Abstract
Abstract Knowledge of crop response to water is essential for proper irrigation management. The wide‐spread introduction of drip irrigation, together with the increasing use of brackish water for cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) has made it necessary to examine how these variables effect its production function. A field study was conducted to determine the interaction of water salinity (3.7–7.8 dS m −1 ), irrigation method (sprinkler and drip), water amount (230–780 mm), irrigation interval (1–14 d), and plant density (intra‐row spacing of 8 or 12.5 cm) on ‘Acala SJ‐2’' cotton grown on a sandy‐loam loess soil (Calcic Haploxeralf). With sprinkler irrigation, the two‐piecewise curves that describe the yield response to water application differ in slopes, intercepts, and break points for the different salinites and irrigation intervals. The crop used more stored soil water at low salinity, low irrigation amount, and long irrigation interval. When we evaluated crop response to the sum of applied water and amount of stored water used, we found that the intercepts were nearly eliminated and the four slopes were combined, while the break points remained lower for the higher water salinity. The break points determine the water amounts above which other factors become limiting. The response function for drip irrigation had no break point, but had the same slope and intercept as the sprinkler treatments. The common production functions for seed cotton and total dry matter yield were Y kg ha −1 = −26.5 kg ha −1 + 9.21 kg ha −1 mm −1 × W mm and Y kg ha −1 = −338 kg ha −1 + 21.2 kg ha −1 mm −1 × W mm, respectively, where Y = yield, and W = sum of seasonal water application plus depletion of stored soil water. Water salinity, irrigation method and frequency, and intrarow spacing did not affect the linear response of seed cotton or dry matter yields to water when factors other than water availability were not limiting.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 11
Claim · model-written summary
Sprinkler yield response curves differed across salinity and irrigation intervals.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume1 - Treatment
- different salinites and irrigation intervalse0
- Outcome
- yield response to water applicatione0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With sprinkler irrigation, the two‐piecewise curves that describe the yield response to water application differ in slopes, intercepts, and break points for the different salinites and irrigation intervals”
e1“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton used more stored soil water at low salinity.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- low salinitye0
- Outcome
- stored soil watere0
- Direction
- moree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The crop used more stored soil water at low salinity, low irrigation amount, and long irrigation interval”
e1“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton used more stored soil water at low irrigation amount.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- low irrigation amounte0
- Outcome
- stored soil watere0
- Direction
- moree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The crop used more stored soil water at low salinity, low irrigation amount, and long irrigation interval”
e1“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton used more stored soil water at long irrigation intervals.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- long irrigation intervale0
- Outcome
- stored soil watere0
- Direction
- moree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The crop used more stored soil water at low salinity, low irrigation amount, and long irrigation interval”
e1“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Using total applied and stored water nearly eliminated intercept differences and combined four slopes.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Outcome
- intercepts were nearly eliminated and the four slopes were combinede0
- Value
- four slopese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the intercepts were nearly eliminated and the four slopes were combined”
e1“crop response to the sum of applied water and amount of stored water used”
e2“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Break points remained lower at higher water salinity.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- higher water salinitye0
- Outcome
- break pointse0
- Direction
- lowere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the break points remained lower for the higher water salinity”
e1“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The drip response function lacked a break point.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- drip irrigatione0
- Outcome
- no break pointe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The response function for drip irrigation had no break point”
e1“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation response had the same slope and intercept as sprinkler treatments.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Treatment
- drip irrigatione1
- Outcome
- slope and intercepte0
- Direction
- samee0
- Comparator
- sprinkler treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“had the same slope and intercept as the sprinkler treatments”
e1“The response function for drip irrigation”
e2“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed cotton yield followed a common linear water production function with slope 9.21 kg ha −1 mm −1.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Treatment
- W mme0
- Outcome
- seed cottone1
- Value
- 9.21 kg ha −1 mm −1e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Y kg ha −1 = −26.5 kg ha −1 + 9.21 kg ha −1 mm −1 × W mm”
e1“common production functions for seed cotton and total dry matter yield”
e2“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Total dry matter yield followed a common linear water production function with slope 21.2 kg ha −1 mm −1.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Treatment
- W mme0
- Outcome
- total dry matter yielde1
- Value
- 21.2 kg ha −1 mm −1e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Y kg ha −1 = −338 kg ha −1 + 21.2 kg ha −1 mm −1 × W mm”
e1“common production functions for seed cotton and total dry matter yield”
e2“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Salinity, irrigation method and frequency, and row spacing did not alter the linear yield response when other factors were nonlimiting.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Outcome
- linear response of seed cotton or dry matter yields to watere0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
- Qualifier
- when factors other than water availability were not limitinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water salinity, irrigation method and frequency, and intrarow spacing did not affect the linear response of seed cotton or dry matter yields to water when factors other than water availability were not limiting”
e1“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”