HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by van Iersel, M. W. Articles by Oosterhuis, D. M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by van Iersel, M. W. Articles by Oosterhuis, D. M. Agricola Articles by van Iersel, M. W. Articles by Oosterhuis, D. M.

Foliar Methanol Applications to Cotton in the Southeastern United States: Leaf Physiology, Growth, and Yield Components

Dep. of Horticulture, Georgia Stn., Univ. of Georgia, Griffin, GA 30223
USDA-ARS, Cotton Physiology and Genetics, P.O. Box 345, Stoneville, MS 38776
Wells, Dep. of Crop Science, Box 7620, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
Dep. of Agronomy, Univ. of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701

^* Corresponding author (Email: mvanier{at}gaes.griffin.peachnet.edu).

Foliar methanol applications have previously been reported to dramatically increase yields of a variety of crops under arid conditions, including cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Whether methanol is effective in the southeastern USA is not known. In addition, the agronomic and physiological events contributing to the increase are not understood. Therefore, we conducted a series of experiments in 1993 to study the effects of methanol on the gas exchange, water relations, development, growth, and yield of field-grown cotton at three locations in the southeastern USA. Conventional management and irrigation procedures were used. Methanol solutions in water, with and without urea and iron, were applied over the top at midday to cotton. Four to eight applications were made from flowering to late boll filling. Both single-leaf and canopy photosynthesis rates taken 2 h to 6 d after treatment were unaffected by methanol or the nutrients. At one site, CO2 compensation point was determined, but did not differ among treatments. This finding does not support previous claims that methanol reduces photorespiration. Transpiration and water potential also were not affected by foliar applications of 15 or 30% methanol (v/v). Foliar methanol applications also did not result in faster development of the crop and did not increase yield at any of the locations. Our results do not indicate any positive effect of foliar methanol applications on cotton in the southeastern USA.

Received for publication September 9, 1994.