Abstract
Abstract. Compared with disk tillage (DT), no-tillage (NT) retains residue and increases precipitation capture, which has the potential to reduce irrigation withdrawals from the declining Ogallala Aquifer. Our objective was to quantify DT and NT effects on water conservation during fallow and the subsequent yield of deficit irrigated corn (Zea mays L.) or cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) grown in rotation with wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). On a Pullman clay loam (fine, mixed, superactive, thermic Torrertic Paleustoll) at the USDA-ARS Conservation and Production Research Laboratory, Bushland, TX (35.183° N, 102.1° W), we seeded separate blocks of cotton and corn at 12 and 9 plants m-2, respectively, in 0.76-m rows following a 10-month fallow during 2006-2009. Using a lateral move mid-elevation sprinkler system, crops were irrigated every 10 days with nominal 25 or 50 mm amounts to mimic limited well capacities of the region. No-tillage increased soil water stored during fallow by approximately 50 mm over bare DT soil. Although evapotranspiration (ET) increased with increasing irrigation for both corn and cotton, only the shorter cotton crop realized consistently greater ET with residue retaining NT practices. Compared with DT, NT residue management increased mean corn yield by 1.25 Mg ha-1 or 86% at the 2.5 mm d-1 irrigation rate and 25% from 3.86 to 4.82 - Mg ha-1 for the 5.0 mm d-1 irrigation rate. Cotton lint yields did not vary by irrigation rate during any year, but NT increased 4-year mean lint yield 0.35 Mg ha-1 or nearly 40% over DT cotton. We conclude that residue retaining NT conservation tillage increased soil water storage during fallow compared with DT. We attributed greater corn and cotton yield with NT to a continued residue benefit during the growing season to repartition ET for less soil water evaporation and increased crop transpiration, which increased crop water use efficiency.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage increased fallow soil water storage by approximately 50 mm over disk tillage.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse1 - Treatment
- No-tillagee0
- Outcome
- soil water stored during fallowe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- approximately 50 mme0
- Comparator
- bare DT soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No-tillage increased soil water stored during fallow by approximately 50 mm over bare DT soil.”
e1“corn (Zea mays L.) or cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn evapotranspiration increased with irrigation amount.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- increasing irrigatione0
- Outcome
- evapotranspiration (ET)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evapotranspiration (ET) increased with increasing irrigation for both corn and cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton evapotranspiration increased with irrigation amount.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- increasing irrigatione0
- Outcome
- evapotranspiration (ET)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evapotranspiration (ET) increased with increasing irrigation for both corn and cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage consistently increased cotton evapotranspiration relative to disk tillage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- residue retaining NT practicese0
- Outcome
- ETe0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- disk tillage (DT)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only the shorter cotton crop realized consistently greater ET with residue retaining NT practices.”
e1“Compared with disk tillage (DT), no-tillage (NT) retains residue”
Claim · model-written summary
At 2.5 mm d-1 irrigation, no-tillage increased mean corn yield by 1.25 Mg ha-1 or 86% relative to disk tillage.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- NT residue managemente0
- Outcome
- mean corn yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1.25 Mg ha-1 or 86%e0
- Qualifier
- 2.5 mm d-1 irrigation ratee0
- Comparator
- DTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with DT, NT residue management increased mean corn yield by 1.25 Mg ha-1 or 86% at the 2.5 mm d-1 irrigation rate”
Claim · model-written summary
At 5.0 mm d-1 irrigation, no-tillage increased corn yield by 25%, from 3.86 to 4.82 Mg ha-1.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- NT residue managemente0
- Outcome
- mean corn yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 25% from 3.86 to 4.82 - Mg ha-1e0
- Qualifier
- 5.0 mm d-1 irrigation ratee0
- Comparator
- DTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with DT, NT residue management increased mean corn yield by 1.25 Mg ha-1 or 86% at the 2.5 mm d-1 irrigation rate and 25% from 3.86 to 4.82 - Mg ha-1 for the 5.0 mm d-1 irrigation rate.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton lint yields did not vary by irrigation rate in any year.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- irrigation ratee0
- Outcome
- lint yieldse0
- Direction
- did not varye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton lint yields did not vary by irrigation rate during any year”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage increased four-year mean cotton lint yield by 0.35 Mg ha-1, nearly 40% above disk tillage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- 4-year mean lint yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 0.35 Mg ha-1 or nearly 40%e0
- Comparator
- DTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NT increased 4-year mean lint yield 0.35 Mg ha-1 or nearly 40% over DT cotton.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors attributed no-tillage yield gains to less soil evaporation and greater crop transpiration, increasing water use efficiency.
- Taxon
- corn and cottonGossypium hirsutumZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- crop water use efficiencye0
- Qualifier
- less soil water evaporation and increased crop transpiratione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“We attributed greater corn and cotton yield with NT to a continued residue benefit during the growing season to repartition ET for less soil water evaporation and increased crop transpiration, which increased crop water use efficiency.”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
148 papers more in this group
See all 152 papers →irrigation · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
94 papers in the same direction as this paper · 304 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
395 papers more in this group
See all 399 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.