Abstract
Low photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) during certain growth periods of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) has been shown to impact yield, ethylene synthesis, and fiber quality. Previous research with shading has shown that lint yield can be significantly reduced in the latter stages of growth. This two-year field study was conducted at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research Farm in Burleson County, Texas, in 2008 and 2009. The study evaluated the impact of an 8-day period of shade (63 percent reduction of PPFD) on cotton yield parameters, fiber quality, and the impact of 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP), an ethylene inhibitor, to alter detrimental cotton responses when applied as a foliar spray under shaded and non-shaded conditions. Shade and 1-MCP were imposed at four developmental stages of growth: pinhead square (PHS), first flower (FF), peak flower (PF), and boll development (BD). Data pooled over both years indicated that there were no significant differences in yield for 1-MCP treatments; however, numerical differences existed. Shade applied during the BD stage of development showed significantly lower yield than the untreated control. These results showed a decline in seed cotton and ginned seed cotton by 522 and 207 kg ha-1, respectively. To further analyze further yield components, box-mapping was conducted during both years. However, this data failed to explain consistent patterns of the observed yield responses. Data was also collected to determine the amount of fibers per seed and seed weights. Cotton fiber data did not show consistent correlations with the numerical increases and significant decreases in yield. Electrolyte leakage and stomatal conductance data also were collected. Electrolyte leakage showed no statistical differences when compared to the untreated control. Stomatal conductance measurements showed no consistency for treatments during both years.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
1-MCP treatments showed no significant yield difference.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- 1-MCP treatmentse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Data pooled over both years indicated that there were no significant differences in yield for 1-MCP treatments; however, numerical differences existed.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Shade during boll development reduced seed cotton yield by 522 kg ha-1 relative to untreated control.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Organ / stage
- BD stage of developmente0
- Treatment
- Shade applied during the BD stage of developmente0
- Outcome
- seed cottone0
- Direction
- declinee0
- Value
- 522e0
- Comparator
- untreated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shade applied during the BD stage of development showed significantly lower yield than the untreated control. These results showed a decline in seed cotton and ginned seed cotton by 522 and 207 kg ha-1, respectively.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Shade during boll development reduced ginned seed cotton yield by 207 kg ha-1 relative to untreated control.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Organ / stage
- BD stage of developmente0
- Treatment
- Shade applied during the BD stage of developmente0
- Outcome
- ginned seed cottone0
- Direction
- declinee0
- Value
- 207 kg ha-1e0
- Comparator
- untreated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shade applied during the BD stage of development showed significantly lower yield than the untreated control. These results showed a decline in seed cotton and ginned seed cotton by 522 and 207 kg ha-1, respectively.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Box mapping did not explain consistent patterns of yield response.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- failed to explain consistent patterns of the observed yield responsese0
- Comparator
- observed yield responsese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, this data failed to explain consistent patterns of the observed yield responses.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton fiber data did not consistently correlate with observed yield changes.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Organ / stage
- fibere0
- Outcome
- consistent correlations with the numerical increases and significant decreases in yielde0
- Direction
- did not showe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton fiber data did not show consistent correlations with the numerical increases and significant decreases in yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
Electrolyte leakage did not differ statistically from untreated control.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Shade and 1-MCPe1
- Outcome
- Electrolyte leakagee0
- Direction
- no statistical differencese0
- Comparator
- untreated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Electrolyte leakage showed no statistical differences when compared to the untreated control.”
t0“Cotton”
e1“Shade and 1-MCP were imposed at four developmental stages of growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Stomatal conductance responses were inconsistent across treatments and years.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- Stomatal conductance measurementse0
- Qualifier
- no consistency for treatments during both yearse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Stomatal conductance measurements showed no consistency for treatments during both years.”
t0“Cotton”
The same questions in other papers
1-methylcyclopropene · physiology: oxidative · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →1-methylcyclopropene · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →shade · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- negative
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.