Paper · 2003 · PubMed

[Effect of nitrogen fertilizer on pest population and cotton production].

Feng Ge; Xianghui Liu; Hongda Li; et al.

9
claims
11
verbatim quotes
14
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted from 1999 to 2000 to assess the effect of nitrogen fertilization levels (0.225 and 450 kg.hm-2) on the population dynamics of cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) and cotton aphid (Aphid gossypii), and on the numbers of cotton buds and bolls in North China. The population densities of cotton bollworm and cotton aphid increased with increasing nitrogen fertilization during 1999 to 2000, but the differences between treatments were not significant (P > 0.05). There were significant differences of cotton bollworm populations and no significant differences of cotton aphid populations between years. Nitrogen fertilization at flower-bud stage decreased the loss of cotton buds and flowers and increased the number of effective bolls and cotton yield, but the decrement and increment did not get to significant level (P < 0.05). No obvious correlations of nitrogen levels with main pest abundance and cotton production were observed.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton bollworm density increased with increasing nitrogen fertilization, without a significant treatment difference.

Treatment
increasing nitrogen fertilizatione0
Interactor
cotton bollwormHelicoverpa armigerae0pest
Outcome
population densities of cotton bollworme0
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 ↗
Helicoverpa armigera
Helicoverpa armigera · InteractorRaimundo Pastor · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The population densities of cotton bollworm and cotton aphid increased with increasing nitrogen fertilization during 1999 to 2000, but the differences between treatments were not significant (P > 0.05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 293–494 · show in text ↑
e1

“cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 159–197 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton aphid density increased with increasing nitrogen fertilization, without a significant treatment difference.

Treatment
increasing nitrogen fertilizatione0
Interactor
cotton aphidAphis gossypiie0pest
Outcome
cotton aphide0
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 ↗
Aphis gossypii
Aphis gossypii · InteractorDr Lewis Wilson, CSIRO · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The population densities of cotton bollworm and cotton aphid increased with increasing nitrogen fertilization during 1999 to 2000, but the differences between treatments were not significant (P > 0.05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 293–494 · show in text ↑
e1

“cotton aphid (Aphid gossypii)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 202–231 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton bollworm populations differed significantly between years.

Interactor
cotton bollwormHelicoverpa armigerae0pest
Outcome
cotton bollworm populationse0
Comparator
between yearse0

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 ↗
Helicoverpa armigera
Helicoverpa armigera · InteractorRaimundo Pastor · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There were significant differences of cotton bollworm populations and no significant differences of cotton aphid populations between years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 496–634 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton aphid populations did not differ significantly between years.

Interactor
cotton aphidAphis gossypiie0pest
Outcome
cotton aphid populationse0
Comparator
between yearse0

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 ↗
Aphis gossypii
Aphis gossypii · InteractorDr Lewis Wilson, CSIRO · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There were significant differences of cotton bollworm populations and no significant differences of cotton aphid populations between years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 496–634 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen fertilization at flower-bud stage decreased cotton bud and flower loss without reaching significance.

Treatment
Nitrogen fertilization at flower-bud stagee0
Outcome
loss of cotton buds and flowerse0
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

“Nitrogen fertilization at flower-bud stage decreased the loss of cotton buds and flowers and increased the number of effective bolls and cotton yield, but the decrement and increment did not get to significant level (P < 0.05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 636–862 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen fertilization at flower-bud stage increased effective boll number without reaching significance.

Treatment
Nitrogen fertilization at flower-bud stagee0
Outcome
number of effective 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 fertilization at flower-bud stage decreased the loss of cotton buds and flowers and increased the number of effective bolls and cotton yield, but the decrement and increment did not get to significant level (P < 0.05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 636–862 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen fertilization at flower-bud stage increased cotton yield without reaching significance.

Treatment
Nitrogen fertilization at flower-bud stagee0
Outcome
cotton 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 fertilization at flower-bud stage decreased the loss of cotton buds and flowers and increased the number of effective bolls and cotton yield, but the decrement and increment did not get to significant level (P < 0.05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 636–862 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen levels showed no obvious correlation with main pest abundance.

Treatment
nitrogen levelse0
Outcome
main pest abundancee0

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

“No obvious correlations of nitrogen levels with main pest abundance and cotton production were observed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 864–967 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen levels showed no obvious correlation with cotton production.

Treatment
nitrogen levelse0
Outcome
cotton productione0

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

“No obvious correlations of nitrogen levels with main pest abundance and cotton production were observed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 864–967 · show in text ↑

fertilization · Aphis gossypii · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

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

18 papers: 15 positive, 3 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

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

550 papers: 497 positive, 53 negative or no effect

496 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

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.