Paper · 2023 · Agronomy Journal

Evaluating the impacts of wide row upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) production in Georgia

Caitlyn B. Lawton; Amrit Pokhrel; Joshua M. Lee; et al.

8
claims
15
verbatim quotes
9
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract Success stories of wide row cotton production have generated producer interest across the cotton belt. The objective of this study was to quantify the effect of row spacing on (1) cotton growth and development and (2) lint yield and fiber quality in Georgia. The cotton cultivar Deltapine DP 1646 (Bollgard 2, XtendFlex; Bayer Crop Science) was planted in 2021 and 2022 in Tifton, GA, at row spacings of 91 cm, 122 cm, 152 cm, and 183 cm. Although canopy closure was delayed in wider row spacings compared to the 91‐cm spacing, all other crop growth and development trends did not differ among row spacings. Similarly, row spacing had no effect on the incidence of boll rot/hard lock. The 91‐cm row spacing yielded 1734 kg lint ha −1 . The 183‐cm row spacing reduced yield by 15% compared with the grower's standard row spacing of 91 cm. Fiber quality parameters did not differ among row spacing treatments. Seed costs can be reduced in all wide row systems evaluated for cotton, and the 122 and 152‐cm row spacings had similar yields to the 91‐cm row spacing. However, Georgia growers produce peanuts ( Arachis hypogea L.) and corn ( Zea mays L.), the most common rotational crops for cotton producers, using a 91‐cm row spacing. Consequently, the simplest transition to wide row production would be the 183‐cm spacing, which incurred yield penalties in the current study. Thus, a 91‐cm row spacing is still the most feasible option for Georgia cotton producers.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Canopy closure was delayed in wider row spacings compared with the 91 cm spacing in cotton.

Treatment
wider row spacingse2
Outcome
canopy closuree2
Direction
delayede2
Comparator
91‐cm 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

e1

“The cotton cultivar Deltapine DP 1646 (Bollgard 2, XtendFlex; Bayer Crop Science) was planted in 2021 and 2022 in Tifton, GA, at row spacings of 91 cm, 122 cm, 152 cm, and 183 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 268–446 · show in text ↑
e2

“Although canopy closure was delayed in wider row spacings compared to the 91‐cm spacing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 448–535 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Other cotton growth and development trends did not differ among row spacings.

Treatment
row spacingse2
Outcome
all other crop growth and development trendse2
Direction
did not differe2
Comparator
among row spacingse2

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

“The cotton cultivar Deltapine DP 1646 (Bollgard 2, XtendFlex; Bayer Crop Science) was planted in 2021 and 2022 in Tifton, GA, at row spacings of 91 cm, 122 cm, 152 cm, and 183 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 268–446 · show in text ↑
e2

“all other crop growth and development trends did not differ among row spacings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 537–615 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Row spacing had no effect on the incidence of boll rot/hard lock in cotton.

Treatment
row spacinge3
Outcome
incidence of boll rot/hard locke3
Direction
no effecte3

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

“The cotton cultivar Deltapine DP 1646 (Bollgard 2, XtendFlex; Bayer Crop Science) was planted in 2021 and 2022 in Tifton, GA, at row spacings of 91 cm, 122 cm, 152 cm, and 183 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 268–446 · show in text ↑
e3

“Similarly, row spacing had no effect on the incidence of boll rot/hard lock”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 617–692 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 91 cm row spacing yielded 1734 kg lint per hectare in cotton.

Outcome
yielde4
Value
1734 kg lint ha −1e4
Qualifier
91‐cm row spacinge4
Setting
Tifton, GAe1

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

“The cotton cultivar Deltapine DP 1646 (Bollgard 2, XtendFlex; Bayer Crop Science) was planted in 2021 and 2022 in Tifton, GA, at row spacings of 91 cm, 122 cm, 152 cm, and 183 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 268–446 · show in text ↑
e4

“The 91‐cm row spacing yielded 1734 kg lint ha −1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 694–742 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 183 cm row spacing reduced cotton yield by 15% compared with the grower standard of 91 cm.

Treatment
183‐cm row spacinge5
Outcome
yielde5
Direction
reducede5
Value
15%e5
Comparator
grower's standard row spacing of 91 cme5

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

“The cotton cultivar Deltapine DP 1646 (Bollgard 2, XtendFlex; Bayer Crop Science) was planted in 2021 and 2022 in Tifton, GA, at row spacings of 91 cm, 122 cm, 152 cm, and 183 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 268–446 · show in text ↑
e5

“The 183‐cm row spacing reduced yield by 15% compared with the grower's standard row spacing of 91 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 745–845 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fiber quality parameters of cotton did not differ among row spacing treatments.

Treatment
row spacinge6
Outcome
Fiber quality parameterse6
Direction
did not differe6
Comparator
among row spacing treatmentse6

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

“The cotton cultivar Deltapine DP 1646 (Bollgard 2, XtendFlex; Bayer Crop Science) was planted in 2021 and 2022 in Tifton, GA, at row spacings of 91 cm, 122 cm, 152 cm, and 183 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 268–446 · show in text ↑
e6

“Fiber quality parameters did not differ among row spacing treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 847–915 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 122 and 152 cm row spacings gave cotton yields similar to the 91 cm spacing.

Treatment
122 and 152‐cm row spacingse7
Outcome
yieldse7
Direction
similare7
Comparator
91‐cm row spacinge7

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

“The cotton cultivar Deltapine DP 1646 (Bollgard 2, XtendFlex; Bayer Crop Science) was planted in 2021 and 2022 in Tifton, GA, at row spacings of 91 cm, 122 cm, 152 cm, and 183 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 268–446 · show in text ↑
e7

“the 122 and 152‐cm row spacings had similar yields to the 91‐cm row spacing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 993–1068 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

A 91 cm row spacing is still the most feasible option for cotton producers in Georgia.

Outcome
most feasible optione2
Setting
Georgiae2

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

“Thus, a 91‐cm row spacing is still the most feasible option for Georgia cotton producers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1383–1471 · show in text ↑

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

69 papers: 34 positive, 35 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  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

40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 130 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

167 papers more in this group

See all 171 papers →

density · disease · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

3 papers: 0 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
  2. negative
See all 3 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.