脱叶剂喷施时间对棉花脱叶效果及不同部位果枝产量的影响

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.10.006

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】研究脱叶剂喷施时间对棉花脱叶效果及不同部位果枝产量的影响,筛选出适宜的脱叶剂喷施时间,为增产保质提供理论依据。【方法】以新疆北疆5个棉花主栽品种为材料,于吐絮期设置3个喷施处理,分别为吐絮率为10%~20%(T₁)、吐絮率为30%~50%(T₂)、吐絮率为70%~80%(T₃),喷施清水为对照(CK),分析脱叶剂处理后,对棉花脱叶率、吐絮率、产量及产量构成因素的影响。【结果】苗宝21号和新陆早37号在T₃的脱叶效果最佳;农大1号、国新73号、C₁在T₂脱叶效果最佳;脱叶剂处理对苗宝21号和农大1号的吐絮率影响不大,吐絮率约85%;对国新73号、C₁的吐絮率影响较大,苗宝21号T₂显著高于T₁;农大1号、国新73号、新陆早37号T₁吐絮率高于其他处理;C₁各处理间T₃吐絮率最高。随着脱叶剂喷施时间,自然吐絮增加(T₃>T₂>T₁),各品种各处理吐絮增量逐渐降低(T₁>T₂>T₃);苗宝21号、农大1号T₂时期,籽棉产量和皮棉显著增产,但衣分相对较低,CK衣分最高。C₁衣分在T₂时期显著高于T₁。不同品种、处理、果枝位置对产量和衣分及铃重的影响,具有交互效应。【结论】苗宝21号、农大1号、国新73号、C₁在T₂脱叶效果较优,吐絮率较好,籽棉产量和皮棉产量相对较高,衣分较低;新陆早37号在T₃脱叶最佳,吐絮率较高,产量最高,衣分和铃重最高。

关键词: 脱叶剂; 脱叶率; 单铃重; 衣分; 产量; 交互影响

Abstract:

【Objective】 This research aims to study the effect of defoliantion spraying time on cotton defoliation and the yield of fruit branches at different positions in the hope of screening out the appropriate defoliant spraying time and providing a theoretical basis for increasing yield and quality.【Method】 The five main varieties of northern Xinjiang were taken as materials, three spraying treatments were set up during the boll-out period, with boll-out rate of 10%-20% (T₁), boll-out rate of 30%-50% (T₂), and boll-out rate of 70%-80% (T₃), with spraying clean water as the control (CK) to explore the effect of defoliant treatment on cotton defoliation rate, boll spit rate, yield and yield components.【Results】 The results showed that Miaobao 21 and Xinluzao 37 had the best defoliation effect at T₃; Nongda 1, Guoxin 73 and C₁ had the best defoliation effect at T₂.Defoliant treatment had little effect on the boll-out rate of Miaobao 21 and Nongda 1, and the boll-out rate was about 85%.It had a greater impact on the boll release rate of Guoxin 73 and C₁, and Miaobao 21 T₂ was significantly higher than those of T₁.Nongda 1, Guoxin No.73 and Xinluzao 37 T₁ boil-off rate was higher than those of other treatments.Nongda 1, Guoxin 73 and Xinluzao 37 T₁ boil-off rate was higher than those of other treatments.The highest T₃ spitting rate was observed between the C₁ treatments.With the spraying time of the defoliant, the natural flocculation increased (T₃>T₂>T₁), and the increase of the flocculation of each variety and treatment gradually decreased (T₁>T₂>T₃).During the T₂ period of Miaobao 21 and Nongda 1, the yield of seed cotton and lint increased significantly, but the lint score was relatively low, and the CK lint score was the highest.C₁ clothing score was significantly higher than that of T₁ during T₂. Different varieties, treatments and positions of fruit branches had interactive effects on yield, lint percentage and boll weight.【Conclusion】 The study has found that Miaobao 21, Nongda 1, Guoxin 73, and C₁ have better defoliation effects at T₂, better flocculation rate, relatively higher seed cotton yield and lint yield, and lower lint; the defoliation of Xinluzao 37 at T₃ is the best, the flocculation rate is higher, the yield is the highest, and the lint and boll weight are the highest.

Key words: defoliant; defoliation rate; single bell weight; yield; clothing points; interaction effect

中图分类号:

S562

崔进鑫, 陆小双, 李生梅, 杨涛, 庞博, 王红刚, 高文伟. 脱叶剂喷施时间对棉花脱叶效果及不同部位果枝产量的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(10): 2384-2393.

CUI Jinxin, LU Xiaoshuang, LI Shengmei, YANG Tao, PANG Bo, WANG Honggang, GAO Wenwei. Defoliant on Cotton Defoliation Effect and Its Influence on the Yield of Different Position Fruit Branches[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(10): 2384-2393.

图/表 7

图1 2020年8~10月喷施脱叶剂期间最高/低气温和降水量

Fig 1 Maximum/low temperature and precipitation during the application of defoliants from August to October 2020

图2 不同脱叶剂喷施时间下棉花脱叶率变化注:CK:对照;T1:吐絮率为10%~20%(8月29日(T1))喷施脱叶剂;T2:吐絮率为30%~50%(9月5日(T2))喷施脱叶剂;T3:;吐絮率为70%~80%(9月12日(T3))喷施脱叶剂;不同小写字母表示同一因素不同水平间在 0.05 水平差异显著;下同

Fig.2 Effect of spraying time of defoliant on cotton defoliation rate Note: CK:contrast;T1:Apply defoliator when the flocculation rate is 10%-20% (August 29(T1));T2:Apply defoliator when the flocculation rate is 30%-50% (September 5(T2));T2:Apply defoliator when the flocculation rate is 70%-80% (September 12(T3));Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different levels of the same factor at 0.05 level; the same as below

图3 不同脱叶剂喷洒时间下棉花吐絮率变化

Fig.3 The effect of defoliant spraying time on cotton bouncing rate

图4 不同脱叶剂喷洒时间下棉花吐絮增量变化

Fig.4 The effect of spraying time of defoliant on cotton boll release increment

表1 不同脱叶剂下陆地棉产量和产量构成因素的影响及交互比较

Table1 Influence and comparison of yield and yield components of upland cotton under different defoliants

品种 Variety	处理 Treatlevel	籽棉产量 Seed cotton yield (kg/hm²)	皮棉产量 Lint yield (kg/hm²)	衣分 Lint percentage (%)	铃重 Boll weight (g)
苗宝21号 Miao bao21	CK	5 108.93^b	2 284.27^a	46.42^a	4.34^a
	T₁	6 322.89^ab	2 776.04^a	43.21^ab	4.79^a
	T₂	7 858.56^a	3 262.20^a	41.26^b	4.92^a
	T₃	6 195.97^ab	2 668.54^a	42.53^ab	4.02^a
农大1号 Nongda 1	CK	4 847.28^ab	2 233.55^ab	45.28^a	4.25^a
	T₁	5 355.91^ab	2 437.47^ab	44.89^a	4.41^a
	T₂	6 610.52^a	2 993.10^a	42.99^a	4.53^a
	T₃	4 647.59^b	2 105.75^b	44.41^a	4.42^a
国新73号 Guoxin 73	CK	5 967.38^a	2 582.49^a	43.04^a	5.35^a
	T₁	5 641.79^a	2 427.03^a	43.24^a	5.10a
	T₂	5 741.49^a	2 494.47^a	42.95^a	5.27^a
	T₃	6 032.70^a	2 863.33^a	44.62^a	5.12^a
C₁	CK	5 288.98^a	2 320.25^a	43.72^ab	5.04^a
	T₁	4 733.72^a	1 936.50^a	39.26^c	4.64^a
	T₂	5 404.67^a	2 378.72^a	44.73^a	5.02^a
	T₃	5 716.38^a	2 377.40^a	41.46^bc	5.26^a
新陆早37号 Xinluzao 37	CK	5 390.87^a	2 310.47^a	43.15^a	4.68^a
	T₁	3 880.23^a	1 722.80^a	42.87^a	3.90^b
	T₂	3 763.75^a	1 677.77^a	43.37^a	4.63^a
	T₃	5 082.44^a	2 286.24^a	43.51^a	4.90^a
P 值 P value	V	4.43^**	4.203^**	2.379^ns	8.478^**
	T	1.062^ns	1.066^ns	2.59^ns	1.349^ns
	V×T	1.466^ns	1.326^ns	2.67^**	1.63^ns

表2 不同脱叶剂、品种和果枝位置下产量统计及交互比较

Table 2 Yield statistics and interactive comparison under different defoliants, varieties and branch locations

因素 Factor	因素水平 Factor level	籽棉产量 Seed cotton yield (kg/hm²)	皮棉产量 Lint yield (kg/hm²)	衣分 Lint percentage (%)	铃重 Boll weight (g)
品种 Variety (V)	苗宝21号	2 123.83^a	915.95^a	0.43^ab	4.52^b
	农大1号	1 788.41^bc	885.11^a	0.44^a	4.40^b
	国新73号	1 948.64^ab	863.93^a	0.4 $3 a b$	5.21^a
	C1	1 761.92^bc	793.15^a	0.42^b	4.99^a
	新陆早37号	1 509.75^c	666.45^b	0.43^ab	4.53^b
处理水平 Treatlevel (T)	CK	1 728.91^a	753.34^a	0.44^a	4.73^a
	T₁	1 958.67^a	853.75^a	0.42^b	4.57^a
	T₂	1 845.08^a	820.06^a	0.43^ab	4.87^a
	T₃	1 773.52^a	872.54^a	0.43^ab	4.75^a
果枝位置 Fruiting branch position (FB)	UL_1-3	856.71^c	400.44^c	0.41^b	4.31^b
	ML_4-6	1 862.33^b	852.52^b	0.44^a	4.95^a
	LL_≥7	2 760.45^a	1 221.75^a	0.44^a	4.94^a
P 值 P value	V	5.05^**	5.027^**	2.124^ns	8.715^**
	T	1.211^ns	1.747^**	2.313^ns	1.387^ns
	FB	145.91^**	143.372^**	18.455^**	15.966^**
	V×T	1.671^ns	1.916^*	2.384^**	1.676^ns
	V×FB	1.069^ns	1.362^ns	1.478^ns	3.929^**
	T×FB	0.707^ns	2.712^**	1.792^ns	2.296^*
	V×T×FB	1.093^ns	1.365^*	1.244^ns	1.343^ns

表2 不同脱叶剂、品种和果枝位置下产量统计及交互比较

Table 2 Yield statistics and interactive comparison under different defoliants, varieties and branch locations

因素 Factor	因素水平 Factor level	籽棉产量 Seed cotton yield (kg/hm²)	皮棉产量 Lint yield (kg/hm²)	衣分 Lint percentage (%)	铃重 Boll weight (g)
品种 Variety (V)	苗宝21号	2 123.83^a	915.95^a	0.43^ab	4.52^b
	农大1号	1 788.41^bc	885.11^a	0.44^a	4.40^b
	国新73号	1 948.64^ab	863.93^a	0.4 $3 a b$	5.21^a
	C1	1 761.92^bc	793.15^a	0.42^b	4.99^a
	新陆早37号	1 509.75^c	666.45^b	0.43^ab	4.53^b
处理水平 Treatlevel (T)	CK	1 728.91^a	753.34^a	0.44^a	4.73^a
	T₁	1 958.67^a	853.75^a	0.42^b	4.57^a
	T₂	1 845.08^a	820.06^a	0.43^ab	4.87^a
	T₃	1 773.52^a	872.54^a	0.43^ab	4.75^a
果枝位置 Fruiting branch position (FB)	UL_1-3	856.71^c	400.44^c	0.41^b	4.31^b
	ML_4-6	1 862.33^b	852.52^b	0.44^a	4.95^a
	LL_≥7	2 760.45^a	1 221.75^a	0.44^a	4.94^a
P 值 P value	V	5.05^**	5.027^**	2.124^ns	8.715^**
	T	1.211^ns	1.747^**	2.313^ns	1.387^ns
	FB	145.91^**	143.372^**	18.455^**	15.966^**
	V×T	1.671^ns	1.916^*	2.384^**	1.676^ns
	V×FB	1.069^ns	1.362^ns	1.478^ns	3.929^**
	T×FB	0.707^ns	2.712^**	1.792^ns	2.296^*
	V×T×FB	1.093^ns	1.365^*	1.244^ns	1.343^ns

表3 不同脱叶剂下棉花不同部位果枝产量变化

Table 3 Effect of defoliant on the yield in different parts of Cotton

品种 Varieity	处理 Trea tmet	籽棉产量 Seed cotton yield(kg/hm²)			皮棉产量 Lint yield(kg/hm²)			衣分 Lint percentage(%)			铃重 Boll weight(g)
品种 Varieity	处理 Trea tmet	UL_1-3	ML_4-6	LL_≥7	UL_1-3	ML_4-6	LL_≥7	UL_1-3	ML_4-6	LL_≥7	UL_1-3	ML_4-6	LL_≥7
苗宝21号 Miaobao 21	CK	1 095.4^a	1 726.3^a	2 287.1^c	506.0^a	864.7^a	913.4^c	46.70^a	51.39^a	41.20^a	4.30^a	4.35^a	4.36^b
	T₁	1 158.9^a	2 212.0^a	2 951.7^ab	486.7^a	1 004.4^a	1 284.8^ab	40.68^a	45.23^a	43.75^a	3.91^a	4.70^a	5.76^a
	T₂	1 659.3^a	2 376.5^a	3 822.6^a	676.2^a	1 002.1^a	1 583.7^a	40.75^a	41.66^a	41.38^a	4.99^a	4.94^a	4.84^ab
	T₃	1 228.9^a	1 776.5^a	3 190.4^ab	514.6^a	751.6^a	1 402.1^a	41.69^a	42.00^a	43.93^a	3.85^a	3.61^a	4.58^b
农大1号 Nongda 1	CK	648.3^a	1 873.0^b	2 325.9^a	879.2^a	1 131.6^a	1 074.0^a	42.28^ab	47.39^a	46.18^a	3.92^a	4.39^a	4.45^a
	T₁	822.4^a	1 823.5^b	2 709.8^a	361.2^b	824.8^ab	1 251.3^a	37.23^b	45.51^a	45.91^a	3.69^a	5.40^a	4.14^a
	T₂	524.3^a	2 934.5^a	3 151.5^a	194.3^b	1 306.5^a	1 492.1^a	43.25^a	44.42^a	47.34^a	4.01^a	5.21^a	4.36^a
	T₃	622.0^a	1 269.4^b	2 756.1^a	260.8^b	577.2^b	1 267.6^a	41.85^ab	45.43^a	45.97^a	3.74^a	4.87^a	4.65^a
国新73号 Guoxin 73	CK	638.6^a	2 086.7^a	3 241.9^a	267.1^a	911.2^a	1 404.0^a	42.04^a	43.77^a	46.56^a	5.04^a	5.32^a	5.69^a
	T₁	956.2^a	1 921.6^a	2 763.8^a	402.4^a	830.5^a	1 194.0^a	42.39^a	44.91^a	43.32^b	4.47^a	5.60^a	5.22^a
	T₂	968.1^a	1 881.5^a	2 891.8^a	391.8^a	856.7^a	1 245.8^a	39.88^a	45.85^a	43.13b	4.61^a	5.43^a	5.76^a
	T₃	605.0^a	2 535.0^a	2 892.6^a	256.3^a	1137.7^a	1469.1^a	41.63^a	43.23^a	43.22^b	4.01^a	5.94^a	5.43^a
C₁	CK	1 196.6^a	1 726.8^a	2 365.4^a	784.5^a	1 009.8^a	1 030.8^a	42.1 $2 a b$	45.94^a	43.12^a	4.96^a	5.42^a	4.73^a
	T₁	464.7^a	1 335.8^a	2 933.1^a	169.0^c	541.2^a	1 226.2^a	39.15^b	44.27^b	45.19^a	4.37^a	4.47^a	5.09^a
	T₂	1 387.5^a	1 851.5^a	2 165.5^a	606. $2 a b$	832.0^a	940.4^a	46.16^a	44.7 $1 a b$	43.32^a	5.55^a	5.06^a	4.44^a
	T₃	1 247.6^a	1 673.9^a	2 794.8^a	488. $9 a b$	703.0^a	1 185.3^a	40.6 $3 a b$	41.5 $6 a b$	42.20^a	5.82^a	5.22^a	4.74^a
新陆早37号 Xinluzao 37	CK	598.2^a	2 451.9^a	2 340.6^a	245.2^a	1 068.9^a	996.3^a	43.42^a	43.56^a	42.48^b	3.3 $2 a b$	4.9 $2 a b$	5.81^a
	T₁	311.3^a	1 236.8^b	2 332.0^a	123.1^a	544.4^b	1 055.1^a	39.15^a	44.27^a	45.1 $9 a b$	2.39^b	4.4 $9 a b$	4.83^a
	T₂	486.8^a	919.0^b	2 357.9^a	187.4^a	412.2^b	1 078.0^a	39.27^a	44.88^a	45.99^a	5.00^a	4.34^b	4.56^a
	T₃	514.6^a	1 633. $5 a b$	2 934.2^a	207.6^a	738. $3 a b$	1 340.2^a	39.73^a	45.49^a	45.3 $4 a b$	4.19^a	5.30^a	5.23^a
P值 P value	V	5.505^**	1.762^ns	2.377^ns	5.638^**	2.014^ns	2.184^ns	0.545^ns	1.092^ns	6.386^**	6.129^**	4.227^**	6.345^**
	T	0.779^ns	0.758^ns	1.905^ns	0.653^ns	1.048^ns	2.729^ns	1.892^ns	2.381^ns	1.313^ns	4.234^*	0.081^ns	0.465^ns
	V×T	0.806^ns	1.987^ns	1.098^ns	0.865^ns	1.844^ns	1.132^ns	1.736^ns	1.762^ns	1.002^ns	1.353^ns	1.357^**	1.81^ns

表3 不同脱叶剂下棉花不同部位果枝产量变化

Table 3 Effect of defoliant on the yield in different parts of Cotton

品种 Varieity	处理 Trea tmet	籽棉产量 Seed cotton yield(kg/hm²)			皮棉产量 Lint yield(kg/hm²)			衣分 Lint percentage(%)			铃重 Boll weight(g)
品种 Varieity	处理 Trea tmet	UL_1-3	ML_4-6	LL_≥7	UL_1-3	ML_4-6	LL_≥7	UL_1-3	ML_4-6	LL_≥7	UL_1-3	ML_4-6	LL_≥7
苗宝21号 Miaobao 21	CK	1 095.4^a	1 726.3^a	2 287.1^c	506.0^a	864.7^a	913.4^c	46.70^a	51.39^a	41.20^a	4.30^a	4.35^a	4.36^b
	T₁	1 158.9^a	2 212.0^a	2 951.7^ab	486.7^a	1 004.4^a	1 284.8^ab	40.68^a	45.23^a	43.75^a	3.91^a	4.70^a	5.76^a
	T₂	1 659.3^a	2 376.5^a	3 822.6^a	676.2^a	1 002.1^a	1 583.7^a	40.75^a	41.66^a	41.38^a	4.99^a	4.94^a	4.84^ab
	T₃	1 228.9^a	1 776.5^a	3 190.4^ab	514.6^a	751.6^a	1 402.1^a	41.69^a	42.00^a	43.93^a	3.85^a	3.61^a	4.58^b
农大1号 Nongda 1	CK	648.3^a	1 873.0^b	2 325.9^a	879.2^a	1 131.6^a	1 074.0^a	42.28^ab	47.39^a	46.18^a	3.92^a	4.39^a	4.45^a
	T₁	822.4^a	1 823.5^b	2 709.8^a	361.2^b	824.8^ab	1 251.3^a	37.23^b	45.51^a	45.91^a	3.69^a	5.40^a	4.14^a
	T₂	524.3^a	2 934.5^a	3 151.5^a	194.3^b	1 306.5^a	1 492.1^a	43.25^a	44.42^a	47.34^a	4.01^a	5.21^a	4.36^a
	T₃	622.0^a	1 269.4^b	2 756.1^a	260.8^b	577.2^b	1 267.6^a	41.85^ab	45.43^a	45.97^a	3.74^a	4.87^a	4.65^a
国新73号 Guoxin 73	CK	638.6^a	2 086.7^a	3 241.9^a	267.1^a	911.2^a	1 404.0^a	42.04^a	43.77^a	46.56^a	5.04^a	5.32^a	5.69^a
	T₁	956.2^a	1 921.6^a	2 763.8^a	402.4^a	830.5^a	1 194.0^a	42.39^a	44.91^a	43.32^b	4.47^a	5.60^a	5.22^a
	T₂	968.1^a	1 881.5^a	2 891.8^a	391.8^a	856.7^a	1 245.8^a	39.88^a	45.85^a	43.13b	4.61^a	5.43^a	5.76^a
	T₃	605.0^a	2 535.0^a	2 892.6^a	256.3^a	1137.7^a	1469.1^a	41.63^a	43.23^a	43.22^b	4.01^a	5.94^a	5.43^a
C₁	CK	1 196.6^a	1 726.8^a	2 365.4^a	784.5^a	1 009.8^a	1 030.8^a	42.1 $2 a b$	45.94^a	43.12^a	4.96^a	5.42^a	4.73^a
	T₁	464.7^a	1 335.8^a	2 933.1^a	169.0^c	541.2^a	1 226.2^a	39.15^b	44.27^b	45.19^a	4.37^a	4.47^a	5.09^a
	T₂	1 387.5^a	1 851.5^a	2 165.5^a	606. $2 a b$	832.0^a	940.4^a	46.16^a	44.7 $1 a b$	43.32^a	5.55^a	5.06^a	4.44^a
	T₃	1 247.6^a	1 673.9^a	2 794.8^a	488. $9 a b$	703.0^a	1 185.3^a	40.6 $3 a b$	41.5 $6 a b$	42.20^a	5.82^a	5.22^a	4.74^a
新陆早37号 Xinluzao 37	CK	598.2^a	2 451.9^a	2 340.6^a	245.2^a	1 068.9^a	996.3^a	43.42^a	43.56^a	42.48^b	3.3 $2 a b$	4.9 $2 a b$	5.81^a
	T₁	311.3^a	1 236.8^b	2 332.0^a	123.1^a	544.4^b	1 055.1^a	39.15^a	44.27^a	45.1 $9 a b$	2.39^b	4.4 $9 a b$	4.83^a
	T₂	486.8^a	919.0^b	2 357.9^a	187.4^a	412.2^b	1 078.0^a	39.27^a	44.88^a	45.99^a	5.00^a	4.34^b	4.56^a
	T₃	514.6^a	1 633. $5 a b$	2 934.2^a	207.6^a	738. $3 a b$	1 340.2^a	39.73^a	45.49^a	45.3 $4 a b$	4.19^a	5.30^a	5.23^a
P值 P value	V	5.505^**	1.762^ns	2.377^ns	5.638^**	2.014^ns	2.184^ns	0.545^ns	1.092^ns	6.386^**	6.129^**	4.227^**	6.345^**
	T	0.779^ns	0.758^ns	1.905^ns	0.653^ns	1.048^ns	2.729^ns	1.892^ns	2.381^ns	1.313^ns	4.234^*	0.081^ns	0.465^ns
	V×T	0.806^ns	1.987^ns	1.098^ns	0.865^ns	1.844^ns	1.132^ns	1.736^ns	1.762^ns	1.002^ns	1.353^ns	1.357^**	1.81^ns

参考文献 29

[1]	李福才, 赵国苓, 都占元. 推行棉花机械采摘势在必行[J]. 中国纤检, 2011,(23):25-26.
	LI Fucai, ZHAO Guoling, DU Zhanyuan. It is imperative to implement cotton mechanical picking[J]. China Fiber Inspection, 2011,(23):25-26.
[2]	王志坚, 徐红. 新疆机采棉的调研与发展建议[J]. 中国棉花, 2011, 38(6): 10-13.
	WANG Zhijian, XU Hong. Investigation and Development Suggestions for Xinjiang Mechanical Picking Cotton[J]. China Cotton, 2011, 38(6): 10-13.
[3]	陶湘伟, 陈兴和. 机采棉技术与发展趋势分析[J]. 农业机械, 2013,(13): 97-102.
	TAO Xiangwei, CHEN Xinghe. Analysis on the technology and development trend of mechanical cotton harvesting[J]. Agricultural Machinery, 2013,(13): 97-102.
[4]	樊庆鲁. 棉花脱叶与催熟应用技术研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2008.
	FAN Qinglu. Research on cotton defoliation and ripening application technology[D]. Yangling: Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry, 2008.
[5]	王莉, 杜珉. 中美棉花生产成本比较分析[J]. 农业展望, 2006, 2 (7): 12-13.
	WANG Li, DU Min. Comparative analysis of cotton production costs between China and the United States[J]. Agricultural Outlook, 2006, 2 (7): 12-13.
[6]	刘向新, 闫向辉, 周亚立. 新疆生产建设兵团机采棉试验、推广应用及特点[J]. 农业机械, 2009(6):73-74.
	LIU Xiangxin, YAN Xianghui, ZHOU Yali. Experiment, popularization and application of cotton picking machine in Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps[J]. Agricultural Machinery, 2009(6): 73-74.
[7]	张杰, 刘林. 新疆兵团机采棉与手采棉经济效益比较研究[J]. 农业现代化研究, 2013, 34(3):372-375.
	ZHANG Jie, LIU Lin. A comparative study on the economic benefits of machine-picked cotton and hand-picked cotton in Xinjiang Corps[J]. Agricultural Modernization Research, 2013, 34(3):372-375.
[8]	张丽娟, 夏绍南, 崔爱花. 几种棉花脱叶催熟剂在鄱阳湖棉区的应用效果初探[J]. 江西农业学报, 2013, 25(5):16-18.
	ZHANG Lijuan, XIA Shaonan, CUI Aihua. The application effect of several cotton defoliation and ripening agents in Poyang Lake cotton area[J]. Acta Agriculture Jiangxi, 2013, 25(5): 16-18.
[9]	贾军成, 樊庆鲁. 不同种类棉花脱叶剂比较试验研究[J]. 新疆农垦科技, 2011,(3):44-46.
	JIA Juncheng, FAN Qinglu. Comparative study on different types of cotton defoliants[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Reclamation Science and Technology, 2011,(3): 44-46.
[10]	李福才, 赵国苓, 都占元. 推行棉花机械采摘势在必行[J]. 中国纤检, 2011,(23): 30-31.
	LI Fucai, ZHAO Guoling, DU Zhanyuan. It is imperative to implement cotton mechanical picking[J]. China Fiber Inspection, 2011,(23): 30-31.
[11]	Gwathmey C O, Hayes R M. Harvest-aid interactions under different temperature regimes in field-grown cotton[J]. Journal of Cotton Science, 1997, 1(1): 1-9.
[12]	Du M W, Ren X M, Tian X L, et al. Evaluation of harvest aid chemicals for the cotton-winter wheat double cropping system[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2013, 12(2):273-282 DOI URL
[13]	王晓婧, 李思嘉, 刘瑞显. 棉花施用脱叶剂对相邻未着药叶片生理活性的影响[J]. 棉花学报, 2019, 31(1):64-71.
	WANG Xiaojing, LI Sijia, LIU Ruixian. Effects of applying defoliants to cotton on the physiological activities of adjacent untreated leaves[J]. Cotton Science, 2019, 31(1):64-71.
[14]	李林林, 白玉超, 刘楠楠, 等. 化学脱叶剂及催熟剂在农作物上的应用现状[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018, 34 (12): 132-135.
	LI Linlin, BAI Yuchao, LIU Nannan, et al. Application status of chemical defoliants and ripening agents on crops[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2018, 34(12): 132-135.
[15]	Cathey G W, Luckett K E, Rayburn Jr S T. Accelerated cotton boll dehiscence with growth regulator and desiccant chemicals[J]. Field Crops Research, 1982, 5: 113-120. DOI URL
[16]	Bange M P, Long R L. Optimizing Timing of Chemical Harvest Aid Application in Cotton by Predicting Its Influence on Fiber Quality[J]. Agronomy Journal, 2011, 103(2):390-395. DOI URL
[17]	Larson J A, Gwathmey C O, Hayes R M. Cotton defoliation and harvest timing effects on yields, quality, and net revenues[J]. Journal Cotton Science, 2002, 6: 13-27.
[18]	Gormus O, Kurt F, Sabagh A E. Impact of defoliation timings and leaf pubescence on yield and fiber quality of cotton[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science & Technology, 2017, 19(4):903-915.
[19]	Tian J S, Zhang X Y, Yang Y L, et al. How to reduce cotton fiber damage in the Xinjiang, China[J]. Industrial Crops and Products, 2017, 109: 803-811. DOI URL
[20]	高丽丽. 脱叶剂喷施时间对棉花生理调节效应的研究[D]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆农业大学, 2016.
	GAO Lili. Study on the effect of defoliant spraying time on cotton physiological regulation[D]. Urumqi: Xinjiang Agricultural University, 2016.
[21]	宋兴虎. 在不同棉区噻苯隆和乙烯利用量及配比对脱叶催熟效果影响[J]. 棉花学报. 2020, 32(3):247-257.
	SONG Xinghu. The effect of thidiazuron and ethylene utilization and ratio on defoliation and ripening effects in different cotton areas[J]. Cotton Science, 2020, 32(3):247-257.
[22]	马立刚, 王树林, 王燕. 脱叶催熟剂用量对不同棉花品种脱叶效果及产量构成与品质的影响[J]. 山西农业大学学报. 2019, 39(5), 16-22.
	MA Ligang, WANG Shulin, WANG Yan. Effects of defoliation ripening agent dosage on defoliation effect, yield composition and quality of different cotton varieties[J]. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural University, 2019, 39(5), 16-22.
[23]	王谊, 杨丽红. 脱叶剂对棉花脱叶率和产量的影响[J]. 中国棉花, 2014, 41(4): 28-30.
	WANG Yi, YANG Lihong. The effect of defoliant on cotton defoliation rate and yield[J]. China Cotton, 2014, 41(4): 28-30.
[24]	姜伟丽, 马艳, 马小艳, 等. 不同脱叶催熟剂在棉花上的应用效果[J]. 中国棉花, 2013, 4(10):11-14.
	JIANG Weili, MA Yan, MA Xiaoyan, et al. Application effects of different defoliation ripening agents on cotton[J]. China Cotton, 2013, 4(10):11-14.
[25]	宋敏, 高文伟, 李贤超. 脱叶剂瑞脱龙对新疆石河子主栽机采棉品种脱叶敏感性和吐絮率的的影响分析.[J]. 新疆农业大学学报, 2016, 39(1): 40-44.
	SONG Min, GAO Wenwei, LI Xianchao. Analysis of the effect of defoliant Ruituolong on the defoliation sensitivity and flocculation rate of main machine-harvested cotton varieties in Shihezi, Xinjiang[J]. Journal of Xinjiang Agricultural University, 2016, 39(1): 40-44.
[26]	王香茹, 张恒恒, 胡莉婷. 新疆棉区棉花脱叶催熟剂的筛选研究[J]. 中国棉花, 2018, 45(2):8-14.
	WANG Xiangru, ZHANG Hengheng, HU Liting. Screening of cotton defoliation and ripening agents in Xinjiang cotton area[J]. China Cotton, 2018, 45(2):8-14.
[27]	雷斌, 张云生, 李忠华. 棉花脱叶剂的田间效果筛选[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2011, 48(12):2321-2324.
	LEI Bin, ZHANG Yunsheng, LI Zhonghua. The field effect screening of cotton defoliants[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2011, 48(12):2321-2324.
[28]	马辉, 戴路, 李静. 棉花脱叶催熟剂综合性状效果试验研究[J]. 中国棉花, 2013, 40(4):15-17.
	MA Hui, DAI Lu, LI Jing. Experimental study on comprehensive characteristics of cotton defoliation and ripening agent[J]. China Cotton, 2013, 40(4):15-17.
[29]	赵战胜, 邢晓东, 张庭军. 脱叶剂喷洒时期对棉花产量性状及品质的影响[J]. 新疆农垦科技, 2014,(9):34-35.
	ZHAO Zhansheng, XING Xiaodong, ZHANg Tingjun. The effect of defoliant spraying period on cotton yield traits and quality[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Reclamation Science and Technology, 2014,(9):34-35.