Abstract
Abstract The implementation of integrated weed management (IWM) practices in conventional management systems involves additional costs and can influence both short‐term and long‐term cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) yields, ultimately affecting economic viability. This study, conducted from fall 2018 to fall 2023 near Marianna, AR, evaluated four IWM practices in a large‐plot, fixed‐plot factorial design: zero tolerance for weed seed rain, soil inversion deep tillage every third year in the fall, a preplant terminated cereal rye cover crop, and dicamba‐resistant cotton technology. Long‐term economic impacts were assessed using the 5‐year average cost‐adjusted yield, with the base program (excluding all IWM practices) serving as the control. Zero tolerance did not influence cotton yield and, due to a significant decline in hand hoeing time over time, had no adverse effect on economic outcomes. Most IWM combinations produced cotton yield comparable to the base program. However, the deep tillage–dicamba combination resulted in a 9% reduction. When costs were incorporated, cost‐adjusted yields for the all‐present, dicamba alone, and deep tillage–dicamba combinations were 5%–8% lower than the base program. Integration of a cover crop, except when combined with both deep tillage and dicamba, consistently resulted in cost‐adjusted yield similar to the base program. While the progressive reduction in labor costs over time enhances zero tolerance practice's practicality as a foundational element within long‐term IWM systems, the evaluated IWM practices, whether implemented individually or in combination, generally did not affect cotton yields, and many combinations, including those up to triplet levels, imposed no long‐term economic burden.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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
Zero tolerance for weed seed rain did not influence cotton yield compared with the base program.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- Zero tolerancee1
- Outcome
- cotton yielde1
- Direction
- did not influencee1
- Comparator
- base programe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) yields”
e1“Zero tolerance did not influence cotton yield”
e2“with the base program (excluding all IWM practices) serving as the control”
Claim · model-written summary
The deep tillage and dicamba combination reduced cotton yield by 9% compared with the base program.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- deep tillage–dicamba combinatione3
- Outcome
- cotton yielde3
- Direction
- reductione3
- Value
- 9%e3
- Comparator
- base programe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) yields”
e3“Most IWM combinations produced cotton yield comparable to the base program. However, the deep tillage–dicamba combination resulted in a 9% reduction”
Claim · model-written summary
Cost-adjusted yields for dicamba alone and deep tillage with dicamba were 5%–8% lower than the base program.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- dicamba alonee4
- Outcome
- adjusted yieldse4
- Direction
- lowere4
- Value
- 5%–8%e4
- Comparator
- base programe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) yields”
e4“When costs were incorporated, cost‐adjusted yields for the all‐present, dicamba alone, and deep tillage–dicamba combinations were 5%–8% lower than the base program”
Claim · model-written summary
Most IWM combinations produced cotton yield comparable to the base program.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- IWM combinationse3
- Outcome
- cotton yielde3
- Direction
- comparablee3
- Comparator
- base programe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) yields”
e3“Most IWM combinations produced cotton yield comparable to the base program. However, the deep tillage–dicamba combination resulted in a 9% reduction”
Claim · model-written summary
Integrated cover crop, except when combined with both deep tillage and dicamba, gave cost-adjusted yield similar to the base program.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Integration of a cover crope5
- Outcome
- yielde5
- Direction
- similare5
- Comparator
- base programe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) yields”
e5“Integration of a cover crop, except when combined with both deep tillage and dicamba, consistently resulted in cost‐adjusted yield similar to the base program”
Claim · model-written summary
The evaluated IWM practices, individually or in combination, generally did not affect cotton yields.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- evaluated IWM practicese6
- Outcome
- cotton yieldse6
- Direction
- did not affecte6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) yields”
e6“the evaluated IWM practices, whether implemented individually or in combination, generally did not affect cotton yields”
Claim · model-written summary
Hand hoeing time in cotton declined significantly over time under zero tolerance.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- hand hoeing timee7
- Qualifier
- a significant decline in hand hoeing time over timee7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) yields”
e7“a significant decline in hand hoeing time over time”
Claim · model-written summary
Many IWM combinations, including those up to triplet levels, imposed no long-term economic burden.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- many combinations, including those up to triplet levelse1
- Outcome
- economic burdene1
- Direction
- imposed noe1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) yields”
e1“many combinations, including those up to triplet levels, imposed no long‐term economic burden”
The same questions in other papers
dicamba · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →cover crop · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 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
- negative
- positive
155 papers more in this group
See all 159 papers →herbicide · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
58 papers in the same direction as this paper · 123 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
178 papers more in this group
See all 182 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.