Paper · 2013 · Mianhua xuebao

Effect of Field Arrangement in Apricot-cotton Intercropping on Cotton Plant Growth and Tempo-spatial Distribution of Boll

Yongqiang Zhang

8
claims
16
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

In order to find out high-yielding cotton cultivation of agroecology in apricot-cotton intercropping which planting spacing is 3 m×6.5 m,and height is 5.45 m,the experiment is conducted with three field arrangements on cotton plant growth and tempo-spatial distribution of boll.The results showed that field arrangement with 10 cm plant spacing,10 rows(B) has the lowest length-width ratio,and a better performance in main stem leaf number,width of the top fourth leaf and fruit branch number than others.Stem diameter was positively related to plant spacing.Cotton individual of dry matter was higher than others,dry matter of gross was positively related to individual;dry matter of net was positively related to density.Shade delayed the growth of cotton,leading to three treatments were the most of summer bolls and autumn bolls;bolls mainly distributed close to stem in horizontal,as plant spacing increased;longitudinal were main compose of middle bolls and lower bolls.Lint yield of gross plant in plant spacing of 10 cm(B) was the highest,higher 4.69% and 19.96% than plant spacing of 12 cm and 8 cm;Lint yield of net plant in plant spacing of 8 cm was the highest,higher 7.18% and 30.91% than plant spacing of 10 cm and 12 cm.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 10 cm, 10-row arrangement had the lowest length-width ratio.

Treatment
10 cm plant spacing,10 rows(B)e0
Outcome
length-width ratioe0
Direction
loweste0

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

t0

“Cotton Plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–75 · show in text ↑
e0

“field arrangement with 10 cm plant spacing,10 rows(B) has the lowest length-width ratio”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 302–389 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 10 cm, 10-row arrangement performed better for main stem leaf number, top fourth leaf width and fruit branch number.

Treatment
10 cm plant spacing,10 rows(B)e1
Outcome
main stem leaf number,width of the top fourth leaf and fruit branch numbere0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
otherse0

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

t0

“Cotton Plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–75 · show in text ↑
e0

“a better performance in main stem leaf number,width of the top fourth leaf and fruit branch number than others”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 394–504 · show in text ↑
e1

“field arrangement with 10 cm plant spacing,10 rows(B) has the lowest length-width ratio”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 302–389 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Stem diameter was positively related to plant spacing.

Treatment
plant spacinge0
Outcome
Stem diametere0
Direction
positivelye0

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

t0

“Cotton Plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–75 · show in text ↑
e0

“Stem diameter was positively related to plant spacing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 505–558 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shade delayed cotton growth.

Treatment
Shadee0
Outcome
growthe0
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

“Shade delayed the growth of cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 723–757 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Gross plant lint yield was highest at 10 cm spacing, exceeding 12 cm spacing by 4.69%.

Treatment
plant spacing of 10 cm(B)e0
Outcome
Lint yield of gross plante0
Direction
highere0
Value
4.69%e0
Comparator
plant spacing of 12 cme0

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

t0

“Cotton Plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–75 · show in text ↑
e0

“Lint yield of gross plant in plant spacing of 10 cm(B) was the highest,higher 4.69% and 19.96% than plant spacing of 12 cm and 8 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 976–1107 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Gross plant lint yield at 10 cm spacing exceeded 8 cm spacing by 19.96%.

Treatment
plant spacing of 10 cm(B)e0
Outcome
Lint yield of gross plante0
Direction
highere0
Value
19.96%e0
Comparator
8 cme0

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

t0

“Cotton Plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–75 · show in text ↑
e0

“Lint yield of gross plant in plant spacing of 10 cm(B) was the highest,higher 4.69% and 19.96% than plant spacing of 12 cm and 8 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 976–1107 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Net plant lint yield at 8 cm spacing exceeded 10 cm spacing by 7.18%.

Treatment
plant spacing of 8 cme0
Outcome
Lint yield of net plante0
Direction
highere0
Value
7.18%e0
Comparator
plant spacing of 10 cme0

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

t0

“Cotton Plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–75 · show in text ↑
e0

“Lint yield of net plant in plant spacing of 8 cm was the highest,higher 7.18% and 30.91% than plant spacing of 10 cm and 12 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1108–1234 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Net plant lint yield at 8 cm spacing exceeded 12 cm spacing by 30.91%.

Treatment
plant spacing of 8 cme0
Outcome
Lint yield of net plante0
Direction
highere0
Value
30.91%e0
Comparator
12 cme0

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

t0

“Cotton Plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–75 · show in text ↑
e0

“Lint yield of net plant in plant spacing of 8 cm was the highest,higher 7.18% and 30.91% than plant spacing of 10 cm and 12 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1108–1234 · show in text ↑

shade · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 1 positive, 9 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

density · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

46 papers: 39 positive, 7 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

42 papers more in this group

See all 46 papers →

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

69 papers: 34 positive, 35 negative or no effect

33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

65 papers more in this group

See all 69 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.