Abstract
Terminated small grain cover crops are valuable in light textured soils to reduce wind and rain erosion and for protection of young cotton seedlings. A three-year study was conducted to determine the impact of terminated small grain winter cover crops, which are hosts for Meloidogyne incognita, on cotton yield, root galling and nematode midseason population density. The small plot test consisted of the cover treatment as the main plots (winter fallow, oats, rye and wheat) and rate of aldicarb applied in-furrow at-plant (0, 0.59 and 0.84 kg a.i./ha) as subplots in a split-plot design with eight replications, arranged in a randomized complete block design. Roots of 10 cotton plants per plot were examined at approximately 35 days after planting. Root galling was affected by aldicarb rate (9.1, 3.8 and 3.4 galls/root system for 0, 0.59 and 0.84 kg aldicarb/ha), but not by cover crop. Soil samples were collected in mid-July and assayed for nematodes. The winter fallow plots had a lower density of M. incognita second-stage juveniles (J2) (transformed to Log(10) (J2 + 1)/500 cm(3) soil) than any of the cover crops (0.88, 1.58, 1.67 and 1.75 Log(10)(J2 + 1)/500 cm(3) soil for winter fallow, oats, rye and wheat, respectively). There were also fewer M. incognita eggs at midseason in the winter fallow (3,512, 7,953, 8,262 and 11,392 eggs/500 cm(3) soil for winter fallow, oats, rye and wheat, respectively). Yield (kg lint per ha) was increased by application of aldicarb (1,544, 1,710 and 1,697 for 0, 0.59 and 0.84 kg aldicarb/ha), but not by any cover crop treatments. These results were consistent over three years. The soil temperature at 15 cm depth, from when soils reached 18 degrees C to termination of the grass cover crop, averaged 9,588, 7,274 and 1,639 centigrade hours (with a minimum threshold of 10 degrees C), in 2005, 2006 and 2007, respectively. Under these conditions, potential reproduction of M. incognita on the cover crop did not result in a yield penalty.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Aldicarb reduced root galling from 9.1 galls per root system without aldicarb to 3.8 and 3.4 at two application rates.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- 0.59 and 0.84 kg aldicarb/hae0
- Outcome
- Root gallinge0
- Value
- 3.8 and 3.4 galls/root systeme0
- Qualifier
- 9.1e0
- Comparator
- 0e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root galling was affected by aldicarb rate (9.1, 3.8 and 3.4 galls/root system for 0, 0.59 and 0.84 kg aldicarb/ha)”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop did not affect cotton root galling.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cover crope0
- Outcome
- Cottont0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but not by cover crop.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter fallow had lower midseason M. incognita juvenile density than any cover crop.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- winter fallowe0
- Interactor
- M. incognita
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne incognitae0pathogen - Outcome
- density of M. incognita second-stage juveniles (J2)e0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- any of the cover cropse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“The winter fallow plots had a lower density of M. incognita second-stage juveniles (J2) (transformed to Log(10) (J2 + 1)/500 cm(3) soil) than any of the cover crops”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter fallow had fewer midseason M. incognita eggs than cover crops.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- winter fallowe0
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Outcome
- M. incognita eggse0
- Direction
- fewere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were also fewer M. incognita eggs at midseason in the winter fallow”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Aldicarb increased cotton lint yield relative to no application.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- application of aldicarbe0
- Outcome
- Yield (kg lint per ha)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- 0e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield (kg lint per ha) was increased by application of aldicarb (1,544, 1,710 and 1,697 for 0, 0.59 and 0.84 kg aldicarb/ha)”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop treatments did not increase cotton lint yield.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cover crop treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Cottont0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but not by any cover crop treatments.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Potential nematode reproduction on cover crops did not cause a cotton yield penalty under these conditions.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Outcome
- yield penaltye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under these conditions, potential reproduction of M. incognita on the cover crop did not result in a yield penalty.”
t0“Cotton”
The same questions in other papers
aldicarb · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →aldicarb · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →rotation · Meloidogyne incognita · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
cover crop · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.