Abstract
Abstract Soil textural variability diminishes the effectiveness of conventional irrigation management. Variable rate irrigation (VRI) can address soil variability; however, users need guidance to prepare prescriptions for optimal water application. A study was conducted at Portageville, MO, USA, in 2016 and 2017 with the objective to compare yield and irrigation water use efficiency among three water-management treatments for cotton: rainfed, irrigated based on the USDA-ARS Irrigation Scheduling Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (ISSCADA) system, and irrigated based on a water balance method. Sand content in the top 533 mm soil layer was estimated from apparent electrical conductivity (EC a ). Yield values measured near an EC a observation were averaged to create a data set containing sand content and associated yield. Although the trend was for the rainfed treatment to have the lowest yield in both years, the yield differences among all treatments were not significant when sand content was not considered. A strong effect of sand content on cotton yield was observed in both seasons, although the slopes differed among the water management treatments in 2016. The ISSCADA system tended to have a higher irrigation water use efficiency in both seasons, but the difference was not significant in 2016 when total irrigation applications were low. The study is continuing at Portageville and other locations and the ISSCADA system is constantly being improved to better meet the needs of agricultural producers.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Yield differences among all cotton water-management treatments were not significant when sand content was not considered
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Outcome
- yield differences among all treatmentse2
- Qualifier
- when sand content was not considerede2
- Setting
- Portageville, MO, USAe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“irrigation management of cotton”
e1“A study was conducted at Portageville, MO, USA, in 2016 and 2017”
e2“yield differences among all treatments were not significant when sand content was not considered”
Claim · model-written summary
The rainfed cotton treatment tended to have the lowest yield in both years
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- rainfed treatmente3
- Outcome
- yielde3
- Direction
- loweste3
- Qualifier
- the trend was fore3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“irrigation management of cotton”
e3“the trend was for the rainfed treatment to have the lowest yield in both years”
Claim · model-written summary
Sand content had a strong effect on cotton yield in both seasons
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- sand contente4
- Outcome
- cotton yielde4
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“irrigation management of cotton”
e4“A strong effect of sand content on cotton yield was observed in both seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
The ISSCADA system tended to have higher irrigation water use efficiency than the other cotton irrigation treatments in both seasons
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- ISSCADA systeme5
- Outcome
- irrigation water use efficiencye5
- Direction
- highere5
- Qualifier
- tendede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“irrigation management of cotton”
e5“The ISSCADA system tended to have a higher irrigation water use efficiency in both seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
The irrigation water use efficiency difference was not significant in 2016 when total irrigation applications were low
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- differencee6
- Qualifier
- when total irrigation applications were lowe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“irrigation management of cotton”
e6“the difference was not significant in 2016 when total irrigation applications were low”
The same questions in other papers
rainfall · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
109 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
127 papers more in this group
See all 131 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.