Paper · 1996 · Agronomy Journal

Tillage Systems for Cotton on Silty Upland Soils

Glover B. Triplett; Seth M. Dabney; James H. Siefker

7
claims
12
verbatim quotes
80
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract No‐tillage systems for cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) production on sloping, upland sites have not been widely adopted in the Mid‐South of the USA, even though conventional cotton production creates a serious erosion hazard. A field study was established following sod on a site with loess soils to evaluate tillage system effect on cotton yield and earliness. The sod was tilled prior to establishment of treatments, which included conventional (chisel, disk, bed, cultivate), ridge till (remove ridge tops at planting, cultivate postemergence to rebuild ridges), no‐tillage [wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) cover seeded following cotton harvest, killed prior to planting], and minimum tillage (one pass with a mulch finisher prior to planting, cultivate postemergence). During the first year of the study, no‐tillage cotton yields were lower and maturity delayed compared with conventional tillage. During Years 3 to 5, no‐tillage crop yields were 18 to 42% greater and crop maturity was 6 to 10 d earlier than conventional tillage. Minimum tillage yields were similar to conventional tillage while ridge tillage was lower in two of the last 3 yr of the study. Results of this study indicate viable no‐tillage production systems for cotton can be developed for highly erosive loess soils in the Mid‐South.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

First year no tillage cotton yield was lower than conventional tillage.

Treatment
no‐tillagee0
Outcome
cotton yieldse0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
conventional tillagee0

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

“During the first year of the study, no‐tillage cotton yields were lower and maturity delayed compared with conventional tillage.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 780–908 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

First year no tillage cotton maturity was delayed.

Treatment
no‐tillagee0
Outcome
maturitye0
Direction
delayede0
Comparator
conventional tillagee0

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

“During the first year of the study, no‐tillage cotton yields were lower and maturity delayed compared with conventional tillage.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 780–908 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Years three to five no tillage yield was 18 to 42% greater than conventional tillage.

Treatment
no‐tillagee0
Outcome
crop yieldse0
Direction
greatere0
Value
18 to 42%e0
Comparator
conventional tillagee0

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

“During Years 3 to 5, no‐tillage crop yields were 18 to 42% greater and crop maturity was 6 to 10 d earlier than conventional tillage.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 909–1042 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–26 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Years three to five no tillage crop maturity was 6 to 10 days earlier.

Treatment
no‐tillagee0
Outcome
crop maturitye0
Direction
earliere0
Value
6 to 10 de0
Comparator
conventional tillagee0

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

“During Years 3 to 5, no‐tillage crop yields were 18 to 42% greater and crop maturity was 6 to 10 d earlier than conventional tillage.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 909–1042 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–26 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Minimum tillage yield was similar to conventional tillage.

Treatment
Minimum tillagee0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
conventional tillagee0

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

“Minimum tillage yields were similar to conventional tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1043–1102 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–26 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ridge tillage yield was lower in two of the final three years.

Treatment
ridge tillagee0
Outcome
lowere0
Direction
lowere0
Qualifier
two of the last 3 yre0
Comparator
conventional tillagee1

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

“ridge tillage was lower in two of the last 3 yr of the study.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1109–1170 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–26 · show in text ↑
e1

“similar to conventional tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1071–1102 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Viable no tillage cotton production systems can be developed on erosive loess soils.

Outcome
viable no‐tillage production systemse0
Setting
Mid‐Southe0

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

“Results of this study indicate viable no‐tillage production systems for cotton can be developed for highly erosive loess soils in the Mid‐South.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1171–1315 · show in text ↑

tillage · phenology · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

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

159 papers: 113 positive, 46 negative or no effect

112 papers in the same direction as this paper · 38 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

155 papers more in this group

See all 159 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.