Abstract
Nitrogen fertilization serves as an effective approach to alleviating abiotic stresses, including drought, waterlogging, and heat stresses. Nevertheless, the interactive impacts of nitrogen application rates and waterlogging durations on biomass accumulation, translocation, and root growth remain largely unknown. To address this knowledge gap, a two-year (2018 and 2019) field experiment was conducted to investigate the impacts of varied waterlogging durations (0, 5, 10, and 15 days, denoted as W 0 , W 5 , W 10 , and W 15 ) at the early flowering stage and nitrogen application rates (0, 240, and 360 kg N ha⁻¹, denoted as N 0 , N 1 , and N 2 ) on cotton biomass accumulation and translocation, soil nitrogen status, root traits, and lint yield. The results showed that waterlogging stress significantly delayed cotton phenology by 1–6 days, inhibited plant biomass accumulation and translocation, reduced soil nitrate nitrogen content, suppressed root growth and nitrate reductase activity, and ultimately decreased lint yield by 37–83 %, with the reduction proportional to waterlogging durations. Nitrogen input effectively alleviated waterlogging stress on cotton growth, and increased lint yield by 139–306 %. Compared to N 1 , N 2 more effectively mitigated the adverse effects of W 10 waterlogging by increasing root length density in deeper soil layers (40–100 cm), enhancing overall biomass production, and facilitating dry matter translocation from vegetative parts to reproductive structures. In contrast under W 15 conditions, no significant differences were found between N 1 and N 2 in root traits, biomass translocation, or lint yield, indicating the 15-day waterlogging stress at early flowering caused irreversible damage to cotton growth. Consequently, tailoring nitrogen application rates according to waterlogging intensity is of great significance for improving nitrogen use efficiency and alleviating waterlogging stress.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging delayed cotton phenology by 1–6 days.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- waterlogging stresse0
- Outcome
- cotton phenologye0
- Direction
- delayede0
- Value
- 1–6 dayse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“waterlogging stress significantly delayed cotton phenology by 1–6 days”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging inhibited cotton biomass accumulation and translocation.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- waterlogging stresse0
- Outcome
- plant biomass accumulation and translocatione0
- Direction
- inhibitede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“waterlogging stress significantly delayed cotton phenology by 1–6 days, inhibited plant biomass accumulation and translocation”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging reduced soil nitrate nitrogen content.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- waterlogging stresse0
- Outcome
- soil nitrate nitrogen contente0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“waterlogging stress significantly delayed cotton phenology by 1–6 days, inhibited plant biomass accumulation and translocation, reduced soil nitrate nitrogen content”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging suppressed root growth.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- waterloggingt0
- Outcome
- root growthe0
- Direction
- suppressede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“suppressed root growth and nitrate reductase activity”
t0“waterlogging duration improves root growth and biomass translocation in cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging suppressed nitrate reductase activity.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- waterloggingt0
- Outcome
- nitrate reductase activitye0
- Direction
- suppressede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“suppressed root growth and nitrate reductase activity”
t0“waterlogging duration improves root growth and biomass translocation in cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging decreased cotton lint yield by 37–83%, proportionally to duration.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogging durationse0
- Outcome
- lint yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 37–83 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreased lint yield by 37–83 %, with the reduction proportional to waterlogging durations”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen input increased cotton lint yield by 139–306%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Nitrogen inpute0
- Outcome
- lint yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 139–306 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nitrogen input effectively alleviated waterlogging stress on cotton growth, and increased lint yield by 139–306 %”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen input alleviated waterlogging stress on cotton growth.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Nitrogen inpute0
- Outcome
- cotton growthe0
- Direction
- alleviatede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nitrogen input effectively alleviated waterlogging stress on cotton growth”
Claim · model-written summary
At W10, N2 increased deep root length density relative to N1.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N 2e0
- Outcome
- root length densitye0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Qualifier
- deeper soil layers (40–100 cm)e0
- Comparator
- N 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to N 1 , N 2 more effectively mitigated the adverse effects of W 10 waterlogging by increasing root length density in deeper soil layers (40–100 cm)”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At W10, N2 enhanced biomass production relative to N1.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N 2e0
- Outcome
- overall biomass productione0
- Direction
- enhancinge0
- Comparator
- N 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to N 1 , N 2 more effectively mitigated the adverse effects of W 10 waterlogging by increasing root length density in deeper soil layers (40–100 cm), enhancing overall biomass production”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At W10, N2 facilitated dry matter translocation relative to N1.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N 2e0
- Outcome
- dry matter translocatione0
- Direction
- facilitatinge0
- Comparator
- N 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to N 1 , N 2 more effectively mitigated the adverse effects of W 10 waterlogging by increasing root length density in deeper soil layers (40–100 cm), enhancing overall biomass production, and facilitating dry matter translocation from vegetative parts to reproductive structures”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At W15, N1 and N2 did not differ significantly in root traits.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N 2e0
- Outcome
- root traitse0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- N 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under W 15 conditions, no significant differences were found between N 1 and N 2 in root traits, biomass translocation, or lint yield”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At W15, N1 and N2 did not differ significantly in biomass translocation.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N 2e0
- Outcome
- biomass translocatione0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- N 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under W 15 conditions, no significant differences were found between N 1 and N 2 in root traits, biomass translocation, or lint yield”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At W15, N1 and N2 did not differ significantly in lint yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N 2e0
- Outcome
- lint yielde0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- N 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under W 15 conditions, no significant differences were found between N 1 and N 2 in root traits, biomass translocation, or lint yield”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend tailoring nitrogen rates to waterlogging intensity.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- tailoring nitrogen application rates according to waterlogging intensitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“tailoring nitrogen application rates according to waterlogging intensity is of great significance for improving nitrogen use efficiency and alleviating waterlogging stress”
t0“cotton”
The same questions in other papers
flooding · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →nitrogen · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
99 papers more in this group
See all 103 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 →flooding · physiology: enzyme activity · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
flooding · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- no effect
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →flooding · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
7 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- negative
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.