Cotton Management Strategies for a Short Growing Season Environment: Water‐Nitrogen Considerations

Abstract

The Southern High Plains of Texas represents the largest contiguous cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) production area in the USA. Water supply represents the greatest limitation to production under rainfed conditions. Where supplemental irrigation is used, growing season length represents a major limitation to attainment of high yields of desirable quality fiber and seed. The primary objective of this research project was to determine the inter‐relationships between H2O, N, and heat unit supplies as they affect lint yield of cotton. Field experiments were conducted during a 4‐yr period at a sandy soil (fine, loamy, mixed, thermic family of Aridic Paleustalf) site. Water supply was varied through irrigation with treatments ranging from dryland to fully irrigated. Superimposed on the water supplies were N rate treatments applied preplant and sidedress in a factorial design. Lint yield (LY) was defined as a function of components including plant density, bolls per plant and average boll size. Regression analysis was used to determine LY response to treatments. Lint yield was most highly correlated with boll number per unit ground area with equal contribution from plant density and bolls per plant. Water supply was most responsible for boll number; however, increasing N supply within each H2O regime resulted in a positive response in boll number per plant. Multiple regression analysis revealed that LY responded to H2O and N supplies during the fruiting period to a greater extent than to preflower supplies. Within any heat unit regime, LY was maximized as water supply increased by maintaining a constant ratio of 0.2 kg N ha−1 mm−1 H2O.

Planting Geometry Effects on the Growth and Yield of Dryland Cotton

“…Foundation Seed, College Station, TX) was planted using a high-clearance hoe opener grain drill at ~50 kg·ha −1 sowing rate to achieve 200 plants·m Pullman soil [18]; therefore, no fertilizer N was needed to achieve the expected dryland yields for wheat [19] and cotton lint [20]. We applied no P or K fertilizer because the Pullman clay mineralogy supplies sufficient K to meet crop demand [21] and dryland crop response to broadcast applied P fertilizer has been limited for 0.76 m rows.…”

“…No fertilizer N was applied because, as previously noted, annual atmospheric deposition and mineralization for a Pullman soil totaling ~47 kg N ha −1 [18] is sufficient to achieve ~500 kg·ha −1 lint yields [20] that might be expected for dryland cotton at Bushland. The effects of other nutrients on cotton growth are not simulated by GOSSYM and were not specified [31].…”

Response of Cotton to Irrigation Methods and Nitrogen Fertilization: Yield Components, Water‐Use Efficiency, Nitrogen Uptake, and Recovery

“…Sabbe and Zelinski (1990) point out that it is very important to understand nutrient uptake patterns for specific crops prior to interpreting the data related to plant-tissue Cotton Response to Irrigation and Nitrogen 2283 analysis, because there are differences among species, varieties, and locations. Furthermore, Morrow and Krieg (1990) reported that cotton response to N fertilization is very often difficult to predict and mostly linked to initial soil nitrate (NO 3 2 )-N level. Therefore, the availability of N from previous cultivation and residues will considerably affect the N management of the succeeding cotton crop and should be seriously considered.…”

Effect of nitrogen and sulfur on the quality of the cotton fiber under mediterranean conditions

“…The availability of fertilizers are the major constraints in cotton production in most of cotton producing area (Morrow & Krieg, 1990). Proper fertilization practices in cotton crop ensure improved economics of production, efficiency of nutrient use, and environmental protection.…”