Abstract
Efficient crop use of nitrogen (N) fertilizer is critical from economic and environmental viewpoints, especially under irrigated conditions. Cotton yield parameters, fiber quality, water‐ and N‐use efficiency responses to N, and irrigation methods in northern Syria were evaluated. Field trials were conducted for two growing seasons on a Chromoxerertic Rhodoxeralf. Treatments consisted of drip fertigation, furrow irrigation, and five different rates of N fertilizer (50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 kg N /ha). Cotton was irrigated when soil moisture in the specified active root depth was 80% of the field capacity as indicated by the neutron probe. Seed cotton yield was higher than the national average (3,928 kg/ha) by at least 12% as compared to all treatments. Lint properties were not negatively affected by the irrigation method or N rates. Water savings under drip fertigation ranged between 25 and 50% of irrigation water relative to furrow irrigation. Crop water‐use efficiencies of the drip‐fertigated treatments were in most cases 100% higher than those of the corresponding furrow‐irrigated treatments. The highest water demand was during the fruit‐setting growth stage. It was also concluded that under drip fertigation, 100–150 N kg/ha was adequate and comparable with the highest N rates tested under furrow irrigation regarding lint yield, N uptake, and recovery. Based on cotton seed yield and weight of stems, the overall amount of N removed from the field for the drip‐fertigated treatments ranged between 101 and 118kg and 116 and 188 N/ha for 2001 and 2002, respectively. The N removal ranged between 94 and 113 and 111 and 144 kg N/ha for the furrow‐irrigated treatments for 2001 and 2002, respectively.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Seed cotton yield was at least 12% higher than the national average in all treatments
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Outcome
- Seed cotton yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 12%e0
- Comparator
- national averagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Response of Cotton to Irrigation Methods and Nitrogen Fertilization”
e0“Seed cotton yield was higher than the national average (3,928 kg/ha) by at least 12% as compared to all treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Lint properties of cotton were not negatively affected by the irrigation method or N rates
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- irrigation method or N ratese0
- Outcome
- Lint propertiese0
- Direction
- not negatively affectede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Response of Cotton to Irrigation Methods and Nitrogen Fertilization”
e0“Lint properties were not negatively affected by the irrigation method or N rates”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation saved 25 to 50% of irrigation water relative to furrow irrigation in cotton
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- drip fertigatione0
- Outcome
- Water savingse0
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Value
- 25 and 50%e0
- Qualifier
- of irrigation watere0
- Comparator
- furrow irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Response of Cotton to Irrigation Methods and Nitrogen Fertilization”
e0“Water savings under drip fertigation ranged between 25 and 50% of irrigation water relative to furrow irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop water-use efficiencies of drip-fertigated cotton were in most cases 100% higher than those of furrow-irrigated cotton
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- drip‐fertigated treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Crop water‐use efficienciese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 100%e0
- Comparator
- furrow‐irrigated treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Response of Cotton to Irrigation Methods and Nitrogen Fertilization”
e0“Crop water‐use efficiencies of the drip‐fertigated treatments were in most cases 100% higher than those of the corresponding furrow‐irrigated treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest water demand of cotton was during the fruit-setting growth stage
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Organ / stage
- fruit‐setting growth stagee0
- Outcome
- water demande0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Response of Cotton to Irrigation Methods and Nitrogen Fertilization”
e0“The highest water demand was during the fruit‐setting growth stage”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drip fertigation, 100–150 N kg/ha was adequate and comparable with the highest N rates under furrow irrigation for cotton lint yield, N uptake and recovery
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- 100–150 N kg/hae0
- Outcome
- lint yield, N uptake, and recoverye0
- Comparator
- highest N rates tested under furrow irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Response of Cotton to Irrigation Methods and Nitrogen Fertilization”
e0“under drip fertigation, 100–150 N kg/ha was adequate and comparable with the highest N rates tested under furrow irrigation regarding lint yield, N uptake, and recovery”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton under drip fertigation removed 101 to 118 kg N/ha from the field in 2001
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- drip‐fertigated treatmentse0
- Outcome
- overall amount of N removed from the fielde0
- Value
- 101 and 118kge0
- Qualifier
- for 2001e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Response of Cotton to Irrigation Methods and Nitrogen Fertilization”
e0“Based on cotton seed yield and weight of stems, the overall amount of N removed from the field for the drip‐fertigated treatments ranged between 101 and 118kg and 116 and 188 N/ha for 2001 and 2002, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton under drip fertigation removed 116 to 188 kg N/ha from the field in 2002
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- drip‐fertigated treatmentse0
- Outcome
- overall amount of N removed from the fielde0
- Value
- 116 and 188 N/hae0
- Qualifier
- for 2001 and 2002, respectivelye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Response of Cotton to Irrigation Methods and Nitrogen Fertilization”
e0“Based on cotton seed yield and weight of stems, the overall amount of N removed from the field for the drip‐fertigated treatments ranged between 101 and 118kg and 116 and 188 N/ha for 2001 and 2002, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton under furrow irrigation removed 94 to 113 kg N/ha from the field in 2001
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- furrow‐irrigated treatmentse0
- Outcome
- N removale0
- Value
- 94 and 113e0
- Qualifier
- for 2001e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Response of Cotton to Irrigation Methods and Nitrogen Fertilization”
e0“The N removal ranged between 94 and 113 and 111 and 144 kg N/ha for the furrow‐irrigated treatments for 2001 and 2002, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton under furrow irrigation removed 111 to 144 kg N/ha from the field in 2002
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- furrow‐irrigated treatmentse0
- Outcome
- N removale0
- Value
- 111 and 144 kg N/hae0
- Qualifier
- for 2001 and 2002, respectivelye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Response of Cotton to Irrigation Methods and Nitrogen Fertilization”
e0“The N removal ranged between 94 and 113 and 111 and 144 kg N/ha for the furrow‐irrigated treatments for 2001 and 2002, respectively”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: water · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
109 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
127 papers more in this group
See all 131 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.