Abstract
Abstract The Texas Southern High Plains is a major cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) producing area where a monoculture of conventionally tilled continuous cotton is thought to be causing a downward trend in yields. A factorial experiment with split plot design evaluated the main and interactive effects of (i) cotton‐wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)‐fallow rotation vs. continuous cotton, (ii) no tillage vs. conventional tillage, and (iii) furrow diking vs. no diking on cotton yield and soil water. Effects were determined for both dryland and irrigated production. Of the main factors considered, the cotton–wheat rotation had the greatest positive effect on yield and also on soil water variables. Rotation increased dryland and irrigated lint yields 12.6 and 12.8%, respectively. No tillage significantly increased yields (6.9 and 5.5% for dryland and irrigated, respectively) and enhanced seasonal soil water status. Yield increase due to diking was not statistically significant ( P > 0.05) under continuous cotton production or when wheat was rotated with cotton. The greatest cotton lint yield and soil water increases were obtained when no tillage was combined with the cotton–wheat rotation (20–25% increases). Percent yield increase was directly associated with improved soil water relations resulting from the cropping and tillage treatments.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton–wheat rotation raised dryland cotton lint yield by 12.6%.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- Rotatione0
- Outcome
- dryland and irrigated lint yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 12.6e0
- Setting
- drylande0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Rotation increased dryland and irrigated lint yields 12.6 and 12.8%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton–wheat rotation raised irrigated lint yield by 12.8%.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Rotatione0
- Outcome
- irrigated lint yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 12.8%e0
- Setting
- irrigatede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Rotation increased dryland and irrigated lint yields 12.6 and 12.8%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton–wheat rotation improved soil water variables.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cotton–wheat rotatione0
- Outcome
- soil water variablese0
- Direction
- positivee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“the cotton–wheat rotation had the greatest positive effect on yield and also on soil water variables.”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage significantly increased dryland cotton yield by 6.9%.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- No tillagee0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 6.9e0
- Setting
- drylande0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“No tillage significantly increased yields (6.9 and 5.5% for dryland and irrigated, respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage significantly increased irrigated cotton yield by 5.5%.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- No tillagee0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 5.5%e0
- Setting
- irrigatede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“No tillage significantly increased yields (6.9 and 5.5% for dryland and irrigated, respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage enhanced seasonal soil water status.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- No tillagee0
- Outcome
- seasonal soil water statuse0
- Direction
- enhancede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“No tillage significantly increased yields (6.9 and 5.5% for dryland and irrigated, respectively) and enhanced seasonal soil water status.”
Claim · model-written summary
Furrow diking did not significantly raise cotton yield under continuous cotton or cotton–wheat rotation.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- dikinge0
- Outcome
- Yield increasee0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Qualifier
- under continuous cotton production or when wheat was rotated with cottone0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Yield increase due to diking was not statistically significant ( P > 0.05) under continuous cotton production or when wheat was rotated with cotton.”
Claim · model-written summary
Combining no tillage with cotton–wheat rotation gave the greatest cotton lint yield increase of 20–25%.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- no tillage was combined with the cotton–wheat rotatione0
- Outcome
- cotton lint yielde0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 20–25%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“The greatest cotton lint yield and soil water increases were obtained when no tillage was combined with the cotton–wheat rotation (20–25% increases).”
Claim · model-written summary
Combining no tillage with cotton–wheat rotation gave the greatest soil water increase of 20–25%.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- no tillage was combined with the cotton–wheat rotatione0
- Outcome
- soil watere0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 20–25%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“The greatest cotton lint yield and soil water increases were obtained when no tillage was combined with the cotton–wheat rotation (20–25% increases).”
Claim · model-written summary
Percent cotton yield increase was directly associated with improved soil water relations.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cropping and tillage treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Percent yield increasee0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Qualifier
- improved soil water relationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Percent yield increase was directly associated with improved soil water relations resulting from the cropping and tillage treatments.”
The same questions in other papers
rotation · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →tillage · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 papers →rotation · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
39 papers more in this group
See all 43 papers →tillage · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
112 papers in the same direction as this paper · 38 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
155 papers more in this group
See all 159 papers →rotation · soil: physics · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.