Abstract
A field plot experiment with general rotation design was conducted to study the coupling effect of water amount and nitrogen (N) application rate for cotton under alternative furrow irrigation (AFI), conventional furrow irrigation (CFI), and fixed separate furrow irrigation (FFI). When the water amount was 37.52-160.00 mm and N application rate was 56.2-95.2 kg N x hm(-2), cotton yield had significant positive correlations with them; when the two factors were in the ranges of 160.00-218.48 mm and 95.2-134.2 kg N x hm(-2), respectively, no significant change was observed in the cotton yield. Within the test ranges of water amount and N application rate, cotton yield had no significant difference between AFI and CFI, but was 9.15% higher under CFI than under FFI. The water use efficiency (WUE) of cotton was significantly negatively correlated with the water amount 37.52-160.00 mm and positively correlated with the N application rate 56.2-122.8 kg N x hm(-2), but had no significant change when the water amount was 160.00-218.48 mm and N application rate was 122.8-134.2 kg N x hm(-2). Within the test ranges of water amount and N application rate, the WUE had no significant difference between CFI and AFI, but was 9.01% higher under CFI than under FFI. The nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) of cotton had significant positive correlation with the water amount 37.52-160.00 mm but significant negative correlation with the N application rate 56.2-134.2 kg N x hm(-2), and had no significant difference between AFI and CFI but was 6. 34% was lower under FFI than under CFI. Appropriate measures for high-efficiently using water and nitrogen resources under different furrow irrigation patterns were put forward to optimize cotton yield, WUE and NUE.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield had significant positive correlations with water amount and N application rate within 37.52-160.00 mm and 56.2-95.2 kg N x hm(-2).
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume1 - Treatment
- water amounte1
- Outcome
- cotton yielde1
- Direction
- positivee1
- Qualifier
- N application rate was 56.2-95.2 kg N x hm(-2)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“When the water amount was 37.52-160.00 mm and N application rate was 56.2-95.2 kg N x hm(-2), cotton yield had significant positive correlations with them”
Claim · model-written summary
When both factors were in the higher ranges of 160.00-218.48 mm and 95.2-134.2 kg N x hm(-2), cotton yield showed no significant change.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Treatment
- the two factorse2
- Outcome
- cotton yielde2
- Direction
- no significant changee2
- Qualifier
- in the ranges of 160.00-218.48 mm and 95.2-134.2 kg N x hm(-2), respectivelye2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“when the two factors were in the ranges of 160.00-218.48 mm and 95.2-134.2 kg N x hm(-2), respectively, no significant change was observed in the cotton yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield did not differ significantly between alternative furrow irrigation (AFI) and conventional furrow irrigation (CFI).
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume3
- Treatment
- AFIe3
- Outcome
- cotton yielde3
- Direction
- no significant differencee3
- Qualifier
- Within the test ranges of water amount and N application ratee3
- Comparator
- CFIe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Within the test ranges of water amount and N application rate, cotton yield had no significant difference between AFI and CFI, but was 9.15% higher under CFI than under FFI”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield was 9.15% higher under CFI than under fixed separate furrow irrigation (FFI).
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume3
- Treatment
- CFIe3
- Outcome
- cotton yielde3
- Direction
- highere3
- Value
- 9.15%e3
- Comparator
- FFIe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Within the test ranges of water amount and N application rate, cotton yield had no significant difference between AFI and CFI, but was 9.15% higher under CFI than under FFI”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency of cotton was significantly negatively correlated with water amount within 37.52-160.00 mm.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume4
- Treatment
- water amounte4
- Outcome
- water use efficiency (WUE)e4
- Direction
- negativelye4
- Qualifier
- 37.52-160.00 mme4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“The water use efficiency (WUE) of cotton was significantly negatively correlated with the water amount 37.52-160.00 mm and positively correlated with the N application rate 56.2-122.8 kg N x hm(-2)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency of cotton was positively correlated with N application rate within 56.2-122.8 kg N x hm(-2).
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume4
- Treatment
- N application ratee4
- Outcome
- water use efficiency (WUE)e4
- Direction
- positivelye4
- Qualifier
- 56.2-122.8 kg N x hm(-2)e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“The water use efficiency (WUE) of cotton was significantly negatively correlated with the water amount 37.52-160.00 mm and positively correlated with the N application rate 56.2-122.8 kg N x hm(-2)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency of cotton did not change significantly when water amount was 160.00-218.48 mm and N rate 122.8-134.2 kg N x hm(-2).
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume4
- Treatment
- water amounte5
- Outcome
- water use efficiency (WUE)e4
- Direction
- no significant changee5
- Qualifier
- when the water amount was 160.00-218.48 mm and N application rate was 122.8-134.2 kg N x hm(-2)e5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“The water use efficiency (WUE) of cotton was significantly negatively correlated with the water amount 37.52-160.00 mm and positively correlated with the N application rate 56.2-122.8 kg N x hm(-2)”
e5“but had no significant change when the water amount was 160.00-218.48 mm and N application rate was 122.8-134.2 kg N x hm(-2)”
Claim · model-written summary
Between CFI and AFI, water use efficiency of cotton did not differ significantly.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume4
- Treatment
- CFIe6
- Outcome
- WUEe6
- Direction
- no significant differencee6
- Comparator
- AFIe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“The water use efficiency (WUE) of cotton was significantly negatively correlated with the water amount 37.52-160.00 mm and positively correlated with the N application rate 56.2-122.8 kg N x hm(-2)”
e6“Within the test ranges of water amount and N application rate, the WUE had no significant difference between CFI and AFI, but was 9.01% higher under CFI than under FFI”
Claim · model-written summary
CFI gave 9.01% higher water use efficiency of cotton than FFI.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume4
- Treatment
- CFIe6
- Outcome
- WUEe6
- Direction
- highere6
- Value
- 9.01%e6
- Comparator
- FFIe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“The water use efficiency (WUE) of cotton was significantly negatively correlated with the water amount 37.52-160.00 mm and positively correlated with the N application rate 56.2-122.8 kg N x hm(-2)”
e6“Within the test ranges of water amount and N application rate, the WUE had no significant difference between CFI and AFI, but was 9.01% higher under CFI than under FFI”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen use efficiency of cotton was significantly positively correlated with water amount within 37.52-160.00 mm.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume7
- Treatment
- water amounte7
- Outcome
- nitrogen use efficiency (NUE)e7
- Direction
- positivee7
- Qualifier
- 37.52-160.00 mme7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“The nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) of cotton had significant positive correlation with the water amount 37.52-160.00 mm but significant negative correlation with the N application rate 56.2-134.2 kg N x hm(-2)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen use efficiency of cotton was significantly negatively correlated with N application rate within 56.2-134.2 kg N x hm(-2).
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume7
- Treatment
- N application ratee7
- Outcome
- nitrogen use efficiency (NUE)e7
- Direction
- negativee7
- Qualifier
- 56.2-134.2 kg N x hm(-2)e7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“The nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) of cotton had significant positive correlation with the water amount 37.52-160.00 mm but significant negative correlation with the N application rate 56.2-134.2 kg N x hm(-2)”
Claim · model-written summary
Between AFI and CFI, nitrogen use efficiency of cotton did not differ significantly.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume7
- Treatment
- AFIe6
- Outcome
- NUEe7
- Direction
- no significant differencee6
- Comparator
- CFIe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“The nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) of cotton had significant positive correlation with the water amount 37.52-160.00 mm but significant negative correlation with the N application rate 56.2-134.2 kg N x hm(-2)”
e6“and had no significant difference between AFI and CFI but was 6. 34% was lower under FFI than under CFI”
Claim · model-written summary
FFI gave 6.34% lower nitrogen use efficiency of cotton than CFI.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume7
- Treatment
- FFIe6
- Outcome
- NUEe7
- Direction
- lowere6
- Value
- 6. 34%e6
- Comparator
- CFIe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“The nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) of cotton had significant positive correlation with the water amount 37.52-160.00 mm but significant negative correlation with the N application rate 56.2-134.2 kg N x hm(-2)”
e6“and had no significant difference between AFI and CFI but was 6. 34% was lower under FFI than under CFI”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend appropriate measures for high-efficiency use of water and nitrogen in cotton under furrow irrigation.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- Appropriate measures for high-efficiently using water and nitrogen resourcese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Appropriate measures for high-efficiently using water and nitrogen resources under different furrow irrigation patterns were put forward to optimize cotton yield, WUE and NUE”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · nutrient: efficiency · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
109 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
127 papers more in this group
See all 131 papers →irrigation · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
303 papers in the same direction as this paper · 86 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
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.