A special sealing agent for cotton and its preparation method and application

Abstract

This invention provides a cotton-specific topping agent, which is composed of the following components in parts by weight: 3-7 parts of aminoethyl ester, 3-30 parts of γ-aminobutyric acid, and 25-35 parts of lauric acid diethanolamide. This invention also provides its preparation method and application. This invention achieves a simultaneous increase in cotton seed yield and boll opening rate. Experimental data shows that, when applying the optimized formula of this application (treatment 5), the seed cotton yield (510.0 kg / mu) ranks first among all chemical topping treatments, increasing by 7.0% compared to the comparative treatment 4 (476.7 kg / mu); simultaneously, the number of unopened bolls per plant decreases from 1.25 to 0.88, a reduction of 29.6%.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of crop planting technology, specifically relating to a cotton-specific topping agent, its preparation method, and its application. Background Technology

[0002] Cotton is an important economic crop in my country. In intensive cotton production, controlling vegetative growth and promoting reproductive growth are key to improving yield and quality. Traditional manual topping (removing the top leaf and bud) effectively suppresses apical dominance and promotes boll formation, but it is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and costly. Furthermore, in large-scale production, it is prone to problems such as mechanical damage, labor conflicts, and missed topping. With the continuous expansion of machine-harvested cotton acreage in Xinjiang and the increasing cost per acre, chemical topping has become an important alternative technology.

[0003] Currently, capping agents mainly composed of chemically derived growth inhibitors such as mepiquat chloride, uniconazole, and flubendiamide are widely used in production. However, these traditional chemical agents often have the following drawbacks:

[0004] (1) Unstable effect of growth control: It can easily lead to premature aging of plants or failure of growth control. It is sensitive to variety, water and fertilizer conditions and climate environment, and the effect fluctuates greatly.

[0005] (2) Significant side effects: May cause the loss of reproductive organs such as flowers, fruits, buds, and bells, or pose a potential risk to product safety.

[0006] (3) Limited effect: It often focuses on controlling plant height, and has limited effect on optimizing the spatial distribution structure of cotton bolls, improving the overall boll setting rate and promoting early maturity and boll opening. Existing chemical capping technology often only focuses on controlling plant growth and does not focus on promoting cotton boll development.

[0007] (4) Increased yield and increased bolls are not synchronized: Some chemical topping agents can increase the number of bolls per plant, but they are often accompanied by delayed boll opening, resulting in "increased bolls but not increased yield"; while other topping agents can promote early maturity, but sacrifice the number of bolls.

[0008] (5) The problem of delayed boll opening is prominent: Although some chemical capping agents can effectively control plant height, they often lead to delayed boll maturity and uneven boll opening, affecting the quality of mechanical harvesting and actual harvest yield.

[0009] Therefore, there is an urgent need in this field for a cotton-specific capping agent that can effectively control vegetative growth, optimize the spatial distribution structure of cotton bolls, ensure good boll opening, achieve high and stable yields, and has higher safety. Summary of the Invention

[0010] To address the problems existing in the prior art, this invention provides a cotton-specific sealing agent, its preparation method, and its application.

[0011] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention adopts the following technical solution:

[0012] In a first aspect, the present invention provides a cotton-specific sealing agent, which is composed of the following components in parts by weight: 3-7 parts of aminoethyl ester, 3-30 parts of γ-aminobutyric acid, and 25-35 parts of lauric acid diethanolamide.

[0013] As a preferred embodiment, the cotton-specific sealing agent comprises the following components in parts by weight: 3-7 parts of aminoethyl ester, 20-30 parts of γ-aminobutyric acid, and 25-35 parts of lauric acid diethanolamide; or

[0014] The cotton-specific capping agent is composed of the following components in parts by weight: 3-7 parts of aminoethyl ester, 3-7 parts of γ-aminobutyric acid, and 25-35 parts of lauric acid diethanolamide.

[0015] As a preferred embodiment, the cotton-specific sealing agent comprises the following components in parts by weight: 5 parts aminoethyl ester, 25 parts γ-aminobutyric acid, and 30 parts lauric acid diethanolamide; or

[0016] The cotton-specific sealing agent is composed of the following components in parts by weight: 5 parts amino acid ester, 5 parts γ-aminobutyric acid, and 30 parts lauric acid diethanolamide.

[0017] Secondly, the present invention provides a method for preparing a cotton-specific sealing agent, which is obtained by mixing the cotton-specific sealing agent described in the first aspect according to the specified ratio and diluting it with water.

[0018] Thirdly, the present invention provides the application of the cotton-specific topping agent described in the first aspect in the chemical topping of cotton.

[0019] As a preferred embodiment, the dosage of the cotton-specific capping agent is: 3-7 g / mu of aminoethyl ester, 5-30 g / mu of γ-aminobutyric acid, and 25-35 g / mu of lauric acid diethanolamide.

[0020] Preferably, the dosage of the cotton-specific capping agent is: 3-7 g / mu of aminoethyl ester, 20-30 g / mu of γ-aminobutyric acid, and 25-35 g / mu of lauric acid diethanolamide;

[0021] Preferably, the dosage of the cotton-specific capping agent is: 5g / mu of aminoethyl ester, 25g / mu of γ-aminobutyric acid, and 30g / mu of lauric acid diethanolamide.

[0022] As a preferred option, foliar spraying should be carried out once during the cotton flowering and boll-forming stage.

[0023] As a preferred option, the spraying includes spraying by drones or spraying by manual sprayers.

[0024] As a preferred method, when using the cotton-specific topping agent, dilute it with 20 kg of water per acre before spraying.

[0025] The beneficial effects of this invention are as follows:

[0026] 1. Synergistic Effect: This invention is not a simple superposition of components, but rather a scientific combination of the plant growth regulator aminoethyl ester, the bioactive substance γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA), and the biostimulant lauric acid diethanolamide, resulting in a significant synergistic effect. The combination of aminoethyl ester and GABA, at appropriate concentrations, controls excessive vegetative growth and avoids excessive inhibition, while lauric acid diethanolamide enhances the leaf absorption and translocation efficiency of each active ingredient. γ-aminobutyric acid not only strengthens the cotton plant's stress resistance and cell wall strength but also provides the cotton plant with directly absorbable amino acid nutrition, promoting the transport of photosynthetic products to the cotton boll.

[0027] 2. Dual Enhancement: This invention achieves simultaneous improvement in cotton seed yield and boll opening rate. Experimental data shows that, when the optimized formula of this invention (treatment 5) is applied, the seed cotton yield (510.0 kg / mu) ranks first among all chemical capping treatments, increasing by 7.0% compared to the control treatment 4 (476.7 kg / mu); at the same time, the number of unopened bolls per plant decreases from 1.25 to 0.88, a reduction of 29.6%.

[0028] 3. Spatial Distribution Optimization: This invention effectively optimizes the spatial distribution structure of cotton bolls. Experimental results in 2024 showed that the basic formula of this invention (treatment B) resulted in 11.4 bolls per plant, a 52% increase compared to manual topping (7.5 bolls / plant); 6.6 bolls were formed in the >50cm layer, accounting for 57.4% of the total bolls, forming an ideal "tower-shaped" distribution.

[0029] 4. Safe and environmentally friendly: The compound growth regulator contains bio-derived components such as γ-aminobutyric acid and lauric acid diethanolamide. The amino acid ester is a low-toxicity plant growth regulator, which reduces the dependence on highly toxic chemical pesticides and is in line with the development direction of green agriculture.

[0030] 5. The cotton-specific topping agent of the present invention can effectively control excessive vegetative growth of the aboveground parts of cotton ("controlling apical dominance"), inhibit apical dominance, and improve the population structure.

[0031] 6. The cotton-specific capping agent of the present invention can significantly promote the coordinated development of cotton underground roots and above-ground bolls ("promoting downward growth"), and by optimizing the distribution of photosynthetic products, more assimilated products are transported and stored in the cotton bolls, thereby significantly increasing the yield per unit area.

[0032] 7. This invention provides a "precise application method" that works in conjunction with the compound growth regulator. Based on the physiological needs of cotton during the flowering and boll-forming stage, a single application can achieve the chain-like regulatory goal of "controlling the upper part, promoting the lower part, and increasing yield". Attached Figure Description

[0033] The accompanying drawings are provided to further illustrate the invention and form part of the specification. They are used in conjunction with embodiments of the invention to explain the invention and do not constitute a limitation thereof. In the drawings:

[0034] Figure 1 The spatial distribution of cotton bolls under different treatments in 2024 is compared. Figure A shows the distribution of cotton bolls under different treatments at the same spatial level, while Figure B shows the distribution of cotton bolls under the same treatment at different spatial levels.

[0035] Figure 2 This image shows the final effect of different treatment groups as of July 31, 2025. Figures A, B, C, D, and E respectively show the effects of treatment groups 1-5.

[0036] Detailed Description of Embodiments The technical solution of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to embodiments and comparative examples. Obviously, the described embodiments are only a part of the embodiments of the present invention, and not all of them. All other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art based on the embodiments of the present invention without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0037] Unless otherwise specified, the experimental methods used in the following examples and comparative examples are conventional methods. Unless otherwise specified, the raw materials or test materials used in the following examples are typical commercially available products. The quantitative experiments in the following examples and comparative examples were all performed in triplicate, and the results were averaged.

[0038] To further understand this application, the following detailed description is provided in conjunction with the preferred embodiments.

[0039] Raw material source:

[0040] Amino ester: 98% amino ester soluble powder (Sichuan Guoguang Agrochemical Co., Ltd., Chengdu).

[0041] Mepiquat chloride: 98% mepiquat chloride soluble powder (Sichuan Guoguang Agrochemical Co., Ltd., Chengdu).

[0042] γ-Aminobutyric acid: 98% γ-Aminobutyric acid soluble powder (Zaozhuang Jienuo Bio-enzyme Co., Ltd., Zaozhuang).

[0043] Lauric acid diethanolamide: 98% lauric acid diethanolamide soluble powder (Shandong Yousuo Chemical Technology Co., Ltd., Jinan).

[0044] Example 1: Comparative experiment of the basic formula of this invention with manual topping and control formulas (2024)

[0045] Experimental Design: In 2024, at the experimental site of the Shihezi Academy of Agricultural Sciences (tested variety: Yuanmian 8), three treatments were set up:

[0046]

[0047] Methods: On July 1st (flowering and boll-forming stage, when plant height is 75-80cm), both treatment groups A and B underwent a single foliar spraying of a topping agent (prepared by mixing the raw materials according to the specified ratio and diluting with 20kg / mu of water) using drones. The control group (CK) underwent manual topping. Water and fertilizer management remained consistent across all groups throughout the growth period. In September, at the peak boll-forming stage, boll stratification was conducted on 50 plants per treatment (stratification criteria: 0-5cm, 5-25cm, 25-50cm, >50cm).

[0048] The test results are as follows:

[0049] (1) The effects of different sealing agents on cotton bolls in the same space are shown in Table 2 and 3. Figure 1 Figure A in the diagram.

[0050]

[0051] Note: Lowercase letters indicate significant differences at the P<0.05 level; uppercase letters indicate highly significant differences at the P<0.01 level.

[0052] Table 2 shows that the number of bolls per plant in treatment B reached 11.4, an increase of 3.9 compared to manual topping (7.5 bolls / plant), with a highly significant difference (P<0.01); treatment A had 7.8 bolls / plant, with no significant difference from the control (CK). Regarding boll formation at depths >50cm, treatment B (6.6 bolls) was significantly higher than treatment A (3.5 bolls) and CK (2.0 bolls), indicating that the basic formula of this invention can effectively promote the development of upper bolls.

[0053] Figure 1 The spatial distribution of cotton bolls under different treatments in 2024 is compared. Figure A shows the distribution of cotton bolls under different treatments at the same spatial level, while Figure B shows the distribution of cotton bolls under the same treatment at different spatial levels.

[0054] Depend on Figure 1 It can be seen that the basic formula of this invention has a "tower-shaped" distribution, with cotton bolls in the >50cm layer accounting for 57.9%, which is significantly higher than the 26.7% of those with manual topping.

[0055] (2) The effect of different sealing agents on the spatial distribution of cotton bolls is shown in Table 3. Figure 1 Figure B in the diagram.

[0056]

[0057] Table 3 shows that the bolls in treatment B exhibited an ideal "tower-shaped" distribution, with 0.7, 2.0, 2.2, and 6.6 bolls in the 0-5cm, 5-25cm, 25-50cm, and >50cm layers, respectively. The >50cm layer accounted for 57.4% of the bolls, significantly higher than treatments A (44.9%) and CK (26.7%). The boll distribution in CK was "spindle-shaped," with the 25-50cm layer having the most bolls (3.1).

[0058] (3) The statistical distribution of boll formation rate and FREQUENCY function in different treatment areas is shown in Table 4.

[0059]

[0060] Table 4 shows that treatment B achieved a boll setting rate of 53.3% in the 0-5cm layer and 96.7% in the >50cm layer, with 84.0% of plants having ≥7 bolls, 16.4 percentage points higher than that of manual topping (67.6%). Treatment B exhibited a significant advantage in boll distribution; in the >50cm layer, 76.7% of plants had ≥4 bolls, significantly higher than the control (18.9%), indicating that treatment B not only enabled most plants to set bolls at deeper layers but also resulted in a considerable proportion of plants exhibiting a multi-boll advantage at this layer.

[0061] (4) Pearson correlation analysis of the number of bolls in each spatial level and the number of bolls per plant. The results are shown in Table 5.

[0062]

[0063] Note: This indicates a highly significant correlation at the P<0.01 level.

[0064] Table 5 shows that there is a highly significant positive correlation between the number of bolls at each level and the number of bolls per plant. Among them, the correlation coefficient between the number of bolls >50cm and the number of bolls per plant in treatment B is the highest at 0.875 (P<0.01), indicating that the increase in upper bolls is the key driving factor for the increase in the number of bolls per plant, further verifying the core mechanism of the basic formula of this invention to increase yield by optimizing upper boll formation.

[0065] Conclusion: The basic formulation of this invention (treatment B) resulted in a significantly higher number of bolls per plant (11.4) than that of manually topped plants (7.5), an increase of 3.9 bolls per plant (+52%). The boll formation rate at the >50cm level was 6.6, the highest among all treatments, accounting for 57.4% of the total bolls, forming an ideal "tower-shaped" distribution. The percentage of plants with ≥7 bolls per plant was 84.0%, 16.4 percentage points higher than that of manually topped plants. This demonstrates the groundbreaking effect of the basic formulation of this invention in optimizing the spatial distribution of cotton bolls and significantly increasing the number of bolls.

[0066] Example 2: Comparative test of the optimized formulation of the present invention (2025)

[0067] Experimental Design: In 2025, at the experimental site of the Shihezi Academy of Agricultural Sciences (tested variety: Chuangmian 518), five treatments were set up:

[0068]

[0069] Methods: On July 9th (flowering and boll-forming stage, when plant height was approximately 70cm), all cotton groups (treatments 2-5) underwent a single foliar spraying of a topping agent (prepared by mixing the raw materials according to the specified ratio and diluting with 20kg / mu of water). The spraying method was drone application. The control group (CK group) underwent manual topping. Water and fertilizer management remained consistent across all groups throughout the growth period. On August 25th (peak boll-forming stage), a stratified boll survey was conducted with 50 plants / replica. Yield and the number of unopened bolls were measured in October.

[0070] Experimental results:

[0071] (1) The effects of different cotton capping agents on cotton bolls in the same space are shown in Table 7.

[0072]

[0073] Table 7 shows that treatment 5 of this invention significantly outperformed other chemical topping treatments in terms of boll formation (2.5 bolls) at the 5-25cm depth (P<0.05), and second only to manual topping (0.6 bolls) at a depth >50cm (0.5 bolls), outperforming the two commercial comparative examples and treatment 4. The total number of bolls per plant for each chemical topping treatment (7.5-7.7 bolls) was not significantly different from that of manual topping (7.5 bolls), indicating that chemical topping can achieve a comparable level of boll formation to manual topping, but the spatial distribution characteristics of different formulations showed significant differences.

[0074] (2) The effect of different capping agents on the spatial distribution of cotton bolls is shown in Table 8.

[0075]

[0076] Table 8 shows that artificially topped (CK) cotton bolls exhibit a "balanced" distribution, with high boll formation rates in all layers. Treatment 3 showed a "central dominance" pattern, with the highest proportion (approximately 66%) in the 25-50cm layer. Compared to treatment 5 (high GABA of this invention), the only variable in treatment 4 (low GABA) was the increase in GABA dosage from 5g to 25g. In treatment 5, the number of bolls in the 5-25cm layer increased from 2.2 to 2.5 (+13.6%), and in the >50cm layer from 0.3 to 0.5 (+58.1%). This indicates that high-dose GABA can effectively promote boll development in the middle and upper layers, further optimizing boll distribution, while avoiding the problem of "increased bolls but not increased yield" caused by excessive concentration of bolls in the 25-50cm middle layer.

[0077] (3) The statistical distribution of boll formation rate and FREQUENCY function in different treatment areas is shown in Table 9.

[0078]

[0079] Table 9 shows that the boll setting rate per plant was close to 100% in all treatments. Treatment 5 (of this invention) had a better boll setting rate (2.03%) at depths >50cm and a higher percentage of plants with ≥4 bolls (0.68%) than Treatment 4 (0.68% and 0%), and was significantly better than Treatments 2 and 3, indicating that high-dose GABA can effectively enhance the potential for deep boll setting. Treatment 4 had an abnormally high percentage of plants with ≥7 bolls (96.62%), but combined with the yield data in Table 10, it can be seen that the large number of bolls did not effectively translate into actual yield, confirming the problem of "increased bolls but not increased yield" with the low-GABA formulation.

[0080] (4) Overall performance of different treatments, the results are shown in Table 10.

[0081]

[0082] Table 10 shows that when the optimized formula (treatment 5) of this invention is directly compared with the basic formula (treatment 4), the only variable is the increase of GABA dosage from 5g to 25g. This change resulted in: SPAD values: Treatment 4 (56.60) and Treatment 5 (52.34) were lower than those of manual topping (58.37), but higher than those of commercially available topping agents, indicating that high doses of GABA can effectively delay leaf senescence and maintain late-stage photosynthetic capacity. The yield of seed cotton per mu increased from 476.7kg to 510.0kg (+7.0%), ranking first among all chemical topping treatments; the number of unopened bolls per plant decreased from 1.25 to 0.88 (-29.6%), showing a highly significant improvement in boll opening. The yield difference between Treatment 5 and manual topping (523.3kg / mu) was only 2.5%, while it was significantly better than Treatment 3 (486.7kg / mu, difference 4.8%) and Treatment 4 (476.7kg / mu, difference 8.9%).

[0083] Conclusion: A direct comparison of the optimized formula (treatment 5) and the basic formula (treatment 4) of this invention, with the only variable being the increase in GABA dosage from 5g to 25g, resulted in: a highly significant increase in yield from 476.7 kg / mu to 510.0 kg / mu (+7.0%), ranking first among the chemical topping treatments used; a significant decrease in the number of unopened bolls per plant from 1.25 to 0.88 (-29.6%). The SPAD values ​​(56.60 for treatment 4 and 52.34 for treatment 5) were lower than those for manual topping (58.37), but higher than those for commercially available topping agents, significantly extending the functional period of leaves; the number of bolls in the 5-25cm layer increased from 2.2 to 2.5 (+13.6%), and the number in the >50cm layer increased from 0.3 to 0.5 (+66.7%), further optimizing boll distribution.

[0084] Figure 2 This image shows the final effect of different treatment groups as of July 31, 2025. Figures A, B, C, D, and E respectively show the effects of treatment groups 1-5.

[0085] Depend on Figure 2 It can be seen that each treatment group has achieved the maximum effect.

[0086] Finally, it should be noted that the above descriptions are merely preferred embodiments of the present invention and are not intended to limit the present invention. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art can still modify the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments or make equivalent substitutions for some of the technical features. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, improvements, etc., made within the spirit and principles of the present invention should be included within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A cotton-specific sealing agent, characterized in that: The cotton-specific capping agent is composed of the following components in parts by weight: 3-7 parts of aminoethyl ester, 3-30 parts of γ-aminobutyric acid, and 25-35 parts of lauric acid diethanolamide.

2. The cotton-specific sealing agent according to claim 1, characterized in that: The cotton-specific sealing agent is composed of the following components in parts by weight: 3-7 parts amino acid ester, 20-30 parts γ-aminobutyric acid, and 25-35 parts lauric acid diethanolamide; or The cotton-specific capping agent is composed of the following components in parts by weight: 3-7 parts of aminoethyl ester, 3-7 parts of γ-aminobutyric acid, and 25-35 parts of lauric acid diethanolamide.

3. The cotton-specific sealing agent according to claim 2, characterized in that: The cotton-specific sealing agent is composed of the following components in parts by weight: 5 parts amino acid ester, 25 parts γ-aminobutyric acid, and 30 parts lauric acid diethanolamide; or The cotton-specific sealing agent is composed of the following components in parts by weight: 5 parts amino acid ester, 5 parts γ-aminobutyric acid, and 30 parts lauric acid diethanolamide.

4. A method for preparing a cotton-specific sealing agent, characterized in that: The cotton-specific capping agent according to any one of claims 1-3 is obtained by mixing according to the specified ratio and diluting with water.

5. The application of the cotton-specific topping agent according to any one of claims 1-3 in the chemical topping of cotton.

6. The application according to claim 5, characterized in that: The dosage of the cotton-specific topping agent is as follows: amino acid ester 3-7g / mu, γ-aminobutyric acid 5-30g / mu, and lauric acid diethanolamide 25-35g / mu. Preferably, the dosage of the cotton-specific capping agent is: 3-7 g / mu of aminoethyl ester, 20-30 g / mu of γ-aminobutyric acid, and 25-35 g / mu of lauric acid diethanolamide; Preferably, the dosage of the cotton-specific capping agent is: 5g / mu of aminoethyl ester, 25g / mu of γ-aminobutyric acid, and 30g / mu of lauric acid diethanolamide.

7. The application according to claim 5 or 6, characterized in that: Apply a foliar spray once during the cotton flowering and boll-forming stage.

8. The application according to claim 7, characterized in that: The spraying includes spraying by drones or spraying by manual sprayers.

9. The application according to claim 6, characterized in that: When using, dilute the cotton-specific topping agent per acre with 20 kg of water before spraying.

Images