Modeling Cotton Growth and Yield Response to Irrigation Practices for Thermally Limited Growing Seasons in Kansas

HighlightsLater planting and greater site elevation or latitude decreased seasonal growing degree days and cotton yield in Kansas. Higher irrigation capacity (rate) usually increased lint yield, which was probably due to increased early boll load. Strategies for splitting land allocations between high irrigation rates and dryland did not increase production. Cotton may reduce irrigation withdrawals from the Ogallala aquifer, but the Kansas growing season limits production.Abstract . Precipitation in the western Great Plains averages about 450 mm, varying little with latitude and providing 40% to 80% of potential crop evapotranspiration (ETc). Supplemental irrigation is required to fully meet crop water demand, but the Ogallala or High Plains aquifer is essentially non-recharging south of Nebraska. Pumping water from this aquifer draws down water tables, leading to reduced water availability and deficit irrigation to produce an alternate crop such as cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) with a lower peak water demand than corn (Zea mays L.). Our objective was to compare simulated cotton yield response to emergence date, irrigation capacity, and application period at three western Kansas locations (Colby, Tribune, and Garden City) with varying seasonal energy or cumulative growing degree days (CGDD) and compare split center pivot deficit irrigation strategies with a fixed water supply (i.e., where portions of the center pivot land area are managed with different irrigation strategies). We used actual 1961-2000 location weather records with the GOSSYM simulation model to estimate yields of cotton planted into soil at 50% plant-available water for three emergence dates (DOY 145, 152, and 159) and all combinations of irrigation period (0, 4, 6, 8, and 10 weeks beginning at first square) and capacity (2.5, 3.75, and 5.0 mm d-1). Simulated lint yield and its ratio to ETc, or water use efficiency (WUE), consistently decreased with delayed planting (emergence) as location elevation or latitude increased due to effects on growing season CGDD. Depending on location, simulated cotton lint consistently increased (p = 0.05) for scenarios with increasing irrigation capacity, which promoted greater early season boll load, but not for durations exceeding 4 to 6 weeks, probably because later irrigation and fruiting did not complete maturation during the short growing season. Cotton WUE generally increased, with greater yields resulting from earlier emergence and early high-capacity irrigation. We calculated lower WUE where irrigation promoted vigorous growth with added fruiting forms that delayed maturation and reduced the fraction of open bolls. The irrigation strategy of focusing water at higher capacities on a portion of the center pivot in combination with the dryland balance did not increase net yields significantly at any location because the available seasonal energy limited potential crop growth and yield response to irrigation. However, the overall net lint yield was numerically larger for focused irrigation strategies at the southwest Kansas location (Garden City). Based on lint yields simulated under uniform or split center pivot deficit irrigation, we conclude that cotton is poorly suited as an alternative crop for central western and northwestern Kansas because of limited growing season CGDD. Keywords: Cotton, Crop simulation, Deficit irrigation, Evapotranspiration, Irrigation capacity, Split center pivot irrigation, Water use efficiency, Yield limiting factors.