The declining Ogallala Aquifer beneath the Southern High Plains may necessitate dryland crop production and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is a well-adapted and potentially profitable alternative crop. The limited gro...The declining Ogallala Aquifer beneath the Southern High Plains may necessitate dryland crop production and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is a well-adapted and potentially profitable alternative crop. The limited growing season duration of the Texas Panhandle and southwestern Kansas, however, imposes significant production risk due to incomplete boll maturation. Emphasizing earlier boll production that is usually confined to sites on lower fruiting branches may reduce risk, but offsetting high planting densities are needed to maintain desirable lint yield. Our objectives were to quantify planting: 1) row width and 2) in-row spacing effects on growth, yield, and fiber quality of dryland cotton. Field tests of row widths from 0.25 to 0.76 m and plant densities with in-row spacing ranging from 0.075 to 0.15 m were conducted from 1999 to 2005 on a nearly level Pullman clay loam (fine, mixed, superactive, thermic Torrertic Paleustoll) managed in a wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), cotton, fallow (W-Ctn-F) rotation. To expand the basis of comparison, cotton growth and yields were simulated using GOSSYM and long-term (1958-2000) weather records from Bushland, TX, as input for all combinations of 0.38 or 0.76 m row widths and plant spacing of 0.075, 0.10 and 0.15 m. Experimental and computer simulated plant height and harvested boll number increased significantly with increased row spacing and, occasionally, in-row plant spacing. Modeled lint yield for 0.38 m rows decreased by approximately 50% compared with the 582 kg·ha-1 yield for conventional row spacing, which was practically duplicated by field observations in 2001 and 2004. Measured fiber quality occasionally improved with conventional row spacing over ultra-narrow rows, but was unaffected by plant spacing. Because narrow rows and frequent plant spacing did not improve lint yield or fiber quality of dryland cotton, we do not recommend this strategy to overcome a thermally limited growing season.展开更多
文摘The declining Ogallala Aquifer beneath the Southern High Plains may necessitate dryland crop production and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is a well-adapted and potentially profitable alternative crop. The limited growing season duration of the Texas Panhandle and southwestern Kansas, however, imposes significant production risk due to incomplete boll maturation. Emphasizing earlier boll production that is usually confined to sites on lower fruiting branches may reduce risk, but offsetting high planting densities are needed to maintain desirable lint yield. Our objectives were to quantify planting: 1) row width and 2) in-row spacing effects on growth, yield, and fiber quality of dryland cotton. Field tests of row widths from 0.25 to 0.76 m and plant densities with in-row spacing ranging from 0.075 to 0.15 m were conducted from 1999 to 2005 on a nearly level Pullman clay loam (fine, mixed, superactive, thermic Torrertic Paleustoll) managed in a wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), cotton, fallow (W-Ctn-F) rotation. To expand the basis of comparison, cotton growth and yields were simulated using GOSSYM and long-term (1958-2000) weather records from Bushland, TX, as input for all combinations of 0.38 or 0.76 m row widths and plant spacing of 0.075, 0.10 and 0.15 m. Experimental and computer simulated plant height and harvested boll number increased significantly with increased row spacing and, occasionally, in-row plant spacing. Modeled lint yield for 0.38 m rows decreased by approximately 50% compared with the 582 kg·ha-1 yield for conventional row spacing, which was practically duplicated by field observations in 2001 and 2004. Measured fiber quality occasionally improved with conventional row spacing over ultra-narrow rows, but was unaffected by plant spacing. Because narrow rows and frequent plant spacing did not improve lint yield or fiber quality of dryland cotton, we do not recommend this strategy to overcome a thermally limited growing season.
