G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

FIELD-6722; No. of Pages 9

Field Crops Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Field Crops Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fcr

Effects of decit irrigation and plant density on the growth, yield and
ber quality of irrigated cotton
Dongmei Zhang a , Zhen Luo a , Suhua Liu b , Weijiang Li a , WeiTang a , Hezhong Dong a,
a
b

Cotton Research Center, Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinan 250100, China
Agricultural Research Institute of the Third Division, Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, Tumushuke 843901, China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 10 May 2016
Received in revised form 4 June 2016
Accepted 7 June 2016
Available online xxx
Keywords:
Cotton
Decit irrigation
Plant density
Water use efciency
Yield

a b s t r a c t
Decit irrigation is a new strategy to increase water use efciency of cotton in arid areas, but it is not
clear if it interacts with plant density. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of decit
irrigation and plant density as well as their interaction on the growth, yield and ber quality of irrigated
cotton. Two eld experiments were conducted at three sites in 2013 and one site from 2014 to 2015 in an
arid area of Xinjiang. A randomized complete block design with three replicates was used to determine
the effects of 6 irrigation regimes on seedcotton yield in the rst experiment, while a split-plot design
was used in the second experiment with the main plots assigned to irrigation regime (saturation, regular
and decit) and the subplots to plant density (high, medium and low) to examine cotton yield, ber
quality and water productivity as affected by plant density under decit irrigation. Averaged across the
three sites, drip irrigation ranging from 3650 to 4700 m3 /ha did not signicantly affect cotton yield, but
seedcotton yield under 3650 m3 /ha in S1 was 6.3% lower than that under 4000 m3 /ha. Thus, it is quite
appropriate to regularly drip-irrigate at 4000 m3 /ha in the experimental area. Decit irrigation at high
plant density also maintained a relatively higher leaf area index (LAI) and net assimilation rate (NAR),
particularly at late stages of plant growth and development, than saturation or regular irrigation. Plant
density ranging from 18 to 24 plants/m2 produced more seedcotton than 12 plants/m2 under regular
irrigation. Increasing irrigation to saturation levels had little effects on cotton yield regardless of plant
density; saturation irrigation at high plant density even reduced cotton yield compared with regular
irrigation at medium plant density. Under decit irrigation, the high plant density produced 9.1-17%
greater yield and 9.3-16.8% higher irrigation water productivity (IWP) than low or medium plant density,
and comparable yield to medium or high plant density under regular irrigation. This high yield under
decit irrigation at high plant density was due to increased plant biomass occasioned by high plant
population and improved harvest index. Decit irrigation did not affect ber quality in 2014, but reduced
ber length and increased ber micronaire value in 2015. Conclusively, use of high plant density under
decit irrigation can be a promising alternative for water saving without compromising cotton yield
under arid conditions.
2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Currently the northwest inland is Chinas largest cottongrowing area. With abundant sunshine and large temperature
difference between day and night, improved plant growth and
development as well as favorable ber yield and quality of cotton can be easily achieved with the help of plastic mulching in
this area (Dai and Dong, 2014). Therefore, the area has been one
of the most dominant cotton growing areas with high yield and

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: donghz@saas.ac.cn, donghezhong@163.com (H. Dong).

ne quality in China. The northwest inland is typically an irrigated

agriculture area with scarce rainfall. Although drip irrigation under
plastic mulch has been widely adopted for cultivation of cotton and
the water use efciency (WUE) has been increased by 50% (Cao et al.,
2012), water shortage has become a key challenge for irrigated
agriculture (Zhou et al., 2012). To address this problem, the development and adoption of new water-saving agricultural practices
are necessary for high yields with minimum water consumption.
Reduced water consumption in traditional irrigation scheme
will lead to signicant reduction in crop yields and ber quality
(Feng et al., 2011, 2014), as water stress results in premature senescence (Chen and Dong, 2016; Ibragimov et al., 2007), and reduced
leaf area, dry matter accumulation, and the number of bolls and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.06.003
0378-4290/ 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, D., et al., Effects of decit irrigation and plant density on the growth, yield and ber quality of
irrigated cotton. Field Crops Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.06.003

G Model
FIELD-6722; No. of Pages 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Zhang et al. / Field Crops Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx

boll weight (Gerik et al., 1996; Wanjura et al., 2002; Dagdelen et al.,
2009); over irrigation leads to excessive vegetative growth of cotton and results in high water losses and low water use efciencies
(WUE) (Yazar et al., 2002). The ideal irrigation should signicantly
reduce water consumption without sacricing crop yield (Yang
et al., 2015; Pereira et al., 2002). A recently adopted water-saving
practice in arid areas is decit irrigation (Unl et al., 2011; Yang
et al., 2015), which is dened as the application of water below
full crop requirement for evapotranspiration (Oweis et al., 2011),
thus it is an promising strategy to save water with little impact on
the quantity and quality of the harvested yield (Kirda et al., 1999).
Several studies have showed that decit irrigation with 20 or 25%
deviation from full irrigation level did not signicantly affect cotton yield (Wanjura et al., 2002; Ertek and Kanber, 2003; Dagdelen
et al., 2009; Karam et al., 2006; Kang et al., 2012), while some others showed that a 25% deviation decreased yield and ber quality
(Karam et al., 2006; Dagdelen et al., 2009; Unl et al., 2011). A
number of studies also indicated that drip irrigation of cotton at
7080% of full irrigation had signicant benets in terms of saved
irrigation water and high IWUE or IWP (Dagdelen et al., 2009; Unl
et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2015), although decit irrigation may cause
slight to moderate yield or quality reduction (Dagdelen et al., 2009;
Unl et al., 2011; Li and Lascanob, 2011; Yang et al., 2015).
Yield and benets of decit irrigation are dependent on good
crop management (Rao et al., 2016); only appropriate use of decit
irrigation can achieve favorable yield and benets (Karam et al.,
2006). Effects of decit irrigation on yield, quality and benets
of cotton may be inuenced by a number of agronomic factors
(Rao et al., 2016). Interaction effects of decit irrigation with nitrogen (Stamatiadis et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2010; Li and Lascanob,
2011), plant growth regulators (Singh et al., 2010) or cotton cultivars (Papastylianou and Argyrokastritis, 2014) on seed cotton yield
and water productivity have been well documented. Interaction
effects of decit irrigation and plant density on yield and quality of cotton, however, have not been reported particularly under
plastic mulching conditions. Little is yet known of the impact of
plant density on yield and quality of cotton under decit irrigation.
The growth and development of individual cotton plants will be
reduced to some degree under decit irrigation, and total biomass
per ground area and lint yield decreased accordingly (DeTar, 2008;
Ko and Piccinni, 2009). Thus we assumed that increased plant density may increase total biomass and compensate for the yield loss
due to water stress under decit irrigation. Our objective was to
determine the effects of irrigation regime and plant density on the
growth, yield, yield components and ber traits of cotton under
eld conditions, with a focus on cotton yield, ber quality and water
use efciency as affected by plant density under decit irrigation.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Experimental sites and cultivars
Two eld experiments were conducted at southern Tumushuke
city (39 51 N, 79 3 E), Xinjiang, China, during the growing seasons of 2013 and 20142015, respectively. The experimental area
is in the warm-temperate arid zone with a continental climate.
Based on 53-year (19632015) meteorological data for the area,
the average annual sunshine duration is 4400 h with 225 d of frostfree crop growth season. Daily average temperature steadily above
10 C starts in late March and ends in late October with a period of
210 d. Relative humidity during summer months is 4050%, with
an annual precipitation of 100.3 mm. Meteorological data from a
nearby meteorological station showed that from April to October in
2013, 2014 and 2015, the mean temperature ( C) was 20.6, 19.8 and

21.1; the relative humidity (%) was 44, 40 and 49 and precipitation
(mm) was 138.4, 165.3 and 55.2, respectively.
The rst experiment was conducted in three sites approximately
0.51 km from each other, to ensure the similar environmental conditions among elds in 2013, while the second experiment was
carried out in site 1 in 2014 and 2015. Soil fertility parameters for
the three sites are presented in Table 1.
CRI 49, a dominant cotton cultivar in the local area, was used in
both experiments.
2.2. Experimental design
The rst experiment was conducted at three sites in 2013 to
compare yield performance under different drip irrigation regimes
(5050, 4700, 4350, 4000, 3650, 3300 and 2950 m3 /ha). For each
site, treatments were arranged into a randomized complete block
design with three replications. Each plot was 60 m2 and contained
6 rows with each row being 13.3 m long.
A split-plot design with three replications was used for the second experiment in site 1 (S1) in 2014 and 2015. The main plots
were plant densities of high (24 plants/m2 ), medium (18 plants/m2 )
and low (12 plants/m2 ), while irrigation levels (4800, 4000 and
3200 m3 /ha, hereafter referred to as saturation, regular, and decit
irrigation based on results of the rst experiment) were assigned
to the subplots. Each subplot was 60 m2 and contained 6 rows with
each row being 13.3 m long.
Field plot was ood-irrigated with 2250 m3 /ha water each
1520 d before sowing; within-season irrigation was applied
through a surface drip irrigation system under plastic mulching
according to Yang et al. (2015) and Wang et al. (2014). Each
treatment was supplied with an independent irrigation system consisting of a water tank and drip tubes. A tank lled with irrigation
water was placed 1 m above the ground to maintain enough water
pressure. Three drip tapes were placed in each sub plot with each
drip tape responsible for two rows of cotton. Drip irrigation started
in mid June and ended in late August or early September for a total
of 10 times in both experiments. Because precipitation in 2015 was
110 mm less than that in 2014, the actual irrigation regime in 2015
was adjusted with 10% increase for each treatment relative to that
in 2015.
2.3. Field management
Cotton (CRI 49) was sown on 1417th April and harvested in
late-September of 20132015. About 80% ground surface of each
plot was mulched with plastic lms during the entire growing season.
The experimental plot was cultivated and fertilized in accordance with local guidance to ensure full seedling establishment
and normal plant growth & development. Each plot was fertilized
with 750 kg/ha of compound fertilizer containing 15% N, 12% P2 O5
and 15% K2 O as base fertilizer before sowing. Additional 825 kg/ha
of urea (46% N) and 300 kg/ha of K2 PO4 were applied through drip
irrigation during the growing seasons according to local recommendations.
2.4. Data collection
Data were collected for seedcotton yield in the rst experiment
and for plant height, stem diameter, leaf area, net photosynthetic
(Pn) rate, net assimilation rate (NAR), biological yield, harvest
index, lint yield, yield components, ber parameters and irrigation water productivity (IWP) in the second experiment. The Pn
rate was measured on the fourth main-stem leaf at peak owering, which was conducted between 10:00 and 12:00 on cloudless
days when ambient photosynthetic photon ux density exceeded

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, D., et al., Effects of decit irrigation and plant density on the growth, yield and ber quality of
irrigated cotton. Field Crops Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.06.003

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

FIELD-6722; No. of Pages 9

D. Zhang et al. / Field Crops Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Table 1
Soil fertility parameters in the experimental sites.
Experimental site
S1
S2
S3

pH
8.1 0.2
8.4 0.2
8.4 0.2

Organic carbon (g/kg)

6.1 0.7
5.9 0.6
5.5 0.5

Available N (mg/kg)
49.2 3.5
48.5 5.2
46.2 3.5

Available P (mg/kg)
15.4 1.8
14.8 2.2
14.9 1.8

Available K (mg/kg)
196 11
183 16
185 10

Data (means SD) were collected from 0- to 20-cm soil depth in early spring before irrigation in 2013.

1500 mmol/(m2 s), using an LI-6400 portable photosynthesis system (Li-Cor, Lincoln, NE, USA). Maximum leaf area index (LAI) was
measured at peak boll setting. Plant height, stem diameter, total
biomass and harvest index were determined at harvest. IWP was
determined as seedcotton yield per unit irrigation water applied
(m3 ) (Howell et al., 1990).

the optimum seedcotton or lint yield across sites, while over irrigation with 5050 m3 /ha or decit irrigation with 3300 or 2950 m3 /ha
signicantly reduced yield. Averaged across the three sites, water
regime ranging from 3650 to 4700 showed little effects on yield,
but seedcotton yield was 6.3% lower than that under 4000 m3 /ha
in S1.

2.4.1. Seed cotton and lint yield and yield components

Plants from the central four rows of each plot were manually
harvested two times. Seed cotton was weighed after drying (moisture 11%), and then ginned to determine lint yield (kg/ha) and lint
percentage.
During each harvest, fty cotton bolls were randomly handpicked from each plot and weighed after drying (moisture 11%).
The boll weight was thus determined and the number of bolls per
ground area (boll density) was calculated by dividing the seedcotton yield by boll weight. The lint sampled from two harvests in each
plot was used to determine ber length (FL), micronaire value (FM)
and ber strength (FS) with high volume instrument ber analysis
(HVI).

3.2. Effects of irrigation and plant density on cotton growth and

dry matter partitioning

2.4.2. Plant growth, biological yield and harvest index

Five randomly selected plants at early owering (EF), peak owering (PF), early boll setting (EB), peak boll setting (PB), late boll
setting (LB) and boll opening (BO) were manually harvested. Plant
samples from each plot were separately partitioned into roots,
stems, branches, leaves, seeds, lint and carpels. Leaf area per plant
was measured by a LI-3100 leaf area meter (Li-Cor, Lincoln, NE,
USA), and then leaf area index (LAI) was calculated on a ground
area basis. After drying at 70 C to a constant weight, samples
were weighed, and the yields of seed cotton and stalk (root, stem,
branches, carpels and remnant leaves) were recorded. Dry weights
of reproductive organs (squares, owers, green and mature bolls)
were weighed after drying for 48 h at 70 C. Biological yield, harvest
index and net assimilation rate (NAR) were thus determined.
2.5. Statistical analysis
Analysis of variance was conducted to evaluate the effects of
irrigation regimes on cotton yield in the rst experiment, and of irrigation regimes and plant density on yield, yield components, plant
growth parameters and ber quality in the second experiment
using DPS data processing system (Tang and Feng, 2002). Duncans multiple range tests was used to compare treatment means
at P < 0.05 in both experiments. Since year irrigation or plant density treatment interaction effects on most parameters were not
signicant, data for yield, yield components, biological yield, harvest index, and IWP, were pooled and presented across years, while
ber quality data were evaluated separately.
3. Results
3.1. Multi-site yield performance of cotton under different
irrigation regimes
Cotton yield was signicantly affected by drip irrigation regime
(Table 1). Water regime ranging from 4000 to 4700 m3 /ha produced

Neither the irrigation regime nor plant density had any effect on
the main-stem leaf Pn, but they signicantly affected plant growth
as indicated by plant height, stem diameter and Max leaf area
index (LAI). There was no interaction effect of irrigation regime and
plant density on plant growth (Table 2). Plant height decreased but
the stem diameter increased with decreases in irrigation regime
(Table 3). Compared with regular irrigation, saturation irrigation
increased plant height by 4.1% and reduced stem diameter by
5.4%, while decit irrigation decreased plant height by 3.2% and
increased stem diameter by 5.4%. Plant height decreased and the
stem diameter increased as plant density decreased. Compared
with the medium plant density (18 plants/m2 ), the high plant density (24 plants/m2 ) increased cotton height by 3.2% and reduced
stem diameter by 3.2%, while the low plant density (12 plants/m2 )
decreased height by 5.4% and increased stem diameter by 7.3%. As
expected, the effects of both factors on maximum leaf area index
(MLAI) were similar to those on plant height. MLAI decreased with
decreases in either irrigation regime or plant density. Saturation
irrigation and high plant density increased MLAI by 10.9 and 4.9%,
while decit irrigation decreased MLAI by 4.1 and 15.5%, compared
with regular irrigation and mid-plant density.
There was a signicant interaction effect of irrigation and plant
density on biological yield and dry matter partitioning as indicated
by harvest index (Table 2). Under each irrigation regime, the high
plant density produced the best biological yield (Table 3). Saturation and regular irrigation under high plant density produced
7.9 and 5.0% more biological yield than regular irrigation under
medium density. In contrast to biological yield, the harvest index
decreased with increases in plant density under saturation or regular irrigation; under decit irrigation, the harvest index at medium
plant density was comparable to that at high and low densities.
The index under decit irrigation plus high plant density was 22.4
and 7.5% higher than that under saturation irrigation combined
with high density and regular irrigation plus high plant density.
Decit-irrigated plants under high plant density were comparable
to regular- irrigated plants under medium plant density in terms of
biological yield and harvest index, while saturation-irrigated plants
had 3.4% more biological yield but 5.1% lower harvest index than
regular-irrigated plants under medium plant density (Table 3).
Irrigation regime and plant density signicantly affected the
dynamics of LAI (Fig. 1). The LAI showed a single peak curve from
early owering to boll opening stage regardless of irrigation regime
or plant density. Irrigation regime affected the timing of peak LAI,
while both irrigation regime and plant density impacted the peak
value of LAI. The LAI peaked at early boll setting under saturation or
regular irrigation, while it coincided with peak boll setting under
decit irrigation, about 5 days later than under saturation or reg-

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, D., et al., Effects of decit irrigation and plant density on the growth, yield and ber quality of
irrigated cotton. Field Crops Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.06.003

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

FIELD-6722; No. of Pages 9

D. Zhang et al. / Field Crops Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Table 2
Multi-site yield performance of cotton under different drip irrigation regimes at medium plant density.
Irrigationa (m3 /ha)

5050
4700
4350
4000
3650
3300
2950
P>F

Seedcotton yield (kg/ha)

Lint yield (kg/ha)

S1

S2

S3

Average

S1

S2

S3

Average

6065b
6359ab
6674a
6560a
6145b
5547c
4598d
0.0435

5932b
6217a
6413a
6324a
6298a
5842b
4788c
0.0238

5904a
6035a
6022a
6085a
6015a
5447b
4867c
0.0026

5967b
6204ab
6370a
6323a
6152ab
5612c
4751d
0.0300

2399ab
2488a
2548a
2542a
2415a
2245b
1900c
0.0200

2346b
2432a
2448a
2451a
2476a
2364b
1979c
0.0100

2335a
2361a
2299ab
2358a
2364a
2205b
2011a
0.0010

2360bc
2427ab
2432a
2450a
2418a
2271c
1963d
0.0200

a
Each plot was ood-irrigated with 2250 m3 /ha water 1520 d before sowing; different within-season irrigation was applied through a surface drip irrigation system
under plastic mulching. Drip irrigation started in mid June and ended in late August or early September with a total of 10 times for each plot.

Means within a column followed by same letters are not signicantly different at p < 0.05.

Table 3
Statistical signicance for plant growth and dry matter partitioning of cotton under different irrigation regimes and plant density.
Source of variance

Pn (P > F)

Plant height (P > F)

Stem diameter (P > F)

Max LAI (P > F)

Biomass (P > F)

Harvest index (P > F)

Year (Y)
Irrigation (I)
Plant density (PD)
YI
Y PD
I PD
Y I PD

<0.0001
nsa
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns

0.0210
0.0004
0.0005
ns
ns
ns
ns

0.0010
0.0221
0.0244
ns
ns
ns
ns

0.0400
0.0067
0.0023
ns
ns
ns
ns

0.0001
0.0276
0.0373
ns
ns
0.0003
ns

0.0020
0.0295
0.0400
ns
ns
0.0002
ns

Net photosynthetic (Pn) rate.

ns means non signicance.

5.0

12

Leaf area idex (LAI)

4.5

18

24

4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0

Saturation
irr igation

Regular
irrigation

Deficit
irrigation

1.5
EF PF EB PB LB BP

EF PF EB PB LB BP

EF PF EB PB LB BP

Growth and development stage

Fig. 1. Changes in leaf area index (LAI) as affected by plant density and irrigation. EF, PF, EB, PB, LB and BP represent early owering, peak owering, early boll-setting, peak
boll-setting, late boll-setting and boll opening stage, respectively. Error bars show SD.

5
12

18

24

NAR (g \m2 d)

ular irrigation. Interestingly, although the max MLAI under decit

irrigation at high plant density was much lower than that under saturation and regular irrigation at high plant density, the period of
time for maintaining a high LAI (3) under decit irrigation at high
plant density was comparable to that under saturation and regular
irrigation at high plant density, and was longer than saturation and
regular irrigation at medium or low plant density (Fig. 1).
Irrigation regime, plant density and their interaction signicantly affected dynamics of net assimilation rate (NAR) from early
owering to boll opening (Fig. 2). In general, the NAR at either stage
increased with decreases in irrigation regime and decreased with
increases in plant density. Under decit or regular irrigation, the
low plant density exhibited a higher NAR than mid and high plant
density at any growth stage. Under decit irrigation, the NAR under
high plant density was 2.4 and 4.7% lower than that under medium
and low plant density from early owering (EF) to peak owering
(PF), but 8.6, 12.5 and 5.8% higher than that under low plant density, and comparable to that under medium plant density from peak
owering to late boll setting. Of interest is that decit irrigation at

Regular
irrigation

Deficit
irrigation

Saturation
irrigation
2
EF-PF

EB-PB

LB-BO

EF-PF
EB-PB LB-BO EF-PF
Growth and development stage

EB-PB

LB-BO

Fig. 2. Changes in net assimilation rate(NAR)as affected by plant density and irrigation. EF, PF, EB, PB, LB and BP represent early owering, peak owering, early
boll-setting, peak boll-setting, late boll-setting and boll opening stage, respectively.
Error bars show SD.

high plant density maintained a relatively higher NAR than saturaPlease cite this article in press as: Zhang, D., et al., Effects of decit irrigation and plant density on the growth, yield and ber quality of
irrigated cotton. Field Crops Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.06.003

G Model
FIELD-6722; No. of Pages 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Zhang et al. / Field Crops Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx

tion or regular irrigation particularly at late stages of plant growth

(Fig. 2).

4. Discussion
4.1. Decit irrigation at high plant density saved 20% irrigation
water and produced cotton yield comparable to full irrigation at
medium plant density

3.3. Effects of irrigation and plant density on cotton yield, yield

components and irrigation water use efciency
There was a signicant interaction effect of irrigation regime
with plant density on seedcotton and lint yields (Table 2). Under
saturation irrigation, the low plant density was comparable to
medium density in seed cotton yield, but 12.6% higher than high
plant density; under regular irrigation, the medium density was
comparable to high-density in seed cotton yield but it increased
seedcotton yield by 7.8% relative to low plant density; under decit
irrigation, the high plant density produced the highest seedcotton
yield, being 9.1 and 17.0% higher than medium and low plant densities. Similar effects of irrigation and plant density on lint yield
were also observed. Saturation irrigation at low density, regular
irrigation at moderate plant density, and decit irrigation at high
plant density produced higher cotton yields than other treatment
combinations. There was no signicant difference in seedcotton
yield among the three optimum combinations. Decit irrigation at
high plant density was comparable to regular irrigation at moderate plant density in lint yield, but was slightly higher (2.34.7%)
than saturation irrigation at low density.
Effects of irrigation and plant density on yield components
varied among boll density, boll weight and lint percentage
(Tables 4 and 5). Neither irrigation nor plant density had signicant effects on lint percentage; boll weight was only affected by
plant density, showing a signicant increase with decreasing plant
density. The number of bolls (boll density) per unit ground area
was affected by irrigation regime, plant density and their interaction. Under saturation irrigation, there was no difference in boll
density among the three plant densities; under regular irrigation,
the number of bolls at moderate and high plant densities was 9.7
and 9.9% higher than those at low plant density; under decit irrigation, the most number of bolls occurred at high plant density,
being 12.1% and 21.7% more than those at moderate and low plant
densities (Table 5).
Irrigation regime, plant density, and their interaction signicantly affected irrigation water use efciency (IWP) (Table 4). The
IWP at moderate plant density was comparable to that at high or
low plant density. It increased with decreasing plant density under
saturation irrigation, but decreased with decreasing plant density
under decit irrigation. Among the treatment combinations, the
IWP under decit irrigation at high plant density was the highest, being 14.6 and 31.1% higher than that under regular irrigation
at moderate plant density and saturation irrigation at low plant
density.

Cotton is a considerably drought tolerant crop, but drought has

signicant impact on its yield and quality. Irrigation is essential for
cotton growing in arid regions like northwestern China. Appropriate irrigation is one of the most effective means to promote plant
growth and development, as well as the yield and quality of cotton
(Guo et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2012). Based on years of research and
practice, a culture system for cotton characterized by plastic lm
coverage, full drip irrigation under mulch and medium plant density has been developed and widely adopted in northwest of China
(Dai and Dong, 2014). In this system, cotton is grown at a plant
density of 18 plant/m2 , ood irrigated with 22503000 m3 /ha
before sowing and drip irrigated 1012 times with 4000 m3 /ha
(Shen et al., 2010; Ma and Sun, 2013). Results in the rst experiment showed that drip irrigation with a water regime ranging
from 4000 to 4700 m3 /ha plus ood irrigation with 2250 m3 /ha
before sowing at a medium plant density (18 plants/m2 ) produced
the optimum seedcotton or lint yield, while over irrigation with
5050 m3 /ha or decit irrigation with 3300 or 2950 m3 /ha significantly reduced cotton yield. Therefore, it is quite appropriate to
apply a drip irrigation water regime of 4000 m3 /ha as regular irrigation in the experimental area. Results in the second experiment
showed that plant density ranging from 18 to 24 plants/m2 produced more seedcotton than 12 plants/m2 under regular irrigation.
Increasing the irrigation regime to saturation did not increase cotton yield regardless of plant density, while saturation irrigation at
high plant density even reduced cotton yield compared with regular irrigation at medium plant density. Although at low or medium
plant density, decit irrigation with 20% water reduction decreased
yield, at high plant density it produced comparable yield to regular irrigation and increased irrigation water productivity (IWP).
The IWP is expressed as sedcotton yield per unit irrigation water
applied (Howell et al., 1990, 2004). It is often considered an important determinant of yield under water decit conditions. Effective
use of water (EUW) implies maximal soil moisture capture for transpiration which also involves reduced non-stomatal transpiration
and minimal water loss by soil evaporation. Very often, high WUE
is achieved at the expense of reduced EUW (Blum, 2009). In our
study under decit irrigation, however, high plant density resulted
in greater seedcotton yield and EUW than low and medium plant
density, showing full consistency of IWP with EUW under decit
irrigation. This study conrmed that decit irrigation with high
plant density is more benecial than the traditional full irrigation in
northwest inland area from the standpoints of water conservation
and IWP improvement. An appropriate increase in plant density
under decit irrigation is an essential practice to save water without
yield reduction (yield stability).

3.4. Effects of irrigation and plant density on cotton ber quality

4.2. Water saving and yield stability under decit irrigation plus
high plant density are attributed to moderate biological yield and
high harvest index

The effects of treatments on ber parameters varied between

experimental years (Table 6). Fiber quality parameters (length,
micronaire and strength) in 2014 and ber strength in 2015 were
not affected by irrigation regime, plant density, or their interaction, but ber length and micronaire were signicantly inuenced
by irrigation regime in 2015. Fiber length was reduced by 4.7% and
micronaire was increased by 8.4% under decit irrigation compared
with regular irrigation in 2015. Decit irrigation led to reduced
length and nesse of cotton ber (Table 7).

Ko and Piccinni (2009) showed that plant water status under

limited irrigation management can be monitored using leaf gas
exchange, which in turn can be useful for describing yield reduction due to water decit. In an indoor pot experiment, Shi et al.
(2004) showed that timely and moderate water decit reduced
the transpiration rate and stomatal conductance of cotton leaves
without signicant reduction in Pn. Cotton responded to moderate and serious water decit by decreasing stomatal conductance,
thereby limiting photosynthetic (Pn) rate and decreasing lint yield

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, D., et al., Effects of decit irrigation and plant density on the growth, yield and ber quality of
irrigated cotton. Field Crops Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.06.003

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

FIELD-6722; No. of Pages 9

D. Zhang et al. / Field Crops Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Table 4
Effects of irrigation regime and plant density on the growth and dry matter partitioning of cotton in 2014 and 2015.
Plant density (Plant/m2 )

Pna (molCO2 /m2 S1 )

Plant height (cm)

Stem diameter (mm)

Max LAI

Biomass (kg/ha)

Harvest index

Irrigation
SI
RI
DI

26.84a
27.24a
27.36a

76.16a
73.16b
70.85c

9.98b
10.56ab
11.13a

4.06a
3.66b
3.51c

15564
14541
13592

0.388b
0.426a
0.437a

Plant density
24
18
12

27.51a
27.01a
26.92a

75.83a
73.43ab
70.92b

10.04b
10.43ab
11.19a

4.07a
3.88b
3.28c

15431
14535
13731

0.395b
0.424ab
0.431a

Irrigation density
SI 24
SI 18
SI 12
RI 24
RI 18
RI 12
DI 24
DI 18
DI 12

27.31a
26.91a
26.30a
27.08a
26.71a
27.94a
28.14a
27.42a
26.53a

79.00a
76.13b
73.36c
75.04bc
73.56c
70.88d
73.46c
70.59d
68.51e

9.42e
9.97de
10.55c
9.87e
10.48cd
11.32ab
10.83bc
10.84bc
11.71a

4.25a
4.11b
3.81cd
4.05bc
3.81cd
3.11e
3.92c
3.71d
2.91f

15905a
15502ab
15284bc
15478ab
14739d
13406e
14909cd
13364e
12503f

0.352d
0.399c
0.412bc
0.401c
0.434a
0.443a
0.431a
0.441a
0.439a

a
Net photosynthetic (Pn) rate was measured on the fourth main-stem leaf at peak owering. Max leaf area index (LAI) was measured at peak boll setting. Plant height,
stem diameter, total biomass and harvest index were determined at harvest. SI, RI and DI represent situation, regular and decit irrigation, respectively.

For each treatment effect, means within a column followed by same letters are not signicantly different at p < 0.05.

Table 5
Statistical signicance for yield, yield components and irrigation water productivity (IWP) of cotton under different irrigation regimes and plant densities.
Source of variance

Boll density (P > F)

Boll weight (P > F)

Lint percentage (P > F)

Seedcotton yield (P > F)

Lint yield (P > F)

IWP (P > F)

Year (Y)
Irrigation (I)
Plant density (PD)
YI
Y PD
I PD
Y I PD

0.0001
0.0193
0.0001
nsa
ns
0.0000
ns

0.0415
0.5022
0.0000
ns
ns
0.2059
ns

0.0201
0.2339
0.6489
ns
ns
0.6491
ns

0.0040
0.0197
0.0228
ns
ns
0.0000
ns

0.0201
0.0002
0.0051
ns
ns
0.0000
ns

0.0220
0.0195
0.0100
ns
ns
0.0004
ns

ns means non signicance.

Table 6
Effects of irrigation and plant density on cotton yield, yield components and irrigation water productivity (IWP) of cotton.
Plant density (Plant/m2 )

Boll density (no/m2 )

Boll weight (g)

Lint percentage (%)

Seedcotton yield (kg/ha)

Lint yield (kg/ha)

IWP (kg/m3 )

Irrigation
SI
RI
DI

94.7ba
97.7a
94.0b

6.36a
6.33a
6.32a

39.90a
40.39a
39.71a

6027ab
6180a
5934b

2404ab
2496a
2357b

0.86c
0.99b
1.09a

Plant density
24
18
12

98.5a
97.0a
90.8b

6.17c
6.35b
6.50a

39.90a
40.39a
39.71a

6074a
6158ab
5908b

2424a
2482a
2352b

0.99a
1.00a
0.95b

Irrigation density
SI 24
SI 18
SI 12
RI 24
RI 18
RI 12
DI 24
DI 18
DI 12

91.0cd
97.6cd
95.4bc
100.6b
100.8b
91.7cd
103.9a
92.7d
85.4d

6.15d
6.34c
6.60a
6.17d
6.35c
6.48ab
6.18d
6.35c
6.43bc

40.07a
39.99a
39.64a
39.86a
40.87a
40.45a
39.79a
40.04a
39.30a

5595c
6187ab
6298a
6206a
6399a
5934b
6423a
5888b
5491c

2242cd
2474b
2497ab
2474b
2615a
2400b
2556a
2358bc
2158d

0.80d
0.88cd
0.90c
1.00b
1.03b
0.95bc
1.18a
1.08b
1.01b

Means within a column followed by same letters are not signicantly different at p < 0.05.
a
SI, RI and DI represent situation, regular and decit irrigation, respectively.

(Chastain et al., 2014). In the present eld study, the photosynthetic

rate of the main stem functional leaves did not exhibit signicant decline under decit irrigation, while the vegetative growth
was subject to some limits as indicated by reduced plant height
and biological yield, being consistent with some previous studies (Cao et al., 2012; Guo et al., 2015; Meng et al., 2008). It was
also found that the plants became robust as the stem diameter signicantly increased under decit irrigation. More assimilates

were partitioned to reproductive organs and the harvest index was

thus signicantly increased, which should be one of the important
mechanisms of yield stability under decit irrigation.
Although decit irrigation increases harvest index by partitioning more assimilates to reproductive organs (bolls), raising
biological yield is still essential to maintaining yield stability (Dai
and Dong, 2014). In the present study, increased plant density signicantly increased biological yield, and there was a signicant

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, D., et al., Effects of decit irrigation and plant density on the growth, yield and ber quality of
irrigated cotton. Field Crops Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.06.003

G Model
FIELD-6722; No. of Pages 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Zhang et al. / Field Crops Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Table 7
Effects of irrigation and plant density on cotton ber quality in 2014 and 2015.
Treatment

2014

2015

Lengtha (mm)

Micronaire

Strength (cN/tex)

Length (mm)

Micronaire

Strength (cN/tex)

Irrigation (I)
SI
RI
DI

29.89a
29.86a
29.76a

4.62a
4.68a
4.76a

29.61a
29.74a
29.17a

29.78a
29.66a
28.28b

4.52b
4.55b
4.93a

29.12a
29.32a
29.39a

Plant density (PD)

24
18
12

29.79a
29.90a
29.83a

4.68a
4.75a
4.64a

29.41a
29.52a
29.59a

29.32a
29.26a
29.14a

4.66a
4.59a
4.75a

29.21a
29.36a
29.26a

ns
ns
ns

ns
ns
ns

0.0020
ns
ns

0.0150
ns
ns

ns
ns
ns

Source of variance (P > F)

Irrigation
ns
Plant density
ns
I PD
ns
a

Average length of the upper part of ber. SI, RI and DI represent situation, regular and decit irrigation, respectively.
For each treatment effect, means within a column followed by same letters are not signicantly different at p < 0.05. ns means non signicance.

interaction effect of plant density with irrigation regime on cotton yield. Thus, it is very important to increase plant density for
yield stability by increasing biological yield. Reasonable changes in
leaf area index are important guarantee of high cotton yield (Dong
et al., 2006). Compared with full irrigation, decit irrigation delayed
the attainment of peak LAI. The peak value under decit irrigation was lower than that under regular or saturation irrigation, but
the duration was longer. It should be noted that high plant density maintained a relatively greater LAI than medium or low plant
density under decit irrigation. Thus, under decit irrigation, an
appropriate increase in plant density can create a reasonable population structure, and maintain a relatively strong photosynthetic
capacity and delay leaf senescence during late growth and development, which are benecial to ensure dry matter supply for yield
formation.
Optimum irrigation scheduling and integrated crop nutrition
can improve net assimilation rate (NAR) of cotton that in turn
may result to an improved seed cotton yield (Saleem et al., 2010).
The NAR under decit irrigation was signicantly greater than that
under regular irrigation. This may be because decit irrigation produced relatively smaller leaves and reduced the mutual shading
of lower leaves, resulting in relatively higher photosynthetic rate
in the lower leaves than regular or saturation irrigation (Zheng
et al., 2014). The NAR was also affected by plant density and the
interaction with irrigation regime in the present study. The higher
seedcotton yield under decit irrigation with high plant density
than that under regular irrigation with high plant density or saturation irrigation with either plant density was possibly attributed
to relatively high NAR.
4.3. Decit irrigation at high plant density produced comparable
seedcotton yield to regular irrigation at medium plant density by
improving the number of bolls and boll weight
Yield and yield components are greatly inuenced by plant density, irrigation regime or other agronomic practices (Nichols et al.,
2004; Buston et al., 1977). Bednarz et al. (2000) indicated that
lower plant density produced greater fruiting site per plant as well
as larger bolls. As plant density increased, the mean net assimilation rate decreased, resulting to reduced fruiting site production,
fruit retention, and boll weight. Although smaller individual plants
and bolls were produced at higher plant populations, more nodes
and total bolls per ground area were achieved than at lower plant
density (Nichols et al., 2004; Buston et al., 1977). These combined
effects show that cotton yield could be stabilized across a wide
range of plant densities through manipulation of boll occurrence
and boll weight either under extensive or intensive eld manage-

ment (Bednarz et al., 2000; Dai et al., 2015). In the present study,
neither irrigation nor plant density had signicant effects on lint
percentage; boll weight increased with decreasing in plant density. The boll density was affected by the interaction of irrigation
and plant density. Boll density did not differ among the three plant
densities under saturation irrigation, being higher than those at
low plant density under regular irrigation and being the highest at
high plant density under decit irrigation. Cotton shows a strong
self-regulation capacity through adjusting the number of bolls or
boll weight to maintain a relatively stable productivity even under
decit irrigation conditions. The self-regulation capacity of cotton
seems to be improved with increased plant density under decit
irrigation.
4.4. Effects of decit irrigation on ber quality differed between
years and this yearly variation should be noted
Several reports have indicated little adverse effects of decit
irrigation on cotton ber quality. Based on a comprehensive analysis of the impact of decit irrigation on ber quality, Meng et al.
(2008) indicated that moderate water decit had no adverse effects
on ber quality. Papastylianou and Argyrokastritis (2014) reported
that use of limited drip irrigation supplying 50% of water requirement had signicant benets in terms of saved irrigation water
although it led to a moderate decrease in yield without signicant
negative impact on ber quality parameters. Still other reports suggested that the effects of decit irrigation depended on the duration
and timing of water stress. Generally, moderate water decit during ber elongation and development usually reduced ber length
and strength, and increased the micronaire value (Dagdelen et al.,
2009; Pettigrew, 2004; Balkcom et al., 2006). In the present study
we found that neither irrigation nor planting density had signicant effect on cotton ber quality in 2014. Fiber length was also
not affected under decit irrigation in 2015. However, decit irrigation reduced the ber length and increased the micronaire value,
resulting to shorter and thicker ber in 2015. The response of ber
strength was consistent with the report of Pettigrew (2004) that
irrigation had no effect on ber strength. The reason might be
because ber strength is determined by a few major genes, rather
than by variations in the growth environment (May, 1999). The
response of micronaire value was also consistent with previous
reports that the value decreased as irrigation increased (Davidonis
et al., 1996; Lascano and Hicks, 1999; Elms et al., 2001; Pettigrew,
2004; Balkcom et al., 2006). Although yearly difference in irrigation
effects on some ber parameters might be due to meteorological difference between successive years, it is still not yet certain if
the phenomenon of reduced ber quality under decit irrigation is

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, D., et al., Effects of decit irrigation and plant density on the growth, yield and ber quality of
irrigated cotton. Field Crops Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.06.003

G Model
FIELD-6722; No. of Pages 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Zhang et al. / Field Crops Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx

accidental or universal. The underlying mechanism of ber quality

changes under decit irrigation is also largely unclear. The reduction in ber quality in 2015 should be noted and handled properly.
Selection and application of cotton cultivars with better ber quality, especially with thin and long bers would be preferred to cope
with the possible adverse effects of decit irrigation.
5. Conclusion
Increased plant density improved biological yield and the number of bolls per ground area, while decit irrigation promoted the
partitioning of assimilates to the reproductive organs, resulting to
increased harvest index relative to regular irrigation. This is important for understanding the impacts of different irrigation regimes
and plant density on plant growth and yield formation. Cotton
grown at a relatively high plant density under decit irrigation produced comparable seedcotton yield while saving 20% of irrigation
water. Thus, appropriately increased plant density under decit
irrigation can be a promising alternative for water saving without
yield reduction in arid areas. Decit irrigation at high plant density
did not affect ber quality in 2014, but reduced ber length and
increased ber micronaire value in 2015. Although such a reduction
in ber quality might be an accidental phenomenon due to meteorological changes, it seems that decit irrigation may impair ber
quality. Adoption of cotton cultivars with thinner and longer bers
would be an effective measure to cope with the risk of impairment.
In addition, DeTar (2008) reported a signicant yield reduction
of cotton under decit irrigation in a saline eld, suggesting that
decit irrigation is conditional. The yearly variation in ber quality
under decit irrigation and the requirements for adoption of decit
irrigation should be further studied.
Acknowledgments
This work was nancially supported by the earmarked fund for
China Agricultural Research System (CARS-18-21), and a special
fund for Taishan Scholars (no. tspd20150213; no. tshw20110218)
from Shandong Provincial Government.
References
Balkcom, K.S., Reeves, D.W., Shaw, J.N., Burmester, C.H., Curtis, L.M., 2006. Cotton
yield and ber quality from irrigated tillage systems in the Tennessee Valley.
Agron. J. 98, 596602.
Bednarz, C.W., Bridges, D.C., Brown, S.M., 2000. Analysis of cotton yield
stabilityacross population densities. Agron. J. 92, 128135.
Blum, A., 2009. Effective use of water (EUW) and not water-use efciency (WUE) is
the target of crop yield improvement under drought stress. Field Crops Res.
112, 119123.
Buston, D.R., Briggs, R.E., Patterson, L.L., Watkins, S.D., 1977. Canopy characteristics
of narrow-row cotton as inuenced by plant density. Agron. J. 69, 929933.
Cao, W., Ma, Y.J., Zhang, S.J., Zhuang, L.L., 2012. Study on decit irrigation
technology for cotton border irrigation in arid areataking Yuli County as an
example. Water Saving Irri. (8), 48.
Chastain, D.R., Snider, J.L., Collins, G.D., Perry, C.D., Whitaker, J., Byrd, S.A., 2014.
Water decit in eld-grown Gossypium hirsutum primarily limits net
photosynthesis by decreasing stomatal conductance, increasing
photorespiration, and increasing the ratio of dark respiration to gross
photosynthesis. J. Plant Physiol. 171, 15761585.
Chen, Y.Z., Dong, H.Z., 2016. Mechanisms and regulation of senescence and
maturity performance in cotton. Field Crops Res. 189, 19.
Dagdelen, N., Basal, E., Ylmaz, E., Grbz, T., Akcay, K., 2009. Different drip
irrigation regimes affect cotton yield: water use efciency and ber quality in
western Turkey. Agric. Water Manag. 96, 111120.
Dai, J.L., Dong, H.Z., 2014. Intensive cotton farming technologies in China
achievements, challenges and countermeasures. Field Crops Res. 155, 99110.
Dai, J.L., Li, W.J., Tang, W., Zhang, D.M., Li, Z.H., Lu, H.Q., Eneji, A.E., Dong, H.Z., 2015.
Manipulation of dry matter accumulation and partitioning with plant density
in relation to yield stability of cotton under intensive management. Field Crops
Res. 180, 207215.
Davidonis, G.H., Johnson, A., Landivar, J., Hinojosa, O., 1996. Inuence of
low-weight seeds and motes on the ber properties of other cotton seeds.
Field Crops Res. 48, 141153.

DeTar, W.R., 2008. Yield and growth characteristics for cotton under various
irrigation regimes in sandy soil. Agric. Water Manag. 95, 6976.
Dong, H.Z., Li, W.J., Tang, W., Zhang, D.M., Li, Z.H., 2006. Yield, quality and leaf
senescence of cotton grown at varying planting dates and plant densities in the
Yellow River Valley of China. Field Crops Res. 98, 106115.
Elms, M.K., Green, C.J., Johnson, P.N., 2001. Variability of cotton yield and quality.
Commun. Soil Sci. Plan. Anal. 32, 351368.
Ertek, A., Kanber, R., 2003. Effects of different drip irrigation programs on the boll
number and shedding percentage and yield of cotton. Agr. Water Manag. 60,
111.
Feng, L., Bufon, V.B., Mills, C.R., Hequet, E., Bordovsky, J.P., Keeling, W., Boman, R.,
Bednarz, C.W., 2011. Effects of irrigation cultivar, and plant density on cotton
within-boll ber quality. Agron. J. 103, 297303.
Feng, L., Mathis, G., Ritchie, G., Han, Y.C., Li, Y.B., Wang, G.P., Zhi, X.Y., Bednarz,
C.W., 2014. Optimizing irrigation and plant density for improved cotton yield
and ber quality. Agron. J. 106, 11111118.
Gerik, T.J., Faver, K.L., Thaxton, P.M., El-Zik, K.M., 1996. Late season water stress in
cotton: I. Plant growth, water use, and yield. Crop Sci. 36, 914921.
Guo, R.S., Lin, T., Tian, L.W., Cui, J.P., Xu, H.J., 2015. Effect of regulated decit
irrigation on photosynthesis and chlorophyll uorescence characteristics in
owering and boll-forming stages of island cotton. Agric. Res. Arid Areas 33
(2), 130135.
Howell, T.A., Cuence, R.H., Solomon, K.H., 1990. Crop yield response. In: Hoffman,
G.J., et al. (Eds.), Management of Farm Irrigation Systems. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI,
p. 312.
Howell, T.A., Evett, S.R., Tolk, J.A., Schneider, A.D., 2004. Evapotranspiration of full-,
decit-irrigated, and dry land cotton on the Northern Texas High Plains. J. Irrig.
Drain. Eng. 130, 277285.
Ibragimov, N., Evett, S.R., Esanbekov, Y., Kamilov, B.S., Mirzaev, L., Lamers, J.P.A.,
2007. Water use efciency of irrigated cotton in Uzbekistan under drip and
furrow irrigation. Agr. Water Manag. 90, 112120.
Kang, Y.H., Wang, R.S., Wan, S.Q., Hu, W., Jiang, S.F., Liu, S.P., 2012. Effects of
different water levels on cotton growth and water use through drip irrigation
in an arid region with saline ground water of Northwest China. Agric. Water
Manag. 109, 117126.
Karam, F., Lahoud, R., Masaad, R., Daccache, A., Mounzer, O., Rouphael, Y., 2006.
Water use and lint yield response of drip irrigated cotton to the length of
irrigation season. Agric. Wwater Manag. 85, 287295.
Kirda, C., Kanber, R., Tulucu, K., 1999. Yield response of cotton, maize, soybean,
sugarbeet, sunower, and wheat to decit irrigation. In: Kirda, C., Moutonnet,
P., Hera, C., Nielsen, D.R. (Eds.), Crop Yield Response to Decit Irrigation.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 2138.
Ko, J., Piccinni, G., 2009. Characterizing leaf gas exchange responses of cotton to
full and limited irrigation conditions. Field Crops Res. 112, 7789.
Lascano, R.J., Hicks, S.K., 1999. Cotton lint yield and ber quality as a function of
irrigation level and termination dates in the Texas High Plains. In: Richter, D.A.
(Ed.), Proceeding Beltwide Cotton Conf., Orlando, FL. January 37 Natl. Cotton
Counc. Am., Memphis, Tennessee, pp. 19961998.
Li, H., Lascanob, R.J., 2011. Decit irrigation for enhancing sustainable water use:
comparison of cotton nitrogen uptake and prediction of lint yield in a
multivariate autoregressive state-space model. Environ. Exp. Bot. 71, 224231.
Ma, X.L., Sun, X.F., 2013. Cultivation technology of cotton high yield in Hami city.
Xinjiang Agric. Sci. Technol. (4), 2122.
May, O.L., 1999. Genetic variation in ber quality. In: Basra, A.S. (Ed.), Cotton
Fibers. Food Products Press, New York, pp. 183229.
Meng, Z.J., Bian, X.M., Liu, A.N., Pang, H.B., Wang, H.Z., 2008. Effect of regulated
decit irrigation on growth and development characteristics in cotton and its
yield and ber quality. Cotton Sci. 20 (1), 3944.
Nichols, S.P., Snipe, C.E., Jones, M.A., 2004. Cotton growth, lint yield, and ber
quality as affected by row spacing and cultivar. J. Cotton Sci. 8, 112.
Oweis, T.Y., Farahani, H.J., Hachum, A.Y., 2011. Evapotra nspiration and water use
of full and decit irrigated cotton in the Mediterranean environment in
northern Syria. Agric. Water Manag. 98, 12391248.
Papastylianou, P.T., Argyrokastritis, I.G., 2014. Effect of limited drip irrigation
regime on yield, yield components, and ber quality of cotton under
Mediterranean conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 142, 127134.
Pereira, L.S., Oweis, T., Zairi, A., 2002. Irrigation management under water scarcity.
Agric. Water Manag. 57, 175206.
Pettigrew, W.T., 2004. Moisture decit effect on cotton lint yield, yield
components, and boll distribution. Agron. J. 96, 377383.
Rao, S.S., Tanwar, S.P.S., Regar, P.L., 2016. Effect of decit irrigation, phosphorous
inoculation and cycocel spray on root growth: seed cotton yield and water
productivity of drip irrigated cotton in arid environment. Agric. Water Manag.
169, 1425.
Saleem, M., Maqsood, M., Javaid, A., 2010. Optimum irrigation and integrated
nutrition improves the crop growth and net assimilation rate of cotton
(Gossypium hirsutum L.). Pak. J. Bot. 42, 36593669.
Shen, X.J., Chen, H.M., Sun, J.S., 2010. Response of different water decit on cotton
growth and water use efciency and yield under mulched drip irrigation. J.
Irrig. Dra. 29, 4043.
Shi, W.J., Kang, S.Z., Song, X.Y., 2004. Physiology of growth control of cotton under
regulated decit irrigation. Agric. Res. Arid Areas. 22, 9195.
Singh, Y., Rao, S.S., Regar, P.L., 2010. Decit irrigation and nitrogen effects on seed
cotton yield: water productivity and yield response factor in shallow soils of
semi-arid environment. Agric. Water Manag. 97, 965970.

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, D., et al., Effects of decit irrigation and plant density on the growth, yield and ber quality of
irrigated cotton. Field Crops Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.06.003

G Model
FIELD-6722; No. of Pages 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Zhang et al. / Field Crops Research xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Stamatiadis, S., Tsadilas, C., Samaras, V., Schepers, J.S., Eskridge, K., 2016. Nitrogen
uptake and N-use efciency of Mediterranean cotton under varied decit
irrigation and N fertilization. Eur. J. Agron. 73, 144151.
Tang, Q.Y., Feng, M.G., 2002. DPS Data Processing System for Practical Statistics.
China Agriculture Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
Unl, M., Kanber, R., Ko, D.L., Tekin, S., Kapur, B., 2011. Effects of decit irrigation
on the yield and yield components of drip irrigated cotton in a Mediterranean
environment. Agric. Water Manag. 98, 597605.
Wang, Z.M., Jin, M.G., Simunek, J., van Genuchten, M.Th., 2014. Evaluation of
mulched drip irrigation for cotton in arid Northwest China. Irrig. Sci. 32, 1527.
Wanjura, D.F., Upchurch, D.R., Mahan, J.R., Burke, J.J., 2002. Cotton yield and applied
water relationships under drip irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 55, 217237.

Yang, C.J., Luo, Y., Sun, L., Wu, N., 2015. Effect of decit irrigation on the growth,
water use characteristics and yield of cotton in arid Northwest China.
Pedosphere 25, 910924.
Yazar, A., Sezen, S.M., Sesveren, S., 2002. LEPA and trickle irrigation of cotton in the
Southeast Anatolia Project (GAP) area in Turkey. Agric. Water Manag. 54,
189203.
Zheng, H.B., Liu, J.X., Yao, L., He, H., Huang, H., 2014. Effect of ridge and terraced
ecological rice farming on rice photosynthetic characteristics and yield. Chin. J.
Appl. Ecol. 25 (9), 25982604.
Zhou, S.Q., Wang, J., Liu, J.X., Yang, J.H., Xu, Y., Li, J.H., 2012. Evapotranspiration of a
drip-irrigated lm-mulched cotton eld in northern Xinjiang, China. Hydrol.
Process. 26, 11691178.

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, D., et al., Effects of decit irrigation and plant density on the growth, yield and ber quality of
irrigated cotton. Field Crops Res. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.06.003