Cotton root and shoot responses to subsurface drip irrigation and partial wetting of the upper soil profile

Plaut, Z.; Carmi, A.; Grava, A.

doi:10.1007/bf02215618

“…In a study in semi-arid Lubbock, Texas, on a fine sandy loam soil, cotton root development and distribution were not affected by dripline depths of 0, 0.15, 0.30, and 0.45 m (Kamara et al, 1991), suggesting that dripline depth will not be the overriding factor in root development and distribution in regions that typically receive precipitation during the active growing season. In a laboratory column study on a loessial brown loam using SDI, Plaut et al (1996) found that cotton roots could develop under partial wetting of the upper soil profile to soil water potentials of 0.1 MPa. They suggested that a reasonable dripline depth for cotton would be 0.4 to 0.5 m. Lint yields were 5% greater for a 0.3 m dripline depth as compared to a 0.2 m depth on a clay loam site in western Texas (Enciso et al, 2005).…”

Section: Dripline Depth For Cottonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cotton, Tomato, Corn, and Onion Production with Subsurface Drip Irrigation: A Review

Lamm

¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The usage of subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) has increased by 89% in the U.S. during the past ten years according to USDA-NASS estimates, and over 93% of the SDI land area is located in just tenubsurface drip irrigation (SDI), the application of irrigation below the soil surface by microirrigation emitters (ASAE, 2007) is growing in usage in the U.S. and around the world. In the ten-year period from 2003 to 2013, SDI in the U.S. increased by 89% from 164,017 to 310,361 ha ( fig. 1) according to USDA-NASS irrigation surveys (USDA-NASS, 2004, 2010. During the same period, SDI averaged approximately 25% of the surface drip irrigation (DI) land area. (Note: microsprinkler and bubbler irrigation are not included in these estimates). However, this comparison can perhaps be skewed by the fact that some of the reported SDI land area contains shallow, annually removed systems that are not intended for multi-year use. The focus of this review is primarily on deeper systems intended for multi-year use.SDI has been the subject of three review articles during the past 20 years: Camp (1998) provided an extensive characterization of the knowledge and studies that had been carried out to date, Rodriguez-Sinobas and Gil-Rodriguez (2012) concentrated on design, uniformity, and soil water redistribution aspects, and Devasirvatham (2009) focused on SDI for vegetable production. The status of the technology was also discussed in the 2000 and 2010 national irrigation symposiums sponsored by ASABE and the Irrigation Association (Camp et al., 2000;Lamm et al., 2012). The goal of this review is to augment and supplement those earlier articles with a focus on the important SDI crops currently grown in the U.S.In 2013, the ten U.S. states with the largest SDI area (289,812 ha) comprised over 93% of the total SDI area but had a wide variation in the ratio of SDI/(SDI+DI) land area ( fig. 2). The variation can probably be explained by the crop production in these states, with DI often used on higher-value crops (typically fruits, nuts, and vegetables) and SDI used on lesser-value commodity crops (e.g., corn, cotton, alfalfa, and other grain crops). There can be also the persistent perception that SDI is harder to manage, mainly because it provides fewer visual cues when irrigation problems are occurring. As a result, many producers growing the higher-value crops choose DI as a less risky option and because the cost of the irrigation system and its installation are not of paramount concern. When growing the lesservalue commodity crops with microirrigation, a deeper, multi-year SDI system that can be amortized over several years is often the only economical option for a producer. This is particularly true in the Great Plains region, where centerpivot sprinkler irrigation has a good economy of scale and where the major sprinkler manufacturers are located (Nebraska). Although the SDI land area in Nebraska and Kansas (near the center of the Great Plains) is relatively small 264TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE ( fig. 2), the land area using...

show abstract

“…Pace et al (1999) reported that drought-stressed seedling showed some increase in root length, but a reduced diameter. Prior et al (1995) showed that inadequate soil moisture reduced cotton root elongation, while Plaut et al (1996) found that soil moisture deficit reduced root length and density. A number of different seedling traits have been suggested as important relative to drought tolerance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of moisture regimes on combining ability variations of seedling traits in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.)

Rauf¹,

Sadaqat²,

Khan³

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. 2008. Effect of moisture regimes on combining ability variations of seedling traits in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Can. J. Plant Sci. 88: 323Á329. Seedlings traits provide a reliable and rapid technique for evaluating large numbers of genotypes for abiotic stresses. Experiments on sunflower were carried out under two moisture regimes in controlled conditions to study their modifying effect on phenotypic expression and combining ability of seedling traits such as root length (RL), shoot length (SL), root weight (RW), shoot weight (SW), root-to-shoot ratio (R:S), lateral root number (NLR), lateral root density (LRD), wilting rate index and recovery percent (R%), and their genotypic correlation with achene yield. Variation among breeding lines for relative decrease in the seedling traits under the moisture stress regime indicated their differences in moisture sensitivity. Genetic variation for all seedling traits was low over environments, but high within environments. Moisture regimes modified phenotype, ranking among parents, and combining ability of seedling traits. Relative contribution of specific combining ability to total variation decreased under the moisture stress regime for all root-based traits, with a corresponding increase in general combining ability due to either female, male or both. The moisture stress regime was favourable for the expression of additive genetic variability. All seedling traits except SL showed significant correlation with achene yield, which also signified their importance for improving achene yield under drought regimes. From the breeding point of view, R% and RW were more useful traits for evaluating genotypes for drought tolerance.Key words: Sunflower, seedling traits, genetic variability, drought tolerance Rauf, S., Sadaqat, H. A. et Khan, I. A. 2008. Incidence de l'humidite´sur la variation des aptitudes a`la combinaison des caracte`res de la plantule chez le tournesol (Helianthus annuus L.). Can. J. Plant Sci. 88: 323Á329. Les caracte`res de la plantule permettent d'e´valuer rapidement et de manie`re fiable un grand nombre de ge´notypes en fonction des stress abiotiques. Les auteurs ont proce´de´a`des expe´riences sur le tournesol en milieu controˆle´, sous deux re´gimes hygrome´triques, en vue de pre´ciser l'incidence de l'humidite´sur l'expression phe´notypique et la combinaison de divers caracte`res tels la longueur des racines, la longueur des pousses, le poids des racines, le poids des pousses, le ratio entre racines et pousses, le nombre de pousses late´rales, la densite´des pousses late´rales, l'indice de fle´trissement et de re´cupe´ration ainsi que leur corre´lation ge´notypique avec le rendement en ake`nes. La variation des ligne´es au niveau de l'affaiblissement relatif des caracte`res de la plantule conse´cutivement a`un stress hygrome´trique re´ve`le leur sensibilite´al 'humidite´. La variation ge´ne´tique des caracte`res de la plantule demeure faible d'un milieu a`l'autre, mais est e´leve´e au sein d'un meˆme environnement. Le re´gime hygrome´trique mo...

show abstract

“…Installation depth for SDI cotton has been a research topic in several studies (Kamara et al, 1991;Plaut et al, 1996;Khalilian et al, 2000;Enciso et al, 2005). Cotton production was evaluated for dripline depths of 0.20, 0.31, and 0.41 m on a loamy sand with a clay hardpan at the 0.25 to 0.32 m depth in South Carolina (Khalilian et al, 2000).…”

Section: Dripline Depth For Cottonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cotton, Tomato, Corn, and Onion Production with Subsurface Drip Irrigation - A Review

Lamm

¹

2015

2015 ASABE / IA Irrigation Symposium: Emerging Technologies for Sustainable Irrigation - A Tribute to the Career of Terry Howel

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The usage of subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) has increased by 89% in the U.S. during the past ten years according to USDA-NASS estimates, and over 93% of the SDI land area is located in just tenubsurface drip irrigation (SDI), the application of irrigation below the soil surface by microirrigation emitters (ASAE, 2007) is growing in usage in the U.S. and around the world. In the ten-year period from 2003 to 2013, SDI in the U.S. increased by 89% from 164,017 to 310,361 ha ( fig. 1) according to USDA-NASS irrigation surveys (USDA-NASS, 2004, 2010. During the same period, SDI averaged approximately 25% of the surface drip irrigation (DI) land area. (Note: microsprinkler and bubbler irrigation are not included in these estimates). However, this comparison can perhaps be skewed by the fact that some of the reported SDI land area contains shallow, annually removed systems that are not intended for multi-year use. The focus of this review is primarily on deeper systems intended for multi-year use.SDI has been the subject of three review articles during the past 20 years: Camp (1998) provided an extensive characterization of the knowledge and studies that had been carried out to date, Rodriguez-Sinobas and Gil-Rodriguez (2012) concentrated on design, uniformity, and soil water redistribution aspects, and Devasirvatham (2009) focused on SDI for vegetable production. The status of the technology was also discussed in the 2000 and 2010 national irrigation symposiums sponsored by ASABE and the Irrigation Association (Camp et al., 2000;Lamm et al., 2012). The goal of this review is to augment and supplement those earlier articles with a focus on the important SDI crops currently grown in the U.S.In 2013, the ten U.S. states with the largest SDI area (289,812 ha) comprised over 93% of the total SDI area but had a wide variation in the ratio of SDI/(SDI+DI) land area ( fig. 2). The variation can probably be explained by the crop production in these states, with DI often used on higher-value crops (typically fruits, nuts, and vegetables) and SDI used on lesser-value commodity crops (e.g., corn, cotton, alfalfa, and other grain crops). There can be also the persistent perception that SDI is harder to manage, mainly because it provides fewer visual cues when irrigation problems are occurring. As a result, many producers growing the higher-value crops choose DI as a less risky option and because the cost of the irrigation system and its installation are not of paramount concern. When growing the lesservalue commodity crops with microirrigation, a deeper, multi-year SDI system that can be amortized over several years is often the only economical option for a producer. This is particularly true in the Great Plains region, where centerpivot sprinkler irrigation has a good economy of scale and where the major sprinkler manufacturers are located (Nebraska). Although the SDI land area in Nebraska and Kansas (near the center of the Great Plains) is relatively small 264TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE ( fig. 2), the land area using...

show abstract

Cotton root and shoot responses to subsurface drip irrigation and partial wetting of the upper soil profile

Cited by 58 publications

References 18 publications

Cotton, Tomato, Corn, and Onion Production with Subsurface Drip Irrigation: A Review

Cotton, Tomato, Corn, and Onion Production with Subsurface Drip Irrigation: A Review

Effect of moisture regimes on combining ability variations of seedling traits in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.)

Cotton, Tomato, Corn, and Onion Production with Subsurface Drip Irrigation - A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About