Abstract
The benefits of conservation tillage on soil water availability are well established, but this soil management practice generally does not affect cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) fiber properties of the whole crop. The objective was to determine whether soil management practices affect canopy position specific fiber properties on two soils. A 3‐yr field study was conducted with plots on two soil types [Bonneau loamy sand (loamy, siliceous, thermic Arenic Paleudult) and Norfolk loamy sand (fine‐loamy, siliceous, thermic Typic Kandiudult)]. Treatments in the study were cover crop [none and rye ( Secale cereale L.)] and tillage system (disk tillage and conservation tillage). Fiber properties were determined from hand picked samples at three canopy positions (first sympodial position bolls at Mainstem Nodes 6 and 7, 9, and 10, and 12 and 13). Yield and fiber properties of the whole crop were determined after machine harvesting. In two of the 3 yr, conservation tillage had 34% higher yield than disk tillage. Conservation tillage had higher fiber length uniformity every year, but no consistent differences between tillage systems occurred for the other fiber properties. Cover crop did not influence within‐canopy fiber properties. When differences occurred between tillage systems for fiber length at specific canopy positions, fibers from conservation tillage were about 1 mm longer than fibers from disk tillage. Fiber length uniformity results were similar to those for fiber length. Disk tillage resulted in cotton with 0.22 lower micronaire units than conservation tillage at Mainstem Nodes 6 and 7 when rainfall was plentiful in 1997, but had micronaire that was 0.82 units higher than conservation tillage at that canopy position during the dryer year of 1998. Within canopy variability for micronaire was greater on the more drought susceptible Bonneau soil than on the Norfolk soil. Results indicate that tillage management can influence canopy position specific fiber property distribution.
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
Conservation tillage yielded 34% more cotton than disk tillage in two of three years.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- conservation tillagee1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 34%e1
- Qualifier
- In two of the 3 yre1
- Comparator
- disk tillagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
e1“In two of the 3 yr, conservation tillage had 34% higher yield than disk tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage had higher cotton fiber length uniformity than disk tillage every year.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- conservation tillagee2
- Outcome
- fiber length uniformitye2
- Direction
- highere2
- Qualifier
- every yeare2
- Comparator
- disk tillagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
e1“In two of the 3 yr, conservation tillage had 34% higher yield than disk tillage”
e2“Conservation tillage had higher fiber length uniformity every year, but no consistent differences between tillage systems occurred for the other fiber properties”
Claim · model-written summary
No consistent differences between conservation and disk tillage occurred for the other cotton fiber properties.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- conservation tillagee2
- Outcome
- other fiber propertiese2
- Direction
- no consistent differencese2
- Comparator
- disk tillagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
e1“In two of the 3 yr, conservation tillage had 34% higher yield than disk tillage”
e2“Conservation tillage had higher fiber length uniformity every year, but no consistent differences between tillage systems occurred for the other fiber properties”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop did not influence within-canopy cotton fiber properties.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Cover crope3
- Outcome
- fiber propertiese3
- Direction
- did not influencee3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
e3“Cover crop did not influence within‐canopy fiber properties”
Claim · model-written summary
At specific canopy positions, conservation tillage cotton fibers were about 1 mm longer than disk tillage fibers.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- conservation tillagee4
- Outcome
- fiber lengthe4
- Direction
- longere4
- Value
- about 1 mme4
- Qualifier
- at specific canopy positionse4
- Comparator
- disk tillagee4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
e4“When differences occurred between tillage systems for fiber length at specific canopy positions, fibers from conservation tillage were about 1 mm longer than fibers from disk tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Disk tillage cotton had 0.22 lower micronaire than conservation tillage at Mainstem Nodes 6 and 7 in 1997.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Disk tillagee5
- Outcome
- micronairee5
- Direction
- lowere5
- Value
- 0.22e5
- Qualifier
- at Mainstem Nodes 6 and 7 when rainfall was plentiful in 1997e5
- Comparator
- conservation tillagee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
e5“Disk tillage resulted in cotton with 0.22 lower micronaire units than conservation tillage at Mainstem Nodes 6 and 7 when rainfall was plentiful in 1997, but had micronaire that was 0.82 units higher than conservation tillage at that canopy position during the dryer year of 1998”
Claim · model-written summary
Disk tillage cotton had 0.82 higher micronaire than conservation tillage in the drier year of 1998.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Disk tillagee5
- Outcome
- micronairee5
- Direction
- highere5
- Value
- 0.82e5
- Qualifier
- during the dryer year of 1998e5
- Comparator
- conservation tillagee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
e5“Disk tillage resulted in cotton with 0.22 lower micronaire units than conservation tillage at Mainstem Nodes 6 and 7 when rainfall was plentiful in 1997, but had micronaire that was 0.82 units higher than conservation tillage at that canopy position during the dryer year of 1998”
Claim · model-written summary
Within-canopy variability for micronaire was greater on the Bonneau soil than on the Norfolk soil.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- Within canopy variability for micronairee6
- Direction
- greatere6
- Comparator
- Norfolk soile6
- Setting
- Bonneau soile6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
e6“Within canopy variability for micronaire was greater on the more drought susceptible Bonneau soil than on the Norfolk soil”
The same questions in other papers
cover crop · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →tillage · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 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.