Scheduling Techniques for the Use of Pentia Plant Growth Regulator

A single field study was conducted at the University of Arizona Safford Agricultural Center during the 2004 season to evaluate the utilization of a feedback technique that is based upon plant growth and development to schedule applications of the new plant growth regulator (PGR) from BASF, Pentia. A...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Norton, E. R.
Other Authors: Tronstad, Russell
Language:en_US
Published: College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) 2005
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/10150/198162
id ndltd-arizona.edu-oai-arizona.openrepository.com-10150-198162
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-arizona.edu-oai-arizona.openrepository.com-10150-1981622015-10-23T04:44:43Z Scheduling Techniques for the Use of Pentia Plant Growth Regulator Norton, E. R. Tronstad, Russell Husman, Steve Norton, Randy Agriculture -- Arizona Cotton -- Arizona Physiology and growth regulators A single field study was conducted at the University of Arizona Safford Agricultural Center during the 2004 season to evaluate the utilization of a feedback technique that is based upon plant growth and development to schedule applications of the new plant growth regulator (PGR) from BASF, Pentia. A simple three treatment study was constructed consisting of a control treatment (no Pentia application), a scheduled treatment (application of 16 oz/acre at first bloom regardless of plant growth), and a feedback treatment (applications based upon plant growth and development). Application decisions on the feedback treatment were made using height to node ratios (HNR) as a measure of plant vigor. Treatment applications were made on the scheduled regime on 14 July with a one time 16 oz/acre application. The feedback regime received an application (16 oz/acre) of Pentia five days later on 19 July. An additional application (16 oz/acre) was made on the feedback treatment on 3 August due to continued high HNR levels. Significant differences in plant vigor were observed post application among the three treatments as measured by end of season HNR ratios. Yield results indicated positive lint yield response to Pentia application with both the scheduled and feedback treatment producing statistically higher yields than the control. Differences between the feedback and scheduled treatments were not statistically different however a slight yield increase was observed in the scheduled treatment. The second Pentia application made to the feedback treatment was not necessary. End of season HNR measurements indicate that the additional 16 oz/acre application suppressed growth to below the average baseline for HNR. These results indicate that potential positive response to PGR applications, specifically Pentia, under conditions of high vigor. 2005-05 text Article http://hdl.handle.net/10150/198162 Cotton: A College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Report en_US az1366 Series P-142 College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ)
collection NDLTD
language en_US
sources NDLTD
topic Agriculture -- Arizona
Cotton -- Arizona
Physiology and growth regulators
spellingShingle Agriculture -- Arizona
Cotton -- Arizona
Physiology and growth regulators
Norton, E. R.
Scheduling Techniques for the Use of Pentia Plant Growth Regulator
description A single field study was conducted at the University of Arizona Safford Agricultural Center during the 2004 season to evaluate the utilization of a feedback technique that is based upon plant growth and development to schedule applications of the new plant growth regulator (PGR) from BASF, Pentia. A simple three treatment study was constructed consisting of a control treatment (no Pentia application), a scheduled treatment (application of 16 oz/acre at first bloom regardless of plant growth), and a feedback treatment (applications based upon plant growth and development). Application decisions on the feedback treatment were made using height to node ratios (HNR) as a measure of plant vigor. Treatment applications were made on the scheduled regime on 14 July with a one time 16 oz/acre application. The feedback regime received an application (16 oz/acre) of Pentia five days later on 19 July. An additional application (16 oz/acre) was made on the feedback treatment on 3 August due to continued high HNR levels. Significant differences in plant vigor were observed post application among the three treatments as measured by end of season HNR ratios. Yield results indicated positive lint yield response to Pentia application with both the scheduled and feedback treatment producing statistically higher yields than the control. Differences between the feedback and scheduled treatments were not statistically different however a slight yield increase was observed in the scheduled treatment. The second Pentia application made to the feedback treatment was not necessary. End of season HNR measurements indicate that the additional 16 oz/acre application suppressed growth to below the average baseline for HNR. These results indicate that potential positive response to PGR applications, specifically Pentia, under conditions of high vigor.
author2 Tronstad, Russell
author_facet Tronstad, Russell
Norton, E. R.
author Norton, E. R.
author_sort Norton, E. R.
title Scheduling Techniques for the Use of Pentia Plant Growth Regulator
title_short Scheduling Techniques for the Use of Pentia Plant Growth Regulator
title_full Scheduling Techniques for the Use of Pentia Plant Growth Regulator
title_fullStr Scheduling Techniques for the Use of Pentia Plant Growth Regulator
title_full_unstemmed Scheduling Techniques for the Use of Pentia Plant Growth Regulator
title_sort scheduling techniques for the use of pentia plant growth regulator
publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ)
publishDate 2005
url http://hdl.handle.net/10150/198162
work_keys_str_mv AT nortoner schedulingtechniquesfortheuseofpentiaplantgrowthregulator
_version_ 1718099913502359552