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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Effects of Variable In-Season Irrigation Capacity on CottonProject 11-811 TXJames P. Bordovsky, Texas A&M AgriLife Research,Lubbock/HalfwayCotton Incorporated Project Manager: Dr. Ed M. BarnesWithin the Ogallala Aquifer region, the available irrigation capacity on a given field canchange within a growing season. Typically this is due to declining water tables. More recently, it isdue to growers diverting irrigation from one crop (cotton) to other crops (corn) which may have highervalue, or are at a more critical growth stage than cotton, particularly in a year of low rainfall.Furthermore, underground water conservation districts in the Texas High Plains will begin enforcingpumping restrictions which could cause abrupt changes in irrigation rates as limits are reached.Preplanned timing of irrigations with available water allowances complicated by erratic rainfall willbecome more critical.The objectives of this project were to:1. Determine cotton lint yield, fiber quality, and water use efficiency as a function ofcombinations of irrigation capacities during three cotton growth periods; and to2. Develop strategies to improve water management and water value in a semi-arid environment wherenew policies restrict irrigation volume and irrigation capacities are limited.The treatment factors included in-season irrigation capacity (maximums of 0 in/d, 0.125 in/d,and 0.25 in/d) and irrigation application within a specific growth period. Periods were determined byheat unit (hu) accumulation and were generally designated as early vegetative/juvenile (< 950 hu),reproductive (950-1350 hu) and maturation period (>1350 hu). Combinations of these factor levelsresulted in 27 irrigation regimes or treatments. A 4-span LEPA pivot was used to irrigate 9.5 acresof this field experiment. The pivot was modified so that each 8-row section (40-in circular rows)along the lateral length could automatically provide different irrigation amounts depending on thetreatments being irrigated and pivot position. Groups of four valves (irrigating an 8-row plot) wereactuated using signals from a controller (Farmscan 7000, Dothan, Alabama) with specific timesequences for each irrigation treatment and distance from the pivot point. Inputs to the controllerwere pivot location (via GPS signal) and irrigation quantity (via application map) at each 8-row x 16-degree section for each irrigation sequence.Test results to date were obtained from years representing record breaking extremes - highrainfall in 2010 and low and ineffective rainfall in 2011 and 2012. In all years, cotton yield and waterproductivity data indicated that building soil water in the profile, or irrigating in excess of theevapotranspiration rate of the cotton plants, reduced irrigation water value compared to applyingirrigation later in the growing season. This was attributed to water loss from excessive evaporation(high wind, low humidity) that often occurs in May and June on the Texas High Plains. Irrigationwater value during reproductive and maturation periods resulted in water use efficiencies in excess of100 lb/ac-inch of irrigation applied. Additional field tests can provide the foundation for in-seasonirrigation recommendations that will optimize lint yield (and water value) based on irrigation pumpingand volume restrictions.From Cotton Incorporated Annual Report, Project TX 11-811 for 2012Texas A&M AgriLIFE ResearchJames P. Bordovsky, P.E., 806 889 3315, j -bordovsky@tamu.edu135
Disease Ratings andVerticillium Wilt VarietyTesting136
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:
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 140 and 141: Subsurface Drip Irrigation Pre-plan
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?