Abstract
The objective of this two-year field experiment was to study the effects of irrigation amount, N rate, and irrigation water salinity on cotton growth and the fate of N fertilizer. The movement of N through the plant-soil system was traced using 15N-labeled urea. The study consisted of twelve treatments, including two irrigation amounts (405 and 540 mm, I405 and I540, respectively); two N application rates (240 and 360 kg N/ha, N240 and N360, respectively); and three irrigation water salinity levels [0.35, 4.61 and 8.04 dS/m, representing fresh water (FW), brackish water (BW), and saline water (SW), respectively]. A randomized complete block design was used with three replications. The results showed that cotton biomass, N uptake, and yield increased as irrigation amount and N amount increased; however, all three variables were significantly less in SW than in FW and BW. Plant 15N recovery rates were greater (i) in the I540 treatments than in the I405 treatments and (ii) in the N360 treatments than in the N240 treatments. Plant 15N recovery rates in BW were 7.98% and 30.01% greater than those in FW and SW, respectively. Residual soil 15N increased as N fertilizer amount increased but declined as irrigation amount increased. Residual soil 15N in BW and SW was 6.02% and 21.44% greater, respectively, than in FW. Total 15N recovery was significant greater in BW than in FW and SW. The 15N leaching losses increased significantly with increases in irrigation amount, irrigation water salinity, and N rate. Our study suggests that if appropriate amounts of irrigation water and N fertilizer are used, then brackish irrigation water (4.61 dS/m) will not affect cotton growth, yield and N recovery. In contrast, saline irrigation water (EC > 8 dS/m) reduces cotton growth, yield, and N use efficiency.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton biomass, N uptake and yield increased as irrigation amount increased.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- irrigation amounte0
- Outcome
- cotton biomass, N uptake, and yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton biomass, N uptake, and yield increased as irrigation amount”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton biomass, N uptake and yield increased as N amount increased.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- N amounte0
- Outcome
- cotton biomass, N uptake, and yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton biomass, N uptake, and yield increased as irrigation amount and N amount increased”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton biomass, N uptake and yield were significantly less with saline water (SW) than with fresh water (FW) and brackish water (BW).
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- SWe0
- Outcome
- cotton biomass, N uptake, and yielde0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Comparator
- FW and BWe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton biomass, N uptake, and yield increased as irrigation amount and N amount increased; however, all three variables were significantly less in SW than in FW and BW”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant 15N recovery rates were greater in the I540 irrigation treatments than in the I405 treatments.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- I540 treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Plant 15N recovery ratese0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- I405 treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plant 15N recovery rates were greater (i) in the I540 treatments than in the I405 treatments”
t0“Cotton growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant 15N recovery rates were greater in the N360 treatments than in the N240 treatments.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N360 treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Plant 15N recovery ratese0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- N240 treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plant 15N recovery rates were greater (i) in the I540 treatments than in the I405 treatments and (ii) in the N360 treatments than in the N240 treatments”
t0“Cotton growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant 15N recovery rates in brackish water (BW) were 7.98% greater than in fresh water (FW).
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- BWe0
- Outcome
- Plant 15N recovery ratese0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 7.98%e0
- Comparator
- FWe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plant 15N recovery rates in BW were 7.98% and 30.01% greater than those in FW and SW, respectively”
t0“Cotton growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant 15N recovery rates in brackish water (BW) were 30.01% greater than in saline water (SW).
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- BWe0
- Outcome
- Plant 15N recovery ratese0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 30.01%e0
- Comparator
- SWe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plant 15N recovery rates in BW were 7.98% and 30.01% greater than those in FW and SW, respectively”
t0“Cotton growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Residual soil 15N increased as N fertilizer amount increased.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N fertilizer amounte0
- Outcome
- Residual soil 15Ne0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Residual soil 15N increased as N fertilizer amount increased but declined as irrigation amount increased”
t0“Cotton growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Residual soil 15N declined as irrigation amount increased.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- irrigation amounte0
- Outcome
- Residual soil 15Ne0
- Direction
- declinede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Residual soil 15N increased as N fertilizer amount increased but declined as irrigation amount increased”
t0“Cotton growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Residual soil 15N in brackish water (BW) treatments was 6.02% greater than in fresh water (FW).
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- BWe0
- Outcome
- Residual soil 15Ne0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 6.02%e0
- Comparator
- FWe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Residual soil 15N in BW and SW was 6.02% and 21.44% greater, respectively, than in FW”
t0“Cotton growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Residual soil 15N in saline water (SW) treatments was 21.44% greater than in fresh water (FW).
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- SWe0
- Outcome
- Residual soil 15Ne0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 21.44%e0
- Comparator
- FWe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Residual soil 15N in BW and SW was 6.02% and 21.44% greater, respectively, than in FW”
t0“Cotton growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Total 15N recovery was significantly greater in brackish water (BW) than in fresh water (FW) and saline water (SW).
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- BWe0
- Outcome
- Total 15N recoverye0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- FW and SWe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total 15N recovery was significant greater in BW than in FW and SW”
t0“Cotton growth”
Claim · model-written summary
15N leaching losses increased significantly with increases in irrigation amount.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- irrigation amounte0
- Outcome
- 15N leaching lossese0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The 15N leaching losses increased significantly with increases in irrigation amount, irrigation water salinity, and N rate”
t0“Cotton growth”
Claim · model-written summary
15N leaching losses increased significantly with increases in irrigation water salinity.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- irrigation water salinitye0
- Outcome
- 15N leaching lossese0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The 15N leaching losses increased significantly with increases in irrigation amount, irrigation water salinity, and N rate”
t0“Cotton growth”
Claim · model-written summary
15N leaching losses increased significantly with increases in N rate.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N ratee0
- Outcome
- 15N leaching lossese0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The 15N leaching losses increased significantly with increases in irrigation amount, irrigation water salinity, and N rate”
t0“Cotton growth”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest that, with appropriate amounts of irrigation water and N fertilizer, brackish irrigation water (4.61 dS/m) will not affect cotton growth, yield and N recovery.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- brackish irrigation water (4.61 dS/m)e0
- Outcome
- cotton growth, yield and N recoverye0
- Direction
- will not affecte0
- Qualifier
- if appropriate amounts of irrigation water and N fertilizer are usede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“if appropriate amounts of irrigation water and N fertilizer are used, then brackish irrigation water (4.61 dS/m) will not affect cotton growth, yield and N recovery”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that saline irrigation water (EC > 8 dS/m) reduces cotton growth, yield and N use efficiency.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- saline irrigation water (EC > 8 dS/m)e0
- Outcome
- cotton growth, yield, and N use efficiencye0
- Direction
- reducese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“saline irrigation water (EC > 8 dS/m) reduces cotton growth, yield, and N use efficiency”
The same questions in other papers
salinity · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
48 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
54 papers more in this group
See all 58 papers →irrigation · environment: emissions · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →nitrogen · environment: emissions · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →irrigation · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
303 papers in the same direction as this paper · 86 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
395 papers more in this group
See all 399 papers →salinity · environment: emissions · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
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.