Abstract
Crop production in arid regions is characterized with high temperature, drought and salinity which decrease water and nutrient use efficiency. This study was conducted to investigate the effect of wheat residue mulch in relation to N fertilizer application rates for cotton productivity under dryland condition of Uzbekistan. Main plots were control of no mulch addition and a 5 t ha−1 mulch treatment. These plots were split into 5 N rate plots of 0, 70, 140, 210 or 280 kg of N ha−1. The results showed that mulching pattern decreased soil temperature by 0.7–1.5°C as compared to conventional treatment (CT), regardless of N fertilization rates. The soil water storage increased by 41.8, 17.3, 48.0 mm in the flowering, boll formation and ripening stages of cotton, respectively under mulching treatment. Soil available N concentration and nutrients uptake by plants consistently increased with the increase of N fertilization rates with positive correlations. At flowering period, the plant height, chlorophyll content, stem diameter, and a number of fruit branches in plants were higher by 32.3%, 46.8%, 26.7% and 55.3%, respectively at 210 kg N ha−1 under mulching treatment as compared to the non-fertilized control. The highest cotton yield was obtained at 210 kg N ha−1 application under mulching treatment. The correlation difference between mulch and N application rates was higher (R2 = 0.97) than the difference in CTs and N application rates (R2 = 0.89). This study showed that mulching had a greater impact to preserve nutrients and water resources in the soil, thereby improved cotton growth and yield.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching reduced soil temperature by 0.7–1.5°C relative to conventional treatment across N rates.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- mulching patterne0
- Outcome
- soil temperaturee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 0.7–1.5°Ce0
- Comparator
- conventional treatment (CT)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mulching pattern decreased soil temperature by 0.7–1.5°C as compared to conventional treatment (CT), regardless of N fertilization rates”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching increased soil water storage by 41.8 at the flowering stage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Organ / stage
- floweringe0
- Treatment
- mulching treatmente0
- Outcome
- soil water storagee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 41.8e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil water storage increased by 41.8, 17.3, 48.0 mm in the flowering, boll formation and ripening stages of cotton, respectively under mulching treatment”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching increased soil water storage by 17.3 at the boll formation stage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Organ / stage
- boll formatione0
- Treatment
- mulching treatmente0
- Outcome
- soil water storagee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 17.3e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil water storage increased by 41.8, 17.3, 48.0 mm in the flowering, boll formation and ripening stages of cotton, respectively under mulching treatment”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching increased soil water storage by 48.0 mm at the ripening stage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Organ / stage
- ripeninge0
- Treatment
- mulching treatmente0
- Outcome
- soil water storagee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 48.0 mme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil water storage increased by 41.8, 17.3, 48.0 mm in the flowering, boll formation and ripening stages of cotton, respectively under mulching treatment”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil available N concentration increased with N fertilizer rate.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N fertilization ratese0
- Outcome
- Soil available N concentratione0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil available N concentration and nutrients uptake by plants consistently increased with the increase of N fertilization rates with positive correlations”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant nutrient uptake increased with N fertilizer rate.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N fertilization ratese0
- Outcome
- nutrients uptake by plantse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil available N concentration and nutrients uptake by plants consistently increased with the increase of N fertilization rates with positive correlations”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At flowering, 210 kg N ha−1 under mulch raised plant height by 32.3% relative to non-fertilized control.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Organ / stage
- flowering periode0
- Treatment
- 210 kg N ha−1 under mulching treatmente0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 32.3%e0
- Comparator
- non-fertilized controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At flowering period, the plant height, chlorophyll content, stem diameter, and a number of fruit branches in plants were higher by 32.3%, 46.8%, 26.7% and 55.3%, respectively at 210 kg N ha−1 under mulching treatment as compared to the non-fertilized control”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At flowering, 210 kg N ha−1 under mulch raised chlorophyll content by 46.8% relative to non-fertilized control.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Organ / stage
- flowering periode0
- Treatment
- 210 kg N ha−1 under mulching treatmente0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 46.8%e0
- Comparator
- non-fertilized controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At flowering period, the plant height, chlorophyll content, stem diameter, and a number of fruit branches in plants were higher by 32.3%, 46.8%, 26.7% and 55.3%, respectively at 210 kg N ha−1 under mulching treatment as compared to the non-fertilized control”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At flowering, 210 kg N ha−1 under mulch raised stem diameter by 26.7% relative to non-fertilized control.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Organ / stage
- flowering periode0
- Treatment
- 210 kg N ha−1 under mulching treatmente0
- Outcome
- stem diametere0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 26.7%e0
- Comparator
- non-fertilized controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At flowering period, the plant height, chlorophyll content, stem diameter, and a number of fruit branches in plants were higher by 32.3%, 46.8%, 26.7% and 55.3%, respectively at 210 kg N ha−1 under mulching treatment as compared to the non-fertilized control”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At flowering, 210 kg N ha−1 under mulch raised number of fruit branches by 55.3% relative to non-fertilized control.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Organ / stage
- flowering periode0
- Treatment
- 210 kg N ha−1 under mulching treatmente0
- Outcome
- number of fruit branchese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 55.3%e0
- Comparator
- non-fertilized controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At flowering period, the plant height, chlorophyll content, stem diameter, and a number of fruit branches in plants were higher by 32.3%, 46.8%, 26.7% and 55.3%, respectively at 210 kg N ha−1 under mulching treatment as compared to the non-fertilized control”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield was highest at 210 kg N ha−1 with mulch.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- 210 kg N ha−1 application under mulching treatmente0
- Outcome
- cotton yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest cotton yield was obtained at 210 kg N ha−1 application under mulching treatment”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The mulch–N rate relation had R2 = 0.97, above the conventional treatment–N rate relation at R2 = 0.89.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- mulch and N application ratese0
- Outcome
- correlation differencee0
- Value
- R2 = 0.97e0
- Qualifier
- R2 = 0.89e0
- Comparator
- CTs and N application ratese0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The correlation difference between mulch and N application rates was higher (R2 = 0.97) than the difference in CTs and N application rates (R2 = 0.89)”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching preserved soil nutrients and water resources.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- mulchinge0
- Outcome
- nutrients and water resources in the soile0
- Direction
- preservee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mulching had a greater impact to preserve nutrients and water resources in the soil”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching improved cotton growth and yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- mulchinge0
- Outcome
- cotton growth and yielde0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mulching had a greater impact to preserve nutrients and water resources in the soil, thereby improved cotton growth and yield”
t0“Cotton”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · soil: physics · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →nitrogen · physiology: pigments · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →mulching · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 papers →mulching · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
58 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 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 →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
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
339 papers more in this group
See all 343 papers →mulching · physiology: pigments · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →mulching · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
7 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 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.