# Effect of Controlled Defoliant Application on Cotton Fiber Quality
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Information on length parameter
The presence of trash in cotton fiber quality was reported to degrade the quality of HVI and AFIS length measurements [62]. The total (cnt/g), trash size, dust, trash (cnt/g), and VFM %variables are statistically insignificant across the treatments in both fields (Table 7). D. Information on fiber fineness, maturity ratio, and immature fiber content (IFC)  
The fiber fineness has a great role in determining the stiffness or softness of fabric, twisting property during yarn formation, strength, and uniformity of a yarn and reps formation [63]. Likewise, fiber maturity is determined by fiber wall thickness, and immature fibers have a minimum wall thickness, possibly due to interruption or retardation of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Field\#** & **Treatment** & **L(n)** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **L(n)** \\ **CV\%** \\ \end{tabular} & **SFC (n)** & **L (5\%)** & **L(w)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **L(w)** \\ **CV\%** \\ \end{tabular} & **UQL (w)** & **SFC (W)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{1} & 20\% & 0.81 ab & 43.33 ab & 21.76 ab & 1.34 ab & 0.96 ab & 37.17 a & 1.17 a & 8.81 ab \\  & 40\% & 0.82 a & 44.87 a & 22.47 ab & 1.37 a & 0.97 a & 35.48 ab & 1.20 a & 8.98 ab \\  & 60\% & 0.81 a & 42.31 ab & 20.56 b & 1.34 ab & 0.96 ab & 33.81 b & 1.16 ab & 8.32 a \\ \cline{2-10}  & Control & 0.77 b & 45.37 a & 25.00 ab & 1.33 ab & 0.93 ab & 36.22 a & 1.15 b & 10.65 a \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{2} & 20\% & 0.86 a & 47.00 a & 22.13 b & 1.51 a & 1.05 a & 36.48 a & 1.32 a & 8.51 b \\  & 40\% & 0.84 ab & 47.40 a & 23.13 ab & 1.49 ab & 1.03 ab & 36.90 a & 1.30 ab & 9.05 ab \\  & 60\% & 0.86 a & 46.58 a & 22.40 b & 1.49 ab & 1.04 a & 35.95 a & 1.30 ab & 8.71 b \\ \cline{2-10}  & Control & 0.81 b & 48.45 a & 25.60 a & 1.45 b & 1.00 b & 37.55 a & 1.27 b & 10.31 a \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Effect of defoliant dosage on fiber quality cotton analyze by AFIS (Length parameter). (Values not sharing a common letter within treatments are significantly different (\(p\leq 0.05\))). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Field\#** & **Treatments** & **Total (cnt/g)** & **Trash Size** & **Dust** & **Trash (cnt/g)** & **VFM (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{1} & 20\% & 82.62 a & 315.75 a & 70.25 a & 12.37 ab & 0.28 a \\  & 40\% & 129.20 a & 328.87 a & 108.37 a & 20.87 a & 0.48 a \\  & 60\% & 75.50 a & 322.50 a & 63.25 a & 12.25 ab & 0.27 a \\ \cline{2-6}  & Control & 109.75 a & 373.50 a & 88.00 a & 22.00 a & 0.51 a \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{2} & 20\% & 149.66 a & 317.00 a & 126.83 a & 22.50 a & 0.44 a \\  & 40\% & 151.66 a & 308.83 a & 129.66 a & 21.66 a & 0.43 a \\ \cline{1-1}  & 60\% & 132.00 a & 306.00 a & 113.16 a & 18.66 a & 0.38 a \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & Control & 117.83 a & 356.33 a & 95.66 a & 22.16 a & 0.46 a \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Effect of defoliant dosage on fiber quality cotton analyzed by AFIS (Trash parameter). (Values not sharing a common letter within treatments are significantly different (\(p\leq 0.05\))). secondary cell wall cellulose biosynthesis during cotton fiber development. The higher proportion of immature fiber deteriorates the fiber quality by decreasing breaking strength and increasing neps [64]. Similarly, the fiber maturity ratio is very crucial property and is directly proportional to the degree of wall thickening. Thus, the immature fibers have a very small maturity ratio with little or no secondary wall thickening [65]. In field 1, there is no significant effect of treatment on the fineness, IFC, and mat ratio whereas in field 2, treatments have no effect on IFC and maturity ratio, however, fineness is significant, and 60% duty cycle has higher fiber fineness as compared to other treatments (Table 8).