Abstract
Surface drip irrigation laterals were spaced next to crop rows (0.91 m) and in alternate row middles (1.83 m) to document crop yield and partial economic returns compared with non‐irrigated areas. A surface drip irrigation system was installed at two sites on a Faceville (Site 1) and a Greenville (Site 2) fine sandy loam with 1 to 3% slope, respectively. Cotton and corn were planted on 0.91‐m row spacing. Drip tube orientations, 0.91 and 1.83 m, had the same corn yield (10,555 kg/ha) compared with the non‐irrigated areas (5,562 kg/ha). Subtracting the cost of corn seed and drip tubing from the two irrigated regimens show that 0.91‐m lateral spacing had $140/ha less net revenue compared with non‐irrigated ($484/ha). The 1.83‐m spaced laterals had $196/ha greater net revenue than the non‐irrigated areas. Cotton lint yield averaged 1194 kg/ha for 0.91 and 1.83‐m lateral spacing compared with the non‐irrigated lint yield (608 kg/ha). Cotton gross revenue at both sites averaged about $1200/ha for both lateral orientations. Non‐irrigated cotton revenue averaged over $600/ha. Subtracting the cost of the tubing resulted in net revenues of $613 and $969 for 0.91 and 1.83‐m lateral spacing, respectively. The 0.91‐m lateral spacing may not be cost effective for either corn or cotton. Partial net return analysis shows that 1.83‐m lateral spacing had higher returns for both crops.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated corn yielded 10,555 kg/ha versus 5,562 kg/ha without irrigation.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- Drip tube orientations, 0.91 and 1.83 me0
- Outcome
- corn yielde0
- Direction
- samee0
- Value
- 10,555 kg/hae0
- Qualifier
- 5,562 kg/hae0
- Comparator
- non‐irrigated arease0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drip tube orientations, 0.91 and 1.83 m, had the same corn yield (10,555 kg/ha) compared with the non‐irrigated areas (5,562 kg/ha).”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn at 0.91 m spacing returned $140/ha less than nonirrigated corn.
- Treatment
- 0.91‐m lateral spacinge0
- Outcome
- net revenuee0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- $140/hae0
- Qualifier
- $484/hae0
- Comparator
- non‐irrigatede0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“0.91‐m lateral spacing had $140/ha less net revenue compared with non‐irrigated ($484/ha).”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn at 1.83 m spacing returned $196/ha more.
- Treatment
- 1.83‐m spaced lateralse0
- Outcome
- net revenuee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- $196/hae0
- Comparator
- non‐irrigated arease0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The 1.83‐m spaced laterals had $196/ha greater net revenue than the non‐irrigated areas.”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated cotton lint yield was 1194 kg/ha versus 608 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- 0.91 and 1.83‐m lateral spacinge0
- Outcome
- lint yielde0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 1194 kg/hae0
- Qualifier
- 608 kg/hae0
- Comparator
- non‐irrigatede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton lint yield averaged 1194 kg/ha for 0.91 and 1.83‐m lateral spacing compared with the non‐irrigated lint yield (608 kg/ha).”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton gross revenue was about $1200/ha under irrigation.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- gross revenuee0
- Value
- about $1200/hae0
- Setting
- both sitese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton gross revenue at both sites averaged about $1200/ha for both lateral orientations.”
Claim · model-written summary
Nonirrigated cotton revenue exceeded $600/ha.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- revenuee0
- Value
- over $600/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Non‐irrigated cotton revenue averaged over $600/ha.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton net revenue was $613 at 0.91 m spacing.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“net revenues of $613 and $969 for 0.91 and 1.83‐m lateral spacing, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton net revenue was $969 at 1.83 m spacing.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“net revenues of $613 and $969 for 0.91 and 1.83‐m lateral spacing, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors judge 0.91 m spacing potentially not cost effective for corn or cotton.
- Taxon
- corn or cottonGossypium hirsutumZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- 0.91‐m lateral spacinge0
- Outcome
- may not be cost effectivee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The 0.91‐m lateral spacing may not be cost effective for either corn or cotton.”
The same questions in other papers
density · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
65 papers more in this group
See all 69 papers →irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
790 papers in the same direction as this paper · 209 in the opposite direction · 16 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 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.