Growth of cotton irrigated with wastewater and under organic fertilization

Guedes, Wellinghton A.; Nobre, Reginaldo G.; Oliveira, Francisco É. R. de; Ferreira, Fagner N.; Brasil, Rosemary F.; Lima, Taysa D. F. de; Mota, Paulo J.; Constante, Darcio C.

doi:10.1590/1983-21252025v3812808rc

home Sumário navigate_before Anterior Atual Seguinte navigate_next

home Sumário

Scientific Article • Rev. Caatinga 38 • 2025 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21252025v3812808rc linkcopy

Growth of cotton irrigated with wastewater and under organic fertilization

Crescimento do algodoeiro irrigado com água residual e adubação orgânica

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The objective of this work was to determine the potential use of fish farming effluent associated with organic fertilization for the growth of ‘BRS 416’ cotton. The experiment was carried out in a greenhouse at the Center for Agrarian Sciences of the Federal Rural University of the Semi-Arid Region (UFERSA), Mossoró, RN, Brazil, in a randomized block design, with a 5 × 5 factorial scheme and four replicates. Treatments included mixtures of fish farming effluent and public-supply water (0, 25, 50, 75, and 100% effluent) and five concentrations of goat manure (0, 5, 10, 15, and 20% based on soil volume). Plant height, stem diameter, number of leaves, root length, leaf area, leaf dry mass, root dry mass, stem dry mass and total dry mass were evaluated. The use of substrate with 20% goat manure irrigated with dilution D4 (75% FFE and 25% PSW) favored the performance of the variables PH, SD, NL, RL, LA, LDM, RDM, SDM and TDM of ‘BRS 416’ cotton plants. Reuse of the fish farming effluent D5 (100% FFE), with electrical conductivity of 3.59 dS m^-1, is an alternative that favors the growth and biomass production of ‘BRS 416’ cotton plants.

Keywords:
Gossypium hirsutum L; Water reuse; Goat manure; Fish farming; ‘BRS 416’.

pH		EC	P	N	K⁺ Na⁺ Ca⁺ Mg⁺ Al³ SB t							OM
CaCl₂		dS m^-1	mg/dm³	%	-------------------------------- cmol_c dm^-3 --------------------------------							g kg^-1
Soil	7.40	0.92	12.40	7	1.70	0.08	10.80	2.15	0.00	14.65	14.65	3
Manure	6.47	1.09	98.00	98	3.82	3.00	4.52	2.63	0.00	12.51	10.97	40

Identification	PH (water)	EC (dS m¹)	K⁺	Na⁺	Ca⁺	Mg⁺ - mmol_c L^-1 -	C1	CO₃^2-	SAR
PSW	8.40	0.58	0.36	4.15	0.80	1.10	4.00	5.50	4.3
FFE	7.70	3.59	0.71	16.65	16.90	9.70	22.60	5.80	4.6

Effluent dilutions	pH	EC (dS m^-1)
D1	7.90	0.58
D2	7.78	1.40
D3	7.65	2.10
D4	7.58	2.80
D5	7.55	3.59

Sources of variation	DF	Mean squares
Sources of variation	DF	PH	SD	NL	LA
Manure (M)	4	227.59^**	2.88	18.58	117597.78^**
Linear regression	1	366.09^**	^** 8.44	** 34.86	339101.41^**
Quadratic regression	1	4.50*	0.08ns	** 15.79	37133.95^**
Effluent (E)	4	26.86*	0.07ns	0.99ns	2643.47ns
MxE	16	^** 17.90	** 0.19	0.49ns	5102.79^**
Block	3	6.41ns	0.04ns	2.30*	26.17“
Residual	72	7.61	0.08	0.58	1420.31
CV (%)	-	10.73	8.64	13.48	20.65
Overall mean	-	25.72	3.40	5.69	182.48
Treatments				Mean ± standard error
Treatments		PH (cm)	SD (mm)	NL	LA (cm²)
D1 (0%)		24. 40 ± 0.86 b	3.32 ±0.12 a	5.45 ±0.25 a	182.08 ± 21.19 a
D2 (25%)		24.59 ± 0.90 ab	3.35 ±0.09 a	5.52 ±0.24 a	168.28 ± 17.76 a
D3 (50%)		26.17 ± 0.16 ab	3.40 ±0.10 a	5.90 ±0.23 a	190.62 ± 18.24 a
D4 (75%)		26.93 ±0.88 a	3.46 ±0.08 a	5.95 ±0.32 a	173.86 ± 16.42 a
D5 (100%)		26.54 ± 0.96 ab	3.46 ±0.11 a	6.65 ±0.24 a	196.09 ± 19.49 a

Sources of variation	DF	Mean squares
Sources of variation	DF	LDM	SDM	RDM	TDM	RL
Manure (M)	4	3.087^**	0.277^**	0.139^**	6.87^**	23.15*
Linear regression	1	0.028ns	0.690^**	0.449^**	20.53^**	0.20ns
Quadratic regression	1	0.339^**	0.072^**	0.026^**	0.0 lns	78.93^**
Effluent (E)	4	0.005ns	0.058^**	0.034^**	0.32^**	67.84ns
MxE	16	0.339^**	0.077^**	0.009^**	0.53^**	30.79^**
Block	3	0.005	0.001ns	0.001ns	0.02ns	2.47ns
Residual	72	0.033	0.001	0.001	0.04	8.77
CV (%)	-	18.48	8.36	9.46	12.32	12.10
Overall Mean	-	0.98	0.52	0.27	1.77	24.48
Treatments				Mean ± standard error
Treatments		ldm (g)	SDM (g)	RDM (g)	TDM (g)	RL (cm)
DI (0%)	1.00 ±0.12 a		0.60 ± 0.06 a	0.25 ± 0.02 c	1.78 ± 0.19 ab	26.45 ± 1.08 a
D2 (25%)	0.93 ±0.09 a		0.51 ±0.03 be	0.22 ±0.01 d	1.60 ± 0.12 d	24.33 ± 0.77 b
D3 (50%)	0.93 ±0.11 a		0.53 ± 0.02 b	0.24 ±0.01 cd	1.74 ±0.14 cd	21.48 ± 0.40 b
D4 (75%)	1.03 ±0.07 a		0.46 ± 0.02 d	0.32 ±0.02 a	1.95 ±0.11 a	25.02 ± 0.71b
D5 (100%)	0.99 ±0.09 a		0.49 ± 0.02 be	0.30 ± 0.01b	1.79 ± 0.12 ab	25.10 ± 0.87 b

vertical_align_top show_chart

more_horiz close
- image
- translate
- link
- article
- vertical_align_top
- file_download
- show_chart
- image
- translate
- link
- article

location_on

Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido Avenida Francisco Mota, número 572, Bairro Presidente Costa e Silva, Cep: 5962-5900, Telefone: 55 (84) 3317-8297 - Mossoró - RN - Brazil
E-mail: caatinga@ufersa.edu.br

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN1] ^*

[TFN2] ^*
,

[TFN3] ^*
and

[TFN4] ^ns
= Significant at 1% probability level, significant at 5% probability level, and not significant, respectively, according to the F test. Means followed by the same letters in the column do not differ from each other by Tukey test at 5% probability level. Dilutions of fish farming effluent (FFE) in public-supply water (PSW): D1 - 0% FFE; D2 - 25% FFE e 75% PSW; D3 - 50% FFE e 50% PSW; D4 - 75% FFE e 25% PSW; D5 - 100% FFE.