Soil management and landscape variability affects field-scale cotton productivity

A better understanding of interactions between soil management and landscape variability and their effects on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) productivity is needed for precision management. We assessed management practices and landscape variability effects on seed cotton yield in a 9-ha, Alabama fie...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Soil Science Society of America journal 2006-01, Vol.70 (1), p.98-107
Hauptverfasser: Terra, J.A, Shaw, J.N, Reeves, D.W, Raper, R.L, Van Santen, E, Schwab, E.B, Mask, P.L
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 107
container_issue 1
container_start_page 98
container_title Soil Science Society of America journal
container_volume 70
creator Terra, J.A
Shaw, J.N
Reeves, D.W
Raper, R.L
Van Santen, E
Schwab, E.B
Mask, P.L
description A better understanding of interactions between soil management and landscape variability and their effects on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) productivity is needed for precision management. We assessed management practices and landscape variability effects on seed cotton yield in a 9-ha, Alabama field (Typic and Aquic Paleudults) during 2001-2003. We hypothesize that landscapes have major effects on cotton productivity, but these effects vary based on management and climate. Treatments were established in replicated strips traversing the landscape in a corn (Zea mays L.)-cotton rotation. Treatments included a conventional system with or without 10 Mg ha(-1) yr(-1) dairy manure (CT(manure) or CT), and a conservation system with and without manure (NT(manure) or NT). Conventional systems consisted of chisel plowing/disking + in-row subsoiling without cover crops. Conservation systems combined no surface tillage with in-row subsoiling and winter cover crops. A soil survey, topographic survey, and interpolated surfaces of soil electrical conductivity (EC), soil organic carbon (SOC), and surface soil texture were used to delineate five zones using fuzzy k-means clustering. Overall (2001-2003), conservation systems improved cotton yield compared with conventional systems (2710 vs. 2380 kg ha(-1)); neither manure nor treatment x year interactions were significant. The conservation system was more productive than the conventional system in 87% of the cluster x year combinations. Slope, EC, SOC, and clay content were correlated with yield in all treatments. Soil and terrain attributes explained 16 to 64% of yield variation, however, their significance fluctuated between years and treatments. In dry years, factor analyses suggested variables related with soil quality and field-scale water dynamics had greater impacts on CT yields than NT yields. Our results indicate that management zones developed using relatively static soil-landscape data are relatively more suitable for conservation systems, and these zones are affected by soil management. In addition, the impact of NT on yields is most apparent on degraded soils in dry years.
doi_str_mv 10.2136/sssaj2005.0179
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_745606273</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>19418641</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5329-64767910505c65ad51b8ca63d86a088afae2be6526d323c1783ac7bba026a4653</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc2LFDEQxYMoOI5evdoI6qnHylelc_CwLLt-sCDS7jlUp9NLhp7usdOzMv-9aWZQ8KB7qUDyq3qV9xh7yWEjuMT3KSXaCgC9AW7sI7biSuoSEPljtgKJvNTW6qfsWUpbAK4twIp9q8fYFzsa6C7swjAXNLRFn0vytA_FPU2RmtjH-VhQ1wU_p6KLoW_L_N6Hwo_zPA7Ffhrbg5_jfeaesycd9Sm8OJ9rdnt99f3yU3nz9ePny4ub0mspbInKoLEcNGiPmlrNm8oTyrZCgqqijoJoAmqBrRTSc1NJ8qZpCASSQi3X7N1pbhb_cQhpdruYfOjz8mE8JGeURkBh5ANIqZRVwDP59p8kt4pXqB4A5t9ZzIuv2eu_wO14mIZsjBMcweRIqgxtTpCfxpSm0Ln9FHc0HR0Ht2Trfmfrlmxzw5vzVFpy6CYafEx_uowywNWi_uHE_Yx9OP5nqqsvvoi6Xmq-Ouu8OvV3NDq6m7LGbS2yUZCDUyob8Qu2i78d</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>216075998</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Soil management and landscape variability affects field-scale cotton productivity</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Terra, J.A ; Shaw, J.N ; Reeves, D.W ; Raper, R.L ; Van Santen, E ; Schwab, E.B ; Mask, P.L</creator><creatorcontrib>Terra, J.A ; Shaw, J.N ; Reeves, D.W ; Raper, R.L ; Van Santen, E ; Schwab, E.B ; Mask, P.L</creatorcontrib><description>A better understanding of interactions between soil management and landscape variability and their effects on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) productivity is needed for precision management. We assessed management practices and landscape variability effects on seed cotton yield in a 9-ha, Alabama field (Typic and Aquic Paleudults) during 2001-2003. We hypothesize that landscapes have major effects on cotton productivity, but these effects vary based on management and climate. Treatments were established in replicated strips traversing the landscape in a corn (Zea mays L.)-cotton rotation. Treatments included a conventional system with or without 10 Mg ha(-1) yr(-1) dairy manure (CT(manure) or CT), and a conservation system with and without manure (NT(manure) or NT). Conventional systems consisted of chisel plowing/disking + in-row subsoiling without cover crops. Conservation systems combined no surface tillage with in-row subsoiling and winter cover crops. A soil survey, topographic survey, and interpolated surfaces of soil electrical conductivity (EC), soil organic carbon (SOC), and surface soil texture were used to delineate five zones using fuzzy k-means clustering. Overall (2001-2003), conservation systems improved cotton yield compared with conventional systems (2710 vs. 2380 kg ha(-1)); neither manure nor treatment x year interactions were significant. The conservation system was more productive than the conventional system in 87% of the cluster x year combinations. Slope, EC, SOC, and clay content were correlated with yield in all treatments. Soil and terrain attributes explained 16 to 64% of yield variation, however, their significance fluctuated between years and treatments. In dry years, factor analyses suggested variables related with soil quality and field-scale water dynamics had greater impacts on CT yields than NT yields. Our results indicate that management zones developed using relatively static soil-landscape data are relatively more suitable for conservation systems, and these zones are affected by soil management. In addition, the impact of NT on yields is most apparent on degraded soils in dry years.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0361-5995</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1435-0661</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2005.0179</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SSSJD4</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Madison: Soil Science Society</publisher><subject>Agricultural practices ; Agricultural production ; Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions ; Biological and medical sciences ; cluster analysis ; Conservation ; conservation tillage ; conventional tillage ; corn ; correlation ; Cotton ; Cover crops ; crop rotation ; Crop yield ; Cropping systems. Cultivation. Soil tillage ; dairy manure ; electrical conductivity ; environmental factors ; factor analysis ; Farm management ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General agronomy. Plant production ; Generalities. Cropping systems and patterns ; Gossypium hirsutum ; Landscape ; landscapes ; Organic carbon ; Plowing ; precision agriculture ; seed cotton ; Soil conductivity ; Soil conservation ; Soil degradation ; Soil management ; soil organic matter ; Soil quality ; Soil surfaces ; Soil surveys ; Soil texture ; Tillage ; topography ; Zea mays</subject><ispartof>Soil Science Society of America journal, 2006-01, Vol.70 (1), p.98-107</ispartof><rights>Soil Science Society of America</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright American Society of Agronomy Jan/Feb 2006</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5329-64767910505c65ad51b8ca63d86a088afae2be6526d323c1783ac7bba026a4653</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5329-64767910505c65ad51b8ca63d86a088afae2be6526d323c1783ac7bba026a4653</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2136%2Fsssaj2005.0179$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2136%2Fsssaj2005.0179$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,1419,27933,27934,45583,45584</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=17470142$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Terra, J.A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaw, J.N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reeves, D.W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raper, R.L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Santen, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwab, E.B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mask, P.L</creatorcontrib><title>Soil management and landscape variability affects field-scale cotton productivity</title><title>Soil Science Society of America journal</title><description>A better understanding of interactions between soil management and landscape variability and their effects on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) productivity is needed for precision management. We assessed management practices and landscape variability effects on seed cotton yield in a 9-ha, Alabama field (Typic and Aquic Paleudults) during 2001-2003. We hypothesize that landscapes have major effects on cotton productivity, but these effects vary based on management and climate. Treatments were established in replicated strips traversing the landscape in a corn (Zea mays L.)-cotton rotation. Treatments included a conventional system with or without 10 Mg ha(-1) yr(-1) dairy manure (CT(manure) or CT), and a conservation system with and without manure (NT(manure) or NT). Conventional systems consisted of chisel plowing/disking + in-row subsoiling without cover crops. Conservation systems combined no surface tillage with in-row subsoiling and winter cover crops. A soil survey, topographic survey, and interpolated surfaces of soil electrical conductivity (EC), soil organic carbon (SOC), and surface soil texture were used to delineate five zones using fuzzy k-means clustering. Overall (2001-2003), conservation systems improved cotton yield compared with conventional systems (2710 vs. 2380 kg ha(-1)); neither manure nor treatment x year interactions were significant. The conservation system was more productive than the conventional system in 87% of the cluster x year combinations. Slope, EC, SOC, and clay content were correlated with yield in all treatments. Soil and terrain attributes explained 16 to 64% of yield variation, however, their significance fluctuated between years and treatments. In dry years, factor analyses suggested variables related with soil quality and field-scale water dynamics had greater impacts on CT yields than NT yields. Our results indicate that management zones developed using relatively static soil-landscape data are relatively more suitable for conservation systems, and these zones are affected by soil management. In addition, the impact of NT on yields is most apparent on degraded soils in dry years.</description><subject>Agricultural practices</subject><subject>Agricultural production</subject><subject>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>cluster analysis</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>conservation tillage</subject><subject>conventional tillage</subject><subject>corn</subject><subject>correlation</subject><subject>Cotton</subject><subject>Cover crops</subject><subject>crop rotation</subject><subject>Crop yield</subject><subject>Cropping systems. Cultivation. Soil tillage</subject><subject>dairy manure</subject><subject>electrical conductivity</subject><subject>environmental factors</subject><subject>factor analysis</subject><subject>Farm management</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General agronomy. Plant production</subject><subject>Generalities. Cropping systems and patterns</subject><subject>Gossypium hirsutum</subject><subject>Landscape</subject><subject>landscapes</subject><subject>Organic carbon</subject><subject>Plowing</subject><subject>precision agriculture</subject><subject>seed cotton</subject><subject>Soil conductivity</subject><subject>Soil conservation</subject><subject>Soil degradation</subject><subject>Soil management</subject><subject>soil organic matter</subject><subject>Soil quality</subject><subject>Soil surfaces</subject><subject>Soil surveys</subject><subject>Soil texture</subject><subject>Tillage</subject><subject>topography</subject><subject>Zea mays</subject><issn>0361-5995</issn><issn>1435-0661</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc2LFDEQxYMoOI5evdoI6qnHylelc_CwLLt-sCDS7jlUp9NLhp7usdOzMv-9aWZQ8KB7qUDyq3qV9xh7yWEjuMT3KSXaCgC9AW7sI7biSuoSEPljtgKJvNTW6qfsWUpbAK4twIp9q8fYFzsa6C7swjAXNLRFn0vytA_FPU2RmtjH-VhQ1wU_p6KLoW_L_N6Hwo_zPA7Ffhrbg5_jfeaesycd9Sm8OJ9rdnt99f3yU3nz9ePny4ub0mspbInKoLEcNGiPmlrNm8oTyrZCgqqijoJoAmqBrRTSc1NJ8qZpCASSQi3X7N1pbhb_cQhpdruYfOjz8mE8JGeURkBh5ANIqZRVwDP59p8kt4pXqB4A5t9ZzIuv2eu_wO14mIZsjBMcweRIqgxtTpCfxpSm0Ln9FHc0HR0Ht2Trfmfrlmxzw5vzVFpy6CYafEx_uowywNWi_uHE_Yx9OP5nqqsvvoi6Xmq-Ouu8OvV3NDq6m7LGbS2yUZCDUyob8Qu2i78d</recordid><startdate>200601</startdate><enddate>200601</enddate><creator>Terra, J.A</creator><creator>Shaw, J.N</creator><creator>Reeves, D.W</creator><creator>Raper, R.L</creator><creator>Van Santen, E</creator><creator>Schwab, E.B</creator><creator>Mask, P.L</creator><general>Soil Science Society</general><general>Soil Science Society of America</general><general>American Society of Agronomy</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>R05</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200601</creationdate><title>Soil management and landscape variability affects field-scale cotton productivity</title><author>Terra, J.A ; Shaw, J.N ; Reeves, D.W ; Raper, R.L ; Van Santen, E ; Schwab, E.B ; Mask, P.L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5329-64767910505c65ad51b8ca63d86a088afae2be6526d323c1783ac7bba026a4653</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Agricultural practices</topic><topic>Agricultural production</topic><topic>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>cluster analysis</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>conservation tillage</topic><topic>conventional tillage</topic><topic>corn</topic><topic>correlation</topic><topic>Cotton</topic><topic>Cover crops</topic><topic>crop rotation</topic><topic>Crop yield</topic><topic>Cropping systems. Cultivation. Soil tillage</topic><topic>dairy manure</topic><topic>electrical conductivity</topic><topic>environmental factors</topic><topic>factor analysis</topic><topic>Farm management</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General agronomy. Plant production</topic><topic>Generalities. Cropping systems and patterns</topic><topic>Gossypium hirsutum</topic><topic>Landscape</topic><topic>landscapes</topic><topic>Organic carbon</topic><topic>Plowing</topic><topic>precision agriculture</topic><topic>seed cotton</topic><topic>Soil conductivity</topic><topic>Soil conservation</topic><topic>Soil degradation</topic><topic>Soil management</topic><topic>soil organic matter</topic><topic>Soil quality</topic><topic>Soil surfaces</topic><topic>Soil surveys</topic><topic>Soil texture</topic><topic>Tillage</topic><topic>topography</topic><topic>Zea mays</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Terra, J.A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaw, J.N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reeves, D.W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raper, R.L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Santen, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwab, E.B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mask, P.L</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>University of Michigan</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Soil Science Society of America journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Terra, J.A</au><au>Shaw, J.N</au><au>Reeves, D.W</au><au>Raper, R.L</au><au>Van Santen, E</au><au>Schwab, E.B</au><au>Mask, P.L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Soil management and landscape variability affects field-scale cotton productivity</atitle><jtitle>Soil Science Society of America journal</jtitle><date>2006-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>70</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>98</spage><epage>107</epage><pages>98-107</pages><issn>0361-5995</issn><eissn>1435-0661</eissn><coden>SSSJD4</coden><abstract>A better understanding of interactions between soil management and landscape variability and their effects on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) productivity is needed for precision management. We assessed management practices and landscape variability effects on seed cotton yield in a 9-ha, Alabama field (Typic and Aquic Paleudults) during 2001-2003. We hypothesize that landscapes have major effects on cotton productivity, but these effects vary based on management and climate. Treatments were established in replicated strips traversing the landscape in a corn (Zea mays L.)-cotton rotation. Treatments included a conventional system with or without 10 Mg ha(-1) yr(-1) dairy manure (CT(manure) or CT), and a conservation system with and without manure (NT(manure) or NT). Conventional systems consisted of chisel plowing/disking + in-row subsoiling without cover crops. Conservation systems combined no surface tillage with in-row subsoiling and winter cover crops. A soil survey, topographic survey, and interpolated surfaces of soil electrical conductivity (EC), soil organic carbon (SOC), and surface soil texture were used to delineate five zones using fuzzy k-means clustering. Overall (2001-2003), conservation systems improved cotton yield compared with conventional systems (2710 vs. 2380 kg ha(-1)); neither manure nor treatment x year interactions were significant. The conservation system was more productive than the conventional system in 87% of the cluster x year combinations. Slope, EC, SOC, and clay content were correlated with yield in all treatments. Soil and terrain attributes explained 16 to 64% of yield variation, however, their significance fluctuated between years and treatments. In dry years, factor analyses suggested variables related with soil quality and field-scale water dynamics had greater impacts on CT yields than NT yields. Our results indicate that management zones developed using relatively static soil-landscape data are relatively more suitable for conservation systems, and these zones are affected by soil management. In addition, the impact of NT on yields is most apparent on degraded soils in dry years.</abstract><cop>Madison</cop><pub>Soil Science Society</pub><doi>10.2136/sssaj2005.0179</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0361-5995
ispartof Soil Science Society of America journal, 2006-01, Vol.70 (1), p.98-107
issn 0361-5995
1435-0661
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_745606273
source Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects Agricultural practices
Agricultural production
Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions
Biological and medical sciences
cluster analysis
Conservation
conservation tillage
conventional tillage
corn
correlation
Cotton
Cover crops
crop rotation
Crop yield
Cropping systems. Cultivation. Soil tillage
dairy manure
electrical conductivity
environmental factors
factor analysis
Farm management
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
General agronomy. Plant production
Generalities. Cropping systems and patterns
Gossypium hirsutum
Landscape
landscapes
Organic carbon
Plowing
precision agriculture
seed cotton
Soil conductivity
Soil conservation
Soil degradation
Soil management
soil organic matter
Soil quality
Soil surfaces
Soil surveys
Soil texture
Tillage
topography
Zea mays
title Soil management and landscape variability affects field-scale cotton productivity
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-02T09%3A16%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Soil%20management%20and%20landscape%20variability%20affects%20field-scale%20cotton%20productivity&rft.jtitle=Soil%20Science%20Society%20of%20America%20journal&rft.au=Terra,%20J.A&rft.date=2006-01&rft.volume=70&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=98&rft.epage=107&rft.pages=98-107&rft.issn=0361-5995&rft.eissn=1435-0661&rft.coden=SSSJD4&rft_id=info:doi/10.2136/sssaj2005.0179&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E19418641%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=216075998&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true