HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (21) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Nielsen, D. C. Articles by Miller, P. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Nielsen, D. C. Articles by Miller, P. R. Agricola Articles by Nielsen, D. C. Articles by Miller, P. R. Related Collections Agroclimatology Water Use Evapotranspiration Dryland Cropping Systems

Symposium Papers

Efficient Water Use in Dryland Cropping Systems in the Great Plains

^a USDA-ARS, Cent. Great Plains Res. Stn., 40335 County Rd. GG, Akron, CO 80720
^b Retired, USDA-ARS, Conserv. and Prod. Res. Lab., P.O. Drawer 10, Bushland, TX 79012
^c Dep. of Land Resour. and Environ. Sci., Montana State Univ., P.O. Box 173120, Bozeman, MT 59717-3120

^* Corresponding author (David.Nielsen{at}ars.usda.gov)

Received for publication January 6, 2004.

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS FOR INCREASING PSE,... NOTES PUE IN GREAT PLAINS... CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH... REFERENCES

 
Successful dryland crop production in the semiarid Great Plains of North America must make efficient use of precipitation that is often limited and erratic in spatial and temporal distribution. The purpose of this paper is to review research on water use efficiency and precipitation use efficiency (PUE) as affected by cropping system and management in the Great Plains. Water use efficiency and PUE increase with residue management practices that increase precipitation storage efficiency, soil surface alterations that reduce runoff, cropping sequences that minimize fallow periods, and use of appropriate management practices for the selected crop. Precipitation use efficiency on a mass-produced basis is highest for systems producing forage (14.5 kg ha^–1 mm^–1) and lowest for rotations with a high frequency of oilseed crops (4.2 kg ha^–1 mm^–1) or continuous small-grain production in the southern plains (2.8 kg ha^–1 mm^–1). Precipitation use efficiency when calculated on a price-received basis ranges from $1.20 ha^–1 mm^–1 (for an opportunity-cropped system with 4 of 5 yr in forage production in the southern plains) to $0.30 ha^–1 mm^–1 {for a wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)–grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]–fallow system in the southern plains}. Throughout the Great Plains region, PUE decreases with more southern latitudes for rotations of similar makeup of cereals, pulses, oilseeds, and forages. Forage systems in the southern Great Plains appear to be highly efficient when PUE is computed on a price-received basis. In general across the Great Plains, increasing intensity of cropping increases PUE on both a mass-produced basis and on a price-received basis.

Abbreviations: PSE, precipitation storage efficiency • PUE, precipitation use efficiency based on crop dry matter or seed yield per millimeter of precipitation received • PUE$, precipitation use efficiency based on dollars returned per millimeter of precipitation received • WUE, water use efficiency

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS FOR INCREASING PSE,... NOTES PUE IN GREAT PLAINS... CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH... REFERENCES

 
IN THE SEMIARID REGIONS of the Great Plains of North America, water is generally the most limiting factor for crop production. Successful dryland agricultural systems in these areas must make efficient use of precipitation that is often limited and erratic in spatial and temporal distribution. The limited and erratic nature of precipitation in this region led to the development of cropping systems in which one crop was grown every other year to allow soil water recharge during a fallow period, which then led to greater yield stability. Those cropping systems traditionally used tillage to control weed growth during the fallow period. But tillage degrades crop residues, making them less effective for reducing evaporation and leaving the soil vulnerable to wind erosion. The development of herbicides for weed control during the fallow period resulted in opportunities for more frequent cropping. A number of methods have been developed for increasing precipitation storage efficiency (PSE) and water use efficiency (WUE) in these dryland systems. This paper reviews several of those methods as they have been used from the Canadian Prairie Provinces to the southern Great Plains of the United States and the resultant effects on system WUE. Additionally, differences in precipitation use efficiency (PUE) between cropping systems across the Great Plains region are identified.

	METHODS FOR INCREASING PSE, WUE, AND PUE

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS FOR INCREASING PSE,... NOTES PUE IN GREAT PLAINS... CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH... REFERENCES

 
Tillage Effects on PSE
Precipitation storage efficiency increases as tillage intensity is reduced during the summer fallow period. The increased soil water storage is a result of both maintaining crop residues on the soil surface and reducing the number of times that moist soil is brought to the surface as tillage intensity is reduced. Data from winter wheat–fallow systems at North Platte, NE (Smika and Wicks, 1968), and Sidney, MT (Tanaka and Aase, 1987), show fallow PSE increasing from under 25% to around 40% as tillage intensity decreased from moldboard plow to no-till (Fig. 1, top). Data collected at Bushland, TX, followed a similar trend with PSE increasing from 15% with disk tillage to 35% with no-till (Unger and Wiese, 1979).

View larger version (33K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Increase in precipitation storage efficiency with reduction in tillage intensity (top) and increase in surface wheat residue mass (bottom). Data from Smika and Wicks (1968), Tanaka and Aase (1987), Unger and Wiese (1979), and Greb et al. (1967).

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Reduction in runoff with increase in surface wheat residue mass at Lincoln, NE [top, data from Russel (1939)] and increase in infiltration with increase in surface wheat residue mass at Lubbock, TX [bottom, data from Baumhardt and Lascano (1996)].

An important fraction of the precipitation in parts of the central and northern Great Plains falls as snow. Standing crop residues are more effective at reducing wind speed near the soil surface than flat residues and therefore trap more snow during the winter period. Nielsen (1998) measured about 20 cm more stored soil water after winter in standing sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) residue with a silhouette area index (residue height x diameter x population) of 0.07 m² m^–2 than where the sunflower stalks were lying flat on the soil surface (Fig. 3). This was a result of greater snow catch by the standing sunflower stalks.

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Increase in overwinter soil water with increase in silhouette area index of sunflower stalks at Akron, CO. Data from Nielsen (1998).

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Changes in water use efficiency due to crop and tillage system at Garden City, KS. CT = conventional tillage; NT = no-tillage. Data from Norwood (1999).

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Changes in water use efficiency due to tillage system at Akron, CO. Data from Nielsen (unpublished data, 2003). See Table 1 for a definition of cropping system abbreviations.

Crop Type Effect on WUE
Water use efficiency varies with crop type and plant part being harvested. Water use efficiencies are higher for forage crops where the entire aboveground portion of the plant is harvested compared with WUEs for grain production (Fig. 6). The highest average WUE among forage crops grown over 6 yr at Akron, CO, was 22.8 kg ha^–1 mm^–1 for forage pea (Pisum sativum L.), declining to 11.4 kg ha^–1 mm^–1 for corn silage (Nielsen, unpublished data, 2003). Grain WUE ranged from about 7.5 kg ha^–1 mm^–1 for proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) and corn to 3.0 kg ha^–1 mm^–1 for sunflower. Biederbeck and Bouman (1994) reported 6-yr average WUE of 18.7 kg ha^–1 mm^–1 for dry pea dry matter and 15.3 kg ha^–1 mm^–1 for spring wheat dry matter at Swift Current, SK, Canada. Hatfield et al. (2001) provides an extensive review of literature demonstrating the high WUE observed for forage production compared with seed production (including data from the semiarid southern plains) and the relatively high WUE observed for starch seed production compared with oilseed production.

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Water use efficiency of different crop types grown at Akron, CO. Data from Nielsen (unpublished data, 2003).

Effect of Shifting or Reducing Fallow Period on PSE
Farahani et al. (1998) showed that improvements in system PSE with cropping intensification (i.e., reducing fallow frequency) were due to reducing the percentage of the system fallow time that occurred in the second summer fallow months, 1 May to 15 September (Fig. 7). During that time period, temperatures, solar radiation, and vapor pressure deficits were high, and PSE was low. Additionally, the percentage of the system fallow time in the fall, winter, and spring months, (16 September to 20 April), where PSE was much higher (Fig. 8), was increased. A wheat–corn–proso millet system has 79% of its noncrop time in the highly efficient precipitation storage period of 16 September to 20 April and only 5% of its noncrop time in the 1 May to 15 September period in which no precipitation is stored (Fig. 7). This compares with 51 and 31% for the same two periods, respectively, in the wheat–fallow system.

View larger version (26K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Shift in percentage of total fallow months occurring in three time intervals due to cropping system intensification. Data from Farahani et al. (1998). White = first summer fallow period, gray = fall–winter–spring period, and black = second summer fallow period. See Table 1 for a definition of cropping system abbreviations.

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Precipitation storage efficiency (PSE) in three time intervals in the fallow period of a wheat–fallow system in northeastern Colorado. Data from Farahani et al. (1998).

	PUE IN GREAT PLAINS CROPPING SYSTEMS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS FOR INCREASING PSE,... NOTES PUE IN GREAT PLAINS... CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH... REFERENCES

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Precipitation use efficiency (PUE, mass basis) for various cropping systems that include a fallow period at Akron, CO. Cropping system abbreviations are defined in Table 1. Data from Nielsen (unpublished data, 2003).

View larger version (32K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Precipitation use efficiency (PUE, mass basis) for various continuous cropping systems at Akron, CO. Cropping system abbreviations are defined in Table 1. Data from Nielsen (unpublished data, 2003).

View larger version (33K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 16. Precipitation use efficiency (PUE, value basis) for various continuous cropping systems at Bushland, TX. Cropping system abbreviations are defined in Table 1. Data from Unger (2001).

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 11. Precipitation use efficiency (PUE, value basis) for various cropping systems that include a fallow period at Akron, CO. Cropping system abbreviations are defined in Table 1. Data from Nielsen (unpublished data, 2003).

View larger version (34K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 12. Precipitation use efficiency (PUE, value basis) for various continuous cropping systems at Akron, CO. Cropping system abbreviations are defined in Table 1. Data from Nielsen (unpublished data, 2003).

View larger version (34K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 13. Precipitation use efficiency (PUE, mass basis) for various continuous cropping systems at Swift Current, SK. Cropping system abbreviations are defined in Table 1. Data from Miller et al. (2003a)(2003b) and Gan et al. (2003).

View larger version (30K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 14. Precipitation use efficiency (PUE, value basis) for various continuous cropping systems at Swift Current, SK. Cropping system abbreviations are defined in Table 1. Data from Miller et al. (2003a)(2003b) and Gan et al. (2003).

Southern Great Plains
Data taken from a 5-yr study of continuously cropped rotations that included cereals, pulse crops, and oilseed crops grown for both seed and forage at Bushland, TX (Unger, 2001), were used to compute PUE based on product mass (Fig. 15) and price received (Fig. 16). Prices received are 10-yr average market values (1992–2001, www.nass.usda.gov, Table 2). As with the data from Akron, the highest PUEs (mass basis) were seen in the systems with forage production. The continuous wheat and continuous triticale (xTriticosecale spp.) systems had PUE of about 14 kg ha^–1 mm^–1. The opportunity-cropped systems, two of which consisted of combinations of forage and seed crops, ranged in PUE from 10.70 to 5.62 kg ha^–1 mm^–1. The lowest PUEs were seen for the all-cereal systems, ranging from 5.93 kg ha^–1 mm^–1 (continuous grain sorghum) to 2.77 kg ha^–1 mm^–1 (continuous triticale). The all-cereal system at Akron, CO (W-W-C-M), gave a similar but somewhat higher PUE (5.66 kg ha^–1 mm^–1) than the continuous wheat system at Bushland (3.35 kg ha^–1 mm^–1), presumably because of the inclusion at Akron of the more efficient corn and millet crops and due to the lower evaporative demand at the more northern latitude of Akron. Similarly, PUE of W-C-F at Akron, CO, was higher than PUE of W-Sorg-F at Bushland, TX (4.99 vs. 3.85 kg ha^–1 mm^–1).

View larger version (33K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 15. Precipitation use efficiency (PUE, mass basis) for various continuous cropping systems at Bushland, TX. Cropping system abbreviations are defined in Table 1. Data from Unger (2001).

	CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS FOR INCREASING PSE,... NOTES PUE IN GREAT PLAINS... CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH... REFERENCES

 
Efficient use of limited water supplies in dryland cropping systems in the semiarid Great Plains of North America is critical to system success. Water use efficiency increases with residue management practices (especially reduced tillage and no-till) that increase PSE, soil surface alterations that reduce runoff and increase infiltration of precipitation, cropping sequences that minimize fallow periods, and use of appropriate management practices for the selected crop (e.g., adapted cultivars, appropriate fertility levels, and effective weed control). Precipitation use efficiency on a mass-produced basis is highest for systems producing forage and lowest for rotations with a high frequency of oilseed crops. Throughout the Great Plains region, PUE decreases with more southern latitudes for rotations of similar makeup of cereals, pulses, oilseeds, and forages. Forage systems in the southern Great Plains appear to be highly efficient when PUE is computed on a price-received basis. In general across the Great Plains, increasing intensity of cropping increases PUE on both a mass-produced basis and on a price-received basis. However, continuous cropping under dryland conditions in the semiarid Great Plains remains risky due to the limited precipitation (erratic in distribution and frequency) and high potential evaporation, especially in the southern Great Plains.

In the future, increases to semiarid dryland system WUE and PUE may come from continued improvement in managing residues, herbicides, and crop choice. We suggest the following as potentially fruitful areas of research that may improve system WUE:

1. Increase amount and persistence of crop residues. Crop residues on the soil surface increase infiltration, reduce runoff, and reduce evaporation. Unfortunately, residue amounts often are limited due to low precipitation during the growing season, rapid decay (especially in the central and southern plains), or partial incorporation into soil by tillage even though the amount of tillage may be reduced. Ways should be sought to increase residue retention on the soil surface. Possible methods include the use of stripper headers for harvesting and development and use of more effective herbicides. By using stripper headers, virtually all of the plant stems remain upright, resulting in slower residue decomposition and greater shading and wind speed reduction, thereby reducing soil water evaporation. Similarly, it may be possible to plan the proper sequencing of crops to provide optimum crop residue type, orientation, and amount for seeding the subsequent crop.
   
2. Implement flexible rotations (i.e., opportunity cropping). The occurrence of precipitation and, hence, the availability of adequate stored soil water for a crop is highly variable, especially in semiarid regions. Sometimes stored soil water at normal planting times for a crop in a given cropping system is limited; at other times, adequate water for a crop is available when the planting of a crop had not been planned, as is the case periodically in the southern plains late in the season or soon after harvesting a crop. By practicing opportunity cropping, some crop generally could be planted when water becomes available. The goal should be to grow a crop whenever conditions are or become favorable and not according to some predetermined schedule. Implementation of such a system would require careful use of herbicides to avoid adverse carryover effects. Such a system in which crop choice is determined by amount of stored soil water may not be as feasible in the northern plains where crop yields appear to be much more dependent on growing season rainfall than on stored soil water (Miller et al., 2003c).
   
3. Match crop cultivar selection to prevailing weather conditions. Genetic yield potential is linked positively with maturity, so cultivar evaluation trials conducted under conditions of adequate soil water and N often favor longer-maturity cultivars and influence farmer choice. For example, in the northern plains, summer drought in July typically terminates the growing season and consequently early maturing cultivars, with lower genetic yield potential, may yield relatively greater. In the southern plains, a producer may use a longer-maturity class sorghum when adequate soil water is available at early planting times, but a shorter maturity class when planting is delayed.
   
4. Improve timeliness of cultural operations, including early seeding of crops and optimum timing of weed control, and time operations to coincide with favorable conditions as predicted by short-term (48–72 h) weather forecasts. The land area-to-farm operator ratio is increasing steadily throughout the Great Plains, resulting in a complex web of activities competing for timeliness. Herbicide application is a critical new attribute of conservation tillage systems, and climatic conditions that permit early seeding for increased yield potential of spring and winter crops may not favor effective pre-emergent weed management. This frequently results in a compromise between pursuing optimal yield goals and weed management. This dilemma is one example that would benefit from system-oriented studies, aiming to increase crop PUE.
   

	NOTES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS FOR INCREASING PSE,... NOTES PUE IN GREAT PLAINS... CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH... REFERENCES

 
¹ Conventional tillage consisted of three or four tillage operations during the flow period using a sweep plow.

² The unpublished data from Akron presented here and later are from an alternative crop rotation experiment described in Bowman et al. (1999), Anderson et al. (1999), and Nielsen et al. (1999).

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS FOR INCREASING PSE,... NOTES PUE IN GREAT PLAINS... CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH... REFERENCES

 

• Anderson, R.L., R.A. Bowman, D.C. Nielsen, M.F. Vigil, R.M. Aiken, and J.G. Benjamin. 1999. Alternative crop rotations for the central Great Plains. J. Prod. Agric. 12:95–99.
• Anderson, R.L., D.L. Tanaka, and S.D. Merrill. 2003. Yield and water use of broadleaf crops in a semiarid climate. Agric. Water Manage. 58:255–266.
• Baltensperger, D.D., and P.M. Carr. 2003. Role of annual forages in continuous systems. In 2003 annual meeting abstracts [CD-ROM]. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.
• Baumhardt, R.L., and R.J. Lascano. 1996. Rain infiltration as affected by wheat residue amount and distribution in ridged tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:1908–1913.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Baumhardt, R.L., C.W. Wendt, and J.W. Keeling. 1993. Tillage and furrow diking effects on water balance and yields of sorghum and cotton. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:1077–1083.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Biederbeck, V.O., and O.T. Bouman. 1994. Water use by annual green manure legumes in dryland cropping systems. Agron. J. 86:543–549.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Bowman, R.A., M.F. Vigil, D.C. Nielsen, and R.L. Anderson. 1999. Soil organic matter changes in intensively cropped dryland systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63:186–191.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Cook, R.J., and W.A. Haglund. 1991. Wheat yield depression associated with conservation tillage and caused by root pathogens in the soil not phytotoxins from the straw. Soil Biol. Biochem. 23:1125–1132.
• Farahani, H.J., G.A. Peterson, and D.G. Westfall. 1998. Dryland cropping intensification: A fundamental solution to efficient use of precipitation. Adv. Agron. 64:225–265.
• Gan, Y., P.R. Miller, B.G. McConkey, R.P. Zentner, F.C. Stevenson, and C.L. McDonald. 2003. Influence of diverse cropping systems on durum wheat yield and protein in the semiarid northern Great Plains. Agron. J. 95:242–252.
• Gerard, C.J., P.D. Sexton, and D.M. Conover. 1984. Effects of furrow diking, subsoiling, and slope position on crop yields. Agron. J. 76:945–950.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Greb, B.W., D.W. Smika, and A.L. Black. 1967. Effect of straw mulch rates on soil water storage during summer fallow in the Great Plains. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 31:556–559.
• Hatfield, J.L., T.J. Sauer, and J.H. Prueger. 2001. Managing soils to achieve greater water use efficiency: A review. Agron. J. 93:271–280.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Jones, O.R., and B.A. Stewart. 1990. Basin tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 18:249–265.
• Miller, P.R., Y. Gan, B.G. McConkey, and C.L. McDonald. 2003a. Pulse crops for the northern Great Plains: I. Grain productivity and residual effects on soil water and nitrogen. Agron. J. 95:972–979.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Miller, P.R., Y. Gan, B.G. McConkey, and C.L. McDonald. 2003b. Pulse crops for the northern Great Plains: II. Cropping sequence effects on cereal, oilseed, and pulse crops. Agron. J. 95:980–986.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Miller, P.R., B.G. McConkey, R.P. Zentner, C.A. Campbell, and V.L. Cochran. 2003c. Flexible cropping systems in the semiarid northern Great Plains. p. 87–104. In J.D. Hanson and J.M. Krupinsky (ed.) Dynamic cropping systems: Principles, processes, and challenges. Proc. Symp., Bismark, ND. 4–7 Aug. 2003. USDA-ARS, Mandan, ND.
• Miller, P.R., C.L. McDonald, D.A. Derksen, and J. Waddington. 2001. The adaptation of seven broadleaf crops to the dry semiarid prairie. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81:29–32.
• Nielsen, D.C. 1998. Snow catch and soil water recharge in standing sunflower residue. J. Prod. Agric. 11:476–480.
• Nielsen, D.C., R.L. Anderson, R.A. Bowman, R.M. Aiken, M.F. Vigil, and J.G. Benjamin. 1999. Winter wheat and proso millet yield reduction due to sunflower in rotation. J. Prod. Agric. 12:193–197.
• Nielsen, D.C., M.F. Vigil, R.L. Anderson, R.A. Bowman, J.G. Benjamin, and A.D. Halvorson. 2002. Cropping system influence on planting water content and yield of winter wheat. Agron. J. 94:962–967.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Norwood, C.A. 1999. Water use and yield of dryland row crops as affected by tillage. Agron. J. 91:108–115.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Russel, J.C. 1939. The effect of surface cover on soil moisture losses by evaporation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 4:65–70.
• Smika, D.E., and G.A. Wicks. 1968. Soil water storage during fallow in the central Great Plains as influenced by tillage and herbicide treatments. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 32:591–595.
• Tanaka, D.L., and J.K. Aase. 1987. Fallow method influences on soil water and precipitation storage efficiency. Soil Tillage Res. 9:307–316.
• Unger, P.W. 1978. Straw mulch rate effects on soil water storage and sorghum yield. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42:486–491.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Unger, P.W. 2001. Alternative and opportunity dryland crops and related soil conditions in the southern Great Plains. Agron. J. 93:216–226.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Unger, P.W., O.R. Jones, and H.H. Schomberg. 1994. Innovative crop residue management systems for the U.S. southern Great Plains. Agronomy (Trends Agric. Sci.) 2:49–61.
• Unger, P.W., A.N. Sharpley, J.L. Steiner, R.I. Papendick, and W.M. Edwards. 1998. Soil management research for water conservation and quality. p. 69–97. In F.J. Pierce and W.W. Frye (ed.) Advances in soil and water conservation. Sleeping Bear Press, Inc., Chelsea, MI.
• Unger, P.W., and B.A. Stewart. 1983. Soil management for efficient water use: An overview. p. 419–458. In H.M. Taylor, W.R. Jordan, and T.R. Sinclar (ed.) Limitations to efficient water use in crop production. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.
• Unger, P.W., and A.F. Wiese. 1979. Managing irrigated winter wheat residues for water storage and subsequent dryland grain sorghum production. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42:582–588.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. A. Staggenborg, K. C. Dhuyvetter, and W. B. Gordon Grain Sorghum and Corn Comparisons: Yield, Economic, and Environmental Responses Agron. J., October 21, 2008; 100(6): 1600 - 1604. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. B. Henry, D. C. Nielsen, M. F. Vigil, F. J. Calderon, and M. S. West Proso Millet Yield and Residue Mass following Direct Harvest with a Stripper-Header Agron. J., May 7, 2008; 100(3): 580 - 584. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. W. Cutforth, S. M. McGinn, K. E. McPhee, and P. R. Miller Adaptation of Pulse Crops to the Changing Climate of the Northern Great Plains Agron. J., November 6, 2007; 99(6): 1684 - 1699. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. Lyon, D. C. Nielsen, D. G. Felter, and P. A. Burgener Choice of Summer Fallow Replacement Crops Impacts Subsequent Winter Wheat Agron. J., March 12, 2007; 99(2): 578 - 584. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. G. Allen, M. T. Baker, E. Segarra, and C. P. Brown Integrated Irrigated Crop-Livestock Systems in Dry Climates Agron. J., February 6, 2007; 99(2): 346 - 360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Lopez-Bellido, L. Lopez-Bellido, J. Benitez-Vega, and F. J. Lopez-Bellido Tillage System, Preceding Crop, and Nitrogen Fertilizer in Wheat Crop: I. Soil Water Content Agron. J., January 1, 2007; 99(1): 59 - 65. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Lopez-Bellido, L. Lopez-Bellido, J. Benitez-Vega, and F. J. Lopez-Bellido Tillage System, Preceding Crop, and Nitrogen Fertilizer in Wheat Crop: II. Water Utilization Agron. J., January 1, 2007; 99(1): 66 - 72. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. R. Miller, R. E. Engel, and J. A. Holmes Cropping Sequence Effect of Pea and Pea Management on Spring Wheat in the Northern Great Plains Agron. J., October 31, 2006; 98(6): 1610 - 1619. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. R. Stone and A. J. Schlegel Yield-Water Supply Relationships of Grain Sorghum and Winter Wheat Agron. J., September 5, 2006; 98(5): 1359 - 1366. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. C. Nielsen, M. F. Vigil, and J. G. Benjamin Forage Yield Response to Water Use for Dryland Corn, Millet, and Triticale in the Central Great Plains Agron. J., June 5, 2006; 98(4): 992 - 998. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (21) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Nielsen, D. C. Articles by Miller, P. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Nielsen, D. C. Articles by Miller, P. R. Agricola Articles by Nielsen, D. C. Articles by Miller, P. R. Related Collections Agroclimatology Water Use Evapotranspiration Dryland Cropping Systems