PHILIPP AGRIC SCIENTIST
Vol. 97 No. 3, 257–265
September 2014
ISSN 0031-7454
No-Till with Optimum N Fertilization Produces High Cotton Lint
Yield and Improves N Efficiency in Wheat-Cotton Cropping System
Niamatullah Khan1, Khalid Usman2,*, Fazal Yazdan3, Abdus Subhan4, Hayatullah Khan1,
Saleem ud Din3 and Sadia Gull5
1
Cotton Research Station, Dera Ismail Khan 29050, Pakistan
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan 29050, Pakistan
3
Oil Seed Research Programme, NARC, Islamabad, Pakistan
4
Department of Soil and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan 29050,
Pakistan
5
Plant Genetic Resource Institute (PGRI), NARC, Islamabad, Pakistan
*
Author for correspondence; e-mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +92 966750087; Fax: +92 966750255;
Mobile: +92 3025791765
2
Excessive tillage and N fertilizer use increase production cost, reduce soil fertility and threaten
sustainability of cotton production in wheat-cotton cropping system. This study was conducted to
determine the desired tillage level and N fertilizer rate for cotton production in a wheat-cotton
rotation in Northwestern Pakistan. A field experiment was carried out during 2010 and 2011 in which
three tillage methods, namely, zero (NT, no tillage), reduced (RT) and conventional tillage (CT) as
main plots and five N levels (0, 50, 100, 150 and 200 kg ha -1) as subplots were arranged in a
randomized complete block design with split-plot arranegement. These treatments were
superimposed on land previously occupied with NT, RT and CT wheat. Cotton lint yield was higher
at 150–200 kg N ha-1 under RT compared with other tillage methods. Almost all N efficiency indices
decreased with increasing N rate, with the highest values recorded at 50 kg N ha -1. Mean values for T
× N interactions revealed that N agronomic, physiological and recovery efficiencies were higher in
RT with 150 kg N ha-1. The overall results revealed that N application of 150–200 kg ha-1 under RT
can optimize cotton yield and N efficiency at reduced cost of cultivation.
Key Words: conservation tillage, cotton, efficiency, nitrogen, tillage, wheat-cotton cropping system, yield
Abbreviations: CT – conventional tillage, INUE – internal nitrogen use efficiency, NAE – nitrogen agronomic
efficiency, NPE – nitrogen physiological efficiency, NRE – nitrogen recovery efficiency, NT – zero/no tillage, NUE –
nitrogen use efficiency, RT – reduced tillage, T – tillage
INTRODUCTION
The wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-cotton (Gossypium
hirsutum L.) cropping system plays a major role in the
economy of Pakistan as it provides raw materials to the
textile industry and ensures food security to a large
population and a source of foreign exchange earnings
(MINFAL 2008). The total area under the system in
Pakistan is 7.1 million ha (FAO 2004).
Among the fibers, cotton (used for clothing and
finishing) has a 56% share in the world market (Javed et
al. 2009). The role of cotton in the economy of Pakistan
is expected to grow significantly in the near future
because Pakistan has the potential to become a leader in
the world cotton and textile market (Government of
Pakistan 2007). In Pakistan, cotton is grown on an area of
3.20 million ha with a total production of 13.21 million
The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 97 No. 3 (September 2014)
bales (PCCC 2013). The area under cotton in the country
needs to be further expanded to boost the economy
through export. Long-term intensive tillage practices,
constant removal of crop residues, extensive use of
chemical inputs and over-irrigation have contributed to
declining soil fertility and increasing soil salinity (Cox et
al. 1990; Lopez et al. 1998; Tursonov 2009).
Furthermore, due to destruction of the soil structure
through excessive soil tillage and residue removal, the
soil in the region is low in organic matter (0.6–0.8%) and
liable to water logging, poor drainage, leaching and
denitrification losses of nutrients (Usman et al. 2013a).
Nitrogen (N) is one of the major agricultural inputs
that can affect cotton productivity and N efficiency if not
properly managed. Unfortunately, the efficiency of
applied N is less than 50% in the worldwide crop
production system (Raun and Johnson 1999). The ability
257
Tillage and N Impact on Cotton Production
of a crop to use the applied N more efficiently depends
on N uptake and its utilization efficiency. N uptake can
be increased through proper management of soil and
nutrients, while the utilization efficiency is genetically
preset (Hirel et al. 2007). Moreover, nitrogen use
efficiency depends on N fertilizer application rate,
cropping system and tillage methods (Habtegebrial et al.
2007). High N use efficiency is always associated with
low N rate; therefore, soil tillage and N management that
promote N efficiency can help to reduce the loss of
applied N fertilizer.
Cultivation of cotton under intensive tillage using
high inputs of N fertilizer is a common practice in
northwestern Pakistan. N management in conventional
tillage (CT) of cotton in the wheat-cotton cropping
system is highly inefficient (Kienzler 2010), with 37–
40% recovery of the applied N in irrigated heavy soil and
21–31% in light soil (Ibragimov 2007). Angela et al.
(2009) also reported low N use efficiency in CT system.
High temperature, over-irrigation and soil tillage under
CT enhance mineralization of soil N (Vlek and Uzo
Mokwunye 1989) and loss of N through leaching
(Kienzler 2010) and denitrification (Scheer et al. 2008).
Therefore, alternative tillage methods and proper N
management practices are important to ensure long-term
viability of cotton production in the region.
Conservation tillage methods such as zero/no tillage
(NT) and reduced tillage (RT) that aims at minimum
disturbance of the soil and maintenance of optimal levels
of crop residues on the soil surface (Sayre and Hobbs
2004) can reduce the adverse effects of CT. Conservation
tillage is a suitable alternative to retain crop residues and
maintain soil quality (Wang 2006). The benefits
associated with conservation tillage are moisture
conservation (Sayre and Hobbs 2004; Hassan et al.
2005), which saves 25–30% of irrigation water, improved
nutrient availability (Govaerts et al. 2005) through proper
placement of fertilizer, reduced soil salinity (Bakker et al.
2010), reduced production costs (Gupta et al. 2009), and
similar or higher yields compared with CT (Sayre and
Hobbs 2004; Govaerts et al. 2005; Hassan et al. 2005).
Crop residue retention increases soil organic matter
content (Govaerts et al. 2005; Egamberdiev 2007),
decreases soil salinity and reduces soil evaporation
losses, thus increasing water use efficiency (Huang et al.
2001; Deng et al. 2003). The combination of
conservation tillage, residue retention and proper N
management has been shown to be an alternative option
for sustainable crop production in irrigated wheat-cotton
systems (Sayre and Hobbs 2004; Govaerts et al. 2005;
Wang et al. 2007).
Despite its many advantages, conservation
agriculture is still new in northwestern Pakistan.
Consequently, the effects of N application rate under
different tillage systems, especially NT and RT, are
poorly understood (Gupta et al. 2009). Because of several
258
Niamatullah Khan et al.
interacting factors, conservation tillage may or may not
yield better than CT particularly during the transition
period from CT to conservation tillage due to reduced
availability of plant-available N owing to its
immobilization by crop residues (Rice and Smith 1982;
Franzluebbers et al. 1995; Doran et al. 1998). Thus,
proper N application rate under different tillage systems
needs to be developed specifically for cotton in wheatcotton system. A better understanding of cotton lint yield
and N efficiency indices as affected by different N
application rates under different tillage systems is
necessary. The aim of this study was to analyze cotton
lint yield and to determine N efficiency indices under
different tillage systems with different N fertilizer
application rates in wheat-cotton system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental Site
Field experiments were conducted under irrigated
conditions at the Cotton Research Station, Dera Ismail
Khan, Pakistan during 2010 and 2011, in northwestern
Pakistan (31º49΄ N, 70°55΄ E; 165 m above sea level).
The soil in the study area is calcareous, silty clay, low in
organic matter (0.6%), less fertile and saline in nature.
The soil is Hyperthermic, and Typic Torrifluvents and
irrigated from canal water (Soil Survey Staff 2009). The
groundwater table is shallow (8–11 m). The climate is
arid to semi-arid with hot and dry summer and cold
winter. Average precipitation is less than 200 mm year -1.
The mean seasonal temperature (May–December) is 26–
27 °C with total rainfall of 344 mm in 2010, and 113 mm
in 2011 (Fig. 1).
Experimental Design and Treatments
A two-factor randomized complete block design with
split-plot arrangement with four replications was used to
investigate the effects of three tillage methods as the
main factor and five N levels (0, 50, 100, 150 and 200 kg
N ha-1) as the subplot treatments on cotton lint yield and
N efficiency indices. The tillage treatments were zero
tillage (NT, no tillage), reduced tillage (RT, one tiller
followed by rotavator), and conventional tillage (CT,
including disc plow, tiller, rotavator and leveling
operations). The subplot size for each treatment was 10 m
× 3 m.
The previous wheat crop was sown with NT, RT and
CT methods in the experimental field planned for cotton
sowing. Wheat crop was sown at a seed rate of 100 kg
ha-1 and fertilized with 120, 50 and 30 kg ha-1 of N, P and
K, respectively. Bt transgenic cotton (cv. Ali Akbar) was
sown at 75 cm row-row and 22.5 cm plant-plant distance
with dibbling method in the first week of May during
both years. All phosphorus and potassium fertilizers were
The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 97 No. 3 (September 2014)
Tillage and N Impact on Cotton Production
Niamatullah Khan et al.
2. Internal N use efficiency =
where TNU_N is total N uptake of N-fertilized plots
(Witt et al. 1999)
3. Physiological efficiency =
Fig. 1. Monthly seasonal rainfall and temperature for 2 yr
(2010 and 2011) at the experimental site (Dera
Ismail Khan, Pakistan).
where TNU_N is the total N uptake of N-fertilized plots
and TNU_N0 is the total N uptake of zero-N plots (Isfan
1990)
4. N recovery efficiency =
applied during field preparation while N fertilizer was
applied in split forms, i.e., 1/3 of each treatment at
sowing and the remaining amount with the first and the
third irrigation during both years.
Weeds were controlled with application of broad
spectrum herbicide [Haloxyfop (108 g a.i. ha-1) +
Lactofen 24 EC (168 g a.i. ha -1)]. Six irrigations were
applied as per requirement of the crop with 2-wk interval
from the beginning of the square stage to the bolls during
the growing season each year.
Data on lint yield, total N uptake (kg ha -1), N
agronomic efficiency (kg kg-1), N physiological
efficiency (kg kg-1), N recovery efficiency (%) and
internal N use efficiency (kg kg-1) were recorded. Lint
yield was recorded in kg ha-1 for each treatment, using
the two central rows of each subplot. Five representative
plants from each plot were sampled for determining N
concentration in each treatment. The plant samples were
finely ground to pass a 1-mm sieve. Plant components
such as leaves, burs, stalks, lint and seeds were
chemically analyzed for nitrogen content by use of the
Kjeldahl method (Bremner and Mulvaney 1982). The N
concentration of plant components was determined
separately. For the calculation of N uptake, the N
concentration (%) was multiplied by the respective dry
weight of the plant component and then summed to
determine total N uptake. The N efficiency indices were
calculated as follows:
1. Nitrogen agronomic efficiency =
where Lint yield N is the lint yield of N-fertilized plots
and lint yield N0 is the lint yield of zero-N plots (Novoa
and Loomis 1981)
The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 97 No. 3 (September 2014)
where TNU_N is the total N uptake of N-fertilized plots
and TNU_N0 is the total N uptake of zero-N plots (Dilz
1988).
Statistical Analysis
Data were statistically analyzed for analysis of variance
(ANOVA) as a randomized complete block design with
split-plot arrangement with MSTATC software (Steel and
Torrie 1980). Significant main and interaction effects of
the treatments were compared using least significant
difference test at 5% level of probability (P<0.05).
RESULTS
Lint Yield
The results of ANOVA showed that there were
significant effects of tillage (T), nitrogen (N) and T × N
interactions on cotton lint yield (Table 1). Reduced
tillage resulted in the highest lint yield among tillage
systems (Table 2). There was a gradual increase in cotton
lint yield with each incremental increase in N application
rate, with the highest value recorded at 200 kg N ha -1.
Interaction effects revealed that cotton lint response to
tillage was modified by N application rate. Reduced
tillage resulted in the highest lint yield at 200 kg N ha -1
compared with all other combinations. The yield
response to tillage and N application rate was consistent
over years. Regression analysis revealed that there was a
positive linear response to cotton lint yield with gradual
increase in N rate from 0 to 200 kg N ha-1 (Y = 664 +
3.195x, R2 = 0.993).
259
Tillage and N Impact on Cotton Production
Niamatullah Khan et al.
Table 1. Analysis of variance (mean squares) of cotton lint yield (kg ha -1), internal N use efficiency (INUE; kg kg-1),
nitrogen agronomic efficiency (NAE; kg kg-1), nitrogen physiological efficiency (NPE; kg kg -1) and nitrogen recovery
efficiency (NRE; %) as affected by tillage and N application during the 2010 and 2011 growing seasons of cotton.
Source
Replication
Tillage (T)
Error a
Nitrogen
T×N
Error b
D.F
3
2
6
4/3+
8/6+
36/27+
Replication
Tillage (T)
Error a
Nitrogen
T×N
Error b
3
2
6
4/3+
8/6+
36/27+
Replication
Tillage (T)
Error a
Nitrogen
T×N
Error b
3
2
6
4/3+
8/6+
36/27+
*, **
+
Year 1 (2010)
Lint Yield
INUE
2417.2
0.0
141457.1**
0.1**
841.9
0.0
688631.3**
31.2**
5699.8**
0.0**
1703.4
0.0
Year 2 (2011)
417.6
0.0
274025.9**
0.1*
2616.4
0.0
732047.5**
29.6**
31703.9**
0.0**
2487.7
0.0
Mean (2 yr)
1188.7
0.0
201478.7**
0.1**
963.6
0.0
709236.0**
30.4**
13464.9**
0.0**
943.1
0.0
NAE
0.4
2.1NS
1.3
2.1**
0.3NS
0.3
0.5
10.5NS
2.8
1.0NS
1.4*
0.4
0.2
2.2NS
1.1
1.5**
0.4*
0.1
NPE
0.6
3.2NS
1.7
7.0**
0.5NS
0.2
NRE
0.1
1.1NS
0.4
0.3*
0.1NS
0.1NS
1.2
23.7*
3.1
1.6*
3.4**
0.5
0.4
6.9**
0.2
0.1NS
0.6**
0.1
0.6
1.2NS
0.9
5.6**
0.5*
0.1
0.1
2.2**
0.2
0.2*
0.2**
0.0
Significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively. NS – nonsignificant.
D.F for INUE, NAE, NPE and NRE.
Table 2. Lint yield (kg ha-1) as affected by tillage and N rate during two growing seasons.
Year
Nitrogen (kg-1)
Tillage
2010
Zero (NT)
Reduced (RT) Conventional (CT)
2011
Mean (2 yr)
0
560 j
50
735 h
100
862 g
150
1007 ef
200
1093 cd
Tillage means
851 c
LSD0.05 for T = 22.5, N = 34.2, T × N = 59.2
0
614 j
50
857 h
100
977 g
150
1080 f
200
1217cd
Tillage means
949 c
LSD0.05 for T = 39.6, N = 41.3, T × N = 71.5
0
587 k
50
796 i
100
920 h
150
1044fg
200
1155 d
LSD0.05 for T = 24.0, N = 25.4, T × N = 44.0
Nitrogen Means
663 i
862 g
1010 ef
1185 b
1357 a
1015 a
555 j
783 h
956 f
1064 de
1150 bc
902 b
593 e
793 d
942 c
1086 b
1200 a
764 i
997 g
1121ef
1407 b
1617 a
1181 a
830 hi
886 h
1071 f
1154 de
1266 c
1041 b
736 e
913 d
1056 c
1214 b
1367 a
713 j
930 h
1066 ef
1296 b
1487 a
693 j
835 i
1013 g
1109 e
1208 c
664 e
853 d
999 c
1150 b
1283 a
Means followed by the same letter or no letter do not differ significantly at P<5% using LSD.
Internal N Use Efficiency (INUE)
Internal nitrogen use efficiency (kg kg-1) indicates cotton
lint yield of the N-fertilized plots over the amount of N
fertilizer applied. Internal N use efficiency was
significantly affected by T, N and T × N interactions
(Table 1). Zero tillage had higher INUE compared with
the other tillage systems (Table 3). Nitrogen application
rate effects revealed that INUE decreased with increase
in N rate. Interaction effects revealed that NT at 50 kg N
ha-1 had the highest INUE which decreased with graded
doses of N application. Both conservation tillage methods
(NT and RT) were, however, more efficient at 150 kg N
ha-1 than CT in year 1 (Y1), year 2 (Y2) and mean over
260
years. Overall results indicated that conservation tillage
with optimum N rate may have the potential to produce
higher INUE than CT. Regression analysis revealed that
INUE decreased linearly with increasing N rate from 50
to 200 kg N ha-1 (Y = 17.25 − 0.018x, R2 = 0.869).
Nitrogen Agronomic Efficiency (NAE)
Nitrogen agronomic efficiency as the yield (kg ha -1)
increase for each kg N applied (kg ha -1) is the most
important N use efficiency to producers. NAE was
significantly affected by N rate in Y1, and mean over
years, while T × N interactions were significant in Y2
and in mean over years (Table 1). Nitrogen application at
The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 97 No. 3 (September 2014)
Tillage and N Impact on Cotton Production
Niamatullah Khan et al.
Table 3. Internal N use efficiency (IUE; kg kg-1) of cotton as affected by tillage and N rate during two growing seasons.
Year
Nitrogen (kg-1)
Tillage
Nitrogen Means
2010
2011
Mean (2 yr)
Zero (NT)
Reduced (RT)
0
50
17.42 a
17.20 c
100
15.48 e
15.41 f
150
14.27 g
14.18 h
200
13.79 j
13.68 l
Tillage means
15.24 a
15.12 c
LSD0.05 for T = 0.008207, N = 0.007206, T × N = 0.01248
0
50
17.30 a
17.10 b
100
15.38 cd
15.32 d
150
14.18 e
14.11 e
200
13.72 g
13.60 g
Tillage means
15.14 a
15.03 b
LSD0.05 for T = 0.07238, N = 0.07008, T × N = 0.1214
0
50
17.36 a
17.15 c
100
15.43 e
15.36 f
150
14.22 g
14.15 h
200
13.75 j
13.64 k
Tillage means
15.19 a
15.07 c
LSD0.05 for T = 0.03869, N = 0.03746, T × N = 0.06488
Conventional (CT)
17.37 b
15.55 d
14.05 i
13.77 k
15.18 b
17.33 a
15.48 b
14.16 c
13.75 d
17.09 b
15.45 c
13.97f
13.69 g
15.05 b
17.16 a
15.38 b
14.08 c
13.67 d
17.23 b
15.50 d
14.01 i
13.73 j
15.12 b
17.25 a
15.43 b
14.13 c
13.71 d
Means followed by the same letter or no letter do not differ significantly at P<5% using LSD.
50 kg ha-1 in Y1 and mean over years had the greatest
agronomic efficiencies, while 200 kg N ha -1 had the
lowest NAE (Table 4). Tillage as main effect did not
influence NAE; however, conservation tillage (NT and
RT) in combination with 50 kg N ha -1 resulted in the
highest NAE. Mean values for T × N interactions
revealed that RT in combination with 150–200 kg N ha-1
gave an optimum NAE, which was statistically at par
with the highest value recorded at 50 kg N ha -1.
Regression analysis showed negative linear response to
the graded doses of N application rate (Y = 3.98 −
0.004x, R2 = 0.856). The results indicated that application
of N at 150–200 kg N ha-1 under RT can optimize cotton
lint yield and NUE.
N Physiological Efficiency (NPE)
Nitrogen physiological efficiency (kg cotton kg-1 N
uptake) had significant response to N only in Y1, while
in Y2 both main and interaction effects of T and N were
also significant (Table 1). The highest NPE could be
realized at 50 kg N ha-1 while further increase in N rate
did not respond positively (Table 5). Regarding tillage
effects on NPE, conservation tillage (NT and RT)
performed better than CT. Interaction effects revealed
that although conservation tillage at 50 kg N ha -1 resulted
in the highest NPE, which rather declined with further
increase in N rate, it is also evident from the results that
both NT and RT at 150–200 kg N ha-1 performed better
than CT.
N Recovery Efficiency (NRE)
Nitrogen influenced NRE (%) in Y1 and mean over years
whereas T and T × N interactions affected NRE in Y2
and mean over years (Table 1). Mean values for tillage
revealed that RT had the higher recovery efficiency
The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 97 No. 3 (September 2014)
compared with NT and RT (Table 6). Nitrogen
application rate from 50 to 150 kg N ha-1 resulted in
similar recovery efficiency; however, further increase in
N application rate significantly reduced NRE. Interaction
effects revealed that RT at 150–200 kg N ha-1 performed
better compared with all the other combinations in
exhibiting higher NRE. Our results indicated that RT in
combination with 150–200 kg N ha-1 had more potential
to optimize N efficiency compared with the other tillage
systems.
DISCUSSION
In Pakistan, the wheat-cotton cropping system,
characterized by intensive soil tillage and excessive use
of irrigation water and N fertilizer, has been practiced for
decades. However, recent results revealed that intensive
soil tillage is not necessary to obtain higher cotton yield.
This study evaluated tillage and N levels in cotton grown
after wheat. Cotton lint yield was higher in RT compared
with NT and CT, which indicates that RT may be a
suitable alternative to CT for irrigated cotton in wheatcotton system. In other words, RT may offer an
opportunity to increase income at reduced cost of
production especially reduced use of diesel and
machinery, which constitutes about 33% of the total cost
of production (Rudenko and Lamers 2006; Tursonov
2009). Higher cotton lint yield under RT may be due to
improved nutrient availability (Govaerts et al. 2005) and
proper nutrient management (Sayre and Hobbs 2004;
Govaerts et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2007). The observed
significant increase in cotton lint yield in RT in both
years of the study is mainly a result of specific yield261
Tillage and N Impact on Cotton Production
Niamatullah Khan et al.
Table 4. Nitrogen agronomic efficiency (NAE; kg kg-1) of cotton as affected by tillage and N rate during two growing
seasons
Tillage
Year
Nitrogen (kg-1)
Nitrogen Means
Zero (NT)
Reduced (RT)
Conventional (CT)
2010
0
50
100
150
200
Tillage means
LSD0.05 for N = 0.4472
3.51
3.01
2.99
2.67
3.04
3.99
3.47
3.48
3.47
3.59
4.55
4.01
3.39
2.98
3.73
2011
0
50
100
150
200
Tillage means
LSD0.05 for T × N = 0.9503
4.86 a
3.63 bc
3.57 bc
3.02 cd
3.77
4.66 a
3.57 bc
4.29ab
4.27ab
4.20
2.34 d
3.15 cd
2.48 d
2.54 d
2.63
3.95
3.45
3.44
3.27
4.32 a
3.52 bc
3.89 ab
3.87 ab
3.90
3.44 bcd
3.58 bc
2.94 def
2.76 f
3.18
3.98 a
3.47 b
3.37 bc
3.16 c
Mean (2 yr)
0
50
4.18 a
100
3.33 cde
150
3.28 cdef
200
2.85 ef
Tillage means
3.41
LSD0.05 for N = 0.3055, T × N = 0.5291
4.01 a
3.49 b
3.29 bc
3.04 c
Means followed by the same letter or no letter do not differ significantly at P<5% using LSD.
Table 5. Nitrogen physiological efficiency (NPE kg kg-1) of cotton as affected by tillage and N rate during two growing
seasons.
Tillage
Year
Nitrogen (kg-1)
Zero (NT)
Reduced (RT)
Conventional
(CT)
Nitrogen Means
11.402
10.675
10.328
10.495
10.73
13.025
11.760
10.585
10.630
11.50
12.05 a
11.02 b
10.40 c
10.46 c
2010
0
50
100
150
200
Tillage means
LSD0.05 for N = 0.4138
2011
0
50
12.38 a
11.60ab
100
10.86 bc
10.25cd
150
10.10cde
10.45cd
200
10.28 cd
10.60bcd
Tillage means
10.90 a
10.72 a
LSD0.05 for T = 1.513, N = 0.6167, T × N = 1.068
7.68 g
9.56def
8.49 fg
9.12 ef
8.711 b
10.55 a
10.22 ab
9.68 b
10.00 ab
0
50
12.15 a
100
10.76 bcd
150
10.20 ef
200
10.28 def
Tillage means
10.85
LSD0.05 for N = 0.3089, T × N = 0.5351
10.99 b
10.83bc
9.630 g
9.920 fg
10.34
11.61 a
10.68 b
10.08 c
10.26 c
Mean (2 yr)
11.715
10.633
10.297
10.263
10.73
11.69 a
10.46 b-e
10.42 c-f
10.57 b-e
10.78
Means followed by same letter or no letter do not differ significantly at P<5% using LSD.
262
The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 97 No. 3 (September 2014)
Tillage and N Impact on Cotton Production
Niamatullah Khan et al.
Table 6. N recovery efficiency (NRE; %) of cotton as affected by tillage and N rate during two growing seasons.
Year
Nitrogen (kg-1)
Tillage
Nitrogen Means
Zero (NT)
Reduced (RT)
Conventional (CT)
2010
2011
Mean (2 yr)
0
50
30.0
100
28.5
150
28.8
200
26.0
Tillage means
28.3
LSD0.05 for N = 2.649
0
50
39.0 ab
100
33.3 cd
150
30.5 cde
200
29.3 def
Tillage means
33.0 b
LSD0.05 for T = 3.869, T × N = 4.588
0
50
34.3 bc
100
31.0 de
150
29.8 ef
200
27.8 fg
Tillage means
30.7 b
LSD0.05 for T = 3.87, T × N = 4.59
34.0
32.5
33.5
33.3
33.3
34.8
33.7
32.2
28.0
32.3
32.9 a
31.6 ab
31.5 ab
29.1 b
39.5 ab
35.0 bc
40.5 a
40.3 a
38.8 a
22.7 g
27.5 ef
27.2 efg
25.5 fg
25.7 c
33.7
31.9
32.7
31.7
36.5 ab
33.5 cd
37.5 a
36.5 ab
36.0 a
28.8 efg
30.5 ef
29.5 efg
26.8 g
28.9 b
33.2 a
31.7 ab
32.3 a
30.3 b
Means followed by the same letter or no letter do not differ significantly at P<5% using LSD.
determining components such as higher number of bolls
per plant and higher boll weight (Usman et al. 2013b).
Therefore, based on the higher cotton lint yield, adopting
RT technology may ensure cotton production on a
sustainable basis in northwestern Pakistan.
Much of the N losses from the CT system via
leaching and/or denitrification may reduce N use
efficiency, which is an important concern both from the
production as well as from the environmental point of
view (Scheer et al. 2008; Kienzler 2010). However, some
researchers have reported that crop yield remained
similar to or was not always higher with conservation
tillage than with CT (Daniel et al. 1999; Nyakatawa et al.
2000; Gürsoy et al. 2010) while others such as Ishaq et
al. (2001), Pettigrew and Jones (2001), and Schwab et al.
(2002) have even reported lower yields. Yet, collective
evidence suggests several benefits from conservation
tillage practices (Sayre and Hobbs 2004; Tursonov 2009).
Conservation tillage may, therefore, lessen the adverse
effects of CT in the irrigated wheat-cotton system in
northwestern Pakistan. Recent findings revealed that to
ensure effective and sustainable result, conservation
tillage must be combined with appropriate N application
rate since N requirement under conservation tillage may
differ from that of CT (Randall and Bandel 1991; Torbert
and Reeves 1994). The determination of optimum N level
under conservation tillage may help to increase N use
efficiency, crop yield and carbon sequestration in the soil,
at reduced cost of production with no environmental
hazards.
Our findings showed a linear yield response to N
application rates with the highest value recorded at 150–
200 kg ha-1 under RT. Reduced tillage maintained higher
lint yield even in adverse weather conditions (excessive
rainfall) in 2010, which affected NT and CT more
The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 97 No. 3 (September 2014)
compared with RT. On the other hand, although INUE
was lower for RT regarding main effects of tillage, the
interaction effects revealed that both NT and RT had
higher INUE at 150 kg N ha -1, which suggests that 150
kg N may be the optimum level under RT. The other N
efficiency indices such as NAE, NPE and NRE had the
highest values at 50 kg N ha-1 and declined with
additional N application rate. However, it is also evident
from the results that RT in combination with 150–200 kg
N ha-1 had comparatively higher NAE, NPE and NRE.
Clearly, the more efficient RT system with optimum N
rate had greater N recovery efficiency. This result was
probably due to more efficient N delivery, and lower
losses of N from the system as against CT having more
chances of N losses through leaching and denitrification.
Our observed recovery efficiency was less than 50%,
which is in conformity with the findings of other
researchers who reported that most of the recovery
efficiencies for cotton are <50% (Boquet and Breitenbeck
2000; Rochester et al. 1997; Rochester et al. 2007). The
results suggested that RT system with an optimum N rate
can help improve N use efficiency and cotton yield,
increase growers’ income, and decrease export of N to
soil, water and air. Despite obvious benefits from RT, it
is pertinent to indicate at this point that occasional deep
ploughing with chisel plow may be required in case of
severe perennial weed infestation or breaking subsurface
hard pan. In the long run, RT may add to the fertility of
the soil and thus less amount of N fertilizer would be
required to apply. Hence, there is need to reassess N
requirement of cotton on the basis of the soil test and the
desired cotton yield.
Apparently, the inclusion of short-duration Bt
transgenic cotton may well fit in the wheat-cotton
cropping system to get potential benefits from the RT
263
Tillage and N Impact on Cotton Production
system. Due to the increasing costs of inputs such as N
fertilizers (Rudenko and Lamers 2006), RT with lower
level of N may be more advantageous than CT cotton.
Hence, on the basis of more cotton lint yield and N
efficiency indices, the results suggested that RT in
combination with 150–200 kg N ha-1 may be an
appropriate alternative to the CT system.
CONCLUSION
RT with proper N application rate may be a promising
option for sustaining cotton production in the wheatcotton cropping system. There was a significant
difference in cotton lint yield among the three tillage
systems (NT, RT and CT) in both years of the study. RT
with 150–200 kg N ha-1 had higher lint yield compared
with NT and CT, indicating that intensive soil tillage is
not necessary for cotton production in the wheat-cotton
system. Moreover, RT with 150 kg N ha -1 had higher N
efficiency indices such as NAE, NPE and NRE. The
higher NUE is related to increased N availability and N
uptake by crop in RT than under the CT system. In the
current CT system in northwestern Pakistan, which is
characterized by low N use efficiency and high N loss,
RT may be a suitable alternative.
REFERENCES CITED
ANGELA YYK, FONTE SJ, KESSEL CV, SIX J. 2009.
Transitioning from standard to minimum tillage: Tradeoffs between soil organic matter stabilization, nitrous oxide
emissions, and N availability in irrigated cropping systems.
Soil Till Res 104: 256–262.
BAKKER DM, HAMILTON GJ, HETHERINGTON R,
SPANN C. 2010. Salinity dynamics and the potential for
improvement of water-logged and saline land in a
Mediterranean climate using permanent raised beds. Soil
Till Res 110(1): 8–24.
BOQUET DJ, BREITENBECK GA. 2000. Nitrogen rate effect
on partitioning of nitrogen and dry matter by cotton. Crop
Sci 40: 1685–1693.
BREMNER JM, MULVANEY CS. 1982. Nitrogen-total. In: Page
AL, editor. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2. Chemical and
Microbiological Properties. Agron Monograph No. 9.
Madison, WI, USA: ASA and SSSA. p. 595–624.
COX WJ, ZOBEL RW, VAN ES HM, OTIS D J. 1990. Tillage
effects on some soil physical and corn physiological
characteristics. Agron J 82: 806–812.
DANIEL JB, ABAYE AO, ALLEY MM, ADCOCK CW,
MATLAND JC. 1999. Winter annual cover crops in a Virginia
no-till cotton production system. II. Cover crop and tillage
effects on soil moisture, cotton yield and cotton quality. J Cotton
Sci 3: 84–91.
264
Niamatullah Khan et al.
DENG L, CHEN M, LIU Z, SHEN Q, WANG H, WANG J.
2003. Effects of different ground covers on soil physical
properties and crop growth on saline-alkaline soil. Chinese
J Soil Sci 34(2): 93–97.
DILZ K. 1988. Efficiency of uptake and utilization of fertilizer
nitrogen by plants. In: Jenkinson DS, Smith KA, editors.
Nitrogen Efficiency in Agricultural Soils. London: Elsevier
Applied Science. p. 1–26.
DORAN JW, ELLIOTT ET, PAUSTIAN K. 1998. Soil
microbial activity, nitrogen cycling, and long-term changes
in organic carbon pools as related to fallow tillage
management. Soil Till Res 49: 3–18.
EGAMBERDIEV O. 2007. Dynamics of irrigated alluvial
meadow soil properties under the influence of resource
saving and soil protective technologies in the Khorezm region.
[Dissertation]. National University of Uzbekistan. 244 p.
[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization. 2004. Fertilizer Use
by Crop in Pakistan. Rome: Land and Plant Nutrition
Management Service, Land and Water Development
Division, FAO. 48 p.
FRANZLUEBBERS AJ, HONS FM, ZUBERER DA. 1995. Soil
organic carbon, microbial biomass, and mineralizable carbon
and nitrogen in sorghum. Soil Sci Soc Am J 59: 460–466.
GOVAERTS B, SAYRE KD, DECKERS J. 2005. Stable high
yields with zero tillage and permanent bed planting. Field
Crop Res 94: 33–42.
Government of Pakistan. 2007. Agricultural Statistics of
Pakistan. Islamabad: Ministry of Food, Agricultural and
Livestock, Economic Division. 19 p.
GUPTA R, KIENZLER K, MARTIUS C, MIRZABAEV A,
OWEIS T, DE PAUW E, QADIR M, SHIDEED K,
SOMMER R, THOMAS R, SAYRE K, CARLI C,
SAPAROV A, BEKENOV M, SANGINOV S, NEPESOV
M, IKRAMOV R. 2009. Research Prospectus: A Vision
for Sustainable Land Management Research in Central
Asia. ICARDA Central Asia and Caucasus Program.
Sustainable Agriculture in Central Asia and the Caucasus
Series No. 1. Tashkent, Uzbekistan: CGIAR-PFU. 53 p.
GÜRSOY S, SESSIZ A, MALHI SS. 2010. Short-term effects of
tillage and residue management following cotton on grain yield
and quality of wheat. Field Crop Res 119: 260–268.
HABTEGEBRIAL K, SINGH BR, HAILE M. 2007. Impact of
tillage and nitrogen fertilization on yield, nitrogen use
efficiency of tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] and soil
properties. Soil Till Res 94: 55–63.
HASSAN I, HUSSAIN Z, AKBAR G. 2005. Effect of
permanent raised beds on water productivity for irrigated
maize–wheat cropping system. In: Roth CH, Fischer RA,
Meisner CA, editors. Evaluation and Performance of
Permanent Raised Bed Cropping Systems in Asia,
Australia and Mexico. ACIAR Proceedings No. 121.
Proceedings of a workshop held in Griffith, NSW,
Australia; 2005 March 1–3. p. 59–65.
HIREL B, LE GOUIS J, NEY B, GALLAIS A. 2007. The
challenge of improving nitrogen use efficiency in crop
plants: Towards a more central role for genetic variability
The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 97 No. 3 (September 2014)
Tillage and N Impact on Cotton Production
Niamatullah Khan et al.
and quantitative genetics within integrated approaches. J
Exp Bot 58(9): 2369–2387.
BROTHERTON E. 2007. Monitoring nitrogen use
efficiency in your region. Aust Cotton Growers 28: 24–27.
HUANG Q, YIN Z, TIAN C. 2001. Effect of two different
straw mulching methods on soil solute salt concentration.
Arid Land Geog 24: 52–56.
RUDENKO I, LAMERS JPA. 2006. The comparative
advantages of the present and future payment structure for
agricultural producers in Uzbekistan. Central Asian Journal
of Management, Economics and Social Res 2(1–2): 106–125.
IBRAGIMOV N M. 2007. Ways of increasing the nitrogen
fertilizer efficiency on cotton in the belt with irrigated
sierozem soils (Habilitation, in Russian). [Dissertation].
Uzbekistan Cotton Research Institute. 244 p.
ISFAN D. 1990. Nitrogen physiological efficiency index in some
selected spring barley cultivars. J Plant Nutr 13: 907–914.
ISHAQ M, IBRAHIM M, LAL R. 2001. Tillage effect on
nutrient uptake by wheat and cotton as influenced by
fertilizer rate. Soil Till Res 62: 41–53.
JAVED MI, ADIL SA, HASSAN S, ALI A. 2009. An
efficiency analysis of Punjab’s cotton-wheat system. The
Lahore Journal of Economics 14 (2): 97–124.
KIENZLER K. 2010. Improving the nitrogen use efficiency and
crop quality in the Khorezm region, Uzbekistan.
[Dissertation].
ZEF/Rheinische
Friedrich-WilhelmsUniversität Bonn. 180 p.
LOPEZ MV, SABRE M, GRACIA R, ARRUE JL, GOMES L.
1998. Tillage effects on soil surface conditions and dust
emission by wind erosion in semiarid Aragon NE Spain.
Soil Till Res 45: 91–105.
[MINFAL] Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock. 2008.
Agriculture Statistics of Pakistan. Islamabad: Govt. of
Pakistan, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock,
Economic Wing. 19 p.
NOVOA R, LOOMIS RS. 1981. Nitrogen and plant production.
Plant Soil 58: 177–204.
NYAKATAWA EZ, REDDY KC, MAYS DA. 2000. Tillage,
cover cropping, and poultry litter effects on cotton. II.
Growth and yield parameters. Agron J 92: 1000–1007.
[PCCC] Pakistan Central Cotton Committee. 2013. Pakistan
Central Cotton Committee, Ministry of Commerce &
Textile Industry, Government of Pakistan.
PETTIGREW WT, JONES MA. 2001. Cotton growth under notill production in the lower Mississippi River Valley
alluvial flood plain. Agron J 93: 1398–1404.
RANDALL GW, BANDEL VA. 1991. Overview of nitrogen
management for conservation tillage systems: An
overview. In: Logan et al., editors. Effects of Conservation
Tillage on Groundwater Quality, Nitrogen and Pesticides.
Lewis Publication, Inc. Chelsea, MI. p. 39–63.
RAUN WR, JOHNSON GV. 1999. Improving nitrogen use
efficiency for cereal production. Agron J 91(3): 357–363.
SAYRE K, HOBBS P. 2004. The raised-bed system of
cultivation for irrigated production conditions. In: Lal R,
Hobbs P, Uphoff N, Hansen DO, editors. Sustainable
Agriculture and the Rice-Wheat System. Columbia, Ohio,
USA: Ohio State University. p. 337–355.
SCHEER C, WASSMANN R, KINZLER K, IBRAGIMOV N,
ESCHANOV R. 2008. Nitrous oxide emissions from
fertilized, irrigated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) in the
Aral Sea Basin, Uzbekistan: Influence of nitrogen applications
and irrigation practices. Soil Biol Biochem 40: 290–301.
SCHWAB EB, REEVES DW, BURMESTER CH, RAPER RL.
2002. Conservation tillage systems for cotton in the
Tennessee Valley. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66: 569–577.
Soil Survey Staff. 2009. Keys to Soil of NWFP, FATA and
Northern Areas. Lahore, Pakistan: National Institute of
Research in Soils and Geomatics. 76 p.
STEEL RGD, TORRIE JH. 1980. Principles and Procedures of
Statistics. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc. 633 p.
TORBERT HA, REEVES DW. 1994. Fertilizer nitrogen
requirements for cotton production as affected by tillage
and traffic. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58: 1416–1423.
TURSONOV M. 2009. Potential of conservation agriculture for
irrigated cotton and winter wheat production in Khorezm,
Aral Sea Basin. [Dissertation]. ZEF/Rheinische FriedrichWilhelms-Universität Bonn. 247 p.
USMAN K, KHAN N, KHAN MU, REHMAN AU, GHULAM
S. 2013b. Impact of tillage and herbicides on weed density,
yield and quality of cotton in wheat based cropping system.
JIA 12(9): 1568–1579.
USMAN K, KHAN N, KHAN MU, SALEEM F Y, RASHID
A. 2013a. Impact of tillage and nitrogen on cotton yield
and quality in a wheat-cotton system, Pakistan. Arch
Agron Soil Sci 60(4): 519–530.
VLEK PLG, UZO MOKWUNYE A. 1989. Soil fertility
problems in the semiarid tropics of Africa. In: Christianson
CB, editor. Soil Technology and Fertilizer Management in
Semi-Arid Tropical India. IFDC Special Publication 11.
Muscle Shoals, Al 35662, USA. p. 18.
WANG X. 2006. Conservation tillage and nutrient management
in dryland farming in China. [Dissertation]. Wageningen
University. 197 p.
RICE CW, SMITH MS. 1982. Denitrification in no-till and
plowed soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 46: 1168–1173.
WANG XB, CAI D X, HOOGMOED WB, OENEMA O,
PERDOK UD. 2007. Developments in conservation tillage in
rainfed regions of North China. Soil Till Res 93: 239–250.
ROCHESTER IJ, CONSTABLE GA, SAFFIGNA PG. 1997.
Retention of cotton stubble enhances N fertilizer recovery
and lint yield of irrigated cotton. Soil Till Res 41: 75–86.
WITT C, DOBERMANN A, ABDULRACHMAN S. 1999.
Internal nutrient efficiencies of irrigated lowland rice in
tropical and subtropical Asia. Field Crop Res 63: 113–118.
ROCHESTER I, O’HALLORAN J, MAAS S, SANDS D,
The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 97 No. 3 (September 2014)
265