Abstract
Water and nitrogen (N) are major constraints for cotton growth and yield formation in arid regions. Irrigation and N application have been widely investigated to improve crop yield and water and N use efficiency (NUE). However, further optimization of water and N management is needed because the effects of N application on soil N balance and N loss under different irrigation levels remain unclear. In this study, a field experiment was conducted in 2020 and 2021 to investigate the effects of different irrigation amounts (full irrigation (100% ETc), moderate irrigation (80% ETc), low irrigation (60% ETc)) and N application rates (control (without N application, N0), low N (150 kg ha−1, N150), medium N (225 kg ha−1 and 300 kg ha−1, N225 and N300), and high N (375 kg ha−1, N375)) on cotton yield, NUE, and soil N balance. The 2-year results showed that under the 60% ETc treatment, cotton dry matter accumulation, N uptake, and yield were significantly enhanced by increasing N application. Under the 80% and 100% ETc treatments, these parameters peaked with the N300 treatment; the N375 treatment showed no significant difference or decrease compared to the N300 treatment. The 80% ETc N300 treatment had the highest cotton yield and NUE, which increased by 17.49–106.57% and 12.28–88.78% compared with other treatments, respectively. Residual soil N accumulation (RSNmin), apparent N loss (ANL), and apparent N surplus (ANS) increased as the N application rate increased under the 60% and 100% ETc treatments. While under the 80% ETc treatment, the ANS did not significantly differ between the N225 and N300 treatments, ANL significantly decreased by 43.51–88.56% when the N application rate increased from 150 to 225 and 300 kg ha−1. The ANL of the 80% ETc N300 treatment was the lowest, but ANS did not significantly increase. The regression analysis and spatial analysis results showed that under irrigation of 336–348 mm and N application of 254–327 kg ha−1, cotton yield, NUE, and WPI reached more than 80% of the maximum value, with less apparent N loss, thus maintaining the soil N balance in drip-irrigated cotton fields. This study helps to improve the utilization of water and N resources in cotton production. Future research on optimizing water and N management needs to more fully consider environmental pollution to achieve sustainable development of agricultural ecosystems.
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
Increasing N under 60% ETc significantly enhanced cotton dry matter accumulation, N uptake and yield.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- increasing N applicatione0
- Outcome
- cotton dry matter accumulation, N uptake, and yielde0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Qualifier
- 60% ETc treatmente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under the 60% ETc treatment, cotton dry matter accumulation, N uptake, and yield were significantly enhanced by increasing N application.”
Claim · model-written summary
At 80% and 100% ETc, cotton dry matter, N uptake and yield peaked at N300.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- N300 treatmente0
- Outcome
- cotton dry matter accumulation, N uptake, and yielde1
- Direction
- peakede0
- Qualifier
- 80% and 100% ETc treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under the 80% and 100% ETc treatments, these parameters peaked with the N300 treatment”
e1“cotton dry matter accumulation, N uptake, and yield”
Claim · model-written summary
N375 showed no significant difference or a decrease versus N300 for those parameters.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- N375 treatmente0
- Outcome
- cotton dry matter accumulation, N uptake, and yielde1
- Direction
- no significant difference or decreasee0
- Comparator
- N300 treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the N375 treatment showed no significant difference or decrease compared to the N300 treatment.”
e1“cotton dry matter accumulation, N uptake, and yield”
Claim · model-written summary
80% ETc N300 gave highest cotton yield, 17.49–106.57% above other treatments.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- 80% ETc N300 treatmente0
- Outcome
- cotton yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 17.49–106.57%e0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The 80% ETc N300 treatment had the highest cotton yield and NUE, which increased by 17.49–106.57% and 12.28–88.78% compared with other treatments, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
80% ETc N300 gave highest NUE, 12.28–88.78% above other treatments.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- 80% ETc N300 treatmente0
- Outcome
- NUEe0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 12.28–88.78%e0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The 80% ETc N300 treatment had the highest cotton yield and NUE, which increased by 17.49–106.57% and 12.28–88.78% compared with other treatments, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Residual soil N accumulation rose with N rate at 60% and 100% ETc.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N application ratee0
- Outcome
- Residual soil N accumulation (RSNmin)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 60% and 100% ETc treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Residual soil N accumulation (RSNmin), apparent N loss (ANL), and apparent N surplus (ANS) increased as the N application rate increased under the 60% and 100% ETc treatments.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Apparent N loss rose with N rate at 60% and 100% ETc.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N application ratee0
- Outcome
- apparent N loss (ANL)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 60% and 100% ETc treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Residual soil N accumulation (RSNmin), apparent N loss (ANL), and apparent N surplus (ANS) increased as the N application rate increased under the 60% and 100% ETc treatments.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Apparent N surplus rose with N rate at 60% and 100% ETc.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N application ratee0
- Outcome
- apparent N surplus (ANS)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 60% and 100% ETc treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Residual soil N accumulation (RSNmin), apparent N loss (ANL), and apparent N surplus (ANS) increased as the N application rate increased under the 60% and 100% ETc treatments.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At 80% ETc, ANS did not significantly differ between N225 and N300.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N300 treatmentse0
- Outcome
- ANSe0
- Direction
- did not significantly differe0
- Qualifier
- 80% ETc treatmente0
- Comparator
- N225e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under the 80% ETc treatment, the ANS did not significantly differ between the N225 and N300 treatments”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At 80% ETc, ANL fell 43.51–88.56% as N rose from 150 to 225 and 300 kg ha−1.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- 225 and 300 kg ha−1e0
- Outcome
- ANLe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 43.51–88.56%e0
- Qualifier
- 80% ETc treatmente1
- Comparator
- 150e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ANL significantly decreased by 43.51–88.56% when the N application rate increased from 150 to 225 and 300 kg ha−1.”
e1“80% ETc treatment”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
ANL was lowest for 80% ETc N300.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- 80% ETc N300 treatmente0
- Outcome
- ANLe0
- Direction
- loweste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The ANL of the 80% ETc N300 treatment was the lowest”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At 80% ETc N300, ANS did not significantly increase.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- 80% ETc N300 treatmente0
- Outcome
- ANSe0
- Direction
- did not significantly increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The ANL of the 80% ETc N300 treatment was the lowest, but ANS did not significantly increase.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Regression and spatial analyses estimated a 336–348 mm irrigation and 254–327 kg ha−1 N window achieving over 80% maximum yield, NUE and WPI with less N loss.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- irrigation of 336–348 mm and N application of 254–327 kg ha−1e0
- Outcome
- cotton yield, NUE, and WPIe0
- Value
- more than 80%e0
- Qualifier
- less apparent N losse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under irrigation of 336–348 mm and N application of 254–327 kg ha−1, cotton yield, NUE, and WPI reached more than 80% of the maximum value, with less apparent N loss”
The same questions in other 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
- positive
- positive
339 papers more in this group
See all 343 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.