Paper · 2018 · Crop Science

The Effect of Water Deficit and Waterlogging on the Yield Components of Cotton

Hao Wu; Xiugui Wang; Min Xu; et al.

11
claims
20
verbatim quotes
27
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to determine the influence of waterlogging alone, drought alone, and alternating drought and waterlogging on cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) yield and yield components. Water deficit and waterlogging experiments were conducted at the flowering and boll‐setting stages of cotton. The lint and cottonseed yields were reduced after waterlogging alone, drought alone, and alternating drought and waterlogging. The lint and cottonseed yields under alternating drought and waterlogging were greater than those under drought alone. When alternating drought and waterlogging, the drought stage decreased the lint and cottonseed yields, whereas the waterlogging stage had a compensatory effect. The decrease in the number of opening bolls might be the major reason for the observed decrease in lint and cottonseed yields. Waterlogging alone, drought alone, and alternating drought and waterlogging all led to an increase in the proportion of the boll wall biomass and a decrease in the proportion of the fiber biomass of cotton bolls. The proportion of the seed biomass of cotton bolls always decreased, except under alternating drought and heavy waterlogging in 2015. The fiber/seed biomass ratio decreased, except under drought alone in 2015. These findings might provide data to support the prevention of cotton yield loss under drought and 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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Waterlogging reduced lint and seed yields.

Treatment
waterlogging alonee0
Outcome
lint and cottonseed yieldse0
Direction
reducede0

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

“The lint and cottonseed yields were reduced after waterlogging alone, drought alone, and alternating drought and waterlogging”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–438 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drought reduced lint and seed yields.

Treatment
drought alonee0
Outcome
lint and cottonseed yieldse0
Direction
reducede0

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

“The lint and cottonseed yields were reduced after waterlogging alone, drought alone, and alternating drought and waterlogging”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–438 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Alternating drought and waterlogging reduced lint and seed yields.

Treatment
alternating drought and waterlogginge0
Outcome
lint and cottonseed yieldse0
Direction
reducede0

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

“The lint and cottonseed yields were reduced after waterlogging alone, drought alone, and alternating drought and waterlogging”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–438 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Alternating stresses produced greater yields than drought alone.

Treatment
alternating drought and waterlogginge0
Outcome
lint and cottonseed yieldse0
Direction
greatere0
Comparator
drought alonee0

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 and cottonseed yields under alternating drought and waterlogging were greater than those under drought alone”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 440–557 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The drought phase decreased lint and seed yields.

Treatment
drought stagee0
Outcome
lint and cottonseed yieldse0
Direction
decreasede0

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

“the drought stage decreased the lint and cottonseed yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 602–660 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–78 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The waterlogging phase had a compensatory effect.

Treatment
waterlogging stagee0
Outcome
compensatory effecte0

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

“whereas the waterlogging stage had a compensatory effect”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 662–718 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–78 · show in text ↑
Mechanismhypothesisoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fewer opening bolls might explain lower yield.

Outcome
decrease in lint and cottonseed yieldse0
Qualifier
decrease in the number of opening bollse0

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 decrease in the number of opening bolls might be the major reason for the observed decrease in lint and cottonseed yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 720–845 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–78 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All water stress treatments increased the boll wall biomass proportion.

Outcome
proportion of the boll wall biomasse0
Direction
increasee0

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

“Waterlogging alone, drought alone, and alternating drought and waterlogging all led to an increase in the proportion of the boll wall biomass”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 847–988 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–78 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All water stress treatments decreased the fiber biomass proportion.

Outcome
proportion of the fiber biomass of cotton bollse0
Direction
decreasee0

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

“and a decrease in the proportion of the fiber biomass of cotton bolls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 989–1058 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seed biomass proportion generally decreased with an exception in 2015.

Outcome
proportion of the seed biomass of cotton bollse0
Direction
decreasede0
Qualifier
except under alternating drought and heavy waterlogging in 2015e0

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 proportion of the seed biomass of cotton bolls always decreased, except under alternating drought and heavy waterlogging in 2015”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1060–1192 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fiber to seed biomass ratio generally decreased with an exception in 2015.

Outcome
fiber/seed biomass ratioe0
Direction
decreasede0
Qualifier
except under drought alone in 2015e0

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 fiber/seed biomass ratio decreased, except under drought alone in 2015”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1194–1268 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–78 · show in text ↑

flooding · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

18 papers: 4 positive, 14 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

drought · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

82 papers: 19 positive, 63 negative or no effect

18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 63 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. negative

78 papers more in this group

See all 82 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.