Paper · 2021 · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)

Integrated Weed Management of Cotton Planting in Conventional and Ultra-Narrow Row Space

Ali Reza Ghavi; Mohammad Armin

9
claims
28
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-sa

Abstract

To determine the most appropriate method of weed management in conventional row and ultra narrow row spacings of cotton, a factorial experiment was based on a randomized complete block design with three replications was conducted in Sabzevar in 2015-2016. Factors under study were plant spacings in two levels, conventional (70 cm row spacing) and ultra-narrow row (20 cm row spacing) and weed management in six levels: without controlling of weeds (control), application of herbicide at recommended dose of Ethalfluralin (Treflan 48% EC) at 1160 g/ai ha), application of herbicide at 50% recommended dose + hand weeding at 45 days after emergence (DAE), application of herbicide at 50% recommended dose + two times hand weeding at 30 and 60 DAE, three times hand weeding at 30, 45 and 60 DAE, and full weed free condition. The results showed that traits like weed density, by 33.71 percent, lateral branches by 14.77 percent, number of bolls per plant by 16.88 percent, and boll weight by 12.30 percent were lower in narrow row spacing, while seed cotton yield by 39.85 percent and fiber yield by 23.71 percent higher, as compared to, conventional row spacing. In the conventional cultivation system, if 50% of the herbicide dose is reduced, it needs two hands weeding at 30 and 60 DAE; while in ultra-narrow row spacing condition, with a 50% reduction in the recommended herbicide dose, one hand weeding at 45 DAE is needed to achieve suitable seed cotton yield. As a whole, the results showed that, under ultra-narrow row spacing, with a 50% reduction in herbicide dose and reduced weed control times (only one hand weeding at 45 DAE) it can be obtained seed cotton yield similar to other control treatments.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Narrow rows lowered weed density by 33.71 percent.

Treatment
narrow row spacinge1
Interactor
Weedt1weed
Outcome
weed densitye0
Direction
lowere1
Value
33.71 percente0
Comparator
conventional row spacinge2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“weed density, by 33.71 percent”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 860–890 · show in text ↑
e1

“were lower in narrow row spacing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1004–1036 · show in text ↑
e2

“conventional row spacing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1136–1160 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–36 · show in text ↑
t1

“Weed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–15 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Narrow rows lowered lateral branches by 14.77 percent.

Treatment
narrow row spacinge1
Outcome
lateral branchese0
Direction
lowere1
Value
14.77 percente0
Comparator
conventional row spacinge2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“lateral branches by 14.77 percent”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 892–925 · show in text ↑
e1

“were lower in narrow row spacing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1004–1036 · show in text ↑
e2

“conventional row spacing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1136–1160 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–36 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Narrow rows lowered bolls per plant by 16.88 percent.

Treatment
narrow row spacinge1
Outcome
number of bolls per plante0
Direction
lowere1
Value
16.88 percente0
Comparator
conventional row spacinge2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“number of bolls per plant by 16.88 percent”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 927–969 · show in text ↑
e1

“were lower in narrow row spacing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1004–1036 · show in text ↑
e2

“conventional row spacing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1136–1160 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–36 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Narrow rows lowered boll weight by 12.30 percent.

Treatment
narrow row spacinge0
Outcome
boll weighte0
Direction
lowere0
Value
12.30 percente0
Comparator
conventional row spacinge1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“boll weight by 12.30 percent were lower in narrow row spacing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 975–1036 · show in text ↑
e1

“conventional row spacing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1136–1160 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–36 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Narrow rows raised seed cotton yield by 39.85 percent.

Treatment
narrow row spacinge1
Outcome
seed cotton yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
39.85 percente0
Comparator
conventional row spacinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“seed cotton yield by 39.85 percent and fiber yield by 23.71 percent higher, as compared to, conventional row spacing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1044–1160 · show in text ↑
e1

“were lower in narrow row spacing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1004–1036 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–36 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Narrow rows raised fiber yield by 23.71 percent.

Treatment
narrow row spacinge1
Outcome
fiber yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
23.71 percente0
Comparator
conventional row spacinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“fiber yield by 23.71 percent higher, as compared to, conventional row spacing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1083–1160 · show in text ↑
e1

“were lower in narrow row spacing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1004–1036 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–36 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend two hand weedings with half the herbicide dose in conventional rows.

Treatment
50% of the herbicide dosee0
Outcome
two hands weeding at 30 and 60 DAEe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In the conventional cultivation system, if 50% of the herbicide dose is reduced, it needs two hands weeding at 30 and 60 DAE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1162–1286 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–36 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend one hand weeding at 45 DAE with half the herbicide dose in ultra-narrow rows.

Treatment
50% reduction in the recommended herbicide dosee0
Outcome
one hand weeding at 45 DAEe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in ultra-narrow row spacing condition, with a 50% reduction in the recommended herbicide dose, one hand weeding at 45 DAE is needed to achieve suitable seed cotton yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1294–1463 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–36 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ultra-narrow rows with half the herbicide dose and one hand weeding gave similar seed cotton yield to other control treatments.

Treatment
50% reduction in herbicide dose and reduced weed control times (only one hand weeding at 45 DAE)e0
Outcome
seed cotton yielde0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
other control treatmentse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“under ultra-narrow row spacing, with a 50% reduction in herbicide dose and reduced weed control times (only one hand weeding at 45 DAE) it can be obtained seed cotton yield similar to other control treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1502–1710 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–36 · show in text ↑

density · weed · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 6 positive, 3 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

density · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

69 papers: 34 positive, 35 negative or no effect

33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

65 papers more in this group

See all 69 papers →

density · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

171 papers: 130 positive, 41 negative or no effect

129 papers in the same direction as this paper · 38 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

167 papers more in this group

See all 171 papers →

herbicide · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

182 papers: 123 positive, 59 negative or no effect

58 papers in the same direction as this paper · 123 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

178 papers more in this group

See all 182 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.