tillage · Physiology: water · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)
12 claims from these papers; 4 citations between them.
Papers here report positive and negative or no-effect results. No pair of them has been accepted in the claim-by-claim check.
How these papers cite each other
4 citations between these papers: 2 on the same side, 2 across the two sides.
- Positive result
- Negative result or no effect
- Citation, pointing to the cited paper
- Citation across the two sides
- Larger circle: more citations overall
Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.
Papers reporting a positive result 5
Crop Rotation and Tillage Effects on Soil Water and Cotton Yield · 1994
- positive
- positive
IRRIGATION WATER MANAGEMENT FOR COTTON YIELD IN NORTH DELTA · 2011
- positive
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 7
- no effect
Cotton Leaf Water Potential and Yields Relative to Tillage and Traffic · 1977
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
Impact of Varying Planting Dates and Tillage Systems on Cotton Growth and Lint Yield Production · 2009
- no effect
Yield, Quality, and Spectral Reflectance Responses of Cotton under Subsurface Drip Irrigation · 2015
- no effect
Yield, quality, and spectral reflectance responses of cotton under subsurface drip irrigation · 2015
- no effect
A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.