IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agiwat/v277y2023ics0378377422006345.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Row spacing and irrigation management affect soybean yield, water use efficiency and economics

Author

Listed:
  • Singh, Bhupinder
  • Kaur, Gurpreet
  • Quintana-Ashwell, Nicolas E.
  • Singh, Gurbir
  • Lo, Tsz Him
  • Nelson, Kelly A.

Abstract

Declining water levels in the Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer necessitates research on the management practices that can reduce irrigation water use and improve irrigation water use efficiency. A three-year field study from 2019 to 2021 evaluated the effects of row spacing and irrigation management on soybean seed yield and quality, irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE), water productivity (WP), and profitability. Soybean was planted in two row spacings [single- (SR) and twin-row (TR)] and irrigated with three different methods [every row irrigated (ERI), alternate row irrigated (ARI), non-irrigated (NI)]. Soybean yields were increased with application of irrigation either as ERI or ARI as compared to NI in all three years ranging from 20% to 79%. The ERI had 20% increase in yield over ARI in 2021, whereas no significant differences were found between ERI and ARI in 2019 and 2020. Averaged over row spacing, IWUE was 66–91% greater with ARI compared to ERI. Only 2021 showed an increase (34%) in WP with irrigation applied as ARI than NI. Differences in rainfall amount among years and amount of irrigation applied under different treatments affected the soybean yields. Soybean yield showed reduction by 0.37–1.2 kg ha−1 with each unit increase in cumulative stress (kPa-days) for soil moisture potential drier than the −40 kPa on very fine sandy loam soils. Twin-row soybean had higher expected returns in all cases except for the NI and ERI in 2021. The TR soybean produced the greatest average risk-return than other treatments. The ARI with TR had the second highest overall risk-return trade-off. The ARI resulted in an equivalent risk-return production system as ERI for SR soybeans. Alterations in furrow irrigation methods could be more beneficial than row spacing to improve soybean productivity and IWUE.

Suggested Citation

  • Singh, Bhupinder & Kaur, Gurpreet & Quintana-Ashwell, Nicolas E. & Singh, Gurbir & Lo, Tsz Him & Nelson, Kelly A., 2023. "Row spacing and irrigation management affect soybean yield, water use efficiency and economics," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:277:y:2023:i:c:s0378377422006345
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2022.108087
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377422006345
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.108087?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adjemian, Michael K. & Smith, Aaron & He, Wendi, 2021. "Estimating the market effect of a trade war: The case of soybean tariffs," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jingyi Liu & Xiande Li & Junmao Sun, 2023. "China-Australia Trade Relations and China’s Barley Imports," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-13, July.
    2. Ridley, William & Devadoss, Stephen, . "Determinants of Policy Responses in the US–China Tit-for-Tat Trade War," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 49(2).
    3. Lee, Meongsu & Westhoff, Patrick, 2020. "The U.S.-China Trade war and Impact on Land Returning to Soybean Production from the Conservation Reserve Program," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304518, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Yu, Jisang & Villoria, Nelson B. & Hendricks, Nathan P., 2022. "The incidence of foreign market tariffs on farmland rental rates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    5. McKendree, Melissa G. S. & Saitone, Tina L. & Schaefer, K Aleks, 2020. "Cattle Cycle Dynamics in a Modern Agricultural Market: Competition in Holstein Cattle Procurement," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304380, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Tao Xiong & Wendong Zhang & Fangxiao Zhao, 2023. "When China strikes: Quantifying Australian companies' stock price responses to China's trade restrictions," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 67(4), pages 636-671, October.
    7. William Ridley & Stephen Devadoss, 2023. "Competition and trade policy in the world cotton market: Implications for US cotton exports," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(5), pages 1365-1387, October.
    8. Melissa G.S. McKendree & Tina L. Saitone & K. Aleks Schaefer, 2021. "Oligopsonistic Input Substitution in a Thin Market," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(4), pages 1414-1432, August.
    9. Jaerim Choi & Sunghun Lim, 2023. "Tariffs, agricultural subsidies, and the 2020 US presidential election," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(4), pages 1149-1175, August.
    10. Jason H. Grant & Shawn Arita & Charlotte Emlinger & Robert Johansson & Chaoping Xie, 2021. "Agricultural exports and retaliatory trade actions: An empirical assessment of the 2018/2019 trade conflict," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 619-640, June.
    11. Hendricks, Nathan P. & Murphy, Ashling M. & Morgan, Stephen & Padilla, Samantha & Key, Nigel, 2023. "Explaining the Source of Racial Disparities in Market Facilitation Program (MFP) Payments," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 337402, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Shon Ferguson & David Ubilava, 2022. "Global commodity market disruption and the fallout," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(4), pages 737-752, October.
    13. Joseph P. Janzen & Nathan P. Hendricks, 2020. "Are Farmers Made Whole by Trade Aid?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 205-226, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:277:y:2023:i:c:s0378377422006345. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.