AGRONOMY AND SOILS Management of Cotton Grown Under Overhead Sprinkle and Sub-surface Drip Irrigation

Irrigation improves the consistency of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) yield during seasons with inadequate or poor rainfall distribution, but comparisons of irrigation methods, including overhead sprinkle (OSI) and sub-surface drip (SSD), are limited. Irrigation may affect the response of cotton to mepiquat chloride and the response of glyphosate resistant cotton to glyphosate. The objectives of this study were to compare the response of cotton with OSI and SSD irrigation and to determine if any responses to glyphosate and mepiquat chloride were different between irrigation systems. Field trials were conducted from 2001 through 2003 at the Peanut Belt Research Station in North Carolina to evaluate eight treatment combinations of glyphosate application method, mepiquat chloride application, and irrigation method. Glyphosate isopropylamine salt at 0.84 kg acid equivalent (a.e.) ha -1 was applied over-the-top at the four-leaf stage or non-precision post-directed at the eight-leaf stage. Mepiquat chloride was applied according to North Carolina Extension Service recommendations. Lint yield, which averaged 1400 and 1470 kg ha -1 under OSI and SSD, respectively, was not affected by mepiquat chloride application. Nonprecision post-directed glyphosate reduced lint yield by 160 kg ha -1 in 2002, but did not affect yield in 2001 or 2003. Compared with untreated cotton, cotton treated with mepiquat chloride was 31 cm shorter with 2 fewer nodes in 2001 and 2003, and averaged 0.6 fewer first position bolls and 0.2 mm longer fiber. The two irrigation systems produced similar yields, and non-precision glyphosate applications reduced yield. In this study, irrigated cotton did not exhibit sufficient vegetative growth to benefit from the recommended applications of mepiquat chloride.

[1]  William Lane Austin,et al.  The Census of Agriculture , 1930 .

[2]  Peter Droogers,et al.  Use of simulation models to evaluate irrigation performance including water productivity, risk and system analyses , 2000, Irrigation Science.

[3]  D. Oosterhuis,et al.  Physiological and yield responses of cotton to Mepplus and Mepiquat chloride. , 1998 .

[4]  F. M. Eaton.  Physiology of the Cotton Plant , 1955 .

[5]  J. Quisenberry,et al.  Influence of Indeterminate Growth Habit on Yield and Irrigation Water-use Efficiency in Upland Cotton 1 , 1976 .

[6]  S. Senseman,et al.  Boll Abscission Responses of Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to Glyphosate1 , 2003, Weed Technology.

[7]  G. Guinn.  Causes of Square and Boll Shedding in Cotton , 1982 .

[8]  W. Meredith,et al.  Cotton Response to Planting Date and Mepiquat Chloride , 1988 .

[9]  H. Yamada,et al.  Relation of Cotton Growth and Yield to Minimum Leaf Water Potential 1 , 1982 .

[10]  A. C. York.  Cotton Cultivar Response to Mepiquat Chloride1 , 1983 .

[11]  D. R. Clifford,et al.  Recent developments in the use of plant growth retardants. , 1980 .

[12]  J. M. Ellis,et al.  Soybean (Glycine max) and Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Response to Simulated Drift of Glyphosate and Glufosinate1 , 2002, Weed Technology.

[13]  R. Prozorov.  Temperature , 1890, The Hospital.

[14]  D. Ashley.  C-Labelled Photosynthate Translocation and Utilization in Cotton Plants 1 , 1972 .

[15]  O. L. May,et al.  Transgenic Cotton with Improved Resistance to Glyphosate Herbicide , 2004 .

[16]  J. T. Cothren,et al.  Flowering and Yield Response of Cotton to Application of Mepiquat Chloride and PGR‐IV , 2001 .

[17]  S. Wullschleger,et al.  Photosynthetic Carbon Production and Use by Developing Cotton Leaves and Bolls , 1990 .

[18]  J. I. Davidson,et al.  Validation of EXNUT for Scheduling Peanut Irrigation in North Carolina1 , 1998 .

[19]  Darrell J. Bosch,et al.  An Economic Comparison of Subsurface Microirrigation with Center Pivot Sprinkler Irrigation , 1992 .

[20]  J. McCarty,et al.  Effects of 1,1-dimethylpiperidinium chloride on the yields, agronomic traits, and allelochemicals of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), a nine year study , 1994 .

[21]  J. Etherington,et al.  Water Relations in Plants , 1969, Nature.

[22]  David L. Jordan,et al.  Disease Management in Overhead Sprinkler and Subsurface Drip Irrigation Systems for Peanut , 2004 .

[23]  L. R. Verdooren.  Statistical procedures for agricultural research: (2nd edition) K.A. Gomez and A.A. Gomez. John Wiley, New York, 1984. xvi + 680 pp., US$39.95. John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex, U.K., £37.95. Also paperback £12.95/US$15.50. ISBN 0-471-87092-7 , 1986 .

[24]  T. Kerby,et al.  Cotton Fruiting Modification with Mepiquat Chloride1 , 1986 .

[25]  R. Wells,et al.  WEED SCIENCE Effect of Glyphosate on Fruit Retention, Yield, and Fiber Quality of Glyphosate Resistant Cotton , 2004 .

[26]  P. Dugger,et al.  Technology transfer of cotton. , 2000 .

[27]  Michael A. Jones,et al.  Tolerance of Transgenic Cotton to Topical Applications of Glyphosate , 1999 .

[28]  A. Culpepper,et al.  Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. , 1998 .

[29]  T. A. Kerby,et al.  Cotton Response to Mepiquat Chloride1 , 1985 .

[30]  J. Boyer,et al.  Recovery of photosynthesis in sunflower after a period of low leaf water potential. , 1971, Plant physiology.

[31]  G. Swyer.  FERTILIZATION , 1956, Journal of cellular physiology.

[32]  Judith F. Thomas,et al.  Reproductive abnormalities in glyphosate-resistant cotton caused by lower CP4-EPSPS levels in the male reproductive tissue , 2002, Weed Science.

[33]  K. McInnes,et al.  Partitioning of biomass in well-watered and water-stressed cotton plants treated with mepiquat chloride , 1991 .

[34]  M. Patterson,et al.  Weed Management Programs for Glyphosate-Tolerant Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)1 , 2001, Weed Technology.

[35]  R. J. Hanks,et al.  Applied Soil Physics , 1992, Advanced Series in Agricultural Sciences.

[36]  Freddie R. Lamm,et al.  AN ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF SUBSURFACE DRIP AND CENTER PIVOT SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEMS , 1998 .