Paper · 2004 · Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science

Advantages of Different Tillage Systems and Their Effects on the Economically Important Pests, Thrips tabaci Lind. and Aphis gossypii Glov. in Cotton Fields

I. Gencsoylu; I. Yalcın

10
claims
20
verbatim quotes
9
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract An experiment to assess advantages of different tillage and their effects on Aphis gossypii Glov. and Thrips tabaci Lind was conducted during the 2000 and 2001 cotton growing seasons in cotton fields at Adnan Menderes University, Agricultural Faculty Research Center, located in Aydın Province, Turkey. The tillage systems examined were conventional, strip, precision and ridge tillage. Two insect population densities were not affected by the type of tillage systems during either year. However, significant differences in populations were observed in thrips populations on 31 May 2000 and 18 May 2001 and aphid populations on 24 May 2000 and 11 May 2001. The results show that the highest yield was observed in all conservation tillage systems in 2000 and ridge tillage system in 2001. Early maturity was higher in both precision and ridge tillage systems. In addition, tillage systems did not affect fibre properties. As a result, the application of conservation tillage is more advantageous in cotton in respect of early maturity and total yield.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage type did not affect aphid population density in either year.

Treatment
type of tillage systemse0
Interactor
Aphis gossypii Glov.Aphis gossypiit0pest
Outcome
insect population densitiese0
Direction
not affectede0

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 ↗
Aphis gossypii
Aphis gossypii · InteractorDr Lewis Wilson, CSIRO · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Two insect population densities were not affected by the type of tillage systems during either year.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 396–496 · show in text ↑
t0

“Aphis gossypii Glov. in Cotton Fields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–156 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage type did not affect thrips population density in either year.

Treatment
type of tillage systemse0
Interactor
Thrips tabaci Lind.Thrips tabacit0pest
Outcome
insect population densitiese0
Direction
not affectede0

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 ↗
Thrips tabaci
Thrips tabaci · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryAlton N. Sparks, Jr., University of Georgia, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Two insect population densities were not affected by the type of tillage systems during either year.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 396–496 · show in text ↑
t0

“Thrips tabaci Lind. and Aphis gossypii Glov. in Cotton Fields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–156 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Thrips populations differed significantly on the specified dates.

Interactor
Thrips tabaci Lind.Thrips tabacit0pest
Outcome
thrips populationse0
Setting
Cotton Fieldst0

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 ↗
Thrips tabaci
Thrips tabaci · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryAlton N. Sparks, Jr., University of Georgia, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“significant differences in populations were observed in thrips populations on 31 May 2000 and 18 May 2001”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 506–611 · show in text ↑
t0

“Thrips tabaci Lind. and Aphis gossypii Glov. in Cotton Fields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–156 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Aphid populations differed significantly on the specified dates.

Interactor
Aphis gossypii Glov.Aphis gossypiit0pest
Outcome
aphid populationse0

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 ↗
Aphis gossypii
Aphis gossypii · InteractorDr Lewis Wilson, CSIRO · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“aphid populations on 24 May 2000 and 11 May 2001”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 616–664 · show in text ↑
t0

“Aphis gossypii Glov. in Cotton Fields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–156 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conservation tillage systems had the highest cotton yield in 2000.

Treatment
conservation tillage systemse0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
higheste0

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

“highest yield was observed in all conservation tillage systems in 2000”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 692–762 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Fields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 143–156 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ridge tillage had the highest cotton yield in 2001.

Treatment
ridge tillage systeme0
Outcome
yielde1
Direction
higheste1

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

“ridge tillage system in 2001”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 767–795 · show in text ↑
e1

“highest yield was observed in all conservation tillage systems in 2000 and ridge tillage system in 2001”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 692–795 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Fields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 143–156 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Precision tillage produced higher early maturity.

Treatment
precisione0
Outcome
Early maturitye0
Direction
highere0

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

“Early maturity was higher in both precision and ridge tillage systems.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 797–867 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Fields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 143–156 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ridge tillage produced higher early maturity.

Treatment
ridge tillage systemse0
Outcome
Early maturitye0
Direction
highere0

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

“Early maturity was higher in both precision and ridge tillage systems.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 797–867 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Fields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 143–156 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage systems did not affect cotton fibre properties.

Treatment
tillage systemse0
Outcome
fibre propertiese0
Direction
did not affecte0

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

“tillage systems did not affect fibre properties”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 881–928 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Fields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 143–156 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Authors conclude conservation tillage is advantageous for cotton early maturity and total yield.

Outcome
application of conservation tillagee0

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

“application of conservation tillage is more advantageous in cotton in respect of early maturity and total yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 947–1058 · show in text ↑

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

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

tillage · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

30 papers: 18 positive, 12 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

26 papers more in this group

See all 30 papers →

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

159 papers: 113 positive, 46 negative or no effect

112 papers in the same direction as this paper · 38 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

155 papers more in this group

See all 159 papers →

tillage · Thrips tabaci · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
See all 2 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.