Abstract
Declining profit margins have forced Mississippi Delta cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) producers to consider conservation tillage as a means of reducing production inputs. Due to limited experience and research with conservation tillage in the Mississippi Delta, our objectives were to determine how no‐till production affected cotton growth, light interception, dry matter partitioning, yield, and fiber quality compared with conventional tillage. Six cotton genotypes were evaluated in no‐till and conventional tillage systems in 1997 and 1998. Data for dry matter partitioning, light interception, bloom counts, nodes above white bloom (NAWB), lint yield, yield components, and fiber quality were collected. Slower emergence delayed development of the no‐till cotton throughout both seasons. No‐till plants averaged 42% less leaf area index (LAI) during prebloom and 27% less LAI at midbloom than plants in conventional tillage before recovering to have similar late‐season LAI. Conventional tillage plants intercepted 28% more sunlight during prebloom and 17% more sunlight at midbloom before both tillage treatments reached canopy closure late in the season. Flower production and cutout (NAWB = 5) were delayed in no‐till compared with conventional tillage. Lint yield was 11% lower in the no‐till treatment than in conventional tillage due primarily to an 8% reduction in the number of bolls m −2 . Fiber quality traits were inconsistently altered by tillage treatments across years. The delayed blooming period of the no‐till plants meant that these plants may have encountered slightly different weather during bloom, possibly contributing to the yield and fiber quality differences between 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
No-till cotton averaged 42% less leaf area index during prebloom than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- No‐tille1
- Outcome
- leaf area index (LAI) during prebloome1
- Direction
- lesse1
- Value
- 42%e1
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee1
- Setting
- Mississippi Deltae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mississippi Delta cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) producers”
e1“No‐till plants averaged 42% less leaf area index (LAI) during prebloom and 27% less LAI at midbloom than plants in conventional tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till cotton averaged 27% less leaf area index at midbloom than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- Gossypium hirsutumGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- No‐tille1
- Outcome
- LAI at midbloome1
- Direction
- lesse1
- Value
- 27%e1
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mississippi Delta cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) producers”
e1“No‐till plants averaged 42% less leaf area index (LAI) during prebloom and 27% less LAI at midbloom than plants in conventional tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage cotton intercepted 28% more sunlight during prebloom.
- Taxon
- Gossypium hirsutumGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Conventional tillagee3
- Outcome
- sunlighte3
- Direction
- moree3
- Value
- 28%e3
- Qualifier
- during prebloome3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mississippi Delta cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) producers”
e3“Conventional tillage plants intercepted 28% more sunlight during prebloom and 17% more sunlight at midbloom”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage cotton intercepted 17% more sunlight at midbloom.
- Taxon
- Gossypium hirsutumGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Conventional tillagee3
- Outcome
- sunlighte3
- Direction
- moree3
- Value
- 17%e3
- Qualifier
- at midbloome3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mississippi Delta cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) producers”
e3“Conventional tillage plants intercepted 28% more sunlight during prebloom and 17% more sunlight at midbloom”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till cotton development was delayed throughout both seasons by slower emergence.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume5
- Treatment
- no‐tille5
- Outcome
- developmente5
- Direction
- delayede5
- Qualifier
- throughout both seasonse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mississippi Delta cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) producers”
e5“Slower emergence delayed development of the no‐till cotton throughout both seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Flower production and cutout were delayed in no-till cotton compared with conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- Gossypium hirsutumGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- no‐tille6
- Outcome
- Flower production and cutout (NAWB = 5)e6
- Direction
- delayede6
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mississippi Delta cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) producers”
e6“Flower production and cutout (NAWB = 5) were delayed in no‐till compared with conventional tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Lint yield was 11% lower in no-till than in conventional tillage cotton.
- Taxon
- Gossypium hirsutumGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- no‐till treatmente7
- Outcome
- Lint yielde7
- Direction
- lowere7
- Value
- 11%e7
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mississippi Delta cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) producers”
e7“Lint yield was 11% lower in the no‐till treatment than in conventional tillage due primarily to an 8% reduction in the number of bolls”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till reduced boll number by 8% relative to conventional tillage, contributing to lower lint yield.
- Taxon
- Gossypium hirsutumGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- no‐till treatmente7
- Outcome
- number of bollse7
- Direction
- reductione7
- Value
- 8%e7
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mississippi Delta cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) producers”
e7“Lint yield was 11% lower in the no‐till treatment than in conventional tillage due primarily to an 8% reduction in the number of bolls”
Claim · model-written summary
Fiber quality traits were inconsistently altered by tillage treatments across years.
- Taxon
- Gossypium hirsutumGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- tillage treatmentse6
- Outcome
- Fiber quality traitse6
- Direction
- inconsistently alterede6
- Qualifier
- across yearse6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mississippi Delta cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) producers”
e6“Fiber quality traits were inconsistently altered by tillage treatments across years”
Claim · model-written summary
The delayed blooming period of no-till cotton may have exposed plants to different weather, possibly contributing to yield and fiber quality differences.
- Taxon
- Gossypium hirsutumGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- yield and fiber quality differencese7
- Qualifier
- delayed blooming periode7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mississippi Delta cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) producers”
e7“The delayed blooming period of the no‐till plants meant that these plants may have encountered slightly different weather during bloom, possibly contributing to the yield and fiber quality differences between treatments”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
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.