Abstract
Phosphorus (P) is the second most limiting nutrient in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) production after nitrogen. Response to P fertilizer, however, is often hard to predict in the Southern High Plains, even with soil test-based applications. Landscape position has a strong influence on yields and perhaps on fertilizer response as well. The objective of this 5-year study (1994–1998) was to determine P fertilizer response in irrigated cotton in different landscape positions. We used an 825-m transect of end to end 15-m plots across a broad swale in an Amarillo fine sandy loam in Lamesa, TX that included three landscape positions, sideslope, bottomslope and drainageway. A randomized complete block design was used with 11 replicates and 5 P rates (0, 22.4, 33.6, 44.8, and 56 kg P ha−1). Analysis of variance showed a linear or quadratic response to P fertilizer in 3 of 5 years, and an effect of landscape position in 4 of 5 years. Four-year lint yield averages, excluding 1997, were 1355 kg ha−1 in the bottomslope position in the landscape, and 1210 and 1226 kg ha−1 on the sideslopes and in the narrow drainageway, respectively. Cross-correlation using the 55 plots as a transect revealed few effects of soil properties on lint yield, but negative correlation between yield and elevation. In 1997, the one year without a landscape effect on yield, more rain fell during the growing season than in the other 4 years. This suggests that yield potential is higher in lower landscape positions because of more favorable soil water relations. Cotton lint response to P fertilizer was evident only in the bottomslopes and in the drainageway, and was absent in the sideslopes, meaning that variable rate fertilizer applications could be linked to management zones based on landscape position.
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
Cotton showed a linear or quadratic response to P fertilizer in 3 of 5 years.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- P fertilizere1
- Outcome
- responsee1
- Value
- 3 of 5 yearse1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated cotton lint yields”
e1“Analysis of variance showed a linear or quadratic response to P fertilizer in 3 of 5 years”
Claim · model-written summary
Landscape position had an effect on cotton in 4 of 5 years.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- landscape positione2
- Outcome
- effecte2
- Value
- 4 of 5 yearse2
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated cotton lint yields”
e2“an effect of landscape position in 4 of 5 years”
Claim · model-written summary
Four-year average lint yield in the bottomslope position was 1355 kg/ha, excluding 1997.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- Four-year lint yield averagese3
- Value
- 1355 kg ha−1e3
- Qualifier
- excluding 1997e3
- Setting
- bottomslope positione3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated cotton lint yields”
e3“Four-year lint yield averages, excluding 1997, were 1355 kg ha−1 in the bottomslope position in the landscape”
Claim · model-written summary
Four-year average lint yield on the sideslopes and in the narrow drainageway was 1210 and 1226 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- Four-year lint yield averagese3
- Value
- 1210 and 1226 kg ha−1e4
- Setting
- the sideslopes and in the narrow drainagewaye4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated cotton lint yields”
e3“Four-year lint yield averages, excluding 1997, were 1355 kg ha−1 in the bottomslope position in the landscape”
e4“1210 and 1226 kg ha−1 on the sideslopes and in the narrow drainageway, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil properties had few effects on cotton lint yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- effects of soil properties on lint yielde5
- Qualifier
- fewe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated cotton lint yields”
e5“Cross-correlation using the 55 plots as a transect revealed few effects of soil properties on lint yield, but negative correlation between yield and elevation”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield was negatively correlated with elevation across the transect.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- elevatione5
- Outcome
- yielde5
- Direction
- negative correlatione5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated cotton lint yields”
e5“Cross-correlation using the 55 plots as a transect revealed few effects of soil properties on lint yield, but negative correlation between yield and elevation”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1997, more rain fell during the growing season than in the other four years.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- rain fell during the growing seasone6
- Direction
- moree6
- Comparator
- the other 4 yearse6
- Setting
- In 1997e6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated cotton lint yields”
e6“In 1997, the one year without a landscape effect on yield, more rain fell during the growing season than in the other 4 years”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield potential is higher in lower landscape positions, possibly because of more favorable soil water relations.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- yield potentiale7
- Qualifier
- because of more favorable soil water relationse7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated cotton lint yields”
e7“This suggests that yield potential is higher in lower landscape positions because of more favorable soil water relations”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton lint response to P fertilizer was evident in bottomslopes and the drainageway but absent in the sideslopes.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- P fertilizere1
- Outcome
- Cotton lint responsee1
- Direction
- increaseinferrede1
- Comparator
- sideslopese1
- Setting
- bottomslopes and in the drainagewaye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated cotton lint yields”
e1“Cotton lint response to P fertilizer was evident only in the bottomslopes and in the drainageway, and was absent in the sideslopes”
Claim · model-written summary
Variable-rate fertilizer applications could be linked to management zones based on landscape position.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- variable rate fertilizer applications could be linked to management zonese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated cotton lint yields”
e1“meaning that variable rate fertilizer applications could be linked to management zones based on landscape position”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
35 papers more in this group
See all 39 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.