Evaluation of a Feedback vs. Scheduled Approach to PIX Application
| dc.contributor.author | Fletcher, D. C. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Silvertooth, J. C. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Norton, E. R. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Unruh, B. L. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Lewis, E. A. | |
| dc.contributor.editor | Silvertooth, Jeff | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2012-02-06T18:06:14Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2012-02-06T18:06:14Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1994-03 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10150/209601 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Two field experiments were conducted in 1993 in Arizona to compare a scheduled approach (based on stage of growth) versus a feedback approach (based on vegetative status) to mepiquat chloride (PIX™) applications on Upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). PIX feedback treatments received no PIX applications due to plants lacking vegetative tendencies based upon height:node ratios (HNRs) and established baselines. Scheduled PIX applications ranged from 0.5pt. /acre to 0.75 pt./acre, and were applied at early bloom (approx. 1500 heat units after planting (HUAP), 86/55 °F threshold) and post early bloom (approx. 2000 HUAP). PIX treatments did consistently reduce plant heights compared to an untreated check. Statistically significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) in lint yield were observed among the treatments (feedback vs. scheduled)at the Safford location only. Evidence from these studies do reinforce the use of a feedback approach from the standpoint of conserving inputs and maintaining optimum growth control. | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) | en_US |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | 370096 | en_US |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | Series P-96 | en_US |
| dc.subject | Agriculture -- Arizona | en_US |
| dc.subject | Cotton -- Arizona | en_US |
| dc.subject | Cotton -- Physiology | en_US |
| dc.subject | Cotton -- Growth regulators | en_US |
| dc.title | Evaluation of a Feedback vs. Scheduled Approach to PIX Application | en_US |
| dc.type | text | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |
| dc.identifier.journal | Cotton: A College of Agriculture Report | en_US |
| refterms.dateFOA | 2018-08-15T13:17:39Z | |
| html.description.abstract | Two field experiments were conducted in 1993 in Arizona to compare a scheduled approach (based on stage of growth) versus a feedback approach (based on vegetative status) to mepiquat chloride (PIX™) applications on Upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). PIX feedback treatments received no PIX applications due to plants lacking vegetative tendencies based upon height:node ratios (HNRs) and established baselines. Scheduled PIX applications ranged from 0.5pt. /acre to 0.75 pt./acre, and were applied at early bloom (approx. 1500 heat units after planting (HUAP), 86/55 °F threshold) and post early bloom (approx. 2000 HUAP). PIX treatments did consistently reduce plant heights compared to an untreated check. Statistically significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) in lint yield were observed among the treatments (feedback vs. scheduled)at the Safford location only. Evidence from these studies do reinforce the use of a feedback approach from the standpoint of conserving inputs and maintaining optimum growth control. |
