Abstract
Unique, variable summer climate of the lower Mississippi (MS) Delta region poses a critical challenge to cotton producers in deciding when to plant for optimized production. Traditional 2–4 year agronomic field trials conducted in this area fail to capture the effects of long-term climate variabilities in the location for developing reliable planting windows for producers. Our objective was to integrate a four-year planting-date field experiment conducted at Stoneville, MS during 2005–2008 with long-term climate data in an agricultural system model and develop optimum planting windows for cotton under both irrigated and rainfed conditions. Weather data collected at this location from 1960 to 2015 and the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton v4.6 model within the Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM2) were used. The cotton model was able to simulate both the variable planting date and variable water regimes reasonably well: relative errors of seed cotton yield, aboveground biomass, and leaf area index (LAI) were 14%, 12%, and 21% under rainfed conditions and 8%, 16%, and 15% under irrigated conditions, respectively. Planting windows under both rainfed and irrigated conditions extended from mid-March to mid-June: windows from mid-March to the last week of May under rainfed conditions, and from the last week of April to the end of May under irrigated conditions were better suited for optimum yield returns. Within these windows, rainfed cotton tends to lose yield from later plantings, but irrigated cotton benefits; however, irrigation requirements increase as the planting windows advance in time. Irrigated cotton produced about 1000 kg·ha−1 seed cotton more than rainfed cotton, with irrigation water requirements averaging 15 cm per season. Under rainfed conditions, there is a 5%, 14%, and 27% chance that the seed cotton production is below 1000, 1500, and 2000 kg·ha−1, respectively. Information developed in this paper can help MS farmers in decision support for cotton planting.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
The cotton model simulated planting date and water regimes with yield, biomass, and leaf area relative errors of 14%, 12%, and 21% under rainfed conditions.
- Outcome
- relative errors of seed cotton yield, aboveground biomass, and leaf area index (LAI)e0
- Value
- 14%, 12%, and 21%e0
- Qualifier
- under rainfed conditionse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“relative errors of seed cotton yield, aboveground biomass, and leaf area index (LAI) were 14%, 12%, and 21% under rainfed conditions”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The cotton model had yield, biomass, and leaf area relative errors of 8%, 16%, and 15% under irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“8%, 16%, and 15% under irrigated conditions, respectively”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The better rainfed cotton planting window for optimum yield was mid-March to the last week of May.
- Outcome
- windows from mid-March to the last week of May under rainfed conditionse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“windows from mid-March to the last week of May under rainfed conditions, and from the last week of April to the end of May under irrigated conditions were better suited for optimum yield returns”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The better irrigated cotton planting window was the last week of April to the end of May.
- Outcome
- from the last week of April to the end of May under irrigated conditionse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“from the last week of April to the end of May under irrigated conditions were better suited for optimum yield returns”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Later planting reduced rainfed cotton yield within the window.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- later plantingse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- losee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rainfed cotton tends to lose yield from later plantings”
Claim · model-written summary
Later planting benefited irrigated cotton yield within the window.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- benefitse0
Not reportedTreatmentDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“irrigated cotton benefits”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation requirements increased for later planting windows.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“irrigation requirements increase as the planting windows advance in time”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated cotton produced about 1000 kg·ha−1 more seed cotton than rainfed cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Irrigatede0
- Outcome
- seed cottone0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 1000 kg·ha−1e0
- Comparator
- rainfed cottone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigated cotton produced about 1000 kg·ha−1 seed cotton more than rainfed cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation water requirements averaged 15 cm per season.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“irrigation water requirements averaging 15 cm per season”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Rainfed cotton had a 5% probability of production below 1000 kg·ha−1.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“there is a 5%, 14%, and 27% chance that the seed cotton production is below 1000, 1500, and 2000 kg·ha−1, respectively”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Rainfed cotton had a 14% probability of production below 1500 kg·ha−1.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“there is a 5%, 14%, and 27% chance that the seed cotton production is below 1000, 1500, and 2000 kg·ha−1, respectively”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Rainfed cotton had a 27% probability of production below 2000 kg·ha−1.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“there is a 5%, 14%, and 27% chance that the seed cotton production is below 1000, 1500, and 2000 kg·ha−1, respectively”
t0“Cotton”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 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.