Systems Agronomic and Economic Evaluation of Cotton Varieties in ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Subsurface Drip Irrigation Pre-plant Irrigation Timing Effects on Germination and Cotton Yield(Field 2).James Bordovsky and Joe MustianObjective: To determine the effects on germination and cotton lint yield of three pre-plant irrigationsequences using SDI.Methodology: Plot size was 8 rows by 1300’ with threereplications. Treatment factors were pre-plant irrigation sequenceand depth of planting. SDI laterals were spaced at 60 inches.Crop rows were spaced 30 inches apart with two rows planted onsingle 60 inch beds. All tillage and seedbed shaping occurredimmediately following the 2010 harvest, therefore, the seedbedswere undisturbed from December 2010 until cotton planting inMay 2011. Three irrigation sequences were replicated three timesin a complete randomized block design and are depictedgraphically in Figure 1. Additional treatments within each of thethree sequences included removing dry soil from the planting bedsurface with disks in front of planter units in an attempt to placeseed into wetted soil (deep planting).Figure 2. Subsurface drip irrigated cotton germination testplot. This picture was taken on July 6 during the recorddrought of 2011 at the Helms Research Farm.859 lb/ac (Figure 3). Removing dry soil in frontof the planter failed to improve germination,failed to consistently improve yield, and wouldhave caused additional germination problemswith significant rain immediately followingplanting. When considering normal plantingmethods, applying a large pre-plant irrigationimmediately prior to planting (T3) resulted insignificantly less yield than applying a sequenceof smaller irrigations (T1 and T2). The 2011growing season was extremely hot, dry, andwindy, particularly during the early stages. Assuch, these single year test results may notrepresent those of a more typical growing season.Results:Germinationwas low anderratic in alltreatments withfinal plantIrrigation Amount (in)1.20.90.60.3T1Planting0Apr-111.2Apr-11 May-11 May-11 Jun-110.90.60.3T2Planting0Apr-111.2Apr-11 May-11 May-11 Jun-110.90.60.30Apr-11 Apr-11 May-11 May-11 Jun-11stands at less than 25% of initial seed drop (Figure2). All treatments were identically irrigated throughthe growing season at approximately 40% ETc. Inseasonrain was low at 1.5 inches. Plots from eachtreatment and replicate were harvested by traditionalmethods. Although plant stands were extremelypoor, average cotton lint yield of all treatments wasCotton Lint Yield (lb/a)1200800400T3PlantingFigure 1. Pre-plant and early seasonirrigation sequences in germinationstudy at the Texas AgriLife ResearchCenter, Helm Farm, 2011.Normal PlantaaabDeep Plant0T1 T2 T3TreatmentFigure 3. Cotton lint yield resulting from pre-plant irrigationsequences of 0.2 in/d for 25 days (T1), 2.5 inch plus 0.2 in/d for12 days (T2), and 5.0 inch immediately prior to plant (T3).Cotton was planted with normal planter settings and alsofollowing the removal of some dry soil or "deep planting" at theHelms Research Farm, Halfway, TX, 2011.aba133
Comparison of Cotton Germination Among Three SDI Fields During the Drought of 2011 (Fields 2,3 and 6h).James P. Bordovsky, Joe Mustian, and Casey HardinObjective: To make general comparisons of germination and cotton yield resulting from three SDIsystem/plant position strategies during the drought of 2011.Methodology: Seed germination has been a major issue when irrigating with SDI, particularly in yearswith little rain during the planting period. The 2011 growing season was extreme in terms of low rainfalland high evaporation rates. Cotton was drip irrigated in three separate field experiments at the HelmsResearch Farm. The "traditional drip" installation andplanting was discussed in a previous report (Figure 1).Cotton was planted in a second field where SDI laterals hadwere at 8 inches of depth or in a "shallow drip" installation(Figure 2). A third field, with traditional lateral installation,had been pre-plant irrigated with such poor soil wetting thatthe original experiment was abandoned. On June 14, toevaluate germination, cotton was planted in an alternate rowpattern with one row over the lateral, the adjacent row 30inches from the lateral, or in a "skip-row" fashion (Figure3). The "traditional" and the "skip-row" drip were irrigatedat approximately 50% ET c due to the low plant populations,the "shallow" drip was irrigated at 80% ET c .Figure 1. "Traditional drip" with 60-inch lateral spacing,14-inch lateral depth, 30-inch crop rows, and cottonplanted on May 13. Picture was taken on July 6, 2011.Results: The cotton lint yields were 859, 1450, and 900 lblint/ac from selected treatments of the "traditional","shallow", and "skip-row" fields, respectively (Table 1).Considering the extreme weather conditions, seasonal IWUEwas good (>50 lb/ac) in all fields. Due to the high pre-plantirrigation, total irrigation efficiency was poor for thetraditional and skip-row fields at less than 50 lb/ac-in. If theskip-row field had been planted earlier, yield and IWUEwould have been higher. Results indicate germination canbe improved in dry years if alternate furrow SDI laterals areinstalled at depths of 8 to 9 inches or if rows are planteddirectly over the drip laterals.Table1. Yield and water use efficiency from treatments in SDI fieldsat the Helms Research Farm, 2011.TraditionialDripShallowDripSkip RowDripFigure 2. "Shallow lateral drip" with 60-inch lateralspacing, 8-inch lateral depth, 30-inch crop rows, andcotton planted on May 13. Picture was taken on July 6,2011.Normal Crop Row LocationPlanting Date 5/13/2012 5/13/2012 6/14/2012Pre & At PlantIrrigation (in) 8.6 7.3 13.71Seasonal Irrigation (in) 10.8 15.4 9.26Yield (lb/ac) 859 1540 900Seasonal IrrigationWUE (lb/ac-in) 58 85 72Total Irrigation UseEfficiency (lb/ac-in) 44 68 39Figure 3. "Skip-row drip" with 60-inch lateral spacing, 14-inch lateral depth, and 60-inch cotton rows planted directlyabove laterals on June 16. Picture was taken on July 6,2011.134
Page 2 and 3:
Systems Agronomic and EconomicEvalu
Page 4 and 5:
Scott Russell, EA-IPM, Terry/Yoakum
Page 6 and 7:
Replicated No-Till LESA Irrigated R
Page 8 and 9:
Agronomic and Economic Evaluation o
Page 10:
andomized complete block design was
Page 14 and 15:
not significant at this location. H
Page 16 and 17:
Table 1. Inseason plant measurement
Page 18 and 19:
Table 3. HVI fiber property results
Page 20 and 21:
Entry Lint Seed Bur cotton Lint See
Page 22 and 23:
Table 7. Inseason plant measurement
Page 24 and 25:
Table 9. Final plant map results fr
Page 26 and 27:
Table 11. HVI fiber property result
Page 28 and 29:
Replicated LESA Irrigated RACE Vari
Page 30 and 31:
Results and Discussion:Agronomic da
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Replicated Sub-Surface Drip Irrigat
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Replicated LEPA Irrigated RACE Vari
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Replicated No-Till LESA Irrigated R
Page 82 and 83:
Results and Discussion:Acknowledgme
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91: Results and Discussion:Agronomic da
Page 92 and 93: Table 2. Final plant map results fr
Page 94 and 95: Entry Lint Seed Bur cotton Lint See
Page 96 and 97: Replicated LEPA Supplemental (Limit
Page 98 and 99: lb/acre for FiberMax 2989GLB2. Lint
Page 100 and 101: Table 2. HVI fiber property results
Page 102 and 103: Texas Panhandle Cotton Variety Tria
Page 104 and 105: Biopolymer Research Institue for HV
Page 106 and 107: Location 2 - DumasAt the Dumas loca
Page 108 and 109: cotton yields to determine lint and
Page 118 and 119: Replicated Dryland LargePlot Demons
Page 120 and 121: Insecticides:Fertilizer management:
Page 122 and 123: Table 1. Final plant map results fr
Page 126 and 127: Replicated Dryland Cotton Variety T
Page 128 and 129: Results and Discussion:Significant
Page 130 and 131: Table 2. HVI fiber property results
Page 132 and 133: 125Plains Dryland Systems Variety T
Page 134 and 135: 127Blanco Dryland Systems Variety T
Page 136 and 137: 129Dawson County Dryland RACE Demon
Page 138 and 139: 131Lynn County Irrigated RACE Demon
Page 142 and 143: Effects of Variable In-Season Irrig
Page 144 and 145: Table 1. Response of commercially a
Page 146 and 147: Table 1. cont. †BrandVarietyVerti
Page 148 and 149: There were six locations planted in
Page 150 and 151: Table 2. HVI ratings for varieties
Page 152 and 153: Table 4. HVI ratings for varieties
Page 154 and 155: Table 6. Effect of variety on HVI r
Page 156 and 157: Table 7. cont.Variety bRel.ValueRan
Page 158 and 159: High Plains (TASS 1N and 1S)Planted
Page 160 and 161: Lubbock Air TemperaturesMay, 2012Te
Page 162 and 163: Lubbock Air TemperaturesSeptember,
Page 164 and 165: Precipitation (inches)4.0LTA20123.0
Page 166 and 167: Are side-by-side plots more valuabl
Page 168: Is a one-year test valid, or are se
show all

Systems Agronomic and Economic Evaluation of Cotton Varieties in ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?