Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 17;11:562335. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.562335

Table 2.

Potassium uptake, potassium agronomy efficiency (KAE), and potassium recovery efficiency (KRE) of cotton plants after harvesting in 2019.

Treatment Potassium uptake KAE KRE
(kg ha−1) (kg kg−1) (%)
Potassium fertilizer type
CRK 247.0 a 13.0 a 34.3 a
KS 227.8 b 11.1 b 31.9 b
FA rate (kg ha−1)
90 230.7 b 11.4 b 32.4 b
180 248.2 a 12.6 a 34.0 a
270 233.3 b 11.8 b 32.8 b
Potassium fertilizer type × FA rate interaction
Control 181.6 d
CRK × FA90 238.7 b 12.5 b 33.5 b
CRK × FA180 260.0 a 13.6 a 35.3 a
CRK × FA270 242.6 b 12.8 b 34.0 b
KS × FA90 222.2 c 10.4 d 31.3 d
KS × FA180 236.1 b 11.6 c 32.6 c
KS × FA270 224.5 c 10.8 d 31.6 d
Source of variance
Potassium fertilizer type <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
FA rate <0.0001 0.0006 0.0002
Potassium fertilizer type × FA rate 0.1062 0.9636 0.5871

Means followed by different lowercase letters in the same column were significantly different based on analyses by ANOVA followed by Duncan’s test (p < 0.05). Control, no potassium fertilizer; CRK, polymer-coated potassium chloride; and KS, sulfate potassium.