Abstract
Shallow Sub‐Surface drip irrigation (S 3 DI) has drip tubing buried about 2 inches below the soil surface. It is unknown how long drip tubing would be viable at this shallow soil depth using strip‐ or no‐tillage systems. The objectives were to determine drip tube longevity, resultant crop yield, and partial net revenue when using conventional, strip‐, and no‐tillage. Drip tubing (8, 10, and 15 mil) was buried 1.5 inches in 2006 and left in the field for five years under strip‐ and no‐till areas and removed and reinstalled in conventionally‐tilled areas. Crop rotation was cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) the first year, corn ( Zea mays L.) the next three years, and peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) in the final year. There was no difference in cotton lint yield by tillage treatment and irrigated lint yield was 2.4 times greater than nonirrigated. There was no difference in irrigated corn yield across year or tillage practice. Irrigated corn yield was 5.8 times greater than nonirrigated yield. Irrigated peanut yield was the same across tillage treatments but was 2.6 times greater compared with nonirrigated yield. For tube longevity, conventionally tilled areas had less tube repairs compared with strip‐ or no‐tilled practices. Thinner wall tubing (8 mil) had 3.5 times more holes compared with thicker wall tubing (15 mil). The “cost‐to‐repair” versus “cost‐to‐replace” tubing indicates average replacement time at about 5.4 years. There were less production expenses for strip‐ and no‐ till compared with conventional tillage. Both strip‐ and no‐tillage systems are recommended when installing S 3 DI.
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
Tillage treatment did not change cotton lint yield.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- tillage treatmente0
- Outcome
- cotton lint yielde0
- Direction
- no differencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was no difference in cotton lint yield by tillage treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated cotton lint yield was 2.4 times greater than nonirrigated.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Irrigatede1
- Outcome
- lint yielde1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Value
- 2.4 timese1
- Comparator
- nonirrigatede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was no difference in cotton lint yield by tillage treatment”
e1“irrigated lint yield was 2.4 times greater than nonirrigated”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage practice did not change irrigated corn yield across years.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- tillage practicee0
- Outcome
- irrigated corn yielde0
- Direction
- no differencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was no difference in irrigated corn yield across year or tillage practice”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated corn yield was 5.8 times greater than nonirrigated yield.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- Irrigatede0
- Outcome
- corn yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 5.8 timese0
- Comparator
- nonirrigated yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigated corn yield was 5.8 times greater than nonirrigated yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated peanut yield was the same across tillage treatments.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeae0 - Treatment
- tillage treatmentse0
- Outcome
- peanut yielde0
- Direction
- the samee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigated peanut yield was the same across tillage treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated peanut yield was 2.6 times greater than nonirrigated yield.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- Irrigatede0
- Outcome
- peanut yielde0
- Direction
- greatere1
- Value
- 2.6 timese1
- Comparator
- nonirrigated yielde1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigated peanut yield was the same across tillage treatments”
e1“but was 2.6 times greater compared with nonirrigated yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventionally tilled areas had fewer tube repairs than strip- or no-tilled areas.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“For tube longevity, conventionally tilled areas had less tube repairs compared with”
Claim · model-written summary
Thinner wall tubing (8 mil) had 3.5 times more holes than thicker wall tubing (15 mil).
- Treatment
- Thinner wall tubing (8 mil)e0
- Outcome
- holese0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 3.5 timese0
- Comparator
- thicker wall tubing (15 mil)e0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Thinner wall tubing (8 mil) had 3.5 times more holes compared with thicker wall tubing (15 mil)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cost-to-repair versus cost-to-replace indicates an average tubing replacement time of about 5.4 years.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“indicates average replacement time at about 5.4 years”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip- and no-tillage had lower production expenses than conventional tillage.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“There were less production expenses”
e1“compared with conventional tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage systems are recommended when installing shallow subsurface drip irrigation.
- Outcome
- tillage systemse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“tillage systems are recommended when installing”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 66 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
86 papers more in this group
See all 90 papers →tillage · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 papers →irrigation · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
72 papers in the same direction as this paper · 55 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- no effect
130 papers more in this group
See all 134 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
- positive
187 papers more in this group
See all 191 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
- negative
- positive
- positive
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
286 papers in the same direction as this paper · 812 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.