Abstract
A S 3 DI system was installed annually with and without furrow diking to document yield and economic benefits of these techniques on peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.), cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.), and corn ( Zea mays L.). This research was conducted for three years and each crop had four treatments replicated three times in a randomized complete block design. Treatments included irrigation, irrigation plus furrow diking, non‐irrigation, and non‐irrigation plus furrow diking. In 2005, a high precipitation year, there was no yield or gross revenue difference between treatments for any crop. Net revenue was reduced in all irrigated crops in 2005 compared with non‐irrigated crops. In low precipitation years (2006 and 2007), irrigated yield of peanut, corn, and cotton increased an average 1.3, 7.3, and 2.8 times, respectively, over non‐irrigated yield. Net revenue increased for irrigated corn and cotton, but not for irrigated peanut compared with non‐irrigated crops. In limited precipitation years, installing a S 3 DI system annually was economically beneficial for corn and cotton but not for peanut. Furrow diking did not increase crop yield in any year, crop, or treatment, and may or may not be economically beneficial.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
In wet 2005, treatments did not differ in yield or gross revenue for any crop.
- Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- yield or gross revenuee0
- Direction
- no yield or gross revenue differencee0
- Qualifier
- a high precipitation yeare0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“In 2005, a high precipitation year, there was no yield or gross revenue difference between treatments for any crop.”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2005 irrigation reduced net revenue in all crops.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Net revenue was reduced in all irrigated crops in 2005 compared with non‐irrigated crops.”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut yield increased 1.3 times with irrigation in dry years.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeae0 - Treatment
- irrigatede0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1.3e0
- Qualifier
- low precipitation years (2006 and 2007)e0
- Comparator
- non‐irrigated yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In low precipitation years (2006 and 2007), irrigated yield of peanut, corn, and cotton increased an average 1.3, 7.3, and 2.8 times, respectively, over non‐irrigated yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn yield increased 7.3 times with irrigation in dry years.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- irrigatede0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 7.3e0
- Qualifier
- low precipitation years (2006 and 2007)e0
- Comparator
- non‐irrigated yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In low precipitation years (2006 and 2007), irrigated yield of peanut, corn, and cotton increased an average 1.3, 7.3, and 2.8 times, respectively, over non‐irrigated yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield increased 2.8 times with irrigation in dry years.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- irrigatede0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 2.8e0
- Qualifier
- low precipitation years (2006 and 2007)e0
- Comparator
- non‐irrigated yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In low precipitation years (2006 and 2007), irrigated yield of peanut, corn, and cotton increased an average 1.3, 7.3, and 2.8 times, respectively, over non‐irrigated yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation increased net revenue for corn and cotton.
- Taxon
- corn and cottonGossypium hirsutumZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- irrigatede0
- Outcome
- Net revenuee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- non‐irrigated cropse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Net revenue increased for irrigated corn and cotton, but not for irrigated peanut compared with non‐irrigated crops.”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation did not increase peanut net revenue.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- irrigatede0
- Outcome
- Net revenuee0
- Direction
- note0
- Comparator
- non‐irrigated cropse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Net revenue increased for irrigated corn and cotton, but not for irrigated peanut compared with non‐irrigated crops.”
Claim · model-written summary
Furrow diking did not increase crop yield.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Furrow diking did not increase crop yield in any year, crop, or treatment, and may or may not be economically beneficial.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
167 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
187 papers more in this group
See all 191 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
- no effect
395 papers more in this group
See all 399 papers →irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
790 papers in the same direction as this paper · 209 in the opposite direction · 16 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 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.