Paper · 2020 · Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science

Defining physiological contributions to yield loss in response to irrigation in cotton

Alessandro Ermanis; Stefano Gobbo; John L. Snider; et al.

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
28
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Excessive irrigation can reduce cotton yield, but studies assessing the relative contribution of component physiological processes to yield loss are limited. The objective of the current experiment was to quantify irrigation‐induced yield loss attributable to Intercepted Photosynthetically Active Radiation (IPAR), Radiation Use Efficiency (RUE) and Harvest Index (HI). For three irrigation treatments (well‐watered, over‐irrigated, and dryland) during the 2018 and 2019 growing seasons, biweekly measurements of predawn leaf water potential (Ψ PD ) and light interception were taken along with measurements of biomass, lint yield, fibre quality and harvest index. Irrigation effects on yield were only observed during the 2019 season, and the results showed that Ψ PD remained relatively high in both seasons and was rarely affected by irrigation treatment. A significant reduction in yield was observed for irrigated treatments, despite the dryland producing lower biomass. Any positive effects of IPAR and RUE on lint yield due to excess irrigation were offset by large declines in HI. We conclude that HI was the dominant contributor to yield loss due to excessive irrigation because reduced boll numbers and average boll mass were observed in plots with the greatest total above‐ground biomass.

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 6

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation effects on cotton yield appeared only in 2019.

Outcome
Irrigation effects on yielde0
Qualifier
2019 seasone0

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

“Irrigation effects on yield were only observed during the 2019 season”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 675–744 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–86 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Predawn leaf water potential remained relatively high in both seasons and was rarely affected by irrigation.

Outcome
Ψ PDe0
Direction
remained relatively highe0

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

“Ψ PD remained relatively high in both seasons and was rarely affected by irrigation treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 774–867 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigated treatments significantly reduced yield compared with dryland.

Treatment
irrigated treatmentse0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
reductione0
Comparator
drylande0

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

“A significant reduction in yield was observed for irrigated treatments, despite the dryland producing lower biomass.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 869–985 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–86 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dryland produced lower biomass than irrigated plots.

Outcome
biomasse0
Direction
lowere0
Setting
drylande0

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 dryland producing lower biomass”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 949–984 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–86 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Positive effects of excess irrigation on intercepted radiation and radiation use efficiency were offset by large harvest-index declines.

Treatment
excess irrigatione0
Outcome
lint yielde0
Qualifier
large declines in HIe0

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

“Any positive effects of IPAR and RUE on lint yield due to excess irrigation were offset by large declines in HI.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 986–1098 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–86 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reduced boll numbers and average boll mass accompanied the greatest above-ground biomass and explained the harvest-index contribution to yield loss.

Treatment
excessive irrigatione0
Outcome
yield losse0
Qualifier
reduced boll numbers and average boll masse0

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

“HI was the dominant contributor to yield loss due to excessive irrigation because reduced boll numbers and average boll mass were observed in plots with the greatest total above‐ground biomass.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1116–1309 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–86 · show in text ↑

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

399 papers: 304 positive, 95 negative or no effect

94 papers in the same direction as this paper · 304 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

395 papers more in this group

See all 399 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.