Paper · 1975 · The Journal of Agricultural Science

Response of cotton to water and nitrogen in a tropical environment: I. Frequency of watering and method of application of nitrogen

A. B. Hearn

12
claims
24
verbatim quotes
35
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

SUMMARY Two experiments were made in successive years in which three frequencies of watering were combined factorially with several rates and methods of applying nitrogen. Soil water content and leaf water potential were measured. The least frequent watering treatment decreased yield and nitrogen applications increased yield. All of the effect of water and most of the effect of nitrogen were associated with changes in the number rather than the weight of bolls. Although the combination of heavy nitrogen with frequent watering caused the crop initially to set fruit more slowly than did heavy nitrogen with infrequent watering, it prolonged flowering and increased the number of fruit ultimately set. Thus yield and the potential duration and cost of insect control were also increased. There were no differences in yield nor rate of setting between the following methods of application of the nitrogen: all applied to the seed bed; split application between the seed bed and side dressing 2 months later; and split application between the seed bed, side dressing, and irrigation water. However, when application was split so that most was applied in the water, the response was not as great. Application of nitrogen combined with frequent watering decreased the weight of the early bolls by decreasing fibre per seed. Nitrogen increased the weight of later bolls by increasing the number and weight of seeds. The practical and physiological implications of these results are discussed and a crop nutritional hypothesis for cotton developed further.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Least frequent watering reduced yield.

Treatment
least frequent watering treatmente0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The least frequent watering treatment decreased yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 231–284 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen application raised yield.

Treatment
nitrogen applicationse0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“nitrogen applications increased yield.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 289–327 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water and nitrogen yield effects were mostly associated with boll number rather than boll weight.

Treatment
nitrogene0
Outcome
number rather than the weight of bollse0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“All of the effect of water and most of the effect of nitrogen were associated with changes in the number rather than the weight of bolls.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 328–465 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Heavy nitrogen with frequent watering slowed initial fruit set relative to infrequent watering.

Treatment
heavy nitrogen with frequent wateringe0
Outcome
set fruite0
Direction
more slowlye0
Comparator
heavy nitrogen with infrequent wateringe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the combination of heavy nitrogen with frequent watering caused the crop initially to set fruit more slowly than did heavy nitrogen with infrequent watering”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 475–631 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Heavy nitrogen with frequent watering prolonged flowering.

Treatment
heavy nitrogen with frequent wateringe0
Outcome
floweringe0
Direction
prolongede0
Comparator
heavy nitrogen with infrequent wateringe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Although the combination of heavy nitrogen with frequent watering caused the crop initially to set fruit more slowly than did heavy nitrogen with infrequent watering, it prolonged flowering and increased the number of fruit ultimately set.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 466–705 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Heavy nitrogen with frequent watering raised ultimate fruit set.

Treatment
heavy nitrogen with frequent wateringe0
Outcome
number of fruit ultimately sete0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
heavy nitrogen with infrequent wateringe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Although the combination of heavy nitrogen with frequent watering caused the crop initially to set fruit more slowly than did heavy nitrogen with infrequent watering, it prolonged flowering and increased the number of fruit ultimately set.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 466–705 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The combination increased yield and potential insect control duration and cost.

Outcome
yield and the potential duration and cost of insect controle0
Direction
increasede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Thus yield and the potential duration and cost of insect control were also increased.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 706–791 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Three nitrogen application methods had no yield differences.

Treatment
split application between the seed bed and side dressing 2 months latere0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
no differencese0
Comparator
all applied to the seed bede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There were no differences in yield nor rate of setting between the following methods of application of the nitrogen: all applied to the seed bed; split application between the seed bed and side dressing 2 months later; and split application between the seed bed, side dressing, and irrigation water.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 792–1091 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Three nitrogen application methods had no fruit-setting-rate differences.

Treatment
split application between the seed bed, side dressing, and irrigation watere0
Outcome
rate of settinge0
Direction
no differencese0
Comparator
all applied to the seed bede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There were no differences in yield nor rate of setting between the following methods of application of the nitrogen: all applied to the seed bed; split application between the seed bed and side dressing 2 months later; and split application between the seed bed, side dressing, and irrigation water.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 792–1091 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Putting most nitrogen in irrigation water gave a smaller response.

Treatment
most was applied in the watere0
Outcome
responsee0
Direction
not as greate0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“when application was split so that most was applied in the water, the response was not as great.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1101–1197 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen with frequent watering reduced early boll weight through less fibre per seed.

Organ / stage
early bollse0
Treatment
nitrogen combined with frequent wateringe0
Outcome
weight of the early bollse0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Application of nitrogen combined with frequent watering decreased the weight of the early bolls by decreasing fibre per seed.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1198–1323 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen increased later boll weight through more and heavier seeds.

Organ / stage
later bollse0
Treatment
Nitrogene0
Outcome
weight of later bollse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Nitrogen increased the weight of later bolls by increasing the number and weight of seeds.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1324–1414 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑

nitrogen · phenology · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

15 papers: 7 positive, 8 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

11 papers more in this group

See all 15 papers →

irrigation · phenology · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

31 papers: 17 positive, 14 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

27 papers more in this group

See all 31 papers →

nitrogen · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

343 papers: 286 positive, 57 negative or no effect

285 papers in the same direction as this paper · 53 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

339 papers more in this group

See all 343 papers →

irrigation · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

399 papers: 304 positive, 95 negative or no effect

94 papers in the same direction as this paper · 304 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

395 papers more in this group

See all 399 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.