Abstract
As economic conditions deteriorated, cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) producers have looked to improve profit margins by reducing inputs while maintaining yields. Pairing the yield benefits from early planting with the input reductions from conservation tillage might help accomplish those goals. The objective was to determine how growth, lint yield, and fiber quality were impacted by planting cotton early while using minimum tillage. Four cotton cultivars were planted either during the first week in April (Early) or the first week in May (Normal) in 2004 to 2007. Half the plots were conventional tillage and half were minimum tillage. Dry matter partitioning, flowering, root hydraulic conductance, leaf water potential, lint yield, yield components, and fiber quality data were collected. Cultivars differed in leaf water potential, leaf osmotic potential, and root hydraulic conductance. Root hydraulic conductance for the early planting was 21% greater than the normal planting, but no differences were detected between tillage treatments. Early planting increased yields 22% in 2007, but yields did not differ between planting dates any other year. During 2006 and 2007, lint yields were reduced 13% when minimum tillage was employed. No planting date × tillage treatment interactions were detected, so the same response to minimum tillage could be expected regardless of whether the planting occurred in early April or early May. Even though yield reductions were occasionally observed with minimum tillage, the pairing of minimum tillage with early planting could be a viable option for producers because of the input reduction.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Early planting raised root hydraulic conductance by 21% over normal planting.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- early plantinge0
- Outcome
- Root hydraulic conductancee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 21%e0
- Comparator
- normal plantinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root hydraulic conductance for the early planting was 21% greater than the normal planting, but no differences were detected between tillage treatments”
t0“Cotton Growth and Lint Yield Production”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage treatments made no difference in root hydraulic conductance.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- tillage treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Root hydraulic conductancee0
- Direction
- no differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root hydraulic conductance for the early planting was 21% greater than the normal planting, but no differences were detected between tillage treatments”
t0“Cotton Growth and Lint Yield Production”
Claim · model-written summary
Early planting increased cotton yield by 22% in 2007.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Early plantinge1
- Outcome
- yieldse1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 22%e1
- Qualifier
- in 2007e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Early planting increased yields 22% in 2007, but yields did not differ between planting dates any other year”
t0“Cotton Growth and Lint Yield Production”
Claim · model-written summary
Yields did not differ between planting dates in years other than 2007.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- planting datese1
- Outcome
- yieldse1
- Direction
- did not differe1
- Qualifier
- any other yeare1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Early planting increased yields 22% in 2007, but yields did not differ between planting dates any other year”
t0“Cotton Growth and Lint Yield Production”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum tillage reduced lint yield by 13% in 2006 and 2007.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- minimum tillagee2
- Outcome
- lint yieldse2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Value
- 13%e2
- Qualifier
- During 2006 and 2007e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“During 2006 and 2007, lint yields were reduced 13% when minimum tillage was employed”
t0“Cotton Growth and Lint Yield Production”
Claim · model-written summary
No planting date by tillage treatment interaction was detected for cotton.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- planting date × tillage treatment interactionse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“No planting date × tillage treatment interactions were detected”
t0“Cotton Growth and Lint Yield Production”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton cultivars differed in leaf water potential, leaf osmotic potential and root hydraulic conductance.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Material
- Cultivarse4
- Outcome
- leaf water potential, leaf osmotic potential, and root hydraulic conductancee4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Cultivars differed in leaf water potential, leaf osmotic potential, and root hydraulic conductance”
t0“Cotton Growth and Lint Yield Production”
Claim · model-written summary
Pairing minimum tillage with early planting could be a viable option for producers.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- viable optione5
- Qualifier
- because of the input reductione5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“the pairing of minimum tillage with early planting could be a viable option for producers because of the input reduction”
t0“Cotton Growth and Lint Yield Production”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · physiology: water · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →sowing time · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
65 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
91 papers more in this group
See all 95 papers →tillage · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 113 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.