Abstract
Abstract A three‐year field study was conducted to evaluate cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) response to the source and timing of nitrogen (N) on an irrigated coastal plain soil (Lucy loamy sand; Arenic Kandiudults) in south Alabama. Cotton acreage in this region has increased in the past ten years and there was a need for current data describing cotton response to N fertilization. Treatments included N sources, timing of N application (ammonium nitrate), split applications of N (ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate), and a no‐N check. Nitrogen sources applied preplant included: (i) ammonium nitrate (34‐0‐0); (ii) ammonium sulfate (21‐0‐0‐24.2); (iii) urea (46‐0‐0); (iv) urea–ammonium nitrate solution (UAN; 32‐0‐0); (v) UAN + ammonium thiosulfate (28‐0‐0‐5). Non‐sulfur sources were applied with and without additional sulfur (S). Times of application were preplant, first true leaf, first square, and first bloom. Two treatments received split applications of N as a 50:50 mixture of ammonium sulfate with urea or ammonium nitrate. Supplemental applications of potassium (K) were evaluated by applying ammonium sulfate in combination with 56 kg K/ha. Yield data showed some minor differences among sources, but overall the results of this three‐year study show that there were no superior N sources. For ammonium nitrate, preplant applications of N were sufficient in two out of three years. Split applications of ammonium nitrate did not improve yields as compared to preplant N. Applying ammonium sulfate with supplemental K or as a 50:50 mixture with ammonium nitrate or urea did not improve yields as compared to ammonium sulfate or ammonium nitrate applied alone. Lint quality was not affected by N fertility treatments. Acknowledgments Supported in part by funds from Allied Signal and the Sulphur Institute.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen sources showed minor yield differences overall, with none superior.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- N sourcese0
- Outcome
- Yielde0
- Direction
- no superiore0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield data showed some minor differences among sources, but overall the results of this three‐year study show that there were no superior N sources”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Preplant ammonium nitrate was sufficient in two of three years.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- preplant applications of Ne0
- Outcome
- sufficiente0
- Value
- two out of three yearse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For ammonium nitrate, preplant applications of N were sufficient in two out of three years”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Split ammonium nitrate applications did not improve cotton yield over preplant application.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Split applications of ammonium nitratee0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- did not improvee0
- Comparator
- preplant Ne0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Split applications of ammonium nitrate did not improve yields as compared to preplant N”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Ammonium sulfate with supplemental potassium did not improve yield over sulfate alone.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- ammonium sulfate with supplemental Ke0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- did not improvee0
- Comparator
- ammonium sulfate or ammonium nitrate applied alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Applying ammonium sulfate with supplemental K or as a 50:50 mixture with ammonium nitrate or urea did not improve yields as compared to ammonium sulfate or ammonium nitrate applied alone”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Ammonium sulfate mixed with ammonium nitrate did not improve yield over single-source application.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- 50:50 mixture with ammonium nitratee0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- did not improvee0
- Comparator
- ammonium sulfate or ammonium nitrate applied alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Applying ammonium sulfate with supplemental K or as a 50:50 mixture with ammonium nitrate or urea did not improve yields as compared to ammonium sulfate or ammonium nitrate applied alone”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Ammonium sulfate mixed with urea did not improve yield over single-source application.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- 50:50 mixture with ammonium nitrate or ureae0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- did not improvee0
- Comparator
- ammonium sulfate or ammonium nitrate applied alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Applying ammonium sulfate with supplemental K or as a 50:50 mixture with ammonium nitrate or urea did not improve yields as compared to ammonium sulfate or ammonium nitrate applied alone”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertility treatments did not affect lint quality.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- N fertility treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Lint qualitye0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Lint quality was not affected by N fertility treatments”
t0“Cotton”
The same questions in other papers
ammonium nitrate · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
ammonium sulfate · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →nitrogen · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 286 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.