Paper · 2008 · Journal of Plant Production

STUDIED OF TOLERANCE OF SOME EGYPTIAN COTTON CULTIVARS FOR DROUGHT (WATER STRESS)

W. Yehia; M. El - Menshawie

8
claims
23
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Two experiments were carried out at Sakha Agricultural Research Station , Cotton Research Institute , to study the effect of drought on morphological , yield , yield components and physiological traits in some cotton cultivars . This study comprised some Egyptian cotton cultivars i.e. G.91, G.89, G.85, G.88, G.70, G. 89x G.86 , G.89 x Pima S6, G.86 and G.80. Were planted under drought condition which toke five once irrigation and normal condition, which toke eight once irrigation as control . The results obtained could be summarized as follows :- 1- Cultivars differently responded to drought conditions. 2- Drought condition tended to decreased number of fruiting branches , dry weight , plant height , leaf area index, boll weight , seed and lint cotton yield per plant , seed index , lint percentage , number of bolls per plant , total chlorophyll , proteine and oil percentage in seeds. 3- The proline content in leaves was increased as a result of water stress conditions (drought) . 4- G.86 and G.80 observed the highest values of content of proline in leaves and had a highest yield and its components under drought stress. 5- For plant breeder , these results very important to select plants had higher proline content in leaves as indicator to obtained plants more tolerant to drought and highly yielding .

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton cultivars responded differently to drought conditions.

Taxon
cotton cultivarsGossypium hirsutume1
Treatment
drought conditionse0
Outcome
differently respondede0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

“Cultivars differently responded to drought conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 556–609 · show in text ↑
e1

“some cotton cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 205–226 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drought tended to decrease number of fruiting branches, dry weight and plant height in cotton.

Treatment
Drought conditione0
Outcome
number of fruiting branches , dry weight , plant heighte0
Direction
decreasede0
Comparator
normal conditione2

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

“Drought condition tended to decreased number of fruiting branches , dry weight , plant height”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 614–707 · show in text ↑
e1

“some cotton cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 205–226 · show in text ↑
e2

“normal condition, which toke eight once irrigation as control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 434–495 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drought tended to decrease leaf area index, boll weight and seed and lint cotton yield per plant.

Treatment
Drought conditione0
Outcome
leaf area index , boll weight , seed and lint cotton yield per plante1
Direction
decreasede0
Comparator
normal conditione2

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

“Drought condition tended to decreased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 614–651 · show in text ↑
e1

“leaf area index , boll weight , seed and lint cotton yield per plant”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · abstract, characters 710–777 · show in text ↑
e2

“normal condition, which toke eight once irrigation as control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 434–495 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drought tended to decrease seed index, lint percentage and number of bolls per plant.

Treatment
Drought conditione0
Outcome
seed index , lint percentage , number of bolls per plante1
Direction
decreasede0
Comparator
normal conditione3

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

“Drought condition tended to decreased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 614–651 · show in text ↑
e1

“seed index , lint percentage , number of bolls per plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 780–836 · show in text ↑
e2

“some cotton cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 205–226 · show in text ↑
e3

“normal condition, which toke eight once irrigation as control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 434–495 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drought tended to decrease total chlorophyll and protein and oil percentage in cotton seeds.

Treatment
Drought conditione0
Outcome
total chlorophyll , proteine and oil percentage in seedse1
Direction
decreasede0
Comparator
normal conditione3

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

“Drought condition tended to decreased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 614–651 · show in text ↑
e1

“total chlorophyll , proteine and oil percentage in seeds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 839–895 · show in text ↑
e2

“some cotton cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 205–226 · show in text ↑
e3

“normal condition, which toke eight once irrigation as control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 434–495 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Proline content in cotton leaves increased under water stress (drought).

Treatment
water stress conditions (drought)e0
Outcome
proline content in leavese0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
normal conditione2

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 proline content in leaves was increased as a result of water stress conditions (drought)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 900–992 · show in text ↑
e1

“some cotton cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 205–226 · show in text ↑
e2

“normal condition, which toke eight once irrigation as control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 434–495 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cultivars G.86 and G.80 had the highest leaf proline content and the highest yield and yield components under drought stress.

Material
G.86 and G.80e0
Treatment
drought stresse0
Outcome
content of proline in leaves and had a highest yield and its componentse0
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

“G.86 and G.80 observed the highest values of content of proline in leaves and had a highest yield and its components under drought stress”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 998–1135 · show in text ↑
e1

“some cotton cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 205–226 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend that breeders select plants with higher leaf proline content as an indicator of drought tolerance and high yield.

Outcome
higher proline content in leavese0

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

“select plants had higher proline content in leaves as indicator to obtained plants more tolerant to drought and highly yielding”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1192–1319 · show in text ↑
e1

“some cotton cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 205–226 · show in text ↑

drought · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

31 papers: 10 positive, 21 negative or no effect

20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

27 papers more in this group

See all 31 papers →

drought · physiology: pigments · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 5 positive, 13 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

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

62 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

78 papers more in this group

See all 82 papers →

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

86 papers: 25 positive, 61 negative or no effect

60 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

82 papers more in this group

See all 86 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.