Search

Recommendations to obtain maximum yields of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and corn (Zea mays L.) often don't occur with the same row spacing due to different crop's needs and available equipment. However, many producers in the South are now rotating these two crops and are faced with the dilemma of either choosing unequal row spacing for each crop or growing both crops using uniform row spacing. An experiment was conducted at the E.V. Smith Research Center in South-Central Alabama on a Coastal Plain soil to determine the effect of uniform row spacing for a cotton-corn rotation system. Row spacing in this region is typically 36 in. for cotton and 30 in. for corn. Our treatments consisted of using these row spacings for each crop or using a standard row spacing of 36 in. for both crops. Because in-row subsoiling is also commonly practiced in this region, we also included this tillage practice in our production system. In-row subsoiling was conducted at three different times: (1) biennially before corn planting, (2) biennially before cotton planting, or (3) annually before both corn and cotton planting. A fourth control treatment with no in-row subsoiling was also evaluated. Results after two years of the study indicate that, contrary to popular belief, maximum yields of corn were obtained with the uniform row spacing of 36 in. instead of the narrower row spacing of 30 in. It was also noted that when similar row spacing was used, in-row subsoiling conducted prior to the cotton crop provided maximum cotton yields with no decrease in corn yield the following year. Controlled traffic combined with uniform row spacing of 36 in. produced maximum yields of both crops as well as decreased energy use associated with reduced annual in-row subsoiling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Soil compaction often limits crop yields in the Southeastern U.S., particularly during periods of drought which have been prevalent the last two growing seasons. However, conservation technologies including cover crops and in-row subsoiling reduce the negative effects of soil compaction. The relative benefit of these technologies on large fields where terrain varies has not been studied. A 22.5-acre field with varied soil landscapes in the Coastal Plain was used to evaluate how soil strength changes after conservation technologies were used. This field was severely degraded from annual conventional tillage for more than 30 years, but has shown great improvements in soil quality and productivity on every landscape position after conservation technologies were used. Soil bulk density, soil moisture, and cone index measurements were taken in different landscape positions and in conventional and conservation tillage systems to evaluate how these treatments had changed soil strength. Results showed that the most important factor in predicting soil compaction was still row position, with the highest soil strength found underneath the trafficked row middle. Landscape position also greatly affected measurements of soil compaction. Treatment effects were not as large as the two previous factors, complicating the finding of easy solutions to soil compaction problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Soil compaction often limits crop yields in the Southeastern U.S., particularly during periods of drought which have been prevalent the last two growing seasons. However, conservation technologies including cover crops and in-row subsoiling reduce the negative effects of soil compaction. The relative benefit of these technologies on large fields where terrain varies has not been studied. A 22.5-acre field with varied soil landscapes in the Coastal Plain was used to evaluate how soil strength changes after conservation technologies were used. This field was severely degraded from annual conventional tillage for more than 30 years, but has shown great improvements in soil quality and productivity on every landscape position after conservation technologies were used. Soil bulk density, soil moisture, and cone index measurements were taken in different landscape positions and in conventional and conservation tillage systems to evaluate how these treatments had changed soil strength. Results showed that the most important factor in predicting soil compaction was still row position, with the highest soil strength found underneath the trafficked row middle. Landscape position also greatly affected measurements of soil compaction. Treatment effects were not as large as the two previous factors, complicating the finding of easy solutions to soil compaction problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the use of irrigation on the Old Rotation cotton experiment. Methods used in the experiment involves crop rotations with, and without winter legumes as a source of nitrogen (N) for cotton, corn, soybean, and wheat on 13 plots of the Auburn University area, irrigated separately using 8-foot risers in each plot or can be done through scheduling irrigation. Considering the capacity of irrigation to apply water on a regular schedule basis, estimation of evapotranspiration and presetting the application of supplemental water are made. Results of the study shows a positive response in only one year of irrigating cotton on the Old Rotation.

Soil compaction often limits crop yields in the Southeastern U.S., particularly during periods of drought which have been prevalent the last two growing seasons. However, conservation technologies including cover crops and in-row subsoiling reduce the negative effects of soil compaction. The relative benefit of these technologies on large fields where terrain varies has not been studied. A 22.5-acre field with varied soil landscapes in the Coastal Plain was used to evaluate how soil strength changes after conservation technologies were used. This field was severely degraded from annual conventional tillage for more than 30 years, but has shown great improvements in soil quality and productivity on every landscape position after conservation technologies were used. Soil bulk density, soil moisture, and cone index measurements were taken in different landscape positions and in conventional and conservation tillage systems to evaluate how these treatments had changed soil strength. Results showed that the most important factor in predicting soil compaction was still row position, with the highest soil strength found underneath the trafficked row middle. Landscape position also greatly affected measurements of soil compaction. Treatment effects were not as large as the two previous factors, complicating the finding of easy solutions to soil compaction problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Soil compaction often limits crop yields in the Southeastern U.S., particularly during periods of drought which have been prevalent the last two growing seasons. However, conservation technologies including cover crops and in-row subsoiling reduce the negative effects of soil compaction. The relative benefit of these technologies on large fields where terrain varies has not been studied. A 22.5-acre field with varied soil landscapes in the Coastal Plain was used to evaluate how soil strength changes after conservation technologies were used. This field was severely degraded from annual conventional tillage for more than 30 years, but has shown great improvements in soil quality and productivity on every landscape position after conservation technologies were used. Soil bulk density, soil moisture, and cone index measurements were taken in different landscape positions and in conventional and conservation tillage systems to evaluate how these treatments had changed soil strength. Results showed that the most important factor in predicting soil compaction was still row position, with the highest soil strength found underneath the trafficked row middle. Landscape position also greatly affected measurements of soil compaction. Treatment effects were not as large as the two previous factors, complicating the finding of easy solutions to soil compaction problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Less frequent subsoiling could provide adequate loosening of compacted soil profiles for soils which are subject to severe soil compaction. However, most farmers practice annual subsoiling for fear that their soil could prematurely recompact and reduce cotton yields. An experiment was conducted in south-central Alabama using three subsoilers to determine their ability to maintain a loosened soil profile over a one, two, and three-year period. Results in the final year of the experiment didn't find any differences between cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) yields resulting from tillage three-, two-, and one-year previous. However, significantly reduced soil compaction was measured in the plots that were annually subsoiled. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Less frequent subsoiling could provide adequate loosening of compacted soil profiles for soils which are subject to severe soil compaction. However, most farmers practice annual subsoiling for fear that their soil could prematurely recompact and reduce cotton yields. An experiment was conducted in south-central Alabama using three subsoilers to determine their ability to maintain a loosened soil profile over a one, two, and three-year period. Results in the final year of the experiment didn't find any differences between cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) yields resulting from tillage three-, two-, and one-year previous. However, significantly reduced soil compaction was measured in the plots that were annually subsoiled. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]