Table 6 Effect of N level on lint turn out
From: Effect of nitrogen application level on cotton fibre quality
Year | Location | Country | N levels in kg·ha−1 | Remarks | References | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1944–1946 | Rocky Mount, North Carolina | US | 11,39 & 67 | Significant reduction in lint turn out with increased N application levels | Nelson (1949) | ||||
1951–1960 | Brawley, California | US | 0, 107, 214 & 321 | No consistent trend for both lint and seed turn out with increased N application levels | Bennett et al. (1967) | ||||
1956–1962 | Thorsby, Alabama | US | 0, 107, 214 & 321 | Significant reduction in lint turn out with increased N application levels and corresponding increase in seed turn out | Bennett et al. (1967) | ||||
1959–1960 | Brawley, California | US | 0, 107, 214 & 321 | General increase in lint and seed turn out with increased N application levels | MacKenzie and Schaik (1963) | ||||
1956–1957 | Thorsby, Alabama | US | 0, 67, 134 & 270 | Significant reduction in lint turn out with increased N application levels and corresponding increase in seed turn out | Scarsbrook et al. (1959) | ||||
1961–1963 | Unknown | US | 0, 28, 54, 80, 120, 134, 161 & 187 | Significant reduction in lint turn out with increased N application levels | Perkins and Douglas (1965) | ||||
1963–1965 | Yuma, Arizona | US | 84 & 224 | No clear trend in lint turn out with increased N application levels | Jackson and Tilt (1968) | ||||
1965–1980 | Eight locations | Greece | 0, 60, 50, 100, 120, 150, 180 & 200 | Significant reduction in lint turn out with increased N application levels | |||||
1972–1983 | Altus, Oklahoma | US | 0, 44, 90& 135 | Significant reduction in lint turn out with increased N application levels | Boman et al. (1997) | ||||
1982–1983 | Morena, Madhya Pradesh | India | 0, 40, 80 & 120 | No significant effect on lint or seed turn out with increased N application levels | Shrivastava and Singh (1988) | ||||
1991–1992 | Stoneville, Mississippi | US | 112 & 150 | No significant effect on lint or seed turn out with increased N application levels | Pettigew et al. (1996) | ||||
1991–1992 | Lakhasti | India | 0, 40, 80 & 120 | Significant reduction in lint turn out with increased N application levels with corresponding increase in seed weight | Chand et al. (1997) | ||||
1998–2000 | San Joaquin Valley, California | US | 56, 112, 168 & 224 | Significant reduction in lint turn out with increased N application levels | Fritschi et al. (2003) | ||||
1999–2000 | Fresno, Californiaa | US | 56, 112, 168 & 224 | Significant reduction in lint turn out with increased N application levels | Fritschi et al. (2003) | ||||
1999–2000 | Gizaa | Egypt | 95 & 143 | Significant reduction in lint turn out with increased N application levels | Sawan et al. (2006) | ||||
1996 | Portageville, Missouri | US | 45, 90 & 135 | Significant reduction in lint turn out with increased N application levels | Phipps et al. (1996) | ||||
2001–2002 | Unknown | Syria | 50, 100, 150, 200 & 250 | Slight but significant reduction in lint turn out with increased N application levels | Janat (2008) | ||||
1998–2000 | San Joaquin Valley, California | US | 56, 112, 168 & 224 | Significant reduction in lint turn out with increased N application levels | Fritschi et al. (2003) | ||||
2003–2004 | Adana | Turkey | 0, 80 & 160 | Although not significant lint turn out increased with increased N application levels | Gormus (2005) | ||||
2005–2006 | Khedbhrahma, Gujarat | India | 160, 200 & 240 | Although not significant lint turn out increased with increased N application levels | Gadhiya et al. (2009) | ||||
2006 | Faisalabad, Punjab | Pakistan | 0, 60, 120 & 180 | Significant increase in lint turn out up to 120 kg·ha−1 with a decrease in lint turn out at 180 kg·ha−1 | Saleem et al. (2010) | ||||
2007–2008 | Multan, Punjab | Pakistan | 0, 60, 110 & 160 | No significant effect on lint turn out with increased N application levels | Ali (2011) | ||||
2006–2013 | Narrabri, NSW | Australia | 0, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300 & 350 | Significant reduction in lint turn out with increased N application levels and corresponding increase in seed turn out | Rochester and Constable (2020) | ||||
2010–2011 | Adana | Turkey | 0, 60, 120, 180 & 240 | Significant increase in lint turn out up to 180 kg·ha−1 with a significant decrease in lint turn out above 180 kg·ha−1 | Gormus et al. (2016a) | ||||
2011 | Torreón, Coahuila | Mexico | 0, 50, 100 & 150 | Reduction in lint turn and seed turn out with increased N application levels | Hernandes-Cruz et al. (2015) | ||||
2011–2012 | Yellow River Delta, Hebei | China | 0, 120, 240 & 480 | Significant increase in lint turn out up to 240 kg·ha−1 with a decrease in lint turn out at 480 kg·ha−1 | Chen et al. (2019) | ||||
2012–2013 | Primavera do Leste, Mato Grosso | Brazil | 70, 140 & 210 | Significant reduction in lint turn out with increased N application levels | Echer et al. (2020) | ||||
2012–2013 | Adana | Turkey | 0, 60, 120, 180 & 240 | Significant increase in lint turn out up to 120 kg·ha−1 with a significant decrease in lint turn out above 120 kg·ha−1 | Gormus and El Sagagh (2016b) | ||||
2013–2014 | New Delhi | India | 100, 125, 150 & 175 | Significant increase in lint turn out with increased N application levels | Verna et al. (2017) | ||||
Unknown | Gizaa | Egypt | 107 & 161 | Small but not significant decrease in lint turn out with increased N application levels with significant increase in seed index | Sawan et al. (1997) | ||||