Abstract
Abstract Excessive tillage reduces soil water storage and increases surface runoff. Cover crops can modify the effect of tillage on soil water dynamics, but limited information is available for the Mississippi River Alluvial Basin. This study was conducted to determine whether soil–water dynamics could be manipulated through conservation production systems affecting surface residue management. Effects of tillage (conventional tillage [CT] vs. no‐tillage [NT]) and cover cropping (no cover crop and Austrian pea [ Pisum sativum L.] cover crop [CC]) on soil water balance during the CC season in sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor L.) and cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) crops were modeled using the root zone water quality model for a site near Stoneville, MS, on “Commerce” silty‐loam soil. Capacitance sensors measured soil volumetric water content to 120 cm during CC growth in 2019 and 2020. Field calibration of sensors reduced root mean square error from 0.05 to 0.03 m 3 m −3 . Pooled across years, NT increased volumetric water content in the 0–40 and 40–120 soil layers by 8.5% and 6.8%, respectively, compared to CT. Regardless of the CC treatment and cropping system, NT reduced surface runoff by 24.5% over its conventional counterpart, while soil water storage increased from 2.35 to 5.23 cm within the 1.2‐m profile, resulting in a 17% increase in consumptive use of water (evapotranspiration). CC treatments did not impact soil water storage and consumptive water use. The results demonstrate that NT systems can affect water dynamics by increasing infiltration and soil water storage in the humid subtropical region of the United States.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Field calibration reduced sensor error from 0.05 to 0.03 m 3 m −3.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Field calibration of sensors reduced root mean square error from 0.05 to 0.03 m 3 m −3 .”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage raised water content in the 0–40 cm layer by 8.5%.
SorghumNot reportedOrgan / stage
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NT increased volumetric water content in the 0–40 and 40–120 soil layers by 8.5% and 6.8%, respectively, compared to CT.”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage raised water content in the 40–120 cm layer by 6.8%.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- volumetric water contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 6.8%e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NT increased volumetric water content in the 0–40 and 40–120 soil layers by 8.5% and 6.8%, respectively, compared to CT.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage reduced surface runoff by 24.5%.
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- surface runoffe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 24.5%e0
- Comparator
- conventional counterparte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NT reduced surface runoff by 24.5% over its conventional counterpart”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water storage increased from 2.35 to 5.23 cm under no tillage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- NTt1
- Outcome
- soil water storagee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 5.23 cme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil water storage increased from 2.35 to 5.23 cm within the 1.2‐m profile”
t0“cotton”
t1“NT reduced surface runoff by 24.5% over its conventional counterpart”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage increased evapotranspiration by 17%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a 17% increase in consumptive use of water (evapotranspiration)”
t0“sorghum”
t1“NT reduced surface runoff by 24.5% over its conventional counterpart”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover cropping did not affect soil water storage or consumptive water use.
- Treatment
- CC treatmentse0
- Outcome
- soil water storage and consumptive water usee0
- Direction
- did not impacte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CC treatments did not impact soil water storage and consumptive water use.”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage increased infiltration.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- infiltratione0
- Direction
- increasinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NT systems can affect water dynamics by increasing infiltration and soil water storage”
t0“cotton”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · physiology: water · SorghumPositive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →tillage · soil: physics · SorghumPositive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 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.