Abstract
Recommendations to obtain maximum yields of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and corn (Zea mays L.) often don't occur with the same row spacing due to different crop's needs and available equipment. However, many producers in the South are now rotating these two crops and are faced with the dilemma of either choosing unequal row spacing for each crop or growing both crops using uniform row spacing. An experiment was conducted at the E.V. Smith Research Center in South-Central Alabama on a Coastal Plain soil to determine the effect of uniform row spacing for a cotton-corn rotation system. Row spacing in this region is typically 36 in. for cotton and 30 in. for corn. Our treatments consisted of using these row spacings for each crop or using a standard row spacing of 36 in. for both crops. Because in-row subsoiling is also commonly practiced in this region, we also included this tillage practice in our production system. In-row subsoiling was conducted at three different times: (1) biennially before corn planting, (2) biennially before cotton planting, or (3) annually before both corn and cotton planting. A fourth control treatment with no in-row subsoiling was also evaluated. Results after two years of the study indicate that, contrary to popular belief, maximum yields of corn were obtained with the uniform row spacing of 36 in. instead of the narrower row spacing of 30 in. It was also noted that when similar row spacing was used, in-row subsoiling conducted prior to the cotton crop provided maximum cotton yields with no decrease in corn yield the following year. Controlled traffic combined with uniform row spacing of 36 in. produced maximum yields of both crops as well as decreased energy use associated with reduced annual in-row subsoiling.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Corn yield was maximal with uniform 36 in. rows rather than 30 in. rows.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- uniform row spacing of 36 in.e0
- Outcome
- yields of corne0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Comparator
- narrower row spacing of 30 in.e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maximum yields of corn were obtained with the uniform row spacing of 36 in. instead of the narrower row spacing of 30 in.”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling before cotton gave maximum cotton yield with similar row spacing.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- in-row subsoiling conducted prior to the cotton crope0
- Outcome
- cotton yieldse0
- Direction
- maximume0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“when similar row spacing was used, in-row subsoiling conducted prior to the cotton crop provided maximum cotton yields with no decrease in corn yield the following year”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling before cotton did not decrease corn yield the following year.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- in-row subsoiling conducted prior to the cotton crope0
- Outcome
- corn yielde0
- Direction
- no decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in-row subsoiling conducted prior to the cotton crop provided maximum cotton yields with no decrease in corn yield the following year”
Claim · model-written summary
Controlled traffic with 36 in. uniform rows produced maximum yields of both crops.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Controlled traffic combined with uniform row spacing of 36 in.e0
- Outcome
- maximum yields of both cropse0
- Direction
- maximume0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Controlled traffic combined with uniform row spacing of 36 in. produced maximum yields of both crops as well as decreased energy use associated with reduced annual in-row subsoiling”
t0“COTTON-CORN”
Claim · model-written summary
Controlled traffic with uniform 36 in. rows decreased energy use associated with less annual subsoiling.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- Controlled traffic combined with uniform row spacing of 36 in.e0
- Outcome
- energy usee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Controlled traffic combined with uniform row spacing of 36 in. produced maximum yields of both crops as well as decreased energy use associated with reduced annual in-row subsoiling”
t0“COTTON-CORN”
The same questions in other papers
Gossypium hirsutum · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 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
- negative
- no effect
155 papers more in this group
See all 159 papers →density · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
129 papers in the same direction as this paper · 38 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
167 papers more in this group
See all 171 papers →density · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
518 papers in the same direction as this paper · 132 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
654 papers more in this group
See all 658 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 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.