Abstract
Both water deficit stress and Meloidogyne incognita infection can reduce cotton growth and yield, and drought can affect fiber quality, but the effect of nematodes on fiber quality is not well documented. To determine whether nematode parasitism affects fiber quality and whether the combined effects of nematode and drought stress on yield and quality are additive (independent effects), synergistic, or antagonistic, we conducted a study for 7 yr in a field infested with M. incognita. A split-plot design was used with the main plot factor as one of three irrigation treatments (low [nonirrigated], moderate irrigation, and high irrigation [water-replete]) and the subplot factor as 0 or 56 l/ha 1,3-dichloropropene. We prevented water deficit stress in plots designated as water-replete by supplementing rainfall with irrigation. Plots receiving moderate irrigation received half the water applied to the water-replete treatment. The severity of root galling was greater in nonfumigated plots and in plots receiving the least irrigation, but the amount of irrigation did not influence the effect of fumigation on root galling (no irrigation × fumigation interaction). The weights of lint and seed harvested were reduced in nonfumigated plots and also decreased as the level of irrigation decreased, but fumigation did not influence the effect of irrigation. Nematodes affected fiber quality by increasing micronaire readings but typically had little or no effect on percent lint, fiber length (measured by HVI), uniformity, strength, elongation, length (based on weight or number measured by AFIS), upper quartile length, or short fiber content (based on weight or number). Micronaire also was increased by water deficit stress, but the effects from nematodes and water stress were independent. We conclude that the detrimental effects caused to cotton yield and quality by nematode parasitism and water deficit stress are independent and therefore additive.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Root galling was greater in nonfumigated plots.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume2 - Treatment
- nonfumigated plotse0
- Interactor
- M. incognita
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne incognitae1pathogen - Outcome
- root gallinge0
- Direction
- greatere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“The severity of root galling was greater in nonfumigated plots and in plots receiving the least irrigation”
e1“field infested with M. incognita”
e2“cotton growth and yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Root galling was greater with the least irrigation.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- least irrigatione0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae2pathogen
- Outcome
- root gallinge0
- Direction
- greatere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The severity of root galling was greater in nonfumigated plots and in plots receiving the least irrigation”
e1“cotton growth and yield”
e2“Meloidogyne incognita infection”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation did not alter the fumigation effect on root galling.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- root gallinge0
- Direction
- did not influencee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the amount of irrigation did not influence the effect of fumigation on root galling (no irrigation × fumigation interaction)”
e1“cotton growth and yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Lint and seed harvested weights were lower without fumigation.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- nonfumigated plotse0
- Outcome
- weights of lint and seed harvestede0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The weights of lint and seed harvested were reduced in nonfumigated plots”
e1“cotton growth and yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Lint and seed harvested weights fell as irrigation decreased.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- weights of lint and seed harvestede1
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“also decreased as the level of irrigation decreased”
e1“The weights of lint and seed harvested were reduced in nonfumigated plots”
e2“cotton growth and yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Fumigation did not modify the irrigation effect on harvested weight.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Treatment
- fumigatione0
- Outcome
- weights of lint and seed harvestede1
- Direction
- did not influencee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“fumigation did not influence the effect of irrigation”
e1“The weights of lint and seed harvested”
e2“cotton growth and yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Nematodes increased cotton fiber micronaire.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae2pathogen
- Outcome
- micronaire readingse0
- Direction
- increasinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nematodes affected fiber quality by increasing micronaire readings”
e1“cotton growth and yield”
e2“Meloidogyne incognita infection”
Claim · model-written summary
Nematodes typically had little or no effect on percent lint, fiber length and uniformity.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae2pathogen
- Outcome
- percent lint, fiber length (measured by HVI), uniformitye0
- Direction
- little or no effecte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“typically had little or no effect on percent lint, fiber length (measured by HVI), uniformity”
e1“cotton growth and yield”
e2“Meloidogyne incognita infection”
Claim · model-written summary
Nematodes typically had little or no effect on strength, elongation and AFIS length.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae2pathogen
- Outcome
- strength, elongation, length (based on weight or number measured by AFIS)e0
- Direction
- little or no effecte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“typically had little or no effect on percent lint, fiber length (measured by HVI), uniformity, strength, elongation, length (based on weight or number measured by AFIS)”
e1“cotton growth and yield”
e2“Meloidogyne incognita infection”
Claim · model-written summary
Nematodes typically had little or no effect on upper quartile length and short fiber content.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae2pathogen
- Outcome
- upper quartile length, or short fiber content (based on weight or number)e0
- Direction
- little or no effecte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“typically had little or no effect on percent lint, fiber length (measured by HVI), uniformity, strength, elongation, length (based on weight or number measured by AFIS), upper quartile length, or short fiber content (based on weight or number)”
e1“cotton growth and yield”
e2“Meloidogyne incognita infection”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit increased micronaire.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- water deficit stresse0
- Outcome
- Micronairee0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Micronaire also was increased by water deficit stress”
e1“cotton growth and yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Nematode and water stress effects on micronaire were independent.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Treatment
- water stresse0
- Outcome
- Micronairee1
- Qualifier
- independente0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the effects from nematodes and water stress were independent”
e1“Micronaire also was increased by water deficit stress”
e2“cotton growth and yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Nematode parasitism and water deficit had independent, additive adverse effects on cotton yield and quality.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- water deficit stresse0
- Outcome
- yield and qualitye0
- Qualifier
- independent and therefore additivee0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the detrimental effects caused to cotton yield and quality by nematode parasitism and water deficit stress are independent and therefore additive”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · Meloidogyne incognita · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
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.