Response of Cotton to Irrigation Methods and Nitrogen Fertilization: Yield Components, Water‐Use Efficiency, Nitrogen Uptake, and Recovery

Janat, Mussaddak

doi:10.1080/00103620802292293

Cited by 38 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In northern Syria, flood-irrigated cotton that yielded 1,800 kg lint/ha, took up 300 kg N/ha, resulting in an iNUE of 6.0 (Janat 2008). There was no increase in lint yield by applying N fertiliser, confirming that these crops took up more N than was required to produce moderate yields and were probably over-supplied with N. Further, apparent N fertiliser recovery was also low (37 and 16% in 2 years), confirming the soil was highly N-fertile (high mineral N content was measured throughout the soil profile).…”

Section: Crop Inue Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing internal crop nitrogen use efficiency in high-yielding irrigated cotton

Rochester

2010

Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving the efficiency of nitrogen (N) fertiliser use is one means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in irrigated crops such as cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Internal crop N use efficiency (iNUE) was measured within two N fertiliser rate experiments that covered a wide range of N fertility over six cropping seasons. Crop iNUE was determined by dividing lint yield by crop N uptake. No nutrients other than N limited cotton growth or yield and the crops were irrigated to avoid drought stress. The optimal N fertiliser rates were determined from fitted quadratic functions that related lint yields with N fertiliser rates for each cropping system in each year. When the optimal N fertiliser rate was applied, crop iNUE averaged 12.5 ± 0.2 kg lint/kg crop N uptake. The crop iNUE was then used to determine the degree to which N fertiliser was under or over-applied, with respect to the economic optimum N fertiliser rate. Low iNUE values were associated with excessive N fertiliser application. Crop iNUE was determined in 82 commercial cotton crops in six valleys over the final 4 years of this study. The crop iNUE value was high in 8 fields (10%), optimal in 9 fields (11%) and low in 65 fields (79%). Crop N uptake averaged 247 kg N/ha, yield 2,273 kg lint/ha and crop iNUE 10.1 kg lint/kg crop N uptake for these sites. Averaged over all sites and years, about 49 kg N/ha too much N fertiliser was applied. Apparent N fertiliser recovery by cotton in the N rate experiments ranged from \20% in N-fertile treatments where legume crops had been grown, to more than 60% following winter cereal crops. Information on crop iNUE will enable cotton producers to assess their N fertiliser management and adjust N fertiliser rates for future crops. This study has demonstrated that there is scope to substantially reduce N fertiliser inputs to Australian cotton fields without reducing yields.

show abstract

Section: Crop Inue Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing internal crop nitrogen use efficiency in high-yielding irrigated cotton

Rochester

2010

Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The cultivation of cotton with its high N requirements (50-412 kg N ha −1 ) and the need for irrigation water (177-463 mm yr −1 , Aneja et al 1996;Navarro et al 1997;Hou et al 2007;Mahmood et al 2008;Janat 2008;Scheer et al 2008a, b;Zhang et al 2008) creates potentially favorable conditions for especially denitrifying microbial activity in the agricultural soil that can result in high emissions of N 2 O and NO. Indeed, significant emissions of these N gases have been observed from cotton fields across the globe (Aneja et al 1996;Mahmood et al 2008;Scheer et al 2008a, b) and the N recoveries from the crop are usually low (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Nitrous oxide and nitric oxide emissions from an irrigated cotton field in Northern China

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cotton is one of the major crops worldwide and delivers fibers to textile industries across the globe. Its cultivation requires high nitrogen (N) input and additionally irrigation, and the combination of both has the potential to trigger high emissions of nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and nitric oxide (NO), thereby contributing to rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Using an automated static chamber measuring system, we monitored in high temporal resolution N 2 O and NO fluxes in an irrigated cotton field in Northern China, between January 1st and December 31st 2008. Mean daily fluxes varied between 5.8 to 373.0 µg N 2 O-N m −2 h −1 and −3.7 to 135.7 µg NO-N m −2 h −1 , corresponding to an annual emission of 2.6 and 0.8 kg N ha −1 yr −1 for N 2 O and NO, respectively. The highest emissions of both gases were observed directly after the N fertilization and lasted approximately 1 month. During this time period, the emission was 0.85 and 0.22 kg N ha −1 for N 2 O and NO, respectively, and was responsible for 32.3% and 29.0% of the annual total N 2 O and NO loss. Soil temperature, moisture and mineral N content significantly affected the emissions of both gases (p<0.01). Direct emission factors were estimated to be 0.95% (N 2 O) and 0.24% (NO). We also analyzed the effects of sampling time and frequency on the estimations of annual cumulative N 2 O and NO emissions and found that low frequency measurements produced annual estimates which differed widely from those that were based on continuous measurements.

show abstract

“…Several studies have demonstrated the appropriateness of using drip irrigation for cotton in water stressed regions (e.g., Bucks, Allen, Roth, & Gardener, 1988;Da gdelen, Bas ‚ al, Yılmaz, Gü rbü z, & Akcay, 2009;DeTar, 2008;Karam et al, 2006;Wang et al, 2012). Several studies have been carried out in the region, which have shown a high potential for water saving and yield increase, particularly when adequate fertilisation is adopted (Farahani, Oweis, & Izzi, 2008Hussein, Janat, & Yakoub, 2011;Janat, 2008;Oweis et al, 2011). However, studies show contradictory results in terms of deficit irrigation (DI), with some clearly considering DI less favourably (e.g., Akhtar, Tischbein, & Awan, 2013;Da gdelen et al, 2009;DeTar, 2008;Ü nlü , Kanber, Koc, Tekin, & Kapur, 2011) and few reporting positive results of DI (e.g., Hussein et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drip vs. surface irrigation: A comparison focussing on water saving and economic returns using multicriteria analysis applied to cotton

Darouich

Pedras

Gonçalves

et al. 2014

Biosystems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision support systems Deficit irrigation Model MIRRIG Model SADREG Northeast Syria This study explores the use of drip and surface irrigation decision support systems to select among furrow, border and drip irrigation systems for cotton, considering water saving and economic priorities. Data refers to farm field observations in Northeast of Syria. Simulation of drip irrigation was performed with MIRRIG model for various alternatives: double and single row per lateral, emitter spacing of 0.5 and 0.7 m, six alternative pipe layouts and five self-compensating and non-compensating emitters. Furrow and border irrigation alternatives were designed and ranked with the SADREG model, considering lasered and nonlasered land levelling, field lengths of 50e200 m and various inflow discharges. A multicriteria analysis approach was used to analyse and compare the alternatives based upon economic and water saving criteria. Results for surface irrigation indicate a slight advantagefor long non-lasered graded furrows; non-lasered alternatives were selected due to economic considerations. For drip irrigation, the best ranking is for systems having lower costs, mainly with double rows per lateral and larger emitter spacing. Comparing surface and drip irrigation systems, despite low cost, drip alternatives may lead to 28e35% water saving relative to improved graded furrows, and increase water productivity from 0.43 kg m À3 to 0.61 kg m À3 , surface irrigation provides higher farm returns. Drip irrigation is selected only when high priority is assigned to water saving. Deficit irrigation does not change this pattern of results. Apparently, adopting drip irrigation requires appropriate economic incentives to farmers, changes in the structure of production costs and increased value of production. b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 2 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 7 4 e9 0 http://dx.

show abstract

Response of Cotton to Irrigation Methods and Nitrogen Fertilization: Yield Components, Water‐Use Efficiency, Nitrogen Uptake, and Recovery

Cited by 38 publications

References 12 publications

Assessing internal crop nitrogen use efficiency in high-yielding irrigated cotton

Assessing internal crop nitrogen use efficiency in high-yielding irrigated cotton

Nitrous oxide and nitric oxide emissions from an irrigated cotton field in Northern China

Drip vs. surface irrigation: A comparison focussing on water saving and economic returns using multicriteria analysis applied to cotton

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About