Paper · 2021 · Nematology

Rotations with Crotalaria spp. do not suppress populations of Meloidogyne incognita in cotton

Churamani Khanal; Rafael Galbieri; Patricia Timper

4
claims
4
verbatim quotes
15
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Summary Field studies were conducted in Mato Grosso, Brazil and Georgia, USA to evaluate the efficacy of Crotalaria spp. as a rotational cover crop for managing Meloidogyne incognita in cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum ). The two studies differed in how Crotalaria spp. were incorporated into the cotton production system to reflect differences in climate (tropical vs subtropical) and production systems typical for the two regions. In Mato Grosso, Crotalaria juncea and C. spectabilis were planted after soybean in late summer, grown for approximately 300 days, and incorporated into the soil 6-15 days prior to cotton planting. In Georgia, C. juncea and a nematode-resistant cowpea, Vigna ungiculata , were planted after maize in the late summer, grown until killed by frost in the early winter, and cotton was planted in the next season. Soil population densities of M. incognita and root galling in cotton were similar in cotton following either fallow, resistant cowpea, or Crotalaria spp. However, Crotalaria spp. significantly increased cotton plant height at the time of harvest relative to the other treatments. Except for one of the experiments in Brazil, incorporation of Crotalaria spp. in the rotational scheme did not increase cotton yield. Results indicate that a cover crop of Crotalaria spp. does not suppress M. incognita in cotton production system more than a fallow period or planting a resistant cover crop.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

M. incognita soil populations were similar after fallow, cowpea and Crotalaria.

Treatment
Crotalaria spp.e0
Interactor
M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
Outcome
Soil population densities of M. incognitae0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
fallow, resistant cowpeae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne incognita
Meloidogyne incognita · InteractorPhoto by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soil population densities of M. incognita and root galling in cotton were similar in cotton following either fallow, resistant cowpea, or Crotalaria spp.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 837–990 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton root galling was similar after fallow, cowpea and Crotalaria.

Treatment
Crotalaria spp.e0
Interactor
M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
Outcome
root galling in cottone0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
fallow, resistant cowpeae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne incognita
Meloidogyne incognita · InteractorPhoto by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soil population densities of M. incognita and root galling in cotton were similar in cotton following either fallow, resistant cowpea, or Crotalaria spp.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 837–990 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Crotalaria significantly increased cotton height at harvest relative to other treatments.

Treatment
Crotalaria spp.e0
Outcome
cotton plant heighte0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
at the time of harveste0
Comparator
the other treatmentse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“However, Crotalaria spp. significantly increased cotton plant height at the time of harvest relative to the other treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 991–1116 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Crotalaria rotations did not increase cotton yield except in one Brazilian experiment.

Treatment
incorporation of Crotalaria spp. in the rotational schemee0
Outcome
cotton yielde0
Direction
did not increasee0
Qualifier
Except for one of the experiments in Brazile0
Setting
Brazile0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Except for one of the experiments in Brazil, incorporation of Crotalaria spp. in the rotational scheme did not increase cotton yield.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1117–1250 · show in text ↑

Crotalaria · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

rotation · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

43 papers: 26 positive, 17 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

39 papers more in this group

See all 43 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.