Paper · 2016 · ˜The œjournal of cotton science/Journal of cotton science

Growth and Agronomic Performance of Cotton When Grown in Rotation with Soybean

W.T. Pettigrew; H.A. Bruns; K.N. Reddy

7
claims
8
verbatim quotes
14
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Mid-South United States (US) cotton producers are now rotating cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) with other crops such as corn (Zea mays L.) or soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] , in response to economic conditions, rather than growing cotton continuously as was the tradition. This research investigated cotton growth and development, lint yield, and fiber quality when cotton was grown following soybean compared to following cotton. Cotton and soybean were grown in six rotational sequences (CCCC, SSSS, CSCS, CSSC, SCSC, and SCCS) during 2012-2015 at Stoneville, MS. These rotations were imposed in production systems utilizing either transgenic or conventional cultivars, with or without glyphosate in the herbicide regime. Dry matter partitioning, leaf chlorophyll (Chl) concentration, lint yield, and fiber quality data were collected. Years when cotton was grown following soybean, produced cotton plants that were on average 13% taller, intercepted on average 6% more sunlight, and contained 13% greater leaf Chl concentrations compared to plants in continuous cotton. Cotton grown following soybean produced increased yields one of the two years. Fiber quality was not impacted by the different rotation sequences. Cotton grown in a conventional production system was competitive with that grown in a transgenic production system. The yield increase observed when growing cotton in rotation with soybean is possibly due to increased soil N via N-fixation from the prior soybean crop and/or due to altered soil microbial populations favorable to the subsequent cotton crop.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton grown after soybean was on average 13% taller than cotton in continuous cotton.

Treatment
grown following soybeane1
Outcome
cotton plantse1
Direction
tallere1
Value
13%e1
Comparator
continuous cottone1

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

e1

“Years when cotton was grown following soybean, produced cotton plants that were on average 13% taller, intercepted on average 6% more sunlight, and contained 13% greater leaf Chl concentrations compared to plants in continuous cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 839–1072 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton grown after soybean intercepted on average 6% more sunlight than cotton in continuous cotton.

Treatment
grown following soybeane1
Outcome
sunlighte1
Direction
moree1
Value
6%e1
Comparator
continuous cottone1

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

e1

“Years when cotton was grown following soybean, produced cotton plants that were on average 13% taller, intercepted on average 6% more sunlight, and contained 13% greater leaf Chl concentrations compared to plants in continuous cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 839–1072 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton grown after soybean had 13% greater leaf chlorophyll concentrations than cotton in continuous cotton.

Treatment
grown following soybeane1
Outcome
leaf Chl concentrationse1
Direction
greatere1
Value
13%e1
Comparator
continuous cottone1

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

e1

“Years when cotton was grown following soybean, produced cotton plants that were on average 13% taller, intercepted on average 6% more sunlight, and contained 13% greater leaf Chl concentrations compared to plants in continuous cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 839–1072 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton grown following soybean produced increased yields in one of the two years.

Treatment
grown following soybeane2
Outcome
yieldse2
Direction
increasede2
Qualifier
one of the two yearse2

Not reportedComparator

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

e2

“Cotton grown following soybean produced increased yields one of the two years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1074–1151 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fiber quality was not impacted by the different rotation sequences.

Treatment
rotation sequencese3
Outcome
Fiber qualitye3
Direction
not impactede3

Not reportedComparator

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

e1

“Years when cotton was grown following soybean, produced cotton plants that were on average 13% taller, intercepted on average 6% more sunlight, and contained 13% greater leaf Chl concentrations compared to plants in continuous cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 839–1072 · show in text ↑
e3

“Fiber quality was not impacted by the different rotation sequences”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1153–1219 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton grown in a conventional production system was competitive with cotton grown in a transgenic production system.

Treatment
conventional production systeme4
Outcome
competitivee4
Comparator
transgenic production systeme4

Not reportedDirection

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

e4

“Cotton grown in a conventional production system was competitive with that grown in a transgenic production system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1221–1335 · show in text ↑
Mechanismhypothesisoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The yield increase from rotating cotton with soybean is possibly due to more soil N from N-fixation and to altered soil microbial populations.

Outcome
The yield increasee5
Qualifier
increased soil N via N-fixation from the prior soybean crop and/or due to altered soil microbial populationse5

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

e5

“The yield increase observed when growing cotton in rotation with soybean is possibly due to increased soil N via N-fixation from the prior soybean crop and/or due to altered soil microbial populations favorable to the subsequent cotton crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1337–1577 · show in text ↑

Glycine max · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

27 papers: 18 positive, 9 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

23 papers more in this group

See all 27 papers →

Glycine max · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

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

9 papers: 3 positive, 6 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 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.