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

IF 1.4 4区 农林科学 Q3 AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
R. Baumhardt, L. Haag, P. Gowda, R. Schwartz, G. Marek, F. Lamm
{"title":"Modeling Cotton Growth and Yield Response to Irrigation Practices for Thermally Limited Growing Seasons in Kansas","authors":"R. Baumhardt, L. Haag, P. Gowda, R. Schwartz, G. Marek, F. Lamm","doi":"10.13031/trans.13877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"HighlightsLater planting and greater site elevation or latitude decreased seasonal growing degree days and cotton yield in Kansas.Higher irrigation capacity (rate) usually increased lint yield, which was probably due to increased early boll load.Strategies for splitting land allocations between high irrigation rates and dryland did not increase production.Cotton may reduce irrigation withdrawals from the Ogallala aquifer, but the Kansas growing season limits production.Abstract. Precipitation in the western Great Plains averages about 450 mm, varying little with latitude and providing 40% to 80% of potential crop evapotranspiration (ETc). Supplemental irrigation is required to fully meet crop water demand, but the Ogallala or High Plains aquifer is essentially non-recharging south of Nebraska. Pumping water from this aquifer draws down water tables, leading to reduced water availability and deficit irrigation to produce an alternate crop such as cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) with a lower peak water demand than corn (Zea mays L.). Our objective was to compare simulated cotton yield response to emergence date, irrigation capacity, and application period at three western Kansas locations (Colby, Tribune, and Garden City) with varying seasonal energy or cumulative growing degree days (CGDD) and compare split center pivot deficit irrigation strategies with a fixed water supply (i.e., where portions of the center pivot land area are managed with different irrigation strategies). We used actual 1961-2000 location weather records with the GOSSYM simulation model to estimate yields of cotton planted into soil at 50% plant-available water for three emergence dates (DOY 145, 152, and 159) and all combinations of irrigation period (0, 4, 6, 8, and 10 weeks beginning at first square) and capacity (2.5, 3.75, and 5.0 mm d-1). Simulated lint yield and its ratio to ETc, or water use efficiency (WUE), consistently decreased with delayed planting (emergence) as location elevation or latitude increased due to effects on growing season CGDD. Depending on location, simulated cotton lint consistently increased (p = 0.05) for scenarios with increasing irrigation capacity, which promoted greater early season boll load, but not for durations exceeding 4 to 6 weeks, probably because later irrigation and fruiting did not complete maturation during the short growing season. Cotton WUE generally increased, with greater yields resulting from earlier emergence and early high-capacity irrigation. We calculated lower WUE where irrigation promoted vigorous growth with added fruiting forms that delayed maturation and reduced the fraction of open bolls. The irrigation strategy of focusing water at higher capacities on a portion of the center pivot in combination with the dryland balance did not increase net yields significantly at any location because the available seasonal energy limited potential crop growth and yield response to irrigation. However, the overall net lint yield was numerically larger for focused irrigation strategies at the southwest Kansas location (Garden City). Based on lint yields simulated under uniform or split center pivot deficit irrigation, we conclude that cotton is poorly suited as an alternative crop for central western and northwestern Kansas because of limited growing season CGDD. Keywords: Cotton, Crop simulation, Deficit irrigation, Evapotranspiration, Irrigation capacity, Split center pivot irrigation, Water use efficiency, Yield limiting factors.","PeriodicalId":23120,"journal":{"name":"Transactions of the ASABE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transactions of the ASABE","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.13877","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

HighlightsLater planting and greater site elevation or latitude decreased seasonal growing degree days and cotton yield in Kansas.Higher irrigation capacity (rate) usually increased lint yield, which was probably due to increased early boll load.Strategies for splitting land allocations between high irrigation rates and dryland did not increase production.Cotton may reduce irrigation withdrawals from the Ogallala aquifer, but the Kansas growing season limits production.Abstract. Precipitation in the western Great Plains averages about 450 mm, varying little with latitude and providing 40% to 80% of potential crop evapotranspiration (ETc). Supplemental irrigation is required to fully meet crop water demand, but the Ogallala or High Plains aquifer is essentially non-recharging south of Nebraska. Pumping water from this aquifer draws down water tables, leading to reduced water availability and deficit irrigation to produce an alternate crop such as cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) with a lower peak water demand than corn (Zea mays L.). Our objective was to compare simulated cotton yield response to emergence date, irrigation capacity, and application period at three western Kansas locations (Colby, Tribune, and Garden City) with varying seasonal energy or cumulative growing degree days (CGDD) and compare split center pivot deficit irrigation strategies with a fixed water supply (i.e., where portions of the center pivot land area are managed with different irrigation strategies). We used actual 1961-2000 location weather records with the GOSSYM simulation model to estimate yields of cotton planted into soil at 50% plant-available water for three emergence dates (DOY 145, 152, and 159) and all combinations of irrigation period (0, 4, 6, 8, and 10 weeks beginning at first square) and capacity (2.5, 3.75, and 5.0 mm d-1). Simulated lint yield and its ratio to ETc, or water use efficiency (WUE), consistently decreased with delayed planting (emergence) as location elevation or latitude increased due to effects on growing season CGDD. Depending on location, simulated cotton lint consistently increased (p = 0.05) for scenarios with increasing irrigation capacity, which promoted greater early season boll load, but not for durations exceeding 4 to 6 weeks, probably because later irrigation and fruiting did not complete maturation during the short growing season. Cotton WUE generally increased, with greater yields resulting from earlier emergence and early high-capacity irrigation. We calculated lower WUE where irrigation promoted vigorous growth with added fruiting forms that delayed maturation and reduced the fraction of open bolls. The irrigation strategy of focusing water at higher capacities on a portion of the center pivot in combination with the dryland balance did not increase net yields significantly at any location because the available seasonal energy limited potential crop growth and yield response to irrigation. However, the overall net lint yield was numerically larger for focused irrigation strategies at the southwest Kansas location (Garden City). Based on lint yields simulated under uniform or split center pivot deficit irrigation, we conclude that cotton is poorly suited as an alternative crop for central western and northwestern Kansas because of limited growing season CGDD. Keywords: Cotton, Crop simulation, Deficit irrigation, Evapotranspiration, Irrigation capacity, Split center pivot irrigation, Water use efficiency, Yield limiting factors.
模拟棉花生长和产量响应灌溉做法在堪萨斯州的热限制生长季节
在堪萨斯州,较晚的种植和较高的地点海拔或纬度减少了季节性生长日数和棉花产量。较高的灌水量(灌水量)通常能提高皮棉产量,这可能是由于早铃负荷增加所致。在高灌溉率和旱地之间分配土地的策略并没有增加产量。棉花可以减少奥加拉拉含水层的灌溉用水量,但堪萨斯州的生长季节限制了棉花的产量。大平原西部的平均降水量约为450毫米,随纬度变化不大,提供了40%至80%的潜在作物蒸散(ETc)。补充灌溉需要完全满足作物的用水需求,但奥加拉拉或高平原的含水层基本上不补给内布拉斯加州南部。从这一含水层抽水降低了地下水位,导致可用水量减少和灌溉不足,以生产替代作物,如棉花(棉),其峰值需水量低于玉米(玉米)。我们的目标是比较在堪萨斯州西部的三个地点(Colby、Tribune和Garden City),模拟棉花产量对出苗期、灌溉能力和施用期的响应,这些地点具有不同的季节能量或累积生长日数(CGDD),并比较固定供水的分裂中心支点亏缺灌溉策略(即,部分中心支点土地面积采用不同的灌溉策略)。我们使用GOSSYM模拟模型使用1961-2000年的实际地点天气记录来估计在三个出苗期(DOY 145,152和159)和所有灌溉周期(从第一个方形开始的0,4,6,8和10周)和容量(2.5,3.75和5.0 mm d-1)的土壤中种植50%植物有效水分的棉花的产量。由于生长季节CGDD的影响,模拟皮棉产量及其与ETc的比值(WUE)随着种植(出苗期)的推迟而持续下降。在不同的地点,随着灌溉能力的增加,模拟棉绒持续增加(p = 0.05),这促进了更大的季前铃负荷,但持续时间不超过4 ~ 6周,可能是因为后期灌溉和结果在短生长季节没有完成成熟。棉花水分利用效率普遍提高,出苗期较早,高容量灌溉期较早,产量较高。我们计算了较低的水分利用效率,灌溉促进了旺盛的生长,增加了果实形式,延迟了成熟,减少了开铃的比例。将较高容量的水集中在中心支点部分的灌溉策略与旱地平衡相结合,并没有显著增加任何地点的净产量,因为可用的季节性能源限制了潜在的作物生长和对灌溉的产量响应。然而,在堪萨斯州西南部地区(花园城市),集中灌溉策略的总体净皮棉产量在数值上较大。基于均匀或分裂中心枢轴亏缺灌溉条件下的棉棉产量模拟,我们得出结论,由于CGDD的生长季节有限,棉花不适合作为堪萨斯州中西部和西北部的替代作物。关键词:棉花,作物模拟,亏缺灌溉,蒸散,灌水量,分流中心灌溉,水分利用效率,产量限制因素
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Transactions of the ASABE
Transactions of the ASABE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: This peer-reviewed journal publishes research that advances the engineering of agricultural, food, and biological systems. Submissions must include original data, analysis or design, or synthesis of existing information; research information for the improvement of education, design, construction, or manufacturing practice; or significant and convincing evidence that confirms and strengthens the findings of others or that revises ideas or challenges accepted theory.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信