Abstract
A pot experiment was conducted to study the effects of waterlogging on recovery growth and photosynthesis of cotton at seedling stage.In the experiment,the plants was subjected to waterlogging for 0(control),5(W1),10(W2) days and subsequent recovery growth for 5 or 10 days.The results showed:(1) After 10 days of recovery,there was no significant difference on root activity,plant height,leaf area and number of full expansion leaf of the plants waterlogged for 5 days with the control(P0.05),but the total root length was significantly shorter than that of the control(P0.05).There was a very significant difference(P0.01) in total root length,root activity,plant height,leaf area and number of full expansion leaf between waterlogging for 10 days and the control.(2)Compared with the control,there was no significant difference(P0.05) in the net photosynthetic rate,stomatal conductance,light saturation point(LSP),CO2 saturation point(CSP),apparent quantum yield of photosynthesis(AQY),carboxylation efficiency(CE) and chlorophyll content of the plants waterlogging for 5 days,but all the photosynthetic physiological indexes of the plants waterlogging for 10 days were significantly lower than that of the control(P0.05).The research indicated that cotton plants could continue to grow after 5 or 10 days waterlogged,but with the time increase,the recovery ability of cotton was reduced;The physiological activity recovery was faster than the morphology recovery and the strong light exposure would inhabit the cotton recovery growth after the waterlogging.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
After 10 days of recovery, root activity, plant height and leaf area of cotton waterlogged for 5 days did not differ significantly from the control.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- waterlogged for 5 dayse1
- Outcome
- root activity,plant height,leaf areae1
- Direction
- no significant differencee1
- Qualifier
- After 10 days of recoverye1
- Comparator
- controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton at Seedling Stage with Waterlogging Stress”
e1“After 10 days of recovery,there was no significant difference on root activity,plant height,leaf area and number of full expansion leaf of the plants waterlogged for 5 days with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
After 10 days of recovery, the number of full expansion leaves of cotton waterlogged for 5 days did not differ significantly from the control.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogged for 5 dayse1
- Outcome
- number of full expansion leafe1
- Direction
- no significant differencee1
- Qualifier
- After 10 days of recoverye1
- Comparator
- controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton at Seedling Stage with Waterlogging Stress”
e1“After 10 days of recovery,there was no significant difference on root activity,plant height,leaf area and number of full expansion leaf of the plants waterlogged for 5 days with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
After 10 days of recovery, total root length of cotton waterlogged for 5 days was significantly shorter than the control.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogged for 5 dayse1
- Outcome
- total root lengthe2
- Direction
- significantly shortere2
- Qualifier
- After 10 days of recoverye1
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton at Seedling Stage with Waterlogging Stress”
e1“After 10 days of recovery,there was no significant difference on root activity,plant height,leaf area and number of full expansion leaf of the plants waterlogged for 5 days with the control”
e2“but the total root length was significantly shorter than that of the control”
Claim · model-written summary
After 10 days of waterlogging, total root length, root activity and plant height of cotton differed very significantly from the control; direction not stated.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogging for 10 dayse3
- Outcome
- total root length,root activity,plant heighte3
- Comparator
- controle3
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton at Seedling Stage with Waterlogging Stress”
e3“There was a very significant difference(P0.01) in total root length,root activity,plant height,leaf area and number of full expansion leaf between waterlogging for 10 days and the control”
Claim · model-written summary
After 10 days of waterlogging, leaf area and number of full expansion leaves of cotton differed very significantly from the control; direction not stated.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogging for 10 dayse3
- Outcome
- leaf area and number of full expansion leafe3
- Comparator
- controle3
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton at Seedling Stage with Waterlogging Stress”
e3“There was a very significant difference(P0.01) in total root length,root activity,plant height,leaf area and number of full expansion leaf between waterlogging for 10 days and the control”
Claim · model-written summary
After 5 days of waterlogging, net photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance of cotton did not differ significantly from the control.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogging for 5 dayse4
- Outcome
- net photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductancee4
- Direction
- no significant differencee4
- Comparator
- controle4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton at Seedling Stage with Waterlogging Stress”
e4“Compared with the control, there was no significant difference(P0.05) in the net photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, light saturation point(LSP),CO2 saturation point(CSP),apparent quantum yield of photosynthesis(AQY),carboxylation efficiency(CE) and chlorophyll content of the plants waterlogging for 5 days”
Claim · model-written summary
After 5 days of waterlogging, light saturation point, CO2 saturation point and apparent quantum yield of photosynthesis of cotton did not differ significantly from the control.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogging for 5 dayse4
- Outcome
- light saturation point(LSP),CO2 saturation point(CSP),apparent quantum yield of photosynthesis(AQY)e4
- Direction
- no significant differencee4
- Comparator
- controle4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton at Seedling Stage with Waterlogging Stress”
e4“Compared with the control, there was no significant difference(P0.05) in the net photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, light saturation point(LSP),CO2 saturation point(CSP),apparent quantum yield of photosynthesis(AQY),carboxylation efficiency(CE) and chlorophyll content of the plants waterlogging for 5 days”
Claim · model-written summary
After 5 days of waterlogging, carboxylation efficiency and chlorophyll content of cotton did not differ significantly from the control.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogging for 5 dayse4
- Outcome
- carboxylation efficiency(CE) and chlorophyll contente4
- Direction
- no significant differencee4
- Comparator
- controle4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton at Seedling Stage with Waterlogging Stress”
e4“Compared with the control, there was no significant difference(P0.05) in the net photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, light saturation point(LSP),CO2 saturation point(CSP),apparent quantum yield of photosynthesis(AQY),carboxylation efficiency(CE) and chlorophyll content of the plants waterlogging for 5 days”
Claim · model-written summary
After 10 days of waterlogging, all photosynthetic physiological indexes of cotton were significantly lower than the control.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogging for 10 dayse5
- Outcome
- all the photosynthetic physiological indexese5
- Direction
- significantly lowere5
- Comparator
- controle5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton at Seedling Stage with Waterlogging Stress”
e5“all the photosynthetic physiological indexes of the plants waterlogging for 10 days were significantly lower than that of the control”
Claim · model-written summary
With longer waterlogging, the recovery ability of cotton was reduced.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- with the time increasee6
- Outcome
- recovery abilitye6
- Direction
- reducede6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton at Seedling Stage with Waterlogging Stress”
e6“with the time increase,the recovery ability of cotton was reduced”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton plants could continue to grow after 5 or 10 days of waterlogging.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- 5 or 10 days waterloggede7
- Outcome
- continue to growe7
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton at Seedling Stage with Waterlogging Stress”
e7“cotton plants could continue to grow after 5 or 10 days waterlogged”
Claim · model-written summary
Physiological activity recovery of cotton was faster than its morphological recovery.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- physiological activity recoverye0
- Direction
- fastere0
- Comparator
- morphology recoverye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton at Seedling Stage with Waterlogging Stress”
e0“The physiological activity recovery was faster than the morphology recovery”
Claim · model-written summary
Strong light exposure would inhibit recovery growth of cotton after waterlogging.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- strong light exposuree1
- Outcome
- cotton recovery growthe1
- Direction
- inhabite1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton at Seedling Stage with Waterlogging Stress”
e1“the strong light exposure would inhabit the cotton recovery growth after the waterlogging”
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 · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →flooding · physiology: photosynthesis · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
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.