Scholarlink

<p>Freshwater scarcity and rising evaporative demand constrain cotton production in semi-arid regions. We report a three-season, replicated, side-by-side field comparison that explicitly models root-zone moisture (VWC<sub>0–60</sub>; root zone defined as 0–60&#xa0;cm) as a covariate and verifies application uniformity for both systems, thereby separating mechanism from device identity. We conducted the trial in Uzbekistan (arid–continental climate), comparing a centre-pivot sprinkler package with a surface-drip layout (single mid-furrow lateral) under stage-based deficit irrigation regimes (R₁: 70–70–65% of field capacity; R₂: 65–65–60%). Two cultivars of <i>Gossypium hirsutum</i> L. were grown in a randomised complete block design. We monitored VWC<sub>0–60</sub> in the root zone, seasonal irrigation water applied (IWA), seed-cotton yield, and irrigation-referenced water-use efficiency (WUE; kg m⁻³), and analysed treatment effects using linear mixed-effects models. Across years and regimes, the centre-pivot maintained a wetter and more stable root zone and achieved higher WUE with less seasonal water than surface drip. Three-year mean yields (t ha⁻¹ ± SE) were 4.05 ± 0.10 (centre-pivot R₁), 3.50 ± 0.09 (surface drip R₁), 3.35 ± 0.12 (centre-pivot R₂), and 3.00 ± 0.12 (surface drip R₂). Corresponding WUE (kg m⁻³) averaged 1.17 ± 0.05, 1.10 ± 0.06, 0.86 ± 0.04, and 0.87 ± 0.04, respectively. After adjusting for VWC<sub>0–60</sub> in ANCOVA, the fixed irrigation-system term was not significant, indicating a moisture-mediated mechanism rather than an intrinsic system advantage. Segmented (piecewise) regression identified a management-relevant threshold near 65–70% of field capacity, above which marginal yield gains diminished. Under the moderate-deficit regime (R₁), an appropriately configured centre-pivot achieved the most balanced agronomic–hydrological trade-off, whereas for surface drip on loam to clay-loam soils, broadening the wetting pattern may reduce the performance gap. Findings pertain to a single-line surface-drip configuration in an arid–continental setting and should not be generalised to subsurface drip without further evidence. Targeting approximately 65–70% of field capacity in the root zone during peak heat emerges as a transferable management guideline for similar semi-arid environments.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative assessment of centre-pivot and surface drip under deficit irrigation: effects on cotton yield and water-use efficiency in a semi-arid climate

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月16日

查看全文
  • Fatkhulloev Alisher,
  • Abduraimova Dilbar,
  • Nazaraliyev Dilshod,
  • Farmonov Erkin,
  • Hamroqulov Jasurjon,
  • Melikuziyev Sarvar

摘要

Freshwater scarcity and rising evaporative demand constrain cotton production in semi-arid regions. We report a three-season, replicated, side-by-side field comparison that explicitly models root-zone moisture (VWC0–60; root zone defined as 0–60 cm) as a covariate and verifies application uniformity for both systems, thereby separating mechanism from device identity. We conducted the trial in Uzbekistan (arid–continental climate), comparing a centre-pivot sprinkler package with a surface-drip layout (single mid-furrow lateral) under stage-based deficit irrigation regimes (R₁: 70–70–65% of field capacity; R₂: 65–65–60%). Two cultivars of Gossypium hirsutum L. were grown in a randomised complete block design. We monitored VWC0–60 in the root zone, seasonal irrigation water applied (IWA), seed-cotton yield, and irrigation-referenced water-use efficiency (WUE; kg m⁻³), and analysed treatment effects using linear mixed-effects models. Across years and regimes, the centre-pivot maintained a wetter and more stable root zone and achieved higher WUE with less seasonal water than surface drip. Three-year mean yields (t ha⁻¹ ± SE) were 4.05 ± 0.10 (centre-pivot R₁), 3.50 ± 0.09 (surface drip R₁), 3.35 ± 0.12 (centre-pivot R₂), and 3.00 ± 0.12 (surface drip R₂). Corresponding WUE (kg m⁻³) averaged 1.17 ± 0.05, 1.10 ± 0.06, 0.86 ± 0.04, and 0.87 ± 0.04, respectively. After adjusting for VWC0–60 in ANCOVA, the fixed irrigation-system term was not significant, indicating a moisture-mediated mechanism rather than an intrinsic system advantage. Segmented (piecewise) regression identified a management-relevant threshold near 65–70% of field capacity, above which marginal yield gains diminished. Under the moderate-deficit regime (R₁), an appropriately configured centre-pivot achieved the most balanced agronomic–hydrological trade-off, whereas for surface drip on loam to clay-loam soils, broadening the wetting pattern may reduce the performance gap. Findings pertain to a single-line surface-drip configuration in an arid–continental setting and should not be generalised to subsurface drip without further evidence. Targeting approximately 65–70% of field capacity in the root zone during peak heat emerges as a transferable management guideline for similar semi-arid environments.