Next Article in Journal
Does the Female Presence in Corporate Governance Influence the Level of Indebtedness in Agri-Food Family Firms?
Next Article in Special Issue
Peanut Germplasm Evaluation for Agronomic Traits and Disease Resistance under a Two-Season Cropping System in Taiwan
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of LED Light Spectrum on the Growth, Morphological Traits, and Nutritional Status of ‘Elizium’ Romaine Lettuce Grown in an Indoor Controlled Environment
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparison of Efficiency-Enhanced Management and Conventional Management of Irrigation and Nitrogen Fertilization in Cotton Fields of Northwestern China

1
State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China
2
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2021, 11(11), 1134; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111134
Submission received: 22 September 2021 / Revised: 27 October 2021 / Accepted: 10 November 2021 / Published: 12 November 2021

Abstract

:
Excessive application of nitrogen fertilizers and improper methods of irrigation under conventional management are common problems in the cotton fields of northwestern China. Efficiency-enhanced management, based on the water and nitrogen dynamics and crop requirements, has been used as a valuable strategy in different crops. The present study aimed to compare efficiency-enhanced management and conventional management of irrigation and nitrogen fertilization in the cotton fields at the Junggar Basin (Shihezi) and Tarim Basin (Cele) of northwestern China. Compared with conventional management, efficiency-enhanced management reduced the amount of N fertilizer by 41% in Cele and 44% in Shihezi, and the irrigation quantity by 35% in Cele and 24% in Shihezi. However, the cotton yield under efficiency-enhanced management was similar to that found under conventional management at both the experimental sites. The efficiency-enhanced management increased the water-use efficiency (WUE) and reduced the residual soil mineralizable N (Nmin) and apparent N losses. This study indicated that efficiency-enhanced management can significantly enhance the utilization efficiency of irrigation water and N fertilizers for cotton production in the fields of northwestern China.

1. Introduction

Xinjiang is one of the largest and high-yielding areas of cotton in China. The shortage of water due to the region’s arid nature and climate change have become increasingly serious [1]. A large amount of arable land has been abandoned due to lack of water. Currently, increased water input and nutrient input are the two major approaches used to obtain higher yield. Drip irrigation is the primary irrigation system used to combat the water crisis, while flood irrigation is still prevalent in farmers’ small-scale cotton fields in southern Xinjiang. However, extensive irrigation, especially flood irrigation, decreases water-use efficiency (WUE). Another major approach used in this area to promote cotton production is nitrogen (N) fertilization. The recommended N fertilizer rate in Xinjiang (240 kg ha−1) [2] is double the average used in the USA (105 kg N ha−1) [3]. The excessive use of N fertilizers reduces the N recovery [4,5] without any change in yield [6,7]. Moreover, excessive urea use and heavy irrigation by cotton farmers can easily lead to nitrate leaching losses [8,9]. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop an efficiency-enhanced production strategy, including efficiency-enhanced irrigation and efficiency-enhanced N fertilization, for the high-yield cotton system in Xinjiang.
Several studies have analyzed the effects of different N fertilization methods on factors, such as crop N uptake [10,11,12], yield [13,14], crop N status [15,16,17], and fertilizer effect models [18,19,20]. Researchers have also evaluated the effects of reasonable irrigation measures, including reasonable irrigation index [21], reasonable irrigation schedules and methods [22,23], and coupling water and fertilizer [7,24] on cotton. These earlier findings provided a scientific basis for water and N management to promote cotton production in Xinjiang. However, no research has focused on water and N dynamics in the soil-plant system during the cotton-growing season. An understanding of the water and N status will further modify the management measures and provide an ideal situation.
The methods-based approach on soil nitrate-N tests have been used as a valuable tool for determining proper N fertilizer rates for different crops [25,26,27]. The previous researchers hypothesized that the efficiency of N fertilization could be enhanced by synchronizing fertilizer application with the plant requirement. Therefore, the synchronization of soil N supply (mineralizable N in root layer), N fertilizer application rates, and crop’s N demand should improve N-use efficiency and reduce fertilizer N losses.
Thus, the present study compared efficiency-enhanced management and conventional management of irrigation and N fertilization in the cotton fields of northwestern China. Under efficiency-enhanced management, water and N fertilizers were applied in the Xinjiang cotton fields by assessing the soil water and N dynamics in the cotton root layer. The study analyzed and compared the effects of efficiency-enhanced water and nitrogen management strategy on cotton dry matter and yield, water-use efficiency (WUE), and N balance with the traditional management strategy. In the efficiency-enhanced N management strategy, cotton N demand (dependent on cotton target yield) and soil available N content (soil Nmin test) before irrigation were tested to synchronize soil N supply (Nmin in root layer), fertilizer N application, and cotton N demand. Meanwhile, soil moisture before irrigation was monitored, and the plant-available soil water (PASW) was maintained between 45% and 90% in the efficiency-enhanced irrigation strategy.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description

The field experiments were conducted in the high-yielding cotton belt of southern and northern Xinjiang. One field experiment was conducted in Cele County (80°13′ E, 35°17′ N), located at the south edge of the Tarim Basin. During the growing seasons, the mean maximum and mean minimum temperatures were 34 °C and 14 °C, respectively. The relative humidity ranged from 18% to 68%, and the total amount of precipitation was 55.3 mm. The second field experiment was conducted in Shihezi County (86°02′ E, 44°18′ N), located at the south edge of the Junggar Basin. During the growing seasons, the mean maximum and mean minimum temperatures were 35 °C and 17 °C, respectively. The relative humidity ranged from 17% to 77%, and the total amount of precipitation was 77.1 mm. The physical and chemical properties of the soils (0–30 cm) of the two experimental sites before sowing are shown in Table 1.

2.2. Experimental Design

The cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars Xinluzao12 and Xinluzao45 were used for the experiments in Cele and Shihezi, respectively. The cotton seeds were sown on 12 April in Cele and 21 April in Shihezi at a row spacing of 40 cm and a pot distance of 12.5 cm. Approximately 273,000 plants per hectare were maintained in Cele and 200,000 plants per hectare in Shihezi.
Irrigation and N fertilization were the two treatment factors of this experiment. Two methods of irrigation were employed: conventional irrigation and efficiency-enhanced irrigation. Under the conventional irrigation, flood irrigation was completed five times during the growth period, with 660 mm of (cumulative) irrigation water in Cele, while drip irrigation was done seven times during the growth period, with 525 mm (cumulative) of irrigation water in Shihezi. These methods represented the common irrigation practice in the areas of the experimental county. Under the efficiency-enhanced irrigation, the timing and quantity of irrigation were determined after monitoring the soil water status in the root layer using the time-domain reflectometry (TDR) probes. The PASW was maintained between 45% and 90% in both sites. Meanwhile, three N fertilization treatments were employed: None-N fertilization (NonN), conventional fertilization (ConN), and efficiency-enhanced N fertilization (EEN). Under None-N treatment used as a control, no N fertilizer was applied during the entire growing season. Under ConN, 123 kg ha−1 N (urea) was applied as base fertilizer (incorporated after broadcasting), and 309 kg ha−1 N (urea) was used as topdressing (irrigation after broadcasted) at budding, early flowering, and peak flowering stages separately in Cele. This method represented the farmer’s practice in the areas of the experimental site. In the Shihezi site, 345 kg ha−1 of fertilizer was applied in total; N fertilizer (urea) was split-applied together with irrigation water via the surface drip system seven times (34.5, 34.5, 34.5, 69, 69, 69, and 34.5 kg N ha−1) during the growing season. Under efficiency-enhanced N fertilization, N fertilization was determined based on the plant N demand at different growth stages. Before each irrigation, soil Nmin was analyzed. Next, the rate of N fertilizer was determined based on the Nmin target value and the measured Nmin value. The steps followed in efficiency-enhanced N fertilization were as follows: the targets yield was determined based on the average yield of the test site over the past five years. In this study, both the experiment sites’ target lint yield was 2250 kg ha−1; next, the N demand of cotton at different growth stages under the target yield was estimated as reported earlier [28]; the soil Nmin target value of the growth stage was determined by multiplying the N demand of cotton at a specific growth stage with the factor 1.15 as follows:
Soil Nmin target value (kg N ha−1) = N demand (kg N ha−1) × 1.15
Finally, the rate of N fertilizer at a particular stage of growth was determined by subtracting the measured soil Nmin at the beginning of that growth stage from the Nmin target value as follows:
N fertilizer rate (kg N ha−1) = Soil Nmin target value of the stage (kg N ha−1) − Nmin at the beginning of that growth stage (kg N ha−1)
The experiment was conducted in a randomized complete block design with three replicates; the area of each replicate plot was 8 × 8 m. The details on N fertilization and irrigation amount were shown in Table 2 and Table 3. All plots were fertilized with 65.5 kg P ha−1 (triple superphosphate) and 75 kg K ha−1 (potassium sulfate) as a base fertilizer before sowing.

2.3. Measurement of Plant and Soil Parameters

2.3.1. Plant Dry Matter Accumulation and Nitrogen Content

Sampling was initiated approximately 30 days after plant emergence. The entire plant was sampled periodically (every 14 days) throughout the growing season. Ten plants were sampled per plot at a time. A border of 140 cm was allowed for each sampling area in the front, back, and sides. Harvested plants were immediately separated into leaves, stems, and fruiting forms. No attempt was made to collect the shed leaves and fruits. Mature bolls were divided into lint, seeds, and burs. The bur fraction included squares, flowers, immature bolls, and burs from mature bolls. Plant parts were dried at 60 °C, weighed, and ground to a fine powder, then passed through a 40 mm stainless steel sieve.
Approximately 0.3 g of each plant part (except for the lint) was weighed and added into a digestion solution (sulfuric acid, H2SO4; potassium sulfate, K2SO4; and mercuric sulfate, HgSO4), and the sample mixture was digested for 1 h at 160 °C on a preheated block digester to allow the water to evaporate. Then, the temperature was increased to 380 °C, and the sample was maintained at this temperature for another 2.5 h. The tubes were then allowed to cool, and the samples were diluted to 25 mL with ammonia-free water. The N content of the digest was measured using an Autoanalyzer (Bran Luebbe GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany).

2.3.2. Seed Cotton Yield

Seed cotton yield was determined at maturity by manually picking the seed cotton from each plot’s yield-counting (unsampled) area.

2.3.3. Soil Mineral Nitrogen Content

Soil samples were collected to determine the mineral N content (Nmin) throughout the growing season. Approximately 60 cm deep soil cores were collected from each plot and separated into 0–30 cm and 30–60 cm parts. Meanwhile, the 60–120 cm soil samples were collected before sowing and after harvest to evaluate the possibility of nitrate (NO3) leaching in the deeper soil. Soil samples were sieved, mixed, and extracted with a 0.01 mol L−1 calcium chloride (CaCl2) solution. The ammonium-nitrogen (NH4+-N) and nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) in the soil were analyzed by an Autoanalyzer.

2.4. Data Analysis

All data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA in SAS (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC, USA, 2011). The mean values of dry matter accumulation, WUE, and Nmin in the soil after harvest under the different N fertilization and irrigation treatments were compared using the least significant difference (LSD), at a 0.05 significance level.
The WUE was calculated by dividing seed cotton yield per unit of land area by the total irrigation amount [29] as follows:
WUE (kg ha−1 mm−1) = Seed cotton yield (kg ha−1)/Total irrigation amount (mm)
Apparent N mineralization during the cotton growing season was estimated by subtracting the initial extractable mineral soil N (Nmin) in the 0–60 cm soil layer of the control plot before planting from the sum of the aboveground N uptake and residual soil Nmin at harvest in the same soil layer [30] as follows:
Apparent N mineralization = Soil Nmin at harvest of no N treatment (kg ha−1) + N uptake of no N treatment (kg ha−1) − Soil Nmin before sowing of no N treatment (kg ha−1)
The Nmin concentration, soil bulk density, and soil water content were measured to determine the absolute Nmin content of the different soil layers. The total residual Nmin was calculated as a sum of the different soil layers.

3. Results

3.1. Rate of Nitrogen Fertilization and Irrigation

In Cele, efficiency-enhanced management based on the soil Nmin in the cotton root layer at different growth stages reduced the N fertilizer amount from 432 kg ha−1 to 281 kg ha−1 (35%) under conventional irrigation, and 256 kg ha−1 (41%) under efficiency-enhanced irrigation (Table 3). In Shihezi, the N fertilizer amount was reduced from 345 kg ha−1 to 217 kg ha−1 (37%) under conventional irrigation, and 191 kg ha-1 (44%) under efficiency-enhanced irrigation. Taken together, the N fertilizer amount with efficiency-enhanced irrigation was 9% (Cele) to 12% (Shihezi) lower than conventional irrigation. In Cele, the efficiency-enhanced N fertilization dramatically reduced the amount of basal N fertilizer from 123 kg ha−1 to 30 kg ha−1. At the same time, it increased the amount of topdressing N fertilizer at the boll forming stage. In Shihezi, the efficiency-enhanced N fertilization approach reduced the amount of fertilizer applied at each top dressing.
Conventionally, single irrigation with 120–135 mm of water was used at Cele (Table 2). Efficiency-enhanced irrigation based on soil moisture monitoring using TDR probes reduced the single irrigation amount to 52–71 mm, with two additional irrigations; the total amount of irrigation water was reduced from 660 mm to 427 mm. Thus, efficiency-enhanced irrigation reduced the single irrigation amount and total irrigation amount, which increased the irrigation frequency. Meanwhile, the single irrigation amount under conventional drip irrigation in Shihezi was relatively large; efficiency-enhanced irrigation based on soil moisture monitoring reduced the total irrigation amount from 525 mm to 399 mm.

3.2. Dry Matter and Yield

The analysis of dry matter and yield (Table 4) showed no significant differences in total dry matter and yield between the efficiency-enhanced N fertilization and the conventional N fertilization in both Cele and Shihezi; however, both were superior to None-N fertilization treatment. In Cele, seed cotton yield under efficiency-enhanced irrigation was similar to conventional irrigation, while the proportion of vegetative parts (shoots and leaves) under efficiency-enhanced irrigation was significantly higher. Except under None-N fertilization, the efficiency-enhanced irrigation promoted the growth of stems and leaves but did not result in a yield increase. In contrast, the efficiency-enhanced irrigation and conventional irrigation treatments resulted in similar dry matter of stems and leaves and the yield of seed cotton in Shihezi.

3.3. Irrigation Water-Use Efficiency (WUE), Residual Soil Nitrogen Mineralization (Nmin), and Nitrogen Balance

Efficiency-enhanced irrigation significantly increased the irrigation WUE by 53.9% in Cele and 29.0% in Shihezi (Figure 1). Meanwhile, N fertilization enhanced the irrigation WUE when compared with no N treatment; however, no significant difference was observed between conventional N fertilization and efficiency-enhanced N fertilization. The soil Nmin in the 0–60 cm layer under conventional N fertilization and efficiency-enhanced N fertilization was significantly higher than None-N fertilization (Figure 2). The conventional N fertilization treatment increased the residual Nmin in the 60–120 cm soil layer, and the efficiency-enhanced N fertilization treatment decreased the residual Nmin significantly. Analysis of the N balance (Table 5) showed high N losses (179–294 kg ha−1) due to a large amount of N fertilizer applied (345–432 kg ha−1) under the conventional management system. Meanwhile, the efficiency-enhanced management approach significantly decreased the N losses (43–87 kg ha−1).

4. Discussion

Several researchers have analyzed the effects of water and N management on cotton [10,31]; however, the present study is the first to adopt efficiency-enhanced irrigation and N fertilizer application for cotton in the arid northwestern region of China based on the monitoring of soil water and N dynamics. In the present study, the amount of N applied was optimized based on real-time monitoring of soil N to match the cotton N demand and keep the residual Nmin at a reasonable range. Excessive N fertilizer used under conventional fertilization enhanced the growth of vegetative parts (shoots and leaves) with no increase in yield in Cele. Meanwhile, under efficiency-enhanced N fertilization, a dramatically reduced amount of N fertilizer (reducing basal fertilizer) was applied to cotton, which decreased the N losses and residual Nmin without a decrease in yield. Thus, the efficiency-enhanced N fertilization of the current study maintained a relatively high yield, reducing the environmental risk of N fertilization by decreasing the amount of fertilizer that enters environments. The analysis of the N balance revealed an imbalance between the N fertilizer application and the N losses. Therefore, the aim of high-yielding cotton field management should be to balance yield, resource-use efficiency, and environment. Typically, yield is the result of the interaction of water and fertilizer, field management, and other factors [31,32]; therefore, integrated management measures should be adopted to further improve the N fertilizer recovery and WUE, increasing the yield level.
In Cele, the soil is fine sand, with low water-holding capacity and deep groundwater (below 15 m). Though the cotton plants were irrigated five times with 660 mm water, drought still affected the growth under conventional irrigation. Efficiency-enhanced irrigation improved the soil water condition and promoted vegetative growth; however, the excessive growth of vegetative parts might have restricted the growth of reproductive parts under high plant density. The last irrigation also delayed leaf fall under efficiency-enhanced irrigation. The results of the soil Nmin test showed (Figure 2) that the efficiency-enhanced irrigation reduced water leaching to deep soil in Cele, which slowed down the leaching of nitrate, and improved the moisture status of cotton. Meanwhile, though drip irrigation techniques in Shihezi have efficiently managed moisture use in cotton, the efficiency-enhanced irrigation further saved 24% of the irrigation water. Under drip irrigation in Shihezi, a large amount of Nmin was accumulated in the 60–120 cm soil layer in conventional irrigation and N fertilization management, indicating the N leaching under drip irrigation. Occasionally, farmers adopt extensive drip irrigation to prevent salt accumulation in the soil. However, excessive drip irrigation increases the risk of N leaching loss. Under efficiency-enhanced irrigation in both sites, the irrigation frequency and amount were manipulated by monitoring the soil water status to satisfy crop demand and save water. The efficiency-enhanced irrigation approach of this study indicates that the single irrigation amount under conventional irrigation exceeds the PASW of soil in the root layer, quickly leading to infiltration and subsequent wastage. Soil moisture monitoring showed that the irrigation interval was wide under conventional irrigation, especially in Cele, which resulted in soil moisture deficit around the roots. Compared with conventional irrigation, efficiency-enhanced irrigation saved about one-third of water without compromising yield at Cele, suggesting a huge potential to limit irrigation water used for cotton production under flood irrigation. Previously, Shen et al. (2013) reported a decrease in yield with excess water in northwestern China [21]. Therefore, to further optimize irrigation management, it is necessary to understand cotton’s water requirement features.
Furthermore, the study’s findings indicated that the efficiency-enhanced irrigation strategy might have reduced N losses, reducing the N fertilizer requirement in both sites. Thus, the water-fertilizer interaction effect probably played a significant role under the efficiency-enhanced irrigation and N fertilization management. The study also suggested that the dynamic monitoring of soil water and N status during the growth period would help optimize water and N application rates, as well as understand the interaction effects. Among the different techniques, drip irrigation has been popularized during the past decade for saving water and fertilizer. The drip irrigation technique accurately controls water and fertilizer input and is suitable for optimized water and fertilizer application. The study’s findings suggested that even with ConI, it is feasible to achieve high yields with the efficient use of resources.

5. Conclusions

Irrigation water and N fertilizers are used in large amounts under conventional fertilizer management in Cele and Shihezi. In the present study, irrigation and N fertilization management based on real-time monitoring of soil N and water status significantly saved N fertilizer and irrigation water without compromising the yield. The efficiency-enhanced irrigation and N management increased irrigation WUE, and significantly reduced residual Nmin (0–120 cm soil) and apparent N losses when compared with the conventional irrigation and N fertilization management. In conclusion, the method described in this study is an agronomically sound and sustainable irrigation and N fertilization management strategy for cotton. The sites of this study (Cele and Shihezi) were located in arid regions of the temperate zone, where rainfall was scarce and crop growth mainly depended on irrigation. Such environmental conditions are typical in cotton growing regions around the world. Therefore, efficiency-enhanced management of this study can be used for reference in other cotton areas.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.T. and P.W.; writing—original draft preparation, P.W.; writing—review and editing, Z.Z., C.T. and L.W.; visualization, L.W.; project administration, L.W.; funding acquisition, Z.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financially supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDA2003010302), West Light Talent Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. 2019-YDYLTD-001), and The National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41171247).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Shen, X.; Zhang, J.; Sun, J. Optimal irrigation index for cotton drip irrigation under film mulching based on the evaporation from pan with constant water level. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2013, 24, 3153–3161, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  2. Wang, H.; Wu, L.; Cheng, M.; Fan, J.; Zhang, F.; Zou, Y.; Chau, H.; Gao, Z.; Wang, X. Coupling effects of water and fertilizer on yield, water and fertilizer use efficiency of drip-fertigated cotton in northern Xinjiang, China. Field Crop Res. 2018, 219, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2019. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fertilizer-use-and-price/ (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  4. Fang, W.; Li, L.; Xie, D.; Ma, Z.; Zhang, D.; Du, Y. Comparison of dry matter accumulation and N, P, K uptake and distribution in different organs and yield on hybrid cotton and conventional cotton. Plant Nutr. Fertil. Sci. 2009, 15, 1401–1406. [Google Scholar]
  5. Stamatiadis, S.; Tsadilas, C.; Samaras, V.; Schepers, J.S.; Eskridge, K. Nitrogen uptake and N-use efficiency of Mediterranean cotton under varied deficit irrigation and N fertilization. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 73, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Guo, J.; Wei, C.; Hou, Z.; Li, J. Effect of N rates on N uptake, accumulation and yield of cotton under drip irrigation and mulch. J. Arid Land Res. Environ. 2008, 22, 139–142. [Google Scholar]
  7. Zonta, J.H.; Brandão, Z.N.; Sofiatti, V.; Bezerra, J.R.C.; Medeiros, J.C. Irrigation and nitrogen effects on seed cotton yield, water productivity and yield response factor in semi-arid environment. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2016, 10, 118–126. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dinnes, D.L.; Karlen, D.L.; Jaynes, D.B.; Kaspar, T.C.; Hatfield, J.L.; Colvin, T.S.; Gambardella, C.A. Nitrogen management strategies to reduce nitrate leaching in tile-drained midwestern soils. Agron. J. 2002, 94, 153–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Good, A.G.; Shrawat, A.K.; Muench, D.G. Can less yield more? Is reducing nutrient input into the environment compatible with maintaining crop production? Trend Plant Sci. 2004, 9, 597–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Robert, L.; Boman, R.; McFarl, M.; Bean, B.; Provin, T.; Hons, F. Nitrogen management in cotton. AgriLife Ext. 2009, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  11. Shah, A.N.; Iqbal, J.; Tanveer, M.; Yang, G.; Hassan, W.; Fahad, S.; Wu, Y. Nitrogen fertilization and conservation tillage: A review on growth, yield, and greenhouse gas emissions in cotton. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 24, 2261–2272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Khan, A.; Tan, D.K.; Afridi, M.Z.; Luo, H.; Tung, S.A.; Ajab, M.; Fahad, S. Nitrogen fertility and abiotic stresses management in cotton crop: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 14551–14566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Alitabar, R.A.; Salimbeck, R.; Alishah, O.; Andarkhor, S.A.A. The effects of nitrogen and row spacing on growth and yield of cotton varieties. Int. J. Agric. Res. Rev. 2013, 3, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ayissa, T.; Kebedeb, F. Effect of nitrogenous fertilizer on the growth and yield of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) varieties in middle Awash, Ethiopia. J. Arid. Land 2011, 4, 248–258. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dong, H. Effect of nitrogenous fertilizer strategies on the nitrogen accumulation in cotton field soil and cotton functional leaves. Cotton Sci. 2009, 1, 10. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hu, M.; Tian, C.; Ma, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Wang, L. The relations between soil/plant tissue nitrate-N concentration and cotton yield or other related factors. Acta Agric. Boreali Occident. Sin. 2001, 11, 128–131, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  17. Tewolde, H.; Fernandez, C.J.; Foss, D.C.; Unruh, D. Critical petiole nitrite-nitrogen for lint yield and maturity in pima cotton. Agron. J. 1995, 87, 223–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, H.; Zhu, Y.; Cao, W.; Zhou, Z.; Zhang, Z. A dynamic knowledge model for nitrogen and water management of cotton. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2004, 15, 777–781. [Google Scholar]
  19. Saleem, M.F.; Bilal, M.F.; Awais, M.; Shaid, M.Q.; Anjum, S.A. Effect of nitrogen on seed cotton yield and fiber quality of cotton cutivars. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2010, 20, 23–27. [Google Scholar]
  20. Rosolem, C.A.; Van, L.; Mellis, V. Monitoring nitrogen nutrition in cotton. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 2010, 34, 1601–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Shen, Y.; Li, S.; Chen, Y. Estimation of regional irrigation water requirement and water supply risk in the arid region of Northwestern China 1989–2010. Agric. Water Manag. 2013, 128, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dagdelen, N.; Basal, H.; Yilmaz, E.; Gurbuz, T.; Akcay, S. Different drip irrigation regimes affect cotton yield, water use efficiency and fiber quality in western Turkey. Agric. Water Manag. 2009, 96, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Devkota, M.; Martius, C.; Lamers, J.P.A.; Sayre, K.D.; Devkota, K.P.; Vlek, P.L.G. Tillage and nitrogen fertilization effects on yield and nitrogen use efficiency of irrigated cotton. Soil Till. Res. 2013, 134, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Aujla, M.S.; Thind, H.S.; Buttar, G.S. Cotton yield and water use efficiency at various levels of water and N through drip irrigation under two methods of planting. Agric. Water Manag. 2005, 71, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Schroeder, J.; Neeteson, O.; Oenema, M. Does the crop or soil indicate how to save nitrogen in maize production?—Reviewing the state of the art. Field Crop Res. 2000, 66, 151–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bundy, L.G.; Andraski, T.W. Diagnostic tests for site-specific nitrogen recommendations for winter wheat. Agron. J. 2004, 96, 608–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Spellman, D.E.; Rongni, A.; Westfall, D.G. Pre-sidedress nitrate soil testing to manage nitrogen fertility in irrigated corn in a semi-arid environment. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1996, 27, 561–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, K.; Li, S.; Cao, L.; Song, G.; Chen, G.; Cao, S. A preliminary study on dynamics and models of N, P, K absorption in high yield cotton in Xinjiang. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2003, 36, 775–780, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  29. Ibragimov, N.; Evett, S.R.; Esanbekov, Y.; Kamilov, B.S.; Mirzaev, L.; Lamers, J.P.A. Water use efficiency of irrigated cotton in Uzbekistan under drip and furrow irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 2007, 90, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cabrera, M.L.; Kissel, D.E. Evaluation of a method to predict nitrogen mineralized from soil organic matter under field conditions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1988, 52, 1071–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Constable, G.A.; Bange, M.P. The yield potential of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Field Crops Res. 2015, 182, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ali, H.; Hameed, R.A. Growth, yield and yield components of American cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) as affected by cultivars and nitrogen fertilizer. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 2011, 2, 30. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Effect of different irrigation and nitrogen fertilization strategies on water-use efficiency (WUE; kg ha1 mm1). (A) represents the Cele site, and (B) represents the Shihezi site. “NonN”, “ConN”, and “EEN” represent no nitrogen (N) fertilization, conventional N fertilization, and efficiency-enhanced N fertilization, respectively. “ConI” and “EEI” represent conventional irrigation and efficiency-enhanced irrigation, respectively. The values (mean ± s.e) sharing the same letter are not significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 1. Effect of different irrigation and nitrogen fertilization strategies on water-use efficiency (WUE; kg ha1 mm1). (A) represents the Cele site, and (B) represents the Shihezi site. “NonN”, “ConN”, and “EEN” represent no nitrogen (N) fertilization, conventional N fertilization, and efficiency-enhanced N fertilization, respectively. “ConI” and “EEI” represent conventional irrigation and efficiency-enhanced irrigation, respectively. The values (mean ± s.e) sharing the same letter are not significantly different at p < 0.05.
Agriculture 11 01134 g001
Figure 2. Soil mineralizable N (Nmin; kg ha1) in the 0–60 cm and 60–120 cm soil layers after cotton harvest. (A,C) represent 0–60 cm and 60–120 cm soil layers of Cele, respectively; (B,D) represent the 0–60 cm and 60–120 cm soil layers of Shihezi, respectively. “NonN”, “ConN”, and “EEN” represent none nitrogen (N) fertilization, conventional N fertilization, and efficiency-enhanced N fertilization, respectively. “ConI” and “EEI” represent conventional irrigation and efficiency-enhanced irrigation, respectively. The values (mean ± s.e) sharing the same letter are not significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 2. Soil mineralizable N (Nmin; kg ha1) in the 0–60 cm and 60–120 cm soil layers after cotton harvest. (A,C) represent 0–60 cm and 60–120 cm soil layers of Cele, respectively; (B,D) represent the 0–60 cm and 60–120 cm soil layers of Shihezi, respectively. “NonN”, “ConN”, and “EEN” represent none nitrogen (N) fertilization, conventional N fertilization, and efficiency-enhanced N fertilization, respectively. “ConI” and “EEI” represent conventional irrigation and efficiency-enhanced irrigation, respectively. The values (mean ± s.e) sharing the same letter are not significantly different at p < 0.05.
Agriculture 11 01134 g002
Table 1. Physical and chemical properties of the 0–30 cm soil layer of the experimental sites in Xinjiang.
Table 1. Physical and chemical properties of the 0–30 cm soil layer of the experimental sites in Xinjiang.
CharacteristicsCeleShihezi
Soil textureFine SandSandy Loam
Bulk density (g cm−3)1.381.32
pH (1:5)8.107.94
Organic matter (O.M, g kg−1)3.0710.81
Total nitrogen (N, g kg−1)0.360.78
Nmin (NO3 − N + NH4+ − N, mg kg1)9.2922.40
Available phosphorus (Olsen-P, mg kg−1)25.2130.06
Available potassium (K, mg kg1)153.10188.57
Table 2. Irrigation amount (mm) under different irrigation managements of two experimental sites.
Table 2. Irrigation amount (mm) under different irrigation managements of two experimental sites.
TreatmentsBasalTopdressingTotal
1st2nd3rd4th5th6th7th
Cele
ConI013513501350135120660
EEI071556868585255427 (±31)
Shihezi
ConI075757575757575525
EEI065526467506239399 (±26)
“ConI” and “EEI” represent conventional irrigation and efficiency-enhanced irrigation, respectively.
Table 3. Nitrogen rates (kg ha1) under different nitrogen fertilization managements of two experimental sites.
Table 3. Nitrogen rates (kg ha1) under different nitrogen fertilization managements of two experimental sites.
TreatmentsBasalTopdressingTotal
1st2nd3rd4th5th6th7th
Cele
ConINonN000000000
ConN123069013501050432
EEN30036057010355281 (±49)
EEINonN000000000
ConN123069013501050432
EEN3003650870530256 (±28)
Shihezi
ConINonN000000000
ConN034.534.534.569696934.5345
EEN00263556434017217 (±45)
EEINonN000000000
ConN034.534.534.569696934.5345
EEN00332938343522191 (±32)
“NonN”, “ConN”, and “EEN” represent none nitrogen (N) fertilization, conventional N fertilization, and efficiency-enhanced N fertilization, respectively. “ConI” and “EEI” represent conventional irrigation and efficiency-enhanced irrigation, respectively.
Table 4. Effect of irrigation and nitrogen fertilization strategies on cotton dry matter accumulation (t ha1).
Table 4. Effect of irrigation and nitrogen fertilization strategies on cotton dry matter accumulation (t ha1).
TreatmentsShootsLeavesBursSeed CottonTotal
Cele
ConINonN1.17 c0.78 c0.55 b2.44 b4.94 b
ConN2.63 b1.88 b1.40 a4.88 a10.79 a
EEN2.43 b1.87 b1.56 a4.65 a10.51 a
EEINonN1.48 c1.04 c0.62 b2.40 b5.54 b
ConN3.15 a2.60 a1.69 a4.85 a12.29 a
EEN2.94 a2.38 a1.60 a4.73 a11.65 a
Shihezi
ConINonN2.09 b1.76 b1.97 b4.05 b8.23 b
ConN2.73 a2.22 a2.63 a6.18 a13.01 a
EEN2.69 a2.04 a2.57 a6.04 a12.82 a
EEINonN1.98 b1.87 b1.93 b3.90 b8.06 b
ConN2.70 a2.15 a2.48 a6.06 a12.03 a
EEN2.67 a2.13 a2.51 a5.91 a12.31 a
Mean values in each site column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Duncan’s multiple range test, p < 0.05). “NonN”, “ConN”, and “EEN” represent no nitrogen (N) fertilization, conventional N fertilization, and efficiency-enhanced N fertilization, respectively. “ConI” and “EEI” represent conventional irrigation and efficiency-enhanced irrigation, respectively.
Table 5. Nitrogen balance in cotton under different irrigation and nitrogen treatments.
Table 5. Nitrogen balance in cotton under different irrigation and nitrogen treatments.
ParameterCeleShihezi
ConMEEMConMEEM
N input
(1) N supply (kg ha−1)
(a) Nmin in 0–60 cm before sowing44445959
(b) N fertilizer applied432256345191
(2) Apparent mineralization7592133128
Total N supply (= 1 + 2)551392537378
N output
(3) N uptake by cotton
(kg ha−1)
216243290272
(4) N surplus335149247106
(a) Nmin in 0–60 cm after
harvest
58816863
(b) Apparent N losses2948717943
“ConM” and “EEM” represent conventional irrigation and N fertilization management and efficiency-enhanced irrigation and N fertilization management, respectively.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, P.; Zhao, Z.; Wang, L.; Tian, C. Comparison of Efficiency-Enhanced Management and Conventional Management of Irrigation and Nitrogen Fertilization in Cotton Fields of Northwestern China. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1134. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111134

AMA Style

Wang P, Zhao Z, Wang L, Tian C. Comparison of Efficiency-Enhanced Management and Conventional Management of Irrigation and Nitrogen Fertilization in Cotton Fields of Northwestern China. Agriculture. 2021; 11(11):1134. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111134

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Ping, Zhenyong Zhao, Lei Wang, and Changyan Tian. 2021. "Comparison of Efficiency-Enhanced Management and Conventional Management of Irrigation and Nitrogen Fertilization in Cotton Fields of Northwestern China" Agriculture 11, no. 11: 1134. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111134

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop