Production Function and Sensitive Factor Cultivars of Cotton (Golestan and B557)

Document Type : Research Article

Author

• saleh mahmoom salkovyeh

https://doi.org/10.22067/jsw.v33i1.26803

Abstract

Introduction: Deficit irrigation is a management strategy for increasing water productivity. The yield loss can be compensated by saving water consumption under deficit irrigation. Increasing water productivity is a key factor in removing the biggest challenge facing the agricultural sector in water-limited areas, which means less water production. In order to achieve this, awareness of the relationship between water and yield, known as production functions, can be of great help in this regard.
Materials and Methods: An experiment was carried out on a plot of 96 × 30 × 30 m2 based on a plot in a factorial arrangement in three replications. The main treatments consisted of six main hydrothermal treatments (0%, 33%, 66%, 85% 100% and 125% water requirement) and sub-treatments including four levels of fertilization (0%, 33%, 66% and 100% fertilizer requirement), and two cultivars named Golestan and B 557. Furthermore, the irrigation planning based on soil moisture discharge ranged from 5% to 70%. In this experiment, single branch sprinkler irrigation system was used, therefore 144 plots (6 water × 4 fertilizers × 2 digits × 3 repeats) were, created on the sides of the pipeline. On each cropping line, 20 cm spacing on each row and at a row spacing of 75 cm were cultivated. For each plot, the dimensions were 2.5 × 2.3 m (2.5 m in the direction of irrigation, and 3 m along the irrigation line). Soil samples were collected from each depth of 0-5, 20-20, 20-40 and 40-60 cm before each irrigation. The moisture content was determined by weighing method. Based on the physical properties of the soil (bulk density, percentage of moisture content in field capacity and wilting point), effective depth of root and field management (MAD) 60-70% (based on previous studies), the depth of irrigation water was calculated. 40% of N-fertilizer application was carried out prior to sowing and the remaining N-fertilizer was applied from flowering stage with first irrigation and based on different treatments. The irrigation time was determined by dividing the irrigation water depth by the intensity of the sprinklers. 6I treatment due to the close proximity to the sprinklers received the largest amount of water and treatment 1I received the lowest amount of water (rain) as it was situated outside of the spray nozzle radius. From the beginning of planting, the irrigation program was carried out according to the amount of soil moisture at the irrigation time of the 5I treatment (100% water requirement). Therefore, it is expected that treatment 6I has received water more than water requirement. The total amount of water received by each row of crops during the growth period was measured by placing a water collecting canal mounted on a tripod to a height of 1 meter. After irrigation, by using cylinders the depth of water collected in the cans was measured. Due to wind blowing during the day, irrigation was carried out at night, to maintain the uniformity of water distribution. The final harvesting operation was performed for all treatments and replicates on first and second of November. a relationship and the corresponding regression coefficients were obtained between the irrigated yield and the each cultivar and fertilizer level separately, .
Results and Discussion: The quadratic relationship was determined between the yield and the applied water. The coefficients values of the quadratic equation of production function were calculated for each fertilizer application and cultivars and were showed in Tables 5 and 6. The yield functions of cotton cultivars versus applied water were in the form of a second-order quadratic with a downward contraction. Initially, the gradient of the graph was high and then its intensity decreased indicating that water efficiency is much higher in irrigation. In addition, by increasing the amount of irrigation, the amount of the product reached to the peak value, and since then, a yield reduction was observed as applied water amount increased owing chiefly to N-leaching. The sensitivity coefficients for Golestan cultivars and 557 B were calculated at four levels of fertilizer according to the Doorenbos and Kassam formula. The average sensitivity coefficient for Golestan and B-557 was 1.18 and 1.27, respectively.
Conclusions: It can be concluded that the Golestan cultivar is less sensitive to water shortage as compared with B-557. These results can be used to optimize water use under water constraints.

Keywords

• Production function
• crop sensitivity to water ratio
• Cotton
• Golestan
• B557

20.1001.1.20084757.1398.33.1.2.3

References

1- Akbari Nodehi D. 2011. The effect of different amounts of water on yield and water use efficiency of cotton production in the province. Journal of Agricultural and Stable Production 21(2). (In Parsian)

2- Alizadeh A. 2006. Irrigation system design. Razavi Press, Volume I, p 55.

3- AL-Jamal M.S., SammisT.W., Ball S., and Smeal D. 2000. Computing the crop water production function for onion. Agric.Water Manage 46: 29-41.

4- Allen R.G., Pereira L.S., Raes D., and Smith M. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop water requirement. FAO Irrigation and Drainage paper No 56, 301p.

5- Clark L.J., Carpenter E.W., and Slack D.C. 1992. The use of Azsched to schedule irrigations for cotton. In: Herber, D.J. (ed). 1992 Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., 6-10 Jan.

6- Doorenbos J., and Kassam A.H. 1979. Yield response to water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper NO 33, 193p.

7- GHorbani Nasrabad Gh. 2004. The effect of water deficit on quantity and quality of cotton cultivars and determination of production function . Agricultural Research and Education Organization Cotton Research Institution, 51 p. (In Parsian)

8- Janbaz H. 1996. Effects of water stress and irrigation on wheat yield in Karaj. MA thesis, Department of Irrigation and Reclamation Tehran University, 115 pages. (In Parsian)

9- Kiani A., Rezaii J., and Sohrabi B. 2001. Investigation of irrigation deficit by sprinkler on quantity and quality of cotton. Final report of country Cotton Research Institute. (In Parsian)

10- KHirabi J., Tavakoli A.R., Entesari M.R., and Salamat A.R. 1996. Deficit irrigation guidelines. Iranian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, Department of the crop water requirement and crop management, 218 pages. (In Parsian)

11- Liu W.Z., Hansaker D.J., Li Y.S., Xie X.Q., and Wall G.W. 2002. Interrelations of yield, evapotranspiration, and water use efficiency from marginal analysis of water production functions. Agric. Water Manage 56: 143-151.

12- Radin J.W., Reaves L.L., Mauney J.R., and French O.F. 1992. Yield enhancement in cotton by frequent irrigation during fruiting. Agron. J., 84: 551–557.

13- Sammis T., and Guitar J. 1981. Effects of decerted watering on crop yield. Available From the National Technical Information Service. Spring field. Wrri Report. No 36.

14- Shaikh Hoseini M. 1996. Effects of water stress and irrigation on barley yield in Karaj. MS Thesis, Department of Irrigation and Reclamation, Tehran University 126 pages. (In Parsian)

15- Stegman E.C. 1983. Irrigation scheduling: Applied timing criteria. In D. Hillel (ed). Advances in Irrigation.Vol 2. Academic Press, New york.

16- Stone J.F., Reaves H.E., and Garton J.E. 1982. Irrigation water conservation using wide- spaced furrows. Soil. Sci.Soc. Am. J., 43: 402- 411.

17- Wanjura D.F., Upcharch D.R., Mahan J.R., and Burke J.J. 2002. Cotton yield and applied water relationships under drip irrigation. Agric. Water Manage 55: 217-237.