Abstract
Intercropping cantaloupe and cotton can improve grower profits over traditional monoculture practices because crops share resources and production costs. However, developing effective programs to control weeds with herbicides that are safe to both crops can be challenging. Research was conducted to (1) identify herbicide systems to manage Palmer amaranth in cantaloupe–cotton intercropping production while minimizing crop injury, and (2) determine the profitability of cantaloupe–cotton intercropping. Ethalfluralin applied preplant did not injure cantaloupe or cotton, but Palmer amaranth was not controlled. The addition of fomesafen preplant improved Palmer amaranth control to at least 92% without injuring cotton, but cantaloupe necrosis and chlorosis of up to 20% was recorded. Halosulfuron-methyl was safely applied over cantaloupe, but its residual activity reduced cotton growth by 12% at 4 wk after planting; halosulfuron-methyl did not improve Palmer amaranth control beyond that noted with ethalfluralin plus fomesafen preplant. Intercropping systems that controlled Palmer amaranth at least 92% produced cantaloupe yields (25,760 to 25,890 fruit ha −1 ) similar to the weed-free monoculture system (24,120 fruit ha −1 ) but produced lint cotton yields that were 170 to 275 kg ha −1 less than the weed-free monoculture cotton system. Although cotton production was less in the intercropping system, the returns over variable costs with intercropping systems ($21,670 to 21,920 ha −1 ) exceeded those of cantaloupe monoculture ($18,070 ha −1 ) or cotton monoculture ($1,890 to $1,955 ha −1 ), as long as Palmer amaranth was controlled. Intercropping cantaloupe and cotton is an effective approach to share land resources and production inputs as well as to improve grower profitability and is being rapidly adopted by Georgia growers.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Preplant ethalfluralin did not injure cantaloupe or cotton
- Taxon
- cantaloupe
Cucumis melo var. cantalupoe1 - Treatment
- Ethalfluralin applied preplante1
- Outcome
- injuree1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Ethalfluralin applied preplant did not injure cantaloupe or cotton, but Palmer amaranth was not controlled”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding fomesafen preplant improved Palmer amaranth control to at least 92%, compared with ethalfluralin preplant
- Taxon
- cantaloupeCucumis melo var. cantalupoe2
- Treatment
- The addition of fomesafen preplante2
- Outcome
- Palmer amaranth controle2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Value
- at least 92%e2
- Comparator
- Ethalfluralin applied preplante1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Ethalfluralin applied preplant did not injure cantaloupe or cotton, but Palmer amaranth was not controlled”
e2“The addition of fomesafen preplant improved Palmer amaranth control to at least 92% without injuring cotton, but cantaloupe necrosis and chlorosis of up to 20% was recorded”
Claim · model-written summary
Fomesafen preplant did not injure cotton
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume2 - Treatment
- The addition of fomesafen preplante2
- Outcome
- injuring cottone2
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“The addition of fomesafen preplant improved Palmer amaranth control to at least 92% without injuring cotton, but cantaloupe necrosis and chlorosis of up to 20% was recorded”
Claim · model-written summary
Cantaloupe necrosis and chlorosis of up to 20% were recorded with fomesafen preplant
- Taxon
- cantaloupeCucumis melo var. cantalupoe2
- Treatment
- The addition of fomesafen preplante2
- Outcome
- cantaloupe necrosis and chlorosise2
- Direction
- increaseinferrede2
- Value
- up to 20%e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“The addition of fomesafen preplant improved Palmer amaranth control to at least 92% without injuring cotton, but cantaloupe necrosis and chlorosis of up to 20% was recorded”
Claim · model-written summary
Halosulfuron-methyl was safely applied over cantaloupe
- Taxon
- cantaloupeCucumis melo var. cantalupoe3
- Treatment
- Halosulfuron-methyle3
- Outcome
- safely applied over cantaloupee3
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Halosulfuron-methyl was safely applied over cantaloupe, but its residual activity reduced cotton growth by 12% at 4 wk after planting”
Claim · model-written summary
Residual activity of halosulfuron-methyl reduced cotton growth by 12% at 4 wk after planting
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume3
- Treatment
- Halosulfuron-methyle3
- Outcome
- cotton growthe3
- Direction
- reducede3
- Value
- 12%e3
- Qualifier
- 4 wk after plantinge3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Halosulfuron-methyl was safely applied over cantaloupe, but its residual activity reduced cotton growth by 12% at 4 wk after planting”
Claim · model-written summary
Halosulfuron-methyl did not improve Palmer amaranth control beyond ethalfluralin plus fomesafen preplant
- Taxon
- Cantaloupe and CottonGossypium hirsutumCucumis melo var. cantalupot0
- Treatment
- halosulfuron-methyle4
- Outcome
- Palmer amaranth controle4
- Comparator
- ethalfluralin plus fomesafen preplante4
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“halosulfuron-methyl did not improve Palmer amaranth control beyond that noted with ethalfluralin plus fomesafen preplant”
t0“Intercropping Cantaloupe and Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping systems controlling Palmer amaranth at least 92% gave cantaloupe yields similar to the weed-free monoculture
- Taxon
- cantaloupeCucumis melo var. cantalupoe5
- Treatment
- Intercropping systems that controlled Palmer amaranth at least 92%e5
- Outcome
- cantaloupe yieldse5
- Direction
- similare5
- Value
- 25,760 to 25,890 fruit ha −1e5
- Comparator
- weed-free monoculture systeme5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Intercropping systems that controlled Palmer amaranth at least 92% produced cantaloupe yields (25,760 to 25,890 fruit ha −1 ) similar to the weed-free monoculture system (24,120 fruit ha −1 ) but produced lint cotton yields that were 170 to 275 kg ha −1 less than the weed-free monoculture cotton system”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping systems controlling Palmer amaranth at least 92% gave lint cotton yields 170 to 275 kg/ha lower than the weed-free monoculture
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume5
- Treatment
- Intercropping systems that controlled Palmer amaranth at least 92%e5
- Outcome
- lint cotton yieldse5
- Direction
- lesse5
- Value
- 170 to 275 kg ha −1e5
- Comparator
- weed-free monoculture cotton systeme5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Intercropping systems that controlled Palmer amaranth at least 92% produced cantaloupe yields (25,760 to 25,890 fruit ha −1 ) similar to the weed-free monoculture system (24,120 fruit ha −1 ) but produced lint cotton yields that were 170 to 275 kg ha −1 less than the weed-free monoculture cotton system”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping returns over variable costs exceeded those of cantaloupe monoculture and cotton monoculture while Palmer amaranth was controlled
- Taxon
- cantaloupeCucumis melo var. cantalupoe6
- Treatment
- intercropping systemse6
- Outcome
- returns over variable costse6
- Direction
- exceedede6
- Value
- $21,670 to 21,920 ha −1e6
- Qualifier
- as long as Palmer amaranth was controllede6
- Comparator
- cantaloupe monoculturee6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“the returns over variable costs with intercropping systems ($21,670 to 21,920 ha −1 ) exceeded those of cantaloupe monoculture ($18,070 ha −1 ) or cotton monoculture ($1,890 to $1,955 ha −1 ), as long as Palmer amaranth was controlled”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping cantaloupe and cotton is an effective approach to improve grower profitability
- Taxon
- cantaloupe and cottonGossypium hirsutumCucumis melo var. cantalupoe7
- Outcome
- improve grower profitabilitye7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Intercropping cantaloupe and cotton is an effective approach to share land resources and production inputs as well as to improve grower profitability and is being rapidly adopted by Georgia growers”
The same questions in other papers
fomesafen · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
Halosulfuron-methyl · control · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
Amaranthus caudatus · yield · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
intercropping · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 85 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
100 papers more in this group
See all 104 papers →intercropping · yield · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 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.