Abstract
Abstract Cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) is an important crop in drought‐prone central Texas. Foliar potassium (K) application and skip‐row planting have the potential to improve productivity of rainfed cotton in this region. The objective of this study was to quantify the effects of skip‐row planting and foliar K on cotton lint yield, biomass, nutrient uptake, and lint quality in rainfed cotton from 2017 to 2020. Foliar K was applied at 0, 20, and 40 kg ha −1. Row arrangement treatments consisted of two planting geometries: 2 × 1 skip row and standard full row. Cotton yield was not affected by foliar K in all years or by row spacing in 2017, 2019, or 2020. In 2018 alone, there was greater lint yield from skip row (530 kg ha −1 ) compared to full row (423 kg ha −1 ). The skip‐row treatment resulted in significantly lower vegetative biomass and vegetative K uptake, but improved fiber quality. While foliar K application did not impact lint yield, total biomass and vegetative nitrogen and phosphorus uptake were increased with foliar K. There were year‐to‐year differences in seed and vegetative biomass, nutrient uptake, and lint quality, likely driven by differences in rainfall, with 2018 being unusually dry. Weather variation had more impact on cotton productivity than either treatment. However, given that the skip‐row treatment increased quality and yield in the driest year while not affecting yield in wetter years makes it a viable option for cotton producers looking to reduce costs and increase profits in drought‐prone regions.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar potassium did not affect cotton yield in any year.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- foliar Ke0
- Outcome
- Cotton yielde0
- Direction
- not affectede0
- Qualifier
- in all yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton yield was not affected by foliar K in all years or by row spacing in 2017, 2019, or 2020.”
Claim · model-written summary
Row spacing did not affect cotton yield in 2017, 2019 or 2020.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- row spacinge0
- Outcome
- Cotton yielde0
- Direction
- not affectede0
- Qualifier
- in 2017, 2019, or 2020e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton yield was not affected by foliar K in all years or by row spacing in 2017, 2019, or 2020.”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2018 skip rows yielded 530 kg ha −1 lint versus 423 kg ha −1 for full rows.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- skip rowe0
- Outcome
- lint yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 530 kg ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- 423 kg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- full rowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2018 alone, there was greater lint yield from skip row (530 kg ha −1 ) compared to full row (423 kg ha −1 ).”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Skip rows significantly reduced vegetative biomass.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- skip‐row treatmente0
- Outcome
- vegetative biomasse0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The skip‐row treatment resulted in significantly lower vegetative biomass and vegetative K uptake, but improved fiber quality.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Skip rows significantly reduced vegetative potassium uptake.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- skip‐row treatmente0
- Outcome
- vegetative K uptakee0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The skip‐row treatment resulted in significantly lower vegetative biomass and vegetative K uptake, but improved fiber quality.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Skip rows improved cotton fiber quality.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- skip‐row treatmente0
- Outcome
- fiber qualitye0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The skip‐row treatment resulted in significantly lower vegetative biomass and vegetative K uptake, but improved fiber quality.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar potassium increased total biomass.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- foliar Ke0
- Outcome
- total biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“While foliar K application did not impact lint yield, total biomass and vegetative nitrogen and phosphorus uptake were increased with foliar K.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar potassium increased vegetative nitrogen uptake.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- foliar Ke0
- Outcome
- vegetative nitrogene0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“While foliar K application did not impact lint yield, total biomass and vegetative nitrogen and phosphorus uptake were increased with foliar K.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar potassium increased vegetative phosphorus uptake.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- foliar Ke0
- Outcome
- phosphorus uptakee0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“While foliar K application did not impact lint yield, total biomass and vegetative nitrogen and phosphorus uptake were increased with foliar K.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed and vegetative biomass, nutrient uptake and lint quality differed among years, likely with rainfall.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- seed and vegetative biomass, nutrient uptake, and lint qualitye0
- Qualifier
- differences in rainfalle0
- Setting
- 2018e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were year‐to‐year differences in seed and vegetative biomass, nutrient uptake, and lint quality, likely driven by differences in rainfall, with 2018 being unusually dry.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Weather variation had more impact on cotton productivity than either treatment.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- cotton productivitye0
- Direction
- more impacte0
- Comparator
- either treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Weather variation had more impact on cotton productivity than either treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors considered skip rows viable for cotton producers in drought-prone regions.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- skip‐row treatmente0
- Outcome
- viable option for cotton producerse0
- Qualifier
- drought‐prone regionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, given that the skip‐row treatment increased quality and yield in the driest year while not affecting yield in wetter years makes it a viable option for cotton producers looking to reduce costs and increase profits in drought‐prone regions.”
The same questions in other papers
application · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
46 papers more in this group
See all 50 papers →application · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
95 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
111 papers more in this group
See all 115 papers →density · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 130 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
167 papers more in this group
See all 171 papers →application · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 253 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 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.