The tillage operations required to grow an annual barley and cotton crop rotation were reduced by eliminating tillage prior to planting cotton, eliminating cultivations for weed control in cotton, and especially by eliminating tillage following cotton. A light activated, weed sensing automatic spot-spray system reduced the amount of spray volume and herbicide used by 40% to 60% at Marana and 36% to 56% at Maricopa in 2004. At Maricopa, a large number of volunteer cotton plants in the furrows of early planted no-till cotton reduced the spray volume savings from using the weed sensing automatic spot-spray system. Weed control was similar with the weed sensing, automatic spot-spray system compared to the conventional continuous spray system for most weed species but weeds with narrow leaf, upright leaf canopies such as sprangletop, barley and skeleton weed were more difficult to detect and control. In both Marana and Maricopa, there were yield differences between treatments related to planting date, with late-planted cotton yielding less than early-planted cotton. At Marana, the early-planted conventional tillage cotton out-yielded the barley cover crop, early-planted no-till cotton treatment. At Maricopa, there were no yield differences between the two early planted cotton treatments; however, the late-planted conventionally tilled cotton yielded 28% more than the late-planted no-till cotton. Although the yield comparisons are not yet definitive, it appears that in some situations no-till cotton may yield less than conventionally tilled cotton. At Maricopa, the height of cereal crop stubble did not affect subsequent cotton establishment, field populations, plant height or lint production (2003 and 2004) and the position or node of the first fruiting branch and the first retained boll were similarly unaffected in 2004.

Field experiments aimed at investigating N fertilizer management in irrigated cotton production have been conducted for the past 16 seasons at three Arizona locations on University of Arizona Agricultural Centers (Maricopa, MAC; Marana, MAR; and Safford, SAC). In 2004, residual N studies were conducted at two of these locations (MAC and MAR). The MAC and SAC experiments have been conducted each season since 1989 and the Marana site was initiated in 1994. The original purposes of the experiments were to test nitrogen (N) fertilization strategies and to validate and refine N fertilization recommendations for Upland (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and American Pima (G. barbadense L.) cotton. The experiments have each utilized N management tools such as pre-season soil tests for NO₃⁻-N, in-season plant tissue testing (petioles) for N fertility status, and crop monitoring to ascertain crop fruiting patterns and crop N needs. At each location, treatments varied from a conservative to a more aggressive approach of N management. Results at each location reveal a strong relationship between the crop fruit retention levels and N needs for the crop. This pattern was further reflected in final yield analysis as a response to the N fertilization regimes used. The higher, more aggressive N application regimes did not consistently increase yields at any location. Generally, the more conservative, feedback approach to N management provided optimum yields at all locations. In 2001, a transition project evaluating the residual N effects associated with each treatment regime was initiated and no fertilizer N was applied. Therefore, all N taken-up by the crop was derived from residual soil N. In 2001, 2002, 2003 and even 2004 there were no significant differences among the original fertilizer N regimes in terms of residual soil NO₃⁻-N concentrations, crop growth, development, lint yield, or fiber properties. The lint yields were very uniform at each location in 1991 and averaged 1500, 1100, and 850 lbs. lint/acre for MAC, MAR, and SAC, respectively. In 2002, results were very similar and yields averaged at 1473 and 1060 lbs. lint/acre for MAC and MAR locations respectively. The 2003 results were not different from the prior two years of results and yields averaged at 1322 and 1237 lbs. lint/acre for MAC and MAR respectively. In 2004, yields averaged 828 and 1075 lbs. lint/acre. Trends associated with residual fertilizer N effects are not evident at either location four seasons following N fertilizer applications.

Each year the University of Arizona conducts variety trials across the state to evaluate the performance of upland cotton varieties. These tests provide unbiased data on the performance of varieties when tested side-by-side under typical production practices. In 2004 we planted a total of 11 trials, two in the Yuma region (Yuma County), two in the western region (LaPaz and Mohave counties), four in the central region (Maricopa and Pinal counties), one in the southern region (Pima county), and two in the eastern region (Graham and Cochise counties). We tested seven to eight commercially available varieties at each test site.

An Upland Cotton Breeding Program was initiated in 2001 by the Arizona Cotton Growers Association (ACGA). Major objectives of the breeding program are to develop varieties that produce a superior fiber quality package, high yields, and under a wide range of environmental conditions. In 2004, the seed committee of the ACGA decided to begin an independent testing program in order to quantify the performance of chosen lines developed to date that were meeting the program’s goals. Forty one lines were chosen and evaluated in replicated small plots at two locations including Yuma and Maricopa, AZ. The final data was sorted according to lines that at both locations had a fiber micronaire of 4.9 or less, staple length of 37 or greater, strength of 30 g/tx or greater, a uniformity index of 80 or greater, and yielded in the top 25% of all tested materials. One line was identified according to this criteria, 0122-2033-304.

A single field study was conducted at the University of Arizona Safford Agricultural Center during the 2004 season to evaluate the utilization of a feedback technique that is based upon plant growth and development to schedule applications of the new plant growth regulator (PGR) from BASF, Pentia. A simple three treatment study was constructed consisting of a control treatment (no Pentia application), a scheduled treatment (application of 16 oz/acre at first bloom regardless of plant growth), and a feedback treatment (applications based upon plant growth and development). Application decisions on the feedback treatment were made using height to node ratios (HNR) as a measure of plant vigor. Treatment applications were made on the scheduled regime on 14 July with a one time 16 oz/acre application. The feedback regime received an application (16 oz/acre) of Pentia five days later on 19 July. An additional application (16 oz/acre) was made on the feedback treatment on 3 August due to continued high HNR levels. Significant differences in plant vigor were observed post application among the three treatments as measured by end of season HNR ratios. Yield results indicated positive lint yield response to Pentia application with both the scheduled and feedback treatment producing statistically higher yields than the control. Differences between the feedback and scheduled treatments were not statistically different however a slight yield increase was observed in the scheduled treatment. The second Pentia application made to the feedback treatment was not necessary. End of season HNR measurements indicate that the additional 16 oz/acre application suppressed growth to below the average baseline for HNR. These results indicate that potential positive response to PGR applications, specifically Pentia, under conditions of high vigor.

A single field study was conducted during the 2004 cotton growing season at the University of Arizona Safford Agricultural Center to evaluate the effect of two plant growth regulators (PGRs) manufactured by LT Biosyn Inc. on the growth, development, yield, and fiber quality of cotton grown in the southeastern region of the state. This test was designed as a follow up study to work that was performed in 2003 on a grower cooperator site that demonstrated positive lint yield responses to the use of one of the PGRs used in this project. This was an eight treatment test involving the application of two PGRs, HappyGroTM (HG) and MegaGroTM (MG). The two formulations are intended to have different effects on plant growth and development. The HG formulation is a kinetin based product designed to enhance cell division and differentiation. The MG formulation is designed to enhance root growth early in the season. Several treatment combinations were designed to investigate varying scenarios of application of these two products alone and in conjunction with each other. The test included a control and each treatment was replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. Plant measurements were collected throughout the season to look for differences in plant growth and development. Lint yield was estimated by harvesting the entire plot and weighing the seedcotton with a weigh wagon equipped with load cells. Sub samples were collected for fiber quality and percent lint determinations. Plant measurements revealed extremely high fruit retention levels throughout the entire season with end of season levels near 75%. This high fruit retention resulted in very low vigor. Under these conditions, while lint yield was extremely high for this region (1300-1600 lbs. lint per acre), no statistical differences were observed among treatments. Fiber quality measurements also revealed no significant differences.

A single field trial was conducted during the 2004 season to evaluate three different mepiquat formulations used to control vegetative plant growth. This project involved the evaluation of mepiquat formulations of Mepex Ginout (DuPont), Pix Ultra and Pentia (BASF). These three treatments, along with a control, were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Plots were 20, 36” wide rows and extended for a full one half mile irrigation run. Applications of all treatments were made on 22 July 2004 at a rate of 16 oz/acre for each formulation. Lint yields were determined at the end of the season by harvesting the center eight rows of each plot. The harvested seed cotton was weighed using a weigh wagon equipped with load cells. Sub samples were collected from each plot for fiber quality and lint percent determinations. No significant differences were observed among treatments with respect to any of the fiber quality parameters measured. The Mepex Ginout treatment produced the highest lint yield and also the highest percent lint. The control was not significantly different from the other two formulation treatments. Lint percent values had a major impact on lint yield. The control had the lowest seed cotton yield but because of the higher percent lint values, lint yield for the control was ultimately higher than both the Pentia and Pix Ultra treatments. This study demonstrates the positive effect of the PGR applications and also the effect that percent lint can have on final lint yield.

The cotton (Gossypium spp.) plant is a true perennial with perhaps the most complex structure of all the major field crops. Plants can compensate to a large degree for environmental as well as physical conditions. Much research has been conducted to arrive at plant population recommendations that optimize the yield and quality of the crop. Research conducted in the low desert regions of Arizona suggest that optimum plant density lies somewhere between 25,000 and 50,000 plants per acre. However, cotton crops with plant densities outside of this optimal range still have the ability to yield similarly and maintain premium quality. Accordingly, a research project was conducted comparing four separate plant densities. Objectives included determining effects on yield and fiber quality. The study was laid out in a randomized complete block design with target plant populations of approximately 30K, 50K, 70K, and 90K plants per acre as the treatments. All other inputs were equal across treatments. Throughout the course of the season, plant measurements showed no distinct differences among the treatments. Height-to-Node ratios (an indicator of vegetative tendencies) remained above normal throughout the season for all populations. Fruit retention levels remained optimal throughout the season. Lint yield results revealed that treatment four (90K plants per acre) yielded significantly less that the other three treatments. No significant differences in fiber quality were observed among treatments.

Field experiments were initiated at sites in Marana, Coolidge and Goodyear, Arizona, in the Fall of 2001, in a cotton-based, conservation tillage project. In the 2002 cotton season, following cover and grain crops, soil and water management assessments were made to evaluate the impact of conservation tillage on surface irrigation performance. An additional site was added in the winter of 2002 at Maricopa, Arizona. Analyses included soil texture, infiltration rate and water advancement. At Coolidge, the Conservation plots had higher infiltration rates and longer advance times than the Conventional plots in 2002, 2003 and 2004. At Marana, infiltration rates were initially higher for the Conservation plots but the rates converged at the end of four hours in 2002. In 2003, the Conventional plots infiltrated about one inch more and the opposite occurred in 2004, where the Conservation plots infiltrated about 1 inch more than the Conventional. The advance times for Marana showed the water in the Conventional wheel rows to be the fastest. At Goodyear, the Conservation plots infiltrated more than the Conventional plots in 2002. This also resulted in a slower advance time for the Conservation plots. In 2003, due to tillage by the grower, treatment effects could not be compared and the site was abandoned in 2004. At Maricopa, the Conservation plots infiltrated almost 2.2 inches more water than the Conventional plots and the water reached the end of the field three hours ahead of the fastest Conservation plot in 2003. In 2004, the Conservation plot infiltrated just over 1½ inches more water than the Conventional plots with the Conventional plots having faster advance times. Seasonal irrigation water applications to each treatment were relatively equal for all the sites with the exception of Coolidge. Here, the long field combined with sandy soil made it difficult to adequately irrigate the Conservation plots. In 2002, an additional 21 inches of water was applied to the Conservation plots. In 2003, that amount was reduced to 12.5 inches. The 2004 irrigation data are not yet available. The yield data show a significant difference between years and different sites. In 2002, only the yields measured at Coolidge were significantly different with the Conservation yielding higher than the Conventional. This may have been due to the increase water application. In 2003, the opposite occurred and the Conventional plots yielded more than the Conservation plots. This may have been due to herbicide damage. At Maricopa the Conventional plot also yielded more than the Conservation plot in 2003 but there was no measured difference in 2004. The Marana site had equal yields for both treatments except for the final year, 2004, when the Conventional yielded higher than the Conservation treatment. Indications are that conservation tillage does impact irrigation performance and it may not be suitable for all locations depending on soil type and field layout.