Paper · 2014 · AoB Plants

Predicting the effects of environment and management on cotton fibre growth and quality: a functional–structural plant modelling approach

Xuejiao Wang; Lizhen Zhang; Jochem B. Evers; et al.

6
claims
14
verbatim quotes
23
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

In general, the quality of fruits depends on local conditions experienced by the fruit during its development. In cotton, fruit quality, and more specifically the quality of the fibre in the fruit, depends on interactions between fruit position in the plant architecture, temperature and agronomic practices, such as sowing time, mulching with plastic film and topping of the plant's main stem and branches. To quantify this response of cotton fibre quality to environment and management, we developed a simulation model of cotton growth and development, CottonXL. Simulation of cotton fibre quality (strength, length and micronaire) was implemented at the level of each individual fruit, in relation to thermal time (represented by physiological age of the fruit) and prevailing temperature during development of each fruit. Field experiments were conducted in China in 2007 to determine model parameters, and independent data on cotton fibre quality in three cotton producing regions in China were used for model validation. Simulated values for fibre quality closely corresponded to experimental data. Scenario studies simulating a range of management practices predicted that delaying topping times can significantly decrease fibre quality, while sowing date and film mulching had no significant effect. We conclude that CottonXL may be used to explore options for optimizing cotton fibre quality by matching cotton management to the environment, taking into account responses at the level of individual fruits. The model may be used at plant, crop and regional levels to address climate and land-use change scenarios.

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 6

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Simulated cotton fibre quality closely matched independent experimental observations.

Outcome
fibre qualitye0
Comparator
experimental datae0

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

“Simulated values for fibre quality closely corresponded to experimental data”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1027–1103 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)simulated

Claim · model-written summary

Model scenarios predicted significantly decreased fibre quality with delayed topping.

Treatment
delaying topping timese0
Outcome
fibre qualitye0
Direction
decreasee0

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

“delaying topping times can significantly decrease fibre quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1180–1243 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)simulated

Claim · model-written summary

Simulated sowing date changes had no significant effect on fibre quality.

Treatment
sowing datee0
Outcome
fibre qualitye1
Direction
no significant effecte0

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

“sowing date and film mulching had no significant effect”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1251–1306 · show in text ↑
e1

“decrease fibre quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1221–1243 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)simulated

Claim · model-written summary

Simulated film mulching had no significant effect on fibre quality.

Treatment
film mulchinge0
Outcome
fibre qualitye1
Direction
no significant effecte0

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

“sowing date and film mulching had no significant effect”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1251–1306 · show in text ↑
e1

“decrease fibre quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1221–1243 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–62 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors conclude CottonXL can guide cotton management to optimize fibre quality for the environment.

Outcome
optimizing cotton fibre quality by matching cotton management to the environmente0

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

“CottonXL may be used to explore options for optimizing cotton fibre quality by matching cotton management to the environment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1325–1449 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–62 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The model may be applied at plant, crop and regional levels to climate and land-use scenarios.

Outcome
address climate and land-use change scenariose0
Comparator
plant, crop and regional levelse0

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

“The model may be used at plant, crop and regional levels to address climate and land-use change scenarios”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1516–1621 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–62 · show in text ↑

mulching · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 10 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

pruning · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

31 papers: 15 positive, 16 negative or no effect

15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    Defoliation at 60 percent open bolls gave up to 29% more lint yield than NAWF 5 plus 472 heat units.

    Indicators of Last Effective Boll Population and Harvest Aid Timing in Cotton · 2008 · compared with defoliation based on the current benchmark of NAWF = 5 plus 472 HUs

    Opposite directionCited by this paper

  2. positive
  3. positive

27 papers more in this group

See all 31 papers →

sowing time · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

39 papers: 23 positive, 16 negative or no effect

15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

35 papers more in this group

See all 39 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.