- Email: [email protected]
Impact of no-till, cover crop, and irrigation on Cotton yield
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106038
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural Water Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat
Impact of no-till, cover crop, and irrigation on Cotton yield a,
a
a
P.B DeLaune *, P. Mubvumba , S. Ale , E. Kimura a b
T
b
Texas A&M AgriLife Research, United States Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, United States
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Cotton Conservation Agriculture No-Till Strip-Till Conventional Till Cover Crops Water Use Efficiency Irrigation Wheat
Water is the limiting factor for crop production within the southern US Great Plains and it has become a critical resource for multiple stakeholders. Hence, efficient irrigation and cropping systems are of paramount importance to conserve water resources. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of irrigation timing and quantity, cover crop use and tillage on cotton production in an established conservation tillage system. Evaluated tillage systems included: 1) conventional tillage (CT); 2) strip-tillage (ST); 3) no-till (NT); and 4) NT with a terminated wheat cover crop (NT-W). Irrigation treatments included 1) 5.08-6.35 mm d−1 initiated midseason (LOW); 2) 6.35-8.38 mm d−1 initiated mid-season (MED); and 3) 5.08-6.35 mm d−1 initiated earlyseason (HIGH). No significant differences in lint yield or irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) were observed between MED and HIGH. Although HIGH resulted in 12 % greater lint yields than LOW, HIGH resulted in 67 % greater irrigation water applications. LOW resulted in significantly greater IWUE than MED and HIGH. No-till systems, with and without a cover crop, had significantly greater lint yields and IWUE than CT. Furthermore, inclusion of wheat in NT increased yields and IWUE compared with ST. Applying irrigation water at a critical growth stage proved to be more water efficient than early season irrigation that was used to bank moisture in the soil profile. Delaying irrigation application until critical growth stages and using cover crops should be considered as best management approaches to conserve water resources while sustaining cotton production in the Southern Great Plains.
1. Introduction Water is a critical resource for multiple stakeholders within the southern US Great Plains, an ecoregion with dry, hot summers and mild winters which can be highly variable from year to year. Conservation of water resources in this region has become more critical in recent years due to periods of exceptional drought, declining aquifer levels, and rapid urban growth. Texas Groundwater Conservation Districts have enacted pumping restrictions to conserve water, most notably for areas overlying the Ogallala Aquifer where water reserves have declined more than 50 % (Konikow, 2013; NPGCD, 2014; HPUWCD, 2015). Sij et al. (2010) noted that expanding cropped area using current irrigation systems in the Texas Rolling Plains (TRP) region is challenging as groundwater resources of the Seymour Aquifer are nearly fully utilized. Thus, management practices that result in efficient use of water is imperative for sustainability of irrigated crop production. AeschbachHertig and Gleeson (2012) reported that excessive groundwater extraction for irrigation in areas of slow recharge is the main cause of
groundwater depletion in regions of India, northeastern China, Mexico, Middle East and Northern Africa. Wang et al. (2014) noted that studies suggest that water demand management or water supply management alone will not address mounting water stress. As groundwater levels decline or pumping restrictions are enacted, irrigation delivery to a field can change within a growing season (Bordovsky et al., 2015). One potential strategy to overcome reduced irrigation capacities is to plant crops that have lower water demands, such as cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) or sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.). Reviews have noted that irrigated agriculture is essential for production of sufficient food for the future, yet some view irrigated agriculture as highly inefficient due to the production of crops with high water demands (Postel et al., 1996; Dyson, 1999; Fereres and Soriano, 2007). Texas accounts for approximately 46 % of cotton produced in the US, approximately 67 % of cotton produced within the southern Great Plains, with over 70 % of Texas cotton produced within the Texas High Plains and TRP (USDA-NASS, 2018). Cotton has responded well to deficit irrigation in Texas (Bordovsky et al., 1992; Colaizzi et al., 2006;
Abbreviations: CT, conventional tillage; NT, no-tillage; IWUE, irrigation water use efficiency; LOW, low irrigation treatment; MED, medium irrigation treatment; HIGH, high irrigation treatment; SDI, subsurface drip irrigation; TRP, Texas Rolling Plains ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (P.B. DeLaune). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106038 Received 11 October 2019; Received in revised form 18 January 2020; Accepted 18 January 2020 0378-3774/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106038
P.B. DeLaune, et al.
2. Materials and methods
Falkenberg et al., 2007; DeLaune et al., 2012). DeLaune et al. (2012) concluded that irrigating between 66 and 133 % evapotranspiration replacement in the TRP under subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) resulted in no significant difference in lint yields or net returns. Observed data and data based upon the Cotton2K model have shown that deficit irrigation at 83–85 % evapotranspiration replacement is a suitable alternative strategy for cotton production in the TRP on clay loam soils (DeLaune et al., 2012; Attia et al., 2016). Bordovsky et al. (2015) determined that irrigation during the maturation phase of cotton was critical for acceptable yield and irrigation water use efficiency in the Texas South Plains. Research has indicated that water shortages in the course of early and peak flowering can result in large yield reductions (Simao et al., 2013; Snowden et al., 2014). If irrigation quantity late in the season is a concern, one approach is to apply irrigation prior to planting or early in the growing season to accumulate stored moisture in the soil profile to supplement rainfall and irrigation during vital crop growth stages (Mahan et al., 2012). However, this approach has translated to decreased irrigation water use efficiency with mixed results on lint yield (Bordovsky and Porter, 2003; Hake and Grimes, 2010; Schaefer et al., 2018). In the southeastern US, research has shown that reductions in pre-bloom irrigation had no reduction in lint yields when sufficient irrigation was applied during blooming (Meeks et al., 2017; Zurweller et al., 2019). No-till is a practice that can increase surface residue and subsequently improve water holding capacity, soil water storage, and water use efficiency (McVay et al., 2006; Schwartz et al., 2010; Baumhardt et al., 2012). Triplett and Dick (2008) reported that adoption of no-till and reduced till cotton is one of the most rapidly growing conservation practices. However, recent reports estimate that conservation tillage is used on only 40 % of US cotton acres (Claassen et al., 2018). In comparison, more than 65 % of corn, soybean, and wheat acres are under conservation agriculture (Claassen et al., 2018). Adoption of conservation tillage in southern Great Plains cotton systems (30 %) is also much lower than the southeastern US (70 %). Baumhardt et al. (2012) attributed residue retaining benefits of no-till during the cotton rotation phase of a cotton-wheat-fallow rotation in the Texas High Plains, which significantly increased lint yields. Blanco-Canqui et al. (2011) concluded that cover crops could enhance the effect of no-till systems through improved soil physical properties and soil organic C concentrations. However, within semi-arid environments, soil water use by cover crops is a potential disadvantage (Dabney et al., 2001; Balkcom et al., 2007). Water use by cover crops has been shown to greatly reduce subsequent crop yields in semi-arid regions (Unger and Vigil, 1998; Reicosky and Forcella, 1998; Nielsen et al., 2016; Holman et al., 2018). Small grain cover crops in cotton systems within the Southern Great Plains have shown mixed results. Studies in the Texas High Plains have shown reduced lint yields due to small grain cover cops in both dryland and sprinkler irrigated continuous cotton systems (Baughman et al., 2007; Lewis et al., 2018a). In contrast, other studies in the Texas High Plains and TRP have observed no impact of cover crops on lint yields in dryland and SDI cotton systems (Segarra et al., 1991; Sij et al., 2003; DeLaune et al., 2012, 2020). Across 12 locations in the southern US, lint yields were not affected by conservation tillage (Buman et al., 2005). After 34 year of NT, NT was reported to increase cotton lint yield by 12 % compared to CT (Nouri et al., 2019). Conservation tillage should complement a SDI system due to reduced aggressive tillage operations (Camp et al., 1999). Subsurface drip irrigation has rapidly expanded in the Southern Great Plains due to highly efficient delivery of water (Bordovsky and Porter, 2003). The synergy between conservation tillage and irrigation timing in a SDI system has not been well evaluated, particularly for a long-term system. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of irrigation timing and quantity, cover crop use and tillage on cotton production in an established conservation tillage system.
The study was conducted at the Texas A&M AgriLife Chillicothe Research Station near Chillicothe, TX (34°11′N, 99°31′W, 443 m elevation above sea level). Average annual precipitation (1981–2010) for the region is 710 mm as recorded by NOAA 22 km NE of the Chillicothe Research Station (NOAA, 2018). The soil is classified as an Abilene clay loam (fine, mixed, superactive, thermic Pachic Argiustolls) with 0–1% slope. Historically, the study area had been under continuous cotton production and occasionally rotated with grain sorghum before SDI installation in 2006. The study site has been under continuous cotton production since SDI installation. The study evaluated the impact of irrigation timing and tillage on cotton production from 2013–2018. The study was comprised of a randomized complete block design. Tillage systems included: 1) conventional tillage (CT); 2) strip-tillage (ST); 3) no-till (NT); and 4) NT with a terminated wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cover crop (NT-W). Irrigation treatments included 1) 5.08-6.35 mm d−1 initiated midseason (LOW); 2) 6.35-8.38 mm d−1 initiated mid-season (MED); and 3) 5.08-6.35 mm d−1 initiated early-season (HIGH). Each treatment was replicated three times totaling 36 plots. Average daily ET for the study site was reported to range from 6.40 to 7.75 mm d−1 during the months of July and August (DeLaune et al., 2012). The wheat cover crop was planted each year within one week after cotton harvest and stalk shredding at a seeding rate of 34 kg ha−1 on 0.25-m row spacing. The cover crop was planted as early as 27 October and as late as 7 December. No water was applied to the cover crop. The cover crop was chemically terminated using glyphosate in mid to late April each year at approximately 50 % heading. Due to herbicide drift from adjacent plots, cover crop treatments were terminated in late March 2016. Cover crop residue was left standing after termination. Tillage treatments were initiated in 2008, with the exception of ST. Strip-tillage was implemented in 2011, replacing a reduced tillage treatment as described by DeLaune et al. (2012). Strip-till was conducted using a four-row unit (Yetter Maverick; Colchester, IL) consisting of a 51-cm notched cutting coulter, followed by two residue managers, two 41-cm notched disc sealers with a rolling basket attachment. Total width of strip-tillage was approximately 20-cm. Conventional tillage consisted of two to three disking operations during the off-season and one to two in-season cultivations using chisel sweeps. Each plot was eight rows wide (1.0-m spacing) and 45.7-m long. A fourrow vacuum planter was used to plant cotton directly over drip tape at 10.5 seeds m−1 row. Planter settings were consistent across tillage treatments and cotton was planted directly into standing wheat residue. Cotton was planted 5–6 weeks after cover crop termination each year, although planting occurred 8 weeks after termination in 2015 due to above normal precipitation. Cotton cultivar NG 1511 B2RF was planted during 2013–2016 and PHY 490 W3FE was planted in 2017 and 2018. In-season chemical applications (herbicide, insecticide, growth regulator, harvest aid) were the same across all treatments. Fertilizer was also applied at the same rate across all treatments using coulter trailing fertilizer knives at 0.25-m from the row center at 56 kg N ha−1 each year. Elevated well water nitrate provided approximately 5.1 kg N for each 25 mm water applied. All plot rows were mechanically-harvested and subsamples were ginned to obtain lint yields. The LOW and MED treatments delayed irrigation until flowering was visually observed, which generally occurred 47–55 days after planting. In contrast, HIGH was initiated within three weeks after planting. In 2013, irrigation was applied at a lower rate earlier in the season for LOW and MED to facilitate stand establishment and vigor during exceptional drought conditions. Planting date, date of irrigation initiation, irrigation rate, total irrigation water applied, and total inseason water is provided in Table 1. Drip tape was 0.3-m below the planted row with emitters spaced at 0.41-m. Irrigation was applied each day that recorded rainfall was less than 2.5 mm d−1. Proc Mixed was used to analyze data (SAS Version 9.4, SAS Institute 2
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106038
P.B. DeLaune, et al.
Table 1 Cotton planting date, date of irrigation initiation, irrigation daily rate and total seasonal irrigation applied for the study conducted at Texas A&M AgriLife Chillicothe Research Station.2013–2018. Planting Date
2013 Low Medium High 2014 Low Medium High 2015 Low Medium High 2016 Low Medium High 2017 Low Medium High 2018 Low Medium High
Irrigation Initiation
Irrigation Rate (mm d−1)
Total Irrigation Applied (mm)
Total InSeason Water (mm)‡
12 June 12 June 12 June
5 August† 5 August† 14 June
6.35 8.13 6.35
251 308 400
375 432 524
13 June 13 June 13 June
8 August 8 August 20 June
6.35 8.38 6.35
127 168 248
354 395 475
22 June 22 June 22 June
14 August 14 August 14 July
5.08 6.35 5.08
142 182 248
222 262 328
10 June 10 June 10 June
1 August 1 August 7 July
5.08 6.35 5.08
152 191 264
309 348 421
23 May 23 May 23 May
18 July 18 July 14 June
5.08 6.35 5.08
132 165 229
483 516 580
29 May 29 May 29 May
14 July 14 July 18 June
5.08 6.35 5.08
244 305 361
303 364 420
Table 2 Recorded precipitation at Texas A&M AgriLife Chillicothe Research Station 2013–2018 and 30-year historical precipitation for the region during MayOctober.
May June July August September May-September
† Irrigation applied at 3.8 mm d−1 25 June – 2 July and at 2.5 mm d−1 9–15 July. ‡ Precipitation plus applied irrigation water during the irrigation period.
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Historical Average
mm 20 95 110 5.1 43 275
177 97 160 41 46 519
442 102 28 39 56 666
171 40 52 66 53 382
5.1 97 38 216 43 399
167 2.5 20 36 64 290
85 108 53 62 80 387
Fig. 1. Lint yield for each year of the project pooled across water and tillage treatments at Texas A&M AgriLife Chillicothe Research Station 2013–2018. Means with the same letter are not different at P < 0.05. Bars represent standard error of the sample mean.
Inc., Cary, NC). Fixed effects included tillage, irrigation, and the interaction between tillage and irrigation. The NTeW treatment was considered a tillage treatment. Year, block (nested within year), and all interactions among these effects were considered random. Year as a random effect allows inferences concerning treatments to be formulated over an array of environments (Carmer et al., 1989), which were observed during this six-year study. Least square means were calculated and means separation were considered significantly different for tested P values (P < 0.05 or 0.1). Mean separation and letter groupings was produced by using the PDMIX800 macro in SAS (Saxton, 1998).
2014, 2016, and 2017. Seasonal irrigation ranged from 127 to 400 mm during the 6-year study. Mean irrigation water applied during the growing season was 175 mm for LOW, 220 mm for MED, and 292 mm for HIGH irrigation treatments. Total in-season water was 341 mm for LOW, 386 mm for MED, and 458 mm for HIGH (Table 1). In comparison, Wanjura et al. (2002) found that an irrigation input of 580 mm or total water application of 740 mm was estimated to produce maximum lint yield in the Texas Southern High Plains. Total in-season water was numerically higher in 2017 due to 216 mm precipitation from 14 to 28 August followed by four additional days of irrigation in early September.
3. Results and discussion 3.1. Climate and irrigation
3.2. Irrigation timing and quantity
In-season precipitation varied greatly among study years, ranging from near record precipitation early in the season followed by prolonged drought conditions to early season drought conditions followed by well above average precipitation late in the growing season (Tables 1 and 2). Fluctuations in seasonal variability is the norm within the TRP. Although recorded precipitation was above average in three out of six years, high seasonal variability was typically due to significant recorded events in one or two months rather than even distribution throughout the growing season. Above average precipitation was recorded during May prior to planting in four of six years, which should have resulted in adequate stored soil moisture for early season production. Significant precipitation events occurred in July 2013 and 2014 near flowering, which delayed irrigation initiation for low and medium treatments. Although rainfall was 5-fold greater in May 2015 than the historical average, conditions resulted in a late planting date and below normal precipitation throughout the remainder of the growing season. Lint yield for each year is presented in Fig. 1. Lint yields were greater in 2013, whereas no differences occurred among
Irrigation treatments significantly affected lint yield (P = 0.0895) and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE; P = 0.0017; Table 3). Cotton lint yield was 1337 kg ha−1 for the LOW treatment and 1511 kg ha−1 for the HIGH treatment (Fig. 2A). The HIGH treatment resulted in greater lint yield than LOW, but not MED (Fig. 2A). Applied irrigation water for HIGH was 33 % greater than MED, while MED only reduced lint yields by 7 %, which is not significant. Wanjura et al. (1996) found that delaying irrigation until squaring reduced the amount of irrigation by 30 %, while yield was increased by 8 %. Schaefer et al. (2018) concluded that early season irrigation deficits can be compensated for later in the growing season, which allows for high boll retention throughout the plant. They also concluded that irrigation deficit during the primary reproductive development or early flowering period has the most detrimental effect on both boll distribution and yield. Snowden et al. (2014) determined that the early flowering growth stage of cotton was the most sensitive to drought stress. In our study, a higher 3
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106038
P.B. DeLaune, et al.
Table 3 Significance of F values for fixed source variation. Dependent Variable
Tillage (T)
Irrigation (I)
T×I
Lint Yield Irrigation water use efficiency
——————————————————————————P > F—————————————————————————— 0.0307 0.0895 0.2360 0.0090 0.0017 0.1513
precise application irrigation. Reduced evaporative losses of irrigation water early in the season within the SDI system could partly explain lint yield differences observed between LOW and HIGH treatments. Although HIGH resulted in 12 % significantly greater lint yields than LOW, irrigation water applied was 67 % greater for HIGH compared to LOW. A study conducted in Israel reported that cotton yields were reduced due to excessive vegetative growth prior to peak blooming (Plaut et al., 1988). Wanjura et al. (1996) concluded that delaying irrigation until squaring slightly decreasing early vegetative growth and proved beneficial for lint production when a pre-plant irrigation was applied and subsequent in-season irrigation was sufficient. Irrigation water use efficiency, defined as kg lint produced per mm of irrigation water applied, was significantly greater for LOW compared to all other treatments and IWUE of MED was significantly greater than HIGH (Fig. 2B). Lint produced per mm of irrigation water applied for LOW was 18 % greater than MED and 35 % greater than HIGH. Thus, irrigating early in the season to build soil water in the profile reduced irrigation water efficiency compared to applying irrigation water at critical growth stages later in the year. Previous research has also shown that IWUE tends to decrease as irrigation water increases in the Texas High Plains (Bordovsky et al., 2011) and the TRP (DeLaune et al., 2012; Attia et al., 2016). In southern Arizona, Steger et al. (1998) reported a pattern of decreased yield with increasing early season water stress and recommended irrigation timing should be based on plant or soil water status rather than date after planting. Using the simulation model GOSSYM, Baumhardt et al. (2009) found that with 100 % field capacity water storage, water use efficiency tended to decline because of diminishing marginal increases in lint yield with increased irrigation. In contrast, increasing irrigation rate from 2.5 mm d−1 to 3.75− or 5.0mm d−1 increased lint yield and water use efficiency at 50 % field capacity. As recorded precipitation in May was well above average in four out of six years (Table 2), initial soil profile moisture conditions at planting were generally favorable, resulting in marginal increases in lint yield with increasing irrigation. When considering both lint yield and water usage, LOW would be an acceptable alternative approach to early season watering.
Fig. 2. Main effect of irrigation on (A) lint yield; and (B) irrigation water use efficiency 2013–2018. Irrigation treatment means with the same letter are not different for irrigation water use efficiency at P < 0.05 and lint yield at P < 0.10. Bars represent standard error of the sample mean.
irrigation rate (MED) compensated for lack of early season irrigation and more closely met existing ET conditions than a lower rate (LOW). On average, 117 mm of irrigation water was applied with HIGH prior to initiation of LOW or MED. Initiating a greater irrigation rate at flowering was not different than applying irrigation early in the season to bank moisture. Irrigation early in the growing season to build up water in the soil profile and reduce late season water stress has shown to be an ineffective strategy using low energy precision application irrigation on clay loam soils of the Texas Southern High Plains (Bordovsky et al., 2015). Within this environment, irrigation quantity needs to be available during the period of cotton maturation to achieve the maximum benefit of applied irrigation and rainfall that occurs earlier in the cotton growing season (Bordovsky et al., 2015). Meeks et al. (2017) found that pre-bloom irrigation events can be lowered without impacting yield, though episodic drought during flowering substantially reduces yield. Irrigation methods may also affect the efficiency of early season irrigation applications. Bordovsky et al. (2015) indicated that irrigation evaporative losses could be eliminated by SDI systems, which was hypothesized to be a major contributing factor to reductions in seasonal irrigation water use efficiency under low energy
3.3. Tillage Lint yield (P = 0.0307) and IWUE (P = 0.0090) were significantly affected by tillage, but not the interaction of tillage and irrigation (Table 3). Lint yields ranged from 1350 kg ha−1 for CT to 1484 kg ha−1 for NT-W (Fig. 3A). No-till with a terminated wheat cover crop (NT-W) resulted in significantly greater lint yields than ST and CT (Fig. 3A). Furthermore, NT significantly improved lint yields compared to CT (Fig. 3A). Pittelkow et al. (2015) conducted a global meta-analysis and showed that mean cotton yields remained similar under no-till relative to conventional till practices. A small grain cover crop did not hinder lint yields, but increased lint yields by 7 % over ST and 9 % over CT (Fig. 3A). This contrasts with results of DeLaune et al. (2012), who reported tillage did not affect lint yields at the same study location. However, DeLaune et al. (2012) results were observed during the transition phase from conventional tillage to conservation tillage (2008–2010). Triplett and Dick (2008) reported that the benefits of NT may not be realized for at least three years. Results from the current study were observed for years five to eleven of the tillage system, 4
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106038
P.B. DeLaune, et al.
reported that improved soil physical quality under NT and cover crops was related to greater lint yield in NT than CT. While soil water use by cover crops is a concern, particularly for dryland environments, longterm (2001–2015) simulations using the DSSAT model by Adhikari et al. (2017) indicated that there was no substantial reduction in average seed cotton yield or soil water using winter wheat as a cover crop in dryland continuous cotton systems of the TRP. Under SDI, a wheat cover crop not only improved lint yields, but has also improved net returns over CT (DeLaune et al., 2012). 4. Conclusions Over a 6-yr period, delaying irrigation until critical cotton growth stages, as compared to banking water through pre-season or early season irrigation, reduced irrigation applications while not significantly reducing lint yields. Applying excess water early in the growing season should not be considered a best management practice with regard to water conservation. Although HIGH irrigation increased lint yields by 12 % over the LOW treatment, 67 % more water was required. Irrigation at a higher rate at flowering (MED) resulted in similar yields as applying irrigation early in the season (HIGH). Lint yields were also increased by NT, with and without a cover crop, compared to CT. Implementing a wheat cover crop improved the NT system, resulting in significantly greater lint yields and IWUE than ST and CT. Optimizing irrigation timing and implementing conservation tillage increased the amount of lint produced per quantity of irrigation water applied. If well capacity is a concern and irrigation water is limited, applying irrigation at critical growth stages provides the greatest irrigation water value. Conventional tillage resulted in significantly lower lint yields and IWUE than NT and NT-W, thus NT systems should be considered for sustainable cotton production over the long-term. Declaration of Competing Interests Fig. 3. Main effect of tillage on (A) lint yield; and (B) irrigation water use efficiency 2013–2018. Tillage treatment means with the same letter are not different for lint yield and irrigation water use efficiency at P < 0.05. Bars represent standard error of the sample mean.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Acknowledgement
indicating the benefit of a long-term conservation tillage system. When considering the long-term impacts of no-till, Pittelkow et al. (2015) anticipated that yields would increase relative to CT in 10+ years. In contrast, Lewis et al. (2018a) reported that cotton lint yields were significantly greater for CT than NT with a terminated rye cover crop in two of three years in an established 15-year tillage system within the Texas Southern High Plains. However, this reduction in yield could potentially be linked to greater root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) within NT with a rye cover crop compared to CT (Lewis et al., 2018b). In addition to increased lint yield, NT-W also significantly increased IWUE compared with ST and CT (Fig. 3B). Similar to tillage effects on lint yield, statistical differences mirrored tillage effects on IWUE. Irrigation water use efficiency for NT was not significantly different than ST and NT-W, but was significantly greater than CT. No significant differences for IWUE were observed between CT and ST. Over a six-year average, IWUE was 11 % greater for NT-W and 9 % greater for NT compared with CT. Baumhardt et al. (2013) reported that disc tilled cotton lint yields irrigated at 5 mm d−1 were typically less than NT and stubble-mulch tillage cotton irrigated at 2.5 mm d−1. Higher lint yield associated with NT were attributed to reduced evaporation and greater infiltration with NT residue from previous wheat cover crops. Continuous cotton systems return little residue to the soil surface (Boquet et al., 2004; Nouri et al., 2019). Hence, implementing a cover crop could enhance soil function of NT. Research has shown that a wheat or rye cover crop significantly improved water infiltration early in the growing season of continuous cotton systems in the southern Great Plains (DeLaune et al., 2016; DeLaune et al., 2019). Nouri et al. (2019)
The authors wish to acknowledge the Texas State Support Committee of Cotton Incorporated for their financial support of this project (Project No. 15-813TX). Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106038. References Adhikari, P., Omani, N., Ale, S., DeLaune, P.B., Thorp, K.R., Barnes, E.M., Hoogenboom, G., 2017. Simulated effects of winter wheat cover crop on cotton production systems of the Texas Rolling Plains. Trans. ASABE 60, 2083–2096. https://doi.org/10.13031/ trans.12272. Aeschbach-Hertig, W., Gleeson, T., 2012. Regional strategies for the accelerating global problem of groundwater depletion. Nat. Geosci. 5, 853–861. Attia, A., Rajan, N., Nair, S.S., DeLaune, P.B., Xue, Q., Ibrahim, A.M.H., Hays, D.B., 2016. Modeling cotton lint yield and water use efficiency responses to irrigation scheduling using Cotton2K. Agron. J. 108, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2015.0437. Balkcom, K., Schomberg, H., Reeves, W., Clark, A., Baumhardt, L., Collins, H., Delgado, J., Duiker, S., Kaspar, T., Mitchell, J., 2007. Managing cover crops in conservation tillage systems. In: Beltsville, Andy Clark. (Ed.), Managing Cover Crops Profitably, 3rd ed. United Book Press, Inc. 2007, pp. 44–61 Print. MD. Baughman, T.A., Keeling, J.W., Boman, R.K., 2007. On-farm Conservation Tillage Programs to Increase Dryland Cotton Profitability. Project 05-643TX. Final Report to Cotton Inc. 25 January 2007. Baumhardt, R.L., Staggenborg, S.A., Gowda, P.H., Colaizzi, P.D., Howell, T.A., 2009. Modeling irrigation management strategies to maximize lint yield and water use efficiency. Agron. J. 101, 406–468.
5
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106038
P.B. DeLaune, et al.
Mahan, J., Young, A., Payton, P., 2012. Deficit irrigation in a production setting: canopy temperature as an adjunct to ET estimates. Irr. Sci. 30 (2), 127–137. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00271-011-0269-1. McVay, K.A., Budde, J.A., Fabrizzi, K., Mikha, M.M., Rice, C.W., Schlegel, A.J., Peterson, D.E., Sweeney, D.W., Thompson, C., 2006. Management effects on soil physical properties in long-term tillage studies in Kansas. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 434–438. Meeks, C.D., Snider, J.L., Porter, W.M., Vellidis, G., Hawkins, G., Rowland, D., 2017. Assessing the utility of primed acclimation for improving water savings in cotton using a sensor-based irrigation scheduling system. Crop Sci. 57, 2117–2129. Nielsen, D.C., Lyon, D.J., Higgins, R.K., Hergert, G.W., Holman, J.D., Vigil, M.F., 2016. Cover crop effect on subsequent wheat yield in the Central Great Plains. Agron. J. 108, 243–256. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2015.0372. Nouri, A., Lee, J., Yin, X., Tyler, D.D., Saxton, A.M., 2019. Thirty-four year of no-tillage and cover crops improve soil quality and increase cotton yield in Alfisols, Southeastern US. Geoderma 337, 998–1008. NPGCD, 2014. Rules of North plains groundwater conservation District. Dumas, Tex.: North Plains Groundwater Conservation District. / information/DistrictDocs/Rules/ revised%20rules%20adopted%20by%20the%20Board %20on%2020150414%20at %20256%20p.m.%20for%20web%201.pdf.. http://www.northplainsgcd.org/ phocadownload. Pittelkow, C.M., Linquest, B.A., Lundy, M.E., Liang, X., van Groenigen, K.J., Lee, J., van Gestel, N., Six, J., Venterea, R.T., van Kessel, C., 2015. When does no-till yield more? A global meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 183, 156–168. Plaut, Z., Carmi, A., Grava, A., 1988. Cotton growth and production under drip-irrigation restricted soil wetting. Irrig. Sci. 9 (143-), 156. Postel, S.L., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., 1996. Human appropriation of renewable freshwater. Science 271, 785–788. Reicosky, D.C., Forcella, F., 1998. Cover crop and soil quality interactions in agroecosystems. J. Soil Water Cons. 53, 224–229. Saxton, A.M., 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in proc mixed. In: Proceedings 23rd SAS Users Group International Conference. Nashville, TN. 22–25 Mar. 1998. SAS Inst., Cary, NC. P. 1243–1246. Schaefer, C.R., Ritchie, G.L., Bordovsky, J.P., Lewis, K., Kelly, B., 2018. Irrigation timing and rate affect cotton boll distribution and fiber quality. Agron. J. 110, 922–931. Schwartz, R.C., Baumhardt, R.L., Evett, S.R., 2010. Tillage effects on soil water redistribution and bare soil evaporation throughout a season. Soil Till. Res. 110, 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2010.07.015. Segarra, E., Keeling, J.W., Abernathy, J.R., 1991. Tillage and cropping system effects on cotton yield and profitability on the Texas Southern High Plains. J. Prod. Agric. 4, 566–571. https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1991.0566. Sij, J., Ott, J., Olson, B., Baughman, T., Bordovsky, D., 2003. Dryland cropping systems to enhance soil moisture capture and water-use efficiency in cotton. In: In: Proc. 2003 Beltwide Cotton Conference. Nashville, TN. 6-10 Jan. 2003. [CD]. Sij, J.W., Bordovsky, D.G., Jones, D.L., Slosser, J.E., 2010. Utilizing subsurface drip irrigation and conservation tillage in cotton production systems. SRX Agric. 2010 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3814/2010/725381. Simao, F., Ritchie, G., Bednarz, C., 2013. Cotton physiological parameters affected by episodic irrigation interruption. J. Agric. Sci. Tech., A 3, 443–454. Snowden, M., Ritchie, G., Simao, F., Bordovsky, J., 2014. Timing of episodic drought can be critical in cotton. Agron. J. 106 (2), 452–458. https://doi.org/10.2134/ agronj2013.0325. Steger, A.J., Silvertooth, J.C., Brown, P.W., 1998. Upland cotton growth and yield response to timing the initial postplant irrigation. Agron. J. 90, 455–461. Triplett, G.B.Jr., Dick, W.A., 2008. No-tillage crop production: a revolution in agriculture!. Agron. J. 100, S-153–S-165. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2007.0005c. Unger, P.W., Vigil, M.F., 1998. Cover crops effects on soil water relationships. J. Soil Water Cons. 53, 241–244. USDA-NASS, 2018. US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service, Annual Cotton Review. Texas Field Office, USDA-NASS, Washington DC. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Texas/Publications/Current_News_ Release/2018_Rls/tx-cotton-review-2018.pdf. Wang, X., Zhang, J., Shahid, S., Guam, E., Wu, Y., Gao, J., He, R., 2014. Adaptation to climate change impacts on water demand. Mitig. Adapt. Stateg. Glob. Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9571-6. Wanjura, D.F., Mahan, J.R., Upchurch, D.R., 1996. Irrigation starting time effects on cotton under high-frequency irrigation. Agron. J. 88, 561–566. Wanjura, D.F., Upchurch, D.R., Mahan, J.R., Burke, J.J., 2002. Cotton yield and applied water relationships under drip irrigation. Agric. Water Manage. 55, 217–237. Zurweller, B.A., Rowland, D.L., Mulvaney, M.J., Tillman, B.L., Migliaccio, K.W., Wright, D., Erickson, J., Payton, P., Vellidis, G., 2019. Optimizing cotton irrigation and nitrogen management using a soil water balance model and in-season nitrogen applications. Agric. Water Manage. 216, 306–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019. 01.011.
Baumhardt, R.L., Johnson, G.L., Schwartz, R.C., 2012. Residue and long-term tillage and crop rotation effects on simulated rain infiltration and sediment transport. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 76, 1370–1378. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2011.0331. Blanco-Canqui, H., Mikha, M.M., Pressley, D.R., Claassen, M.M., 2011. Addition of cover crops enhances no-till potential for improving soil physical properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75, 1471–1482. Boquet, D.J., Hutchinson, R.L., Breitenbeck, G.A., 2004. Long-term tillage cover crop, and nitrogen rate effects on cotton: yield and fiber properties. Agron. J. 96, 1436–1442. Bordovsky, J., Porter, D., 2003. Cotton Response to Pre-plant Irrigation Level and Irrigation Capacity Using Spray, LEPA, and Subsurface Drip Irrigation. ASABE Paper No. 032008. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.13753. Bordovsky, J.P., Lyle, W.M., Lascano, R.J., Upchurch, D.R., 1992. Cotton irrigation management with LEPA systems. Trans. ASAE 35 (3), 879–884. Bordovsky, J.P., Mustian, J.T., Cranmer, A.M., Emerson, C.L., 2011. Cotton-grain sorghum rotation under extreme deficit irrigation conditions. Appl. Engineer. Agric. 27, 359–371. Bordovsky, J.P., Mustian, J.T., Ritchie, G.L., Lewis, K.L., 2015. Cotton irrigation timing with variable seasonal irrigation capacities in the Texas South Plains. Appl. Engineer. Agric. 31 (6), 883–897. Buman, R.A., Alesii, B.A., Bradley, J.F., Hatfield, J.L., Karlen, D.L., 2005. Profit and yield of tillage in cotton production systems. J. Soil Water Conserv. 60 (5), 235–242. Camp, C.R., Bauer, P.J., Busscher, W.J., 1999. Evaluation of no-tillage crop production with subsurface drip irrigation on soils with compacted layers. Trans. ASAE 42 (4), 911–917. Carmer, S.G., Nyquist, W.E., Walker, W.M., 1989. Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81, 665–672. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1989.00021962008100040021x. Claassen, R., Bowman, M., McFadden, J., Smith, D., Wallander, S., 2018. Tillage intensity and conservation cropping in the United States, EIB-197, U.S. Department of agriculture. Economic Res. Service(September 2018). Colaizzi, P.D., Evett, S.R., Howell, T.A., 2006. Cotton production with SDI, LEPA, and spray irrigation in a thermally-limited climate. International Water Irrigation 26 (1), 10–12 14. Dabney, S.M., Delgado, J.A., Reeves, D.W., 2001. Using winter cover crops to improve soil and water quality. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 32, 1221–1250. DeLaune, P.B., Sij, J.W., Park, S.C., Krutz, L.J., 2012. Cotton production as affected by irrigation level and transitioning tillage systems. Agron. J. 104, 991–995. https://doi. org/10.2134/agronj2011.0420. DeLaune, P., Mubvumba, P., Lewis, K., 2016. Influence of management practices on soil health in cotton cropping systems. In: Proc. 2016 Beltwide Cotton Conference. New Orleans, LA. 4-6 Jan. 2016. [CD]. DeLaune, P.B., Mubvumba, P., Lewis, K.L., Keeling, J.W., 2019. Rye cover crop impacts soil properties in a long-term cotton system. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. https://doi.org/10. 2136/sssaj2019.03.0069. DeLaune, P.B., Mubvumba, P., Fan, Y., Bevers, S., 2020. Cover crop impact on irrigated cotton yield and net return in the Southern Great Plains. Agron. J. https://doi.org/10. 1002/agj2.20135. Dyson, T., 1999. World food trends and prospects to 2025. Proc. Nat. Academy Scie. U.S.A. 96, 5929–5936. Falkenberg, N.R., Piccinni, G., Cothren, J.T., Leskovar, D.I., Rush, C.M., 2007. Remote sensing of biotic and abiotic stress for irrigation management of cotton. Agric. Water Manage. 87, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2006.05.021. Fereres, E., Soriano, M.A., 2007. Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use. J. Exper. Bot. 58, 147–159. Hake, K., Grimes, D., 2010. Crop water management to optimize growth and yield. In: Stewart, J.M., Oosterhuis, D.M., Heithol, J.J., Mauney, J.R. (Eds.), Physiology of Cotton. Springer Netherlands, New York, N. Y, pp. 255–264. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-90-481-3195-2_23. Holman, J.D., Arnet, K., Dille, J., Maxwell, S., Obour, A., Roberts, T., Roozeboom, K., Schlegel, A., 2018. Can cover or forage crops replace fallow in the semiarid Central Great Plains. Crop Sci. 58, 932–944. HPUWCD, 2015. Rules of the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1. Lubbock. Texas: High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1. http:// www.hpwd.org/rules/. Konikow, L., 2013. Groundwater Depletion in the United States (1900−2008). Report 2013-5079. Lincoln, Neb.: U.S. Geological Survey. . http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/ 5079. Lewis, K.L., Burke, J.A., Keeling, W.S., McCallister, D.M., DeLaune, P.B., Keeling, J.W., 2018a. Soil benefits and yield limitations of cover crop use in Texas High Plains cotton. Agron. J. 110, 1616–1623. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.02.0092. Lewis, K.L., Burke, J., Keeling, W., Mitchell, D.M., DeLaune, P.B., Keeling, J.W., 2018b. Soil benefits and yield limitations of long-term cover crop use in semi-arid cotton production. In: ASA-CSSA 2018 International Meeting. 4-7 Nov. 2018, Baltimore, MD. . https://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2018am/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/111657.
6
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural Water Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat
Impact of no-till, cover crop, and irrigation on Cotton yield a,
a
a
P.B DeLaune *, P. Mubvumba , S. Ale , E. Kimura a b
T
b
Texas A&M AgriLife Research, United States Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, United States
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Cotton Conservation Agriculture No-Till Strip-Till Conventional Till Cover Crops Water Use Efficiency Irrigation Wheat
Water is the limiting factor for crop production within the southern US Great Plains and it has become a critical resource for multiple stakeholders. Hence, efficient irrigation and cropping systems are of paramount importance to conserve water resources. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of irrigation timing and quantity, cover crop use and tillage on cotton production in an established conservation tillage system. Evaluated tillage systems included: 1) conventional tillage (CT); 2) strip-tillage (ST); 3) no-till (NT); and 4) NT with a terminated wheat cover crop (NT-W). Irrigation treatments included 1) 5.08-6.35 mm d−1 initiated midseason (LOW); 2) 6.35-8.38 mm d−1 initiated mid-season (MED); and 3) 5.08-6.35 mm d−1 initiated earlyseason (HIGH). No significant differences in lint yield or irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) were observed between MED and HIGH. Although HIGH resulted in 12 % greater lint yields than LOW, HIGH resulted in 67 % greater irrigation water applications. LOW resulted in significantly greater IWUE than MED and HIGH. No-till systems, with and without a cover crop, had significantly greater lint yields and IWUE than CT. Furthermore, inclusion of wheat in NT increased yields and IWUE compared with ST. Applying irrigation water at a critical growth stage proved to be more water efficient than early season irrigation that was used to bank moisture in the soil profile. Delaying irrigation application until critical growth stages and using cover crops should be considered as best management approaches to conserve water resources while sustaining cotton production in the Southern Great Plains.
1. Introduction Water is a critical resource for multiple stakeholders within the southern US Great Plains, an ecoregion with dry, hot summers and mild winters which can be highly variable from year to year. Conservation of water resources in this region has become more critical in recent years due to periods of exceptional drought, declining aquifer levels, and rapid urban growth. Texas Groundwater Conservation Districts have enacted pumping restrictions to conserve water, most notably for areas overlying the Ogallala Aquifer where water reserves have declined more than 50 % (Konikow, 2013; NPGCD, 2014; HPUWCD, 2015). Sij et al. (2010) noted that expanding cropped area using current irrigation systems in the Texas Rolling Plains (TRP) region is challenging as groundwater resources of the Seymour Aquifer are nearly fully utilized. Thus, management practices that result in efficient use of water is imperative for sustainability of irrigated crop production. AeschbachHertig and Gleeson (2012) reported that excessive groundwater extraction for irrigation in areas of slow recharge is the main cause of
groundwater depletion in regions of India, northeastern China, Mexico, Middle East and Northern Africa. Wang et al. (2014) noted that studies suggest that water demand management or water supply management alone will not address mounting water stress. As groundwater levels decline or pumping restrictions are enacted, irrigation delivery to a field can change within a growing season (Bordovsky et al., 2015). One potential strategy to overcome reduced irrigation capacities is to plant crops that have lower water demands, such as cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) or sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.). Reviews have noted that irrigated agriculture is essential for production of sufficient food for the future, yet some view irrigated agriculture as highly inefficient due to the production of crops with high water demands (Postel et al., 1996; Dyson, 1999; Fereres and Soriano, 2007). Texas accounts for approximately 46 % of cotton produced in the US, approximately 67 % of cotton produced within the southern Great Plains, with over 70 % of Texas cotton produced within the Texas High Plains and TRP (USDA-NASS, 2018). Cotton has responded well to deficit irrigation in Texas (Bordovsky et al., 1992; Colaizzi et al., 2006;
Abbreviations: CT, conventional tillage; NT, no-tillage; IWUE, irrigation water use efficiency; LOW, low irrigation treatment; MED, medium irrigation treatment; HIGH, high irrigation treatment; SDI, subsurface drip irrigation; TRP, Texas Rolling Plains ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (P.B. DeLaune). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106038 Received 11 October 2019; Received in revised form 18 January 2020; Accepted 18 January 2020 0378-3774/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106038
P.B. DeLaune, et al.
2. Materials and methods
Falkenberg et al., 2007; DeLaune et al., 2012). DeLaune et al. (2012) concluded that irrigating between 66 and 133 % evapotranspiration replacement in the TRP under subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) resulted in no significant difference in lint yields or net returns. Observed data and data based upon the Cotton2K model have shown that deficit irrigation at 83–85 % evapotranspiration replacement is a suitable alternative strategy for cotton production in the TRP on clay loam soils (DeLaune et al., 2012; Attia et al., 2016). Bordovsky et al. (2015) determined that irrigation during the maturation phase of cotton was critical for acceptable yield and irrigation water use efficiency in the Texas South Plains. Research has indicated that water shortages in the course of early and peak flowering can result in large yield reductions (Simao et al., 2013; Snowden et al., 2014). If irrigation quantity late in the season is a concern, one approach is to apply irrigation prior to planting or early in the growing season to accumulate stored moisture in the soil profile to supplement rainfall and irrigation during vital crop growth stages (Mahan et al., 2012). However, this approach has translated to decreased irrigation water use efficiency with mixed results on lint yield (Bordovsky and Porter, 2003; Hake and Grimes, 2010; Schaefer et al., 2018). In the southeastern US, research has shown that reductions in pre-bloom irrigation had no reduction in lint yields when sufficient irrigation was applied during blooming (Meeks et al., 2017; Zurweller et al., 2019). No-till is a practice that can increase surface residue and subsequently improve water holding capacity, soil water storage, and water use efficiency (McVay et al., 2006; Schwartz et al., 2010; Baumhardt et al., 2012). Triplett and Dick (2008) reported that adoption of no-till and reduced till cotton is one of the most rapidly growing conservation practices. However, recent reports estimate that conservation tillage is used on only 40 % of US cotton acres (Claassen et al., 2018). In comparison, more than 65 % of corn, soybean, and wheat acres are under conservation agriculture (Claassen et al., 2018). Adoption of conservation tillage in southern Great Plains cotton systems (30 %) is also much lower than the southeastern US (70 %). Baumhardt et al. (2012) attributed residue retaining benefits of no-till during the cotton rotation phase of a cotton-wheat-fallow rotation in the Texas High Plains, which significantly increased lint yields. Blanco-Canqui et al. (2011) concluded that cover crops could enhance the effect of no-till systems through improved soil physical properties and soil organic C concentrations. However, within semi-arid environments, soil water use by cover crops is a potential disadvantage (Dabney et al., 2001; Balkcom et al., 2007). Water use by cover crops has been shown to greatly reduce subsequent crop yields in semi-arid regions (Unger and Vigil, 1998; Reicosky and Forcella, 1998; Nielsen et al., 2016; Holman et al., 2018). Small grain cover crops in cotton systems within the Southern Great Plains have shown mixed results. Studies in the Texas High Plains have shown reduced lint yields due to small grain cover cops in both dryland and sprinkler irrigated continuous cotton systems (Baughman et al., 2007; Lewis et al., 2018a). In contrast, other studies in the Texas High Plains and TRP have observed no impact of cover crops on lint yields in dryland and SDI cotton systems (Segarra et al., 1991; Sij et al., 2003; DeLaune et al., 2012, 2020). Across 12 locations in the southern US, lint yields were not affected by conservation tillage (Buman et al., 2005). After 34 year of NT, NT was reported to increase cotton lint yield by 12 % compared to CT (Nouri et al., 2019). Conservation tillage should complement a SDI system due to reduced aggressive tillage operations (Camp et al., 1999). Subsurface drip irrigation has rapidly expanded in the Southern Great Plains due to highly efficient delivery of water (Bordovsky and Porter, 2003). The synergy between conservation tillage and irrigation timing in a SDI system has not been well evaluated, particularly for a long-term system. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of irrigation timing and quantity, cover crop use and tillage on cotton production in an established conservation tillage system.
The study was conducted at the Texas A&M AgriLife Chillicothe Research Station near Chillicothe, TX (34°11′N, 99°31′W, 443 m elevation above sea level). Average annual precipitation (1981–2010) for the region is 710 mm as recorded by NOAA 22 km NE of the Chillicothe Research Station (NOAA, 2018). The soil is classified as an Abilene clay loam (fine, mixed, superactive, thermic Pachic Argiustolls) with 0–1% slope. Historically, the study area had been under continuous cotton production and occasionally rotated with grain sorghum before SDI installation in 2006. The study site has been under continuous cotton production since SDI installation. The study evaluated the impact of irrigation timing and tillage on cotton production from 2013–2018. The study was comprised of a randomized complete block design. Tillage systems included: 1) conventional tillage (CT); 2) strip-tillage (ST); 3) no-till (NT); and 4) NT with a terminated wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cover crop (NT-W). Irrigation treatments included 1) 5.08-6.35 mm d−1 initiated midseason (LOW); 2) 6.35-8.38 mm d−1 initiated mid-season (MED); and 3) 5.08-6.35 mm d−1 initiated early-season (HIGH). Each treatment was replicated three times totaling 36 plots. Average daily ET for the study site was reported to range from 6.40 to 7.75 mm d−1 during the months of July and August (DeLaune et al., 2012). The wheat cover crop was planted each year within one week after cotton harvest and stalk shredding at a seeding rate of 34 kg ha−1 on 0.25-m row spacing. The cover crop was planted as early as 27 October and as late as 7 December. No water was applied to the cover crop. The cover crop was chemically terminated using glyphosate in mid to late April each year at approximately 50 % heading. Due to herbicide drift from adjacent plots, cover crop treatments were terminated in late March 2016. Cover crop residue was left standing after termination. Tillage treatments were initiated in 2008, with the exception of ST. Strip-tillage was implemented in 2011, replacing a reduced tillage treatment as described by DeLaune et al. (2012). Strip-till was conducted using a four-row unit (Yetter Maverick; Colchester, IL) consisting of a 51-cm notched cutting coulter, followed by two residue managers, two 41-cm notched disc sealers with a rolling basket attachment. Total width of strip-tillage was approximately 20-cm. Conventional tillage consisted of two to three disking operations during the off-season and one to two in-season cultivations using chisel sweeps. Each plot was eight rows wide (1.0-m spacing) and 45.7-m long. A fourrow vacuum planter was used to plant cotton directly over drip tape at 10.5 seeds m−1 row. Planter settings were consistent across tillage treatments and cotton was planted directly into standing wheat residue. Cotton was planted 5–6 weeks after cover crop termination each year, although planting occurred 8 weeks after termination in 2015 due to above normal precipitation. Cotton cultivar NG 1511 B2RF was planted during 2013–2016 and PHY 490 W3FE was planted in 2017 and 2018. In-season chemical applications (herbicide, insecticide, growth regulator, harvest aid) were the same across all treatments. Fertilizer was also applied at the same rate across all treatments using coulter trailing fertilizer knives at 0.25-m from the row center at 56 kg N ha−1 each year. Elevated well water nitrate provided approximately 5.1 kg N for each 25 mm water applied. All plot rows were mechanically-harvested and subsamples were ginned to obtain lint yields. The LOW and MED treatments delayed irrigation until flowering was visually observed, which generally occurred 47–55 days after planting. In contrast, HIGH was initiated within three weeks after planting. In 2013, irrigation was applied at a lower rate earlier in the season for LOW and MED to facilitate stand establishment and vigor during exceptional drought conditions. Planting date, date of irrigation initiation, irrigation rate, total irrigation water applied, and total inseason water is provided in Table 1. Drip tape was 0.3-m below the planted row with emitters spaced at 0.41-m. Irrigation was applied each day that recorded rainfall was less than 2.5 mm d−1. Proc Mixed was used to analyze data (SAS Version 9.4, SAS Institute 2
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106038
P.B. DeLaune, et al.
Table 1 Cotton planting date, date of irrigation initiation, irrigation daily rate and total seasonal irrigation applied for the study conducted at Texas A&M AgriLife Chillicothe Research Station.2013–2018. Planting Date
2013 Low Medium High 2014 Low Medium High 2015 Low Medium High 2016 Low Medium High 2017 Low Medium High 2018 Low Medium High
Irrigation Initiation
Irrigation Rate (mm d−1)
Total Irrigation Applied (mm)
Total InSeason Water (mm)‡
12 June 12 June 12 June
5 August† 5 August† 14 June
6.35 8.13 6.35
251 308 400
375 432 524
13 June 13 June 13 June
8 August 8 August 20 June
6.35 8.38 6.35
127 168 248
354 395 475
22 June 22 June 22 June
14 August 14 August 14 July
5.08 6.35 5.08
142 182 248
222 262 328
10 June 10 June 10 June
1 August 1 August 7 July
5.08 6.35 5.08
152 191 264
309 348 421
23 May 23 May 23 May
18 July 18 July 14 June
5.08 6.35 5.08
132 165 229
483 516 580
29 May 29 May 29 May
14 July 14 July 18 June
5.08 6.35 5.08
244 305 361
303 364 420
Table 2 Recorded precipitation at Texas A&M AgriLife Chillicothe Research Station 2013–2018 and 30-year historical precipitation for the region during MayOctober.
May June July August September May-September
† Irrigation applied at 3.8 mm d−1 25 June – 2 July and at 2.5 mm d−1 9–15 July. ‡ Precipitation plus applied irrigation water during the irrigation period.
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Historical Average
mm 20 95 110 5.1 43 275
177 97 160 41 46 519
442 102 28 39 56 666
171 40 52 66 53 382
5.1 97 38 216 43 399
167 2.5 20 36 64 290
85 108 53 62 80 387
Fig. 1. Lint yield for each year of the project pooled across water and tillage treatments at Texas A&M AgriLife Chillicothe Research Station 2013–2018. Means with the same letter are not different at P < 0.05. Bars represent standard error of the sample mean.
Inc., Cary, NC). Fixed effects included tillage, irrigation, and the interaction between tillage and irrigation. The NTeW treatment was considered a tillage treatment. Year, block (nested within year), and all interactions among these effects were considered random. Year as a random effect allows inferences concerning treatments to be formulated over an array of environments (Carmer et al., 1989), which were observed during this six-year study. Least square means were calculated and means separation were considered significantly different for tested P values (P < 0.05 or 0.1). Mean separation and letter groupings was produced by using the PDMIX800 macro in SAS (Saxton, 1998).
2014, 2016, and 2017. Seasonal irrigation ranged from 127 to 400 mm during the 6-year study. Mean irrigation water applied during the growing season was 175 mm for LOW, 220 mm for MED, and 292 mm for HIGH irrigation treatments. Total in-season water was 341 mm for LOW, 386 mm for MED, and 458 mm for HIGH (Table 1). In comparison, Wanjura et al. (2002) found that an irrigation input of 580 mm or total water application of 740 mm was estimated to produce maximum lint yield in the Texas Southern High Plains. Total in-season water was numerically higher in 2017 due to 216 mm precipitation from 14 to 28 August followed by four additional days of irrigation in early September.
3. Results and discussion 3.1. Climate and irrigation
3.2. Irrigation timing and quantity
In-season precipitation varied greatly among study years, ranging from near record precipitation early in the season followed by prolonged drought conditions to early season drought conditions followed by well above average precipitation late in the growing season (Tables 1 and 2). Fluctuations in seasonal variability is the norm within the TRP. Although recorded precipitation was above average in three out of six years, high seasonal variability was typically due to significant recorded events in one or two months rather than even distribution throughout the growing season. Above average precipitation was recorded during May prior to planting in four of six years, which should have resulted in adequate stored soil moisture for early season production. Significant precipitation events occurred in July 2013 and 2014 near flowering, which delayed irrigation initiation for low and medium treatments. Although rainfall was 5-fold greater in May 2015 than the historical average, conditions resulted in a late planting date and below normal precipitation throughout the remainder of the growing season. Lint yield for each year is presented in Fig. 1. Lint yields were greater in 2013, whereas no differences occurred among
Irrigation treatments significantly affected lint yield (P = 0.0895) and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE; P = 0.0017; Table 3). Cotton lint yield was 1337 kg ha−1 for the LOW treatment and 1511 kg ha−1 for the HIGH treatment (Fig. 2A). The HIGH treatment resulted in greater lint yield than LOW, but not MED (Fig. 2A). Applied irrigation water for HIGH was 33 % greater than MED, while MED only reduced lint yields by 7 %, which is not significant. Wanjura et al. (1996) found that delaying irrigation until squaring reduced the amount of irrigation by 30 %, while yield was increased by 8 %. Schaefer et al. (2018) concluded that early season irrigation deficits can be compensated for later in the growing season, which allows for high boll retention throughout the plant. They also concluded that irrigation deficit during the primary reproductive development or early flowering period has the most detrimental effect on both boll distribution and yield. Snowden et al. (2014) determined that the early flowering growth stage of cotton was the most sensitive to drought stress. In our study, a higher 3
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106038
P.B. DeLaune, et al.
Table 3 Significance of F values for fixed source variation. Dependent Variable
Tillage (T)
Irrigation (I)
T×I
Lint Yield Irrigation water use efficiency
——————————————————————————P > F—————————————————————————— 0.0307 0.0895 0.2360 0.0090 0.0017 0.1513
precise application irrigation. Reduced evaporative losses of irrigation water early in the season within the SDI system could partly explain lint yield differences observed between LOW and HIGH treatments. Although HIGH resulted in 12 % significantly greater lint yields than LOW, irrigation water applied was 67 % greater for HIGH compared to LOW. A study conducted in Israel reported that cotton yields were reduced due to excessive vegetative growth prior to peak blooming (Plaut et al., 1988). Wanjura et al. (1996) concluded that delaying irrigation until squaring slightly decreasing early vegetative growth and proved beneficial for lint production when a pre-plant irrigation was applied and subsequent in-season irrigation was sufficient. Irrigation water use efficiency, defined as kg lint produced per mm of irrigation water applied, was significantly greater for LOW compared to all other treatments and IWUE of MED was significantly greater than HIGH (Fig. 2B). Lint produced per mm of irrigation water applied for LOW was 18 % greater than MED and 35 % greater than HIGH. Thus, irrigating early in the season to build soil water in the profile reduced irrigation water efficiency compared to applying irrigation water at critical growth stages later in the year. Previous research has also shown that IWUE tends to decrease as irrigation water increases in the Texas High Plains (Bordovsky et al., 2011) and the TRP (DeLaune et al., 2012; Attia et al., 2016). In southern Arizona, Steger et al. (1998) reported a pattern of decreased yield with increasing early season water stress and recommended irrigation timing should be based on plant or soil water status rather than date after planting. Using the simulation model GOSSYM, Baumhardt et al. (2009) found that with 100 % field capacity water storage, water use efficiency tended to decline because of diminishing marginal increases in lint yield with increased irrigation. In contrast, increasing irrigation rate from 2.5 mm d−1 to 3.75− or 5.0mm d−1 increased lint yield and water use efficiency at 50 % field capacity. As recorded precipitation in May was well above average in four out of six years (Table 2), initial soil profile moisture conditions at planting were generally favorable, resulting in marginal increases in lint yield with increasing irrigation. When considering both lint yield and water usage, LOW would be an acceptable alternative approach to early season watering.
Fig. 2. Main effect of irrigation on (A) lint yield; and (B) irrigation water use efficiency 2013–2018. Irrigation treatment means with the same letter are not different for irrigation water use efficiency at P < 0.05 and lint yield at P < 0.10. Bars represent standard error of the sample mean.
irrigation rate (MED) compensated for lack of early season irrigation and more closely met existing ET conditions than a lower rate (LOW). On average, 117 mm of irrigation water was applied with HIGH prior to initiation of LOW or MED. Initiating a greater irrigation rate at flowering was not different than applying irrigation early in the season to bank moisture. Irrigation early in the growing season to build up water in the soil profile and reduce late season water stress has shown to be an ineffective strategy using low energy precision application irrigation on clay loam soils of the Texas Southern High Plains (Bordovsky et al., 2015). Within this environment, irrigation quantity needs to be available during the period of cotton maturation to achieve the maximum benefit of applied irrigation and rainfall that occurs earlier in the cotton growing season (Bordovsky et al., 2015). Meeks et al. (2017) found that pre-bloom irrigation events can be lowered without impacting yield, though episodic drought during flowering substantially reduces yield. Irrigation methods may also affect the efficiency of early season irrigation applications. Bordovsky et al. (2015) indicated that irrigation evaporative losses could be eliminated by SDI systems, which was hypothesized to be a major contributing factor to reductions in seasonal irrigation water use efficiency under low energy
3.3. Tillage Lint yield (P = 0.0307) and IWUE (P = 0.0090) were significantly affected by tillage, but not the interaction of tillage and irrigation (Table 3). Lint yields ranged from 1350 kg ha−1 for CT to 1484 kg ha−1 for NT-W (Fig. 3A). No-till with a terminated wheat cover crop (NT-W) resulted in significantly greater lint yields than ST and CT (Fig. 3A). Furthermore, NT significantly improved lint yields compared to CT (Fig. 3A). Pittelkow et al. (2015) conducted a global meta-analysis and showed that mean cotton yields remained similar under no-till relative to conventional till practices. A small grain cover crop did not hinder lint yields, but increased lint yields by 7 % over ST and 9 % over CT (Fig. 3A). This contrasts with results of DeLaune et al. (2012), who reported tillage did not affect lint yields at the same study location. However, DeLaune et al. (2012) results were observed during the transition phase from conventional tillage to conservation tillage (2008–2010). Triplett and Dick (2008) reported that the benefits of NT may not be realized for at least three years. Results from the current study were observed for years five to eleven of the tillage system, 4
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106038
P.B. DeLaune, et al.
reported that improved soil physical quality under NT and cover crops was related to greater lint yield in NT than CT. While soil water use by cover crops is a concern, particularly for dryland environments, longterm (2001–2015) simulations using the DSSAT model by Adhikari et al. (2017) indicated that there was no substantial reduction in average seed cotton yield or soil water using winter wheat as a cover crop in dryland continuous cotton systems of the TRP. Under SDI, a wheat cover crop not only improved lint yields, but has also improved net returns over CT (DeLaune et al., 2012). 4. Conclusions Over a 6-yr period, delaying irrigation until critical cotton growth stages, as compared to banking water through pre-season or early season irrigation, reduced irrigation applications while not significantly reducing lint yields. Applying excess water early in the growing season should not be considered a best management practice with regard to water conservation. Although HIGH irrigation increased lint yields by 12 % over the LOW treatment, 67 % more water was required. Irrigation at a higher rate at flowering (MED) resulted in similar yields as applying irrigation early in the season (HIGH). Lint yields were also increased by NT, with and without a cover crop, compared to CT. Implementing a wheat cover crop improved the NT system, resulting in significantly greater lint yields and IWUE than ST and CT. Optimizing irrigation timing and implementing conservation tillage increased the amount of lint produced per quantity of irrigation water applied. If well capacity is a concern and irrigation water is limited, applying irrigation at critical growth stages provides the greatest irrigation water value. Conventional tillage resulted in significantly lower lint yields and IWUE than NT and NT-W, thus NT systems should be considered for sustainable cotton production over the long-term. Declaration of Competing Interests Fig. 3. Main effect of tillage on (A) lint yield; and (B) irrigation water use efficiency 2013–2018. Tillage treatment means with the same letter are not different for lint yield and irrigation water use efficiency at P < 0.05. Bars represent standard error of the sample mean.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Acknowledgement
indicating the benefit of a long-term conservation tillage system. When considering the long-term impacts of no-till, Pittelkow et al. (2015) anticipated that yields would increase relative to CT in 10+ years. In contrast, Lewis et al. (2018a) reported that cotton lint yields were significantly greater for CT than NT with a terminated rye cover crop in two of three years in an established 15-year tillage system within the Texas Southern High Plains. However, this reduction in yield could potentially be linked to greater root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) within NT with a rye cover crop compared to CT (Lewis et al., 2018b). In addition to increased lint yield, NT-W also significantly increased IWUE compared with ST and CT (Fig. 3B). Similar to tillage effects on lint yield, statistical differences mirrored tillage effects on IWUE. Irrigation water use efficiency for NT was not significantly different than ST and NT-W, but was significantly greater than CT. No significant differences for IWUE were observed between CT and ST. Over a six-year average, IWUE was 11 % greater for NT-W and 9 % greater for NT compared with CT. Baumhardt et al. (2013) reported that disc tilled cotton lint yields irrigated at 5 mm d−1 were typically less than NT and stubble-mulch tillage cotton irrigated at 2.5 mm d−1. Higher lint yield associated with NT were attributed to reduced evaporation and greater infiltration with NT residue from previous wheat cover crops. Continuous cotton systems return little residue to the soil surface (Boquet et al., 2004; Nouri et al., 2019). Hence, implementing a cover crop could enhance soil function of NT. Research has shown that a wheat or rye cover crop significantly improved water infiltration early in the growing season of continuous cotton systems in the southern Great Plains (DeLaune et al., 2016; DeLaune et al., 2019). Nouri et al. (2019)
The authors wish to acknowledge the Texas State Support Committee of Cotton Incorporated for their financial support of this project (Project No. 15-813TX). Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106038. References Adhikari, P., Omani, N., Ale, S., DeLaune, P.B., Thorp, K.R., Barnes, E.M., Hoogenboom, G., 2017. Simulated effects of winter wheat cover crop on cotton production systems of the Texas Rolling Plains. Trans. ASABE 60, 2083–2096. https://doi.org/10.13031/ trans.12272. Aeschbach-Hertig, W., Gleeson, T., 2012. Regional strategies for the accelerating global problem of groundwater depletion. Nat. Geosci. 5, 853–861. Attia, A., Rajan, N., Nair, S.S., DeLaune, P.B., Xue, Q., Ibrahim, A.M.H., Hays, D.B., 2016. Modeling cotton lint yield and water use efficiency responses to irrigation scheduling using Cotton2K. Agron. J. 108, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2015.0437. Balkcom, K., Schomberg, H., Reeves, W., Clark, A., Baumhardt, L., Collins, H., Delgado, J., Duiker, S., Kaspar, T., Mitchell, J., 2007. Managing cover crops in conservation tillage systems. In: Beltsville, Andy Clark. (Ed.), Managing Cover Crops Profitably, 3rd ed. United Book Press, Inc. 2007, pp. 44–61 Print. MD. Baughman, T.A., Keeling, J.W., Boman, R.K., 2007. On-farm Conservation Tillage Programs to Increase Dryland Cotton Profitability. Project 05-643TX. Final Report to Cotton Inc. 25 January 2007. Baumhardt, R.L., Staggenborg, S.A., Gowda, P.H., Colaizzi, P.D., Howell, T.A., 2009. Modeling irrigation management strategies to maximize lint yield and water use efficiency. Agron. J. 101, 406–468.
5
Agricultural Water Management 232 (2020) 106038
P.B. DeLaune, et al.
Mahan, J., Young, A., Payton, P., 2012. Deficit irrigation in a production setting: canopy temperature as an adjunct to ET estimates. Irr. Sci. 30 (2), 127–137. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00271-011-0269-1. McVay, K.A., Budde, J.A., Fabrizzi, K., Mikha, M.M., Rice, C.W., Schlegel, A.J., Peterson, D.E., Sweeney, D.W., Thompson, C., 2006. Management effects on soil physical properties in long-term tillage studies in Kansas. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 434–438. Meeks, C.D., Snider, J.L., Porter, W.M., Vellidis, G., Hawkins, G., Rowland, D., 2017. Assessing the utility of primed acclimation for improving water savings in cotton using a sensor-based irrigation scheduling system. Crop Sci. 57, 2117–2129. Nielsen, D.C., Lyon, D.J., Higgins, R.K., Hergert, G.W., Holman, J.D., Vigil, M.F., 2016. Cover crop effect on subsequent wheat yield in the Central Great Plains. Agron. J. 108, 243–256. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2015.0372. Nouri, A., Lee, J., Yin, X., Tyler, D.D., Saxton, A.M., 2019. Thirty-four year of no-tillage and cover crops improve soil quality and increase cotton yield in Alfisols, Southeastern US. Geoderma 337, 998–1008. NPGCD, 2014. Rules of North plains groundwater conservation District. Dumas, Tex.: North Plains Groundwater Conservation District. / information/DistrictDocs/Rules/ revised%20rules%20adopted%20by%20the%20Board %20on%2020150414%20at %20256%20p.m.%20for%20web%201.pdf.. http://www.northplainsgcd.org/ phocadownload. Pittelkow, C.M., Linquest, B.A., Lundy, M.E., Liang, X., van Groenigen, K.J., Lee, J., van Gestel, N., Six, J., Venterea, R.T., van Kessel, C., 2015. When does no-till yield more? A global meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 183, 156–168. Plaut, Z., Carmi, A., Grava, A., 1988. Cotton growth and production under drip-irrigation restricted soil wetting. Irrig. Sci. 9 (143-), 156. Postel, S.L., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., 1996. Human appropriation of renewable freshwater. Science 271, 785–788. Reicosky, D.C., Forcella, F., 1998. Cover crop and soil quality interactions in agroecosystems. J. Soil Water Cons. 53, 224–229. Saxton, A.M., 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in proc mixed. In: Proceedings 23rd SAS Users Group International Conference. Nashville, TN. 22–25 Mar. 1998. SAS Inst., Cary, NC. P. 1243–1246. Schaefer, C.R., Ritchie, G.L., Bordovsky, J.P., Lewis, K., Kelly, B., 2018. Irrigation timing and rate affect cotton boll distribution and fiber quality. Agron. J. 110, 922–931. Schwartz, R.C., Baumhardt, R.L., Evett, S.R., 2010. Tillage effects on soil water redistribution and bare soil evaporation throughout a season. Soil Till. Res. 110, 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2010.07.015. Segarra, E., Keeling, J.W., Abernathy, J.R., 1991. Tillage and cropping system effects on cotton yield and profitability on the Texas Southern High Plains. J. Prod. Agric. 4, 566–571. https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1991.0566. Sij, J., Ott, J., Olson, B., Baughman, T., Bordovsky, D., 2003. Dryland cropping systems to enhance soil moisture capture and water-use efficiency in cotton. In: In: Proc. 2003 Beltwide Cotton Conference. Nashville, TN. 6-10 Jan. 2003. [CD]. Sij, J.W., Bordovsky, D.G., Jones, D.L., Slosser, J.E., 2010. Utilizing subsurface drip irrigation and conservation tillage in cotton production systems. SRX Agric. 2010 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3814/2010/725381. Simao, F., Ritchie, G., Bednarz, C., 2013. Cotton physiological parameters affected by episodic irrigation interruption. J. Agric. Sci. Tech., A 3, 443–454. Snowden, M., Ritchie, G., Simao, F., Bordovsky, J., 2014. Timing of episodic drought can be critical in cotton. Agron. J. 106 (2), 452–458. https://doi.org/10.2134/ agronj2013.0325. Steger, A.J., Silvertooth, J.C., Brown, P.W., 1998. Upland cotton growth and yield response to timing the initial postplant irrigation. Agron. J. 90, 455–461. Triplett, G.B.Jr., Dick, W.A., 2008. No-tillage crop production: a revolution in agriculture!. Agron. J. 100, S-153–S-165. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2007.0005c. Unger, P.W., Vigil, M.F., 1998. Cover crops effects on soil water relationships. J. Soil Water Cons. 53, 241–244. USDA-NASS, 2018. US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service, Annual Cotton Review. Texas Field Office, USDA-NASS, Washington DC. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Texas/Publications/Current_News_ Release/2018_Rls/tx-cotton-review-2018.pdf. Wang, X., Zhang, J., Shahid, S., Guam, E., Wu, Y., Gao, J., He, R., 2014. Adaptation to climate change impacts on water demand. Mitig. Adapt. Stateg. Glob. Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9571-6. Wanjura, D.F., Mahan, J.R., Upchurch, D.R., 1996. Irrigation starting time effects on cotton under high-frequency irrigation. Agron. J. 88, 561–566. Wanjura, D.F., Upchurch, D.R., Mahan, J.R., Burke, J.J., 2002. Cotton yield and applied water relationships under drip irrigation. Agric. Water Manage. 55, 217–237. Zurweller, B.A., Rowland, D.L., Mulvaney, M.J., Tillman, B.L., Migliaccio, K.W., Wright, D., Erickson, J., Payton, P., Vellidis, G., 2019. Optimizing cotton irrigation and nitrogen management using a soil water balance model and in-season nitrogen applications. Agric. Water Manage. 216, 306–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019. 01.011.
Baumhardt, R.L., Johnson, G.L., Schwartz, R.C., 2012. Residue and long-term tillage and crop rotation effects on simulated rain infiltration and sediment transport. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 76, 1370–1378. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2011.0331. Blanco-Canqui, H., Mikha, M.M., Pressley, D.R., Claassen, M.M., 2011. Addition of cover crops enhances no-till potential for improving soil physical properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75, 1471–1482. Boquet, D.J., Hutchinson, R.L., Breitenbeck, G.A., 2004. Long-term tillage cover crop, and nitrogen rate effects on cotton: yield and fiber properties. Agron. J. 96, 1436–1442. Bordovsky, J., Porter, D., 2003. Cotton Response to Pre-plant Irrigation Level and Irrigation Capacity Using Spray, LEPA, and Subsurface Drip Irrigation. ASABE Paper No. 032008. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.13753. Bordovsky, J.P., Lyle, W.M., Lascano, R.J., Upchurch, D.R., 1992. Cotton irrigation management with LEPA systems. Trans. ASAE 35 (3), 879–884. Bordovsky, J.P., Mustian, J.T., Cranmer, A.M., Emerson, C.L., 2011. Cotton-grain sorghum rotation under extreme deficit irrigation conditions. Appl. Engineer. Agric. 27, 359–371. Bordovsky, J.P., Mustian, J.T., Ritchie, G.L., Lewis, K.L., 2015. Cotton irrigation timing with variable seasonal irrigation capacities in the Texas South Plains. Appl. Engineer. Agric. 31 (6), 883–897. Buman, R.A., Alesii, B.A., Bradley, J.F., Hatfield, J.L., Karlen, D.L., 2005. Profit and yield of tillage in cotton production systems. J. Soil Water Conserv. 60 (5), 235–242. Camp, C.R., Bauer, P.J., Busscher, W.J., 1999. Evaluation of no-tillage crop production with subsurface drip irrigation on soils with compacted layers. Trans. ASAE 42 (4), 911–917. Carmer, S.G., Nyquist, W.E., Walker, W.M., 1989. Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81, 665–672. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1989.00021962008100040021x. Claassen, R., Bowman, M., McFadden, J., Smith, D., Wallander, S., 2018. Tillage intensity and conservation cropping in the United States, EIB-197, U.S. Department of agriculture. Economic Res. Service(September 2018). Colaizzi, P.D., Evett, S.R., Howell, T.A., 2006. Cotton production with SDI, LEPA, and spray irrigation in a thermally-limited climate. International Water Irrigation 26 (1), 10–12 14. Dabney, S.M., Delgado, J.A., Reeves, D.W., 2001. Using winter cover crops to improve soil and water quality. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 32, 1221–1250. DeLaune, P.B., Sij, J.W., Park, S.C., Krutz, L.J., 2012. Cotton production as affected by irrigation level and transitioning tillage systems. Agron. J. 104, 991–995. https://doi. org/10.2134/agronj2011.0420. DeLaune, P., Mubvumba, P., Lewis, K., 2016. Influence of management practices on soil health in cotton cropping systems. In: Proc. 2016 Beltwide Cotton Conference. New Orleans, LA. 4-6 Jan. 2016. [CD]. DeLaune, P.B., Mubvumba, P., Lewis, K.L., Keeling, J.W., 2019. Rye cover crop impacts soil properties in a long-term cotton system. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. https://doi.org/10. 2136/sssaj2019.03.0069. DeLaune, P.B., Mubvumba, P., Fan, Y., Bevers, S., 2020. Cover crop impact on irrigated cotton yield and net return in the Southern Great Plains. Agron. J. https://doi.org/10. 1002/agj2.20135. Dyson, T., 1999. World food trends and prospects to 2025. Proc. Nat. Academy Scie. U.S.A. 96, 5929–5936. Falkenberg, N.R., Piccinni, G., Cothren, J.T., Leskovar, D.I., Rush, C.M., 2007. Remote sensing of biotic and abiotic stress for irrigation management of cotton. Agric. Water Manage. 87, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2006.05.021. Fereres, E., Soriano, M.A., 2007. Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use. J. Exper. Bot. 58, 147–159. Hake, K., Grimes, D., 2010. Crop water management to optimize growth and yield. In: Stewart, J.M., Oosterhuis, D.M., Heithol, J.J., Mauney, J.R. (Eds.), Physiology of Cotton. Springer Netherlands, New York, N. Y, pp. 255–264. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-90-481-3195-2_23. Holman, J.D., Arnet, K., Dille, J., Maxwell, S., Obour, A., Roberts, T., Roozeboom, K., Schlegel, A., 2018. Can cover or forage crops replace fallow in the semiarid Central Great Plains. Crop Sci. 58, 932–944. HPUWCD, 2015. Rules of the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1. Lubbock. Texas: High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1. http:// www.hpwd.org/rules/. Konikow, L., 2013. Groundwater Depletion in the United States (1900−2008). Report 2013-5079. Lincoln, Neb.: U.S. Geological Survey. . http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/ 5079. Lewis, K.L., Burke, J.A., Keeling, W.S., McCallister, D.M., DeLaune, P.B., Keeling, J.W., 2018a. Soil benefits and yield limitations of cover crop use in Texas High Plains cotton. Agron. J. 110, 1616–1623. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.02.0092. Lewis, K.L., Burke, J., Keeling, W., Mitchell, D.M., DeLaune, P.B., Keeling, J.W., 2018b. Soil benefits and yield limitations of long-term cover crop use in semi-arid cotton production. In: ASA-CSSA 2018 International Meeting. 4-7 Nov. 2018, Baltimore, MD. . https://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2018am/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/111657.
6