Abstract
Abstract Water deficit stress limits net photosynthetic rate ( A N ), but the relative sensitivities of underlying processes such as thylakoid reactions, ATP production, carbon fixation reactions, and carbon loss processes to water deficit stress in field‐grown upland cotton require further exploration. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to assess (1) the diffusional and biochemical mechanisms associated with water deficit‐induced declines in A N and (2) associations between water deficit‐induced variation in oxidative stress and energy dissipation for field‐grown cotton. Water deficit stress was imposed for three weeks during the peak bloom stage of cotton development, causing significant reductions in leaf water potential and A N . Among diffusional limitations, mesophyll conductance was the major contributor to the A N decline. Several biochemical processes were adversely impacted by water deficit. Among these, electron transport rate and RuBP regeneration were most sensitive to A N ‐limiting water deficit. Carbon loss processes (photorespiration and dark respiration) were less sensitive than carbon assimilation, contributing to the water deficit‐induced declines in A N . Increased energy dissipation via non‐photochemical quenching or maintenance of electron flux to photorespiration prevented oxidative stress. Declines in A N were not associated with water deficit‐induced variation in ATP production. It was concluded that diffusional limitations followed by biochemical limitations ( ETR and RuBP regeneration) contributed to declines in A N , carbon loss processes partially contributed to the decline in A N , and increased energy dissipation prevented oxidative stress under water deficit in field‐grown cotton.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit significantly reduced cotton leaf water potential.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- Water deficit stresse0
- Outcome
- leaf water potentiale0
- Direction
- reductionse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water deficit stress was imposed for three weeks during the peak bloom stage of cotton development, causing significant reductions in leaf water potential and A N”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit significantly reduced cotton net photosynthetic rate.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Water deficit stresse0
- Outcome
- A Ne0
- Direction
- reductionse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water deficit stress was imposed for three weeks during the peak bloom stage of cotton development, causing significant reductions in leaf water potential and A N”
Claim · model-written summary
Mesophyll conductance was the main diffusional contributor to declining net photosynthesis.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- A N declinee0
- Qualifier
- mesophyll conductancee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among diffusional limitations, mesophyll conductance was the major contributor to the A N decline”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Electron transport rate was especially sensitive to water deficit limiting photosynthesis.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- water deficite0
- Outcome
- electron transport ratee0
- Direction
- most sensitivee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“electron transport rate and RuBP regeneration were most sensitive to A N ‐limiting water deficit”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
RuBP regeneration was especially sensitive to water deficit limiting photosynthesis.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- water deficite0
- Outcome
- RuBP regeneratione0
- Direction
- most sensitivee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“electron transport rate and RuBP regeneration were most sensitive to A N ‐limiting water deficit”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Photorespiration and dark respiration were less sensitive than carbon assimilation and contributed to photosynthesis decline.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- water deficit‐induced declines in A Ne0
- Qualifier
- photorespiration and dark respiratione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Carbon loss processes (photorespiration and dark respiration) were less sensitive than carbon assimilation, contributing to the water deficit‐induced declines in A N”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-photochemical quenching and electron flow to photorespiration prevented oxidative stress.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- oxidative stresse0
- Qualifier
- non‐photochemical quenching or maintenance of electron flux to photorespiratione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increased energy dissipation via non‐photochemical quenching or maintenance of electron flux to photorespiration prevented oxidative stress”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Photosynthesis declines were not associated with ATP production changes.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Compound
- ATPe0
- Outcome
- Declines in A Ne0
- Direction
- not associatede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Declines in A N were not associated with water deficit‐induced variation in ATP production”
t0“Cotton”
The same questions in other papers
drought · physiology: water · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 papers →drought · physiology: photosynthesis · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
49 papers more in this group
See all 53 papers →drought · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
60 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- 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.