Planting Geometry Effects on the Growth and Yield of Dryland Cotton

Abstract

The declining Ogallala Aquifer beneath the Southern High Plains may necessitate dryland crop production and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is a well-adapted and potentially profitable alternative crop. The limited growing season duration of the Texas Panhandle and southwestern Kansas, however, imposes significant production risk due to incomplete boll maturation. Emphasizing earlier boll production that is usually confined to sites on lower fruiting branches may reduce risk, but offsetting high planting densities are needed to maintain desirable lint yield. Our objectives were to quantify planting: 1) row width and 2) in-row spacing effects on growth, yield, and fiber quality of dryland cotton. Field tests of row widths from 0.25 to 0.76 m and plant densities with in-row spacing ranging from 0.075 to 0.15 m were conducted from 1999 to 2005 on a nearly level Pullman clay loam (fine, mixed, superactive, thermic Torrertic Paleustoll) managed in a wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), cotton, fallow (W-Ctn-F) rotation. To expand the basis of comparison, cotton growth and yields were simulated using GOSSYM and long-term weather records from Bushland, TX, as input for all combinations of 0.38 or 0.76 m row widths and plant spacing of 0.075, 0.10 and 0.15 m. Experimental and computer simulated plant height and harvested boll number increased significantly with increased row spacing and, occasionally, in-row plant spacing. Modeled lint yield for 0.38 m rows decreased by approximately 50% compared with the 582 kg·ha −1 yield for conventional row spacing, which was practically duplicated by field observations in 2001 and 2004. Measured fiber quality occasionally improved with conventional row spacing over ultra-narrow rows, but was unaffected by plant spacing. Because narrow rows and frequent plant spacing did not improve lint yield or fiber quality of dryland cotton, we do not recommend this strategy to overcome a thermally limited growing season.

Effect of Plant Distribution Patterns and Growth Regulators on Morphological, Yield and Technological Characters of Egyptian Cotton

“…Concerning fiber fineness, sowing cotton plants in beds with wide distance between hills (D3 pattern) recorded the best fineness of cotton fiber followed by sowing cotton plants in beds with narrow distance between hills (D4 pattern) without significant between them in the second season. These results are in accordance with Baumhard et al (2018) who showed that sowing cotton plants in wide furrows gave the highest values of fiber length in comparison with narrow furrows. However, Deshish (2021) stated that uniformity index, micronaire reading and pressley index were not significantly affected by plant distribution patterns.…”

Modeling Cotton Growth and Yield Response to Irrigation Practices for Thermally Limited Growing Seasons in Kansas

“…For GOSSYM, previous model validation by Staggenborg et al (1996) demonstrated that the calculated daily water use was within one standard deviation of measured values and seasonal totals differed by ~10% for irrigated cotton under semiarid southern High Plains conditions. Similarly, the observed and modeled dryland lint yields at Bushland, Texas, about 180 km north agreed well with observations, achieving an RMSE that was ~20% of the mean yield (Baumhardt, 2002;Baumhardt et al, 2018). For Kansas, GOSSYM-estimated yields are plotted in figure 3 across overall means of as many as 49 cultivars from ongoing variety trials conducted near Hugoton, Kansas, 228 km NNE of Bushland.…”

“…Despite the possible N deficit, GOSSYM-simulated lint yields averaged ~90% of the mean observed yields of multiple cultivars, suggesting robust model performance that, taken in aggregate, shows reliable calculated yields. Validation of GOSSYM using local soil parameters and weather has been consistently successful at sites spanning a ~400 km distance from Lubbock to Bushland (Staggenborg et al, 1996;Baumhardt et al, 2018) and on to Hugoton. This suggests that model application for an additional ~250 km distance north from Hugoton to Colby can provide reasonable management inferences despite no further validation in lieu of variety performance data.…”

“…Cotton simulations were based on typical 0.76 m row spacing at 13 plants m -2 population using a stripper-type cultivar with a growth habit similar to All-Tex Atlas (Levelland, Tex. ), as described in the variety file ST1 supplied with GOSSYM (Staggenborg et al, 1996;Baumhardt et al, 2009Baumhardt et al, , 2015Baumhardt et al, , 2018. The variety files contain numerous parameters that modify the modeled plant growth and development through carbohydrate partitioning to reflect dry matter governing height, nodes, squares, bolls, and yield (Landivar et al, 2010).…”

“…These cotton yields under full ET replacement irrigation revealed poor production with limited growing season CGDD in west central (Tribune) or northwestern (Colby) Kansas. However, the potential risk of growing cotton with insufficient growing season CGDD on a Ulysses soil has been shown to be manageable with deficit irrigation that limited water use to promote fruit maturation (Baumhardt et al, 2018).…”