Agronomy Journal Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schomberg, H. H.
Right arrow Articles by Lamb, M. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Schomberg, H. H.
Right arrow Articles by Lamb, M. C.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Schomberg, H. H.
Right arrow Articles by Lamb, M. C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Tillage
Right arrow Other Cropping Systems
Right arrow Cotton
Published in Agron. J. 95:1281-1287 (2003).
© American Society of Agronomy
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA

PRODUCTION PAPERS

Comparison of Tillage Types and Frequencies for Cotton on Southern Piedmont Soil

Harry H. Schomberg*,a, George W. Langdalea, Alan J. Franzluebbersa and Marshall C. Lambb

a USDA-ARS, J. Phil Campbell, Sr., Nat. Resour. Conserv. Cent., 1420 Experiment Station Rd., Watkinsville, GA 30677
b USDA-ARS, Natl. Peanut Res. Lab., Dawson, GA 31742

* Corresponding author (hhs1{at}uga.edu).

Received for publication September 11, 2002. Tillage to disrupt root-restricting, consolidated soil zones can improve rooting capacity and crop production, but costs increase with the need for more powerful tractors. Between 1992 and 1996, agronomic and economic consequences of annual or less frequent soil disruption treatments were evaluated for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) on a Typic Kanhapludult. Two soil-disruptive treatments, fall paratillage (PT) and in-row chisel (IC) at planting (spring), were compared with two shallow-tillage treatments, coulter planting plus weed control with sweeps (ST) and conventional disk tillage (DT). The IC, PT, and ST treatments were applied annually or in Years 3, 4, and 5. Lint yield with annual IC was 15 to 20% greater than with DT each year. In 1994, yields ranged from 0.53 to 0.84 Mg ha-1 with annual IC and were better than with annual ST or PT. In 1995, yields ranged from 0.92 to 1.29 Mg ha-1, with the top yield associated with current-year IC application. In 1996, no differences in yield were observed among tillages; however, yields of two IC treatments were among the top five. For Years 3, 4, and 5, cotton yields were numerically greater with annual IC than with annual PT and ST. Yields with PT, ST, and DT were not different. Average annual net returns from annual IC were $450, $403, and $287 ha-1 greater than those with annual DT, PT, and ST, respectively. In-row chisel appears to be a more economically viable production practice for heavy Piedmont soils compared with PT, ST, and DT.

Abbreviations: DT, disk tillage (treatment) • IC, in-row chisel (treatment) • PT, paratillage (treatment) • ST, secondary tillage (treatment)







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Crop Science Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2003 by the American Society of Agronomy.