Efficacy of fertilizing method for different potash sources in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) nutrition under arid climatic conditions

Autoři: Mubshar Hussain aff001;  Ahmad Faizan Tariq aff001;  Ahmad Nawaz aff003;  Muhammad Nawaz aff003;  Abdul Sattar aff003;  Sami Ul-Allah aff003;  Abdul Wakeel aff004
Působiště autorů: Department of Agronomy, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan aff001;  Agriculture Discipline, College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia aff002;  College of Agriculture, BZU, Bahadur Sub Campus, Layyah, Pakistan aff003;  Institute of Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228335


Precise choice of potassium (K) source and application method does matter for its cost-effectiveness. This study was aimed to evaluate the best source and method of K fertilizer application to improve cotton productivity and profitability under an arid climate. Three different K sources (KNO3, K2SO4 and KCl) were applied at 100 kg ha-1 by four methods, i.e. a) basal application, b) side dressing, c) fertigation and d) foliar application of 2% K2SO4. The highest productivity and profitability were recorded with K2SO4 applied as foliar application. Total boll weight per plant was similar in foliar applied K2SO4 and basal application of KNO3. Better boll opening in foliar applied K2SO4, perhaps, played decisive role for increased seed-cotton yield. For basal application and side dressing, KNO3 produced the highest seed-cotton yield, but the benefit cost ratio was better for foliar applied K2SO4. In crux, foliar application of K2SO4 might be opted to improve the seed cotton yield, fiber quality and net returns under the arid climate. However, soil K application through K2SO4 and/or KNO3 is essential to balance the K removal from soil.

Klíčová slova:

Agricultural soil science – Cotton – Crops – Fertilizers – Fiber crops – Leaves – Nitrates – Seeds


1. Government of Pakistan. Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan 2016–2017. Ministry of Food, Agric. and Livestock (Economics Wing), Islamabad; 2016.

2. Ali MA, Khan IA. Why cotton is a problematic crop? 2007. Available at: https://www.dawn.com/news/252184 (Accessed: 23 March 2017).

3. Shah MA, Farooq M, Hussain M. Productivity and profitability of wheat-cotton system as influenced by relay intercropping of insect resistant transgenic cotton in bed planted wheat. Europ J Agron. 2016; 75: 33–41.

4. Pettigrew WT, Meredith WR, Young LD. Potassium fertilization effects on cotton lint yield, yield components and reniform nematode population. Agron J. 2005; 97: 1245–1251.

5. Wakeel A, Rehman H, Magen H. Potash use for sustainable crop production in Pakistan: A review. Int J Agri Biol. 2017; 19: 381–390.

6. De La Guardia MD, Benlloch M. Effects of potassium and gibberellic acid on stem growth of whole sunflower plants. Physiol Plant. 1980; 49: 443–448.

7. Oosterhuis DM, Bednarz CW. Influence of potassium deficiency on photosynthesis, chlorophyll content, and chloroplast ultrastructure of cotton plants. Photosynthetica. 2001; 39: 103–109.

8. Wakeel A, Rehman H, Mubarak MU, Dar AI, Farooq M. Potash use in aerobic production system for basmati rice may expand its adaptability as an alternative to flooded rice production system. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2017; 17: 398–409.

9. Makhdum MI, Ashraf M, Pervez H. Effect of potassium fertilization on potential fruiting positions in field grown cotton. Pak J Bot. 2005; 37: 635–649.

10. Aneela S, Muhammad A, Akhtar ME. Effect of potash on boll characteristics and seed cotton yield in newly developed highly resistant cotton varieties. Pak J Biol Sci. 2003; 6: 813–815.

11. Bradow JM, Davidonis GH. Quantification of fiber quality and cotton production-processing interface. J Cotton Sci. 2000; 4: 34–64.

12. Etesami H, Emami S, Alikhani HA. Potassium solubilizing bacteria (KSB): Mechanisms, promotion of plant growth, and future prospects—a review. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2017; 17: 897–911.

13. Cakmak I. The role of potassium in alleviating detrimental effects of abiotic stresses in plants. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci. 2005; 168: 521–530.

14. Roemheld V, Kirkby EA. Research on potassium in agriculture: needs and prospects. Plant Soil. 2010; 335: 155–180.

15. Milford GFJ, Johnston AE. Potassium and nitrogen interactions in crop production. Proc. No: 615, International Fertilizer Society, New York, UK; 2007.

16. El-Lethy SR, Abdelhamid MT, Reda F. Effect of potassium application on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars under salinity stress. World Appl Sci J. 2013; 26: 840–850.

17. Singh M, Singh VP, Reddy DD. Potassium balance and release kinetics under continuous rice wheat cropping system in vertisol. Field Crop Res. 2002; 77: 81–91.

18. Mesbah EAE. Effects of irrigation regimes and foliar spraying of potassium on yield, yield components and water use efficiency of wheat in sandy soils. World J Agri Sci. 2009; 5: 662–669.

19. Ali MA, Tatla YH, Aslam M. Response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) to potassium fertilization in arid environment. J Agri Res. 2007; 45: 191–196.

20. Hussain F, Malik AU, Haji MA, Malghani AL. Growth and yield response of two cultivars of Mungbean (Vigna radiata) to different potassium levels. J Animal Plant Sci. 2015; 21: 622–625.

21. Steel RGD, Torrie JH, Dickey DA. Principles and procedures of statistics: A biometrical approach.3rded. McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc. New York; 1997. pp. 400–428.

22. Stewart WM. Nutrition affects cotton yield and quality. Potash & Phosphate Institute Engineering Drive, Suite 110 Norcross, Georgia, 30092–2837; 2005.

23. Marschner H. Mineral nutrition of higher plants, 2nd Ed. Academic Press, London; 1995.

24. Li W, Dong H, Tang W, Zhang D. Research progress in physiological premature senescence in cotton. Cotton Sci. 2005; 17: 56–60.

25. Akhtar ME, Sardar A, Ashraf M, Akhtar M, Khan MZ. Effect of potash application on seed cotton yield and yield components of selected cotton varieties. Asian J Plant Sci. 2003; 2: 602–604.

26. Pervez H, Ashraf M, Makhdum MI. Influence of potassium rates and sources on seed cotton yield and yield components of some elite cotton cultivars. J Plant Nutr. 2004; 27: 1295–1317.

27. Hafiz SI. Response of peanut to foliar spraying with copper and calcium under different levels of potassium fertilization in sandy soils. Egyptian J Appl Sci. 2005; 20: 169–188.

28. Coker DL, Oosterhuis DM, Brown RS. Cotton yield response to soil and foliar applied potassium as influenced by irrigation. J Cotton Sci. 2009; 13: 1–10.

29. Tariq M, Afzal MN, Muhammad D, Ahmad S, Shahzad AN, Kiran A, et al. Relationship of tissue potassium content with yield and fiber quality components of Bt cotton as influenced by potassium application methods. Field Crops Res. 2018; 229: 37–43.

30. Shahzad AN, Rizwan M, Asghar MG, Qureshi MK, Bukhari SH, Kiran A, et al. Early maturing Bt cotton requires more potassium fertilizer under water stress to augment seed-cotton yield but not lint quality. Sci Rep. 2019; 9: 7378. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-43563-2 31089147

31. Zehler E, Kreipe H, Gething PA. Potassium sulphate and potassium chloride their influence on the yield and quality of cultivated plants. International Potash Institute Bulletin No. 9. Basel, Switzerland. 1981.

32. Pettigrew WT. Potassium deficiency increases specific leaf weights of leaf glucose levels in field grown cotton. Agron J. 1999; 91: 962–968.

33. Pettigrew WT. Potassium influences on yield and quality production for maize, wheat, soybean and cotton. Physiol Plant. 2008; 133: 670–681. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2008.01073.x 18331406

34. Sawan ZK, Mahmoud MH, El-Guibali AH. Influence of potassium fertilization and foliar application of zinc and phosphorus on growth, yield components, and yield and fiber properties of Egyptian cotton (Gossypium baradense L.). J Plant Ecol. 2008; 1: 259–270.

35. Kaleem S, Ali MA, Ansar M, Ahmed G, Rahman H. Management and economic feasibility of potassium fertilizer for cotton cultivar FH-900. Sarhad J Agri Res. 2009; 25:113–118.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2020 Číslo 1
Nejčtenější tento týden