Evaluation of FAO-56 crop coefficient procedures for deficit irrigation management of cotton in a humid climate

The use of the FAO-56 reference evapotranspiration (ETo) approach for irrigation scheduling has been recommended worldwide because it provides reasonable results under a wide range of climatic conditions. The crop ET (ETc) can be obtained from ETo using a stage-dependent crop coefficient (Kc). The latter depends on canopy height and crop–soil surface resistance and albedo. The objective of this study was to evaluate the FAO-56 Kc procedure under different deficit drip irrigation treatments for cotton grown in a humid climate. A cotton experiment was conducted in 2005 in three automated rainout shelters located at the University of Georgia Campus in Griffin, GA, USA. When the modeled soil water content in the effective root zone dropped below a specific threshold of the available water content (AWC), irrigation was applied until the soil water reached 100% of AWC. The irrigation treatments were 40, 60, and 90% irrigation thresholds (IT). For instance, for the 40% IT treatment irrigation was applied when the modeled soil water content dropped to permanent wilting point plus 40% of the total available soil water. Thus, the least irrigated treatment corresponded to the 40% IT and the most irrigated corresponded to the 90% IT. The observed daily ETc was estimated from daily soil moisture readings. The length of the initial, development, and mid-stages were the same among the different treatments. However, the length of the late-stage for the 40 and 60% IT was 5 and 3 days less than that for the 90% IT, respectively. The observed Kc for the initial stage was 0.51, 0.9, and 0.99 for the 40, 60, and 90% IT, respectively. The FAO-56 Kc for this stage was within a few percent from the observed Kc. For the mid-stage, the 60 and 90% IT had a similar value for Kc (about 1.2) which was higher than the 40% IT (0.92). The end of season Kc for the 40% IT (0.1) was lower than for the 60% IT (0.38), which in turn was lower than the 90% IT (0.58). The FAO-56 proved to be an accurate method for estimating cotton ETc under deficit irrigation. The values for the initial, mid, and end Kc and the length of the different developmental stages for the 90% IT can be used in humid climates for fully irrigated cotton. The use of such information will help in effective irrigation planning and more precise water management.

[1]  Cort J. Willmott,et al.  On the Evaluation of Model Performance in Physical Geography , 1984 .

[2]  T. Hata,et al.  Estimation of crop water requirements in arid region using Penman–Monteith equation with derived crop coefficients: a case study on Acala cotton in Sudan Gezira irrigated scheme , 2000 .

[3]  R. Cole,et al.  Challenging the future , 1993 .

[4]  G. Hoogenboom,et al.  Comparison of Priestley-Taylor and FAO-56 Penman-Monteith for Daily Reference Evapotranspiration Estimation in Georgia , 2007 .

[5]  J. Doorenbos,et al.  Yield response to water , 1979 .

[6]  R. Nichols,et al.  Phenological and Morphological Components of Cotton Crop Maturity , 2005 .

[7]  D. J. Hunsaker.  BASAL CROP COEFFICIENTS AND WATER USE FOR EARLY MATURITY COTTON , 1999 .

[8]  G. Hoogenboom.  The Georgia Automated Environmental Monitoring Network , 1993 .

[9]  James W. Jones,et al.  The DSSAT cropping system model , 2003 .

[10]  James W. Jones,et al.  Decision support system for agrotechnology transfer: DSSAT v3 , 1998 .

[11]  H. S. Thind,et al.  Cotton yield and water use efficiency at various levels of water and N through drip irrigation under two methods of planting , 2005 .

[12]  K. Harrison,et al.  Agricultural Irrigation Trends in Georgia , 1993 .

[13]  L. S. Pereira,et al.  Revised FAO Procedures for Calculating Evapotranspiration: Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56 with Testing in Idaho , 2001 .

[14]  S. Milroy,et al.  Crop water use and water use efficiency on irrigated cotton farms in Australia , 2003 .

[15]  A. Suleiman,et al.  Modeling Soil Water Redistribution during Second‐Stage Evaporation , 2003 .

[16]  Joe T. Ritchie,et al.  Soil water balance and plant water stress , 1998 .

[17]  D. Legates,et al.  Evaluating the use of “goodness‐of‐fit” Measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation , 1999 .

[18]  D. L. Thomas,et al.  Potential of using NOAA-AVHRR data for estimating irrigated area to help solve an inter-state water dispute , 2004 .

[19]  G. Constable,et al.  Maturity and Leaf Shape as Traits Influencing Cotton Cultivar Adaptation to Dryland Conditions , 2004 .

[20]  R. E. Yoder,et al.  Evaluation Of Methods For Estimating Daily Reference Crop Evapotranspiration At A Site In The Humid Southeast United States , 2005 .

[21]  John J. Burke,et al.  Cotton yield and applied water relationships under drip irrigation , 2002 .

[22]  Suat Irmak,et al.  Daily Grass and Alfalfa-Reference Evapotranspiration Estimates and Alfalfa-to-Grass Evapotranspiration Ratios in Florida , 2003 .

[23]  D. L. Thomas,et al.  Evaluation of on-farm irrigation applications using the simulation model EPIC , 2005, Irrigation Science.

[24]  A. D. Schneider,et al.  Evapotranspiration of Full-, Deficit-Irrigated, and Dryland Cotton on the Northern Texas High Plains , 2004 .

[25]  H. Riedwyl.  Goodness of Fit , 1967 .

[26]  P. Krause,et al.  COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT EFFICIENCY CRITERIA FOR HYDROLOGICAL MODEL ASSESSMENT , 2005 .

[27]  C. Priestley,et al.  On the Assessment of Surface Heat Flux and Evaporation Using Large-Scale Parameters , 1972 .

[28]  Devendra M. Amatya,et al.  Comparison of methods for estimating REF-ET , 1995 .

[29]  D. G. Lugg,et al.  Evapotranspiration Crop Coefficients Predicted Using Growing-Degree-Days , 1985 .

[30]  J. K. Cooley.  The War over Water , 1984 .

[31]  Richard G. Allen,et al.  Comparison of Reference Evapotranspiration Calculations as Part of the ASCE Standardization Effort , 2003 .

[32]  Linda O. Mearns,et al.  Spatial Scale Effects of Climate Scenarios on Simulated Cotton Production in the Southeastern U.S.A. , 2003 .

[33]  W. Pettigrew.  Physiological Consequences of Moisture Deficit Stress in Cotton , 2004 .

[34]  I. A. Walter,et al.  The ASCE standardized reference evapotranspiration equation , 2005 .

[35]  C. Willmott.  Some Comments on the Evaluation of Model Performance , 1982 .

[36]  Joe T. Ritchie,et al.  Simple model to estimate field-measured soil water limits , 1999 .

[37]  G. Hoogenboom,et al.  Understanding Options for Agricultural Production , 1998, Systems Approaches for Sustainable Agricultural Development.

[38]  Joe T. Ritchie,et al.  Model for predicting evaporation from a row crop with incomplete cover , 1972 .

[39]  Cort J. Willmott,et al.  Spatial statistics and models , 1984 .

[40]  G. Hoogenboom,et al.  Climate variation and crop production in Georgia, USA, during the twentieth century , 2001 .

[41]  R. W. Skaggs,et al.  Discussion and Closure: Comparison of Methods for Estimating REF-ET , 1996 .

[42]  Richard G. Allen,et al.  Using the FAO-56 dual crop coefficient method over an irrigated region as part of an evapotranspiration intercomparison study. , 2000 .

[43]  Tomomichi Kato,et al.  Determination of a crop coefficient for evapotranspiration in a sparse sorghum field , 2006 .

[44]  M. V. Manjunatha,et al.  Comparative effects of drip and furrow irrigation on the yield and water productivity of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) in a saline and waterlogged vertisol , 2006 .

[45]  G. Hoogenboom.  Weather Monitoring for Management of Water Resources , 2001 .