Paper · 2013 · Ganhan diqu nongye yanjiu

Effects of field configuration on ecological factors and photosynthetic parameters of cotton in apricot-cotton intercropping system

Yongqiang Zhang

14
claims
25
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The experiment was conducted to find out the effects of field configuration on ecological factors and photosynthetic parameters of cotton in the multiple system of apricot-cotton intercropping.The results showed that the daily average temperature of cotton canopy varied within 24.49℃~35.19℃,and it could be ranked as: CBA(A stood for 12 rows,12 cm plant spacing,1.15 m spacing between apricot and cotton;B stood for 10 rows,10 cm plant spacing,1.45 m spacing between apricot and cotton;and C stood for 8 rows,8 cm plant spacing,1.85 m spacing between apricot and cotton).The humidity of cotton canopy could be ranked as: CAB.Before initial flowering stage,A was the highest in soil temperature at 20 cm depth and B was the next,while hereafter,there was no difference among the treatments.Before the first irrigation,there were significant differences of soil water content at 20 cm depth among the treatments,which could be ranked as: BAC,but there was no remarkable difference at 40 cm depth;after the first irrigation,there were significant differences at 40 cm depth among the treatments,which could be ranked as: BCA.Pn in all growth period was ranked as CBA,which was positively correlated with the temperature of cotton canopy,but not with SPAD.The lint yield of B was the largest,being 4.69% and 19.96% higher compared with that of A and C respectively.In spite of the shade of fruit trees,the temperature could be satisfied to the growth of cotton in the apricot-cotton intercropping system,therefore,humidity and soil water content were the important factors affecting the cotton production.

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 14

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton canopy daily average temperature ranged from 24.49℃ to 35.19℃ and ranked C, B, A.

Outcome
daily average temperature of cotton canopye0
Direction
ranked as: CBAe0
Value
24.49℃~35.19℃e0

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 daily average temperature of cotton canopy varied within 24.49℃~35.19℃,and it could be ranked as: CBA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 217–322 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton canopy humidity ranked C, A, B.

Outcome
humidity of cotton canopye0
Direction
ranked as: CABe0

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 humidity of cotton canopy could be ranked as: CAB”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 572–625 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Before initial flowering, A had the highest soil temperature at 20 cm, followed by B.

Organ / stage
initial flowering stagee0
Treatment
Ae0
Outcome
soil temperature at 20 cm depthe0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
Be0

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

“Before initial flowering stage,A was the highest in soil temperature at 20 cm depth and B was the next”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 626–728 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton in apricot-cotton intercropping system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–131 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

After initial flowering, soil temperature at 20 cm did not differ among configurations.

Outcome
no difference among the treatmentse0
Direction
no differencee0

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

“while hereafter,there was no difference among the treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 729–789 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton in apricot-cotton intercropping system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–131 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Before the first irrigation, soil water content at 20 cm differed significantly and ranked B, A, C.

Outcome
soil water content at 20 cm depthe0
Direction
ranked as: BACe0
Qualifier
Before the first irrigatione0

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

“Before the first irrigation,there were significant differences of soil water content at 20 cm depth among the treatments,which could be ranked as: BAC”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 790–940 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton in apricot-cotton intercropping system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–131 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Before the first irrigation, soil water content at 40 cm did not differ remarkably.

Outcome
difference at 40 cm depthe0
Direction
no remarkable differencee0

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

“but there was no remarkable difference at 40 cm depth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 941–994 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton in apricot-cotton intercropping system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–131 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

After the first irrigation, soil water content at 40 cm differed significantly and ranked B, C, A.

Outcome
differences at 40 cm depthe0
Direction
ranked as: BCAe0
Qualifier
after the first irrigatione0

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

“after the first irrigation,there were significant differences at 40 cm depth among the treatments,which could be ranked as: BCA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 995–1122 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton in apricot-cotton intercropping system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–131 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Net photosynthesis throughout growth ranked C, B, A.

Outcome
Pne0
Direction
ranked as CBAe0
Qualifier
all growth periode0

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

“Pn in all growth period was ranked as CBA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1123–1164 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton in apricot-cotton intercropping system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–131 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Net photosynthesis was positively correlated with cotton canopy temperature.

Outcome
Pne1
Direction
positively correlatede0
Comparator
temperature of cotton canopye0

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

“which was positively correlated with the temperature of cotton canopy”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1165–1234 · show in text ↑
e1

“Pn in all growth period was ranked as CBA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1123–1164 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Net photosynthesis was not correlated with SPAD.

Outcome
Pne1
Direction
not withe0
Comparator
SPADe0

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

“but not with SPAD”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1235–1252 · show in text ↑
e1

“Pn in all growth period was ranked as CBA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1123–1164 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton in apricot-cotton intercropping system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–131 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Configuration B lint yield was 4.69% higher than A.

Treatment
Be0
Outcome
lint yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
4.69%e0
Comparator
Ae0

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 lint yield of B was the largest,being 4.69% and 19.96% higher compared with that of A and C respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1253–1361 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton in apricot-cotton intercropping system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–131 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Configuration B lint yield was 19.96% higher than C.

Treatment
Be0
Outcome
lint yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
19.96%e0
Comparator
Ce0

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 lint yield of B was the largest,being 4.69% and 19.96% higher compared with that of A and C respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1253–1361 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton in apricot-cotton intercropping system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–131 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Despite tree shade, temperature remained sufficient for cotton growth in the intercropping system.

Outcome
temperature could be satisfied to the growth of cottone0
Qualifier
shade of fruit treese0

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 spite of the shade of fruit trees,the temperature could be satisfied to the growth of cotton in the apricot-cotton intercropping system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1362–1500 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Humidity and soil water content were identified as important factors affecting cotton production.

Outcome
cotton productione0
Qualifier
humidity and soil water contente0

Not reportedDirection

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

“humidity and soil water content were the important factors affecting the cotton production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1511–1601 · show in text ↑

boron atom · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

14 papers: 9 positive, 5 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 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.