Agronomy Journal 92:992-999 (2000)
© 2000 American Society of Agronomy
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Tillage, Cover Cropping, and Poultry Litter Effects on Cotton
I. Germination and Seedling Growth
Ermson Z. Nyakatawa and
K.Chandra Reddy
Dep. of Plant and Soil Science, Alabama A&M Univ., P.O. Box 1208, Normal, AL 35762 USA
reddyc{at}aamu.edu
 |
ABSTRACT
|
|---|
Inadequate and less vigorous crop stand is a constraint to adoption of conservation tillage in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) production. We evaluated the effects of tillage (conventional till, mulch-till, no-till), cropping system (cotton–winter fallow, cotton–winter rye, Secale cereale L.), and N source and rate (ammonium nitrate and poultry litter; 0, 100, and 200 kg N ha-1) on cotton seedling emergence on a Decatur silt loam soil (Typic Paleudults) in northern Alabama, from 1996 to 1998. Cotton seedling counts under no-till were 40 to 150% greater than those under conventional till at 1 and 2 d during seedling emergence. Cotton–winter rye cropping system had 14 to 50% greater seedling counts than cotton–winter fallow cropping during the first 4 d of emergence in 1998. Poultry litter source of N gave 17 to 50% greater cotton seedling counts than ammonium nitrate during the first 4 d of emergence in 1998. In all these cases, the differences progressively narrowed down by the 4th day of seedling emergence. Cotton seedling counts were significantly correlated to cotton growth parameters and lint yield, especially in the drier year (1998). These results were attributed to soil moisture conservation during seedling emergence. Our results show that conservation tillage improved cotton germination, emergence, dry matter, and lint yield. Therefore, no-till with winter rye cover cropping and poultry litter can be used for achieving early cotton seedling emergence and growth in the U.S. cotton belt where dryland cotton production systems are on the increase and safe disposal of poultry litter is becoming an environmental problem.
Abbreviations: AN, ammonium nitrate • CC, cotton–winter fallow • CR, cotton–winter rye • CT, conventional till • LAI, leaf area index • MT, mulch-till • NT, no-till • PL, poultry litter
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
CONSERVATION TILLAGE SYSTEMS
such as no-till and mulch-till can lead to the build up of surface soil organic matter in addition to reducing soil degradation by erosion (Edwards et al., 1988; Mills et al., 1988). Conventional tillage increases the risk of soil erosion and contributes to contamination of water resources by phosphates and pesticide leachates. However, adoption rate of conservation tillage in cotton still lags behind that of other crops. While 66% of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] and 40% of corn (Zea mays L.) in the USA are produced under conservation tillage, only 10% of cotton is produced under conservation tillage (CTIC, 1994).
In states like Alabama and Mississippi, cotton has been continuously grown on some fields for more than 100 yr under conventional till, leaving the soil low in humus (Bauer and Black, 1983). When some of these fields were shifted to no-till production systems in recent years with the objective of reducing soil erosion, a severe compaction layer of 5 to 10 cm depth developed on the surface, which lead to poor seedling emergence, root penetration problems, less vigorous seedlings, and poor yields (Schertz and Kemper, 1994; Triplett et al., 1996). In some cases, conservation tillage has been found to lower soil temperature, which may reduce seedling emergence and growth of cotton (Stevens et al., 1992).
According to farmers and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) specialists, poor germination and less vigorous seedlings are serious problems in conservation tillage cotton production. It is therefore imperative to build soil organic matter and to reduce soil crusting to have good cotton germination and seedling establishment in conservation till systems. The use of winter cover crops in conservation tillage systems provides the residue needed to increase soil organic matter (Tisdale et al., 1985; Christensen et al., 1994). Organic manures are known to increase soil organic matter, improve tilth, and conserve soil water. Poultry litter is available in abundant quantities in most southern states and its disposal is becoming an environmental problem. Our objectives were to evaluate the effect of conservation tillage and N from poultry litter on cotton seedling emergence and growth.
|
Materials and methods
|
|---|
A 2-yr field experiment involving soil and crop management strategies for Upland cotton production was conducted at the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Belle Mina, AL (34°41' N 86°52' W) on a Decatur silt loam soil (clayey, kaolinitic thermic Typic Paleudults) from 1996 to 1998.
|
Treatments and Experimental Design
|
|---|
The treatments consisted of:
Three tillage systems—conventional till, mulch-till, and no-till
Two cropping systems—cotton–winter fallow (cotton in summer and fallow in winter) and cotton–winter rye sequential cropping, i.e., cotton in summer and rye (Secale cereale L.) in winter
Three N levels—0, 100, and 200 kg N ha-1
Two N sources—ammonium nitrate and fresh poultry litter
Ammonium nitrate was used at one N rate (100 kg N ha-1) only. The experimental design was a Randomized Complete Block Design with four replications. Plot size was 8 m wide and 9 m long, which resulted in eight rows of cotton, 1 m apart.
Conventional tillage included moldboard plowing in November and disking in April. A field cultivator was used to prepare a smooth seedbed after disking. Mulch-till included tillage with a field cultivator before planting to destroy and shallowly incorporate the rye residues. No-till included planting into untilled soil using a no-till planter. During the season, a row cultivator was used for controlling weeds in the conventional till system while spot applications of Roundup herbicide [isopropylamine salt of N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] were used to control weeds in the no-till and mulch-till systems.
The N contents of the poultry litter used in the study were 27 g kg-1 N and 30 g kg-1 N in 1997 and 1998, respectively, on a dry-weight basis. The N content for the poultry litter was determined by digesting 0.5-g samples using the Kjeldhal wet digestion method (Bremner and Mulvaney, 1982) and followed by N analysis using the Kjeltec 1026 N Analyzer (Kjeltec, Sweden). The amounts of poultry litter to supply 100 and 200 kg N ha-1 were calculated each year based on the N content of the poultry litter. A 60% adjustment factor was used to compensate for the N availability from poultry litter during the first year (Keeling et al., 1995). The poultry litter was broadcast by hand and incorporated to a depth of 5 to 8 cm by preplant cultivation in the conventional and mulch-till systems. In the no-till system, the poultry litter was surface-applied. The ammonium nitrate and poultry litter were applied to the plots 1 d before cotton planting. The experimental plots received a blanket application of 336 kg ha-1 of a 0–20–20 fertilizer to nullify the effects of P and K applied through poultry litter.
|
Cover Crop Establishment and Cotton Planting
|
|---|
The winter rye cover crop, variety Oklon, was planted on 4 Dec. 1996 and 24 Nov. 1997, and killed by Roundup herbicide (glyphosate) about 7 d after flowering on 8 Apr. 1997 and 6 Apr. 1998. A Tye (Glascock Equipment and Sales, Veedersburg, IN) no-till grain drill was used to plant the rye cover crop at 60 kg ha-1 in both years. Cotton variety Deltapine NuCotn 33B was planted in all plots at 16 kg ha-1, using a no-till planter. Deltapine NuCotn 33B is a Bt transgenic variety, which was planted on 22.4% of the total cotton land area in the southeastern USA in 1997 (National Cotton Council, 1997). An herbicide mixture of Prowl [pendimethalin, N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine] at 2.3 L ha-1, Cotoran [fluometuron, 1,1-dimethyl-3-(
,,-trifluoro-m-tolyl)urea] at 3.5 L ha-1, and Gramoxone extra (paraquat, 1,1'-dimethyl-4,4'-bipyridinium ion) at 1.7 L ha-1 was sprayed on all plots before planting on 8 May 1997 and 5 May 1998 for weed control. In addition, all plots received a band application of 5.6 kg ha-1 Temik [aldicarb, 2-methyl-2-(methylthio)propionaldehyde O-(methylcarbamoyl)oxime] for the early season control of thrips.
|
Data Collection
|
|---|
Immediately after cotton seeding, surface residue cover was measured in all plots using the Camline transect method (Reddy et al., 1994) in each year. In 1997, cotton seedling emergence began 11 d after seeding, 4 d before the end of a postseeding dry spell. In 1998, cotton seedling emergence began 1 wk after seeding, during a 2-wk postseeding dry spell. During the first 4 d of cotton seedling emergence, soil temperature, volumetric soil water content, and seedling counts were determined daily in each plot. Soil temperature and volumetric soil water in the top 7 cm of the soil were determined around midday by taking an average of four readings randomly taken from each plot, one block at a time, using Weksler soil thermometers (Weksler Instrument Corp., Freeport, NY) and the Delta T soil water probe (Delta-T Devices, Cambridge, England), respectively.
Cotton seedling data for each day were determined by counting all seedlings in the central four rows of each plot. Aboveground biomass of cotton was determined by sampling plants in 0.5 m-2 quadrants outside the central four rows of each plot at 4 wk after seedling emergence. The plants were oven-dried at 65°C for 72 h. Leaf area index, days to squaring, number of squares per plant, number of bolls per plant, aboveground biomass, and lint yield of cotton were determined as described in the following paper (Nyakatawa et al., 2000). Weather data, which were taken from an automatic weather station at the experiment station, from planting up to the first 4 d of cotton seedling emergence, are presented in Table 1
.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 1 Ambient and soil (top 7 cm) temperature, rainfall, and irrigation data for May from cotton planting to the first 4 d of seedling emergence, Belle Mina, AL, 1997 and 1998
|
|
|
Data Analysis
|
|---|
The data were statistically analyzed using General Linear Model procedures (Steel and Torrie, 1980) of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS Inst., 1987). Main effects of the treatment factors were determined by contrast analysis procedures. Correlation analysis was used to show the association of volumetric soil water content, soil temperature, and cotton seedling counts to leaf area index (LAI), days to squaring, number of squares per plant, number of bolls per plant, aboveground biomass and lint yield of cotton.
|
Results
|
|---|
There were significant tillage x cropping system interactions for surface residue cover and volumetric soil water content in 1997 and 1998. Therefore, data showing main effect treatment means and interactions are presented. There were no significant interactions between tillage and N rate or between tillage and cropping system in both years.
Surface Residue Cover
Compared with cotton–winter fallow cropping, winter rye cover cropping increased surface residue cover from 1 to 20% under conventional till, 6 to 65% under mulch-till, and by 13 to 100% under no-till (Table 2)
. Any tillage and planting system that leaves at least 30% of the soil surface covered with crop residues can be regarded as conservation tillage (CTIC , 1994). Based on the above definition, no-till or mulch-till, in this experiment, qualified as conservation tillage only when used in conjunction with winter rye cover cropping (Table 2). Surface residue cover was positively correlated to volumetric soil moisture content (r = 0.58 to 0.68 in 1997 and r = 0.63 to 0.65 in 1998) and negatively correlated to soil temperature during the first 4 d of seedling emergence (r = -0.35 to -0.55 in 1997 and r = -0.28 to -0.65 in 1998).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 2 Percent surface residue cover in cotton plots immediately after seeding as affected by tillage systems under cotton–winter fallow (CC) and cotton–winter rye sequential (CR) cropping systems, Belle Mina, AL, 1997 and 1998
|
|
Volumetric Soil Water Content
Volumetric soil water content in the top 7 cm of the soil in no-till system was greater (P < 0.05) than that in conventional till system by 17% at 1 d and by 12% at 4 d during seedling emergence under the cotton–winter fallow cropping system in 1997 (Table 3)
. Under the cotton–winter rye cropping system, volumetric soil water content in no-till was greater than that in the conventional till system by 33% at 1 d, 56% at 2 d, 24% at 3 d, and by 38% at 4 d during seedling emergence in the same year. In 1998, volumetric soil water content in no-till under cotton–winter fallow cropping was greater than that in conventional till system by 5 to 8% during seedling emergence (Table 3). However, under cotton–winter rye cropping, volumetric soil water content in no-till was greater than that in conventional till system by 33% at 1 d, 44% at 2 d, 67% at 3 d, and by 80% at 4 d during seedling emergence.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 3 Volumetric soil water content (m3 m-3) in the top 7 cm of the soil in cotton plots as influenced by conventional till (CT) and no-till (NT) systems under cotton–winter fallow (CC) and cotton–rye (CR) cropping at 1, 2, 3, and 4 d during seedling emergence, Belle Mina, AL, 1997 and 1998
|
|
Volumetric soil water content and seedling counts for treatments that received 100 kg N ha-1 in the form of poultry litter were greater than those that received the same rate of N in the form of ammonium nitrate in 1998, whereas, in 1997, the differences were not significant (Fig. 1)
. Volumetric soil water content in treatments that received 200 kg N ha-1 in the form of poultry litter was greater (P < 0.001) than those that received 100 kg N ha-1 in the form of ammonium nitrate or poultry litter by 34% at 1 d, 39% at 2 d, 36% at 3 d, and by 21% at 4 d during seedling emergence in 1997 (Fig. 1). Compared with the control (0 kg N ha-1) treatment, the increases were 46, 55, 61, and 68%, respectively. In 1998, volumetric soil water content in treatments that received 100 kg N ha-1 in the form of poultry litter was greater than those in treatments that received 100 kg N ha-1 in the form of ammonium nitrate by 25% at 1 d, 28% at 2 d, 35% at 3 d, and by 40% at 4 d during seedling emergence. Similarly, in 1998, volumetric soil water content in treatments that received 200 kg N ha-1 in the form of poultry litter was greater than those in treatments that received 100 kg N ha-1 in the form of poultry litter by 14% at 1 d, 26% at 2 d, 31% at 3 d, and by 35% at 4 d during seedling emergence (Fig. 1). Cotton growth and yield parameters such as number of squares per plant, number of bolls per plant, dry weight at 4 wk after emergence, and lint yield were significantly correlated to volumetric soil water content in the top 7 cm of the soil during the first 4 d of seedling emergence (Table 4)
.
View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1 Volumetric soil water content (m3 m-3) in cotton plots as affected by N levels from ammonium nitrate (AN) and poultry litter (PL) sources of N, Belle Mina, AL, 1997 and 1998 (Error bars = SE of means)
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 4 Correlations between cotton growth and yield parameters with volumetric soil water content, soil temperature, and cotton seedling counts during the first 4 d of seedling emergence, Belle Mina, AL, 1997 and 1998
|
|
Soil Temperature
Soil temperatures in the top 7 cm of the soil in the no-till system were 2°C cooler (P < 0.05) than those in the conventional till system at 1, 2, 3, and 4 d during cotton emergence, both in 1997 and 1998 (Fig. 2)
. Compared with mulch-till, the soil temperature in no-till was 1.5°C lower in 1997, but there were no differences between mulch-till and no-till in 1998. During the first 2 d during seedling emergence, soil temperature in the mulch-till system was 1°C lower (P < 0.05) than that of conventional till in 1997, and 4°C cooler in 1998 (Fig. 2).
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2 Soil temperature (°C) in cotton plots as affected by conventional till (CT), mulch-till (MT), and no-till (NT) tillage systems; cotton–winter fallow (CC) and cotton–winter rye (CR) cropping systems; and N levels from ammonium nitrate (AN) and poultry litter (PL) sources of N, Belle Mina, AL, 1997 and 1998 (Error bars = SE of means)
|
|
With the exception of Day 4 during seedling emergence, where soil temperature in cotton–winter rye cropping was 4°C lower than that in cotton–winter fallow cropping, there were no significant differences in soil temperature in the top 7 cm of the soil during the first 3 d of seedling emergence between the two cropping systems in 1997. However, in 1998, the cotton–winter rye sequential cropping system averaged 3.5°C cooler (P < 0.05) than cotton–winter fallow cropping (Fig. 2). Treatments that received 200 kg N ha-1 in the form of poultry litter averaged 2°C cooler soil temperature in the top 7 cm of the soil compared with 0 N and 100 kg N ha-1 in the form of ammonium nitrate or poultry litter, during the first 4 d during seedling emergence (Fig. 2) in 1997. In 1998, treatments that received 100 kg N ha-1 in the form of ammonium nitrate or poultry litter had an average of 2.4°C cooler soil temperature than the 0 N treatment, while those that received 200 kg N ha-1 in the form of poultry litter averaged 2.5°C cooler than treatments that received 100 kg N ha-1 in the form of ammonium nitrate or poultry litter, and 4.5°C cooler than the 0 N treatment (Fig. 2).
Cotton Seedling Counts
Cotton seedling counts were significantly greater (P < 0.001) in the no-till system compared with the conventional till system by 150% at 1 d, 40% at 2 d, and 14% at 3 d during seedling emergence in 1997; in 1998, similar figures were 100, 40, and 33%, respectively (Fig. 3)
. No significant differences in cotton seedling counts existed between mulch-till and conventional till both in 1997 and 1998. Cotton seedling counts were greater (P < 0.05) in no-till compared with mulch-till system by 67% at 1 d during seedling emergence in 1997 and by 100% at 1 d , 40% at 2 d, 17% at 3 d, and by 14% at 4 d during seedling emergence in 1998 (Fig. 3). On Day 4 of cotton seedling emergence, the counts under different tillage systems were similar.
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3 Cotton seedling counts as affected by conventional till (CT), mulch-till (MT), and no-till (NT) tillage systems; cotton–winter fallow (CC) and cotton–winter rye (CR) cropping systems; and N levels from ammonium nitrate (AN) and poultry litter (PL) sources of N, Belle Mina, AL, 1997 and 1998 (Error bars = SE of means)
|
|
There were no differences in cotton seedling counts between the cropping systems in 1997 (Fig. 3). However, in 1998, cotton seedling counts in the cotton–winter rye sequential cropping system were greater (P < 0.01) than those in the cotton–winter fallow cropping system by 50% at 1 d, 40% at 2 d, 17% at 3 d, and by 14% at 4 d during seedling emergence (Fig. 3). There were no significant differences in cotton seedling counts between the two forms of N at 100 kg N ha-1 in both years. Treatments that received 200 kg N ha-1 in the form of poultry litter had 100% greater (P < 0.001) cotton seedling counts than those that received 0 N and 100 kg N ha-1 in the form of ammonium nitrate or poultry litter, at 1 d during cotton seedling emergence in 1997 (Fig. 3). In 1998, cotton seedling counts in treatments that received 200 kg N ha-1 in the form of poultry litter were greater than those in treatments that received 0 N and 100 kg N ha-1 in the form of ammonium nitrate or poultry litter by 100% at 1 d, 50% at 2 d and 3 d, and by 28% at 4 d during cotton seedling emergence.
|
Discussion
|
|---|
The greater volumetric soil moisture content in the top 7 cm of the soil in the no-till, compared with the mulch-till and conventional till systems, can be attributed to the greater percentage of crop residues left on the surface in the no-till system (Table 2). The greater values for surface residue cover in no-till under the cotton–winter rye sequential cropping system, as compared with the cotton–winter fallow cropping system, show that the crop residues were largely provided by the winter rye cover crop. Soil moisture conservation under no-till compared with conventional till was greater under cotton–winter rye cropping (by 24–56% in 1997 and by 33–80% in 1998) than under cotton–winter fallow cropping (by 11–17% in 1997 and by 5–8% in 1998). These results clearly show the importance of cover cropping for soil moisture conservation in no-till cotton production systems. Our results also show that the benefits of the cover cropping in soil water conservation were more significant in the second year of study and that cover cropping can conserve soil moisture only if managed under a cropping system that leaves enough residues on the surface such as no-till.
Other studies have documented the conservation of soil water due to conservation tillage systems. Jones et al. (1969) reported that leaving crop residues on the surface resulted in less surface runoff of water, which increased soil water content. Gallaher (1977) found that corn and soybean planted into killed rye crops conserved soil water and were more drought tolerant than those planted in a system where the rye stubble was removed. Harman et al. (1989) and Bordovsky et al. (1994) found significant soil water conservation in the no-till cotton system.
The results from our study show that poultry litter improves soil moisture holding capacity. This was indicated by the 10 to 53% significantly greater volumetric soil water content in treatments that received N in the form of poultry litter, compared with those that received N in the form of ammonium nitrate. Increased soil water in the seed zone improves seedling germination and seedling establishment, particularly when soil water is limiting. Cotton seedling counts were correlated (r = 0.31 to 0.68 in 1997 and r = 0.55 to 0.74 in 1998) to volumetric soil water content in the top 7 cm of the soil during seedling emergence. Therefore, greater cotton seedling counts in no-till systems compared with conventional till during the first 3 d of seedling emergence in both years and to mulch-till in 1998, can be attributed to increased soil water conservation due to more crop residues left on the surface in no-till system. In addition, significant correlations between number of squares per plant, number of bolls per plant, dry weight at 4 wk after emergence, and lint yield of cotton to volumetric soil water content (Table 4) show that soil moisture conservation due to no-till, cover cropping, and poultry litter increased seedling vigor and lint yield in addition to seed germination, in spite of reduced temperatures.
Unlike no-till, mulch-till did not result in significantly greater seedling emergence than conventional till in both years. This might suggest that for cover cropping to be effective in soil water conservation and seedling emergence, the residues need to be left on the surface, which can be achieved with no-till. Similar cotton seedling counts in all the tillage systems on the fourth day of cotton seedling emergence suggest that tillage systems affected only the timing of seedling emergence. In 1997, surface application of 200 kg N ha-1 in the form of poultry litter resulted in a faster rate of cotton seedling emergence. However, in 1998, cotton–winter rye cropping, 100 and 200 kg N ha-1 in the form of poultry litter, resulted in a faster rate and greater extent of cotton seedling emergence as shown in Fig. 3. The difference between the 2 yr can be attributed to soil temperature during planting through seedling emergence period, which averaged about 5°C higher in 1998 compared with 1997 (Table 1).
The advantages of the faster rate of cotton seedling emergence and establishment in no-till compared with conventional till, cotton–winter fallow compared with cotton–winter rye, and the 200 kg N ha-1 compared with 0 and 100 kg N ha-1 were illustrated by the greater aboveground biomass at 4 wk after seedling emergence under these treatments (Fig. 4)
. This shows that early seedling emergence generally resulted in greater accumulation of dry weight, which is a good indicator of greater seedling vigor. In addition, in the drier year (1998), LAI, days to square, number of squares per plant, number of bolls per plant, aboveground biomass at 4 wk after emergence, and lint yield of cotton were significantly correlated to cotton seedling counts at 4 d during seedling emergence (Table 4).
View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4 Aboveground biomass (g m-2) of cotton seedlings at 4 wk after emergence as affected by conventional till (CT), mulch-till (MT), and no-till (NT) tillage systems; cotton–winter fallow (CC) and cotton–winter rye (CR) cropping systems; and N levels from ammonium nitrate (AN) and poultry litter (PL) sources of N, Belle Mina, AL, 1997 and 1998 (Error bars = SE of means)
|
|
Soil temperature greatly influences cotton seed germination and subsequent yields. The greater soil water content in treatments that received N in the form of poultry litter or ammonium nitrate is probably responsible for the lower soil temperatures in these treatments compared with the control treatment. One of the major concerns against conservation tillage in cotton production has been poor or delayed seedling emergence due to low temperature. Crop residues left on the soil surface reduce the intensity of light reaching the soil, thus leading to lower soil temperatures. Stevens et al. (1992) found 9°C lower soil temperature in no-till cotton systems following wheat compared with conventional till and 3 to 5°C lower soil temperature in cotton systems following vetch compared with conventional till during the first 5 d of cotton seedling emergence. For good cotton germination and seedling emergence, soil temperature should be in the range of 18 to 20°C in the top 5 to 7 cm of the soil for 3 consecutive days (Bradley, 1993; Burmester, 1993). In our study, the average soil temperature in the top 7 cm of the soil in the cotton plots was 19°C in 1997 and 26°C in 1998. Therefore, lowering of soil temperature by no-till and mulch-till systems did not have any negative effects on cotton seed germination and seedling emergence, since the temperatures were in the optimum range for cotton seedling germination and seedling emergence.
The negative correlations between soil temperature and cotton growth and yield parameters on each day during the first 4 d of seedling emergence in both years (Table 4) suggest that the lowering of soil temperature in the top 7 cm of the soil due to no-till, cover cropping, and poultry litter was beneficial to cotton growth and yield. These negative correlations show that high temperatures (above optimum) during this early stage of cotton growth would generally result in lower LAI, lower squares and bolls per plant, less aboveground biomass, and lower lint yield. The only growth parameter that was positively correlated to soil temperature was days to square, which shows that high temperatures, to a certain point, will result in shortened time to square production in cotton. Studies by Reddy et. al. (1993) and Hodges et al. (1993) indicate that the speed of floral development in cotton increases linearly with temperature increase from 15 to 27°C, and that temperatures above 32°C will generally result in poor growth and yield parameters.
Due to decreased water well yields and increasing pumping costs (Keeling et al., 1989), the proportion of cotton land areas under dryland conditions in the southern, south-central, and south-eastern USA including north Alabama, where soil water is critical for early and good seedling emergence, has increased in recent years. High correlations between cotton growth and yield parameters and volumetric soil water content in the top 7 cm of the soil during seedling emergence (Table 4) show that soil water conservation through the use of no-till with winter rye cover cropping and poultry litter will be beneficial in these dryland cotton production systems.
|
Conclusions
|
|---|
Cotton seedling emergence and early seedling growth were significantly enhanced in no-till and cotton–winter rye cover cropping, with surface application of poultry litter compared with conventional till and cotton winter fallow cropping system without poultry litter application. Crop residues that were left on the soil surface after planting in no-till and mulch-till with winter rye cover cropping conserved soil water in the seed zone area, which resulted in a faster rate of cotton seedling emergence and growth. The poultry litter source of N resulted in soil moisture conservation, which was beneficial to cotton germination and seedling emergence. Our results, therefore, indicate that conservation tillage improves cotton germination, seedling emergence, and vigor in areas like north Alabama, where soil moisture is a limiting factor, contrary to the perceived belief that no-till negatively affects cotton germination and seedling vigor. This is so because the lowering of soil temperature in no-till treatments was not critical since the temperature did not fall below 18°C, which is optimal for cotton germination and seedling emergence. The findings from our study suggest that no-till with winter–rye cover cropping, and poultry litter, will be useful for cotton seedling establishment and growth and consequently dry matter and lint yield where soil moisture limits cotton growth.Reddy Hodges McKinion 1993; SAS Institute 1987
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
|---|
The authors acknowledge the financial assistance of the USDA-CSREES (Grant no. 96-38814-2845) in conducting the research reported herein.
Received for publication July 7, 1999.
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
- Bauer A., Black A.L. Effect of tillage management on soil organic carbon and nitrogen. North Dakota Farm Res. 1983;4:27.
- Bordovsky J.P., Lyle W.M., Keeling J.W. Crop rotation and tillage effects on soil water and cotton yield. Agron. J. 1994;86:1-6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Bradley, J.F. 1993. Success with no-till cotton. Milan Exp. Stn., Dep. of Agronomy, Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TX.
- Bremner J.M., Mulvaney C.S. Nitrogen—total. In: Page A.L., et al. , ed. Methods of soil analysis. Part 2, 2nd ed Madison, WI: ASA, 1982:595-625 Agron. Monogr. 9..
- Burmester C.H. Cotton production guide. Auburn, AL: Auburn Univ, 1993 Alabama Coop. Ext. Service.
- Christensen N.B., Lindemann W.C., Salazar-Sosa E., Gill L.R. Nitrogen and carbon dynamics in no-till and stubble mulch tillage systems. Agron. J. 1994;86:298-303.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Conservation Technology Information Center. National crop residue management survey. West Lafayette, IN: Executive summary. Publ. CTIC, 1994.
- Edwards J.H., Thurlow D.L., Eason J.T. Influence of tillage and crop rotation on yields of corn, soybean, and wheat. Agron. J. 1988;80:76-80.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Gallaher R.N. Soil moisture conservation and yield of crops no-till planted into rye. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 1977;41:145-147.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Harman W.L., Michels G.J., Wiese A.F. A conservation tillage system for profitable cotton production in the central Texas high plains. Agron. J. 1989;81:615-618.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Hodges, H.F., K.R. Reddy, J.M. McKinion, and V.R. Reddy. 1993. Temperature effects on cotton. Mississippi Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 990.
- Jones J.N., Moody J.E., Lillard J.H. Effects of tillage, no-tillage, and mulch on soil water and plant growth. Agron. J. 1969;69:719-721.
- Keeling, K.A., D. Hero, and K.E. Rylant. 1995. Effectiveness of composted manure for supplying nutrients. p. 77–81. In Fertilizer, Aglime and Pest Management Conf., Madison, WI. 17–18 Jan. 1995. Dep. of Soil Science, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
- Keeling W., Segarra E., Abernathy J.R. Evaluation of conservation tillage cropping systems for cotton on the Texas southern high plains. J. Prod. Agric. 1989;2:269-273.
- Mills W.C., Thomas A.W., Langdale G.W. Rainfall retention probabilities computed for different cropping–tillage systems. Agric. Water Manage. 1988;15:61-71.
- National Cotton Council. The 1997 production year in review. Cotton Physiology Today 1997;8:37-43.
- Nyakatawa E.Z., Reddy K.C., Mays D.A. Tillage, cover cropping, and poultry litter effects on cotton: II. Growth and yield parameters. Agron. J. 2000;92:1000-1007 (this issue).[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Reddy K.R., Hodges H.F., McKinion J.M. A temperature model for cotton phenology. Biotronics 1993;22:47-59.
- Reddy, K.C., G.A. Weesies, and J.L. Lemunyon. 1994. Predicting soil erosion in different cotton production systems with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). p. 1–11. In L.S. Bhushan, et al. (ed.) Proc. of the 8th Int. Soil Conservation Organization Conf.—Challenges and Opportunities, New Delhi, India. 4–8 Dec. 1994. Int. Soil Conserv. Org., New Delhi, India.
- SAS Institute. SAS system for personal computers. Cary, NC: SAS Inst, 1987 Release 6.04..
- Schertz, D.L., and W.D. Kemper. 1994. Report on field review of no-till cotton, Huntsville AL, 22–23 Sept. 1994. USDA/ARS/NRCS/Auburn Univ./Alabama A&M Univ., Normal, AL.
- Steel R.G.D., Torrie J.H. Principles and procedures of statistics, 2nd ed New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
- Stevens W.E., Johnson J.R., Varco J.J., Parkman J. Tillage and winter cover management effects on fruiting and yield of cotton. J. Prod. Agric. 1992;5:570-575.
- Tisdale S.L., Nelson W.L., Beaton J.D. Soil fertility and fertilizers, 5th ed New York: Macmillan Publ. Co, 1985.
- Triplett G.T., Dabney S.M., Siefker J.H. Tillage systems for cotton on silty upland soils. Agron. J. 1996;88:507-512.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
U. M. Sainju, Z. N. Senwo, E. Z. Nyakatawa, I. A. Tazisong, and K. C. Reddy
Tillage, Cropping Systems, and Nitrogen Fertilizer Source Effects on Soil Carbon Sequestration and Fractions
J. Environ. Qual.,
May 1, 2008;
37(3):
880 - 888.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Vasilakoglou, K. Dhima, I. Eleftherohorinos, and A. Lithourgidis
Winter Cereal Cover Crop Mulches and Inter-Row Cultivation Effects on Cotton Development and Grass Weed Suppression
Agron. J.,
September 5, 2006;
98(5):
1290 - 1297.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. A. Abrahamson, D. E. Radcliffe, J. L. Steiner, M. L. Cabrera, J. D. Hanson, K. W. Rojas, H. H. Schomberg, D. S. Fisher, L. Schwartz, and G. Hoogenboom
Calibration of the Root Zone Water Quality Model for Simulating Tile Drainage and Leached Nitrate in the Georgia Piedmont
Agron. J.,
November 17, 2005;
97(6):
1584 - 1602.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. C. Mitchell and S. Tu
Long-Term Evaluation of Poultry Litter as a Source of Nitrogen for Cotton and Corn
Agron. J.,
March 1, 2005;
97(2):
399 - 407.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. K. Reddy, E. Z. Nyakatawa, and D. W. Reeves
Tillage and Poultry Litter Application Effects on Cotton Growth and Yield
Agron. J.,
November 1, 2004;
96(6):
1641 - 1650.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. J. Boquet, R. L. Hutchinson, and G. A. Breitenbeck
Long-Term Tillage, Cover Crop, and Nitrogen Rate Effects on Cotton: Yield and Fiber Properties
Agron. J.,
September 1, 2004;
96(5):
1436 - 1442.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. J. Boquet, R. L. Hutchinson, and G. A. Breitenbeck
Long-Term Tillage, Cover Crop, and Nitrogen Rate Effects on Cotton: Plant Growth and Yield Components
Agron. J.,
September 1, 2004;
96(5):
1443 - 1452.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
