Abstract
Irrigated cotton acreage is limited in North Carolina. Research was conducted in North Carolina from 2004 to 2007 to define interactions of planting date with either mepiquat chloride application or cultivar under sub‐surface drip irrigation or no irrigation. In most instances planting date, cultivar or mepiquat chloride, and irrigation did not interact for seed cotton yield. While main effects of planting date and irrigation were often significant, mepiquat chloride did not affect cotton yield. Cotton response to irrigation and planting date was variable and was generally influenced by annual variability in rainfall. Results from these experiments suggest that sub‐surface drip irrigation improves cotton yield stability over the planting dates, mepiquat chloride applications, and cultivars tested. Additionally, cotton response to planting date was independent of irrigation treatment.
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
Planting date, cultivar or mepiquat, and irrigation usually did not interact for yield.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- planting date, cultivar or mepiquat chloride, and irrigatione0
- Outcome
- seed cotton yielde0
- Direction
- did not interacte0
- Setting
- North Carolinae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In most instances planting date, cultivar or mepiquat chloride, and irrigation did not interact for seed cotton yield”
e1“Research was conducted in North Carolina”
Claim · model-written summary
Planting date often significantly affected yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- planting datee0
- Outcome
- cotton yielde1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“main effects of planting date and irrigation were often significant”
t0“Cotton”
e1“mepiquat chloride did not affect cotton yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation often significantly affected yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- cotton yielde2
- Comparator
- no irrigatione1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“main effects of planting date and irrigation were often significant”
t0“Cotton”
e1“no irrigation”
e2“mepiquat chloride did not affect cotton yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Mepiquat chloride did not affect cotton yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- mepiquat chloridee0
- Outcome
- cotton yielde0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mepiquat chloride did not affect cotton yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton response to irrigation and planting date varied with annual rainfall.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- response to irrigation and planting datee0
- Setting
- annual variability in rainfalle0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton response to irrigation and planting date was variable and was generally influenced by annual variability in rainfall”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface drip irrigation improved yield stability across tested management options.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- sub‐surface drip irrigatione0
- Outcome
- yield stabilitye0
- Direction
- improvese0
- Qualifier
- planting dates, mepiquat chloride applications, and cultivars testede0
- Comparator
- no irrigatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sub‐surface drip irrigation improves cotton yield stability over the planting dates, mepiquat chloride applications, and cultivars tested”
e1“no irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton planting date response was independent of irrigation treatment.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmente0
- Outcome
- response to planting datee0
- Direction
- independente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton response to planting date was independent of irrigation treatment”
The same questions in other papers
mepiquat chloride · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 59 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
66 papers more in this group
See all 70 papers →chloride · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 67 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
74 papers more in this group
See all 78 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
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.