When cotton is irrigated at long intervals, the root systems become less effective at absorbing water during heavy fruiting, even when the soil is moist. That ineffectiveness, if not counteracted by frequent watering can exaggerate water stress responses during fruiting and promote early cutout. Deltapine 90 cotton was grown at the Maricopa Agricultural Center in 1988 and watered either by daily drip irrigation or by level -basin flooding. In the flood-irrigated plots, various schedules for applying water during fruiting were compared with minimal differences in total water applied. The check treatment (9 postplant irrigations) yielded approximately 2 bales of lint per acre. Small supplemental irrigations on 13 July and 22 July, splitting the normal irrigation cycles, increased yield 45% for only 6% more applied water. Daily drip irrigation in the trials increased yield 63% above the check on 1% more applied water over the season. The results show that flood- irrigated yields can approach drip-irrigated yields without excessive water use, if the irrigation cycle is shortened during fruiting.

Three methods were used to schedule irrigations on replicated plots at the Maricopa Ag Center using DPL 90 cotton. The three methods were: a soil water balance model based on historic consumptive use curves, a soil water balance model based on the Modified Penman Equation and daily weather (AZMET), and infrared thermometry using the C.W.S.I. A potassium-bromide conservative tracer was applied at selected sites in the plots to evaluate leaching characteristics. The irrigation scheduling test was duplicated at the Safford Experiment Station and is presented in another report. Results from the 1988 data indicate that there was no significant difference in yield between the 3 methods. There was a significant difference in water applied; the historic consumptive-use curves was the lowest and the Penman equation method was the highest.

No description available.

No description available.

The Crop Water Stress Index (CWSI) was used to schedule irrigations on Pima S-6 cotton on 12 four-acre furrow-irrigated test plots in Coolidge and 20 drip- irrigated test plots at the Campus Agricultural Center in Tucson. Scheduling irrigations between 0.30 and 0.50 CWSI units resulted in highest lint production and plant water use efficiency at both locations.

No description available.

Three methods were used to schedule irrigations during 1989 on replicated plots at the Maricopa Ag Center using DPL 90 cotton. This is a continuation of the research initiated in 1988 using the same field The three methods were; a soil water balance model based on historic consumptive use curves, a soil water balance model based on the Modified Penman Equation and daily weather (AZMET), and infrared thermometry using the C.W.S.I. A potassium- bromide conservative tracer was applied at selected sites in the plots to evaluate leaching characteristics. The irrigation scheduling test was again duplicated at the Safford Experiment Station and is presented in another report. Results from this years data indicate that there was no significant difference in yield among the three methods. However, as in 1988 there was a significant difference in water applied with historic consumptive use (ERIE) the lowest and the Penman equation method (CHECKBOOK) the highest.

Two irrigation scheduling trials were performed in 1989, one for short staple and one for long staple. Yields in the trials were very good with the best treatments yielding over 1700 and 1600 pounds of lint per acre for DP 90 and S-4 respectively. The treatment using Infrared thermometry was the best overall treatment in the short - staple trial, with the highest yield, the highest percent first pick, the shortest plants, the lowest water use and the highest water use efficiency. The two computer methods were very close to the IR treatment in yield and percent first pick, but grew taller plants with more water and were not as efficient with their water use. The trial on long staple cotton was encouraging in that reasonable yields were obtained using short-staple parameters. The computer model using AZMET data yielded significantly lower than the other treatments, indicating that we need to refine the evapotranspiration crop coefficients.

Three methods were used to schedule irrigations during the 1990 growing season on replicated plots at the Maricopa Ag Center using DPL 90 cotton. This is the final report of the research initiated in 1988. The three methods were: a soil water balance model based on historic consumptive use curves (ERIE), a soil water balance model (AZSCHED) based on the Modified Penman Equation and daily weather (AZMET), and infrared thermometry using the Crop Water Stress Index (CWSI). A potassium- bromide conservative tracer was applied at selected sites in the plots to evaluate leaching characteristics. The irrigation scheduling test was again duplicated at the Safford Experiment Station and is presented in another report. Results from this years data indicate that there was no significant difference in yield between the 3 methods. Also, there was no significant difference in the amount of applied irrigation water. The AZSCHED and ERIE methods will be developed into Extension educational tools and released for use by growers.

Three irrigation scheduling techniques are compared on both long and short staple cotton in replicated small plot trials on the Safford Agricultural Center. The Erie method uses historical evapotranspiration data developed in the Mesa area but mathematically adjusted for the elevation in Safford and incorporated in a computer spreadsheet. The AZSCHED method is a near real -time irrigation scheduling program using AZMET weather date, a modified Penman equation and heat unit based crop coefficients to calculate water deficits. This program will schedule irrigations on up to 60 fields. The third method utilizes infrared thermometry to determine crop water stress indices from foliage temperatures, ambient temperature and relative humidity. This latter method was used to track the crop stress throughout the growing season on all treatments. All three methods were considered successful for both long and short staple cotton with the Erie method yielding higher than the other two for both types of cotton. Further refinements will be made on the AZSCHED method until it performs at or above the Erie method