Abstract
Furrow irrigated cotton was grown in 1965-66 and 1966-67 on previously uncultivated dense clay soil to which the following treatments were applied before sowing in 1965 ; normal ploughing (18 cm), precision ripping (30 cm), deep ploughing (40 cm), deep ripping (60 cm), and deep ploughing and deep ripping combined, with and without application of gypsum at 10 tons an acre or organic matter at 2 1/2 tons an acre. Each of the three deep tillages increased lint yield by about 12 per cent in the first season, but in the second season the combined deep ripping and deep ploughing alone gave a significant increase of 17 per cent. Precision ripping had no influence on yield. The gypsum treatment gave increases in both seasons (16 per cent in 1966 and 34 per cent in 1967) whereas organic matter had no effect. The higher yields were produced from a greater number of larger bolls, on taller, more vigorous plants with more main stem nodes. These effects on plant growth and yield were interpreted as resulting from the changes in subsoil porosity and water entry at irrigation (reported previously). As with the soil properties, the tillage and ameliorant treatments did not interact significantly on plant growth and yield. Changes in the quality of the lint accompanied the yield increases. Deep tillage and particularly gypsum application produced finer (lower Micronaire values), but longer and more elastic fibres than the control. However, differences between seasons were generally greater than those due to treatments, and the lowering of Micronaire values by gypsum or deep tillage could be regarded as either beneficial or deleterious depending on the seasonal conditions during lint development. By improving soil tilth, gypsum application increased seedling establishment and hence yield potential, and this could be of considerable practical significance in commercial crops grown on soils responsive to gypsum.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Each deep tillage increased cotton lint yield by about 12 per cent in the first season.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- three deep tillagese0
- Outcome
- lint yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- about 12 per cente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Each of the three deep tillages increased lint yield by about 12 per cent in the first season”
t0“Soil and cotton responses”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined deep ripping and deep ploughing increased cotton lint yield by 17 per cent in the second season.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- combined deep ripping and deep ploughinge0
- Outcome
- lint yielde1
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 17 per cente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in the second season the combined deep ripping and deep ploughing alone gave a significant increase of 17 per cent”
e1“Each of the three deep tillages increased lint yield by about 12 per cent in the first season”
t0“Soil and cotton responses”
Claim · model-written summary
Precision ripping did not influence cotton yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Precision rippinge0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- no influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Precision ripping had no influence on yield.”
t0“Soil and cotton responses”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum increased cotton yield by 16 per cent in 1966.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- gypsum treatmente0
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 16 per cente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The gypsum treatment gave increases in both seasons (16 per cent in 1966 and 34 per cent in 1967)”
e1“Each of the three deep tillages increased lint yield by about 12 per cent in the first season”
t0“Soil and cotton responses”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum increased cotton yield by 34 per cent in 1967.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- gypsum treatmente0
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 34 per cente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The gypsum treatment gave increases in both seasons (16 per cent in 1966 and 34 per cent in 1967)”
e1“Each of the three deep tillages increased lint yield by about 12 per cent in the first season”
t0“Soil and cotton responses”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic matter had no effect on cotton yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- organic mattere0
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“organic matter had no effect”
e1“Each of the three deep tillages increased lint yield by about 12 per cent in the first season”
t0“Soil and cotton responses”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher cotton yields came from more and larger bolls, taller and more vigorous plants, and more main stem nodes.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Organ / stage
- bollse0
- Outcome
- higher yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The higher yields were produced from a greater number of larger bolls, on taller, more vigorous plants with more main stem nodes.”
t0“Soil and cotton responses”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage and ameliorant treatments did not interact significantly on cotton plant growth and yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- tillage and ameliorant treatmentse0
- Outcome
- plant growth and yielde0
- Direction
- did not interacte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the tillage and ameliorant treatments did not interact significantly on plant growth and yield”
t0“Soil and cotton responses”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage produced finer, longer, and more elastic cotton fibres than control.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Deep tillagee0
- Outcome
- finer (lower Micronaire values), but longer and more elastic fibrese0
- Direction
- finere0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Deep tillage and particularly gypsum application produced finer (lower Micronaire values), but longer and more elastic fibres than the control.”
t0“Soil and cotton responses”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum produced finer, longer, and more elastic cotton fibres than control.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- gypsum applicatione0
- Outcome
- finer (lower Micronaire values), but longer and more elastic fibrese0
- Direction
- finere0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Deep tillage and particularly gypsum application produced finer (lower Micronaire values), but longer and more elastic fibres than the control.”
t0“Soil and cotton responses”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal differences in fibre quality generally exceeded treatment differences.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- differences between seasonse0
- Direction
- greatere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“differences between seasons were generally greater than those due to treatments”
t0“Soil and cotton responses”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum increased cotton seedling establishment.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- gypsum applicatione0
- Outcome
- seedling establishmente0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gypsum application increased seedling establishment”
t0“Soil and cotton responses”
The same questions in other papers
lime · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →organic · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
27 papers more in this group
See all 31 papers →lime · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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
- negative
- negative
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 papers →tillage · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 113 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- 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.