Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during three cropping seasons to compare weed control and cotton yield provided by conventional (CV), glufosinate-resistant (LL), and glyphosate-resistant (RR) weed management systems under standard (102 cm) and narrow (38 cm) row spacing grown in conventional and conservation tillage systems. The conventional tillage and/or CV cotton received a PRE application of pendimethalin. The CV, LL, and RR cotton varieties received two POST applications of pyrithiobac, glufosinate, and glyphosate, respectively, at two- and four-leaf cotton growth stages. A final (LAYBY) application of trifloxysulfuron was applied to 38-cm row cotton while a LAYBY POST-directed spray of prometryn plus MSMA was used in 102-cm row cotton. The LL and RR weed management systems controlled at least 97% of large crabgrass, Palmer amaranth, sicklepod, and smallflower morningglory, while the CV system controlled 89, 73, and 87 to 98% of large crabgrass, smallflower morningglory, and Palmer amaranth, respectively. Sicklepod control increased from 85% in 102-cm rows to 95% in 38-cm rows in the CV herbicide system. Yellow nutsedge and pitted morningglory control exceeded 98% and was not affected by tillage, row spacing, or weed management system. Cotton yield was not affected by row spacing any year, by tillage in 2005, or by weed management system in 2004 and 2005. In 2006, yield in the RR weed management system was 27 and 24% higher than LL and CV weed management systems, respectively. In 2004, yield of conventional tillage cotton was 18% higher than conservation tillage cotton, but in 2006 the yield in conservation tillage was 12% higher than conventional tillage.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
LL and RR systems controlled at least 97% of large crabgrass, Palmer amaranth, sicklepod, and smallflower morningglory.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- LL and RR weed management systemse0
- Interactor
- large crabgrasse0weed
- Outcome
- controllede0
- Direction
- controllede0
- Value
- at least 97%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The LL and RR weed management systems controlled at least 97% of large crabgrass, Palmer amaranth, sicklepod, and smallflower morningglory”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
CV controlled 89% of large crabgrass.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- CV systeme0
- Interactor
- large crabgrasse0weed
- Outcome
- large crabgrasse0
- Direction
- controllede0
- Value
- 89e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the CV system controlled 89, 73, and 87 to 98% of large crabgrass, smallflower morningglory, and Palmer amaranth, respectively”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
CV controlled 73% of smallflower morningglory.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- CV systeme0
- Interactor
- smallflower morningglorye0weed
- Outcome
- smallflower morningglorye0
- Direction
- controllede0
- Value
- 73e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the CV system controlled 89, 73, and 87 to 98% of large crabgrass, smallflower morningglory, and Palmer amaranth, respectively”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
CV controlled 87 to 98% of Palmer amaranth.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- CV systeme0
- Interactor
- Palmer amaranthe0weed
- Outcome
- Palmer amaranthe0
- Direction
- controllede0
- Value
- 87 to 98%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the CV system controlled 89, 73, and 87 to 98% of large crabgrass, smallflower morningglory, and Palmer amaranth, respectively”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
In CV, narrow rows increased sicklepod control from 85% to 95%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- 38-cm rowse0
- Interactor
- Sicklepode0weed
- Outcome
- Sicklepod controle0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 95%e0
- Qualifier
- 85%e0
- Comparator
- 102-cm rowse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sicklepod control increased from 85% in 102-cm rows to 95% in 38-cm rows in the CV herbicide system”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Yellow nutsedge and pitted morningglory control exceeded 98% without an effect of tillage, spacing, or system.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Interactor
- Yellow nutsedgee0weed
- Outcome
- Yellow nutsedge and pitted morningglory controle0
- Direction
- exceedede0
- Value
- 98%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yellow nutsedge and pitted morningglory control exceeded 98% and was not affected by tillage, row spacing, or weed management system”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Row spacing did not affect cotton yield in any year.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- row spacinge0
- Outcome
- Cotton yielde0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton yield was not affected by row spacing any year”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage did not affect cotton yield in 2005.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- tillagee0
- Outcome
- Cotton yielde0
- Direction
- not affectede0
- Qualifier
- 2005e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton yield was not affected by row spacing any year, by tillage in 2005”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed management system did not affect cotton yield in 2004 or 2005.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- weed management systeme0
- Outcome
- Cotton yielde0
- Direction
- not affectede0
- Qualifier
- 2004 and 2005e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton yield was not affected by row spacing any year, by tillage in 2005, or by weed management system in 2004 and 2005”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2006 RR yield was 27% higher than LL.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- RR weed management systeme0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 27e0
- Qualifier
- 2006e0
- Comparator
- LLe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2006, yield in the RR weed management system was 27 and 24% higher than LL and CV weed management systems, respectively”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2006 RR yield was 24% higher than CV.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- RR weed management systeme0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 24%e0
- Qualifier
- 2006e0
- Comparator
- CVe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2006, yield in the RR weed management system was 27 and 24% higher than LL and CV weed management systems, respectively”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2004 conventional tillage yield was 18% higher than conservation tillage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- conventional tillagee0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 18%e0
- Qualifier
- 2004e0
- Comparator
- conservation tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2004, yield of conventional tillage cotton was 18% higher than conservation tillage cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2006 conservation tillage yield was 12% higher than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- conservation tillagee0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 12%e0
- Qualifier
- 2006e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in 2006 the yield in conservation tillage was 12% higher than conventional tillage”
t0“Cotton”
The same questions in other papers
cultivation system · control · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
cultivation system · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 papers →tillage · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
112 papers in the same direction as this paper · 38 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
155 papers more in this group
See all 159 papers →density · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 130 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
167 papers more in this group
See all 171 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.