Paper · 2010 · Transactions of the ASABE

Investigation of the Effects of Soil Compaction in Cotton

S. S. Kulkarni; S. G. Bajwa; G. Huitink

12
claims
24
verbatim quotes
33
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Soil compaction can cause yield reductions in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). This study investigated the effect of soil compaction on canopy spectral reflectance, soil electrical conductivity (EC), and cotton yield. Field experiments were conducted during 2003-2005 using a completely randomized block design with four soil compaction treatments. The treatments were no subsoiling (control); subsoiled, disked, and bedded (conventional); subsoiled and compacted (compaction I); and compacted with no subsoiling (compaction II). Field data were collected on soil resistance, canopy reflectance, soil EC, and cotton yield. Comparison of means showed differences between treatments in reflectance in 2003 and 2004, soil compaction parameters in 2004 and 2005, and soil EC and yield in 2005. The depth and thickness of the hardpan were significantly correlated to green NDVI on 16 September (R2 = 0.53) in 2003. Depth, average resistance of hard pan, and EC all showed relationships with yield in 2005. Their combination as independent variables could explain 65% of the variability in cotton yield in 2005. These results verified that compaction affected canopy reflectance and reduced cotton yield in Arkansas. The practical implications of the outcome of this study are the potential use of EC and canopy reflectance to infer crop yield and extent of soil compaction. However, a multi-site and multi-year study is necessary to confirm this possibility.

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 12

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reflectance differed among compaction treatments in 2003 and 2004.

Treatment
treatmentse0
Outcome
reflectancee0

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

“Comparison of means showed differences between treatments in reflectance in 2003 and 2004”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 619–708 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–57 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil compaction parameters differed among treatments in 2004 and 2005.

Outcome
soil compaction parameterse0

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

“soil compaction parameters in 2004 and 2005”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 710–753 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–57 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil EC differed among treatments in 2005.

Outcome
soil ECe0

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

“soil EC and yield in 2005”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 759–784 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–57 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield differed among treatments in 2005.

Outcome
yielde0

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

“soil EC and yield in 2005”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 759–784 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–57 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Hardpan depth and thickness correlated with green NDVI in 2003.

Outcome
green NDVIe0
Value
R2 = 0.53e0
Qualifier
depth and thickness of the hardpane0
Setting
16 Septembere0

Not reportedDirection

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

“The depth and thickness of the hardpan were significantly correlated to green NDVI on 16 September (R2 = 0.53) in 2003.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 786–905 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–57 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Hardpan depth was related to yield in 2005.

Outcome
yielde0
Qualifier
Depthe0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

“Depth, average resistance of hard pan, and EC all showed relationships with yield in 2005.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 906–996 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–57 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Hardpan resistance was related to yield in 2005.

Outcome
yielde0
Qualifier
average resistance of hard pane0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

“Depth, average resistance of hard pan, and EC all showed relationships with yield in 2005.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 906–996 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–57 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil EC was related to yield in 2005.

Outcome
yielde0
Qualifier
ECe0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

“Depth, average resistance of hard pan, and EC all showed relationships with yield in 2005.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 906–996 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–57 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The combined soil variables explained 65% of cotton yield variability.

Outcome
variability in cotton yielde0
Value
65%e0

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

“Their combination as independent variables could explain 65% of the variability in cotton yield in 2005.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 997–1101 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–57 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compaction affected canopy reflectance.

Treatment
compactione0
Outcome
canopy reflectancee0
Setting
Arkansase0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

“compaction affected canopy reflectance and reduced cotton yield in Arkansas.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1130–1206 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–57 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compaction reduced cotton yield in Arkansas.

Treatment
compactione0
Outcome
cotton yielde0
Direction
reducede0
Setting
Arkansase0

Not reportedComparator

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

“compaction affected canopy reflectance and reduced cotton yield in Arkansas.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1130–1206 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–57 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors propose EC and canopy reflectance to infer yield and compaction.

Outcome
potential use of EC and canopy reflectance to infer crop yield and extent of soil compactione0

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

“the potential use of EC and canopy reflectance to infer crop yield and extent of soil compaction.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1267–1364 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–57 · show in text ↑

tillage · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

159 papers: 113 positive, 46 negative or no effect

45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 113 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

155 papers more in this group

See all 159 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.