Abstract
Field experiments were conducted to study the effects of the controlled release urea (CRU) application on growth yield and nitrogen recovery efficiency of cotton in the main cotton zone of the Yangtze River basin in 2010. Different nitrogen levels were set in order to determine the suitable dosage of CRU on cotton. The special purpose was to provide evidence for the CRU application in cotton fields. The results show that the application of CRU promotes the growth of cotton significantly and enhances the nitrogen supply in the whole period. Compared to the treatment with total N as base fertilizer (UB), the bod, flower, little bolls and total bolls are increased significantly. There are no significant differences in the yield between the CRU treatment and the treatment of controlled release urea and urea combined application (60%CRU + 40%U), but an increase by 12.38%-22.67% compared to the UB treatment, and an increase by 4.49%-7.23% compared to the treatments of total N split application (UD). The nitrogen uptake of CRU treatment was significantly increased by 13.01%-48.32% and 30.27%-13.01% than UB treatment and UD treatment, respectively. The nutrient recovery efficiency of CRU treatment is increased by 16.42-20.59, 5.92-11.29 and 4.22-12.59 percentage points compared to the UB treatment, UD treatment and 60%CRU + 40%U treatment, respectively. In this study, there was a good linearity relationship between the cotton yield and amount of CRU in Wuxue site. The yield of cotton response to amount of CRU could be described by the model of linear plus plateau in Jingzhou site.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 13
Claim · model-written summary
CRU significantly promoted cotton growth.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- application of CRUe0
- Outcome
- growth of cottone0
- Direction
- promotese0
- Comparator
- treatment with total N as base fertilizer (UB)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the application of CRU promotes the growth of cotton significantly”
e1“Compared to the treatment with total N as base fertilizer (UB)”
Claim · model-written summary
CRU enhanced nitrogen supply across the cotton growth period.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- CRUe1
- Outcome
- nitrogen supplye0
- Direction
- enhancese0
- Qualifier
- whole periode0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhances the nitrogen supply in the whole period.”
e1“the application of CRU promotes the growth of cotton significantly”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Bud, flower, small-boll and total-boll counts increased significantly with CRU versus basal N.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- CRUe1
- Outcome
- bod, flower, little bolls and total bollse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- treatment with total N as base fertilizer (UB)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to the treatment with total N as base fertilizer (UB), the bod, flower, little bolls and total bolls are increased significantly.”
e1“the application of CRU promotes the growth of cotton significantly”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield did not differ significantly between CRU and combined CRU plus urea.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- CRU treatmente0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- treatment of controlled release urea and urea combined application (60%CRU + 40%U)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There are no significant differences in the yield between the CRU treatment and the treatment of controlled release urea and urea combined application (60%CRU + 40%U)”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
CRU cotton yield exceeded basal-N treatment by 12.38%-22.67%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- CRUe1
- Outcome
- yielde2
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 12.38%-22.67%e0
- Comparator
- UB treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“an increase by 12.38%-22.67% compared to the UB treatment”
e1“the application of CRU promotes the growth of cotton significantly”
e2“There are no significant differences in the yield between the CRU treatment and the treatment of controlled release urea and urea combined application (60%CRU + 40%U)”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
CRU cotton yield exceeded split-N treatment by 4.49%-7.23%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt1
- Treatment
- CRUe1
- Outcome
- yieldt0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 4.49%-7.23%e0
- Comparator
- treatments of total N split application (UD)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“an increase by 4.49%-7.23% compared to the treatments of total N split application (UD).”
e1“the application of CRU promotes the growth of cotton significantly”
t0“yield”
t1“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
CRU increased cotton nitrogen uptake versus basal N by 13.01%-48.32%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- CRU treatmente0
- Outcome
- nitrogen uptakee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 13.01%-48.32%e0
- Comparator
- UB treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The nitrogen uptake of CRU treatment was significantly increased by 13.01%-48.32% and 30.27%-13.01% than UB treatment and UD treatment, respectively.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
CRU increased cotton nitrogen uptake versus split N by the reported 30.27%-13.01%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- CRU treatmente0
- Outcome
- nitrogen uptakee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 30.27%-13.01%e0
- Comparator
- UD treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The nitrogen uptake of CRU treatment was significantly increased by 13.01%-48.32% and 30.27%-13.01% than UB treatment and UD treatment, respectively.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
CRU increased cotton nutrient recovery efficiency by 16.42-20.59 percentage points versus basal N.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- CRU treatmente0
- Outcome
- nutrient recovery efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 16.42-20.59e0
- Comparator
- UB treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The nutrient recovery efficiency of CRU treatment is increased by 16.42-20.59, 5.92-11.29 and 4.22-12.59 percentage points compared to the UB treatment, UD treatment and 60%CRU + 40%U treatment, respectively.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
CRU increased cotton nutrient recovery efficiency by 5.92-11.29 percentage points versus split N.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- CRU treatmente0
- Outcome
- nutrient recovery efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 5.92-11.29e0
- Comparator
- UD treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The nutrient recovery efficiency of CRU treatment is increased by 16.42-20.59, 5.92-11.29 and 4.22-12.59 percentage points compared to the UB treatment, UD treatment and 60%CRU + 40%U treatment, respectively.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
CRU increased cotton nutrient recovery efficiency by 4.22-12.59 percentage points versus combined CRU and urea.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- CRU treatmente0
- Outcome
- nutrient recovery efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 4.22-12.59e0
- Comparator
- 60%CRU + 40%U treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The nutrient recovery efficiency of CRU treatment is increased by 16.42-20.59, 5.92-11.29 and 4.22-12.59 percentage points compared to the UB treatment, UD treatment and 60%CRU + 40%U treatment, respectively.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield and CRU amount had a good linear relationship at Wuxue.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- CRUe0
- Outcome
- cotton yielde0
- Setting
- Wuxue sitee0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was a good linearity relationship between the cotton yield and amount of CRU in Wuxue site.”
Claim · model-written summary
A linear-plus-plateau model described cotton yield response to CRU amount at Jingzhou.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- yield of cotton response to amount of CRUe0
- Qualifier
- model of linear plus plateaue0
- Setting
- Jingzhou sitee0
Not reportedComparatorValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield of cotton response to amount of CRU could be described by the model of linear plus plateau in Jingzhou site.”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · nutrient: efficiency · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 papers →nitrogen · nutrient: efficiency · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 papers →nitrogen · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
75 papers more in this group
See all 79 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
120 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
127 papers more in this group
See all 131 papers →nitrogen · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
128 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
149 papers more in this group
See all 153 papers →fertilization · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
176 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
198 papers more in this group
See all 202 papers →nitrogen · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
285 papers in the same direction as this paper · 53 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
339 papers more in this group
See all 343 papers →fertilization · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
496 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
546 papers more in this group
See all 550 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.