Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land
Journal of Arid Land  2021, Vol. 13 Issue (7): 699-716    DOI: 10.1007/s40333-021-0012-6     CSTR: 32276.14.s40333-021-0012-6
Research article     
Promoting the production of salinized cotton field by optimizing water and nitrogen use efficiency under drip irrigation
LIN En1,2, LIU Hongguang1,2,*(), LI Xinxin1,2, LI Ling1,2, Sumera ANWAR3
1College of Water Conservancy & Architectural Engineering, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China
2Xinjiang Production & Construction Group Key Laboratory of Modern Water-Saving Irrigation, Shihezi 832000, China
3Institute of Molecular Biologyand Biotechnology, The University of Lahore, Lahore 54660, Pakistan
Download: HTML     PDF(1662KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

Cotton is the main economically important crop in Xinjiang, China, but soil salinization and shortage of water and nutrients have restricted its production. A field experiment was carried out in the salinity-affected arid area of Northwest China from 2018 to 2019 to explore the effects of nitrogen and water regulation on physiological growth, yield, water and nitrogen use efficiencies, and economic benefit of cotton. The salinity levels were 7.7 (SL) and 12.5 dS/m (SM). Drip irrigation was used with low, medium and adequate irrigation levels representing 60%, 80% and 100% of cotton crop water demand, respectively, and three nitrogen applications, i.e., 206, 275 and 343 kg/hm2, accounting for 75%, 100% and 125% of local N application, respectively were used. The multi-objective optimization based on spatial analysis showed that, at SL salinity, water use efficiency (WUE), nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), economic benefit and yield simultaneously reached more than 85% of their maxima at 379.18-398.32 mm irrigation and 256.69-308.87 kg/hm2. At SM salinity, WUE, yield and economic benefit simultaneously reached more than 85% of their maxima when irrigation was 351.24-376.30 mm and nitrogen application was 230.18-289.89 kg/hm2. NUE, yield and economic benefit simultaneously reached their maxima at 428.01-337.72 mm irrigation, and nitrogen application range was 222.14-293.93 kg/hm2. The plants at SL salinity had 21.58%-46.59% higher WUE rates, 14.91%-34.35% higher NUE rates and 20.71%-35.34% higher yields than those at SM salinity. The results are of great importance for the nutrient and water management in cotton field in the arid saline area.

Key words： cotton growth      multi-objective optimization      soil salinization      water and nitrogen regulation      spatial analysis     
Received: 11 November 2020      Published: 10 July 2021
Corresponding Authors:
About author: *LIU Hongguang (E-mail: liuhongguang-521@163.com)
Service
E-mail this article
Add to my bookshelf
Add to citation manager
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
En LIN
Hongguang LIU
Xinxin LI
Ling LI
ANWAR Sumera
Cite this article:

LIN En, LIU Hongguang, LI Xinxin, LI Ling, Sumera ANWAR. Promoting the production of salinized cotton field by optimizing water and nitrogen use efficiency under drip irrigation. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(7): 699-716.

URL:

http://jal.xjegi.com/10.1007/s40333-021-0012-6     OR     http://jal.xjegi.com/Y2021/V13/I7/699

Soil depth (cm) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) Bulk density (g/cm3)
0-20 62.65 32.70 4.59 1.46
20-40 63.29 33.92 3.86 1.48
40-60 71.93 21.86 5.60 1.51
60-80 68.92 26.87 4.31 1.49
80-100 73.08 23.68 3.42 1.52
Table 1 Soil physical property in the experimental area
Fig. 1 Location of the study area (a) and experimental design (b) in the field. N1, N2 and N3 represent nitrogen application levels. I1, I2 and I3 represent irrigation levels. The detailed treatments of nitrogen and irrigation are shown in Table 2.
Fig. 2 Cotton planting pattern and schematic diagram of drip irrigation
Irrigation
time		 Irrigation
date		 Growth stage ET0 (mm) Kc Irrigation amount (mm) Nitrogen application level (kg/hm2)
I1 I2 I3 N1 N2 N3
2018
1 15 Apr Sowing seeds 40.00 55.00 65.00 61.80 83.00 102.90
2 1 May Seedling stage 93 0.35 19.53 26.04 32.55 6.18 8.30 10.29
3 1 June Seedling stage 85 0.35 17.85 23.80 29.75 6.18 8.30 10.29
4 11 Jun Seedling stage 110 0.35 23.10 30.80 38.50 6.18 8.30 10.29
5 17 Jun Flower bud stage 72 0.76 32.83 43.78 54.72 14.42 19.30 24.01
6 1 Jul Flower bud stage 73 0.76 33.29 44.38 55.48 14.42 19.30 24.01
7 14 Jul Flower and boll stage 50 1.18 35.40 47.20 59.00 30.90 41.30 51.45
8 31 Jul Flower and boll stage 52 1.18 36.82 49.09 61.36 30.90 41.30 51.45
9 9 Aug Flower and boll stage 43 1.18 30.44 40.59 50.74 30.90 41.30 51.45
10 3 Sep Boll opening period 56 0.60 20.16 26.88 33.60 4.12 5.50 6.86
Total 289.42 387.56 480.70 206.00 275.00 343.00
2019
1 1 May Sowing seeds 40.00 55.00
55.00		 65.00 61.80 83.00 102.90
2 20 May Seedling stage 87 0.35 18.27 24.36 30.45 6.18 8.30 10.29
3 15 Jun Seedling stage 90 0.35 18.90 25.20 31.50 6.18 8.30 10.29
4 20 Jun Seedling stage 115 0.35 24.15 32.20 40.25 6.18 8.30 10.29
5 24 Jun Flower bud stage 80 0.76 36.48 48.64 60.80 14.42 19.30 24.01
6 10 Jul Flower bud stage 74 0.76 33.74 44.99 56.24 14.42 19.30 24.01
7 14 Jul Flower and boll stage 56 1.18 39.65 52.86 66.08 30.90 41.30 51.45
8 31 Jul Flower and boll stage 50 1.18 35.40 47.20 59.00 30.90 41.30 51.45
9 9 Aug Flower and boll stage 40 1.18 28.32 37.76 47.20 30.90 41.30 51.45
10 3 Sep Boll opening period 50 0.60 18.00 24.00 30.00 4.12 5.50 6.86
Total 292.92 392.22 486.52 206.00 275.00 343.00
Table 2 Irrigation and nitrogen application in the study
Treatment Boll weight Dry matter Yield HI
2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019
I×S ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
N×S ns ns * * * * ns ns
I×N * * ** ** ** ** * *
I×N×S ns ns * * ns ns ns ns
Table 3 ANOVA results for boll weight, dry matter, yield and harvest index (HI)
Fig. 3 Effects of water-nitrogen coupling on boll weight (a and b), dry matter (c and d), yield (e and f), and harvest index (g and h) of cotton under salt stress. Bars indicate standard errors. Different lowercase letters indicate significant difference among different treatments at P<0.05 level according to Duncan's test. N1, N2 and N3 represent nitrogen application levels. I1, I2 and I3 represent irrigation levels. The detailed treatments of nitrogen and irrigation are shown in Table 2. SL and SM represent 7.7 and 12.5 dS/m salinity levels, respectively.
Treatment Micronaire value Fiber length
2018 2019 2018 2019
I×S ** ** * *
N×S ** ** ns ns
I×N ** ** * *
I×N×S * * * *
Table 4 ANOVA results for micronaire value and fiber length
Fig. 4 Effects of water-nitrogen coupling on micronaire value (a, b) and fiber length (c, d) of cotton under salt stress. Bars indicate standard errors. Different lowercase letters above the bars indicate significant difference among different treatments at P<0.05 level according to Duncan's test. N1, N2 and N3 represent nitrogen application levels. I1, I2 and I3 represent irrigation levels. The detailed treatments of nitrogen and irrigation are shown in Table 2. SL and SM represent 7.7 and 12.5 dS/ m salinity levels, respectively.
Treatment WUE PFP NUE
2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019
I×S ** ** * * * *
N×S ** ** ns ns ** **
I×N ** ** * * * *
I×N×S * * * * * *
Table 5 ANOVA results for water use efficiency (WUE), nitrogen partial factor productivity (PFP) and nitrogen use efficiency (NUE)
Fig. 5 Effects of water-nitrogen coupling on water use efficiency (WUE; a and b), nitrogen partial factor productivity (PFP; c and d) and nitrogen use efficiency (NUE; e and f) of cotton under salt stress. Bars indicate standard errors. Different lowercase letters above the bars indicate significant differences among different treatments at P<0.05 level according to Duncan's test. N1, N2 and N3 represent nitrogen application levels. I1, I2 and I3 represent irrigation levels. The detailed treatments of nitrogen and irrigation are shown in Table 2. SL and SM represent 7.7 and 12.5 dS/m salinity levels, respectively.
Treatment 2018 2019
Irrigation
cost		 Fertilizer cost Land leasing Gross profit Economic benefit Irrigation
cost		 Fertilizer cost Land leasing Gross profit Economic benefit
(USD/hm2) (USD/hm2)
SLI1N1 156.64 445.06 1388.89 5591.67 862.91 158.26 445.06 1388.89 5292.26 816.71
SLI1N2 156.64 594.14 1388.89 5970.07 921.31 158.26 594.14 1388.89 5665.44 874.30
SLI1N3 156.64 741.05 1388.89 5449.00 840.89 158.26 741.05 1388.89 5373.79 829.29
SLI2N1 209.57 445.06 1388.89 6589.09 1016.83 211.73 445.06 1388.89 6720.38 1037.10
SLI2N2 209.57 594.14 1388.89 7399.36 1141.88 211.73 594.14 1388.89 7519.47 1160.41
SLI2N3 209.57 741.05 1388.89 6772.04 1045.07 211.73 741.05 1388.89 7456.38 1150.68
SLI3N1 259.80 445.06 1388.89 6281.01 969.29 263.04 445.06 1388.89 6416.55 990.21
SLI3N2 259.80 594.14 1388.89 6576.60 1014.91 263.04 594.14 1388.89 6708.06 1035.19
SLI3N3 259.80 741.05 1388.89 6569.90 1013.87 263.04 741.05 1388.89 6701.46 1034.18
SMI1N1 156.64 445.06 925.93 4178.03 644.76 158.26 445.06 925.93 4400.26 679.05
SMI1N2 156.64 594.14 925.93 4433.04 684.11 158.26 594.14 925.93 4655.27 718.41
SMI1N3 156.64 741.05 925.93 4162.90 642.42 158.26 741.05 925.93 4261.68 657.67
SMI2N1 209.57 445.06 925.93 5052.26 779.67 211.73 445.06 925.93 5163.38 796.82
SMI2N2 209.57 594.14 925.93 5555.81 857.38 211.73 594.14 925.93 5555.81 857.38
SMI2N3 209.57 741.05 925.93 4925.12 760.05 211.73 741.05 925.93 4702.89 725.75
SMI3N1 259.80 445.06 925.93 4492.57 693.30 263.04 445.06 925.93 4492.57 693.30
SMI3N2 259.80 594.14 925.93 4808.26 742.02 263.04 594.14 925.93 4808.26 742.02
SMI3N3 259.80 741.05 925.93 4483.72 691.93 263.04 741.05 925.93 4594.84 709.08
Table 6 Effect of water-nitrogen coupling on economic benefit of cotton under salt stress
Variable Equation R2 P
SL yield /Y1 Y1= -18307+91.06W+40.17N-0.111W2-0.068N2-0.00047WN 0.87 <0.01
SM yield /Y2 Y2= -10884+56.84W+32.41N-0.067W2-0.056N2-0.0096WN 0.86 <0.01
SL economic benefit/Y3 Y3= -96440+411.99W+187.72N-0.52W2-0.39N2+0.067WN 0.95 <0.01
SM economic benefit/Y4 Y4= -72680+273.16W+203.43N-0.35W2-0.41N2+0.018WN 0.93 <0.01
SL WUE/Y5 Y5= -1.298+0.0103W+0.11N-1.73×10-5 W2-1.3×10-5 N2+2.37×10-6 WN 0.95 <0.01
SM WUE/Y6 Y6= -0.81+0.006W+0.10N-1.31×10-5 W2-2.59×10-5 N2+8.28×10-6 WN 0.93 <0.01
SL NUE/Y7 Y7= -165.03+0.66W+0.052N-8.41×10-4 W2-7.86×10-4 N2-9.51×10-5 WN 0.90 <0.01
SM NUE/Y8 Y8= -75.78+0.372W+0.275N-5.25×10-4 W2+5.89×10-4 N2+6.51×10-5 WN 0.93 <0.01
SL PFP /Y9 Y9= -17.08+0.286W-0.065N-3.39×10-4 W2+8.84×10-6 N2-2.67×10-5 WN 0.97 <0.01
SM PFP/Y10 Y10= -11.15+0.202W-0.0258N-2.71×10-4 W2-1.06×10-5 N2+5.61 ×10-5 WN 0.98 <0.01
Table 7 Effect of water-nitrogen coupling on cotton yield, economic benefit, water use efficiency (WUE), nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) and nitrogen partial factor productivity (PFP) under salt stress
Dependent variable Maximum dependent variable Irrigation Nitrogen application
SL SM SL SM SL SM
Yield (kg/hm2) 6218.12 4705.62 410.17 402.63 295.47 264.71
Economic benefit (USD/hm2) 2149.29 1166.54 410.22 394.06 275.88 256.33
WUE (kg/m3) 1.73 1.33 317.29 301.12 276.69 247.93
NUE (%) 36.20 28.10 379.12 371.28 289.28 255.53
PFP (kg/kg) 28.04 20.92 414.26 394.06 206.00 200.80
Table 8 Effects of water-nitrogen coupling on the cotton yield, economic benefit, water use efficiency (WUE), nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) and nitrogen partial factor production (PFP) under salt stress
Fig. 6 Effects of water-nitrogen coupling on relationships of cotton yield (a and b), economic benefit (c and d), water use efficiency (WUE; e and f), nitrogen use efficiency (NUE; g and h) and nitrogen partial factor production (PFP; i and j) under salt stress. SL and SM represent 7.7 and 12.5 dS/ m salinity levels, respectively. The red dots in the figure represent the measured values in 2018 and 2019.
Fig. 7 Effects of water-nitrogen coupling on cotton yield (a and b), economic benefit (c and d), water use efficiency (WUE; e and f), nitrogen use efficiency (NUE; g and h) and nitrogen partial factor production (PFP; i and j) under salt stress. SL and SM represent 7.7 and 12.5 dS/ m salinity levels, respectively.
Fig. 8 Effects of water-nitrogen coupling on comprehensive evaluation of different indices under salt stress. WUE, water use efficiency; NUE, nitrogen use efficiency; PFP, nitrogen partial factor production. SL and SM represent 7.7 and 12.5 dS/ m salinity levels, respectively.
[1]   Adiku S G K, Renger M, Wessolek G, et al. 2001. Simulation of the dry matter production and seed yield of common beans under varying soil water and salinity conditions. Agricultural Water Management, 47(1):55-68.
doi: 10.1016/S0378-3774(00)00094-9
[2]   Allen R G, Pereira L S, Raes D, et al. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration-guidelines for computing crop water requirements-FAO irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO, Rome, 300(9):D05109.
[3]   Badr M A, Abou-Hussein S D, El-Tohamy W A. 2016. Tomato yield, nitrogen uptake and water use efficiency as affected by planting geometry and level of nitrogen in an arid region. Agricultural Water Management, 169:90-97.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2016.02.012
[4]   Chen W L, Jin M G, Ferré T P, et al. 2020. Soil conditions affect cotton root distribution and cotton yield under mulched drip irrigation. Field Crops Research, 249:107743.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107743
[5]   Chen W P, Hou Z N, Wu L S, et al. 2010. Effects of salinity and nitrogen on cotton growth in arid environment. Plant and Soil, 326(1):61-73.
doi: 10.1007/s11104-008-9881-0
[6]   Choudhary R L, Minhas P S, Wakchaure G C, et al. 2020. Effect of IW: CPE-based irrigation scheduling and N-fertilization rate on yield, water and N-use efficiency of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Agricultural Research, 10(2):1-12.
doi: 10.1007/s40003-020-00482-3
[7]   Dağdelen N, Başal H, Yılmaz E, et al. 2009. Different drip irrigation regimes affect cotton yield, water use efficiency and fiber quality in western Turkey. Agricultural Water Management, 96(1):111-120.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2008.07.003
[8]   Deng Z, Bai D, Zhai G L, et al. 2013. Effects of water and nitrogen regulation on the yield and water and nitrogen use efficiency of cotton in south Xinjiang, Northwest China under plastic mulched drip irrigation. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 24(9):2525-2532. (in Chinese)
[9]   Du H Y, Sun X L, Liu X W, et al. 2017. Effects of optimized fertilization on plant growth and soil nutrients supply in saline fields. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 32(1):220-225. (in Chinese)
[10]   Feng L, Zhang J P, Sun C T, et al. 2014. Responses of cotton growth and water physiological indices to salt stress at different growing stages. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 33(5):1195-1199. (in Chinese)
[11]   García-López J, Lorite I J, García-Ruiz R, et al. 2016. Yield response of sunflower to irrigation and fertilization under semi-arid conditions. Agricultural Water Management, 176:151-162.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2016.05.020
[12]   He H J, Wang Z H, Zheng X R, et al. 2017. Effects of water-nitrogen coupling on growth and yield of cotton under mulch drip irrigation. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 54(11):1983-1989. (in Chinese)
[13]   Hou Z A, Chen W P, Li X, et al. 2009. Effects of salinity and fertigation practice on cotton yield and 15N recovery. Agricultural Water Management, 96(10):1483-1489.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2009.04.019
[14]   Hu Y J, Wang X B, Zhao Q S, et al. 2010. Effects of sea ice water irrigation and different fertilizations on soil salinity dynamics and cotton. Transactions of the Chinese society of Agricultural Engineering, 26(9):20-27. (in Chinese)
[15]   Ierna A, Pandino G, Lombardo S, et al. 2011. Tuber yield, water and fertilizer productivity in early potato as affected by a combination of irrigation and fertilization. Agricultural Water Management, 101(1):35-41.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2011.08.024
[16]   Jiang Y J, Zheng D M, Lv S Q, et al. 1995. Influence of soil salt content on cotton yield and quality. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 3:116-118. (in Chinese)
[17]   Kljun A, El-Dessouky H M, Benians T A, et al. 2014. Analysis of the physical properties of developing cotton fibres. European Polymer Journal, 51:57-68.
doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2013.11.016
[18]   Krishnamurthy S L, Gautam R K, Sharma P C, et al. 2016. Effect of different salt stresses on agro-morphological traits and utilisation of salt stress indices for reproductive stage salt tolerance in rice. Field Crops Research, 190:26-33.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.02.018
[19]   Leal A J, Piati G L, Leite R C, et al. 2020. Nitrogen and mepiquat chloride can affect fiber quality and cotton yield. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental, 24(4):238-243.
doi: 10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v24n4p238-243
[20]   Lin E, Liu H G, He X L, et al. 2019. Water-nitrogen coupling effect on drip-irrigated dense planting of dwarf jujube in an extremely arid area. Agronomy, 9(9):561.
doi: 10.3390/agronomy9090561
[21]   Li P L, Zhang F C. 2010. Regulation effect of water and nitrogen on cotton biomass and yield under different drip irrigation patterns. Journal of Applied Ecology, 21(11):2814-2820. (in Chinese)
[22]   Li P L, Zhang F C. 2012. Effects of water and nitrogen coupling on cotton nitrogen absorption and utilization under alternate root partition drip. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 28(S1):112-116. (in Chinese)
[23]   Li X X, Liu H G, He X L, et al. 2019. Water-nitrogen coupling and multi-objective optimization of cotton under mulched drip irrigation in arid northwest China. Agronomy, 9(12):894.
doi: 10.3390/agronomy9120894
[24]   Luo J, Chen B L, Xiang G R, et al. 2017. Effects of organic manure on dry matter accumulation, nutrient absorption and cotton production on salt affected land. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China, (2):107-113. (in Chinese)
[25]   Min W, Hou Z A, Ma L J, et al. 2014. Effects of water salinity and N application rate on water-and N-use efficiency of cotton under drip irrigation. Journal of Arid land, 6(4):454-467.
doi: 10.1007/s40333-013-0250-3
[26]   Pinnamaneni S R, Anapalli S S, Ruixiu S U I, et al. 2021. Effects of irrigation and planting geometry on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) fiber quality and seed composition. Journal of Cotton Research, 4(1):1-11.
doi: 10.1186/s42397-020-00077-x
[27]   Sobrinho F P C, Guerra H O, Araújo W P, et al. 2015. Fiber quality of upland cotton under different irrigation depths. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental, 19(11):1057-1063.
doi: 10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v19n11p1057-1063
[28]   Sui R, Byler R K, Delhom C D. 2017. Effect of nitrogen application rates on yield and quality in irrigated and rainfed cotton. Journal of Cotton Science, 21(2):113-121.
[29]   Tang L S, Li Y, Zhang J H. 2005. Physiological and yield responses of cotton under partial root zone irrigation. Field Crops Research, 94(2-3):214-223.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2005.01.005
[30]   Thompson T L, Doerge T A. 1996. Nitrogen and water interactions in subsurface trickle-irrigated leaf lettuce II. Agronomic, economic, and environmental outcomes. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 60(1):168-173.
doi: 10.2136/sssaj1996.03615995006000010027x
[31]   Umbetaev I, Bigaraev O, Baimakhanov K. 2015. Effect of soil salinity on the yield of cotton in Kazakhstan. Russian Agricultural Sciences, 41(4):222-224.
doi: 10.3103/S1068367415040205
[32]   Wang H D, Wu L F, Cheng M H, et al. 2018. Coupling effects of water and fertilizer on yield, water and fertilizer use efficiency of drip-fertigated cotton in northern Xinjiang, China. Field Crops Research, 219:169-179.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2018.02.002
[33]   Wang R S, Kang Y H, Wan S Q, et al. 2011. Salt distribution and the growth of cotton under different drip irrigation regimes in a saline area. Agricultural Water Management, 100(1):58-69.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2011.08.005
[34]   Wang R S, Kang Y H, Wan S Q, et al. 2012. Influence of different amounts of irrigation on salt leaching and cotton growth under drip irrigation in an arid and saline area. Agricultural Water Management, 110:109-117.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2012.04.005
[35]   Wang R S, Wan S Q, Sun J X, et al. 2018. Soil salinity, sodicity and cotton yield parameters under different drip irrigation regimes during saline wasteland reclamation. Agricultural Water Management, 209:20-31.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.07.004
[36]   Wang Z H, Zhu Y K, Zhang J Z, et al. 2018. Effects of water and nitrogen fertilization on physiological characteristics and yield of cotton under drip irrigation in mildly salinized soil. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 49(6):296-308. (in Chinese)
[37]   Wang Z M, Wang B G, Jin M G. 2013. Water and salt stress to cotton in the condition of drip irrigation under mulch. Geological Science and Technology Information, 32(3):166-170. (in Chinese)
[38]   Wu L F, Zhang F C, Zhou H M, et al. 2014. Effect of drip irrigation and fertilizer application on water use efficiency and cotton yield in North of Xinjiang. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 30(20):137-146. (in Chinese)
[39]   Wu L F, Zhang F C, Wang H D, et al. 2015. Simulation of cotton leaf area index under deficit irrigation in Xinjiang. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 46(1):249-258. (in Chinese)
[40]   Xue Z, Shi H B, Guo Y, et al. 2007. Effects of coupling of soil water and fertilizer on the growth of sunflower during its seeding period in saline soil. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, (3):91-94.
[41]   Ye Q B, Zhang H C, Wei H Y, et al. 2007. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer on nitrogen use efficiency and yield of rice under different soil conditions. Frontiers of Agriculture in China, 1(1):30-36.
doi: 10.1007/s11703-007-0005-z
[42]   Zhang D M, Li W J, Xin C S, et al. 2012. Lint yield and nitrogen use efficiency of field-grown cotton vary with soil salinity and nitrogen application rate. Field Crops Research, 138:63-70.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.09.013
[43]   Zhang H, Li D S, Zhou Z G, et al. 2017. Soil water and salt affect cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) photosynthesis, yield and fiber quality in coastal saline soil. Agricultural Water Management, 187:112-121.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2017.03.019
[44]   Zhang L, Chen B L, Zhang G W, et al. 2013. Effect of soil salinity, soil drought, and their combined action on the biochemical characteristics of cotton roots. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 35(11):3167-3179.
doi: 10.1007/s11738-013-1350-6
[45]   Zhao W Q, Wang Y H, Zhou Z G, et al. 2012. Effect of nitrogen rates and flowering dates on fiber quality of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Journal of Experimental Agriculture International, 2(2):133-159.
[46]   Zou H Y, Fan J L, Zhang F C, et al. 2020. Optimization of drip irrigation and fertilization regimes for high grain yield, crop water productivity and economic benefits of spring maize in Northwest China. Agricultural Water Management, 230:105986.
doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105986
[1] DU Lan, TIAN Shengchuan, ZHAO Nan, ZHANG Bin, MU Xiaohan, TANG Lisong, ZHENG Xinjun, LI Yan. Climate and topography regulate the spatial pattern of soil salinization and its effects on shrub community structure in Northwest China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(7): 925-942.
[2] BAO Anming, YU Tao, XU Wenqiang, LEI Jiaqiang, JIAPAER Guli, CHEN Xi, Tojibaev KOMILJON, Shomurodov KHABIBULLO, Xabibullaev B SAGIDULLAEVICH, Idirisov KAMALATDIN. Ecological problems and ecological restoration zoning of the Aral Sea[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(3): 315-330.
[3] YANG Ao, TU Wenqin, YIN Benfeng, ZHANG Shujun, ZHANG Xinyu, ZHANG Qing, HUANG Yunjie, HAN Zhili, YANG Ziyue, ZHOU Xiaobing, ZHUANG Weiwei, ZHANG Yuanming. Predicting changes in the suitable habitats of six halophytic plant species in the arid areas of Northwest China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(10): 1380-1408.
[4] LIU Yufang, YANG Qingwen, PEI Xiangjun, LI Jingji, WANG Shuangcheng, HUANG Zhenfu, HAN Wei, ZHENG Tianliang. Spatial distribution of soil salinization under the influence of human activities in arid areas, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(10): 1344-1364.
[5] SUN Liquan, GUO Huili, CHEN Ziyu, YIN Ziming, FENG Hao, WU Shufang, Kadambot H M SIDDIQUE. Check dam extraction from remote sensing images using deep learning and geospatial analysis: A case study in the Yanhe River Basin of the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(1): 34-51.
[6] YU Xiang, LEI Jiaqiang, GAO Xin. An over review of desertification in Xinjiang, Northwest China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(11): 1181-1195.
[7] CHEN Shumin, JIN Zhao, ZHANG Jing, YANG Siqi. Soil quality assessment in different dammed-valley farmlands in the hilly-gully mountain areas of the northern Loess Plateau, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(8): 777-789.
[8] Rashid KULMATOV, Jasur MIRZAEV, Jilili ABUDUWAILI, Bakhtiyor KARIMOV. Challenges for the sustainable use of water and land resources under a changing climate and increasing salinization in the Jizzakh irrigation zone of Uzbekistan[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(1): 90-103.
[9] SHAFIEZADEH Mohammad, MORADI Hossein, FAKHERAN Sima. Evaluating and modeling the spatiotemporal pattern of regional-scale salinized land expansion in highly sensitive shoreline landscape of southeastern Iran[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2018, 10(6): 946-958.
[10] WU Jing, QIAN Jianqiang, HOU Xianzhang, Carlos A BUSSO, LIU Zhimin, Xing Baozhen. Spatial variation of plant species richness in a sand dune field of northeastern Inner Mongolia, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2016, 8(3): 434-442.
[11] SongHao SHANG. Lake surface area method to define minimum ecological lake level from level–area–storage curves[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2013, 5(2): 133-142.
[12] YongQin CUI, JianYing MA, Wei SUN. Application of stable isotope techniques to the study of soil salinization[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2011, 3(4): 285-291.
[13] Xi CHEN, JinFeng YAN, Zhi CHEN, GePing LUO, Qing SONG, WenQiang XU. A spatial geostatistical analysis of impact of land use development on groundwater resources in the Sangong Oasis Region using remote sensing imagery and data[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2009, 1(1): 1-8.