Urea is the most consumed nitrogen (N) fertilizer but is susceptible to high N losses that can result in lower crop yields compared to other N sources. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of the continuous usage of urea and calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) at different N rates on cotton yield, fiber quality, nitrogen agronomic efficiency (NAE), and soil N stock. Two field trials were conducted across four seasons in two regions of Brazil with contrasting soil textures, with clayey and sandy loam soil. The experiment design consisted of two N sources (urea and CAN), four N rates (48, 96, 144, and 192 kg of N per hectare [kg ha−1]), a control plot (no N), and an additional treatment (different N split). Cotton was sown in the rainy summer season using the cultivars TMG 47 B2RF and DP 1536 B2RF, where rows were spaced 0.90 and 0.76 m apart, with densities of 100,000 and 90,000 plants ha−1, in the clayey and sandy loam soils, respectively. Climate conditions were favorable (>800 mm rainfall and 26ºC) during growing, and cotton yield ranged from 2514 to 5437 kg ha−1. Nitrogen application increased cotton yield for both N sources in clayey soil, but not in sandy loam, probably due to N mineralization and a low C/N ratio. In the clayey soil, the N addition at 192 kg ha−1 increased cotton yield by up to 50 % (3500 to 5300 kg ha−1 in the 2019 season) and increased the accumulated yield (4 years) from 12,000 to 16,000 kg ha−1 compared with control. Over the four seasons, CAN application resulted in a higher yield per unit of N compared with urea, resulting in means for NAE of 10.3 and 8.3 kg kg−1, respectively. The N addition improved the micronaire index from the base range, 4.3–4.8 micrograms per inch (control), to premium values of 3.8–4.3 and had no effect on other cotton quality properties or soil N stock. The management of N plays a major role in cotton production and quality, which depend on site-specific conditions. In the long term, yield responsiveness to N was intensified, which suggests that further differences may occur between urea and CAN.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Otto et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: