Paper · 2023 · Agronomy

Year-Round Production of Cotton and Wheat or Rapeseed Regulated by Different Nitrogen Rates with Crop Straw Returning

Youchang Zhang; Hancheng Mei; Zhenghua Yan; et al.

14
claims
28
verbatim quotes
9
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Double direct seeding of cotton (with wheat or rapeseed) is a new method for cotton-growing regions in the Yangtze River Basin to adapt to the development of mechanization. It would help to reduce manual labor, optimize the amount of nitrogen fertilizer to be used, reduce the physical and chemical production costs, and improve the benefits of cotton fields. We selected five counties from the major cotton-producing areas of Hubei Province for three consecutive seasons, from winter 2020 to spring 2022. The experimental sites used no tillage with straw returning to the field, double direct seeding, late sowing at high density, and one-time fertilization to study the effects of different nitrogen fertilizer rates on the yield characteristics of cotton, wheat, and rape and calculate the economic benefits of the two cultivation modes under different nitrogen fertilizer input levels through parameters such as land-use efficiency, production efficiency, and profitability. In both cotton–wheat and cotton–rapeseed cropping systems, the number of bolls per plant in cotton was the lowest in the N165 (90 cotton + 75 wheat/rape kg ha−1) treatment. The cotton yield was the highest at N247.5 (135 cotton + 112.5 wheat/rape kg ha−1) in the cotton after the wheat system and N412.5 (225 cotton + 187.5 wheat/rape kg ha−1) in the cotton after the rape system. The yield of wheat and rape increased with the increase in the levels of nitrogen fertilizer, with the N165 treatment showing the lowest values. With an increase in nitrogen fertilizer, the harvest index of wheat first maximized and then started decreasing. The harvest index in wheat was the highest at N247.5 (135 cotton + 112.5 wheat/rape kg ha−1) and N330 (180 cotton + 150 wheat/rape kg ha−1), whereas, in rape, it increased with nitrogen fertilizer application, with the highest value at N495 (270 cotton + 225 wheat/rape kg ha−1). Economically, the expenses and income of both cotton–wheat and cotton–rape systems increased as nitrogen fertilizer increased. The net profit and benefit ratio first increased and then decreased with increasing nitrogen fertilizer, with N247.5 (135 cotton + 112.5 wheat/rape kg ha−1) scoring the maximum values for both of these parameters. The land-use efficiency and production efficiency increased with the increase in nitrogen fertilizer, and the production efficiency of the N165 (90 cotton + 75 wheat/rape) treatment was significantly lower than that of the other four treatments. The profitability increased first and then decreased with the increase in nitrogen fertilizer, with the N247.5 (135 cotton + 112.5 wheat/rape) treatment showing the highest profit. The production cycle of cotton–rape was slightly shorter than that of cotton–wheat, and the system productivity was also lower. The expenses and land-use and production efficiency of the rapeseed system were lower than those of wheat, while the gross income, net profit, and productivity of the cotton–rape system were higher than those of cotton–wheat. The application of nitrogen fertilizer in the cotton–wheat double-cropping system under straw return can achieve the maximum net profit, production ratio, and yield at the low nitrogen level of N247.5, (135 cotton + 112.5 wheat/rape kg ha−1). Due to the price advantage of rape, the net profit, production ratio, and income of the cotton–rape production system are higher than those of the cotton–wheat production system.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton boll number was lowest under N165.

Treatment
N165 (90 cotton + 75 wheat/rape kg ha−1)e0
Outcome
number of bolls per plante0
Direction
loweste0

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 number of bolls per plant in cotton was the lowest in the N165 (90 cotton + 75 wheat/rape kg ha−1) treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1038–1150 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton yield after wheat was highest under N247.5.

Treatment
N247.5 (135 cotton + 112.5 wheat/rape kg ha−1)e0
Outcome
cotton yielde0
Direction
higheste0

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 cotton yield was the highest at N247.5 (135 cotton + 112.5 wheat/rape kg ha−1) in the cotton after the wheat system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1152–1271 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton yield after rape was highest under N412.5.

Treatment
N412.5 (225 cotton + 187.5 wheat/rape kg ha−1)e0
Outcome
cotton yielde0
Direction
higheste0

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 cotton yield was the highest at N247.5 (135 cotton + 112.5 wheat/rape kg ha−1) in the cotton after the wheat system and N412.5 (225 cotton + 187.5 wheat/rape kg ha−1) in the cotton after the rape system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1152–1358 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat yield rose with nitrogen fertilizer.

Treatment
increase in the levels of nitrogen fertilizere0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
N165 treatmente0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The yield of wheat and rape increased with the increase in the levels of nitrogen fertilizer, with the N165 treatment showing the lowest values”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1360–1503 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 36–41 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rape yield rose with nitrogen fertilizer.

Treatment
increase in the levels of nitrogen fertilizere0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
N165 treatmente0

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

Brassica napus
Brassica napus · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The yield of wheat and rape increased with the increase in the levels of nitrogen fertilizer, with the N165 treatment showing the lowest values”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1360–1503 · show in text ↑
t0

“rape”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 45–49 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat harvest index peaked at N247.5 and N330.

Treatment
N247.5 (135 cotton + 112.5 wheat/rape kg ha−1) and N330 (180 cotton + 150 wheat/rape kg ha−1)e0
Outcome
harvest indexe0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The harvest index in wheat was the highest at N247.5 (135 cotton + 112.5 wheat/rape kg ha−1) and N330 (180 cotton + 150 wheat/rape kg ha−1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1618–1757 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 36–41 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rape harvest index increased with nitrogen, peaking at N495.

Treatment
nitrogen fertilizer applicatione0
Outcome
harvest indexe0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus
Brassica napus · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The harvest index in wheat was the highest at N247.5 (135 cotton + 112.5 wheat/rape kg ha−1) and N330 (180 cotton + 150 wheat/rape kg ha−1), whereas, in rape, it increased with nitrogen fertilizer application, with the highest value at N495 (270 cotton + 225 wheat/rape kg ha−1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1618–1896 · show in text ↑
t0

“rape”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 45–49 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Expenses and income in the cotton–wheat system rose as nitrogen rose.

Outcome
expenses and incomee0
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

“expenses and income of both cotton–wheat and cotton–rape systems increased as nitrogen fertilizer increased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1916–2023 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Net profit and benefit ratio peaked at N247.5.

Outcome
net profit and benefit ratioe0
Direction
maximume0

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 net profit and benefit ratio first increased and then decreased with increasing nitrogen fertilizer, with N247.5 (135 cotton + 112.5 wheat/rape kg ha−1) scoring the maximum values for both of these parameters”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2025–2237 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Land-use and production efficiency rose with nitrogen fertilizer.

Outcome
land-use efficiency and production efficiencye0
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

“The land-use efficiency and production efficiency increased with the increase in nitrogen fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2239–2339 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton–rape had a shorter production cycle than cotton–wheat.

Outcome
production cyclee0
Direction
shortere0

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 production cycle of cotton–rape was slightly shorter than that of cotton–wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2666–2748 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton–rape had lower system productivity than cotton–wheat.

Outcome
system productivitye0
Direction
lowere0

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

“and the system productivity was also lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2750–2792 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rapeseed system expenses and efficiencies were below wheat system levels.

Taxon
rapeseede0t0
Outcome
expenses and land-use and production efficiencye0
Direction
lowere0

Verbatim

e0

“The expenses and land-use and production efficiency of the rapeseed system were lower than those of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2794–2899 · show in text ↑
t0

“rapeseed”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 45–53 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton–rape gross income, net profit and productivity exceeded cotton–wheat.

Outcome
gross income, net profit, and productivitye0
Direction
highere0

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

“gross income, net profit, and productivity of the cotton–rape system were higher than those of cotton–wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2911–3018 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑

Brassica napus · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 9 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

Gossypium hirsutum · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

15 papers: 10 positive, 5 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

11 papers more in this group

See all 15 papers →

Triticum aestivum · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

30 papers: 21 positive, 9 negative or no effect

20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

26 papers more in this group

See all 30 papers →

Brassica napus · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

fertilization · yield · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

378 papers: 337 positive, 41 negative or no effect

336 papers in the same direction as this paper · 37 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

374 papers more in this group

See all 378 papers →

fertilization · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

3,438 papers: 3,115 positive, 323 negative or no effect

3,114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 284 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

3,434 papers more in this group

See all 3,438 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.