Next Article in Journal
Phenotypic and Agronomic Variation Within Naturalized Medicago polymorpha L. (Burr Medic) in Subtropical Queensland, Australia, and Relationships with Climate and Soil Characteristics
Next Article in Special Issue
Study on Alfalfa Water Use Efficiency and Optimal Irrigation Strategy in Agro-Pastoral Ecotone, Northwestern China
Previous Article in Journal
Biochar Amendment as a Mitigation Against Freezing–Thawing Effects on Soil Hydraulic Properties
Previous Article in Special Issue
Potential Impact of Drought and Rewatering on Plant Physiology and Fruit Quality in Long-Shelf-Life Tomatoes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/agronomy15010138
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Optimizing Phosphatic Fertilizer Drip Timing to Improve Cotton Yield in Saline–Alkali Soil and Mitigate Phosphorus–Calcium Binding Risks

by
Xiangxi Bu
,
Xiangwen Xie
,
Changxue Wu
,
Manqi Liu
and
Yongmei Xu
*
Institute of Soil and Fertilizer and Agricultural Sparing Water, Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Science, Urumqi 830091, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(1), 138; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15010138
Submission received: 10 December 2024 / Revised: 31 December 2024 / Accepted: 7 January 2025 / Published: 8 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Response Mechanism of Plants to Water in Efficient Water-Saving Irrigation Technologies)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
To improve cotton yield in salinized arid fields, excess salt is removed and phosphorus content is increased. Adjusting phosphate fertilizer timing with water and fertilizer reduces phosphorus binding with calcium ions. Salt removal precedes phosphate application, enhancing soil phosphorus availability and promoting better growth. However, the optimal time for delaying phosphate fertilizer drip irrigation remains unclear. Therefore, this study evaluated the total salt, soil available phosphorus, and cotton yield under the condition of delayed phosphate fertilizer application. We conducted a field experiment using a completely randomized design to adjust the timing of phosphatic fertilizer application and apply the same amount of pure phosphorus. Specifically, “t” was defined as the total duration of one irrigation cycle, and the starting points for phosphorus application were as follows: T1, 1 h; T2, 1 h + 1/3 t h; T3, 1 h + 2/3 t h; CK, 1/3 t h. These values represent the duration of salt leaching through irrigation in each treatment. Phosphate fertilizer was applied to the soil after salt washing was complete. The results revealed that the T2 treatment exhibited the highest SPAD value (64.53), which was 11.46% and 15.48% higher than that of the T1 and T3 treatments. The 0–20 and 20–40 cm soil layers under the T2 treatment had the highest pH values of 9.12 and 9.37, representing increases of 1.93%, 1.21%, 4.50%, and 1.38% compared with T1 and T3 treatments, respectively (p < 0.05). At the bud stage, the Olsen-P in the T2 treatment was 82.86% and 26.53% higher than that in the T1 and T3 treatments, respectively (p < 0.05). The T2 treatment achieved the highest yield of 6492.09 kg/hm2, which was 31.47%, 31.53%, and 2.77% higher than that of T1, T3, and CK. Overall, the T2 treatment increased cotton yield and reduced the adsorption of calcium ions to available phosphorus in salinized soil. This study provides an effective technical approach for the sustainable development of salinized cotton fields in Xinjiang.

1. Introduction

Salinization is a major challenge in Xinjiang owing to its arid climate, low rainfall, high evaporation rates, and poor irrigation and drainage management [1]. According to statistics, over 50% of the cultivated land in Xinjiang is affected by salinization, with medium and severe salinization having a significant impact on agricultural production [2].
Salinization leads to soil compaction and poor permeability, which severely hinders root growth and nutrient uptake, thereby limiting the yield and quality of cash crops such as cotton [3]. Under salinization conditions, phosphorus in the soil is easily fixed by calcium, magnesium, and iron, which form insoluble phosphorus compounds and reduce the utilization rate of available phosphorus [4,5]. Additionally, high salt concentrations inhibit soil microbial activity and disrupt organic phosphate mineralization and the phosphorus cycle, further limiting phosphorus absorption by crops [6,7]. Salinization increases the osmotic pressure of the soil solution, thereby inhibiting phosphorus uptake by crop roots and reducing plant growth efficiency [8,9].
Cotton is the world’s most important natural fiber source, widely used in textile production, and accounts for a significant share of the global fiber market. However, most of Xinjiang’s farmland is in arid and semi-arid areas, and salinized soils pose significant challenges to cotton cultivation and yield [10,11]. Therefore, implementing effective measures to improve salinized soils, alleviate drought stress, and increase soil phosphorus availability is crucial for promoting sustainable agricultural development in Xinjiang.
Drip irrigation under plastic film can mitigate the phosphorus crisis in farmland [12]. Submembrane drip irrigation accurately delivers water and maintains moisture in the top soil, thereby effectively reducing salt accumulation and minimizing the risk of phosphorus fixation [13]. The integration of water and fertilizer in drip irrigation enables the frequent application of small amounts of phosphorus fertilizer, thereby reducing phosphorus leaching and fixation, improving crop absorption rates, and maintaining an optimal water and salt environment in the root zone [14,15,16]. This promotes the activity of beneficial microorganisms (such as phosphatases) and enhances soil phosphorus cycling [17]. Moreover, drip irrigation under the membrane improves soil structure, reduces soil osmotic pressure, and promotes root expansion, thereby enhancing the ability of crops to absorb phosphorus [18].
However, traditional integrated water and fertilizer do not account for the adverse effects of surface salts on phosphorus availability during the early stages of irrigation [19]. Saline soils typically contain high concentrations of soluble calcium ions (e.g., Ca2+), which tend to bind with the phosphate ions (PO43−) in the soil solution to form insoluble calcium phosphate (e.g., Ca3(PO4)2) [20]. Under alkaline conditions (pH > 8), this fixation process becomes more pronounced, as phosphate mainly exists as HPO42− or PO43− at high pH, thereby increasing its reactivity with calcium [21]. High salinity enhances the electrostatic attraction between ions in the solution and accelerates the binding of phosphorus and calcium [22]. Furthermore, salts can alter the chemical properties of the soil surface through competitive adsorption (e.g., Na+ and Mg2+), further increasing the likelihood of phosphorus precipitating with calcium [23]. Consequently, phosphorus uptake and transport by crop roots are hindered. The appropriate drip application of phosphorus fertilizer is crucial for mitigating the adverse effects of salt on phosphorus conversion and distribution and enhancing the nutrient absorption capacity of crops [24].
In an integrated agricultural system with water and fertilizer, delivering nutrients to the roots of crops is an ideal method [25]. During irrigation, the salt is leached out with irrigation water, and the optimal timing for fertilizer application is determined. This technique efficiently transfers soil salt to deeper layers, thereby reducing its negative impact on phosphorus absorption in cotton [26]. Research has shown that salt leaching from the soil through irrigation can reduce the osmotic pressure of the soil solution, mitigate salt stress on crop roots, and promote the healthy growth of root systems and phosphorus absorption [27]. Moreover, the relatively homogeneous moisture environment in the soil facilitates the dissolution and diffusion of applied fertilizers, leading to a more uniform phosphorus distribution. Consequently, crop roots exhibit improved contact and absorption efficiency. However, several studies have indicated that fertilization after irrigation may increase fertilizer leaching, causing nutrients to migrate with the water into deeper soil layers beyond the roots, thereby reducing fertilizer utilization efficiency [28,29]. Therefore, the timing of fertilizer application is crucial for ensuring effective salt leaching, which affects phosphorus absorption and utilization by crops.
This study investigated the effects of different phosphorus fertilizer application timings on soil water content, salt levels, pH, calcium-related phosphorus fractions, and crop yield in a typical sulfate–chloride saline soil cotton field in northern Xinjiang. The findings provide scientific insights and practical guidance for the precise and efficient management of phosphorus fertilizer in saline soil cotton fields.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Conditions

The experiment was conducted in the No. 1 farm of Karamay Lvcheng (45°27′31″ N, 84°95′34″ E) in 2022. It is located in the west of Junggar Basin, Xinjiang, has an altitude of 260 m, and is classified as a temperate continental arid desert climate with an annual average temperature of 8.5 °C and annual average precipitation of 109.50 mm. The annual potential evaporation, annual total radiation, annual sunshine duration, and frost-free period are 3345.20 mm, 5430–6670 MJ/cm2, 2600–3400 h, and 190 days, respectively. The bulk density of the soil is 1.49 g/cm3, soil conductivity is 1377 μs/cm, the soil texture is clay soil in the surface layer and sandy clay in the middle layer, the soil pH is 8.81, and soil water retention (volume) is 33%. The soil property index was measured by Yangling Xinhua Ecological Technology Co., LTD. According to the classification standard of soil salinization, the soil is moderately salinized [30]. Details on the rainfall and temperature during the test are shown in Figure S1.

2.2. Field Management

The cotton variety used in the experiments was Xinluzao 63, which was sown in April and harvested in October across a 90 m2 area (20 m long by 4.5 m wide). Cotton cultivation and harvesting are both carried out mechanically. The planting mode involved one film, three tubes, and six rows, with plant spacing of 10 cm and row spacing of 10 cm–66 cm–10 cm–66 cm–10 cm. The dripper flow rate and spacing were 2.4 L/h and 30 cm, respectively. Except for fertilization, the other agronomic measures are consistent with those of local farmers. Urea (N, 46%; N 290 kg/hm2), potassium dihydrogen phosphate (P2O5, 52%; K2O, 34%; P2O5 110 kg/hm2), and potassium sulfate (K2O, 52%; 95 kg/hm2) were selected as the nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium fertilizers, respectively (Karamay Golden Earth fertilizer Co., LTD., Xianyang, China). Base fertilizer was not applied during the entirety of the growth stage, and all fertilizers were applied through topdressing using water drops. The irrigation quota of the whole growth stage was unified to 4500 m3/hm2. The research results from the early stage of the project determined the amount of fertilizer applied during the entire growth stage. The experiment was designed according to the fertilizer dripping time: T1: watering for 1 h followed by phosphatic fertilizer application; T2: watering for 1 h + 1/3 t h of the total irrigation time followed by phosphatic fertilizer application; T3: watering for 1 h + 2/3 t h of the total irrigation time followed by phosphatic fertilizer application, and CK: watering for 1/3 t h of the total irrigation time followed by phosphatic fertilizer application. The specific details regarding water and fertilizer management are listed in Table 1 and Table S1.
The experiment adopted a completely randomized experimental design. Considering the different irrigation durations of cotton from the seedling stage to maturity, the variable t was set as the irrigation duration of each cotton growth stage (the irrigation duration of the seedling, bud, and batting stages was 6 h, and that of the flowering stage was 7 h). Each treatment was repeated thrice, for a total of 12 plots.

2.3. Sample Measurements

SPAD 502 (Konica Minolta, Tokyo, Japan) was used for the measurement of the relative chlorophyll content. In the process of determination, 3–5 unfolded leaves of cotton were selected for determination. Cotton plant height was measured by using tape measure at each growth stage. The total salt content of the soil was determined using 50 mL of filtered soil extract with a soil-to-water mass ratio of 1:5 steamed in a water bath. Total salt of soil (g/kg) = mass of drying residue (g)/mass of drying soil sample (g) × 1000. Soil pH and electrical conductivity were determined using a pH meter (PHS-3C, Shanghai Shengci Instrument Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) and an electrical conductivity meter (DDS-307A, INASE Scientific Instrument Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) in a 1:2.5 soil/water ratio. During the boll opening stage, five points (5 × 1 m2) were randomly selected in each plot to investigate the total number of bolls in each plot, calculate the average number of bolls per plant, and calculate the actual yield. Single boll weight: 50 normal batting cotton on the top, middle, and bottom of cotton plants with uniform growth in each test plot were collected, dried, and weighed, and the single boll weight was calculated and measured. The whole growth period was divided into four growth stages, namely seedling stage, bud stage, flowering–boll stage, and boll opening stage. The soil phosphorus sampling days were 29th May at the seedling stage, 22nd June at the bud stage, 5th August at the flowering–boll stage, and 23rd September at the boll opening stage. Soil available P was determined by using the molybdate/ascorbic acid method after extraction with NaHCO3 0.5 mol·L−1 (Yangling Xinhua Ecological Technology Co., LTD., Xi’an, China)

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data were processed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and significant differences among treatments were determined by using F-tests. Mean comparisons were made using least significant difference (LSD) tests at the 0.05 significance level with SAS 9.4 software [31]. The mean values presented in the figures and tables represent the averages from three replicates. Graphs were generated using Origin 2021 (OriginLab Corp., Northampton, MA, USA).

3. Result

3.1. Plant Height and SPAD

At the seedling stage, the SPAD values of each treatment exhibited significant differences. Notably, the T2 treatment had the highest value (64.53), representing increases of 11.46% and 15.48% compared with T1 and T3 treatments (p < 0.05) (Figure 1). As the plants progressed through the growth stages, plant height gradually increased across all treatments. At the seedling stage, the T1 treatment resulted in a 41.01% and 37.53% increase in plant height compared with the T2 and T3 treatments, respectively (p < 0.05). At the bud stage, the T1 and T2 treatments increased plant growth by 11.62% and 7.02%, respectively, compared with the T3 treatment (p < 0.05). Overall, delaying the application of phosphate fertilizer via drip irrigation significantly inhibited cotton growth during the early stages.

3.2. Soil Moisture Content, pH, and Electrical Conductivity

No significant difference in soil moisture content across different soil layers was observed throughout the growth stage (p > 0.05). The soil moisture content under the T1 and T3 treatments remained relatively stable at each growth stage (Figure 2). This indicates that the timing of phosphate fertilizer application did not affect soil water content. At the seedling stage (May 29), the 0–20 and 20–40 cm soil layers under the T2 treatment exhibited the highest pH values of 9.12 and 9.37, respectively. These values were 1.93%, 1.21%, 4.50%, and 1.38% higher than those of T1 and T3 treatments, respectively (p < 0.05) (Figure 3). Moreover, delayed phosphate drip irrigation did not affect the pH of the deeper soil layers. At the seedling stage (May 25 and May 29), the electrical conductivity of the 0–20 cm soil increased by 16.60% and 220.59% in the T1 treatment compared with the T2 and T3 treatments, respectively (Figure 4). Similarly, the electrical conductivity increased by 51.18% and 144.53% under T1 compared with T2 and T3, respectively. On August 14, the electrical conductivity of the 20–40 cm soil layer significantly differed among the various treatments. Notably, the T2 treatment had an electrical conductivity value of 1050.33, which was 62.17% and 47.11% higher than that of the T1 and T3 treatments, respectively. Overall, prolonged salt leaching reduced soil electrical conductivity.

3.3. Soil Total Salt Content

At the flowering–boll stage (July 26), each treatment had a significant impact on the total salt content of soil in the 0–20 cm soil layer, among which the total salt content of soil in the 0–20 cm soil layer treated by T3 was 0.027 mg/g (Figure 5). The increase was 10.81% and 215.38% compared with T1 and T2, respectively (p < 0.05). Each treatment on 26 July and 14 August had significant effects on the total salt content of the 40–60 cm soil layer. The total salt content of soil in the 40–60 cm soil layer under the T2 treatment was 0.037 mg/g and 0.065 mg/g, respectively, which increased by 109.43%, 122.00%, 25.57%, and 77.98% compared with the T1 and T3 treatments, respectively (p < 0.05).

3.4. Soil Olsen-P and Calcium–Phosphorus Component

At the seedling stage, each treatment had z significant influence on Olsen-P, in which the Olsen-P of T1 treatment was 13.35 mg/g, which was increased by 16.59% and 65.84% compared with the T2 and T3 treatments (p < 0.05) (Figure 6). The highest values of Ca10-P, Ca4-P, and Ca2-P with the T1 treatment were 459.09 mg/g, 124.21 mg/g, and 17.36 mg/g, respectively, which were increased by 1.53% and 4.76%, 48.97% and 125.16%, and 7.29% and 21.93% compared with the T2 and T3 treatments, respectively. But the differences were not significant.
At the bud stage, the Olsen-P of the T2 treatment was 21.43 mg/g, which was increased by 82.86% (p < 0.05) and 26.53% (p > 0.05) compared with the T1 and T3 treatments, respectively. The Ca4-P of the T1 treatment was 84.68 mg/g, which was increased by 363.69% (p < 0.05) and 285.73% (p < 0.05) compared with the T2 and T3 treatments, respectively. In the flowering–boll stage, the highest Olsen-P of the T2 treatment was 15.43 mg/g, which was 47.26% (p < 0.05) and 7.87% (p < 0.05) higher than that of the T1 and T3 treatments, respectively. In the boll opening stage, The effects of all treatments on soil phosphorus components were not significant.

3.5. Yield

All treatments had significant effects on yield, and the highest yield of the T2 treatment was 6492.09 kg/hm2, which was 31.47%, 31.53%, and 2.77% higher than that of the T1, T3, and CK treatments, respectively (p > 0.05) (Table 2). The single boll weight of the T1 treatment was 5.61 g, which was 4.08%, 0.54%, and 14.72% higher than that of the T2, T3, and CK treatments, respectively (p < 0.05). The single boll weight of the T2 treatment was increased by 10.22% compared with CK (p < 0.05).

4. Discussion

Some scholars believe that the treatment method of irrigating water before applying phosphorus fertilizer has the following effects on soil phosphorus. Irrigation increases the water content in soil pores, which increases the rate at which phosphate is dissolved into phosphate after application [32]. Phosphorus in soil mainly exists in adsorbed and precipitated states, but in a humid environment, part of the phosphate may be dissolved and moved to the roots, improving the phosphorus utilization efficiency of plants [33,34]. However, if irrigation is excessive, phosphorus may be lost due to runoff or deep leaching, resulting in a decrease in the available phosphorus content of the top soil [35]. This is consistent with the results of our study. At the seedling stage, flowering–boll stage, and boll opening stage, although the T3 treatment had the most delayed fertilization time, the soil available phosphorus content was significantly lower compared to T2. That is, a large amount of irrigation makes the soil pore water sufficient and reduces the capillary suction of the soil. When fertilizing, the fertilizer is only affected by gravity, resulting in the leaching of soil available phosphorus into deeper soil layers. Irrigation can dissolve a small amount of soil fixed phosphorus, but this effect is limited, which is also the main reason why the available phosphorus content of the T1 treatment was higher than that of the T3 treatment in the early stage, and why there was no difference between them in the later stages.
Some studies have reported that irrigation may change the pH of soil (especially saline–alkali land), thus affecting the availability of phosphorus [36,37]. For example, in neutral or slightly alkaline soils, the right amount of water may temporarily reduce soil pH and help increase the availability of phosphorus [38]. Our study found that delayed fertilization had no significant effect on soil pH, especially in the late growth stage.
After the application of phosphate fertilizer, some active surfaces in the soil (such as iron, aluminum oxides, or calcifiers) will adsorb phosphate ions. Irrigation can reduce the formation of high concentrations of phosphate in the area of fertilization, thus reducing the risk of rapid fixation of phosphorus [39]. However, if the content of iron and aluminum oxides in the soil is high, the wetting condition may accelerate the adsorption of phosphoric acid but reduce the availability of phosphorus [40]. This description is consistent with the results of our study in saline–alkali soil. At the bud stage, the T1 treatment significantly increased soil Ca4-P content. Irrigation can improve the dissolution conditions of phosphate fertilizer, make part of the phosphate enter the soil solution, and increase the available phosphorus content in the soil in a short time [41].
The accumulation of salt has an inhibitory effect on the flowering and boll setting of cotton [42]. Irrigation first to reduce the salt content in the surface layer is beneficial to the flowering and boll setting of cotton, ultimately increasing the boll cotton rate and the weight of a single boll, thereby increasing the yield [43]. This study found that the method of irrigation first and then fertilization increased the weight of a single cotton boll and the number of bolls, with the T2 and T3 treatments being the most effective. However, in terms of yield, the effect of the T3 treatment was not significant. This is because the soil in saline–alkali land is mostly loose in texture. When irrigation for leaching salt lasts too long, the available phosphorus is easily lost to the deep soil layer where the root system cannot absorb it, which may lead to insufficient nutrient supply in the later stages [44]. This was also verified in this study, as the content of available phosphorus in the soil of the T3 treatment decreased significantly, affecting the formation of cotton yield in the middle and later stages and ultimately resulting in the yield of the T3 treatment being lower than that of the control.
In saline–alkali soil, the dynamic changes in soil water and salt are complicated. Delayed phosphorus application can be applied after the water gradient is stabilized, reduce the risk of phosphorus being fixed, and improve the sustainable supply capacity of soil available phosphorus [45]. The process of irrigation first and then fertilization will dilute the salt in the soil solution and reduce the antagonistic effect of salt ions on phosphate fertilizer [46]. Delayed phosphorus application is helpful as it can play the role of a phosphorus fertilizer in a relatively stable saline environment [47]. This is consistent with the results of this study; that is, delayed fertilization reduced soil electrical conductivity (Figure 4) and salt content (Figure 5). Among the treatments, the T2 treatment had the most obvious effect on reducing salt (7–26). It can be seen that the suitable delay of phosphorus fertilizer input time can improve the available phosphorus content of soil, but if the time is less, it will cause phosphorus consolidation.

5. Conclusions

Phosphorus is vital for crop growth but its availability is severely limited in saline–alkali soils due to the formation of insoluble calcium phosphate. This study showed that delayed phosphorus dripping significantly improves cotton growth during the early growth stage, enhancing plant height and SPAD. It effectively reduces the total salt content and electrical conductivity of the soil surface while increasing the soil available phosphorus content in the root zone.
Among the treatments, the T2 treatment showed the best performance, increasing the soil available phosphorus content and cotton yield, making it a suitable strategy for saline–alkali soils. However, improper irrigation timing may lead to challenges such as phosphorus fixation or leaching, which can impact crop yields. While this study provides practical insights into irrigation management and phosphorus utilization in saline–alkali soils, further investigations are needed to validate these findings under varied environmental conditions and explore their applicability to other crops.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy15010138/s1: Figure S1: Daily rainfall and daily average temperature in the planting areas for 2022; Table S1: Irrigation and fertilization timing and the ratio of water to fertilizer in the application.

Author Contributions

X.B.: Writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. X.X.: Resources, data interpretation, writing—original draft preparation. C.W.: writing—original draft, software. M.L.: data curation, study design, data collection, data analysis, writing—review and editing. Y.X.: writing—review and editing, funding acquisition, resources. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Project of Key research and development project of Xinjiang Autonomous Region (2022B02020) and the Major science and technology projects of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (2022A02003-2).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the editors and all of the reviewers for their constructive comments on the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Yu, X.; Lei, J.; Gao, X. An over review of desertification in Xinjiang, Northwest China. J. Arid. Land. 2022, 14, 1181–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhuang, Q.; Shao, Z.; Huang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, W.; Feng, X.; Altan, O. Evolution of soil salinization under the background of landscape patterns in the irrigated northern slopes of Tianshan Mountains, Xinjiang, China. Catena 2021, 206, 105561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tessema, N.; Yadeta, D.; Kebede, A.; Ayele, G.T. Soil and irrigation water salinity, and its consequences for agriculture in Ethiopia: A systematic review. Agriculture. 2022, 13, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dey, G.; Banerjee, P.; Sharma, R.K.; Maity, J.P.; Etesami, H.; Shaw, A.K.; Chen, C.Y. Management of phosphorus in salinity-stressed agriculture for sustainable crop production by salt-tolerant phosphate-solubilizing bacteria—A review. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Adnan, M.; Fahad, S.; Zamin, M.; Shah, S.; Mian, I.A.; Danish, S.; Datta, R. Coupling phosphate-solubilizing bacteria with phosphorus supplements improve maize phosphorus acquisition and growth under lime induced salinity stress. Plants 2020, 9, 900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Hallama, M.; Pekrun, C.; Lambers, H.; Kandeler, E. Hidden miners—The roles of cover crops and soil microorganisms in phosphorus cycling through agroecosystems. Plant Soil 2019, 434, 7–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhao, T.L.; Li, H.; Huang, Y.R.; Yao, Q.Z.; Huang, Y.; Zhou, G.T. Microbial mineralization of struvite: Salinity effect and its implication for phosphorus removal and recovery. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 358, 1324–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Machado RM, A.; Serralheiro, R.P. Soil salinity: Effect on vegetable crop growth. Management practices to prevent and mitigate soil salinization. Horticulturae 2017, 3, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Khan, F.; Siddique, A.B.; Shabala, S.; Zhou, M.; Zhao, C. Phosphorus plays key roles in regulating plants’ physiological responses to abiotic stresses. Plants 2023, 12, 2861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Frazier, R.M.; Vivas, K.A.; Azuaje, I.; Vera, R.; Pifano, A.; Forfora, N.; Gonzalez, R. Beyond Cotton and Polyester: An Evaluation of Emerging Feedstocks and Conversion Methods for the Future of Fashion Industry. J. Bioresour. Bioprod. 2024, 9, 130–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhao, S.; Ayoubi, S.; Mousavi, S.R.; Mireei, S.A.; Shahpouri, F.; Wu, S.X.; Tian, C.Y. Integrating proximal soil sensing data and environmental variables to enhance the prediction accuracy for soil salinity and sodicity in a region of Xinjiang Province, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 364, 121311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Zhang, J.; Wang, Q.; Xia, G.; Wu, Q.; Chi, D. Continuous regulated deficit irrigation enhances peanut water use efficiency and drought resistance. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 255, 106997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhang, J.; Liu, X.; Wu, Q.; Qiu, Y.; Chi, D.; Xia, G.; Arthur, E. Mulched drip irrigation and maize straw biochar increase peanut yield by regulating soil nitrogen, photosynthesis and root in arid regions. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 289, 108565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhou, J.; Xu, H.; Xiang, Y.; Wu, J. Effects of microplastics pollution on plant and soil phosphorus: A meta-analysis. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 461, 132705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, X.X.; Liu, S.; Zhang, S.; Li, H.; Maimaitiaili, B.; Feng, G.; Rengel, Z. Localized ammonium and phosphorus fertilization can improve cotton lint yield by decreasing rhizosphere soil pH and salinity. Field Crop Res. 2018, 217, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cheng, Y.; Luo, M.; Zhang, T.; Yan, S.; Wang, C.; Feng, H.; Kisekka, I. Organic substitution improves soil structure and water and nitrogen status to promote sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) growth in an arid saline area. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 283, 108320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liu, J.; Li, F.Y.; Liu, J.; Wang, S.; Liu, H.; Ding, Y.; Ji, L. Grazing promotes soil phosphorus cycling by enhancing soil microbial functional genes for phosphorus transformation in plant rhizosphere in a semi-arid natural grassland. Geoderma 2023, 430, 116303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Qu, Z.; Chen, Q.; Yin, S.; Feng, H.; Liu, Y.; Li, C. Effects of drip irrigation coupled with controlled release potassium fertilizer on maize growth and soil properties. Agric. Water Manag. 2024, 301, 108948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Feng, Z.; Miao, Q.; Shi, H.; Li, X.; Yan, J.; Gonçalves, J.M.; Feng, W. Irrigation scheduling in sand-layered farmland: Evaluation of water and salinity dynamics in the soil by SALTMED-1D model under mulched maize production in Hetao Irrigation District, China. Eur. J. Agron. 2024, 157, 127177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jamalimoghadam, M.; Vakili, A.H.; Keskin, I.; Totonchi, A.; Bahmyari, H. Solidification and utilization of municipal solid waste incineration ashes: Advancements in alkali-activated materials and stabilization techniques, a review. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 367, 122014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Xu, Z.; Chen, D.; Duan, X.; Chen, Y.; Li, C.; Li, S.; Pan, X. Collaboratively removal of phosphate and glyphosate from wastewater by a macroscopic Zr-SA/Ce-UIO-66 adsorbent: Performance, mechanisms and applicability. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 136786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Santoro, V.; Schiavon, M.; Celi, L. Role of soil abiotic processes on phosphorus availability and plant responses with a focus on strigolactones in tomato plants. Plant Soil 2024, 494, 1–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hakami, R.A.; Naser, R.S.; El-Bakkali, M.; Othman MD, M.; Yahya, M.S.; Raweh, S.; Belghyti, D. Groundwater quality deterioration evaluation for irrigation using several indices and geographic information systems: A case study. Desalin Water Treat. 2024, 320, 100645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bouras, H.; Mamassi, A.; Devkota, K.P.; Choukr-Allah, R.; Bouazzama, B. Integrated effect of saline water irrigation and phosphorus fertilization practices on wheat (Triticum aestivum) growth, productivity, nutrient content and soil proprieties under dryland farming. Plant Stress 2023, 10, 100295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Riseh, R.S.; Vatankhah, M.; Hassanisaadi, M.; Varma, R.S. A review of chitosan nanoparticles: Nature’s gift for transforming agriculture through smart and effective delivery mechanisms. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024, 129522. [Google Scholar]
  26. He, Z.; Cao, H.; Xing, X.; Hu, Q.; Li, Z. Optimization of leaching level and alternating drip irrigation start time improved water saving, yield enhancement, and salt leaching. Ind. Crop Prod. 2024, 222, 119537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mishra, A.K.; Das, R.; George Kerry, R.; Biswal, B.; Sinha, T.; Sharma, S.; Kumar, M. Promising management strategies to improve crop sustainability and to amend soil salinity. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 10, 962581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shekhar, S.; Mailapalli, D.R.; Raghuwanshi, N.S.; Pohshna, C. Hydrus-1D model for simulating phosphorus transport in paddy crop irrigated with alternate wetting and drying practice. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2024, 55, 57–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, F.; Chen, M.; Fu, J.; Zhang, X.; Li, Y.; Shao, Y.; Wang, X. Coupling effects of irrigation amount and fertilization rate on yield, quality, water and fertilizer use efficiency of different potato varieties in Northwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 287, 108446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ding, J.L.; Wu, M.C.; Tiyip, T. Study on soil salinization information in arid region using remote sensing technique. Agric. Sci. China 2011, 10, 404–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shenoy, M.; Raju PV, S.; Prasad, J. Optimization of physical schemes in WRF model on cyclone simulations over Bay of Bengal using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 24412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sigua, G.C.; Stone, K.C.; Bauer, P.J.; Szogi, A.A.; Shumaker, P.D. Impacts of irrigation scheduling on pore water nitrate and phosphate in coastal plain region of the United States. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 186, 75–85. [Google Scholar]
  33. Azam, H.M.; Alam, S.T.; Hasan, M.; Yameogo DD, S.; Kannan, A.D.; Rahman, A.; Kwon, M.J. Phosphorous in the environment: Characteristics with distribution and effects, removal mechanisms, treatment technologies, and factors affecting recovery as minerals in natural and engineered systems. Environ. Sci. Pollut. 2019, 26, 20183–20207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bindraban, P.S.; Dimkpa, C.O.; Pandey, R. Exploring phosphorus fertilizers and fertilization strategies for improved human and environmental health. Biol. Fert. Soils. 2020, 56, 299–317. [Google Scholar]
  35. McDowell, R.W.; Gray, C.W.; Cameron, K.C.; Di, H.J.; Pellow, R. The efficacy of good practice to prevent long-term leaching losses of phosphorus from an irrigated dairy farm. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 273, 86–94. [Google Scholar]
  36. Li, X.; Che, W.; Piao, J.; Song, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Xi, F. Biochar Increases Rice Yield in Soda Saline-Alkali Paddy Fields by Improving Saline-Alkali Stress and Phosphorus Use Efficiency. Agronomy 2024, 14, 2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Minhas, P.S.; Sharma, O.P. Management of soil salinity and alkalinity problems in India. J. Crop Prod. 2003, 7, 181–230. [Google Scholar]
  38. Andersson, K.O.; Tighe, M.K.; Guppy, C.N.; Milham, P.J.; McLaren, T.I. The release of phosphorus in alkaline vertic soils as influenced by pH and by anion and cation sinks. Geoderma 2016, 264, 17–27. [Google Scholar]
  39. Wang, S.; Guo, S.; Zhai, L.; Hua, L.; Khoshnevisan, B.; Wang, H.; Liu, H. Comprehensive effects of integrated management on reducing nitrogen and phosphorus loss under legume-rice rotations. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 361, 132031. [Google Scholar]
  40. Fetzer, J.; Moiseev, P.; Frossard, E.; Kaiser, K.; Mayer, M.; Gavazov, K.; Hagedorn, F. Plant–soil interactions alter nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics in an advancing subarctic treeline. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2024, 30, e17200. [Google Scholar]
  41. Guelfi, D.; Nunes AP, P.; Sarkis, L.F.; Oliveira, D.P. Innovative phosphate fertilizer technologies to improve phosphorus use efficiency in agriculture. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhang, D.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, L.; Dai, J.; Dong, H. Mitigating salinity stress and improving cotton productivity with agronomic practices. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ren, F.; Yang, G.; Li, W.; He, X.; Gao, Y.; Tian, L.; Liu, S. Yield-compatible salinity level for growing cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) under mulched drip irrigation using saline water. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 250, 106859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Che, Z.; Wang, J.; Li, J. Modeling strategies to balance salt leaching and nitrogen loss for drip irrigation with saline water in arid regions. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 274, 107943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Menezes-Blackburn, D.; Giles, C.; Darch, T.; George, T.S.; Blackwell, M.; Stutter, M.; Haygarth, P.M. Opportunities for mobilizing recalcitrant phosphorus from agricultural soils: A review. Plant Soil 2018, 427, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hussain, Z.; Khattak, R.A.; Fareed, I.; Irshad, M.; Mahmood, Q. Interaction of phosphorus and potassium on maize (Zea mays L.) in saline-sodic soil. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 7, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Singh, S.; Singh, V. Nutrient management in salt affected soils for sustainable crop production. Ann. Plant Soil Res. 2022, 24, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 15 00138 g001
Figure 1. Effects of different treatments at different growth stages on leaf SPAD (a) and plant height (b) of cotton. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments at 0.05 level. * indicates significant differences between treatments at 0.05 level. ns means not significant.
Figure 1. Effects of different treatments at different growth stages on leaf SPAD (a) and plant height (b) of cotton. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments at 0.05 level. * indicates significant differences between treatments at 0.05 level. ns means not significant.
Agronomy 15 00138 g001
Agronomy 15 00138 g002
Figure 2. Effects of different treatments on different dates on soil moisture content. ns means not significant.
Figure 2. Effects of different treatments on different dates on soil moisture content. ns means not significant.
Agronomy 15 00138 g002
Agronomy 15 00138 g003
Figure 3. Effects of different treatments on different dates on soil pH. * indicates significant differences between treatments at 0.05 level. ns means not significant.
Figure 3. Effects of different treatments on different dates on soil pH. * indicates significant differences between treatments at 0.05 level. ns means not significant.
Agronomy 15 00138 g003
Agronomy 15 00138 g004
Figure 4. Effects of different treatments on different dates on soil electrical conductivity. * indicates significant differences between treatments at 0.05 level. ns means not significant.
Figure 4. Effects of different treatments on different dates on soil electrical conductivity. * indicates significant differences between treatments at 0.05 level. ns means not significant.
Agronomy 15 00138 g004
Agronomy 15 00138 g005
Figure 5. Effects of different treatments on different dates on soil total salt. * indicates significant differences between treatments at 0.05 level. ns means not significant.
Figure 5. Effects of different treatments on different dates on soil total salt. * indicates significant differences between treatments at 0.05 level. ns means not significant.
Agronomy 15 00138 g005
Agronomy 15 00138 g006
Figure 6. The content of calcium- and phosphorus-related components and soil available phosphorus content at each growth stage. (i) The seedling stage; (ii) the bud stage; (iii) the flowering–boll stage; (iiii) the boll opening stage. Different letters are significantly different at the p < 0.05 level.
Figure 6. The content of calcium- and phosphorus-related components and soil available phosphorus content at each growth stage. (i) The seedling stage; (ii) the bud stage; (iii) the flowering–boll stage; (iiii) the boll opening stage. Different letters are significantly different at the p < 0.05 level.
Agronomy 15 00138 g006
Table 1. Field experiment design for phosphorus fertilizer drip application timing.
Table 1. Field experiment design for phosphorus fertilizer drip application timing.
TreatmentsFertilization Timing (One Irrigation Cycle Is t)
T11 h
T21 h + 1/3 t h
T31 h + 2/3 t h
CKLocal fertilization pattern, 1/3 t h.
Table 2. Effect of delayed phosphate fertilizer drip time on cotton yield and yield components.
Table 2. Effect of delayed phosphate fertilizer drip time on cotton yield and yield components.
TreatmentsYield
kg/hm2		Single Boll Weight
g		Number of Bolls Per Plant
T14938.24 ± 270.80 b5.61 ± 0.15 a8.43 ± 1.42 a
T26492.09 ± 173.85 a5.39 ± 0.30 ab9.98 ± 1.73 a
T34935.79 ± 278.08 b5.58 ± 0.22 a8.50 ± 1.42 a
CK6316.80 ± 278.43 a4.89 ± 0.46 b7.99 ± 0.42 a
Different letters in the same column indicate a significant difference at the p < 0.05 level.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bu, X.; Xie, X.; Wu, C.; Liu, M.; Xu, Y. Optimizing Phosphatic Fertilizer Drip Timing to Improve Cotton Yield in Saline–Alkali Soil and Mitigate Phosphorus–Calcium Binding Risks. Agronomy 2025, 15, 138. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15010138

AMA Style

Bu X, Xie X, Wu C, Liu M, Xu Y. Optimizing Phosphatic Fertilizer Drip Timing to Improve Cotton Yield in Saline–Alkali Soil and Mitigate Phosphorus–Calcium Binding Risks. Agronomy. 2025; 15(1):138. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15010138

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bu, Xiangxi, Xiangwen Xie, Changxue Wu, Manqi Liu, and Yongmei Xu. 2025. "Optimizing Phosphatic Fertilizer Drip Timing to Improve Cotton Yield in Saline–Alkali Soil and Mitigate Phosphorus–Calcium Binding Risks" Agronomy 15, no. 1: 138. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15010138

APA Style

Bu, X., Xie, X., Wu, C., Liu, M., & Xu, Y. (2025). Optimizing Phosphatic Fertilizer Drip Timing to Improve Cotton Yield in Saline–Alkali Soil and Mitigate Phosphorus–Calcium Binding Risks. Agronomy, 15(1), 138. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15010138

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop