Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Aug 23:14:1225939.
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1225939. eCollection 2023.

Increase in cotton yield through improved leaf physiological functioning under the soil condition of reduced chemical fertilization compensated by the enhanced organic liquid fertilization

Xiaojuan Shi  1 , Xianzhe Hao  2 , Aziz Khan  1 , Nannan Li  1 , Junhong Li  1 , Feng Shi  1 , Yu Tian  1 , Jaya Nepal  3 , Jun Wang  2 , Honghai Luo  1
Affiliations

Increase in cotton yield through improved leaf physiological functioning under the soil condition of reduced chemical fertilization compensated by the enhanced organic liquid fertilization

Xiaojuan Shi et al. Front Plant Sci. .

Abstract

Introduction: Low agricultural nutrient input efficiency remains a significant impediment for crop production globally. To address this issue in cotton agroecosystems, there is a need to develop sustainable crop nutrient management strategies to achieve high crop yields. We hypothesized that organic liquid fertilizer (OF) combined with reduced chemical fertilizer (CF) would enhance cotton yield by improving leaf functioning and soil properties. However, the underlying mechanism and its related process is poorly understood.

Methods: This study explored the effects of OF combined with reduced CF on cotton yield, physiology and soil properties. Treatments included a single application of CF (CF: N, P2O5 and K2O applied at 228, 131 and 95 kg ha-1) and combined applications of OF and CF (OF0.6-OF1.4) in the following ratios: OF0.6, OF+60% CF; OF0.8, OF+80% CF; OF1.0, OF+100% CF; OF1.2, OF+120% CF; OF1.4, OF+140% CF.

Results and discussion: The result showed that compared with CF, OF0.8, OF1.0 and OF1.2 increased soil organic matter (SOM) content by 9.9%, 16.3% and 23.7%, respectively. Compared with CF, the OF0.6, OF0.8, OF1.0, and OF1.2 treatments increased leaf area (LA) by 10.6-26.1%, chlorophyll content (Chl content) by 6.8-39.6%, and the efficiency of photosystem II (PSII) light energy (Y(II)), electron transfer rate of PSII (ETR) and photochemical quenching (qP) by 3.6-26.3%, 4.7-15.3% and 4.3-9.8%, respectively. The OF0.8 treatment increased net photosynthetic rate (P n), stomatal conductance (G s) and transpiration rate (E) by 22.0%, 27.4% and 26.8%, respectively, resulting in higher seed cotton yield. The seed cotton yield and economic coefficient were positively correlated with P n, E, G s and Y(II) from the full boll stage to the boll opening stage. In summary, the OF0.8 treatment can maintain a high SOM content and photosynthetic performance with reduced chemical fertilizer input without sacrificing yield. The integration of OF+80% CF (OF0.8) is a promising nutrient management strategy for highly efficient cotton production under mulch drip irrigation systems.

Keywords: economic coefficient; organic liquid fertilizer; photosynthetic performance; seed yield; sustainable agriculture.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Monthly weather summaries characterizing the 2019 and 2020 cotton growth seasons at the experimental station in Shihezi, Xinjiang, China.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Schematic diagram of the planting mode and sampling site.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Spatial distribution of SOM (g kg-1) in response to organic and chemical fertilizer in 2019−2020.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Effect of different fertilization treatments on Chl content (mg g−1 FW). Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments at a specific growth stage (P ≤ 0.05).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Effect of different fertilization treatments on leaf area (cm−2 plant−1). Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments at a specific growth stage (P ≤ 0.05).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Effect of different fertilization treatments on the gas exchange parameters of cotton. Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments at a specific growth stage (P ≤ 0.05).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Effect of different fertilization treatments on F v/F m. Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments at a specific growth stage (P ≤ 0.05)
Figure 8
Figure 8
Effect of different fertilization treatments on chlorophyll fluorescence parameters. Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments at a specific growth stage (P ≤ 0.05).
Figure 9
Figure 9
Effect of different fertilization treatments on the biological yield (kg ha−1), seed yield (kg ha−1) and economic coefficient (%) of cotton. Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments at a specific growth stage (P ≤ 0.05).
Figure 10
Figure 10
Linear regression relationship between seed yield (SY) and measured parameters (i.e., Pn, Gs, E, Y(II), ETR, qP, NPQ, Fv/Fm, Chl and LA) at initial flowering (A), full flowering (B), full boll (C), late full boll (D), and boll opening (E) stages.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Linear regression relationship between economic coefficient (EC) and measured parameters (i.e., Pn, Gs, E, Y(II), ETR, qP, NPQ, Fv/Fm, Chl and LA) at initial flowering (A), full flowering (B), full boll (C), late full boll (D), and boll opening (E) stages.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Linear regression relationship between biological yield (BY) and measured parameters (i.e., Pn, Gs, E, Y(II), ETR, qP, NPQ, Fv/Fm, Chl and LA) at initial flowering (A), full flowering (B), full boll (C), late full boll (D), and boll opening (E) stages.
Figure 13
Figure 13
Principal component analysis among measured parameters (i.e., P n, G s, E, Y(II), ETR, qP, NPQ, F v/F m, Chl and LA) at initial flowering (A), full flowering (B), full boll (C), late full boll (D), and boll opening (E) stages.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Agbede T. M., Oladitan T. O., Alagha S. A., Ojomo A. O., Ale M. O. (2010). Comparative evaluation of poultry manure and NPK fertilizer on soil physical and chemical properties, leaf nutrient concentrations, growth and yield of yam (Dioscorea rotundata Poir) in Southwestern Nigeria. World J. Agric. Sci. 6, 540–546. Available at: https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/e2ef0061-2a30-30cf-b39d-083e332ceed6/.
    1. Ahangera M. A., Qi M., Huang Z., Xu X., Begum N., Qin C., et al. . (2021). Improving growth and photosynthetic performance of drought stressed tomato by application of nano–organic fertilizer involves up–regulation of nitrogen, antioxidant and osmolyte metabolism. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 216, 112195. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112195 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arshad A., Raza M. A., Zhang Y., Zhang L., Wang X., Ahmed M., et al. . (2021). Impact of climate warming on cotton growth and yields in China and Pakistan: a regional perspective. Agriculture 11, 97. doi: 10.3390/agriculture11020097 - DOI
    1. Chen H. N., Zhou H. P., Wen Y. L., Xiang Y., Cheng M. (2022). Ecological stoichiometric characteristics of soil nutrients and eco-enzymatic activities under different long-term fertilizations in a cinnamon soil. Plant Nutr. Fert. Sci. 28, 972–983. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2021505 - DOI
    1. Dębska B., Długosz J., Piotrowska–Długosz A., Banach–Szott M. (2016). The impact of a bio–fertilizer on the soil organic matter status and carbon sequestration—results from a field–scale study. J. Soil Sediment. 16, 2335–2343. doi: 10.1007/s11368-016-1430-5 - DOI