Response of some physiological components of cotton to surface and subsurface drip irrigation using different irrigation water levels

Year 2020, Volume: 4 Issue: 3, 244 - 254, 15.09.2020

Öner Çetin

https://doi.org/10.31015/jaefs.2020.3.2

Abstract

This study was carried out to determine the leaf water potential (LWP), stomatal conductance (SC) and leaf area index (LAI) of cotton crop using subsurface drip irrigation (SSDI) and surface drip irrigation (SDI) and different irrigation water levels based on the FAO-56 Penman-Monteith (PM) during the 2016 and 2017 growing seasons. The critical LWPs in vegetative period, flowering stage and boll formation stage in SDI for irigation time were -24, -23 and -24 bar, respectively. Considering the same putting in order for the crop development stages in SSDI-40 cm, those were -23, -23 and -24 bar, respectively. The values of LWP in SSDI-30 cm were the same levels in SSD-40 cm. LWP in the boll formation stage were, in general, lower (bigger in minus numerical number) compared to the first two development stages of the crop. The critical SCs in vegetative period, flowering stage and boll formation stage in SDI were 312.8, 201.8 and 198.9 mmol m-2 s-1, respectively. The values of SC in the same putting in order for the crop development stages in SSDI-30 cm and SSDI-40 cm were 368.8, 182.6 and 221.8 mmol m-2 s-1; and 371.7, 185.9 and 186.8 mmol m-2 s-1, respectively. SC decreased from the vegetative period through generative period of the crop. The SCs increased together with increasing amount of irrigation water and it decreased with increasing water stress conditions. The LAIs were 2.99, 3.11 and 3.45 in SDI, SSDI-30 cm and SSDI-40 cm, respectively. The values of LAI increased from the surface drip irrigation and lower irrigation water level applied through subsurface drip irrigation and highest level of amount of irrigation water. Although some plant physiological indicators such as LWP and SC might be used for irrigation scheduling and irrigation time, these indicators are highly affected by soil water status, temperature, light, air humidity and calibration of the devices used.

Keywords

cotton, leaf water potential, stomatal conductance, leaf area index, drip irrigation

Supporting Institution

TÜBİTAK

Project Number

115O600

Thanks

I would like to thank to The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) for supporting this study. It is declared that only some parts of “Material and Method” in this article are similar to those in the different paper(s) produced from “Project Final Report using different data, parameters and evaluations. In addition, the author would like to thank to Neşe Üzen, Erhan Akalp, Hilal Altunten, Bayram Önen and Seniha Pirinçioğlu for their supports during the field works.

References

• Allen, R. G., Pereira L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop water requirements”. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, Rome.
• Ashley, D.A., Doss, B.D., Bennett O.L. (1964). Relation of cotton leaf area ındex to plant growth and fruiting. Agronomy Journal, 57(1), 61-64.
• Baydar, A. (2010). Effects of climate change on cotton under the Seyhan Plain conditions. Çukurova University, Applied Science Institute, Agricultural Structures and Irrigation, M.Sci. Thesis. Adana, p. 57.
• Bilgel, L. (1994). The first and last irrigtion time of cotton in Harran Plain. Şanlıurfa Research Institute of Rural Affairs, Publication No: 88/61, Şanlıurfa, Turkey
• Busso, C.A. (2008). Use of the pressure chamber and thermocouple psychrometers to determine the water relations of plant tissues. Phyton - International Journal of Experimental Botany, 77 (12), 327-350
• Camacho, B., Kaufmann, M., Hall, A. (1974). Leaf water potential response to transpiration by citrus. Physiologia Plantarum, 31, 101-105.
• Campbell, G.S. (1985). Soil physics with basictransport models for soil-plant systems, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Cetin, Ö., Bilgel, L. (2002). Effects of different irrigation methods on shedding and yield of cotton. Agricultural Water Management, 54, 1-15
• Chastain, D.R., Snider, J.L., Collins, G.D., Perry, C.D., Whitaker, J., Byrd, S.A., Oosterhuis, D.M., Porter, W.M.( 2016). Irrigation scheduling using predawn leaf water potential improves water productivity in drip-irrigated cotton. Crop Science, 56, 3185–3195, Doi: 10.2135/cropsci2016.01.0009
• Chen, Z., Ma, H., Xia, J., Hou, F., Shi, X., Hao, X, Hafeez, A., Han, H., Luo, H. (2017). Optimal pre-plant irrigation and fertilization can improve biomass accumulation by maintaining the root and leaf productive capacity of cotton crop. Scientific Reports, 7, Article number: 17168, Doi:10.1038/s41598-017-17428-5
• Ekinci, R., Gencer, O., Başbağ, S. (2008). Correlations between some physio-morphological formations and yield on okra and normal leaf cotton cottons. Ankara University, Agricultural Sciences, 14 (3), 217-221
• Ennahli, S., and H. Earl. 2005. Physiological limitations to photosynthetic carbon assimilation in cotton under water stress. Crop Science 45:2374–2382. Doi: 10.2135/cropsci2005.0147
• Ephrath, J.E., Marani, A., Bravdo, B.A. (1990). Effects of moisture stress on stomatal resistance and photosynthetic rate in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) 1. Controlled levels of stress”. Field Crops Research, 23(2), 117-131.
• Ertek, A., Kanber, R. (2001). Effects of different irrigation schedules on drip-irrigated cottonTurkish Journal of Agriculture and Foresty, 25, 415-425
• Grimes, D., Yamada, H. (1982). Relation of cotton growth and yield to minimum leaf water potential. Crop Science 22, 34–139. Doi: 10.2135/cropsci1982.0011183X002200010031x
• Hake, K.D., Grimes, D.W. (2010). Crop water management to opitimizing growth and yield. In: Physiology of Cotton (Eds: J.Mc.D. Stewart, D.M. Ooesterhius, J.J. Heitholt, J.R. Mauney). ISBN: 978-90-481-3194-5, Doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3195-2, Springer, Lonad and New York
• Inamullah, Isoda, A. (2005) Adaptive responses of soybean and cotton to water stress: I. Transpiration changes in relation to stomatal area and stomatal conductance, Plant Production Science, 8(1), 16-26, Doi: 10.1626/pps.8.131
• Jones, H. (2004). Irrigation scheduling: Advantages and pitfalls of plant-based methods. Journal of Experimental Botany, 55:2427–2436. Doi:10.1093/jxb/erh213
• Jones, H.G., Flowers T.J., Jones. M.B. (1991). Plants under stress: biochemistry, physiology and ecology and their application for plant improvement. Cambridge University Press, New York.
• Kanber, R., Tekinel, O., Baytorun, N., Kumova, Y., Alagöz, T. (1991). Use of evaporation from open water on determination of irrigation interval and water consumptive use of cotton under Harran Plain conditions. Head of GAP Development Administration Adana, 44, 15-25.
• Kara, C., Gündüz, M. (1998). Effects of deficit irrigations on cotton yield under GAP Region conditions. General Directorate of Rural Affairs, Publication No: 106, 285-301.
• Kaufman, M.R. (1981). The physiology and biochemistry of drought resistant in plants. Acedemic Press, New York, 55-56.
• Kaufman, M.R., Hall, A.E. (1974). Plant water blance-its relationships to atmospheric and edaptic conditions, Agricultural Meteorlogy, 14, 85-98
• Keten, M. (2016). Effects of different deficit irrigation levels on different cotton genotypes. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Applied Science Institute, M.Sc. Thesis, Biosystem Engineering, Kahramanmaraş, p. 48
• Köksal, E.S., Üstün, H., İlbeyi, A. (2010). Leaf water potential and stomal, conductance and water stress index of dwarf green beans on irrigation time. The Journal of Uludağ University, Agricultural Faculty, 24 (1), 25-36
• Lawlor, D.W., Cornic, G. (2002). Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associate metabolism in relation to water deficits in higher plants. Plant Cell Environment, 25, 275-294.
• Leidi, E.O., Lopez, M., Gorham, J., Gutierrez, J.C. (1999). Variation in carbon isotope discrimination and other traits related to drought tolerance in upland cotton cultivars under dryland conditions. Field Crops Research, 61, 109-123.
• Luo, Y., OuYang, Z., Zhao, Q., Yu, Q. (2011). Modelling maximal evapotranspiration and crop coefficient. www.klter.or/EVENTS/Conference00/html, Access date: 15.07.2011.
• Martínez, E.M., Rey, B.J., Fandiño, M., Cancela, J.J. (2013). Comparison of two techniques for measuring leaf water potential in Vitis Vinifera var. Albariño. Ciência Téc. Vitiv. 28(1), 29-41.
• Maya, F. (2017). The effects of different irrigation and fertilizer regimes on leaf water potential of cotton. Çukurova University, Applied Scince Institute, Agricultural Structures and Irrigation, M.Sci. Thesis, Adana, p. 44
• McDermitt, D.K. (1990). Sources of error in the estimation of stomatal conductance and transpiration from porometer data. Hortscience, 25(12), 1538-1548.
• Meidner, H., Mansfield, T.A. (1968). Physiology of stomata. London: McGraw-Hill.
• Noreen, S., Athar, H.R. Ashraf, M. (2013). Interactive effects of watering regimes and exogenously applied osmoprotectants on earliness indices and leaf area index. In: cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) crop. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 45, 1873-1881.
• Ödemiş, B., Candemir, D.K., Delice, H., Karazincir, K. (2018). Determination of the effects of different water stress levels on yield and vegetative properties of cotton (Gossypium Hirsutum L.) in Hatay conditions. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Mustafa Kemal University, 23(1), 58-75
• Patane, C. (2011). Leaf area index, leaf transpiration and stomatal conductance as affected by soil water deficit and VPD in processing tomato in semi arid Mediterranean climate. Journal of Agronomy & Crop Science, 197, 165–176, Doi: 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2010.00454.x
• Patterson, L.L., Buxton, D.R., Briggs. R.E. (1978). Fruiting in cotton as affected by controlled boll set. Agronomy Journal, 70, 118-122.
• Pegelow, E.J., Buxton, D.R., Briggs, R.E., Muramoto, H., Gensler. W.G. (1977). Canof1i photosynthesis and transpiration of cotton as affected by leaf type. Crop Science, 17, 1-4
• Pettigrew, W. (2004). Physiological consequences of moisture deficit stress in cotton. Crop Science, 44, 1265–1272, Doi:10.2135/cropsci2004.1265
• Puech-Suanez, J., Hsiao, T.C., Fereres, E., Henderson, D.W. (1989). Water-stress effects on the carbon exchange rates of three upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars in the field. Field Crops Research, 21, 239-255.
• Radin, J.W. (1992). “Reconciling water-use efficiency of cotton in field and laboratory”. Crop Science 32, 13-18.
• Radin, J.W., Hartung, W., Kimball, B.A., Mauney, J.R. (1988). Correlation of stomatal conductance with photosynthetic capacity of cotton only in a CO2-enriched atmosphere: Mediation by abscisic acid. Plant Physiology, 88(4), 1058-62.
• Saleem, M.F., Raza, M.A.S, Ahmad, S., Khan,I.H., Shahid, A.M. (2016). Understanding and mitigating the impacts of drought stress in cotton- A Review, Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 53(3), 609-623
• Scholander, P.F., Hammel, H.J., Bradstreet, A., Hwemmingsen, E.A. (1965). Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science, 148, 339-346.
• Turner, N., A. Hearn, J. Begg, Constable, G. (1986). Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), physiological and morphological responses to water deficits and their relationship to yield. Field Crops Research, 14, 153-170, Doi:10.1016/0378-4290(86)90054-7
• Yazdıç, M., Değirmenci, H. (2018). Effect on leaf water potential and chlorophyll value of different irrigation levels in cotton. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Journal of Agricultural Sceinces, 21(4), 511-519, DOI:10.18016/ ksudobil.369337
• Yurtsever, N. (2011). Applied statistical methods. Research Institute of Soil-Fertilizer and Water Resources, Publication No: 56/121, Ankara, Turkey .