Paper · 1981 · Transactions of the ASAE

Management of Blank Rows in Dryland Skip-Row Cotton

D. W. Fryrear

6
claims
6
verbatim quotes
13
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

ABSTRACT DRYLAND skip-row cotton yields were increased 66 to 79 percent by applying cotton gin trash to the blank rows in a plant-two-skip-two row system. Sorghum planted 15 June to protect the blank rows from wind ero-sion reduced cotton yields 22 to 38 percent. A 15 July planting of sorghum did not reduce cotton yields but did not always produce enough cover to protect the blanks from wind erosion. Millet planted 15 July usually pro-duced enough cover to protect the soil and did not reduce cotton yields 4 out of 8 years.

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 resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Applying cotton gin trash to the blank rows increased dryland skip-row cotton yields by 66 to 79 percent.

Treatment
applying cotton gin trash to the blank rowse0
Outcome
cotton yieldse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
66 to 79 percente0
Setting
DRYLANDe0

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

“DRYLAND skip-row cotton yields were increased 66 to 79 percent by applying cotton gin trash to the blank rows in a plant-two-skip-two row system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–153 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sorghum planted 15 June reduced cotton yields by 22 to 38 percent.

Treatment
Sorghum planted 15 Junee1
Outcome
cotton yieldse1
Direction
reducede1
Value
22 to 38 percente1

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

e1

“Sorghum planted 15 June to protect the blank rows from wind ero-sion reduced cotton yields 22 to 38 percent”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 155–262 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A 15 July planting of sorghum did not reduce cotton yields.

Treatment
A 15 July planting of sorghume2
Outcome
cotton yieldse2
Direction
did not reducee2

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

e2

“A 15 July planting of sorghum did not reduce cotton yields but did not always produce enough cover to protect the blanks from wind erosion”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 264–402 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A 15 July planting of sorghum did not always produce enough cover to protect the blanks from wind erosion.

Treatment
A 15 July planting of sorghume2
Outcome
enough cover to protect the blanks from wind erosione2
Direction
did not always producee2

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

e2

“A 15 July planting of sorghum did not reduce cotton yields but did not always produce enough cover to protect the blanks from wind erosion”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 264–402 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Millet planted 15 July did not reduce cotton yields in 4 of 8 years.

Treatment
Millet planted 15 Julye3
Outcome
cotton yieldse3
Direction
did not reducee3
Value
4 out of 8 yearse3

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

e3

“Millet planted 15 July usually pro-duced enough cover to protect the soil and did not reduce cotton yields 4 out of 8 years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 404–527 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Millet planted 15 July usually produced enough cover to protect the soil.

Treatment
Millet planted 15 Julye3
Outcome
enough cover to protect the soile3
Direction
usually pro-ducede3

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

e3

“Millet planted 15 July usually pro-duced enough cover to protect the soil and did not reduce cotton yields 4 out of 8 years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 404–527 · show in text ↑

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

13 papers: 10 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 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.