Modeling irrigation management strategies to maximize cotton lint yield and water use efficiency.

Increasing pumping costs and declining well capacities in the Southern High Plains compel producers to seek irrigation strategies to maximize yield and water use efficiency (WUE), which is the ratio of yield to evapotranspiration (ET). Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is suited to deficit irrigation using wells ranging from 0.29 to 0.93 L s ―1 ha ―1 capacity to supply limited, 2.5 mm d ―1 , to complete, 8.1 mm d ―1 ET replacement. Our objectives were to (i) evaluate irrigation capacity and duration effects on lint yield, and (ii) compare application strategies that maximize yield and WUE. The simulation model GOSSYM was used with 1959 to 2000 weather records from Bushland, TX, to calculate yields of cotton grown on a Pullman clay loam (fine, mixed, superactive, thermic Torrertic Paleustoll) with 50 or 100% initial available soil water. We compared all combinations of irrigation duration (4, 6, 8, and 10 wk) and capacity (for ET replacement of 2.5, 3.75, and 5.0 mm d ―1 and dryland). Simulated lint yield decreased as irrigation decreased; however, yields for similar irrigation totals increased with increasing irrigation capacity. Simulated yields for cotton irrigated > 8 wk did not differ among irrigation capacities, but cotton irrigated at 5.0 mm d ―1 maintained yield with earlier irrigation termination at 6 wk. Based on mean yields, we determined that spreading water to deficit irrigate a field with 2.5 mm d ―1 yielded ∼5% less lint than concentrating that water to irrigate smaller fields at 3.75 or 5.0 mm d ―1 that were averaged with complementary (2:1 and 1:1) dryland areas.

[1]  B. L. McMichael,et al.  Field investigations of the response of cotton to water deficits , 1982 .

[2]  S. Evett,et al.  Irrigation Methods and Capacities for Cotton in the Northern High Plains , 2004 .

[3]  T. A. Howell,et al.  SURFACE RUNOFF DUE TO LEPAAND SPRAY IRRIGATION OF A SLOWLY PERMEABLE SOIL , 2000 .

[4]  K. Bronson,et al.  In-Season Nitrogen Status Sensing in Irrigated Cotton , 2003 .

[5]  K. Dennehy,et al.  High Plains regional ground-water study , 2000 .

[6]  O. R. Jones,et al.  Soil Nitrogen Status as Affected by Tillage, Crops, amd Crop Sequences , 1992 .

[7]  Luciano Mateos,et al.  Season length and cultivar determine the optimum evapotranspiration deficit in cotton , 1992 .

[8]  T. Howell Enhancing Water Use Efficiency in Irrigated Agriculture , 2001 .

[9]  Virginia L. McGuire,et al.  Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer, predevelopment to 2002, 1980 to 2002, and 2001 to 2002 , 2004 .

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

[11]  J. Mauney,et al.  Fruiting of Cotton. II. Effects of Plant Moisture Status and Active Boll Load on Boll Retention1 , 1984 .

[12]  A. Hearn,et al.  Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.): Physiological and morphological responses to water deficits and their relationship to yield , 1986 .

[13]  D. F. Wanjura,et al.  Modeling Cotton Lint Development , 1981 .

[14]  D. F. Wanjura,et al.  Canopy temperature characterizations of corn and cotton water status. , 2000 .

[15]  D. Krieg,et al.  Cotton Management Strategies for a Short Growing Season Environment: Water‐Nitrogen Considerations , 1990 .

[16]  J. Mauney,et al.  Fruiting of Cotton. I. Effects of Moisture Status on Flowering 1 , 1984 .

[17]  J. A. Tolk,et al.  Sorghum Management Practices Suited to Varying Irrigation Strategies: A Simulation Analysis , 2007 .

[18]  J. T. Musick,et al.  Grain Sorghum Irrigation-Water Management on Richfield and Pullman Soils , 1966 .

[19]  Scott A. Staggenborg,et al.  Determining Cotton Water Use in a Semiarid Climate with the GOSSYM Cotton Simulation Model , 1996 .

[20]  T. Howell,et al.  Seeding Practices, Cultivar Maturity, and Irrigation Effects on Simulated Grain Sorghum Yield , 2006 .

[21]  F. D. Whisler,et al.  Application of the GOSSYM/COMAX system to cotton crop management , 1989 .