Abstract
in Australia, periodic waterlogging throughout the cotton growing season can cause production losses of up to 10%. There is limited information on the genetic variation in cotton for waterlogging tolerance. The aim of this study was to identify methods to evaluate physiological responses under waterlogging conditions that may lead to identifying waterlogging tolerant and sensitive cotton cultivars. A field experiment was conducted in n arrabri, north-western n ew South Wales using thirteen upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum l.) cultivars (georgia King, mcnair 1032, PD93057, lA 887, Codetec 401, DP 16, DP 90, Coker 315, C im 443, gohar 87, Sicot 71, Sicot 73 and Sicot 80) and one Gossypium barbadense cultivar (Pima A-8) originating from diverse environmental regions. Parameters measured to assess response to waterlogging included: SPAD (leaf colour) readings, leaf nutritional status, leaf photosynthetic rate, plant and root morphology, and final yield. Leaf SPAD readings, nitrogen and potassium concentrations were reduced in waterlogged treatments compared to the respective controls, and varied with cultivar. leaf phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, manganese and sulphur concentrations were reduced in the waterlogged treatment compared to the respective controls in all cultivars. Waterlogging increased leaf total iron concentration in all cultivars. no
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging reduced cotton leaf SPAD readings, nitrogen and potassium concentrations, with cultivar variation.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- waterlogged treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Leaf SPAD readings, nitrogen and potassium concentrationse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- varied with cultivare0
- Comparator
- respective controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf SPAD readings, nitrogen and potassium concentrations were reduced in waterlogged treatments compared to the respective controls, and varied with cultivar.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging reduced leaf phosphorus, calcium and magnesium concentrations in all cultivars.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogged treatmente0
- Outcome
- leaf phosphorus, calcium, magnesiume0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- all cultivarse0
- Comparator
- respective controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, manganese and sulphur concentrations were reduced in the waterlogged treatment compared to the respective controls in all cultivars.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging reduced leaf manganese and sulphur concentrations in all cultivars.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogged treatmente0
- Outcome
- manganese and sulphur concentrationse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- all cultivarse0
- Comparator
- respective controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, manganese and sulphur concentrations were reduced in the waterlogged treatment compared to the respective controls in all cultivars.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging increased leaf total iron concentration in all cultivars.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Waterlogginge0
- Outcome
- leaf total iron concentratione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- all cultivarse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Waterlogging increased leaf total iron concentration in all cultivars.”
t0“Cotton”
The same questions in other papers
flooding · physiology: pigments · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →flooding · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- negative
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.