


































In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

 

African Journal of Environmental Economics and Management ISSN 2375-0707 Vol. 2 (3), pp. 188-194, March, 
2014. Available online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 

 
Full Length Research Paper 
 

A study of nitrogen and boron impacts on yield 
and significance of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) 

 
*Rikhtegar S. Hossein, Mohammad Eskandari  and Hossein Rezaei 

 
Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Qeshm Institute of 

Higher Education, Qeshm, Hormozgan Province, Iran. 
 

Accepted 09 January, 2014 
 

This study was carried out to determine nitrogen (N) and boron (B) effects on yield and quality of 
cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). N was applied to the soil at rates of 0, 100, 200 and 300 kg ha

-1
 and 

B was applied as foliar at rates 0, 500 and 1000 g ha
-1

. Statistical results of study showed that N 
application significantly (P ≤ 0.05) increased boll number, boll weight, seed cotton weight of boll, 
seed cotton yield and lint yield. Moreover, leaf blade N concentration was affected by N application 
rate and increased significantly. Results of study also showed that the highest seed cotton yield 
was obtained in case of 200 kg ha

-1
 N application rate, and this application rate resulted in 19.6% 

increased seed cotton yield. Statistical results also indicated that foliar application of B significantly 
increased boll number, boll weight, seed cotton yield and lint yield. In addition, leaf blade B 
concentration was affected by B application rate and increased significantly. Results also 
demonstrated that the highest seed cotton yield was recorded in case of 1000 g ha

-1
 foliar 

application of B, and this foliar application rate resulted in 25% increased seed cotton yield. 
Statistical results showed that effect of different application rates of N was not significant for all 
fiber properties (fiber length, fiber strength and fiber fineness). Conversely, results of study 
indicated that different application rates of B significantly affected some fiber properties. On the 
whole, application of 200 kg ha

-1
 N and 1000 g ha

-1
 B (two time foliar B application) resulted in the 

highest boll number, boll weight, seed cotton yield and lint yield, and enhanced fiber properties. The 
interaction of N × B was not significant for all studied traits. 

 
Keywords: Nitrogen, boron, cotton, yield, quality, Iran. 

 
INTRODUCTION 
 
In Iran, main portion of soils suffer from lack of organic 
matter and show nitrogen (N) deficiency. For this reason, 
N is one of the most important elements for crop 
production, and agricultural productions highly depend on 
this element (Rashidi and Seilsepour, 2009). Like most 
crops, cotton requires N for normal growth and 
development, and farmers greatly rely on N fertilizers. 
Several studies have been done to study the effect of N 
on cotton (Wadleigh, 1944; McConnell et al., 1993; 
Boquet et al., 1995; Boquet and Breitenbeck, 2000; Ali et 
 
 

 
*Corresponding author email: rikhtegar.hossein@yahoo.com. 

 
 
 
 

al., 2003). N is required for all stages of plant growth and 
development because it is the essential element of both 
structural (cell membranes) and nonstructural (amino 
acids, enzymes, protein, nucleic acids and chlorophyll) 
components of the plant. Without sufficient N, deficiency 
symptoms such as stunting, chlorosis, and fewer and 
smaller bolls are prevalent in cotton (Tisdale et al., 1993). 
Also, cotton canopy development is strongly influenced 
by N uptake (Wullschleger and Oosterhuis, 1990). During 
the vegetative stage of growth, rapid expansion of the 
leaves requires large amounts of N, and both fruit 
production and retention are dependent on leaf 
development and photosynthetic integrity (Oosterhuis et 
al., 1983). Hearn (1981) found that cotton requires about 

90 kg ha
-1

 N for one bale of lint and about 140 kg ha
-1

 N 



Rikhtegar et al.           188 
 

 

for two bales of lint depending upon soil texture. 

However, N uptake can be as much as 230 kg ha
-1

, and 
N removal at harvest can be as much as half of total 
uptake. Among the plant nutrients, N plays a very 
important role in crop productivity. It is an important 
determinant of growth and yield of irrigated cotton 
(Ahmad, 1998). Typically, applications of 100 to 215 kg 

ha
-1

 N fertilizers are required to optimize lint yield 
(Hussein et al., 1985; Constable and Rochester, 1988; 
McConnell et al., 1995; Jin et al., 1997).  

Boron (B) is an essential element that cotton needs 
during all stages of growth and fruiting. It has been 
universally recognized as the most important 
micronutrient for cotton production, and cotton is very 
sensitive to B deficiency because of its high B 
requirement (Shorrocks, 1992). Soil applied B increased 
cotton yields even when B deficiency was not evident in 
the plants (Anderson and Boswell, 1968). It is also 
essential at all stages of plant growth, and critically during 
fruit development especially with today’s fast-fruiting, 
high-yielding varieties. B fertilizers were beneficial to 
cotton production in sandy and silt loam soils in several 
parts of USA and Africa (Murphy and Lancaster, 1971; 
Mathews, 1972; Roberts et al., 2000). While B is 
essential for all stages of cotton plant growth, an 
available supply is most important during flowering and 
boll development. Relatively small amounts of B are 
required to support the process of growth and 
development of cotton fibers in the boll. Researches 

showed that as little as 1.12 kg ha
-1

 of B could increase 

seed cotton yield by more than 1235 kg ha
-1

. B increases 

the nitrogen and carbohydrate metabolism and sugar 
translocation in cotton (Gascho, 1994). Foliar-applied B 
supplements and soil-supplied B can correct low B 
concentrations in cotton (Heitholt, 1994). Foliar 
application of B accelerates the translocation of nitrogen 
compounds, increases protein synthesis and stimulates 
fruiting. As small amounts of B are required, foliar 
application of B may be more efficient than soil 
application, especially when deficient conditions are 
suspected (Howard et al., 1998). There are many reports 
on the growth and yield responses of cotton to soil or 
foliar applications of B. Reports of yield response to soil 
or foliar applications of B have been contradictory. For 
example, Heitholt (1994) reported no yield response to B 
utilizing non-buffered spray solutions, whereas Howard et 
al. (1998) observed that buffering B spray solutions to pH 
4.0 increased yields relative to buffering to pH 6.0. 
Research in Arkansas, USA, has also shown no yield 
response to soil or foliar applications of B irrespective of 
soil N status (Oosterhuis, 2001). Soil applied B increased 
first harvest lint yields by 9%, and four foliar applications, 

each at 0.11 kg B ha
-1

, resulted in lint yields comparable 

to soil application of B at 0.56 kg B ha
-1

, and doubling the 

B foliar rate did not increase yields, but the B petiole 
concentration was significantly increased (Howard et al., 
1998). Lint yield, boll production, flower production, boll 

 
 
 
retention percentage and fiber properties were not 
affected by soil or foliar applied treatments. However, 
foliar B fertilization resulted in leaf blade B concentrations 

of 154 mg kg
-1

 without detrimental effects (Heitholt, 

1994). Soil or foliar applied B may not have been 
beneficial for obtaining high cotton yields. Similarly, there 
were no positive responses to applied soil-B or foliar-B in 
the high N soil level in any of the five experiments, except 
for where the low N treatments responded to applied B on 
a silt loam soil in Arkansas (Oosterhuis et al., 2000). 
Oosterhuis and Brown (2002) reported no effects on 
yield, fiber quality, boll number per meter, average boll 
weight, lint percentages, or petiole or leaf B 
concentrations of soil and foliar applied B treatments 
observed over three years. No significant effect of B on 
lint yield, individual boll weight, or petiole nitrate-N level 
and no significant N and B interactions were found in a 
regional study conducted to evaluate the interaction of N 
and B rates on cotton yields (Oosterhuis and Steger, 
1998).  

In Iran, meager researches have been done to study 
nitrogen (N) and boron (B) effects on yield and quality of 
cotton, and there are no recommended application rates. 
As N and B can agronomically and physiologically affect 
cotton, the main objective of this study was to determine 
the effect of different application rates of N and B on yield 
and quality of cotton, and finding appropriate application 
rates of N and B for cotton production in the arid lands of 
Iran. 
 
 
MATERIALS AND METHODS 
 
Research site 
 
This study was conducted at the Research Site of Tehran 
Province Agricultural and Natural Resources Research 
Center, Varamin, Iran on a clay loam soil identified as low 

in B (0.4 mg kg
-1

) and average in total N (0.07%) for two 
successive growing seasons (2009 & 2010). The 
research site is located at latitude of 35° 19' N, longitude 
of 51° 39' E and altitude of 1000 m in arid climate (150 
mm rainfall annually) in the center of Iran. 
 
Weather parameters 
 
The mean temperature and monthly rainfall of the 
experimental site from sowing (May) to harvest 
(November) during study years (2009 and 2010) are 
indicated in Figure 1. 
 
 
Soil sampling and analysis 
 
The soil of the experimental site is classified as an 
Aridisol (fine, mixed, active, thermic, typic haplocambids). 
A composite soil sample (from 36 points) was collected 



189         Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Figure 1. Mean monthly rainfall and temperature from sowing to harvest 
(mean of 2009 & 2010) 

 
 

Table 1. Soil physical and chemical properties of the experimental site during study years 2009 & 2010 (0-30 cm depth) 
 

Date pH 
EC OC TNV P K Fe Zn Cu Mn B Soil 

 

(dS m
-1

) (%) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) texture 
 

              

2009 7.3 3.4 0.72 17 10.6 200 4.4 0.90 1.4 12.3 0.4 Clay loam 
 

              

2010 7.6 3.0 0.81 17 9.50 224 5.2 0.42 0.5 11.5 0.5 Clay loam 
 

              

 
 
 

 
from 0-30 cm depth 30 days prior to planting during the 
study years and was analyzed in the laboratory for pH, 
EC, OC, TNV, P, K, Fe, Zn, Cu, Mn, B and particle size 
distribution. Details of soil physical and chemical 
properties of the research site during the years of study 
(2009 and 2010) are given in Table 1. 
 
Field methods 
 
A split plot experiment was laid out in a randomized 
complete block design (RCBD) with three replications to 
randomize the different N application rates treatments 
and different B application rates treatments in the main 
and subplots, respectively. The experiment comprised of 

four levels of N fertilizer, i.e. 0, 100, 200 and 300 kg ha
-1

 
N as Urea and three levels of B, i.e. 0, 500 and 1000 g 

ha
-1

 B as boric acid foliar application (without, one time 
and two time foliar B application). Each of the 100, 200 

and 300 kg ha
-1

 N were split into two applications, i.e. 
one third at pre-planting and two third at pinhead square. 
Application rates were maintained on the same plots by 
banding application. Boric acid foliar was applied with 

concentration of 0.5% (500 L ha
-1

). Foliar B applications 
began at the first flower stage, and were repeated two 

 
 
 

 
weeks after. The control treatment only received water 
spray. The treatments were carried out on the same plots 
in the 2009 and 2010 growing seasons. The size of each 
plot was 12.0 m long and 6.0 m wide. A buffer zone of 3.0 
m spacing was provided between plots. In both growing 
seasons, one of the most commercial varieties of cotton 
cv. Varamin was planted manually on May 5, 2009 and 
May 7, 2010. Plots consisted of 6 rows of cotton planted 
with row spacing 0.8 m. Plots were over seeded and then 
thinned by keeping plant to plant distance 20 cm, or a 

population of 62,500 plants ha
-1

, at approximately the first 
or second true leaf stage. Management was consistent 
with typical agronomic practices used for upland 
production in the region. For all treatments, irrigation 
scheduling was based on the basis of soil water content 
monitoring. Also, pest and weed control operations were 
performed based on common local practices and 
commendations. All other essential operations were kept 
identical for all the treatments. 
 
Observation and data collection 
 
Leaf samples were obtained for N and B analysis one 
week before first flower and one week after each foliar B 



Rikhtegar et al.           190 
 

 
Table 2. Effect of different N application rate on yield, yield components and quality of cotton (mean of 2009 & 2010) 

 

N Boll 
 Seed 

Seed 
  

Leaf blade N Leaf blade B  

Boll cotton Lint  
 

application number cotton  concentration concentration  

weight * weight yield *  
 

rate * yield *  * NS 
 

  -1   
 

(kg ha
-1

) (plant
-1

) (g) of boll * (kg ha
-1

) (kg ha ) (mg kg
-1

) (mg kg
-1

) 
 

   (g)      
 

0 12.9 c 6.26 b 4.11 b 3642 c 1489 c  2.22 c 56.9 a 
 

          

100 17.2 b 6.50 ab 4.41 ab 4151 b 1596 b  3.16 b 53.9 a 
 

          

200 19.8 a 6.90 a 4.49 a 4363 a 1659 a  3.61 b 58.9 a 
 

          

300 19.6 a 6.80 a 4.47 a 4358 a 1649 a  4.21 a 60.3 a 
 

          

 
NS = Non-significant 
* = Significant at 0.05 probability level  
Means in the same column with different letters differ significantly at 0.05 probability level according to DMRT 
 
 
 

Table 3. Effect of different B foliar application rate on yield, yield components and quality of cotton (mean of 2009 & 2010) 
 

B 
    Seed 

Seed 
  

Leaf blade N Leaf blade B  

Boll  Boll cotton Lint yield  

application  cotton concentration concentration  

number * weight * weight of *  
 

rate yield *  NS *  

 -1    NS -1   
 

(g ha
-1

) (plant  ) (g) boll  (kg ha
-1

) (kg ha ) (mg kg
-1

) (mg kg
-1

) 
 

     (g)      
 

0 14.1 c  6.15 b 4.48 a 3541 b 1400 c  3.61 a 43.1 c 
 

           

500 16.8 b  6.49 ab 4.61 a 3991 ab 1562 b  3.43 a 55.0 b 
 

           

1000 18.1 a  7.02 a 4.52 a 4428 a 1752 a  3.54 a 67.6 a 
 

             

 
NS = Non-significant  
* = Significant at 0.05 probability level 
Means in the same column with different letters differ significantly at 0.05 probability level according to DMRT. 

 
 
 

 
application. Samples were obtained by removing 20 
leaves from the uppermost fully expanded main stem 
leaves from each plot. After all bolls matured, all seed 
cotton at 10 meter lengths of the four center rows was 
hand harvested at approximately 70% open boll for yield 
analyses. Yield was determined by hand harvesting the 
four center rows from each plot twice and weighing the 
seed cotton. Twenty plants in each plot were randomly 
selected in mid-September of each year for measurement 
of number of open bolls. Boll weight and fiber data were 
obtained from 20 hand-harvested boll samples collected 
from 0.5 m of the two outer rows. Lint yields were 
calculated by multiplying the lint percentage by seed 
cotton weights. Fiber properties for each sample were 
determined in High Volume Instruments (HVI). 
 
Statistical analysis 
 
All data were subjected to the Analysis of Variance 
(ANOVA) following Gomez & Gomez (1984) using SAS 
statistical computer software. Moreover, means of the 

 
 
 

 
different treatments were separated by Duncan’s Multiple 
Range Test (DMRT) at P ≤ 0.05. 
 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
 
Boll number 
 
Statistical results of study indicated that different 
application rates of N and B (as foliar B) significantly (P ≤ 
0.05) affected boll number (Table 2 and Table 3). Results 
showed that boll number significantly increased with an 
increase in N application rate. The highest boll number 

(19.8) was obtained in case of 200 kg ha
-1

 N treatment 
but there was no significant difference between 200 and 

300 kg ha
-1

 N treatments. The lowest boll number (12.9) 

was obtained in case of 0 kg ha
-1

 N treatment (Table 2). 
Results also demonstrated that boll number significantly 
increased with an increase in B application rate. The 
highest boll number (18.1) was obtained in case of 1000 

g ha
-1

 B treatment (two time foliar B application) and the 

lowest boll number (14.1) was obtained in case of 0 g ha
-
 



191         Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 
1
B treatment, i.e. no foliar B application (Table 3). These 

results are in agreement with those of Oosterhuis and 
Steger (1998) who concluded that N application and foliar 
B application considerably increased boll number. 
Interaction of N × B was not significant for this trait. 
 
Boll weight 
 
Results of study also showed that different application 
rates of N and B significantly influenced boll weight 
(Table 2 and Table 3). Results indicated that boll weight 
significantly increased by increasing N application rate. 
The highest boll weight (6.90 g) was recorded in case of 

200 kg ha
-1

 N treatment but there was no significant 

difference among 100, 200 and 300 kg ha
-1

 N treatments. 
The lowest boll weight (6.26 g) was recorded in case of 0 

kg ha
-1

 N treatment (Table 2). Moreover, statistical 
results showed that boll weight significantly increased by 
increasing B application rate. The highest boll weight 
(7.02 g) was recorded in case of two time foliar B 
application treatment but there was no significant 
difference between two and one time foliar B application 
treatments. The lowest boll weight (6.15 g) was recorded 
in case of no foliar B application treatment (Table 3). 
These results are also in line with the results reported by 
Oosterhuis & Steger (1998) that N application and foliar B 
application noticeably increased boll weight. Again, 
interaction of N × B was not significant for this trait. 
 
Seed cotton weight of boll 
 
Statistical results of study indicated that different 
application rates of N significantly affected seed cotton 
weight of boll (Table 2). Results showed that seed cotton 
weight of boll significantly increased with an increase in N 
application rate. The highest seed cotton weight of boll 

(4.49 g) was obtained in case of 200 kg ha
-1

 N treatment 
but there was no significant difference among 100, 200 

and 300 kg ha
-1

 N treatments. The lowest seed cotton 

weight of boll (4.11 g) was obtained in case of 0 kg ha
-1

 N 
treatment (Table 2). Moreover, results indicated that 
effect of different application rates of B was not significant 
for seed cotton weight of boll (Table 2). Although effect of 
different application rates of B was not significant for this 
trait, the highest seed cotton weight of boll (4.61 g) was 
obtained in case of one time foliar B application treatment 
and the lowest seed cotton weight of boll (4.48 g) was 
obtained in case of no foliar B application treatment 
(Table 3). Once more, interaction of N × B was not 
significant for this trait. 
 
Seed cotton yield 
 
Results of study showed that different application rates of 
N and B significantly influenced seed cotton yield (Table 
2 and Table 3). Results indicated that seed cotton yield 

 

 
significantly increased by increasing N application rate. 

The highest seed cotton yield (4363 kg ha
-1

) was 

recorded in case of 200 kg ha
-1

 N treatment, and there 

was no significant difference between 200 and 300 kg ha
-

1
 N treatments. Therefore, for reaching the highest seed 

cotton yield use of 200 kg ha
-1

 N can be recommended. 

The lowest seed cotton yield (3642 kg ha
-1

) was recorded 

in case of 0 kg ha
-1

 N treatment (Table 2). The maximum 

increase in seed cotton yield with 200 kg ha
-1

 N treatment 

was about 19.6% as compare to 0 kg ha
-1

 N treatment. 
Additionally, results showed that seed cotton yield 
significantly increased by increasing B application rate. 

The highest seed cotton yield (4428 kg ha
-1

) was 
recorded in case of two time foliar B application treatment 
but there was no significant difference between two and 
one time foliar B application treatments. The lowest seed 

cotton yield (3541kg ha
-1

) was recorded in case of no 
foliar B application treatment (Table 3). Applied B may 
improve the utilization of applied N by cotton plants by 
increasing the translocation of N compounds into the boll. 
A restriction in the flow of carbohydrates out of the leaves 
could influence the number and size of the bolls. Yield 
increase was the consequence of enhanced boll setting 
and boll weight. With hot-water-soluble B in our 

experimental fields being 0.40 mg kg
-1

 B, the soils were 
low in B. It is generally accepted that a soil water-soluble 
B content of approximately 0.15 to 0.20 ppm approaches 
the deficiency level (Anderson & Boswell, 1968). Positive 
crop responses to B are attributed to a greater B 
requirement by cotton as compared with most other field 
crops (Shorrocks, 1992). The maximum increase in seed 
cotton yield with two time foliar B application treatment 
was about 25% as compare to no foliar B application 
treatment. Another time, interaction of N × B was not 
significant for this trait. 
 
Lint yield 
 
Statistical results of study indicated that different 
application rates of N and B significantly affected lint yield 
(Table 2 and Table 3). Results showed that lint yield 
significantly increased with an increase in N application 

rate. The highest lint yield (1659 kg ha
-1

) was obtained in 

case of 200 kg ha
-1

 N treatment but there was no 

significant difference between 200 and 300 kg ha
-1

 N 
treatments. Therefore, for reaching the highest lint yield 

use of 200 kg ha
-1

 N can be recommended. The lowest 

lint yield (1489 kg ha
-1

) was obtained in case of 0 kg ha
-1

 
N treatment (Table 2). Results of this study suggested 
that greater lint yields at elevated levels of N may have 
been due to the greater number of bolls per plant. These 
results are in line with the results reported by Boquet et 
al. (1994) that application of optimal N rates may have 
beneficial effects on lint yield by producing larger bolls at 
a greater number of fruiting sites. Furthermore, results 
showed that lint yield significantly increased with an 



Rikhtegar et al.           192 
 
 
Table 4. Effect of different N application rate on cotton fiber properties (mean of 2009 & 2010) 
 

N application rate Fiber length 
NS

 Fiber strength 
NS

 Fiber fineness 
NS

 
(kg ha

-1
) (mm) (g tex

-1
)  

0 29.6 a 28.1 a 5.2 a 
100 29.5 a 28.6 a 5.4 a 

    

200 29.2 a 28.7 a 5.3 a 
    

300 30.1 a 29.1 a 5.4 a 
    

 
NS = Non-significant 
* = Significant at 0.05 probability level 
Means in the same column with different letters differ significantly at 0.05 probability level according to DMRT. 

 
 
 

 
increase in B application rate (Table 3). The highest lint 

yield (1752 kg ha
-1

) was obtained in case of two time 
foliar B application treatment and the lowest lint yield 

(1400 kg ha
-1

) was recorded in case of no foliar B 
application treatment (Table 3). The maximum increase in 
lint yield with two time foliar B application treatment was 
about 25% as compare to no foliar B application 
treatment. The similar results were also reported by 
Anderson and Boswell (1968) and Heitholt (1994) in field 
experiments where lint yield increased significantly with 
an increase in B application rate. Yet again, interaction of 
N × B was not significant for this trait. 
 
Leaf blade N concentration 
 
Results of leaf blade chemical analyses showed that 
different application rates of N significantly affected leaf 
blade N concentration (Table 2). The highest leaf blade N 

concentration (4.21 mg kg
-1

) was recorded in case of 300 

kg ha
-1

 N treatment and the lowest leaf blade N 

concentration (2.22 mg kg
-1

) was recorded in case of 0 

kg ha
-1

 N treatment (Table 2). Oosterhuis et al. (1983) 

studied the distribution of N in plant components. They 
found that leaf blade N concentration significantly 
increased by increasing N application rate. Results also 
indicated that effect of different application rates of B was 
not significant for leaf blade N concentration (Table 2). 
Again, interaction of N × B was not significant for this trait. 
 
Leaf blade B concentration 
 
Results of leaf blade chemical analyses indicated that 
effect of different application rates of N was not significant 
for leaf blade B concentration (Table 2). However, 
different application rates of B significantly influenced this 
trait (Table 3). The highest leaf blade B concentration 

(67.6 mg kg
-1

) was obtained in case of two time foliar B 
application treatment and the lowest leaf blade B 

concentration (43.1 mg kg
-1

) was obtained in case of no 
foliar B application treatment (Table 3). Similar 

 
 
 

 
results have been reported by Zhao & Oosterhuis (2003). 
They reported that leaf blade B concentration 
considerably increased with an increase in soil-applied B. 
Once more, interaction of N × B was not significant for 
this trait. 
 
Fiber properties 
 
Statistical results of study showed that effect of different 
application rates of N was not significant for fiber 
properties, i.e. fiber length, fiber strength and fiber 
fineness (Table 4). Earlier studies found no or 
inconsistent effects of the N application rate on fiber 
length (Grimes et al., 1969; Boman & Westerman, 1994). 
Similarly, other researchers found no relationship 
between fiber strength and N application rate (Boman & 
Westerman, 1994; Fritschi et al., 2003). Also, increased 
N application rates were reported to have no effect at all 
on micronaire or to increase or decrease micronaire 
readings (Boman and Westerman, 1994; Boman et al., 
1997). Based on 11 years of data, Boman et al. (1997) 
reported that micronaire readings were reduced by 
applied N in low-micronaire environments and increased 
by applied N in high-micronaire environments. Results of 
study also indicated that different application rates of B 
significantly affected some fiber properties (Table 5). 
Fiber length was affected by increasing B application and 
increased significantly. The highest fiber length (31.7 
mm) was obtained in case of two time foliar B application 
treatment and the lowest fiber length (29.2 mm) was 
obtained in case of no foliar B application treatment, but 
there was no significant difference between one and two 
time foliar B application treatments (Table 5). Although 
fiber strength was not influenced by increasing B 

application, the highest fiber strength (28.6 g tex
-1

) was 

obtained in case of two time foliar B application treatment 

and the lowest fiber strength (28.1 g tex
-1

) was obtained 

in case of no foliar B application treatment (Table 5). 
Moreover, results showed that fiber fineness was affected 
by increasing B application and increased significantly. 
The highest fiber fineness (5.8) was obtained in case of 



193         Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 
 

Table 5. Effect of different B foliar application rate on cotton fiber properties (mean of 2009 & 
2010) 

 

B application rate Fiber length * Fiber strength 
NS

 Fiber fineness * 
(g ha

-1
) (mm) (g tex

-1
)  

    

0 29.2 b 28.1 a 4.9 b 
500 31.4 a 28.2 a 5.7 a 

    

1000 31.7 a 28.6 a 5.8 a 
    

 
NS = Non-significant 
* = Significant at 0.05 probability level  
Means in the same column with different letters differ significantly at 0.05 probability level 
according to DMRT. 

 
 
 

 
two time foliar B application treatment and the lowest 
fiber fineness (4.9) was obtained in case of no foliar B 
application treatment, but there was no significant 
difference between one and two time foliar B application 
treatments (Table 5). The beneficial effects of B 
application in enhancing fiber properties were also 
reported by Oosterhuis and Steger (1998) and Roberts et 
al. (2000). Another time, interaction of N × B was not 
significant for fiber properties. 
 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
For reaching the highest boll number, boll weight, seed 
cotton yield and lint yield, and enhanced fiber properties 

of cotton in the arid lands of Iran use of 200 kg ha
-1

 N 

and 1000 g ha
-1

 B (two time foliar B application) was 
found as the most appropriate and beneficial application 
rates of N and B, respectively. 
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 
 
The authors would like to thank Eng. Mohsen Seilsepour 
at the Department of Soil and Water Research, Tehran 
Province Agricultural and Natural Resources Research 
Center, Varamin, Iran who generously allowed us to use 
his research data for this article. The authors are also 
very much grateful to the Islamic Azad University, 
Takestan Branch, Iran for giving all types of support in 
publishing this study. The financial support provided by 
the Agricultural Research, Education and Extension 
Organization of Iran under research award number 100-
15-24-82-105 is gratefully acknowledged. 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Ahmad N (1998). Plant nutrition management for sustainable 

agricultural growth in Pakistan. Proceedings on Plant Nutrition 
Management for Sustainable Agricultural Growth (December 8-10, 

 
 
 
 
1997), National Fertilizer Development Centre, Planning and 

Development Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, pp. 11-
24.  

Ali L, Ali M, Mohy-ud-din Q (2003). Assessment of optimum nitrogen 
requirement and economics of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) crop 
for seed yield. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 5: 493-495.  

Anderson OE, Boswell FC (1968). Boron and manganese effects on 
cotton yield, lint quality, and earliness of harvest. Agron. J., 60: 488-
493.  

Boman RK, Westerman RL (1994). Nitrogen and mepiquat chloride 
effects on the production of nonrank, irrigated, short-season cotton. 
J. Prod. Agric., 7: 70-75.  

Boman RK, Raun WR, Westerman RL, Banks JC (1997). Long-term 
nitrogen fertilization in short-season cotton: interpretation of 
agronomic characteristics using stability analysis. J. Prod. Agric., 
10: 580-585.  

Boquet DJ, Breitenbeck GA (2000). Nitrogen rate effect on partitioning 
of nitrogen and dry matter by cotton. Crop Sic., 40: 1685-1693.  

Boquet DJ, Moser EB, Breitenbeck GA (1994). Boll weight and within-
plant yield distribution in field-grown cotton given different levels of 
nitrogen. Agron. J., 86: 20-26.  

Boquet DJ, Breitenbeck GA, Coco AB (1995). Residual N effects on 
cotton following long-time application of different N rates. In J. 
Armour and D.A. Richter (ed.) Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., 
Nashville, TN. pp. 1362-1364.  

Constable GA, Rochester IJ (1988). Nitrogen application to cotton on 
clay soil: timing and soil testing. Agron. J., 80: 498-502.  

Fritschi FB, Roberts BA, Travis RL, Rains DW, Hutmacher RB (2003). 
Response of irrigated Acala and Pima cotton to nitrogen fertilization: 
growth, dry matter partitioning and yield. Agron. J., 95: 133-146.  

Gascho GL (1994). Late season fertilization of soybeans with nitrogen 
and boron. Better Crops. Summer. pp.18.  

Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agriculture 
Research. A Wiley-Inter Science Publication, John Wiley and Sons 
Inc., New York, USA  

Grimes DW, Dickens WL, Anderson WD (1969). Functions for cotton 
(Gossypium hirsutum L.) production from irrigation and nitrogen 
fertilization variables: II. Yield components and quality 
characteristics. Agron. J., 61: 773-776.  

Hearn AB (1981). Cotton nutrition. Field Crop Abstracts, 34: 11-34. 
Heitholt JJ (1994). Supplemental boron, boll retention percentage, ovary  

carbohydrates, and lint yield in modern cotton genotypes. Agron. J., 
86: 492-497.  

Howard DD, Gwathmey CO, Sams CE (1998). Foliar feeding of cotton: 
Evaluating potassium sources, potassium solution buffering, and 
boron. Agron. J., 90: 740-746.  

Hussein MM, Ashoub MA, El-Zeiny HA (1985). Cotton growth and yield 
as affected by irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer. Ann. Agric. Sic. Aim 
Shams Univ., 30: 975-991.  

Jin ZQ, Cao GD, Wu FB, Xu LP, Wang MJ (1997). The effects of 



Rikhtegar et al.           194 
 
 

 
application of different amounts of nitrogen fertilizer on the yield of 
short-season cotton. Zhejiang Nongye Kexue, 6: 275-277.  

Mathews GA (1972). Effects of nitrogen, sculpture, phosphorous and 
boron on cotton in Malawi. Exp. Agric., 8: 219-224.  

McConnell JS, Baker WH, Frizzell BS (1995). Cotton yield response to 
five irrigation methods and 10 nitrogen fertilization rates. Special 
Report No. 172. Agricultural Experiment Station, Division of 
Agriculture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Ark, pp. 157-162.  

McConnell JS, Baker WH, Miller DM, Frizzell BS, Virgil JJ (1993). 
Nitrogen fertilization of cotton cultivars of differing maturity. Agron. 
J., 85: 1151-1156.  

Murphy BC, Lancaster JD (1971). Response of cotton to boron. Agron. 
J., 63: 539-540.  

Oosterhuis DM (2001). Physiology and nutrition of high yielding cotton 
in the USA. Informações Agronômicas Piracicaba, 95: 18-24.  

Oosterhuis DM, Steger A (1998). The influence of nitrogen and boron 
on the physiology and production of cotton. News & Views. In a 
regional newsletter published by the Potash & Phosphate Institute 
(PPI) and the Potash & Phosphate Ins. of Canada (Eds. Dr. C.S. 
Snyder) August 1998.  

Oosterhuis DM, Brown G (2002). Effect of soil and foliar-applied boron 
on the physiology and yield of cotton. Soil Fertility Information, June 
2002.  

Oosterhuis DM, Chipamaunga J, Base GC (1983). Nitrogen uptake in 
field-grown cotton. I. Distribution of in plant components in relation 
to fertilization and yield. Exp. Agric., 19: 91-101.  

Oosterhuis DM, Robertson WC, McConnell JS, Zhao D (2000). 
Characterization of boron use by cotton in Arkansas. Proceedings 
of the 2000 Cotton Research Meeting. pp. 72-76. 

 
 
 

 
Rashidi M, Seilsepour M (2009). Total nitrogen pedotransfer function for 

calcareous soils of Varamin region. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 11: 89-92.  
Roberts RK, Gersman JM, Howard DD (2000). Soil- and foliar-applied 

boron in cotton production. J. Cotton Sic., 4: 171-177.  
Shorrocks VM (1992). Boron - a global appraisal of the occurrence, 

diagnosis and correction of boron deficiency. In Proc. Intl. Symp. on 
the Role of Sulphur, Magnesium and Micronutrients in Balanced 
Plant Nutrition. (Ed. S. Portch), the Sulphur Institute, Washington, 
DC. pp. 39-53.  

Tisdale SL, Nielson WL, Beaten JD, Halving JL (1993). Elements 
required in plant nutrition. In Soil fertility and fertilizers. McMillan 
Publishing Co., NY. pp. 48-49.  

Wadleigh, CH (1944). Growth status of the cotton plant as influenced by 
the supply of nitrogen. Ark. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull., 446.  

Wullschleger SD, Oosterhuis DM (1990). Canopy development and 
photosynthesis of cotton as influenced by nitrogen nutrition. J. Plant 
Nut., 13: 1141-1154.  

Zhao D, Oosterhuis DM (2003). Cotton growth and physiological 
responses to boron deficiency. J. Plant. Nut., 26: 856-867. 


