Abstract
Understanding how crop yield and quality respond to irrigation timing, rates, and varietal differences is essential for optimizing water management and identifying drought-resistant cultivars. This study evaluated the effects of irrigation management on cotton yield, seasonal water use efficiency (SIWUE), and fiber quality across different cultivars. The experiment was conducted in a drip-irrigated research field in the Southern High Plains of Texas from 2020 to 2023. Three irrigation levels, including 0 mm d⁻¹ (low, L), 2.54 mm d⁻¹ (medium, M), and 5.08 mm d⁻¹ (high, H), were applied during three growth periods defined by accumulated growing degree days (GDD₁₅.₆): period 1 (P1 = emergence to 525 GDD₁₅.₆), period 2 (P2 = 525–750 GDD₁₅.₆), and period 3 (P3 = >750 GDD₁₅.₆). These combinations of irrigation rates and periods resulted in five irrigation treatments, tested across six cotton cultivars representing different maturity groups. Results indicated that reducing irrigation during early growth stages by 38 % conserved water with minimal yield reductions (2–15 %) and a 3 % increase in SIWUE, without significantly affecting fiber quality. In contrast, reducing late-season irrigation by 64 % caused substantial yield losses (16–44 %), a 16 % decline in SIWUE, and reductions in fiber quality. Cultivar differences were evident, with early to mid-maturity cultivars (e.g., DP 1822 XF, NG 3406 B2XF, and ST4595 B3XF) exhibiting higher yield, SIWUE, and fiber quality compared to cultivars from other maturity groups. These findings underscore the importance of optimizing irrigation scheduling and selecting water-stress-tolerant cultivars as practical strategies to enhance cotton productivity and water use efficiency under semi-arid conditions.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing early growth irrigation by 38 % conserved water.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- reducing irrigation during early growth stages by 38 %e0
- Outcome
- watere0
- Direction
- conservede0
- Value
- 38 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reducing irrigation during early growth stages by 38 % conserved water”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Early irrigation reduction caused yield reductions of 2–15 %.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- reducing irrigation during early growth stages by 38 %e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reductionse0
- Value
- 2–15 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reducing irrigation during early growth stages by 38 % conserved water with minimal yield reductions (2–15 %)”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Early irrigation reduction increased seasonal water use efficiency by 3 %.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- reducing irrigation during early growth stages by 38 %e1
- Outcome
- SIWUEe0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 3 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a 3 % increase in SIWUE”
t0“cotton”
e1“reducing irrigation during early growth stages by 38 % conserved water with minimal yield reductions (2–15 %) and a 3 % increase in SIWUE, without significantly affecting fiber quality. In contrast, reducing late-season irrigation by 64 % caused substantial yield losses (16–44 %), a 16 % decline in SIWUE, and reductions in fiber quality.”
Claim · model-written summary
Early irrigation reduction did not significantly affect fiber quality.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- reducing irrigation during early growth stages by 38 %e1
- Outcome
- fiber qualitye0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“without significantly affecting fiber quality.”
t0“cotton”
e1“reducing irrigation during early growth stages by 38 % conserved water with minimal yield reductions (2–15 %) and a 3 % increase in SIWUE, without significantly affecting fiber quality. In contrast, reducing late-season irrigation by 64 % caused substantial yield losses (16–44 %), a 16 % decline in SIWUE, and reductions in fiber quality.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing late-season irrigation by 64 % caused yield losses of 16–44 %.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- reducing late-season irrigation by 64 %e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- lossese0
- Value
- 16–44 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reducing late-season irrigation by 64 % caused substantial yield losses (16–44 %)”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Late irrigation reduction decreased SIWUE by 16 %.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- reducing late-season irrigation by 64 %e1
- Outcome
- SIWUEe0
- Direction
- declinee0
- Value
- 16 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a 16 % decline in SIWUE”
t0“cotton”
e1“reducing irrigation during early growth stages by 38 % conserved water with minimal yield reductions (2–15 %) and a 3 % increase in SIWUE, without significantly affecting fiber quality. In contrast, reducing late-season irrigation by 64 % caused substantial yield losses (16–44 %), a 16 % decline in SIWUE, and reductions in fiber quality.”
Claim · model-written summary
Late irrigation reduction reduced fiber quality.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- reducing late-season irrigation by 64 %e1
- Outcome
- fiber qualitye0
- Direction
- reductionse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reductions in fiber quality.”
t0“cotton”
e1“reducing irrigation during early growth stages by 38 % conserved water with minimal yield reductions (2–15 %) and a 3 % increase in SIWUE, without significantly affecting fiber quality. In contrast, reducing late-season irrigation by 64 % caused substantial yield losses (16–44 %), a 16 % decline in SIWUE, and reductions in fiber quality.”
Claim · model-written summary
Early to mid-maturity cultivars had higher yield, SIWUE and fiber quality than other maturity groups.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Material
- early to mid-maturity cultivarse0
- Outcome
- yield, SIWUE, and fiber qualitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- cultivars from other maturity groupse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“early to mid-maturity cultivars (e.g., DP 1822 XF, NG 3406 B2XF, and ST4595 B3XF) exhibiting higher yield, SIWUE, and fiber quality compared to cultivars from other maturity groups.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend optimizing irrigation scheduling and selecting water-stress-tolerant cultivars.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- optimizing irrigation scheduling and selecting water-stress-tolerant cultivarse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“optimizing irrigation scheduling and selecting water-stress-tolerant cultivars as practical strategies to enhance cotton productivity and water use efficiency under semi-arid conditions.”
The same questions in other papers
stage · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →stage · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 38 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 papers →irrigation · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
60 papers in the same direction as this paper · 73 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
130 papers more in this group
See all 134 papers →irrigation · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
94 papers in the same direction as this paper · 304 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
395 papers more in this group
See all 399 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.