Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:28:33.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crop water requirements of cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Joseph Hutchinson ,
H. L. Manning  and
H. G. Farbrother
Joseph Hutchinson
Affiliation:
Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, Cotton Research Station, Namulonge, Uganda
H. L. Manning
Affiliation:
Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, Cotton Research Station, Namulonge, Uganda
H. G. Farbrother
Affiliation:
Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, Cotton Research Station, Namulonge, Uganda
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Attention is drawn to the enormous variations in yield experienced in commercial cotton growing under rain-fed conditions. Yields at Namulonge have ranged from 161 to 1163 lb./acre.

2. In seeking an explanation of this enormous variation past and present fertilizer trials in Uganda have failed to show that much of this variation is due to nutrient status.

3. From Manning's previous analysis of yields in relation to seasonal rainfall, over many district trials, it is evident that 20–25 in. of rainfall per season is optimum.

4. The purpose of more recent studies has been to examine the effect of distribution of rainfall within the season. Clearly the pattern of crop water requirement, also within the season, must supersede a simple seasonal concept of crop water use.

5. Experimental evidence, based on several seasons' data, led to the conclusion that evapotranspiration rates exceeding the commonly accepted figure of 0·8E must in fact occur in order to provide a satisfactory explanation of results recorded.

6. The within-season pattern of water requirement of an annual arable crop is shown to be more dependent on its state of development than on the pattern of a physical model based on calculations of energy availability.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , October 1958 , pp. 177 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Farbrother, H. G. (1955). Progr. Rep. Exp. Stas. Emp. Cott. Or. Corp. (1954–1955, Namulonge), p. 19.Google Scholar
Farbrother, H. G. (1956). Progr. Rep. Exp. Stas. Emp. Cott. Or. Corp. (1955–1956, Namulonge), p. 16.Google Scholar
Farbrother, H. G. (1957). Emp. Cott. Or. Rev. 34, 71.Google Scholar
SirHutchinson, J. B. & Farbrother, H. G. (1956). Emp. Cott. Or. Rev. 33, 170.Google Scholar
Manning, H. L. (1949). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 17, 245.Google Scholar
Manning, H. L. (1952). Emp. Cott. Or. Rev. 29, 241.Google Scholar
Manning, H. L. (1956). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 144, 460.Google Scholar
Manning, H. L. & Farbrother, H. G. (1956). Progr. Rep. Exp. Stas. Emp. Cott. Gr. Corp. (1955–1956, Namulonge), p. 5.Google Scholar
Penman, H. L. (1950). Quart. J. R. Met. Soc. 76, 372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, H. C. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 49, 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prentice, A. N. (1957). Progr. Rep. Exp. Stas. Emp. Cott. Gr. Corp.(1956–1957, Uganda), p. 16.Google Scholar
Slatyer, R. C. (1955). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 6, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trumble, H. C. (1937). Trans. Roy. Soc. Aust. 51, 1.Google Scholar
Weatherley, P. E. (1949). New Phytol. 49, 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherley, P. E. (1950). New Phytol. 50, 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar