Paper · 2018 · Journal of Cotton Research

Hypoxia tolerance studies for yield, fiber and physiological traits in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)

Altaf HUSSAIN; Jehanzeb FAROOQ; Saghir AHMAD; et al.

16
claims
40
verbatim quotes
5
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Hypoxia tolerance studies in cotton are very rare in Pakistan. Unpredicted and excessive rainfalls result in severe losses to cotton crop in many regions of the country due to lack of hypoxia tolerance in current cotton varieties. The genotypes that can tolerate flooding are not reported earlier. The studies were conducted to explore hypoxia tolerance in local germplasm which will help to develop hypoxia tolerant cotton varieties. An experiment with randomized complete blocks was designed to study the hypoxia tolerance in different cotton varieties. The genotypes were given two treatments i.e., water logged and non-water logged conditions. The genotypes showed significant variability for yield, fiber and physiological traits. The hypoxia studies revealed that there is significant reduction for plant height in water sensitive genotype LRA-5166. The genotype MNH-786 showed better yield and MNH-556 showed superior ginning outturn percentage under water logged conditions. Staple length, strength and micronaire values also decreased under hypoxia. Similar pattern of negative effects were observed for Chlorophyll a, b contents and chl a/b ratio. Two hypoxia tolerant cultivars CIM-573 and MNH-564 had significantly higher chlorophyll a (1.664, 1.551) than other cultivars under both normal and waterlogged conditions. There was a significant decrease in total free amino acids in all genotypes/cultivars due to waterlogging. Free amino acid contents were significantly higher in two waterlogging sensitive cultivars, CEDIX and N-KRISHMA, than other cultivars under both non-waterlogged and waterlogged conditions. Waterlogging caused a significant reduction in shoot soluble proteins and increase in shoot proline. The genotype LRA-5166 was the highest in shoot soluble proteins content and showed significant decrease in shoot proline. With respect to yield MNH-786 showed better results and regarding ginning outturn percentage MNH-556 exhibited superior performance. The genotypes CIM-573 and MNH-564 showed higher chlorophyll a values. The above said genotypes may be exploited for further studies related to hypoxia tolerance.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 16

Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton genotypes varied significantly in yield, fiber and physiological traits.

Outcome
yield, fiber and physiological traitse0

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 genotypes showed significant variability for yield, fiber and physiological traits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 648–734 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–101 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Waterlogging significantly reduced height of LRA-5166.

Material
LRA-5166e0
Treatment
water loggede1
Outcome
plant heighte0
Direction
reductione0
Comparator
non-water logged conditionse1

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

“significant reduction for plant height in water sensitive genotype LRA-5166”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 779–854 · show in text ↑
e1

“water logged and non-water logged conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 602–646 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–101 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

MNH-786 had better yield under waterlogging.

Material
MNH-786e0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
bettere0
Qualifier
water logged conditionse1

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 genotype MNH-786 showed better yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 856–896 · show in text ↑
e1

“under water logged conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 952–981 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–101 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

MNH-556 had superior ginning outturn percentage under waterlogging.

Material
MNH-556e0
Outcome
ginning outturn percentagee0
Direction
superiore0
Qualifier
water logged conditionse0

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

“MNH-556 showed superior ginning outturn percentage under water logged conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 901–981 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–101 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Hypoxia decreased staple length, strength and micronaire.

Treatment
hypoxiae0
Outcome
Staple length, strength and micronaire valuese0
Direction
decreasede0
Comparator
non-water logged conditionse1

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

“Staple length, strength and micronaire values also decreased under hypoxia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 983–1057 · show in text ↑
e1

“water logged and non-water logged conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 602–646 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–101 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Hypoxia decreased chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and their ratio.

Treatment
hypoxiae1
Outcome
Chlorophyll a, b contents and chl a/b ratioe0
Direction
decreaseinferrede0
Comparator
non-water logged conditionse2

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

“Similar pattern of negative effects were observed for Chlorophyll a, b contents and chl a/b ratio”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1059–1156 · show in text ↑
e1

“under hypoxia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1044–1057 · show in text ↑
e2

“water logged and non-water logged conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 602–646 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–101 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

CIM-573 had significantly higher chlorophyll a than other cultivars in normal and waterlogged conditions.

Material
CIM-573e0
Outcome
chlorophyll ae0
Direction
highere0
Value
1.664e0
Qualifier
under both normal and waterlogged conditionse0
Comparator
other cultivarse0

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

“CIM-573 and MNH-564 had significantly higher chlorophyll a (1.664, 1.551) than other cultivars under both normal and waterlogged conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1189–1328 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–101 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

MNH-564 had significantly higher chlorophyll a than other cultivars in normal and waterlogged conditions.

Material
MNH-564e0
Outcome
chlorophyll ae0
Direction
highere0
Value
1.551e0
Qualifier
under both normal and waterlogged conditionse0
Comparator
other cultivarse0

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

“CIM-573 and MNH-564 had significantly higher chlorophyll a (1.664, 1.551) than other cultivars under both normal and waterlogged conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1189–1328 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–101 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Waterlogging significantly decreased total free amino acids in all genotypes.

Treatment
waterlogginge0
Outcome
total free amino acidse0
Direction
decreasee0
Comparator
non-water logged conditionse1

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

“significant decrease in total free amino acids in all genotypes/cultivars due to waterlogging”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1342–1435 · show in text ↑
e1

“water logged and non-water logged conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 602–646 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–101 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

CEDIX had significantly higher free amino acids than other cultivars under both water regimes.

Material
CEDIXe0
Outcome
Free amino acid contentse0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
under both non-waterlogged and waterlogged conditionse0
Comparator
other cultivarse0

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

“Free amino acid contents were significantly higher in two waterlogging sensitive cultivars, CEDIX and N-KRISHMA, than other cultivars under both non-waterlogged and waterlogged conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1437–1624 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–101 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

N-KRISHMA had significantly higher free amino acids than other cultivars under both water regimes.

Material
N-KRISHMAe0
Outcome
Free amino acid contentse0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
under both non-waterlogged and waterlogged conditionse0
Comparator
other cultivarse0

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

“Free amino acid contents were significantly higher in two waterlogging sensitive cultivars, CEDIX and N-KRISHMA, than other cultivars under both non-waterlogged and waterlogged conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1437–1624 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–101 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Waterlogging significantly reduced shoot soluble proteins.

Treatment
Waterlogginge0
Outcome
shoot soluble proteinse0
Direction
reductione0
Comparator
non-water logged conditionse1

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 caused a significant reduction in shoot soluble proteins and increase in shoot proline”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1626–1725 · show in text ↑
e1

“water logged and non-water logged conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 602–646 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–101 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Waterlogging increased shoot proline.

Treatment
Waterlogginge0
Outcome
shoot prolinee0
Direction
increasee0
Comparator
non-water logged conditionse1

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 caused a significant reduction in shoot soluble proteins and increase in shoot proline”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1626–1725 · show in text ↑
e1

“water logged and non-water logged conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 602–646 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–101 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

LRA-5166 had the highest shoot soluble protein content.

Material
LRA-5166e0
Outcome
shoot soluble proteins contente0
Direction
higheste0

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 genotype LRA-5166 was the highest in shoot soluble proteins content”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1727–1798 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–101 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

LRA-5166 showed a significant decrease in shoot proline.

Material
LRA-5166e0
Outcome
shoot prolinee0
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

“LRA-5166 was the highest in shoot soluble proteins content and showed significant decrease in shoot proline”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1740–1847 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–101 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The named tolerant genotypes may be used for further hypoxia tolerance studies.

Outcome
exploited for further studies related to hypoxia tolerancee0

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 above said genotypes may be exploited for further studies related to hypoxia tolerance”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2052–2142 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–101 · show in text ↑

flooding · physiology: pigments · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

6 papers: 0 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

flooding · physiology: osmolytes · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

3 papers: 0 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
  2. negative
See all 3 papers →

flooding · molecular: metabolites · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

4 papers: 0 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative
See all 4 papers →

flooding · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

8 papers: 0 positive, 8 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 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.