Abstract
A 6-yr rotation study was conducted from 2000 to 2005 at Stoneville, MS to examine the effects of rotating glyphosate-resistant (GR) and non-GR (conventional) cultivars of cotton with corn under reduced tillage conditions on soil properties, weed control, crop yield, and net return. There were four rotation systems (continuous cotton, continuous corn, cotton–corn, and corn–cotton) for each non-GR and GR cultivar arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Field preparation consisted of disking, subsoiling, disking, and bedding in the fall of 1999. After the fall of 2000, the experimental area received no tillage operations except rebedding after harvest each year to maintain reduced tillage conditions. A glyphosate-based program in GR cultivars and a nonglyphosate-based program in non-GR cultivars were used for weed management. Soil organic carbon in the top 5-cm depth progressively increased from the first year to the sixth year, regardless of rotation. In 2005, organic carbon was higher in corn grown continuously and in rotation compared to continuous cotton, partly due to higher plant residues from corn compared to cotton. Control of most grass and broadleaf weeds was sufficient to support cotton and corn production, regardless of rotation and herbicide program. Control of yellow nutsedge was reduced in continuous non-GR cotton; this apparent weed species shift toward yellow nutsedge was mitigated by breaking the cotton monocrop with corn. Plant populations of both GR and non-GR cotton rotated with corn were similar to that of continuous cotton suggesting cotton stand establishment was not affected by corn residues from the previous year. Cotton yield increased every year following rotation with corn by 10–32% in the non-GR cultivar, and by 14–19% in the GR cultivar compared to continuous cotton. Similarly, corn yield increased by 5–13% in non-GR cultivar and by 1–11% in the GR cultivar when rotated with cotton. As a result, net returns were higher from rotation management as compared with monoculture in both crops. This study demonstrated that alternating between cotton and corn is agronomically feasible and a sustainable option for farmers in the lower Mississippi River alluvial flood plain region who are looking for simple cultural practices that provide economic and environmental benefits.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Soil organic carbon in the top 5 cm rose progressively over six years regardless of rotation.
- Taxon
- Cotton and corn
Gossypium hirsutum
Zea mays subsp. mayst0 - Outcome
- Soil organic carbone0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- regardless of rotatione0
Not reportedOrgan / stage
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton and corn rotation”
e0“Soil organic carbon in the top 5-cm depth progressively increased from the first year to the sixth year, regardless of rotation.”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2005, organic carbon was higher under continuous and rotated corn than under continuous cotton.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- organic carbone0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- higher plant residues from corn compared to cottone0
- Comparator
- continuous cottone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton and corn rotation”
e0“In 2005, organic carbon was higher in corn grown continuously and in rotation compared to continuous cotton, partly due to higher plant residues from corn compared to cotton.”
Claim · model-written summary
Most grass and broadleaf weeds were controlled sufficiently for cotton and corn production across rotation and herbicide programs.
- Taxon
- cotton and cornGossypium hirsutumZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Interactor
- grass and broadleaf weedse0weed
- Outcome
- Control of most grass and broadleaf weedse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton and corn rotation”
e0“Control of most grass and broadleaf weeds was sufficient to support cotton and corn production, regardless of rotation and herbicide program.”
Claim · model-written summary
Yellow nutsedge control was reduced in continuous non-GR cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Material
- non-GRe0
- Interactor
- yellow nutsedgee0weed
- Outcome
- Control of yellow nutsedgee0
- Direction
- reducede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton and corn rotation”
e0“Control of yellow nutsedge was reduced in continuous non-GR cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Breaking the cotton monocrop with corn mitigated the shift toward yellow nutsedge.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- breaking the cotton monocrop with corne0
- Interactor
- yellow nutsedgee0weed
- Outcome
- weed species shift toward yellow nutsedgee0
- Direction
- mitigatede0
- Comparator
- cotton monocrope0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton and corn rotation”
e0“this apparent weed species shift toward yellow nutsedge was mitigated by breaking the cotton monocrop with corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Rotated GR and non-GR cotton had similar plant populations to continuous cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Material
- GR and non-GR cottone0
- Outcome
- Plant populationse0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- continuous cottone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton and corn rotation”
e0“Plant populations of both GR and non-GR cotton rotated with corn were similar to that of continuous cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Rotation with corn increased non-GR cotton yield by 10–32% each year versus continuous cotton.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Material
- non-GR cultivare0
- Treatment
- rotation with corne0
- Outcome
- Cotton yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 10–32%e0
- Comparator
- continuous cottone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton and corn rotation”
e0“Cotton yield increased every year following rotation with corn by 10–32% in the non-GR cultivar, and by 14–19% in the GR cultivar compared to continuous cotton.”
Claim · model-written summary
Rotation with corn increased GR cotton yield by 14–19% versus continuous cotton.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Material
- GR cultivare0
- Treatment
- rotation with corne0
- Outcome
- Cotton yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 14–19%e0
- Comparator
- continuous cottone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton and corn rotation”
e0“Cotton yield increased every year following rotation with corn by 10–32% in the non-GR cultivar, and by 14–19% in the GR cultivar compared to continuous cotton.”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn yield rose by 5–13% for the non-GR cultivar when rotated with cotton.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Material
- non-GR cultivare0
- Treatment
- rotated with cottone0
- Outcome
- corn yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 5–13%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton and corn rotation”
e0“corn yield increased by 5–13% in non-GR cultivar and by 1–11% in the GR cultivar when rotated with cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn yield rose by 1–11% for the GR cultivar when rotated with cotton.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Material
- GR cultivare0
- Treatment
- rotated with cottone0
- Outcome
- corn yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1–11%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton and corn rotation”
e0“corn yield increased by 5–13% in non-GR cultivar and by 1–11% in the GR cultivar when rotated with cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Rotation management produced higher net returns than monoculture in both crops.
- Taxon
- Cotton and cornGossypium hirsutumZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- rotation managemente0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton and corn rotation”
e0“net returns were higher from rotation management as compared with monoculture in both crops”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude alternating cotton and corn is agronomically feasible and sustainable for farmers in the lower Mississippi River alluvial flood plain.
- Taxon
- cotton and cornGossypium hirsutumZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- agronomically feasible and a sustainable optione0
- Setting
- lower Mississippi River alluvial flood plain regione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton and corn rotation”
e0“alternating between cotton and corn is agronomically feasible and a sustainable option for farmers in the lower Mississippi River alluvial flood plain region”
The same questions in other papers
Zea mays subsp. mays · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →Gossypium hirsutum · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →Zea mays subsp. mays · weed · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
rotation · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
39 papers more in this group
See all 43 papers →rotation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
253 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction · 16 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
318 papers more in this group
See all 322 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.