Safiye Pınar TUNALI, Necdet DAĞDELEN, Talih GÜRBÜZ, Selin AKÇAY

Farklı Sulama Programlama Yaklaşımlarının Pamukta Verim ve Su Kullanım Randımanları Üzerine Etkileri

Bu çalışma, 2020 yılında Ege Bölgesi’nde May-505 pamuk çeşidi ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı sulama programları ve farklı su seviyelerinin pamuk kütlü verimi ile su kullanım etkinlikleri (WUE; IWUE) üzerine etkilerini araştırmaktır. İki faktörlü ve üç tekerrürlü olarak kurulan tarla denemesi, tesadüf blokları deneme desenine göre tasarlanmıştır. Çalışmada dört farklı sulama düzeyi (%100, %67, %33 ve %0) ve iki farklı sulama yaklaşımı (Gravimetrik ve kap buharlaşması) incelenmiştir. Her sulama yaklaşımında en yüksek sulama suyu tam sulama (%100 - kap buharlaşması yaklaşımı) konusundan sağlanmıştır. Üretim döneminde parsellerde mevsimsel su kullanım değerleri 215 mm (% 0) ile 746 (% 100) mm arasında değişmiştir. Sulama seviyelerinin (IL) pamuk kütlü verimi üzerinde önemli etkileri olmuştur. Ortalama pamuk kütlü verimi değerleri en düşükten en yükseğe şu şekilde elde edilmiştir; 2.057 kg ha-1 (IL-%0), 3.471 kg ha-1 (IL-%33), 3.771 kg ha-1 (IL-%67) ve 5.083 kg ha-1 (IL-%100). Kap buharlaşması uygulamalarının gravimetrik uygulamalara göre daha yüksek verim sağladığı tespit edilmiştir. WUE değerleri de 0,63 ile 1,04 kg m-3 arasında değişmiştir. Gravimetrik yöntemin verim tepki etmeni (ky) 0,73 ve kap buharlaşması yönteminin verim tepki etmeni (ky) 0,89 olarak bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak, Ege Bölgesi’nin yarı kurak iklim kuşağı içindeki bölümlerinde, su kaynaklarının yeterli olması koşulunda pamuk üretimi için %100 seviyesinde sulama suyu uygulanan kap buharlaşması yaklaşımı önerilebilir. Kısıtlı su koşullarında ise, %67 seviyesinde sulama suyu uygulanan gravimetrik yaklaşım kullanılabilir.

The Effects of Different Irrigation Scheduling Approaches on Seed Yield and Water Use Efficiencies of Cotton

This study was conducted in the Aegean region conditions of Turkey in 2020. It was carried out onMay-505, a local cotton variety. The study examined the variation of seed yield, water use efficiency(WUE), and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) of cotton with different irrigation programs andwater levels. The field trial, which was designed as two factors and three replications, was designedaccording to the randomized complete block trial design. Four different irrigation levels (IL) (100%,67%, 33%, and 0%) and two different irrigation scheduling approaches (gravimetric and panevaporation) were investigated in the study. Seasonal water use values in treatments varied between215 (0%) and 746 (100% - Pan evaporation approach) mm during the production period. The averageyield values obtained with irrigation levels, which have essential effects on cotton seed yield, arelisted as follows; 2057 kg ha-1(IL-0%), 3471 kg ha-1(IL-33%), 3771 kg ha-1(IL-67%), and 5083 kgha-1(IL-100%). It was determined pan evaporation applications performed higher yields thangravimetric applications. WUE values were between 0.63 – 1.04 kg m-3. The gravimetric method’syield response factor (ky) was 0.73, and the pan evaporation method’s yield response factor (ky) was0.89. These results show that cotton is tolerant of water stress. In conclusion, although the panevaporation approach with 100% treatment is suggested for cotton production in the parts of theAegean region within the semi-arid climate zone, while water resources are sufficient. When theresults are evaluated in terms of seed cotton yield for a deficit irrigation strategy, IL-67% treatmentwith a gravimetric approach can be used.

PDF

___

Acikgoz N, Aktas ME, Mokhaddam AF, Ozcan K. 1994. Tarist an Agrostatistical Package Programme for Personel Computer. Proceedings of Field Crops Symposium, Ege Univ. Fac. of Agriculture, Izmir, Turkey, 25-29 April 1994, pp. 264-267 (in Turkish with English abstract).
Akcay, S, Dagdelen, N. 2017. Water productivity and fiber quality parameters of deficit irrigated cotton in a semi-arid environment. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 26(11): 6500-6507
Aksoy E, Aydin G, Seferoglu S. 1998. The Important Characteristics and Classification of Soils of the Land of Agricultural Faculty, Adnan Menderes University. Proceedings of First Agricultural Conference in Aegean Region, Aydin, Turkey 7–11 September, pp. 7-11 (in Turkish with English abstract).
Anonymous, 2019a. Cotton report. T.C. Ministry of Customs and Trade, Ankara, TURKEY, pp.2-3.
Anonymous, 2019b. Climatic Report of Aydin Province, State Meteorological Organization Publications, Aydin, Turkey.
Basal, H, Dagdelen, N, Unay, A, Yilmaz, E. 2009. Effects of deficit drip irrigation ratios on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) yield and fiber quality. Journal of Agronomy & Crop Science, 195(1): 19-29.
Cetin, O, Bilgel, L. 2002. Effects of different irrigation methods on shedding and yield of cotton. Agricultural Water Management, 54: 1-15.
Colaizzi PD, Evett SR, Howell TA. 2005. Cotton Production with SDI, LEPA and Spray Irrigation in a Thermally Limited Climate. Proceedings of the Conference on Emerging Irrigation Technology. The Irrigation Association, Phoenix, Arizona, (CD ROM), 6-8 November 2005, pp. 15-30.
Dagdelen N, Yilmaz E, Sezgin F, Gurbuz T, Akcay S. 2005. Effects of Different Trickle Irrigation Regimes on Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Yield in Western Turkey. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 8(10): 1387–1391.
Dagdelen, N, Basal, H, Yilmaz, E, Gurbuz, T, Akcay, S. 2009. Different drip irrigation regimes affect cotton yield, water use efficiency and fiber quality in western Turkey. Agricultural Water Management, 96(1): 111-120.
Dagdelen, N, Gurbuz, T, Tunali, SP. 2019. Response of different cotton cultivars to water stress on water-yield relations under drip irrigation conditions in Aydin plain. Derim, 36(1): 64-72 (in Turkish with English abstract).
Dagdelen, N, Yilmaz, E, Sezgin, F, Gurbuz, T. 2006. Water-yield relation and water use efficiency of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and second crop corn (Zea mays L.) in western Turkey. Agricultural Water Management, 82: 63-85.
Doorenbos J, Kassam AH. 1986. Yield Response to Water. Irrigation and Drainage, FAO, ROME, Paper: 33, pp. 257.
Ertek A, Kanber R. 2001. Effects of Different Irrigation Programs on the Growth of Cotton Under Drip Irrigation. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 25: 415-425(in Turkish with English abstract).
Erten E, Dagdelen N. 2020. Yield and Water Relations of Drip Irrigated Cotton Under Various Irrigation Levels. Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 7(2): 204-211.
Heerman DF. 1985. ET in Irrigation Management. Proceedings of the National Conference on Advances in Evapotranspiration, Transactions of the ASAE, 16-17 December 1985, pp. 323-334.
Howell TA, Cuence RH, Solomon KH. 1990. Crop Yield Response. In: Hoffman GJ et al. (editors). Management of Farm Irrigation Systems. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. 93-122.
Hussein F, Janat M, Yakoub A. 2011. Assessment of Yield and Water Use Efficiency of Drip-Irrigated Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) as Affected by Deficit Irrigation. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 35: 611-621.
Ibragimov, N, Evett, SR, Esanbekov, Y, Kamilov, BS, Mirzaev, L, Lamers, JPA. 2007. Water use efficiency of irrigated cotton in Uzbekistan under drip and furrow irrigation. Agric. Water Manag., 90: 112-120.
Kanber R. 1984. Cukurova Kosullarinda Acik Su Yuzeyi Buharlasmasindan (Class A Pan) Yararlanarak Birinci Ve Ikinci Urun Yerfistiginin Sulanmasi. Tarsus: Bolge Toprak Su Arast. Enst. Mud. Yayinlari. 78(33): 1-151 (in Turkish).
Karam, F, Lahoud, R, Masaad, R, Daccache, A, Mounzer, O, Rouphael, Y. 2006. Water use and lint yield response of drip irrigated cotton to length of irrigation season. Agricultural Water Management, 85: 287-295.
Mateos, L, Berengena, J, Orgaz, F, Fereres, E. 1991. A comparison between drip and furrow irrigation in cotton at two levels of water supply. Agric. Water Manag., 19: 313- 324.
Panda, RK, Behera, SK, Kashyap, PS. 2004. Effective management of irrigation water for maize under stressed conditions. Agric. Water Manage., 66: 181–203.
Sezen, SM, Yazar, A, Canbolat, M, Eker, S, Celikel, G. 2004. Effect of drip irrigation management on yield and quality of field grown green beans. Agric. Water Manag., 54: 189-203.
Sezgin F, Yilmaz E, Dagdelen N, Bas S. 2001. Effect of Different Irrigation Methods and Water Supply Level Application on Water-Yield Relations in Cotton Growing. Proceedings of the Third National Hydrology Congress, 9 Eylul Univ., Izmir, Turkey, 27-29 June 2001, pp. 27-29 (in Turkish with English abstract).
Simsek M, Kacira M, Tonkaz T. 2004. The Effects of Different Drip Irrigation Regimes on Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) Yield and Yield Components Under Semi-Arid Climatic Conditions. J. Agric. Res, 55: 1149-1157.
Stewart JL, Danielson RE, Hanks RJ, Jackson EB, Hagan RM, Pruitt WO, Franklin WT, Riley JP. 1977. Optimizing Crop Production Through Control of Water and Salinity Levels in the Soil. Logan, USA: Utah Water Lab, PRWG151-1, p 191.
Tunali SP, Gurbuz T, Dagdelen N, Yorulmaz A. 2020. The Effects of Different Drip Irrigation Levels and Seed-Coated Techniques on Yield and Water Use Efficiency of Cotton. Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 7(6): 62-70.
Unlu, M, Kanber, R, Koc, DL, Tekin, S, Kapur, B. 2011. Effects of deficit irrigation on the yield and yield components of drip irrigated cotton in Mediterranean environment. Agricultural Water Management, 98: 597-605.
Wang, Z, Liu, Z, Zhang, Z, Liu, X. 2009. Subsurface drip irrigation scheduling for cucumber (Cucimus sativus L.,) grown in solar greenhouse based on 20 cm standard pan evaporation in Northeast China. Scientia Horticulturae, 123: 51-57
Yazar, A, Sezen, SM, Gencel, B. 2002a. Drip irrigation of corn in the Southeast Anatolia Project (GAP) area in Turkey. Irrigation and Drainage, 51: 293-300.
Yazar, A, Sezen, SM, Sesveren, S. 2002b. Lepa and trickle irrigation of cotton in the Southeast Anatolia Project (GAP) Area in Turkey. Agricultural Water Management, 54(3): 189- 203.