Paper · 2011 · Agronomy Journal

Mineral Nutrition of Cotton Fertilized with Poultry Litter or Ammonium Nitrate

Haile Tewolde; Ardeshir Adeli; Karamat R. Sistani; et al.

5
claims
9
verbatim quotes
30
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Poultry litter is a superior fertilizer for cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) production in some soils, but whether this superiority is related with its ability to supply multiple mineral nutrients has not been well investigated in the field. The objective of this research was to determine if the yield increasing effect of litter relative to inorganic N fertilizers may be related with better mineral nutrition and to compare the nutrient profile of litter‐ and inorganic N‐fertilized cotton. Cotton was fertilized with six broiler litter rates ranging from 2.2 to 13.4 Mg ha −1 or six NH 4 NO 3 –N rates ranging from 34 to 168 kg ha −1 plus an unfertilized control (UTC) in northern Mississippi in a silt loam upland soil. Fertilizing with litter resulted in greater concentration of extractable soil P, K, Ca, Mg, Cu, Zn, and Na than fertilizing with NH 4 NO 3 , but these increases did not always result in greater concentrations of these elements in aboveground plant parts. Only concentrations of K, B, and Na were increased by litter in plant parts. The two fertilizers had the same effect on soil Mn concentration, but NH 4 NO 3 , relative to litter, elevated Mn concentration in plant parts by as much as twofold, a result that seemed to be related to soil pH decline. The results suggest that the better yield performance of fertilizing cotton with poultry litter than with NH 4 NO 3 –N in this soil may have been due to a more ideal soil pH, favorable tissue Mn concentration, and improved K and B nutrition.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Litter increased extractable soil P, K, Ca, Mg, Cu, Zn and Na relative to ammonium nitrate.

Treatment
littere0
Outcome
concentration of extractable soil P, K, Ca, Mg, Cu, Zn, and Nae0
Direction
greatere0
Comparator
NH 4 NO 3e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fertilizing with litter resulted in greater concentration of extractable soil P, K, Ca, Mg, Cu, Zn, and Na than fertilizing with NH 4 NO 3”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 724–862 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–27 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Litter increased K, B and Na concentrations in cotton plant parts.

Organ / stage
plant partse0
Treatment
littere0
Outcome
concentrations of K, B, and Nae0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Only concentrations of K, B, and Na were increased by litter in plant parts.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 979–1055 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–27 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The two fertilizers had the same effect on soil Mn concentration.

Treatment
two fertilizerse0
Outcome
soil Mn concentratione0
Direction
same effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The two fertilizers had the same effect on soil Mn concentration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1056–1120 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–27 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ammonium nitrate elevated Mn concentration in cotton plant parts by up to twofold compared with litter.

Treatment
NH 4 NO 3e0
Outcome
Mn concentration in plant partse0
Direction
elevatede0
Value
twofolde0
Comparator
littere0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“NH 4 NO 3 , relative to litter, elevated Mn concentration in plant parts by as much as twofold”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1126–1220 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–27 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Authors suggest litter’s superior cotton yield performance may reflect soil pH and K, B and Mn nutrition.

Treatment
poultry littere0
Outcome
better yield performancee0
Qualifier
more ideal soil pH, favorable tissue Mn concentration, and improved K and B nutritione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the better yield performance of fertilizing cotton with poultry litter than with NH 4 NO 3 –N in this soil may have been due to a more ideal soil pH, favorable tissue Mn concentration, and improved K and B nutrition.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1302–1518 · show in text ↑

fertilization · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

131 papers: 121 positive, 10 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 121 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

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.