Abstract
The goal of our research is to determine the effects of yellow nutsedge competition on cotton and to examine how the competitive relationship between these two species is modulated by soil moisture. In support of this goal, a competition experiment with various nutsedge densities and three irrigation regimes was conducted at the University of Arizona, Maricopa Agricultural Center. The results of this study indicate that increasing nutsedge density caused a significant linear decrease in cotton seed yield in both 1993 (p=0.03) and 1994 (p=0.002). The cotton yield reductions caused by the highest nutsedge densities, 33 and 50 tubers /m of crop row in 1993 and 1994, respectively, were 13.5 and 15.5 percent, respectively. Stem biomass, an indicator of total above ground biomass, increased significantly with increasing soil moisture. There was also a trend of increasing seed cotton yield with increasing soil moisture with the wet treatment (i.e., irrigation at 35 percent soil moisture depletion) resulting in the highest biomass and yields. In 1994 this trend was significant (p=0.0001) but in 1993 it was not (p=0.098) probably because fewer replications were used in 1993. An important goal of this research was to determine if cotton, with its deeper tap root type of root architecture, is more competitive against yellow nutsedge, which has a fibrous root system, when irrigation is less frequent. However, analysis of variance showed that there was no significant interaction between soil moisture availability and seed cotton yield reductions caused by nutsedge competition in either 1993 (p=0.44) or 1994 (p=0.62).
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing nutsedge density significantly reduced cotton seed yield in both study years.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- increasing nutsedge densitye0
- Outcome
- cotton seed yielde0
- Direction
- decreasee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increasing nutsedge density caused a significant linear decrease in cotton seed yield in both 1993 (p=0.03) and 1994 (p=0.002).”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest nutsedge density reduced cotton yield by 13.5 percent in 1993.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- highest nutsedge densitiese0
- Outcome
- cotton yielde0
- Direction
- reductionse0
- Value
- 13.5e0
- Qualifier
- 1993e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The cotton yield reductions caused by the highest nutsedge densities, 33 and 50 tubers /m of crop row in 1993 and 1994, respectively, were 13.5 and 15.5 percent, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest nutsedge density reduced cotton yield by 15.5 percent in 1994.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- highest nutsedge densitiese0
- Outcome
- cotton yielde0
- Direction
- reductionse0
- Value
- 15.5 percente0
- Qualifier
- 1994e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The cotton yield reductions caused by the highest nutsedge densities, 33 and 50 tubers /m of crop row in 1993 and 1994, respectively, were 13.5 and 15.5 percent, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton stem biomass increased significantly with soil moisture.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Stem biomass, an indicator of total above ground biomass, increased significantly with increasing soil moisture.”
t0“Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton seed yield tended to increase with soil moisture, significantly in 1994.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- increasing soil moisturee0
- Outcome
- seed cotton yielde0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Qualifier
- In 1994 this trend was significant (p=0.0001) but in 1993 it was not (p=0.098)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was also a trend of increasing seed cotton yield with increasing soil moisture with the wet treatment (i.e., irrigation at 35 percent soil moisture depletion) resulting in the highest biomass and yields. In 1994 this trend was significant (p=0.0001) but in 1993 it was not (p=0.098)”
Claim · model-written summary
The wet irrigation treatment gave the highest cotton biomass and yield.
- Treatment
- irrigation at 35 percent soil moisture depletione0
- Outcome
- biomass and yieldse0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“the wet treatment (i.e., irrigation at 35 percent soil moisture depletion) resulting in the highest biomass and yields.”
t0“Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Moisture availability did not significantly modify cotton yield losses from nutsedge competition.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- soil moisture availabilitye0
- Interactor
- nutsedgee0weed
- Outcome
- seed cotton yield reductions caused by nutsedge competitione0
- Direction
- no significant interactione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was no significant interaction between soil moisture availability and seed cotton yield reductions caused by nutsedge competition in either 1993 (p=0.44) or 1994 (p=0.62).”
The same questions in other papers
soil water · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →irrigation · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
303 papers in the same direction as this paper · 86 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
395 papers more in this group
See all 399 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.