Abstract
Conventional tillage (CT) increases the exposure of soil to erosion and is associated with lower soil moisture and organic matter than conservation tillage. Conservation tillage may benefit farmers in semi-arid regions of south Texas due to limited rainfall and lower input costs of no-till (NT) systems. The objective of this long-term study was to evaluate the effects of NT in a dryland cotton-sorghum cropping rotation system on soil moisture, bulk density, penetration resistance, C : N, N, P, K, and crop yields. This randomized block design experiment was established on a Victoria soil in Corpus Christi, TX, and has four replicates of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum ‘DPL 1044’) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor ‘DKS 53-67’) rotated under NT or CT. Soil samples were taken with a 30-cm push probe with depth increments of 0 to15 cm and 15 to 30 cm. Soil moisture, pH, ECw, NO3-N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Na, total N, SOC, and penetration resistance were measured before planting and after crop harvest beginning in 2014 after four years of tillage treatment. Cotton yield was not different between treatments, except for the drought year of 2013 when 88% greater cotton yield occurred with NT than CT. Sorghum did not produce grain in 2013 regardless of treatment, and yields were only effected by treatment in 2012 when yield was 33% greater in NT than CT. Sorghum had 69% residue coverage, which was 12% greater than the cotton residue coverage. The average crop residue coverage for both crops was 58% greater with NT than CT. Soil moisture and bulk density was not impacted by treatment; however, bulk density was 6% greater at 15-30 cm than 0-15 cm for CT. Soil pH, ECw, NO3-N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Na was not effected by NT; however, NT had greater total soil N content than CT in the 0 to 15 cm depth and lower in the 15 to 30 cm depth and SOC was greater in the 0 to 15 cm depth in 2014 with NT than CT, but lower in the 15 to 30 cm depth. No-till had a lower surface penetrometer resistance than CT in year five. No-till is an economically viable alternative to CT in this region because of risk mitigation in drought years.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield did not differ between no-till and conventional tillage, except in the drought year of 2013.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutume1 - Treatment
- NTe1
- Outcome
- Cotton yielde1
- Direction
- not differente1
- Qualifier
- except for the drought year of 2013e1
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Cotton yield was not different between treatments, except for the drought year of 2013 when 88% greater cotton yield occurred with NT than CT”
Claim · model-written summary
In the drought year of 2013, cotton yield was 88% greater with no-till than with conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- NTe1
- Outcome
- cotton yielde1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Value
- 88%e1
- Comparator
- CTe1
- Setting
- drought year of 2013e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Cotton yield was not different between treatments, except for the drought year of 2013 when 88% greater cotton yield occurred with NT than CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum did not produce grain in 2013 regardless of tillage treatment.
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Sorghum did not produce grain in 2013 regardless of treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum yield was 33% greater with no-till than with conventional tillage in 2012.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Sorghum did not produce grain in 2013 regardless of treatment”
e3“yields were only effected by treatment in 2012 when yield was 33% greater in NT than CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum had 69% residue coverage, 12% greater than cotton residue coverage.
- Outcome
- residue coveragee4
- Direction
- greatere4
- Value
- 69%e4
- Qualifier
- 12% greatere4
- Comparator
- cotton residue coveragee4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Sorghum had 69% residue coverage, which was 12% greater than the cotton residue coverage”
Claim · model-written summary
Average crop residue coverage for both crops was 58% greater with no-till than with conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“dryland cotton-sorghum cropping rotation system”
e5“The average crop residue coverage for both crops was 58% greater with NT than CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil moisture and bulk density were not affected by tillage treatment.
Verbatim
e0“dryland cotton-sorghum cropping rotation system”
e6“Soil moisture and bulk density was not impacted by treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Bulk density was 6% greater at 15-30 cm than at 0-15 cm under conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“dryland cotton-sorghum cropping rotation system”
e7“bulk density was 6% greater at 15-30 cm than 0-15 cm for CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil pH, ECw and NO3-N were not affected by no-till.
Verbatim
e0“dryland cotton-sorghum cropping rotation system”
e1“Soil pH, ECw, NO3-N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Na was not effected by NT”
Claim · model-written summary
P, K and Ca were not affected by no-till.
Verbatim
e0“dryland cotton-sorghum cropping rotation system”
e1“Soil pH, ECw, NO3-N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Na was not effected by NT”
Claim · model-written summary
Mg, S and Na were not affected by no-till.
Verbatim
e0“dryland cotton-sorghum cropping rotation system”
e1“Soil pH, ECw, NO3-N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Na was not effected by NT”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till had greater total soil N content than conventional tillage in the 0-15 cm depth.
Verbatim
e0“dryland cotton-sorghum cropping rotation system”
e1“NT had greater total soil N content than CT in the 0 to 15 cm depth and lower in the 15 to 30 cm depth”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till had lower total soil N content than conventional tillage in the 15-30 cm depth.
Verbatim
e0“dryland cotton-sorghum cropping rotation system”
e1“NT had greater total soil N content than CT in the 0 to 15 cm depth and lower in the 15 to 30 cm depth”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil organic carbon was greater under no-till than conventional tillage in the 0-15 cm depth in 2014.
Verbatim
e0“dryland cotton-sorghum cropping rotation system”
e1“SOC was greater in the 0 to 15 cm depth in 2014 with NT than CT, but lower in the 15 to 30 cm depth”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil organic carbon was lower under no-till than conventional tillage in the 15-30 cm depth.
Verbatim
e0“dryland cotton-sorghum cropping rotation system”
e1“SOC was greater in the 0 to 15 cm depth in 2014 with NT than CT, but lower in the 15 to 30 cm depth”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till had lower surface penetrometer resistance than conventional tillage in year five.
Verbatim
e0“dryland cotton-sorghum cropping rotation system”
e1“No-till had a lower surface penetrometer resistance than CT in year five”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till is an economically viable alternative to conventional tillage in this region because of risk mitigation in drought years.
Verbatim
e0“dryland cotton-sorghum cropping rotation system”
e1“No-till is an economically viable alternative to CT in this region because of risk mitigation in drought years”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · SorghumResults differ
101 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
119 papers more in this group
See all 123 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
- no effect
- negative
155 papers more in this group
See all 159 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.