Abstract Different irrigation scheduling methods and amounts of water ranging from deficit to excessive amounts were used in cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) irrigation studies from 1988 to 1999, at Lubbock, TX. Irrigation scheduling treatments based on canopy temperature ( T c ) were emphasized in each year. Surface drip irrigation and recommended production practices for the area were used. The objective was to use the 12-year database to estimate the effect of irrigation and growing season temperature on cotton yield. Yields in the irrigation studies were then compared with those for the northwest Texas production region. An irrigation input of 58 cm or total water application of 74 cm was estimated to produce maximum lint yield. Sources of the total water supply for the maximum yielding treatments for each year averaged 74% from irrigation and 26% from rain. Lint yield response to irrigation up to the point of maximum yield was approximated as 11.4 kg ha −1 cm −1 of irrigation between the limits of 5 and 54 cm with lint yields ranging from 855 to 1630 kg ha −1 . The intra-year maximum lint yield treatments were not limited by water input, and their inter-year range of 300 kg ha −1 was not correlated with the quantity of irrigation. The maximum lint yields were linearly related to monthly and seasonal heat units (HU) with significant regressions for July ( P =0.15), August ( P =0.07), and from May to September ( P =0.01). The fluctuation of maximum yearly lint yields and the response to HU in the irrigation studies were similar to the average yields in the surrounding production region. The rate of lint yield increase with HU was slightly higher in the irrigation studies than in the surrounding production area and was attributed to minimal water stress. Managing irrigation based on real-time measurements of T c produced maximum cotton yields without applying excessive irrigation.
[1]
A. Clemmens,et al.
Cotton response to high frequency surface irrigation
,
1998
.
[2]
D. R. Upchurch,et al.
Cotton Irrigation Management with LEPA Systems
,
1992
.
[3]
D. F. Wanjura,et al.
Accounting for humidity in canopy-temperature-controlled irrigation scheduling
,
1997
.
[4]
D. F. Wanjura,et al.
Control of irrigation scheduling using temperature-time thresholds
,
1995
.
[5]
O. F. French,et al.
Yield Enhancement in Cotton by Frequent Irrigations during Fruiting
,
1992
.
[6]
D. Krieg,et al.
Cotton Management Strategies for a Short Growing Season Environment: Water‐Nitrogen Considerations
,
1990
.
[7]
J. Hatfield,et al.
Crop‐Specific Thermal Kinetic Windows in Relation to Wheat and Cotton Biomass Production
,
1988
.
[8]
D. F. Wanjura,et al.
Irrigation Starting Time Effects on Cotton under High-Frequency Irrigation
,
1996
.
[9]
A. Carmi,et al.
Cotton growth and production under drip-irrigation restricted soil wetting
,
1988,
Irrigation Science.
[10]
S. Peng,et al.
Cotton lint yield response to accumulated heat units and soil water supply
,
1989
.
[11]
J. W. Radin,et al.
Water Uptake by Cotton Roots during Fruit Filling in Relation to Irrigation Frequency
,
1989
.
[12]
D. F. Wanjura,et al.
Automated Irrigation Based on Threshold Canopy Temperature
,
1992
.
[13]
J. R. Mahan,et al.
EVALUATING DECISION CRITERIA FOR IRRIGATION SCHEDULING OF COTTON
,
1990
.