Cotton Response to Sub-Surface Drip Irrigation, Planting Date, Cultivar, and Mepiquat Chloride

Nuti, R. C.; Collins, Guy; Jordan, David L.; Corbett, Tommy; Lanier, James E.; Edmisten, Keith L.; Wells, Randy; Grabow, Garry L.

doi:10.1094/cm-2012-0319-01-rs

Cited by 6 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When pooled over all crops for both periods, rainfall and SDI totaled 646 mm, with 302 mm received as rainfall. In previous cotton and peanut research (Lanier et al, 2004; Grabow et al, 2006; Jordan and Johnson, 2007; Nuti et al, 2006, 2012) at this location, yields often increased when SDI was applied compared with no irrigation. When the difference between the amounts of water crops received for this comparison was lower, yields were often similar between non‐irrigated and SDI in many instances.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…The SDI system was established during April 2001 by disking twice and field cultivating and installing driplines at a depth of 25 cm spaced 91 cm apart with a locally‐manufactured, in‐row subsoiling implement. Details associated with the SDI system used in this experiment have been described previously (Lanier et al, 2004; Grabow et al, 2006; Nuti et al, 2006; 2012). Irrigation was applied each day from Monday through Friday to achieve 3 mm d −1 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nuti et al (2006) reported similar cotton yields under SDI and OSI, and these yields exceeded that of cotton without irrigation. Nuti et al (2012) reported that cotton yield response to SDI was independent of cultivar, planting date, and use of mepiquat chloride. In the southeastern United States, research with corn, cotton, and peanut has shown positive responses to SDI compared with growing crops without irrigation (Powell and Wright, 1993; Sorensen et al, 2013; Whitaker et al, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Corn, Cotton, and Peanut Response to Tillage and Subsurface Drip Irrigation in North Carolina

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determining response of agronomic crops to subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) in conventional and reduced tillage systems is important in de ning utility of SDI. erefore, the objectives of this research were to de ne interactions of SDI and tillage with respect to yield and economic return of corn (Zea mays L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), and peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) planted in rotation. Research was conducted in two 4-yr periods (2007-2010 and 2008-2011) in North Carolina using continuous strip tillage vs. continuous conventional tillage without irrigation or with SDI using a crop sequence of 1 yr of cotton, 2 yr of corn, followed by 1 yr of peanut. Corn, cotton, and peanut yields increased with SDI compared with no irrigation regardless of tillage system. Cotton and peanut yields were not a ected by tillage system or the interaction of tillage and irrigation; corn yield was a ected by this interaction. In the second year of corn, yield and economic return were higher in conventional tillage with SDI than strip tillage with SDI. Economic return for the sum of crops in the rotation was a ected by the interaction of irrigation and tillage. Economic return was higher in both periods during each year corn was grown under SDI compared with non-irrigated corn while higher economic returns for cotton and peanut under SDI were noted in one of two periods. When pooled over periods, crops, and tillage, economic return for SDI was US$1,552 ha -1 higher than non-irrigated production over 4 yr.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 69%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Corn, Cotton, and Peanut Response to Tillage and Subsurface Drip Irrigation in North Carolina

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although this amount might provide enough total rainfall to satisfy the seasonal water requirements of most crops, the timing and distribution of rainfall can be yield limiting factors. Irrigation is an important tool to mitigate periods of limited water availability (Jordan et al, 2014;Nuti et al, 2012;Sorenson et al, 2011;USDA-NASS, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies also have been conducted in the Southeast to determine the influence of type of irrigation system on cotton yield. Studies conducted utilizing subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) in eastern North Carolina have shown increases in cotton yield in six of 11 years from 2001 through 2013 versus nonirrigated cotton (Jordan et al, 2014;Nuti et al, 2006Nuti et al, , 2012. Rainfall totals of 45 cm or greater, from May to August were adequate and erased the effect of irrigation on fiber yield.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cotton Development and Yield Response to Irrigation, Planting Date, and Cultivar in North Carolina

Spivey¹,

Edmisten²,

Wells³

et al. 2019

JCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2012, only 2.7% of North Carolina’s cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) was irrigated compared to the national average of 39%. The small size and nonuniform shape of most North Carolina fields are not conducive for a center pivot system. However, benefits to yield due to irrigation in North Carolina have been reported, specifically in years receiving below average or sporadic rainfall. The objective of this research was to investigate the impact of subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) on growth and yield of early- and late-maturing cotton cultivars at varying planting dates in eastern North Carolina. In 2014, the site received more than 750 mm of rainfall and no differences were observed for any parameters between irrigated and non-irrigated plots. Total rainfall in 2015 and 2016 was lower with several extended periods without rain events. There was a greater plant height increase and dry weight accumulation throughout the growing season in response to SDI. Cotton yields were increased by SDI in 2015 and 2016. Cultivar only influenced lint yield in 2016 with the earlier-maturing ‘PHY 333 WRF’ having greater lint yield than ‘PHY 499 WRF’. Planting date did not influence yield under irrigated conditions, and the timing of rainfall played a role similar to previous reports in North Carolina. Irrigation applied via SDI will increase cotton plant stature, fruit retention, and yield in response to deficit moisture conditions, independent of planting date or cultivar.

show abstract

Crop yield and estimated financial return from subsurface drip irrigation for corn, cotton, and peanut over the life of the system

Jordan

Wells

Washburn

et al. 2022

Crop Forage & Turfgrass Mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Irrigation has the potential to increase crop yield and financial return on coarse-textured, coastal plain soils in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Although the majority of irrigation is delivered through overhead sprinkler irrigation, subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) has been shown to be a reasonable alternative to sprinkler irrigation because of its efficiency on small, irregularly shaped fields (Bosch et al., 1992(Bosch et al., 1998O'Brien et al., 1998). Increased yield and/or water use efficiency are often cited as benefits of SDI over overhead sprinkler irrigation (

show abstract

Cotton Response to Sub-Surface Drip Irrigation, Planting Date, Cultivar, and Mepiquat Chloride

Cited by 6 publications

References 11 publications

Corn, Cotton, and Peanut Response to Tillage and Subsurface Drip Irrigation in North Carolina

Corn, Cotton, and Peanut Response to Tillage and Subsurface Drip Irrigation in North Carolina

Cotton Development and Yield Response to Irrigation, Planting Date, and Cultivar in North Carolina

Crop yield and estimated financial return from subsurface drip irrigation for corn, cotton, and peanut over the life of the system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About