Paper · 2024 · CSA News

Skip‐Row Planting Is Potentially Beneficial in Rainfed Cotton

6
claims
14
verbatim quotes
0
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is an important crop in Texas and the southern U.S. Improving management to sustainably increase productivity in rainfed cotton is a goal of cotton research. Fertilization with foliar potassium (K) could potentially improve cotton quality and growth, and skip-row arrangements can conserve resources and reduce drought stress, which is a problem particularly in rainfed cotton, by reducing the planted area. A recent study in Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment tested the effects of both foliar K fertilization and row spacing on cotton yield, quality, and nutrient uptake from 2017 to 2020. Researchers at the USDA-ARS facility in Temple, TX set up a field experiment with full-row treatments, where all rows were planted, and skip-row treatments where every third row was skipped. They also tested foliar K, applying K (0, 5, and 10 kg ha–1) during the blooming stage at two-week intervals. Foliar K application had no effect on yield or quality while the skip-row treatment increased yield and quality in the driest year and had no effect in the wetter years. Skip-row configurations can be used to improve quality and yield and decrease production costs in rainfed cotton in drier climates. A cotton flower from the skip-row study at the USDA-ARS Grassland Soil and Water Research Laboratory in Temple, TX, which provided the photo.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar potassium had no effect on cotton yield.

Treatment
Foliar K applicatione0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
no effecte0

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

e0

“Foliar K application had no effect on yield or quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 928–982 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–61 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar potassium had no effect on cotton quality.

Treatment
Foliar K applicatione0
Outcome
qualitye0
Direction
no effecte0

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

e0

“Foliar K application had no effect on yield or quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 928–982 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–61 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Skip-row planting increased cotton yield in the driest year.

Treatment
skip-row treatmente0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
in the driest yeare0
Comparator
full-row treatmentse1

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

“skip-row treatment increased yield and quality in the driest year and had no effect in the wetter years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 993–1096 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–61 · show in text ↑
e1

“full-row treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 709–728 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Skip-row planting increased cotton quality in the driest year.

Treatment
skip-row treatmente0
Outcome
qualitye0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
in the driest yeare0
Comparator
full-row treatmentse1

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

“skip-row treatment increased yield and quality in the driest year and had no effect in the wetter years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 993–1096 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–61 · show in text ↑
e1

“full-row treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 709–728 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Skip-row planting had no effect on yield or quality in wetter years.

Treatment
skip-row treatmente0
Outcome
yield and qualitye0
Direction
no effecte0
Qualifier
in the wetter yearse0
Comparator
full-row treatmentse1

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

“skip-row treatment increased yield and quality in the driest year and had no effect in the wetter years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 993–1096 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–61 · show in text ↑
e1

“full-row treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 709–728 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Skip-row configurations were recommended to improve cotton yield and quality and reduce production costs in drier rainfed climates.

Outcome
improve quality and yield and decrease production costse0
Qualifier
in drier climatese0

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

“Skip-row configurations can be used to improve quality and yield and decrease production costs in rainfed cotton in drier climates”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1098–1228 · show in text ↑

potassium · quality: general · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

9 papers: 7 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

potassium · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

97 papers: 86 positive, 11 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 86 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
    K deficiency reduced seed mass by 4%

    Genotypic Interactions with Potassium and Nitrogen in Cotton of Varied Maturity · 1996 · compared with 112 kg ha −1 K

    Opposite directionAbout lacking this nutrient, so it counts the other way round

  3. positive

93 papers more in this group

See all 97 papers →

application · quality: general · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 8 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

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

283 papers: 253 positive, 30 negative or no effect

29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 253 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. 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.