Cotton Variety Response to Irrigation

Transcription

1 Cotton Variety Response to Irrigation Christopher L. Main The University of Tennessee L. T Barber University of rkansas Darrin M. Dodds Mississippi State University

2 Objectives Determine how varieties respond to irrigation in terms of yield and fiber quality parameters. Fact finding trial. What do we need to measure in rain-fed environments to be successful? re some varieties more stress tolerant?

3 Water Stress Yield Impacts Yield closely associated with rate of increase in plant height during the period of maximum growth. (Hancock, 1941) Moisture stress for 9 days during peak bloom reduced yield. (Grimes et al., 1970) Cell elongation most effected by water stress. (Hsiao et al., 1976) During vegetative growth root growth out paces shoot growth leading to very little potential for water stress. (Hake and Grimes, 2010) High yield potential requires stress avoidance during pre-bloom construction of vegetative framework. Stress during this period is most detrimental due to reduced fruiting sites and photosynthetic surface to retain mature bolls. (Hake and Grimes, 2010)

4 Water Stress Fiber Impacts Seed Index is probably more sensitive to moisture stress than staple and micronaire (Logenecker and Erie, 1968) lterations in the nutritional or hormonal status of the plant can cause abscission of fruiting forms. Plant can compensate and mature fiber of fewer bolls under water stress. (Jordan, 1986) Micronaire reports are mixed, some report increased mic with water stress (Hake and Grimes (2010), some report decreased mic with drought stress or excess water, and adeduate moisture can increase micronaire. (Jordan, 1986) Micronaire can be reduced if drought stress occurs during secondary cell wall thickening. (Hake and Grimes, 2010) Drought reduces fiber length and adequate water increases fiber length. (Jordan, 1986)

5 Fruit Development Days Pre/Post Bloom Fruit Size/Stage Comments 40 Microscopic Initiation as early as 2 nd true leaf 32 Microscopic Lock number determined 23 2 mm pinhead Ovule number determined 22 2 mm pinhead Pollen cells divide 19 3 mm pinhead Pollen viability reduced >80F 5 13 mm Square start to expand rapidly 3 17 mm Fiber begin to form 0 Flower opens Pollen sheds and fiber begin to elongate 18 Boll/seed size Boll/seed length determined 18 Fiber length Fiber length set 42 Oil content Oil percentage determined 45 Boll/seed weight Boll/seed weight set 45 Protein Protein percentage of seed set 45 Fiber strength Strength of fiber set

6 Water Stress Fruit stage Fruit retention Fiber Quality Yield Pre-square Minimal Minimal Minimal Squaring Moderate Minimal Loss, few bolls, small bolls 1 st 30 days Boll Development 2 nd 30 days Boll Development Severe Severe Loss, short staple, high micronaire Minimal Moderate Loss, immature fiber Boll Opening none Minimal Hasten maturity Hake and Grimes 2010.

7 Locations Marianna, R Planted May 12, 2012 Commerce Silt Loam Furrow, 2 in deficit Starkville, MS Planted May 5, 2012 Marietta Fine Sandy Loam Furrow, 2 in deficit Jackson, TN Planted May 11, 2012 Collins Silt Loam Surface drip, 1in water/week

8 Procedures Split Block w/ Factorial treatment arrangement 16 varieties Irrigated vs non-irrigated Harvest Spindle picker Grab fiber sample HVI analysis Management State Extension recommendations PGR management based on growth Harvest aid applied based on block maturity

9 Varieties Planted M 1511 B2RF M 1550 B2RF DG 2570 B2RF DP 0912 B2RF DP 0920 B2RF DP 1028 B2RF DP 1034 B2RF DP 1133 B2RF DP 1137 B2RF FM 1740 B2F PHY 367 WRF PHY 375 WRF PHY 499 WRF ST 4288B2F ST 5288B2F ST 5458B2RF

10 Water ccumulation 30 R Rain R TW MS Rain MS TW TN Rain TN TW May 19-May 2-Jun 16-Jun 30-Jun 14-Jul 28-Jul 11-ug 25-ug 8-Sep 22-Sep 6-Oct 20-Oct

11 Water ccumulation 30 R Rain R TW MS Rain MS TW TN Rain TN TW May 19-May 2-Jun 16-Jun 30-Jun 14-Jul 28-Jul 11-ug 25-ug 8-Sep 22-Sep 6-Oct 20-Oct

12 Weather and Irrigation Parameter rkansas Mississippi Tennessee Vegetative rainfall (in) irrigation (in) days to 850 H.U Bloom (850 HU) rainfall (in) irrigation (in) days to 2300 H.U Blooming Total Water Season Total rainfall (in) irrigation (in) Total Water (in) Heat units

13 Results Location of trial had a significant impact on results Most data is presented by location Irrigation impact o o o +++ rkansas -- Mississippi + Tennessee

14 Plant Nodes Dryland 22.3 Irrigated rkansas Mississippi Tennessee LSD (0.05) = 0.6 LSD (0.05) = 0.3 LSD (0.05) =

15 Plant Height Dryland 57 Irrigated rkansas Mississippi Tennessee LSD (0.05) = 1.5 LSD (0.05) = 1.0 LSD (0.05) = 1.2

16 Plant Height:Node Dryland Irrigated rkansas Mississippi Tennessee LSD (0.05) = 0.1 LSD (0.05) = 0.1 LSD (0.05) = NS

17 Lint Yield Dryland Irrigated rkansas Mississippi Tennessee LSD (0.05) = 66 LSD (0.05) = 66 LSD (0.05) = 47

18 Tennessee Yield LSD (0.05) = NS M1511B2RF M1550B2RF DG2570B2RF DP0912B2RF DP0920B2RF DP1028B2RF DP1034B2RF DP1133B2RF DP1137B2RF FM1740B2F PHY367WRF PHY375WRF PHY499WRF ST4288B2F ST5288B2F ST5458B2RF

19 Tennessee Yield LSD (0.05) = 11% M1511B2 M1550B2 DG2570B2 DP0912B2 DP0920B2 DP1028B2 DP1034B2 DP1133B2 DP1137B2 FM1740B2 PHY367WR PHY375WR PHY499WR ST4288B2 ST5288B2 ST5458B2

20 Micronaire Dryland 4.7 Irrigated rkansas Mississippi Tennessee LSD (0.05) = 0.1 LSD (0.05) = NS LSD (0.05) = NS

21 Tennessee Micronaire LSD (0.05) = NS M1511B2 M1550B2 DG2570B2 DP0912B2 DP0920B2 DP1028B2 DP1034B2 DP1133B2 DP1137B2 FM1740B2 PHY367WR PHY375WR PHY499WR ST4288B2 ST5288B2 ST5458B2

22 Staple Dryland Irrigated rkansas Mississippi Tennessee LSD (0.05) = 0.01 LSD (0.05) = 0.01 LSD (0.05) = 0.01

23 Uniformity Dryland Irrigated rkansas Mississippi Tennessee LSD (0.05) = 0.7 LSD (0.05) = 0.07 LSD (0.05) = NS

24 Strength Dryland Irrigated rkansas Mississippi Tennessee LSD (0.05) = 0.5 LSD (0.05) = NS LSD (0.05) = NS

25 Discussion Yield Overall yield differences hard to discern Minor gin turnout differences Fiber quality Mic: irrigation - R, +/- MS, ~TN Staple: irrigation increased length Uniformity: irrigation increased uniformity Strength: +/- for some varieties in R

26 Discussion Rainfall can be problematic djust irrigation to build plant? Water cut off time? Monitor soil moisture

27 Cotton Fertility

28 Recommendations Follow existing guidelines Macro and micro nutrients Soil Test

29 Sub-Surface Drip WTER

30 WTER

31 WTER

32 Water Deficit and Irrigation Response in Upland Cotton Matthew S. Wiggins, H. dam Duncan, Brian G. Leib, Christopher L. Main University of Tennessee

33 Introduction Upland cotton varieties are able to subsist in many different climatic regimes Water availability proves to be the most limiting factor in most all production systems

34 Introduction Plant response to water deficit and to supplemental irrigation can differ Indeterminate growth pattern Sympodial reproductive growth Monopodial vegetative growth

35 Water Deficit Stress Smaller, stunted plant Lessened leaf canopy Fruit shedding Negative yield impact

36 Irrigation Response Larger, more vegetative plant Increased plant canopy Increased number of fruiting structures Positive yield impact

37 Objectives Evaluate plant response to four different irrigation regimes by using main-stem node counts and quantifying canopy light interception and temperature, while making comparisons across two soils that vary in depth to a sandy layer.

38 Materials and Methods Location: West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Jackson, TN Variety: PHY 375 WRF Planting Dates: May 5, 2010 May 12, 2011 Harvest Dates: September 30, 2010 September 16, 2011

39 Total Water Total Total Total Total Total Irrigation Rainfall Water Irrigation Rainfall Irrigation (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) Rate Trt. (in) Total Water (in) **Gwathmey et al

40 Data Collection Main-Stem node counts Quantification of canopy light interception Yield and Fiber quality

41 Treatments Four irrigation amounts 0 per week 0.5 per week 1 per week 1.5 per week Two depths to sandy soil layer Deep > 35 Shallow < 24 Two irrigation initiation timings Starting at pin-head square First bloom

42 Number of Nodes Number of Nodes Deep Shallow B B B B Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Pr>F = Pr>F = < Pr>F = < Pr>F = < LSD = 0.56 LSD = 0.58 LSD = 0.62 LSD = 0.61

43 Plant Height Height (inches) Deep Shallow B B B B Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Pr>F = < Pr>F = Pr>F = < Pr>F = < LSD = 2.31 LSD = 2.43 LSD = 2.63 LSD = 2.56

44 Node bove White Flower Deep Shallow Number of Nodes B B B 1 B 0 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Pr>F = Pr>F = < Pr>F = < Pr>F = < LSD = 0.51 LSD = 0.47 LSD = 0.29 LSD = 0.31

45 Number of Nodes 0" 0.5" 1" 1.5" Number of Nodes B B B B Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Pr>F = Pr>F = Pr>F = Pr>F = LSD = 0.74 LSD = 0.78 LSD = 0.86 LSD = 0.83

46 Plant Height 0" 0.5" 1" 1.5" Height (inches) B B B Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Pr>F = Pr>F = Pr>F = Pr>F = LSD = NS LSD = 3.40 LSD = 3.64 LSD = 3.60

47 Nodes bove White Flower 0" 0.5" 1" 1.5" 7 6 Number of Nodes B C B B C B B 0 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Pr>F = Pr>F = Pr>F = Pr>F = LSD = 0.71 LSD = 0.63 LSD = 0.34 LSD = 0.42

48 Light Interception Canopy Interception (%) Shallow y = -7.91x² x R² = Deep y = -1.35x² x R² = " 0.5" 1" 1.5" Irrigation mount (inches) Irr. mt Pr>F = < Soil Depth Pr>F = I X SD Pr>F = 0.05 Irr. mt LSD = 6.41 Soil Depth LSD = 8.94 I X SD LSD = 12.63

49 Canopy Temperature 95 Canopy Temperature ( F) Shallow y = x² x R² = Shallow y = x² x R² = " 0.5" 1" 1.5" Irrigation mount (inches) Irr. mt Pr>F = Soil Depth Pr>F = I X SD Pr>F = Irr. mt LSD = Soil Depth LSD = NS I X SD LSD =.20

50 Canopy Interception % Canopy Interception 70-80% Canopy Interception < 60% Canopy Interception

51 Yield Yield (lbs/acre) verage Deep Shallow Deep Shallow 0" 0.5'' 1'' 1.5'' Irr. mt Pr>F = Soil Depth Pr>F = < I X SD Pr>F = Irr. mt LSD = Soil Depth LSD = I X SD LSD = 205.4

52 Micronaire Micronaire (fineness) verage Deep Shallow B B B BC C BC BC BC B Deep Shallow 0'' 0.5'' 1'' 1.5'' Irr. mt Pr>F = Soil Depth Pr>F = I X SD Pr>F = Irr. mt LSD = 0.10 Soil Depth LSD = NS I X SD LSD =.20

53 Staple Length 1.18 verage Deep Shallow Staple Length (inches) B B 1.04 Deep Shallow 0'' 0.5'' 1'' 1.5'' Irr. mt Pr>F = < Soil Depth Pr>F = < I X SD Pr>F = Irr. mt LSD = Soil Depth LSD = I X SD LSD = NS

54 Uniformity 84 verage Deep Shallow 83 Uniformity (%) B B Deep Shallow 0'' 0.5'' 1'' 1.5'' Irr. mt Pr>F = < Soil Depth Pr>F = SS X N Pr>F = Irr. mt LSD = 0.49 Soil Depth LSD = 0.37 I X SD LSD = NS

55 Strength verage Deep Shallow 33.0 Strength (g/tex) B B B B Deep Shallow 0'' 0.5'' 1'' 1.5'' Irr. mt Pr>F = < Soil Depth Pr>F = I X SD Pr>F = Irr. mt LSD = 0.67 Soil Depth LSD = 0.52 I X SD LSD = NS

56 Conclusions Physiological Deep soil yielded plants that were taller, constructed of more nodes, and had a delayed maturity. Shallow soil yielded plants that were stunted in growth and reached cut out earlier. The application of any irrigation, regardless the rate, yielded a taller and more vigorous plant. Very little differences in canopy interception were recorded in the deep soil. Canopy interception in the shallow soil increased dramatically with the increase in irrigation applied.

57 Conclusions Lint Yield Very little differences apparent in the deep soil across the irrigation amounts. Deep soil on average yielded +300 lbs/ac than the shallow soil. The largest increase was in the shallow soil, with the application of irrigation.

58 Conclusions Fiber Quality Micronaire results vary with added irrigation. Staple length, uniformity, and fiber strength all increase as irrigation is increased. Loan value increases with the application of irrigation, except in the deep soil, increasing the price of cotton.

59 Questions