Paper · 2014 · American Journal of Plant Sciences

Effect of 1-MCP on Cotton Plants under Abiotic Stress Caused by Ethephon

Yuan Chen; J. T. Cothren; Dehua Chen; et al.

9
claims
18
verbatim quotes
8
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Many environmental stress factors have been identified to increase square and boll abscission and thus result in reduced cotton yield. Under stress conditions, ethylene is elicited. Ethylene peaks before abscission to promote the formation of the abscission layer and plays a major role in early season square and boll abortion in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). In addition, ethylene stimulates the leaf senescence process. Thus, it is desirable to protect plants from ethylene-induced fruit loss and premature leaf senescence under stress conditions. The objective of this study was to evaluate the ability of 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) to protect cotton plants against abiotic stress caused by ethephon (ethylene promoting effect). Field studies using a randomized complete block design with four replications were conducted in 2010 and 2011 at Texas A&M AgriLIFE Research Farm in Burleson County, TX. Eight treatments that consisted of two 1-MCP rates (0 and 10 g a.i. ha-1) in combination with four ethephon rates (0, 146, 292, 438 mL&middotha-1) were imposed at the first flower (FF) stage of the development. 1-MCP increased plant height and number of main stem nodes in both years. In addition, 1-MCP-treated plants exhibited greater membrane integrity and increased photosystem II quantum efficiency and thus delayed senescence in both years. These potentials for yield increase were realized in 2011 with 1-MCP treatment exhibiting a higher lint yield. In 2012, although 1-MCP treatment increased number of open fruit and open fruit weight per plant significantly, no significant lint yield increase was detected.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

1-MCP increased cotton plant height in both years.

Treatment
1-MCPe0
Outcome
plant heighte0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“1-MCP increased plant height and number of main stem nodes in both years.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1118–1191 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–32 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

1-MCP increased the number of main stem nodes in both years.

Treatment
1-MCPe0
Outcome
number of main stem nodese0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“1-MCP increased plant height and number of main stem nodes in both years.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1118–1191 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–32 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

1-MCP-treated plants had greater membrane integrity.

Treatment
1-MCP-treatede0
Outcome
membrane integritye0
Direction
greatere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“1-MCP-treated plants exhibited greater membrane integrity and increased photosystem II quantum efficiency and thus delayed senescence in both years.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1205–1353 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–32 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

1-MCP-treated plants had increased photosystem II quantum efficiency.

Treatment
1-MCP-treatede0
Outcome
photosystem II quantum efficiencye0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“1-MCP-treated plants exhibited greater membrane integrity and increased photosystem II quantum efficiency and thus delayed senescence in both years.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1205–1353 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–32 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

1-MCP delayed senescence in both years.

Treatment
1-MCP-treatede0
Outcome
senescencee0
Direction
delayede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“1-MCP-treated plants exhibited greater membrane integrity and increased photosystem II quantum efficiency and thus delayed senescence in both years.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1205–1353 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–32 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

1-MCP treatment gave higher lint yield in 2011.

Treatment
1-MCP treatmente0
Outcome
lint yielde0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
2011e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“These potentials for yield increase were realized in 2011 with 1-MCP treatment exhibiting a higher lint yield.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1354–1464 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–32 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

1-MCP increased open fruit number in 2012.

Treatment
1-MCP treatmente0
Outcome
number of open fruite0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
2012e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In 2012, although 1-MCP treatment increased number of open fruit and open fruit weight per plant significantly, no significant lint yield increase was detected.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1465–1625 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–32 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

1-MCP increased open fruit weight per plant in 2012.

Treatment
1-MCP treatmente0
Outcome
open fruit weight per plante0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
2012e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In 2012, although 1-MCP treatment increased number of open fruit and open fruit weight per plant significantly, no significant lint yield increase was detected.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1465–1625 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–32 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

1-MCP did not produce a statistically significant lint yield increase in 2012.

Treatment
1-MCP treatmente0
Outcome
lint yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Qualifier
2012e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In 2012, although 1-MCP treatment increased number of open fruit and open fruit weight per plant significantly, no significant lint yield increase was detected.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1465–1625 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–32 · show in text ↑

1-methylcyclopropene · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

6 papers: 3 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

1-methylcyclopropene · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

13 papers: 11 positive, 2 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

1-methylcyclopropene · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

1-methylcyclopropene · physiology: photosynthesis · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 8 positive, 2 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

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.