Paper · 2007 · Agronomy Journal

Cotton Roots, Earthworms, and Infiltration Characteristics in Sod–Peanut–Cotton Cropping Systems

Tawainga W. Katsvairo; David L. Wright; James J. Marois; et al.

9
claims
17
verbatim quotes
59
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Diverse cropping systems offer many advantages to farmers. We evaluated root growth, soil water infiltration, and earthworm population densities in a conventional peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.)/cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) rotation using conservation tillage (CT), and a peanut/cotton/bahiagrass ( Paspalum notatum Fluegge) farming system. The rotations were initiated in 2000 in Quincy, FL, and in 2001 in Headland, AL, in both cases on a Dothan sandy loam (fine, loamy siliceous, thermic Plinthic Kandiudults). In 2003, a year with more uniform rainfall, cotton in the sod‐based rotation had larger average crown root diameter per plant (22.6 vs. 16.3 mm), root area (87.2 vs. 57.4 cm 2 ), root length (640 vs. 460 cm), and root biomass (18.59 vs. 10.45 g) as compared with cotton in the peanut/cotton rotation. Water infiltration rates were higher in both cotton and peanut after bahiagrass compared with the conventional peanut/cotton rotation in 2003. Earthworm population densities were greater in the sod rotation compared with the traditional peanut/cotton cropping system. Water infiltration was positively correlated to earthworm population densities. Despite the improvements in soil quality, cotton yield in the sod rotation was the same as the traditional cropping systems. Cotton developed excessive vegetative growth in the bahiagrass system at the expense of lint yield. Further research is needed to determine the N rate for the sod‐based rotation in comparison with the conventional cotton/peanut rotation.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In the sod-based rotation, cotton had larger average crown root diameter per plant than in the peanut/cotton rotation.

Treatment
sod‐based rotatione1
Outcome
average crown root diameter per plante1
Direction
largere1
Value
22.6 vs. 16.3 mme1
Comparator
peanut/cotton rotatione2

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

e1

“cotton in the sod‐based rotation had larger average crown root diameter per plant (22.6 vs. 16.3 mm)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 559–659 · show in text ↑
e2

“as compared with cotton in the peanut/cotton rotation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 761–814 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In the sod-based rotation, cotton had larger root area than in the peanut/cotton rotation.

Treatment
sod‐based rotatione1
Outcome
root areae2
Direction
largere1
Value
87.2 vs. 57.4 cm 2e2
Comparator
peanut/cotton rotatione3

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

e1

“cotton in the sod‐based rotation had larger”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 559–602 · show in text ↑
e2

“root area (87.2 vs. 57.4 cm 2 )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 661–692 · show in text ↑
e3

“as compared with cotton in the peanut/cotton rotation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 761–814 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In the sod-based rotation, cotton had longer roots than in the peanut/cotton rotation.

Treatment
sod‐based rotatione1
Outcome
root lengthe2
Direction
largere1
Value
640 vs. 460 cme2
Comparator
peanut/cotton rotatione3

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

e1

“cotton in the sod‐based rotation had larger”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 559–602 · show in text ↑
e2

“root length (640 vs. 460 cm)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 694–722 · show in text ↑
e3

“as compared with cotton in the peanut/cotton rotation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 761–814 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In the sod-based rotation, cotton had greater root biomass than in the peanut/cotton rotation.

Treatment
sod‐based rotatione1
Outcome
root biomasse2
Direction
largere1
Value
18.59 vs. 10.45 ge2
Comparator
peanut/cotton rotatione3

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

e1

“cotton in the sod‐based rotation had larger”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 559–602 · show in text ↑
e2

“root biomass (18.59 vs. 10.45 g)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 728–760 · show in text ↑
e3

“as compared with cotton in the peanut/cotton rotation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 761–814 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water infiltration rates were higher in cotton and peanut after bahiagrass than in the conventional peanut/cotton rotation in 2003.

Treatment
after bahiagrasse1
Outcome
Water infiltration ratese1
Direction
highere1
Comparator
conventional peanut/cotton rotatione1

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 ↗
Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Water infiltration rates were higher in both cotton and peanut after bahiagrass compared with the conventional peanut/cotton rotation in 2003”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 816–957 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Earthworm population densities were greater in the sod rotation than in the traditional peanut/cotton cropping system.

Treatment
sod rotatione1
Interactor
EarthwormCrassiclitellatae1other
Outcome
Earthworm population densitiese1
Direction
greatere1
Comparator
traditional peanut/cotton cropping systeme1

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 ↗
Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Earthworm population densities were greater in the sod rotation compared with the traditional peanut/cotton cropping system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 959–1082 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water infiltration was positively correlated with earthworm population densities.

Interactor
earthwormCrassiclitellatae1other
Outcome
Water infiltratione1
Direction
positively correlatede1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Water infiltration was positively correlated to earthworm population densities”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1084–1162 · show in text ↑
e2

“conventional peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.)/cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) rotation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 150–233 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton yield in the sod rotation was the same as in the traditional cropping systems.

Treatment
sod rotatione1
Outcome
cotton yielde1
Direction
the samee1
Comparator
traditional cropping systemse1

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

e1

“cotton yield in the sod rotation was the same as the traditional cropping systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1206–1287 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton developed excessive vegetative growth in the bahiagrass system at the expense of lint yield.

Treatment
bahiagrass systeme1
Outcome
excessive vegetative growthe1
Qualifier
at the expense of lint yielde1

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

e1

“Cotton developed excessive vegetative growth in the bahiagrass system at the expense of lint yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1289–1387 · show in text ↑

rotation · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

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

43 papers: 26 positive, 17 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

39 papers more in this group

See all 43 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.