Skip to main content
ARS Home » Midwest Area » Columbia, Missouri » Cropping Systems and Water Quality Research » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #203366
Title: ESTIMATING THE COST OF DELAYING IRRIGATION FOR MIDSOUTH COTTON ON CLAY SOIL

Author
item Vories, Earl
item HOGAN, ROBERT - UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
item TACKER, PHIL - UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
item GLOVER, ROBERT - UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
item LANCASTER, SHAWN - UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS

Submitted to: Transactions of the ASABE
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 2/26/2007
Publication Date: 6/19/2007
Citation: Vories, E.D., Hogan, R., Tacker, P., Glover, R., Lancaster, S. 2007. Estimating the cost of delaying irrigation for midsouth cotton on clay soil. Transactions of the ASABE. 50(3):929-937.

Interpretive Summary: Cotton producers in the Midsouth often delay the first irrigation of the season to allow time for other operations such as pesticide and fertilizer application, and the problem is worse on clay soils that require several days to dry after furrow irrigation. Because the cost of delaying irrigation is not well understood, cotton irrigation studies were conducted at the University of Arkansas Northeast Research and Extension Center at Keiser during the 2001 through 2003 growing seasons to estimate the cost to producers associated with delaying the first irrigation for cotton on clay soil. Three-year-average lint yields decreased with delaying irrigation, and there was a consistent trend for lower yield for each delay in the first irrigation. Irrigation water was used most efficiently when irrigation timing recommendations were followed. When the costs of irrigation were considered, delaying irrigation led to lower net revenues. These findings can help producers make more informed choices when faced with the decision of whether to irrigate on time or wait until other operations are completed. In addition, everyone will benefit from more efficient use of irrigation water.

Technical Abstract: In many years, cotton producers in the Midsouth delay the first irrigation to allow time for other operations such as pesticide and fertilizer application. The problem is especially common on clay soils that require several days to dry after furrow irrigation. However, the cost to the producer of delaying irrigation is not well understood. The objective of this research was to estimate the cost associated with delaying the first irrigation for cotton on clay soil to help producers make more informed decisions regarding irrigation timing. Cotton irrigation studies were conducted at the University of Arkansas Northeast Research and Extension Center at Keiser during the 2001 through 2003 growing seasons, with the cultivar ‘PM 1218 BG/RR’ planted on a Sharkey silty clay (Chromic Epiaquerts) precision graded to approximately 2 mm m-1 slope. All plots were four 97-cm rows approximately 180 m long, with a four-row border area left between each pair of plots. A well-watered treatment was irrigated at a 50-mm estimated soil water deficit (SWD) based on the Arkansas Irrigation Scheduler. Irrigations for two delayed-irrigation treatments were initiated on the date of the second irrigation or third irrigation of the well-watered treatment and then irrigated at a 50-mm estimated SWD. A nonirrigated check was included. Irrigations were ceased when open bolls were observed. Three-year-average yields decreased with delaying irrigation. There was a consistent trend for lower yield for each delay in the first irrigation; however, in 2003 the differences among all four treatments were not significant. The three-year-mean irrigation water use efficiency was higher for the well watered treatment than either delayed-irrigation treatment; however, in two of the three years (2001, 2003) the differences among the treatments were not significant. Gross revenues for the well watered treatment were numerically greatest each year; however, when the costs of irrigation were included, net revenues for the well watered treatment were not always highest. In all scenarios investigated (e.g., different water sources, rented land), the delayed-irrigation treatments had significantly lower net revenues than the well watered treatment and the net revenues for the delayed-irrigation treatments were not significantly different from those of the nonirrigated treatment.