Abstract
Abstract In conservation agriculture, cover crops are utilized to improve soil properties and to enhance cash crop growth. One important part of cover crop management is termination. With smaller profit margins and constraints on time and labor, producers are searching for ways to reduce time and labor required to terminate cover crops while maintaining or increasing profitability. This study examined the effect of 11 different combinations of terminating cereal rye ( Secale cereale L.) and planting cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) on population, seed cotton yield, total costs and net returns; and how combined operations affect labor, fuel consumption and carbon (CO 2 ) emissions in a conservation system. Cereal rye followed by cotton was planted in central Alabama during the 2009–2011 crop years. Treatments included cotton planted directly into standing cereal rye, cover crops terminated at early milk growth stage using mechanical (roller or roller/crimper) with or without chemical termination (spraying) followed by cotton planting, and cover crop termination combined with cotton planting using spraying with or without rolling termination. While the 2011 crop year had the lowest plant populations, there was no year effect on seed cotton yields, total costs or net returns. Rolling with or without spraying yielded higher plant populations (26%), seed cotton yields (18.3%) and net returns (17.2%) than cotton planted into standing rye; however, rolling with or without spraying also had 23.8% higher costs due to increased fuel usage, machinery and labor hours, and yield varying costs. While rolling with spraying had slightly higher total costs compared with rolling alone (6.5%), plant populations, seed cotton yields and net returns were 11.42%, 6.4% and 6.5% higher, respectively. Converting from three separate operations for cover crop termination and cotton planting to rolling and spraying combined with planting, producers could potentially reduce CO 2 emissions from fuel use and labor hours associated with cover crop termination and cotton planting by up to 51%.
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
Cotton populations were lowest in 2011.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Outcome
- plant populationse0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Setting
- 2011 crop yeare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the 2011 crop year had the lowest plant populations”
t0“cotton production”
Claim · model-written summary
Year did not affect seed cotton yields, total costs or net returns.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- seed cotton yields, total costs or net returnse0
- Direction
- no year effecte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was no year effect on seed cotton yields, total costs or net returns”
Claim · model-written summary
Rolling with or without spraying raised cotton populations by 26% versus planting into standing rye.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Rolling with or without sprayinge0
- Outcome
- plant populationse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 26%e0
- Comparator
- cotton planted into standing ryee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rolling with or without spraying yielded higher plant populations (26%), seed cotton yields (18.3%) and net returns (17.2%) than cotton planted into standing rye”
Claim · model-written summary
Rolling with or without spraying raised seed cotton yield by 18.3%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Rolling with or without sprayinge0
- Outcome
- seed cotton yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 18.3%e0
- Comparator
- cotton planted into standing ryee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rolling with or without spraying yielded higher plant populations (26%), seed cotton yields (18.3%) and net returns (17.2%) than cotton planted into standing rye”
Claim · model-written summary
Rolling with or without spraying raised net returns by 17.2%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Rolling with or without sprayinge0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 17.2%e0
- Comparator
- cotton planted into standing ryee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rolling with or without spraying yielded higher plant populations (26%), seed cotton yields (18.3%) and net returns (17.2%) than cotton planted into standing rye”
Claim · model-written summary
Rolling with or without spraying raised costs by 23.8%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- rolling with or without sprayinge0
- Outcome
- costse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 23.8%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rolling with or without spraying also had 23.8% higher costs due to increased fuel usage, machinery and labor hours, and yield varying costs”
t0“cotton production”
Claim · model-written summary
Rolling with spraying had 6.5% higher costs than rolling alone.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- rolling with sprayinge0
- Outcome
- total costse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 6.5%e0
- Comparator
- rolling alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rolling with spraying had slightly higher total costs compared with rolling alone (6.5%)”
t0“cotton production”
Claim · model-written summary
Rolling with spraying raised populations by 11.42% versus rolling alone.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- rolling with sprayinge0
- Outcome
- plant populationse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 11.42%e0
- Comparator
- rolling alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rolling with spraying had slightly higher total costs compared with rolling alone (6.5%), plant populations, seed cotton yields and net returns were 11.42%, 6.4% and 6.5% higher, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Rolling with spraying raised seed cotton yield by 6.4%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- rolling with sprayinge1
- Outcome
- seed cotton yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 6.4%e0
- Comparator
- rolling alonee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plant populations, seed cotton yields and net returns were 11.42%, 6.4% and 6.5% higher, respectively”
e1“rolling with spraying had slightly higher total costs compared with rolling alone (6.5%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Rolling with spraying raised net returns by 6.5%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- rolling with sprayinge1
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 6.5%e0
- Comparator
- rolling alonee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plant populations, seed cotton yields and net returns were 11.42%, 6.4% and 6.5% higher, respectively”
e1“rolling with spraying had slightly higher total costs compared with rolling alone (6.5%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined rolling, spraying and planting could reduce CO2 emissions and labor hours by up to 51%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- rolling and spraying combined with plantinge0
- Outcome
- CO 2 emissions from fuel use and labor hourse0
- Direction
- reducee0
- Value
- up to 51%e0
- Comparator
- three separate operationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Converting from three separate operations for cover crop termination and cotton planting to rolling and spraying combined with planting, producers could potentially reduce CO 2 emissions from fuel use and labor hours associated with cover crop termination and cotton planting by up to 51%”
The same questions in other papers
application · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →application · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
252 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 papers →application · environment: emissions · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.