Intervention effectmodel-written summary

A wheat cover crop significantly increased no-till cotton yield by 11.96%, or 110 lbs of lint per acre.

A claim from No‐Till Cotton Yield Response to a Wheat Cover Crop in Mississippi · 2004

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

A wheat cover crop significantly increased no-till cotton yield by 11.96%, or 110 lbs of lint per acre.

Treatment
A wheat cover crope0
Outcome
yield of no‐till cottone0
Direction
increasee0
Value
11.96% or 110 lbs of lint per acree0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingQualifier

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A wheat cover crop was found to significantly increase the yield of no‐till cotton an average of 11.96% or 110 lbs of lint per acre.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 291–423

Title

No‐Till Cotton Yield Response to a Wheat Cover Crop in Mississippi

Dave W. Parvin; Seth Dabney; Steve Cummings Crop Management 2004. doi:10.1094/cm-2004-0416-01-rs

Other claims from this paper (1)

Record rev-6eaf7c8ed0f8acedd80a300fc70fcb1d0ea018624726f1c5dd1963f5d5da460d · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

Triticum aestivum · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

30 papers: 21 positive, 9 negative or no effect

20 papers in the same direction as this claim · 8 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
    Cotton yield was unaffected by wheat, rye or mustard blend cover crops.

    Evaluation of Cereal and Brassicaceae Cover Crops in Conservation-Tillage, Enhanced, Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton · 2011

    Opposite direction

  2. no effect
    Long-term simulations found no substantial reduction in average seed cotton yield with winter wheat cover crop.

    Simulated Effects of Winter Wheat Cover Crop on Cotton Production Systems of the Texas Rolling Plains · 2017

    Opposite direction

  3. no effect
    Three-year cotton-corn-wheat-soybean rotation gave little long-term cotton yield advantage beyond soil organic carbon effects.

    A Historical Summary of Alabama's Old Rotation (circa 1896): The World's Oldest, Continuous Cotton Experiment · 2008

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    No-till with a winter wheat cover crop maintained comparable cotton yield.

    Effect of Tillage on Surface Runoff and Soil Loss from Cotton · 1987

    Opposite direction

  5. negative
    Cotton after wheat had lower lint yield than cotton after fallow.

    Cover cropping history affects cotton boll distribution, lint yields, and fiber quality · 2023 · compared with fallow

    Opposite direction

  6. negative
    Adding winter wheat cover reduced modeled net returns by $16/acre due to purchased inputs.

    Profit, Cost, and Soil Erosion Implications of Dryland Crop Production Systems: Texas High Plains · 1992

    Opposite direction

  7. negative
    Growing cotton on wide ridges of the preceding wheat crop reduced yield and yield components.

    The Effect of Date and Pattern of Sowing on Growth, Productivity and Technological Characters of Cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.) Variety Giza 86 · 2017

    Opposite direction

  8. negative
    Cotton yield after wheat harvest decreased 9.79% compared with intercropping.

    Comparison of Comprehensive Benefit of Transplanting Cotton after Wheat Harvest and Wheat-cotton Intercropping · 2010 · compared with wheat-cotton intercropping

    Opposite direction

21 papers more in this group

See all 30 papers →

cover crop · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

44 papers: 18 positive, 26 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this claim · 21 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
    For cover crops and poultry litter, yield benefits and/or N fertilizer savings did not offset input costs.

    Crop rotation, cover crop, and poultry litter effects on no‐tillage cotton profitability · 2021

    Opposite directionCites this paper

  2. negative
    Transitioning to cover crops reduced cotton net returns by $50.22 to $307.87 per hectare.

    Impact of Cover Crop Species on Soil Physical Properties, Cotton Yield, and Profitability · 2021 · compared with conventional

    Opposite directionCites this paper

  3. negative
    Gross margins were lower with no tillage rye cover than conventional tillage.

    Soil Benefits and Yield Limitations of Cover Crop Use in Texas High Plains Cotton · 2018 · compared with conventional tillage

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Long-term simulations found no substantial reduction in average seed cotton yield with winter wheat cover crop.

    Simulated Effects of Winter Wheat Cover Crop on Cotton Production Systems of the Texas Rolling Plains · 2017

    Opposite direction

  5. negative
    Cereal cover crops lowered cotton yield versus other treatments.

    Cover Crops Suppression of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Cotton · 2017 · compared with other treatments

    Opposite direction

  6. negative
    Cotton yield was reduced in the cover crop plots.

    Cover crop, rye residue and in‐furrow treatment effects on thrips · 2006

    Opposite direction

  7. negative
    Cover crops reduced cotton seed yield, with effects varying by year.

    Allelopathic Influence of a Wheat or Rye Cover Crop on Growth and Yield of No‐Till Cotton · 2013

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Cover crop treatment did not significantly alter seed cotton yield.

    Evaluation of winter cover crops in cotton cropping for management of Rotylenchulus reniformis. · 2006

    Opposite direction

35 papers more in this group

See all 44 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.