Cotton yield and applied water relationships under drip irrigation
Introduction
Viewed from the perspective of water stress, the purpose of irrigation is to keep crop water status at a level that maximizes yield within the constraints of irrigation supply and growing season weather. Irrigation provides varying percentages of total crop water supply depending on the climate and irrigation capacity. Among US cotton growing regions, irrigation ranges from being supplemental to rain to being the primary source of water for production.
The cotton production region within a 130-km radius around Lubbock, TX is semi-arid where about one-half of the cotton acreage is non-irrigated and yields vary with rainfall. The average lint yield of irrigated and dryland cotton production in the 25-county area around Lubbock was 571 and 332 kg ha−1, respectively, from 1977 to 1998.
Numerous cotton irrigation studies have focused on irrigation scheduling to optimize yield and water use efficiency. Over a 3-year period, cotton yield responded to frequency of irrigation using the low energy precision application (LEPA) system for applying irrigation (Bordovsky et al., 1992). For irrigation intervals ranging from 3 to 15 days, the optimum interval for yield was 3 days for water application rates varying from deficit to full soil water use replacement. Radin et al. (1989) reported that cotton yield increased as the interval between water application decreased even if the amount of water was unchanged in the arid climate of Arizona. They concluded that high frequency drip irrigation (1–2-day intervals) prevented cyclic water stress and deterioration of the root system compared to low frequency (2-week intervals). Low and high frequency cotton irrigation resulting from irrigation applications as determined by allowable soil water depletions of 55 and 30%, respectively, was compared in level basins by Hunsaker et al. (1998) where the total water application was equal in both frequencies. Lint yields for high frequency irrigation were 15 and 20% higher than for low frequency irrigation in the first and second years of the study. The question of whether the benefits of high frequency irrigation with a drip system could be achieved using a less expensive delivery system to apply extra irrigations during peak fruiting of cotton was addressed by Radin et al. (1992). One supplemental flood irrigation in level basins increased seed cotton yield 15% over a 10- or 14-day interval control, two supplemental irrigations increased yield 25%, and daily drip irrigation increased yield 40%. Doubling the number of irrigations for a short period during peak fruiting achieved much of the benefit of daily drip irrigation.
Since 1988, we have used different criteria to schedule drip irrigation of cotton. Canopy temperature (Tc) was a common criterion used in some irrigation scheduling treatments that were evaluated each year. The combined information from these studies resulted in a dataset that includes different irrigation quantities and lint yields produced under weather regimes spanning a 12-year period. Using this database, the objectives of this report are to (1) estimate the yield response of cotton to varying amounts of drip irrigation, (2) estimate the relationship between growing season temperature and cotton yield, and (3) compare the cotton yield response in the irrigation studies with the yield trends for the northwest Texas production region.
Section snippets
Procedure
Cotton irrigation scheduling was studied from 1988 to 1999 using Tc to define irrigation signals for scheduling. The goal of these studies was to develop an automated method requiring only a few measurements to accomplish irrigation scheduling. Continuous Tc measurements and computation of 15 min averages was common across all years. The time interval for making irrigation decisions was 15 min from 1988 to 1994 when an average canopy temperature of at least 28 °C was an irrigation signal.
Results
Field studies were usually planted during the middle of May, DOY 130–DOY 140, which is normally the optimum time for cotton (Table 1). The exceptions were 1992 which was replanted because cool temperatures and rain damaged seedling stands, and 1996 which had four planting dates between DOY 116 and DOY 154. HU are a method of quantifying seasonal heat input from air temperatures and included the period from planting date through September. Irrigation normally began at first square and continued
Discussion
The irrigation studies were conducted with drip irrigation which uniformly applied water and was precisely metered. Testing during 1988–1990 included different temperature thresholds which scheduled irrigation in 15 min intervals and were compared with weekly irrigation intervals that replaced depleted soil moisture. Automated irrigation based on canopy temperature produced cotton yields that were generally higher than the soil water replacement method. The 1991 and 1992 tests used different
Conclusions
The results from these studies contain several significant items which should be emphasized because of their importance to cotton production management. Maximum yields were estimated to occur for total irrigation amounts near 58 cm or total water application of 74 cm between planting and crop maturity. The average yield of 1500 kg lint ha−1 for the maximum yield treatments could not have be achieved without an irrigation system that allowed timely and uniform water application. At the point of
References (15)
- et al.
Cotton response to high frequency surface irrigation
Agric. Water Manage.
(1998) - et al.
Cotton lint yield response to accumulated heat units and soil water supply
Field Crops Res.
(1989) - et al.
Accounting for humidity in canopy temperature-controlled irrigation scheduling
Agric. Water Manage.
(1997) - et al.
Cotton irrigation management with LEPA systems
Trans. ASAE
(1992) - et al.
Crop specific thermal kinetic windows in relation to wheat and cotton biomass production
Agron. J.
(1988) - et al.
The thermal kinetic window as an indicator of optimum plant temperature
Plant Physiol. Suppl.
(1987) - et al.
Cotton management strategies for a short growing season environment: water–nitrogen considerations
Agron. J.
(1990)
Cited by (108)
Optimal guayule harvest planning and machinery scheduling under drought scenarios in semi-arid farms
2024, Smart Agricultural TechnologyAdopting different cotton cropping systems may regulate the spatiotemporal variation in soil moisture and affect the growth, WUE and yield of cotton
2022, Industrial Crops and ProductsCitation Excerpt :Studies have indicated that soil moisture affects the growth and water absorption characteristics of crop roots (Turner and Begg, 1981; Hu et al., 2009), and the position of crop lateral roots depends on the water content in different soil layers (Taylor and Klepper, 1974). Previous studies also indicated that soil moisture affects the growth and development of cotton root systems (Chen et al., 2022; Abdelraheem et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2009; Han et al., 2015b), changes the germination rate and plant height of cotton crops (Hu et al., 2020), and increases crop yield (Wei et al., 2022; Gao et al., 2021; Wanjura et al., 2002). Relevant studies often require accurate and continuous monitoring of the SWC.
Simulated irrigation water productivity and related profit effects in U.S. Southern High Plains cotton production
2022, Agricultural Water ManagementIrrigation with ionized brackish water affects cotton yield and water use efficiency
2022, Industrial Crops and Products