Abstract
Little information is available on the effects of residual soil N fertilizer requirements or the effects of “standard” vs. slow‐release N fertilizers on irrigated cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) production and resulting soil N carryover in the semi‐arid Southwestern USA. Deep soil sampling for profile NO − 3 ‐N or petiole analysis for NO − 3 ‐N have not yet been widely accepted in this region. Field studies conducted in 1980 and 1981 in the Pecos River Valley of southeastern New Mexico evaluated (i) effects of residual soil N and varying rates of urea or sulfur‐coated urea (SCU) on cotton yield, (ii) effects of urea and SCU on petiole NO − 3 ‐N, and (iii) effects of urea and SCU on residual soil N. Neither fertilizer nor N rate significantly affected seed cotton yield. Residual soil N was lower in 1981 than 1980 but N mineralization potential was greater, thus reducing the effects of N fertilization. Early season petiole NO − 3 ‐N was adequate in both years with no significant differences between either N rate or fertilizer material. Significant differences were observed between N rates but not fertilizer materials in late season petiole NO − 3 ‐N. Late season petiole NO − 3 ‐N levels in 1981 were at or near deficiency levels but, since most of the cotton crop is formed early in the season, low petiole NO − 3 ‐N did not affect yields. Significant differences in profile NO − 3 ‐N at harvest appeared to be related to distribution of growing season rainfall. Although there was no distinct advantage of a slow‐release N fertilizer, the amount of NO − 3 ‐N remaining in a 3‐ft soil profile at harvest was reduced by delaying fertilizer N availability. Residual soil N may be an important factor in meeting cotton N fertilizer requirements in this region.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer type and nitrogen rate did not significantly affect seed cotton yield.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- fertilizere0
- Outcome
- seed cotton yielde0
- Direction
- Neithere0
- Setting
- Cottont0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Neither fertilizer nor N rate significantly affected seed cotton yield.”
t0“Effects of Residual Soil Nitrogen and Urea on Yield and Petiole Nitrate of Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Residual soil nitrogen was lower in 1981 than 1980.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- Residual soil Ne0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- 1980e0
Not reportedValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Residual soil N was lower in 1981 than 1980”
t0“Effects of Residual Soil Nitrogen and Urea on Yield and Petiole Nitrate of Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen mineralization potential was greater in 1981 than 1980.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- N mineralization potentiale0
- Direction
- greatere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N mineralization potential was greater”
t0“Effects of Residual Soil Nitrogen and Urea on Yield and Petiole Nitrate of Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Early-season petiole nitrate was adequate in both years.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Organ / stage
- petiolee0
- Outcome
- petiole NO − 3 ‐Ne0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Early season petiole NO − 3 ‐N was adequate in both years”
t0“Effects of Residual Soil Nitrogen and Urea on Yield and Petiole Nitrate of Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Early-season petiole nitrate did not differ significantly by nitrogen rate or fertilizer material.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N ratee0
- Outcome
- Petiole Nitratet0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- fertilizer materiale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant differences between either N rate or fertilizer material.”
t0“Effects of Residual Soil Nitrogen and Urea on Yield and Petiole Nitrate of Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Late-season petiole nitrate differed significantly among nitrogen rates.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N ratese0
- Outcome
- late season petiole NO − 3 ‐Ne0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant differences were observed between N rates but not fertilizer materials in late season petiole NO − 3 ‐N.”
t0“Effects of Residual Soil Nitrogen and Urea on Yield and Petiole Nitrate of Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Late-season petiole nitrate did not differ among fertilizer materials.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- fertilizer materialse0
- Outcome
- late season petiole NO − 3 ‐Ne0
- Direction
- note0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant differences were observed between N rates but not fertilizer materials in late season petiole NO − 3 ‐N.”
t0“Effects of Residual Soil Nitrogen and Urea on Yield and Petiole Nitrate of Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Late-season petiole nitrate in 1981 was at or near deficiency levels.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- petiole NO − 3 ‐N levelse0
- Qualifier
- 1981e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Late season petiole NO − 3 ‐N levels in 1981 were at or near deficiency levels”
t0“Effects of Residual Soil Nitrogen and Urea on Yield and Petiole Nitrate of Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Low late-season petiole nitrate did not affect cotton yields.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Compound
- NO − 3 ‐Ne0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“low petiole NO − 3 ‐N did not affect yields.”
t0“Effects of Residual Soil Nitrogen and Urea on Yield and Petiole Nitrate of Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Harvest profile nitrate differed significantly in relation to rainfall distribution.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- profile NO − 3 ‐Ne0
- Qualifier
- distribution of growing season rainfalle0
- Setting
- growing seasone0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant differences in profile NO − 3 ‐N at harvest appeared to be related to distribution of growing season rainfall.”
t0“Effects of Residual Soil Nitrogen and Urea on Yield and Petiole Nitrate of Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Delaying fertilizer nitrogen availability reduced nitrate remaining in the soil profile at harvest.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- delaying fertilizer N availabilitye0
- Outcome
- NO − 3 ‐N remaining in a 3‐ft soil profilee0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the amount of NO − 3 ‐N remaining in a 3‐ft soil profile at harvest was reduced by delaying fertilizer N availability.”
t0“Effects of Residual Soil Nitrogen and Urea on Yield and Petiole Nitrate of Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Residual soil nitrogen may help meet cotton fertilizer requirements in this region.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- meeting cotton N fertilizer requirementse0
- Qualifier
- this regione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Residual soil N may be an important factor in meeting cotton N fertilizer requirements in this region.”
t0“Effects of Residual Soil Nitrogen and Urea on Yield and Petiole Nitrate of Cotton”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · molecular: metabolites · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →nitrogen · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 71 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
75 papers more in this group
See all 79 papers →fertilization · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
52 papers in the same direction as this paper · 497 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
546 papers more in this group
See all 550 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.