Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp2 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Deep sub-soiling improves soil-water conductance, root architecture and cotton yield in semi-arid systems

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.13337
Submitted
24 December 2025
Published
22-04-2026

Abstract

Cotton productivity in the Indo-Gangetic loamy sands has remained stagnant, largely due to subsoil compaction, which restricts water infiltration and root elongation. This study quantified the effects of one-time sub-soiling, applied as single or cross passes at different spacings, on soil hydraulics, root and fruit development and seed cotton yield (SCY) using analytical approaches beyond conventional mean comparisons. Five tillage treatments, including conventional tillage (CT) and 4 subsoiling configurations, were evaluated across 3 site-years on fixed plots in Punjab, India. Treatment responses were assessed using effect size estimates (Hedges g) for key traits, while a piecewise structural equation model traced the causal pathways linking tillage intensity (TI) to infiltration rate (IR), root length (RL), fruiting capacity and yield. A quadratic response surface regression was used to identify the joint optimum of the IR and RL. Cross sub-soiling at 1 × 1 m spacing increased infiltration by 10–13 mm h-1, enhanced rooting depth by 31–33 % and improved SCY by approximately 33 % relative to CT. Structural equation modelling indicated that 57 % of the total tillage effect on yield was mediated through improved soil hydraulics, with an additional 34 % being mediated through enhanced fruiting capacity. The response surface explained 80 % of the yield variability and identified an optimum near a 40 mm h-1 IR and 110 cm RL, with small deviations causing substantial yield losses. Overall, deep, closely spaced cross sub-soiling improved soil-root functioning and translated these gains into higher fruit retention and yield, providing a robust framework for optimising sub-soiling strategies in semi-arid cotton systems.

References

  1. 1. USDA. Cotton: World markets and trade, Global Market Analysis - June 2025. United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service. 2025.
  2. 2. FAO. Cotton. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2024-2033. 2024;212–22.
  3. 3. USDA. Cotton and products update - June 2024. Report No. IN2024-0031. United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service. 2024.
  4. 4. Raper RL, Reeves DW, Schwab EB, Burmester CH. Reducing soil compaction of Tennessee Valley soils in conservation tillage systems. J Cotton Sci. 2000;4:84–90.
  5. 5. Raper RL, Reeves DW, Burt E. Using in-row subsoiling to minimize soil compaction caused by traffic. J Cotton Sci. 1998;2:130–35.
  6. 6. Braunack MV, Johnston DB. Changes in soil cone resistance due to cotton picker traffic during harvest on Australian cotton soils. Soil Tillage Res. 2014;140:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2014.02.007
  7. 7. Meek BD, DeTar WR, Rechel ER, Carter LM, Rolph D. Infiltration rate as affected by an alfalfa and no-till cotton cropping system. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1990;54:505–8. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1990.03615995005400020036x
  8. 8. Hamza MA anderson WK. Soil compaction in cropping systems: A review of nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil Tillage Res. 2005;82:121–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.08.009
  9. 9. Kulkarni SS, Bajwa SG, Huitink G. Investigation of the effects of soil compaction in cotton. Trans ASABE. 2010;53:667–74. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.30058
  10. 10. Singh K, Choudhary OP, Singh HP, Singh A, Mishra SK. Sub-soiling improves productivity and economic returns of cotton–wheat cropping system. Soil Tillage Res. 2019;189:131–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.01.013
  11. 11. Li P, Wang S, Qi H, Wang Y, Zhang Q, Feng G, et al. Soil replacement combined with subsoiling improves cotton yields. J Cotton Res. 2019;2:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42397-019-0038-x
  12. 12. Raper RL, Reeves DW, Shaw JN, van Santen E, Mask PL. Benefits of site-specific subsoiling for cotton production in Coastal Plain soils. Soil Tillage Res. 2007;96:174–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2007.05.004
  13. 13. Akinci I, Cakir E, Topakci M, Canakci M, Inan O. The effect of subsoiling on soil resistance and cotton yield. Soil Tillage Res. 2004;77:203–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2003.12.006
  14. 14. Arif M, Ali M, Din QM, Ali MA, Akram M. Growth and yield of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) as influenced by deep ploughing interval on sandy loam soil. Int J Agric Biol. 2004;6:639–43.
  15. 15. Tupper GR, Musick JA. Cotton response to deep tillage on sandy loam and silt loam soils. Proc Beltwide Cotton Prod Res Conf. 1985;296–99.
  16. 16. Vanderhasselt A, Cool S, D’Hose T, Cornelis W. How tine characteristics of subsoilers affect fuel consumption, penetration resistance and potato yield of a sandy loam soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2023;228:105631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2022.105631
  17. 17. Brar HS, Singh M. Energy budgeting and productivity response of cotton-wheat cropping system to mechanical sub-soiling. Energy Sources A Recover Util Environ Eff. 2023;45:8507–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2023.2227590
  18. 18. Lakens D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013;4:863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
  19. 19. Busscher WJ, Bauer PJ. Soil strength, cotton root growth and lint yield in a southeastern USA coastal loamy sand. Soil Tillage Res. 2003;74:151–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2003.06.002
  20. 20. Salih AA, Babikir HM, Ali SAM. Preliminary observations on effects of tillage systems on soil physical properties, cotton root growth and yield in Gezira Scheme, Sudan. Soil Tillage Res. 1998;46:187–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(98)00032-4
  21. 21. Taylor HM, Klepper B. Water relations of cotton. I. Root growth and water use as related to top growth and soil water content. Agron J. 1974;66:584–88. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1974.00021962006600040031x
  22. 22. Chen W, Jin M, Ferré TP, Liu Y, Huang J, Xian Y. Soil conditions affect cotton root distribution and cotton yield under mulched drip irrigation. Field Crops Res. 2020;249:107743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107743
  23. 23. Freschet GT, Roumet C, Comas LH, Weemstra M, Bengough AG, Rewald B, et al. Root traits as drivers of plant and ecosystem functioning: Current understanding, pitfalls and future research needs. New Phytol. 2021;232:1123–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17072
  24. 24. Ndour A, Vadez V, Pradal C, Lucas M. Virtual plants need water too: Functional-structural root system models in the context of drought tolerance breeding. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:1577. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01577
  25. 25. Crystal-Ornelas R. robcrystalornelas/meta-analysis_of_ecological_data: First release (Version v0.1.0). Zenodo. 2020. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4320107
  26. 26. Katsvairo TW, Wright DL, Marois JJ, Hartzog DL, Balkcom KB, Wiatrak PP, et al. Cotton roots, earthworms and infiltration characteristics in sod–peanut–cotton cropping systems. Agron J. 2007;99:390–98. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2005.0330
  27. 27. Kuang N, Hao C, Liu D, Maimaitiming M, Xiaokaitijiang K, Zhou Y, et al. Modelling of cotton yield responses to different irrigation strategies in Southern Xinjiang Region, China. Agric Water Manag. 2024;303:109018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2024.109018

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.