Crop rotation, irrigation system, and irrigation rate on cotton yield in southwestern Georgia

Sorensen, Ronald B.; Lamb, Marshall C.; Butts, Christopher L.

doi:10.1002/cft2.20053

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In five of the seven studies, SDI had at least some benefit in cotton production, and in two studies it did not. Stated SDI benefits varied between studies but included yield increases (Sij et al, 2010;Lamm, 2016;Barnes et al, 2020;Sorensen et al, 2020), reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Bronson et al, 2018), and greater profitability (Sij et al, 2010). Negative responses attributed to SDI included a reduction in small rainfall event utilization (Goebel and Lascano, 2019) and a greater incidence of spider mite damage (Hollingsworth et al, 2014).…”

Section: Sdi In Comparison To Alternative Irrigation Systems For Cotton Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other SDI cotton studies (16 when spread across multiple subcategories in table 2) focused more on evaluating a response specific for SDI or on improving SDI performance for cotton. Dripline depth, spacing, and/or orientation (Sij et al, 2010;AbdelGadir et al, 2011;Bufon et al, 2011;Sorensen et al, , 2020Bordovsky andMustian, 2012, 2020) was a topic in seven studies (table 2 spanning two Driplines [a] No. of Water…”

Section: Studies Of Sdi Responses And/or Performance Improvements For Cotton Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lamm (2016). An innovative use of SDI in the southeast U.S. (Sorensen et al, 2020) using shallow SDI (0.05 m depth), termed as S 3 DI, had greater cotton lint yield than deeper SDI (0.25 to 0.30 m) on a fine sandy loam. The term S 3 DI was first reported by Sorensen et al (2010b) but emanated from earlier research (Sorensen et al, 2007).…”

Section: Studies Of Sdi Responses And/or Performance Improvements For Cotton Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A 2020 Vision of Subsurface Drip Irrigation in the U.S.

Lamm¹,

Colaizzi²,

Sorensen³

et al. 2021

Transactions of the ASABE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HighlightsSubsurface drip irrigation (SDI) has continued to expand in irrigation area within the U.S. during the last 15 years.Research with SDI continues for multiple crop types (fiber, grain and oilseed, horticultural, forage, and turf).SDI usage on many crops has matured through research and development of appropriate strategies and technologiesDespite some persistent challenges to successful use of SDI, important opportunities exist for further adoption.Abstract. Subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) offers several advantages over alternative irrigation systems when it is designed and installed correctly and when best management practices are adopted. These advantages include the ability to apply water and nutrients directly and efficiently within the crop root zone. Disadvantages of SDI in commercial agriculture relative to alternative irrigation systems include greater capital cost per unit land area (except for small land parcels), unfamiliar management and maintenance protocols that can exacerbate the potential for emitter clogging, the visibility of system attributes (components and design characteristics) and performance, and the susceptibility to damage (i.e., rodents and tillage) of the subsurface driplines. Despite these disadvantages, SDI continues to be adopted in commercial agriculture in the U.S., and research efforts to evaluate and develop SDI systems continue as well. This article summarizes recent progress in research (2010 to 2020) and the status of commercial adoption of SDI, along with a discussion of current challenges and future opportunities. Keywords: Drip Irrigation, Irrigation, Irrigation systems, Microirrigation, SDI, Water management.

show abstract

Section: Sdi In Comparison To Alternative Irrigation Systems For Cotton Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studies Of Sdi Responses And/or Performance Improvements For Cotton Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studies Of Sdi Responses And/or Performance Improvements For Cotton Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A 2020 Vision of Subsurface Drip Irrigation in the U.S.

Lamm¹,

Colaizzi²,

Sorensen³

et al. 2021

Transactions of the ASABE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cotton is an extremely important strategic agricultural crop, therefore, scientific researches for studying the specific characteristics of its cultivation on irrigated lands are being executed in many countries of the world.Such studies are actively carried out in China [1][2][3], USA [4][5][6][7], Republic of Uzbekistan [8], Pakistan [9], Brazil [10], Australia [11] and India [12], where cotton is grown by sprinkling and drip irrigation in comparison with furrow irrigation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of water-saving technologies for cotton irrigation in the Lower Volga region

Khodiakov

Milovanov

Popov

et al. 2022

IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article presents the results of research in 2019-2020 in the south of Russia. There were 4 options for irrigation and 4 doses of fertilization to obtain a yield of 2 to 5 t/ha of raw cotton with different irrigation methods. It was found that a maintenance of the Soil Pre-Irrigation Moisture (SPIM) 75-75-70 % of Full Moisture Capacity (FMC) together with the doses of fertilizer N140P60K45 made it possible to achieve the minimum Irrigation Water Expenses (IWE) of 463 and 269 m3 and the Total Water Consumption (Water Total Consumption Coefficient – WTCC) of 664 and 456 m3 to obtain 1 ton of raw cotton, achieving the yield of 4.32 and 4.49 t/ha, respectively, with sprinkling and drip irrigation. An increase of the fertilizer doses to N175P75K56 contributed to rise of yield to 5.28 and 5.41 t/ha, simultaneously reducing IWE the to 378 and 224, and WTCC - to 543 and 379 m3/t. Compared to furrow irrigation, the use of sprinkling and drip irrigation made it possible to reduce IWE by 37.0 and 73.7 %, WTCC - by 47.4 and 63.7 %, increasing the yield of raw cotton to 38.0 and 43.5 %.

show abstract

“…Therefore, different irrigation systems have been developed and used for cotton production across the world with various results. In southwestern Georgia, USA, Sorensen et al [11] found sprinkler and shallow subsurface drip-irrigation methods to have a better lint yield than a subsurface drip system at full irrigation and the lint yield was the lowest in a rainfed treatment. In India, drip irrigation at the 75% level was found to have a better yield than sprinkler irrigation at full irrigation [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Irrigation-Water Management and Productivity of Cotton: A Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A decrease in water resources, as well as changing environmental conditions, calls for efficient irrigation-water management in cotton-production systems. Cotton (Gossypium sp.) is an important cash crop in many countries, and it is used more than any other fiber in the world. With water shortages occurring more frequently nowadays, researchers have developed many approaches for irrigation-water management to optimize yield and water-use efficiency. This review covers different irrigation methods and their effects on cotton yield. The review first considers the cotton crop coefficient (Kc) and shows that the FAO-56 values are not appropriate for all regions, hence local Kc values need to be determined. Second, cotton water use and evapotranspiration are reviewed. Cotton is sensitive to limited water, especially during the flowering stage, and irrigation scheduling should match the crop evapotranspiration. Water use depends upon location, climatic conditions, and irrigation methods and regimes. Third, cotton water-use efficiency is reviewed, and it varies widely depending upon location, irrigation method, and cotton variety. Fourth, the effect of different irrigation methods on cotton yield and yield components is reviewed. Although yields and physiological measurements, such as photosynthetic rate, usually decrease with water stress for most crops, cotton has proven to be drought resistant and deficit irrigation can serve as an effective management practice. Fifth, the effect of plant density on cotton yield and yield components is reviewed. Yield is decreased at high and low plant populations, and an optimum population must be determined for each location. Finally, the timing of irrigation termination (IT) is reviewed. Early IT can conserve water but may not result in maximum yields, while late IT can induce yield losses due to increased damage from pests. Extra water applied with late IT may adversely affect the yield and its quality and eventually compromise the profitability of the cotton production system. The optimum time for IT needs to be determined for each geographic location. The review compiles water-management studies dealing with cotton production in different parts of the world, and it provides information for sustainable cotton production.

show abstract

Crop rotation, irrigation system, and irrigation rate on cotton yield in southwestern Georgia

Cited by 9 publications

References 22 publications

A 2020 Vision of Subsurface Drip Irrigation in the U.S.

A 2020 Vision of Subsurface Drip Irrigation in the U.S.

Application of water-saving technologies for cotton irrigation in the Lower Volga region

Irrigation-Water Management and Productivity of Cotton: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About