculation, the data including maximum, minimum, mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, coefficient of variation and gray correlation were analyzed using SPSS26.0 and Excel 2010, in reference to Tan Hehe and others [14], Niu Yisong et al. [15], Yin Guangting et al. [16] Methods. Correlations of the phenotypic traits were analyzed using the SAS 9.3 statistical software, and the generalized heritability was analyzed according to the ANOVA results by formula
H 2 = δ G 2 δ G 2 + δ G T 2 + δ 2 × 100
was calculated where δ G 2 genetic variance, δ 2 error variance, and δ G T 2 gene-environment interaction variance. The calculation formula of defoliation rate and hanging rate is as follows:
Defoliation   rate = Total   number   of   lesves   before   application Total   number   of   leaves   after   application Total   number   of   leaves   before   application × 100 % Percentage   of   hanging   branches   = Total   number   of   hanging   branches   and   leaves Total   number   of   blades × 100 %

3. Results and Analysis

3.1. Statistical Analysis of Phenotypic Traits

The findings of a statistical analysis using Excel 2010 and SPSS 26.0 for 273 accessions and three years of phenotypic data are reported in Table 1. In 2019, the yearly mean difference, the overall coefficient of variation is less than 15%, and the overall kurtosis and deviation of 3-year phenotypic features fit the normal distribution, compared to the previous two years.

3.2. Generalized Heritability Analysis

Comprehensive analysis of generalized heritability of different traits in consective three years is shown in Table 2. The mean generalized heritability of the 13 traits was 55.95%. EFB has the highest generalized heritability (66.6%) followed by NB (64.9%), BD (64.8%), FBA (59.3%), and LIA (58.9%) respectively. Lowest generalized heritability value was observed for FN (44.6%). It indicates that the number of effective branches, the total number of leaves and the reproductive period have great genetic effect. Lowest generalized heritability values were noted for FN (44.6%), HFNFB (45.4%), and HFNFH (49.1%) respectively. It shows that the genetic effect of fruit node number, beginning number and initial height is relatively small, mainly affected by the environment while other traits are in the middle. Hence, both the genetic and environmental influences are comparable.

3.3. Analysis of Foliation Rate, Hanging Rate and Agronomic Traits in 2019

After differential analysis of defoliation and pruning rates of 273 materials in 2019 the significance p-value of one-variate ANOVA test was less than 0.05 indicating a significant difference in defoliation and pruning rates of the 273 varieties in 2019 (Table 3).
Correlation analysis between reproductive period, fruit branch angle and leaf inclination angle, branch hanging rate, defoliation rate and plant height, number of effective branches, beginning number, initial height, total leaf number, leaf area, number of fruit nodes, and chlorophyll SPAD value was carried out in data collected during 2019. The results showed that the effective branch number, total leaf number, reproductive period and defoliation rate were significantly negatively correlated. There was a very significant negative correlation between chlorophyll SPAD value, hanging rate, fruit branch angle and defoliation rate. The largest correlation coefficient with the defoliation rate is the pruning rate. The second is the reproductive period, the chlorophyll SPAD value (Chl), the number of effective branches (EFB), the total number of leaves (NB), and the fruit branch angle (FBA). Start height had the lowest correlation (HFNFH) with defoliation rate. There was a very significant negative correlation between leaf removal rate and hanging rate, and between leaf inclination angle and hanging rate, and a significant positive correlation between the number of effective branches, chlorophyll SPAD value, fruit branch angle and branch angle and hanging rate. The rate of defoliation and hanging branches were significantly correlated with the number of effective branches, the total number of leaves, chlorophyll SPAD value, and fruit branch angle (Table 4).

3.4. Analysis of Foliation Rate, Hanging Rate and Agronomic Traits in 2020

Differential analysis of the defoliation and pruning rates of the 273 accessions in 2020 showed that the significance p-value of the one-factor ANOVA test was less than 0.05, indicating a significant difference in the defoliation and pruning rates of the 273 accessions in 2020 (Table 5).
Through the 2020 branch hanging rate, defoliate rate and plant height, number of effective branches, beginning number, initial height, total leaf number, leaf area, number of fruit nodes, and chlorophyll SPAD value, Correlation analysis between reproductive period, fruit branch angle and leaf inclination angle, The results show that the total leaf number and foliation rate, There was a significant positive correlation between leaf area and defoliation rate, There was a very significant negative correlation between the number of effective branches, the chlorophyll SPAD value, the branch hanging rate, the fruit branch sandwich angle and the defoliation rate, The largest correlation coefficient with the defoliation rate is the pruning rate, Secondly, the number of effective branches, chlorophyll SPAD value, fruit branch Angle; The beginning number had the lowest correlation with defoliation rate. There was a very significant negative correlation between leaf removal rate and hanging rate, and between leaf inclination angle and hanging rate, and a significant positive correlation between leaf area, number of effective branches, chlorophyll SPAD value, and fruit branch angle and hanging rate. Leaves removal rate and branch hanging rate were significantly correlated with the number of effective branches, chlorophyll SPAD value, fruit branch clip angle, and leaf area (Table 6).

3.5. Analysis of Foliation Rate, Hanging Rate and Agronomic Traits in 2021

Differential analysis of defoliation and pruning rates of 273 samples in 2021 and the significance p-value of one-factor ANOVA test was less than 0.05, indicating significant differences in defoliation and pruning rates of 273 samples in 2020 (Table 7).
Through the analysis of the correlation between the incidence, defoliate rate and the plant height, the effect number, the incidence number, the total leaf number, the incidence, the incidence and the defoliate rate are significantly negative correlation, the chlorophyll SPAD value, the incidence rate, the incidence and the incidence are the lowest. There was a very significant negative correlation between leaf removal rate and hanging rate, and between leaf inclination angle and hanging rate, and a significant positive correlation between the number of effective branches, chlorophyll SPAD value, fruit branch angle and branch angle and hanging rate. The rate of defoliation and hanging branches were significantly correlated with the number of effective branches, the total number of leaves, the chlorophyll SPAD value, and the Angle of fruit branches (Table 8).

3.6. Correlation Analysis of Foliation Rate, Hanging Rate and Number of Leaves during Application

This study also found a significant positive correlation between the number of fol leaves after the first application during the application, and a significant negative correlation with the hanging rate. There was a very significant negative correlation with the peeling rate after the second application, and with the branch hanging rate. There was a significant negative correlation between the number of detached leaves after the first application and that after the second application (Table 9).

3.7. Establishment of Phenotypic Indicators for Defoliating and Deciduous Traits

Based on the correlation of defoliation and pruning rates from 3 years data since 2019 to 2021 with other agronomic traits, observed the number of effective branches. The Chlorophyll SPAD values, Fruit branch angles both significantly correlated with defoliation and hanging rates over 3 years. ANOVA was done for these parameters. The results showed that 273 varieties had defoliation, hanging and effective branches in different years. The Chlorophyll SPAD values were found Non significant (Table 10). The number of effect branches is available, The Chlorophyll SPAD values, The Angle of fruit branches can be used as a reference index for evaluating the leaves and leaves of mechanized cotton varieties. Defoliation and hanging rates can be stable indicators for screening of deciduous cotton varieties. According to the requirements of machine mining cotton picking standard, refer to the “Technical Specification for evaluation of main agronomic traits of machine cotton picking by machine mining”, the defoliation rate is above 95%, and the hanging rate is below 8%. Combined 3-year field phenotypic traits were selected from 273 varieties for C6524, New Luzhong 62, Xiangcotton 11, Hubei-resistant cotton 33, E-Cotton 6, Dongting 1, Dai 45A, Cloth # # 3,363, Sparse catkins, H10, Source Cotton 11, China cotton 41 and other 11 varieties. Its chlorophyll SPAD values range from 49.2 to 62.9. The number of effective branches ranges from 6.4 to 8.3. The angle of fruit branches ranges from 43.5° to 61.2°. According to the actual demand for cotton production, the SPAD value of chlorophyll is 50 to 65, the number of effective branches is 7 to 8.5, and the angle of fruit branches is 45° to 60°, which can be used as a technical parameter to evaluate the characteristics of defoliation and defoliation of cotton. The results show that most of the materials are relatively general or poor, and the varieties need to be improved.
The gray correlation analysis of leaf shedding rate and other agronomic traits (hanging percentage, number of effective fruit branches, chlorophyll SPAD value, and Angle between fruit branches) showed that the correlation coefficient between leaf shedding rate and hanging percentage was the highest of 0.997, and the correlation degree between leaf shedding rate and Angle between fruit branches was the lowest of 0.947. The results showed that the hanging rate of branches had the greatest effect on the defoliation rate, while the Angle of branches had little effect (Table 11).

4. Discussion

Cotton leaves are mainly determined by the hormone level in the crop body, after the use of peeling agent which can quickly enhance the plant synthesis of ethylene and abscisic acid, and produce high content of ripening hormone ethylene and abscisic acid, and inhibit prohormone auxin. GA, cytokinin transport in the plant, promote plant nutrition from “source” to “library”, and ultimately accelerate the process of plant aging and maturity. The relevant research results show that spraying the defoliation agent can promote the generation of cotton leaf abscisic acid and ethylene, which promote the formation of cotton petiole obilayer, and resulted in falling off the cotton leaves and finally achieve the effect of defoliation and ripening [17,18]. The factors affecting cotton defoliation are more complex. Du Gangfeng et al. found that the peeling rate of chemical jacking cotton at 8 d after spraying agent was more than 90%, and could improve the quality of peeling and reduce the hanging rate [19]. Zhang Wen et al. found that the peeling rate of 20 d after spraying the different peeling agent reached more than 70%, and the peeling effect of spraying the peeling agent twice was slightly better than that of one spraying [20]. Du et al. found that Champion element (COR), as a non-host-specific phytotoxin, causes defoliation and fruit shedding, and induced cotton defoliation through ethylene signaling and regulation of hydrolase activity [21]. Fan qinglu’s study found that the effect of defoliation was significantly different in the defoliation rate due to different varieties [22]. This may be due to differences in susceptibility to folispecies or the presence of agronomic traits unfavorable to plant absorption of the agent. The defoliation effect of 273 terrestrial cotton germplasm resources selected in this experiment was also significantly different under the action of the same defoliation agent, which was consistent with Fan Qingfu’s study. Li Jianwei, Wu Penghao and others found that the dense number of effective branches would lead to uneven spraying of foliation agent and poor medicinal effect of the leaves, resulting in the reduction of foliation rate and the increase of branch hanging rate [23]. Zhu Xiefei and others found a significant positive correlation between the number of effective branches and the yield. However, this study found that there was a significant negative correlation between the size of the number of effective branches and the defoliation rate. Too many effective branches may be too dense, and the defoliation agent could not be evenly sprayed in the middle and lower parts of the plant, resulting in a decrease in the defoliation rate. But reducing the number of effective branches can also affect the yield. It is speculated that the number of effective branches of cotton varieties should be moderate, and too many effective branches will affect the defoliation rate, and too few effective branches will affect the yield [24]. Song Min analyzed from the fertility period that the rate of defoliation in different periods showed a negative relationship with the fertility period of the varieties. The longer the variety growth period, the weaker the sensitivity to the defoliation agent, and the variety selection must be controlled within a reasonable reproductive period range [25], This is consistent with the results of the present study, where fertility period is significantly negatively associated with defoliation rate, and cultivar ripening will be an important measure of the sensitivity of cotton varieties to foliation agents.
Gao Lili et al. found that leaf senescence by reducing the rate of photosynthesis, thus increasing the rate of defoliation [7]. Courban, Xia Dong et al. found that by appropriately adjusting the frequency of drip irrigation to adjust the water content of soil 20–40 cm underground, the fluorescence parameters of chlorophyll can finally achieve better defoliation effect [26]. Wang Xiaojing, Li Sijia et al. found that the net photosynthetic rate of the medicated leaves and the net photosynthetic rate of the adjacent unmedicated leaves were also decreased, and the net photosynthetic rate of the adjacent leaves recovered quickly after the medicated leaves fall off [12]. In this study, chlorophyll value has a very significant negative correlation with defoliation rate, and a significant positive correlation with hanging rate, probably because high chlorophyll SPAD value and high photosynthetic rate will affect the process of peeling agent reducing the photosynthetic rate, delay leaf senescence, thus reducing the peeling rate and increasing hanging rate [8]. Therefore, this study believes that the frequency of drip irrigation should be appropriately adjusted before spraying the defoliation agent, so that the reduction of chlorophyll in the plant leaves can effectively improve the comprehensive defoliation effect. In addition, machine cotton requires compact cotton strains, short fruit branches, “fried dough sticks” less, bell concentration. This kind of strain type is convenient for defoliation agent spraying and mechanical harvesting operation, the strain type is more compact, good ventilation and light transmission, is conducive to agent spraying and cotton leaf medicine, play the effect of defoliation agent.
Zhu Jijie et al. found that different varieties had different speed and effect after spraying the same concentration and amount of foliation agent [27]. In this study, the defoliation rate found a significant correlation with the number of defoliation after application, and a very significant positive correlation with the number after the first application and the number after the second application. In this study, the result may be related to the sensitivity of the plant to the peeling agent. After the first application, the varieties with high peeling rate are high and low. After the second application, the varieties with less sensitive to the peeling agent began, but the final peeling rate could not reach a good level.
The defoliation ability of varieties is influenced by a combination of multiple agronomic traits, and it is difficult to assess its direct contribution to defoliation and pruning rates because these variables are difficult to control. However, varieties with high defoliation rates often have more favorable traits, and varieties with low rates are often influenced by other inferior trait factors [12,22]. That is, varieties with high defoliation rate and low hanging rate must have many advantageous traits, but some advantageous traits may not obtain high peeling rate and low hanging rate or high yield and high quality, which is a sufficient and unnecessary condition. For example, research has also found that the. Too high plant (for example, 17N10 plant high 93 cm) or too low plant high (for example, kk-351 plant high 47 cm) can lead to low peeling rate and high hanging rate, which indicates that some traits are too extreme can also affect the peeling rate and hanging rate.
Because of the selection of this experiment has certain limitations, and defoliation rate to a certain extent is also affected by climate temperature, spray time, so the experimental results need further verification, and defoliation traits should be further combined with yield traits, quality traits, screening defoliation, high yield, good quality varieties, lay a foundation for cotton varieties breeding.

5. Conclusions

Scientific and reasonable spraying technology of cotton defoliation ripening agent can improve the quality of cotton defoliation and reduce the impurities of broken leaves in seed cotton, which is of great significance to solve the quality problem of cotton. However, in the actual production, the application of defoliating ripening agent is often affected by many factors, among which the application equipment and application technology play an important role. From the earliest manual spraying, to the spray rod spraying machine, and then to the rapid development of plant protection drone spraying in recent years, the application efficiency of cotton defoliation ripening agent is constantly improving, which plays an important role in the high yield and stable yield of cotton. In this study, through the analysis of defoliation rate, hanging rate and 11 correlation traits of germplasm resources, C6524, 62 in Xinzhong 62, Xiangcotton 11, Hubei cotton 33, Hubei cotton 6, Dongting 1, Dai 45A, cloth 3363, sparse wool H10, source cotton 11, medium cotton 11 and 41; field peeling rate of 95.1–100%, the hanging rate is 0~4.1%, can be used as mechanical cotton breeding materials. And through the analysis of the correlation between 11 agronomic traits and leaf rate and branch rate, found that effective number, chlorophyll SPAD value, fruit branch angle and leaf rate and branch rate in 3 years, have significant correlation, the correlation analysis results showed that besides leaf rate, fruit branches, effect number, chlorophyll SPAD value can be used as an index of leaf ability.

Author Contributions

Z.Z. is the executor of this study’s experimental design and experimental research; Z.Z. and N.Z. completed the data analysis and paper writing; J.W. (Junduo Wang), Y.L., A.D., Z.G., Z.S. and J.W. (Junhao Wang) participated in experimental design, experimental data collection, and test results analysis; X.L. and J.Z. are the project’s architect and director, guiding experimental design, data analysis, paper writing, and modification. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Key projects for crop traits formation and cutting-edge technologies in biological breeding (xjnkywdzc-2022001-2), The State Key Laboratory of Genetic Improvement and Germplasm Innovation of Crop Resistance in Arid Desert Regions, Xinjiang Key Laboratory of Crop Biotechnology, Major Science and Technology Project of Xinjiang (2022YFD1200304-4) and Doctoral Program of Cash Crops Research Institute of Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Science (JZRC2019B02).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

BDFertility period
PHPlant height
EFBNumber of effective branches
FNNumber of fruit knots
NBTotal leaf number
ChlDetermination of chlorophyll SPAD value
LALeaf area
HFNFBNumber of beginning nodes
HFNFHInitial node height
FBAFruit branch Angle
LIALeaf inclination
NFSNumber of leaves remaining after first application
NSSNumber of remaining leaves after second application
HBRPercentage of hanging branches
LRDefoliation rate
UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

Appendix A. 273 Cotton Materials

NumberingVariety NameOriginNumberingVariety NameOriginNumberingVariety NameOrigin
1Xinlu early 1Inland Northwest92Jin Cotton 6Yellow River Basin183Su Mian 12Yangtze River Basin
2Xinlu Morning 2Inland Northwest93Shaanxi Cotton No. 9Yellow River Basin184Su Mian 15Yangtze River Basin
3Xinlu early 3Inland Northwest94Shaanxi Cotton No. 6Yellow River Basin185Xuzhou 514Yangtze River Basin
4Xinlu Morning 4Inland Northwest95Shaan 63-1Yellow River Basin186Ganmian 10Yangtze River Basin
5Xinlu Morning 5Inland Northwest96Shaan 5245Yellow River Basin187Ganmian 17Yangtze River Basin
6Xinlu early 7Inland Northwest97Shaan 401Yellow River Basin188Chuan 169-6Yangtze River Basin
7Xinlu Morning 8Inland Northwest98Shaan 2812Yellow River Basin189Chuan 73-27Yangtze River Basin
8Xinlu Morning 9Inland Northwest99Shaanxi 2754Yellow River Basin190Sichuan cotton 65Yangtze River Basin
9New Land 10 a.mInland Northwest100Sprinkle cotton No. 2Inland Northwest191Yu cotton 1Yangtze River Basin
10New Land 11 a.mInland Northwest101Cotton No. 1Yellow River Basin192Liao cotton No. 1Special precocious cotton area
11New Land 12 earlyInland Northwest102Dun cotton 2Inland Northwest193Liao cotton No. 9Special precocious cotton area
12New Land 13 earlyInland Northwest103Dunhuang 77-126-8Inland Northwest194Liao cotton 16Special precocious cotton area
13New Land 14Inland Northwest104Dunhuang 77-166Inland Northwest195Liao no 1201Special precocious cotton area
14New Land 16Inland Northwest105Tashkent 2Central Asia196Liao 632-124Special precocious cotton area
15Xinluzao 17Inland Northwest106108 husbandsCentral Asia197Liao 7334-7728Special precocious cotton area
16Xinluzao 18Inland Northwest107KK-351Central Asia198Nylon 1Special precocious cotton area
17Xinlu early 19Inland Northwest108KK-1543Central Asia199Nylon 6Special precocious cotton area
18Xinluzao 21Inland Northwest109KK-1047Central Asia200Big boll cottonYellow River Basin
19Xinluzao 22Inland Northwest110Coker310Central Asia201Dai 4554United States
20Xinluzao 23Inland Northwest111C6524Central Asia202Dai 45AUnited States
21Xinlu morning 24Inland Northwest112C-4744Central Asia203Dai-80United States
22Xinlu Zao 25Inland Northwest113C464Central Asia204Dai word cotton 15United States
23New Land 27Inland Northwest114C460Central Asia205Guan Nong 1Special precocious cotton area
24New Land 29 earlyInland Northwest115C-405-555Central Asia206Montenegrin Cotton 1Special precocious cotton area
25New Land 30 morningInland Northwest116C-3174Central Asia207Tess cottonYellow River Basin
26New Land 31Inland Northwest117Bazhou 6501Inland Northwest208McNair 210United States
27New Land 32 earlyInland Northwest118Library T94-4Inland Northwest209Coyuan 1Yellow River Basin
28New Land 33Inland Northwest1198024 anti-Inland Northwest210Cloth 3363United States
29New Land 34Inland Northwest12065-201Inland Northwest211Chad 3Africa
30New Land 35Inland Northwest121Car 61-72Inland Northwest212Turkmen land cottonCentral Asia
31New Land 36Inland Northwest122Sacar cottonInland Northwest213U.S.B-35United States
32New Land 37Inland Northwest123Farming 5Inland Northwest214African cotton E-40Africa
33New Land 38Inland Northwest124Moyu 11Inland Northwest215Australia V21-757Australia
34New Land is 39 earlyInland Northwest125New Land 202Inland Northwest216Miscot7803-52United States
35New Land 40 morningInland Northwest126New Land 201Inland Northwest217T-word cotton 16United States
36New Land 41Inland Northwest127New Land 71Inland Northwest218Aussie Siv2Australia
37New Land 42Inland Northwest128Xinluzhong 70Inland Northwest219Division 6524Central Asia
38Xinluzao 45Inland Northwest129Xinluzhong 69Inland Northwest220Thin floc H10United States
39Xinluzao 47Inland Northwest130Xinluzhong 65Inland Northwest221Yinmian 1Yellow River Basin
40Xinluzao 48Inland Northwest131Xinluzhong 64Inland Northwest222Us 28114-313United States
41Xinluzao 49Inland Northwest132Xinluzhong 63Inland Northwest223Filgan 175Central Asia
42Xinluzao 51Inland Northwest133Xinluzhong 62Inland Northwest224Xinluzao 44Inland Northwest
43Xinluzao 52Inland Northwest134Xinluzhong 61Inland Northwest225Jizhong cotton 315Yellow River Basin
44Xinluzao 53Inland Northwest135Xinluzhong 60Inland Northwest226Xinluzao 43Inland Northwest
45Xinluzao 57Inland Northwest136Xinluzhong 59Inland Northwest227J206-5Inland Northwest
46Xinluzao 58Inland Northwest137Xinluzhong 58Inland Northwest228Xinluzhong 82Inland Northwest
47Xinlu early 60Inland Northwest138Xinluzhong 54Inland Northwest229Xinluzao 82Inland Northwest
48Xinluzao 61Inland Northwest139Xinluzhong 52Inland Northwest230Xinlu early 80Inland Northwest
49Xinluzao 62Inland Northwest140Xinluzhong 50Inland Northwest231Xinluzao 77Inland Northwest
50Xinluzao 63Inland Northwest141Xinluzhong 48Inland Northwest232Xinluzao 73Inland Northwest
51Xinluzhong 2Inland Northwest142Xinluzhong 47Inland Northwest233Xinluzao 65Inland Northwest
52Xinluzhong 4Inland Northwest143Xinluzhong 46Inland Northwest234Xinluzao 55Inland Northwest
53Xinluzhong 5Inland Northwest144Xinluzhong 45Inland Northwest235Luyan cotton 27Inland Northwest
54Xinluzhong 6Inland Northwest145Xinluzhong 42Inland Northwest23617N11Inland Northwest
55Xinluzhong 8Inland Northwest146Xinluzhong 40Inland Northwest23717N10Inland Northwest
56Xinluzhong 9Inland Northwest147Xinluzhong 39Inland Northwest23817N9Inland Northwest
57Xinluzhong 10Inland Northwest148Xinluzhong 38Inland Northwest23917N8Inland Northwest
58Xinluzhong 14Inland Northwest149Xinluzhong 36Inland Northwest24017N7Inland Northwest
59Xinluzhong 15Inland Northwest150Lu 34Yellow River Basin24117N6Inland Northwest
60Xinluzhong 17Inland Northwest151Lu Mianyan 36Yellow River Basin24217N5Inland Northwest
61Xinluzhong 18Inland Northwest152Lu Mianyan 37Yellow River Basin24317N3Inland Northwest
62Xinluzhong 20Inland Northwest153Yumian 11Yellow River Basin24417N2Inland Northwest
63Xinluzhong 22Inland Northwest154Yumian 15Yellow River Basin24517N1Inland Northwest
64Xinluzhong 23Inland Northwest155Yumian 17Yellow River Basin246Xuzhou 142Yellow River Basin
65Xinluzhong 25Inland Northwest156Yumian 19Yellow River Basin247Soviet 8911Central Asia
66Xinluzhong 28Inland Northwest157Zhongzhi Cotton 372Yellow River Basin248Kexin 001Yellow River Basin
67Xinluzhong 29Inland Northwest158China Cotton Institute 12Yellow River Basin249150030Central Asia
68Xinluzhong 32Inland Northwest159Middle cotton 16Yellow River Basin250150028Central Asia
69Xinluzhong 33Inland Northwest160China Cotton Institute 17Yellow River Basin251150022Central Asia
70Xinluzhong 34Inland Northwest161Cotton 19Yellow River Basin252150021Central Asia
71Xinluzhong 35Inland Northwest162Medium cotton 35Yellow River Basin253150019Central Asia
72Lu 25Yellow River Basin163Cotton 41Yellow River Basin25417N13Inland Northwest
73Lu 24Yellow River Basin164China Cotton Institute 43Yellow River Basin25517N12Inland Northwest
74Lu Mianyan 21Yellow River Basin165China Cotton Institute 60Yellow River Basin256Miscott 8711United States
75Lu 9Yellow River Basin166Hunan Cotton 11Yangtze River Basin257coker139United States
76Lu 28Yellow River Basin167Ekang cotton 8Yangtze River Basin258Darmian 20Yangtze River Basin
77Lumian 17Yellow River Basin168Ekang cotton 10Yangtze River Basin25919(Taihu)Yangtze River Basin
78Lumian 11Yellow River Basin169Ekang cotton 9Yangtze River Basin260Silver cotton 2Yellow River Basin
79Shi Yuan 321Yellow River Basin170Ekang cotton 33Yangtze River Basin261Liaomian 17Special precocious cotton area
80Ji Mian 12Yellow River Basin171Emian 6Yangtze River Basin262Hunan Cotton 10Yangtze River Basin
81Ji Mian 11Yellow River Basin172Emian 10Yangtze River Basin263Zhong93001Yellow River Basin
82Ji Mian 10Yellow River Basin173Emian 14Yangtze River Basin264Tashkent 6Central Asia
83Ji Mian 8Yellow River Basin174Emian 21Yangtze River Basin265Jinmian 29Yellow River Basin
84Ji 168Yellow River Basin175Dongting 1Yangtze River Basin266China Cotton Institute 41Yellow River Basin
85Ji 169Yellow River Basin176Wanmian 8407Yangtze River Basin267Medium 1132Yellow River Basin
86Yun 93 Anti 354Yellow River Basin177Simian 2Yangtze River Basin268Huamian No. 1Inland Northwest
87Taiyuan 4Yellow River Basin178Simian 3Yangtze River Basin269Lumian 28Yellow River Basin
88Jin Cotton 31Yellow River Basin179Su Mian No. 1Yangtze River Basin270Lu Mianyan 27Yellow River Basin
89Jin Cotton 19Yellow River Basin180Su Cotton 5(12)Yangtze River Basin271Ji Mian 938Inland Northwest
90Jin Cotton 12Yellow River Basin181Su Mian 8Yangtze River Basin27218N3Inland Northwest
91Jin 11Yellow River Basin182Su Mian 9Yangtze River Basin27318N4Inland Northwest

References

  1. Wang, A.; Gao, M.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, X. Research progress of chemical defoliation technology in cotton. J. Agric. 2015, 5, 20–23. [Google Scholar]
  2. Tian, J.; Zhang, W. The Factors and Physical Approaches Affecting the Quality of Mechanized Cotton Fiber in Xinjiang; Shihezi University: Shihezi, China, 2018; pp. 3–4. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bange, M.P.; Long, R.L. Impact of harvest aid timing and machine spindle harvesting on neps in Gossypium hirsutum. Text. Res. J. 2013, 83, 651–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Qi, Y.Q.; Lv, X.; Shao, Y.L.; Feng, B.; Zhang, Z. Study on soil organic matter content prediction based on hyperspectral data. Xinjiang Agric. Sci. 2014, 51, 1300–1305. [Google Scholar]
  5. Lv, X.; Wei, Y.; Li, S. Research on Soil Fertilizer Information Management and Cotton Fertilizer Recommendation Support Decision System Based on GIS. Chin. Agric. Sci. 2002, 35, 883–887. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, X.; Wen, H.; Li, Y. Current situation and development trend of cotton precision seeding in Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps. China Agric. Mech. 2005, 5, 32–33. [Google Scholar]
  7. Gao, L.; Li, G.; Kang, Z.; Li, J.; Wang, M.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, J. Effect of foliation agent on kinetic parameters of chlorophyll fluorescence in cotton leaves. Cotton J. 2016, 28, 345–352. [Google Scholar]
  8. Wang, X.; Li, S.; Liu, R.; Zhang, G.; Yang, C.; Ni, W. Effect of defoliation application on physiological activity of adjacent unmedicated leaves in cotton. Cotton J. 2019, 31, 64–71. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hu, J. Effect of Use Times of Cotton Foliagent on Foliation Rate and Clearance Rate; Xinjiang Agricultural Reclamation Technology: Shihezi, China, 2013; pp. 34–35. [Google Scholar]
  10. Song, M.; Qu, Y. Analysis of Main Cotton Variety in Xinjiang. Ph.D. Thesis, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Ürümqi, China, 2015; pp. 34–35. [Google Scholar]
  11. Zhang, Q.; Zhao, B.; Zhu, X.; Ma, J.; Tian, Y.; Li, H.; Wang, L.; Li, Y. Evaluation of Different Plant Protection Application; Xinjiang Agricultural Reclamation Technology: Shihezi, China, 2020; Volume 43, pp. 29–32. [Google Scholar]
  12. Zhu, J.; Zhao, H.; Wang, S.; Li, M.; Wang, G. The sensitivity of different cotton varieties. China Cotton 2018, 45, 15–18 + 33. [Google Scholar]
  13. Zhou, T.; Xiao, Q.; Du, R.; Han, X.; Zhang, G.; Wang, G. Research progress of cotton defoliation and ripening technology in China. Cotton J. 2020, 32, 170–184. [Google Scholar]
  14. Tan, H.; Wang, G.; Zhao, F.; Bao, F.; Han, H.; Lou, X. Agronomic trait correlation and cluster analysis of 115 waxy maize varieties. Mol. Plant Breed. 2020, 19, 5848–5860. [Google Scholar]
  15. Niu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wen, J.; Li, J.; Xu, D.; Huang, H.; Zhang, J.; Ji, X. Correlation and cluster analysis of 36 nodulule agronomic traits. Breed. Res. 2021, 2, 55–59. [Google Scholar]
  16. Yin, G.; Wang, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhu, L.; Duan, W. Correlation, path and cluster analysis of major traits of exposed germplasm. Hunan Agric. Sci. 2020, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  17. Xu, J.; Chen, L.; Sun, H.; Wusiman, N.; Sun, W.; Li, B.; Gao, Y.; Kong, J.; Zhang, D.; Zhang, X.; et al. Crosstalk Between Cytokinin and Ethylene Signaling Pathways Regulates Leaf Abscission in Cotton in Response to Chemical Defoliants. J. Exp. Bot. 2019, 70, 1525–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Liu, Y. Effects of leaf spray on abscisic acid content in cotton tissue. J. Xinjiang Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2003, 20, 158–160. [Google Scholar]
  19. Du, G.; Yang, C.; Tian, J.; Zhang, W. Effect of chemical jacking on ripening effect of cotton. China Cotton 2019, 46, 19–21 + 32. [Google Scholar]
  20. Zhang, W.; Lu, T.; Ye, Y.; Liu, S.; Feng, Y. Study on Mixed Effect of Cotton in Kuitun, Xinjiang. Crop Mag. 2018, 3, 103–107. [Google Scholar]
  21. Du, M.; Li, Y.; Tian, X.; Duan, L.; Zhang, M.; Tan, W.; Xu, D.; Li, Z. The Phytotoxin Coronatine Induces Abscission-Related Gene Expression and Boll Ripening during Defoliation of Cotton. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e97652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Research on Application Technology of Cotton Peeling and Ripening; Northwest A & F University: Xianyang, China, 2008; pp. 23–24.
  23. Li, J.W.; Xiao, S.W.; Cui, J.P.; Zhang, J.S. Effect of mechanized planting mode on defoliation and fiber quality of different types of cotton. Agric. Res. Arid Areas 2019, 37, 82–88. [Google Scholar]
  24. Zhu, X.; Si, Z. Analysis of main traits and cotton yield. Cotton Sci. 2017, 39, 24–25. [Google Scholar]
  25. Song, M. Analysis of Machine Mining Characteristics of Main Cotton Variety in Xinjiang. Ph.D. Thesis, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Ürümqi, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  26. Abduk, K.; Xia, D.; Zhang, J.; Cui, J.; Guo, R.; Lin, T. Study on the mechanism of drip irrigation frequency on yield and quality of chemical foliation cotton. Crop Mag. 2019, 4, 113–119. [Google Scholar]
  27. Arndt, S.; Turvey, C.; Andreasen, N.C. Correlating and predicting psychiatric symptom ratings: Spearmans r versus Kendalls tau correlation. J. Psychiatr. Res. 1999, 33, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Defoliant spraying effect. Harvest map after spraying deciduous leaves.
Figure 1. Defoliant spraying effect. Harvest map after spraying deciduous leaves.
Agronomy 13 02151 g001
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of phenotypic traits in 273 materials.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of phenotypic traits in 273 materials.
TraitYearMeanSDKurtosisSkewnessMaxMinCV
BD2019124.1015.900.080.09137.5111.57.81
2020123.8516.580.170.38137.4115.47.47
2021123.9714.870.180.36136.5113.38.34
PH201972.5010.730.540.29105.0046.006.76
202072.2710.370.510.39109.6744.676.97
202172.189.970.580.28102.2548.257.24
EFB20198.531.31−0.270.3712.005.006.51
20208.671.000.420.4611.675.678.67
20218.591.130.67−0.1312.255.507.60
FN20198.671.85−0.100.3717.676.334.69
202013.321.880.100.3519.676.527.09
202113.752.120.380.5218.006.256.49
NB201924.094.530.651.0145.3313.005.32
202023.973.920.091.3136.3316.006.11
202123.784.280.801.0737.2513.005.56
SPAD201962.338.100.430.5577.0047.737.68
202065.238.450.570.5679.1352.877.72
202162.8812.12−0.080.5885.5350.135.19
LA201994.1619.27−0.370.23160.2141.814.89
202096.9219.21−0.060.38174.2942.455.05
202196.0819.420.140.27173.7645.124.95
H FNFB20195.330.75−0.490.318.003.007.11
20205.380.72−0.18−0.107.663.677.47
20215.400.71−0.100.228.003.257.61
H FNFH201925.264.34−0.660.3341.6715.675.82
202025.334.441.230.2243.0015.335.70
202124.874.000.800.6642.2516.506.22
FBA201932.475.360.870.4372.8032.476.06
202037.334.78−0.950.1885.6737.337.81
202139.604.480.380.2268.9345.0311.07
LIA201956.769.37−0.460.2280.8735.676.06
202056.508.710.020.3179.9736.406.49
202155.358.720.320.2682.1035.256.35
HBR20190.1110.050.150.170.3150.0122.22
20200.1150.060.210.560.3670.0241.92
20210.1140.030.180.120.2720.0153.80
LR20190.8870.090.230.351.000.5519.86
20200.8870.080.220.181.000.61411.09
20210.8740.090.240.221.000.5599.71
Table 2. Generalized heritability assessment of 3-year phenotypic traits in 273 materials.
Table 2. Generalized heritability assessment of 3-year phenotypic traits in 273 materials.
Traitσ2Gσ2Eσ2G × Eσ2eH2
BD3.741.282.464.8064.8%
PH3.153.412.878.2252.9%
EFB25.476113.0130.5661.8166.6%
FN3.0670.61711.56611.0244.6%
NB4.3032.3063.0104.91964.9%
H FNFH2.730.023.825.5049.1%
H FNFB27.68-0.4046.6159.8045.4%
LA0.0780.7350.0940.18050.5%
SPAD0.290.040.230.5558.2%
FBA3.88111.3923.6844.91459.3%
LIA0.0190.003−0.0020.0858.9%
HBR6.746.415.8012.2157.7%
LR0.020.030.000.0854.4%
Table 3. One-factor ANOVA test.
Table 3. One-factor ANOVA test.
S SDFMSEFp
Hang branch rate Interblock0.3882720.00142.8390.02
Hang branch rate
Within the group
0.4248100.0005
Hang branch rate
Total
0.8121082
Take off the leaf rate
Interblock
1.6602720.00614.0670.01
Take off the leaf rate
Within the group
1.2848150.0015
Take off the leaf rate
Total
2.9441087
Table 4. Correlation analysis of leaf shedding rate, branch hanging rate and agronomic traits in 2019.
Table 4. Correlation analysis of leaf shedding rate, branch hanging rate and agronomic traits in 2019.
TraitDRPHEFBH FNFBH FNFHNBLAFNSPADHGYBDFBALIA
DR1
PH0.1291
EFB−0.510 *0.2181
H FNFB0.0910.1900.3001
H FNFH0.0300.721 **0.2360.2611
NB−0.528 *0.3350.1710.0260.384 *1
LA0.2790.3090.523 **0.2340.511 **0.431 *1
FN−0.320.350.35−0.23−0.320.280.031
SPAD−0.542 **−0.092−0.0490.2420.0540.0080.051−0.0321
HGY−0.830 **−0.1220.244 *0.025−0.0550.518 *−0.023−0.3320.414 *1
BD−0.620 *0.3060.0310.3500.1090.26−0.0330.3670.059−0.2151
FBA−0.522 **0.3150.2900.1320.1490.3820.1360.668*0.0060.528 *0.2271
LIA−0.2250.0270.124−0.0010.0740.073−0.0340.0360.059−0.512 *0.1240.2251
Note: * and ** indicate significant (p < 0.05) or extremely significant (p < 0.01) correlation.
Table 5. Univariate ANOVA test.
Table 5. Univariate ANOVA test.
Sum of Squares of Deviations
SS
Free Degree
DF
Mean Square
MSE
FConspicuousness
p
Hang branch rate Interblock0.3682720.00142.7940.03
Hang branch rate
Within the group
0.4288100.0005
Hang branch rate
Tote
0.6921082
Take off the leaf rate
Interblock
1.3512720.00502.7780.01
Take off the leaf rate
Within the group
1.4848130.0018
Take off the leaf rate
Tote
2.8311085
Table 6. Correlation analysis of leaf shedding rate, branch hanging rate and agronomic traits in 2020.
Table 6. Correlation analysis of leaf shedding rate, branch hanging rate and agronomic traits in 2020.
TraitDRPHEFBH FNFBH FNFHNBLAFNSPADHGYBDFBALIA
DR1
PH0.0591
EFB−0.710 **0.0181
H FNFB0.0310.1940.2981
H FNFH0.0350.752 **0.2470.2511
NB−0.528 *0.1350.1610.1260.3861
LA0.579 *0.3230.623 **0.2440.3110.431 *1
FN−0.2250.2510.354−0.233−0.3220.2810.031
SPAD−0.642 **−0.042−0.0290.1420.1540.0080.051−0.0361
HGY−0.855 **−0.1320.444 *0.035−0.1550.3180.623 *−0.1320.414 *1
BD−0.4200.3260.0350.2530.1290.261−0.0790.3670.059−0.2151
FBA−0.622 **0.2180.2920.2320.1450.3820.1360.642*0.0060.522 *0.2641
LIA−0.2800.0220.124−0.0010.0540.073−0.1250.0360.059−0.512 *0.1240.2251
Note: * and ** indicate significant (p < 0.05) or extremely significant (p < 0.01) correlation.
Table 7. Univariate ANOVA test.
Table 7. Univariate ANOVA test.
SSDFMSEFP
Hang branch rate
Interblock
0.3482720.00132.5520.02
Hang branch rate
Within the group
0.4258100.0005
Hang branch rate
Tote
0.6731082
Take off the leaf rate
Interblock
1.3522720.00502.7780.02
Take off the leaf rate
Within the group
1.4848130.0018
Take off the leaf rate
Tote
2.8461085
Table 8. Correlation analysis of leaf shedding rate, branch hanging rate and agronomic traits in 2021.
Table 8. Correlation analysis of leaf shedding rate, branch hanging rate and agronomic traits in 2021.
TraitDRPHEFBHFNFBHFNFHNBLAFNSPADHGYBDFBALIA
DR1
PH0.2591
EFB−0.612 *0.0221
HFNFB0.0260.1950.3121
H FNFH0.0330.765 **0.2550.2551
NB−0.4330.1350.1680.1460.3421
LA0.3690.2690.3230.2540.3180.631 *1
FN−0.2450.2560.364−0.123−0.2220.0010.1621
SPAD−0.668 **−0.142−0.0290.1420.2760.0080.051−0.1161
HGY−0.732 **−0.2250.565 *0.135−0.1650.2760.814 *−0.1320.578 *1
BD−0.620 *0.3740.1220.3630.1590.273−0.1790.3670.009−0.2151
FBA−0.673 **0.2460.3450.2520.1450.2860.1340.756 *0.0060.548 *0.2751
LIA−0.1850.0090.034−0.0010.0070.178−0.1260.0070.108−0.512 *0.110.2051
Note: * and ** indicate significant (p < 0.05) or extremely significant (p < 0.01) correlation.
Table 9. Correlation analysis of foliation and hanging rate and number of leaves after application.
Table 9. Correlation analysis of foliation and hanging rate and number of leaves after application.
Number of Leaves after the First Application
NFS
Number of Leaves after the Second Application
NSS
DRHGY
Number of leaves leaves after the first application
NFS
1
Number of leaves leaves after the second application
NSS
−0.53 **1
DR0.591 **−0.873 **1
HGY−0.315 *0.612 **−0.830 **1
Note: * and ** indicate significant (p < 0.05) or extremely significant (p < 0.01) correlation.
Table 10. Inter-annual univariate ANOVA test.
Table 10. Inter-annual univariate ANOVA test.
DFFp
The rate of leaf removal between years
Interblock
8181.3190.925
Hang branch rate between years
Interblock
8182.280.816
Effective branches exist several years apart
Interblock
8183.560.724
Inter-annual chlorophyll SPAD values
Interblock
8182.740.965
Fruit branches between the years
Interblock
8183.880.942
Table 11. Grey correlation degree of dew rate with other significantly related agronomic traits.
Table 11. Grey correlation degree of dew rate with other significantly related agronomic traits.
Evaluation ItemCorrelation DegreeRanking
HGY0.9962
EFB0.9953
SPAD0.9971
FBA0.9474
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, J.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, N.; Liang, Y.; Gong, Z.; Wang, J.; Ditta, A.; Sang, Z.; Li, X.; Zheng, J. The Correlation of Machine-Picked Cotton Defoliant in Different Gossypium hirsutum Varieties. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2151. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13082151

AMA Style

Wang J, Zhang Z, Zhang N, Liang Y, Gong Z, Wang J, Ditta A, Sang Z, Li X, Zheng J. The Correlation of Machine-Picked Cotton Defoliant in Different Gossypium hirsutum Varieties. Agronomy. 2023; 13(8):2151. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13082151

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Junduo, Zeliang Zhang, Nala Zhang, Yajun Liang, Zhaolong Gong, Junhao Wang, Allah Ditta, Zhiwei Sang, Xueyuan Li, and Juyun Zheng. 2023. "The Correlation of Machine-Picked Cotton Defoliant in Different Gossypium hirsutum Varieties" Agronomy 13, no. 8: 2151. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13082151

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop