Abstract
In this study, different levels of defoliation were imposed on a determinate species (maize) and a relatively indeterminate species (cotton). The aim was to quantify the effects of defoliation on plant growth and production, under either optimum or water-stressed conditions. Under well-watered conditions, 33% defoliation twice (conducted 28 and 35 days after emergence) resulted in a 16% reduction in grain yield of maize while 67% defoliation once (conducted 28 days after emergence) had no significant effect on yield. Under water stress, the grain yields of maize plants with 33% (twice) and 67% defoliation were 13.5% and 25% greater than that of non-defoliated control plants, respectively. For cotton, the reproductive yields (seed and lint) with 33% and 67% defoliation (conducted 43 days after emergence) were reduced, under well-watered conditions, by 28% and 37% of that of the non-defoliated control, respectively. Defoliated cotton plants lost less fruiting forms (squares and young bolls) than non-defoliated plants during water stress. Therefore, under water stress the harvestable product of cotton plants with 67% defoliation was double that of non-defoliated control plants. In non-defoliated cotton plants, a second flush of flowering after release from water-stress permitted further compensatory fruit set and boll harvest. Defoliated plants did not show such levels of compensation. Defoliation significantly reduced water use by maize and cotton. The relative yield advantage of defoliated plants under water-stress conditions can be attributed to defoliation-induced improvement in water status as reflected in measures of photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance. Under anticipated drought stress, defoliation could be an important management practice to reduce drought-induced yield decrease, but this needs to be tested under field conditions.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Under ample water, 33% defoliation twice reduced maize grain yield by 16%.
- Treatment
- 33% defoliation twicee0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 16%e0
- Qualifier
- Under well-watered conditionse0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under well-watered conditions, 33% defoliation twice (conducted 28 and 35 days after emergence) resulted in a 16% reduction in grain yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Under ample water, one 67% defoliation did not significantly affect maize yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“67% defoliation once (conducted 28 days after emergence) had no significant effect on yield”
e1“maize while 67% defoliation once”
Claim · model-written summary
Under water stress, 33% defoliation increased maize grain yield by 13.5% versus non-defoliated plants.
- Treatment
- 33% (twice)e0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 13.5%e0
- Qualifier
- Under water stresse0
- Comparator
- non-defoliated control plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under water stress, the grain yields of maize plants with 33% (twice) and 67% defoliation were 13.5% and 25% greater than that of non-defoliated control plants, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Under water stress, 67% defoliation increased maize grain yield by 25% versus non-defoliated plants.
- Treatment
- 67% defoliatione0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 25%e0
- Qualifier
- Under water stresse0
- Comparator
- non-defoliated control plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under water stress, the grain yields of maize plants with 33% (twice) and 67% defoliation were 13.5% and 25% greater than that of non-defoliated control plants, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Under ample water, 33% defoliation reduced cotton seed and lint yield by 28%.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- 33%e0
- Outcome
- reproductive yields (seed and lint)e0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 28%e0
- Qualifier
- under well-watered conditionse0
- Comparator
- non-defoliated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For cotton, the reproductive yields (seed and lint) with 33% and 67% defoliation (conducted 43 days after emergence) were reduced, under well-watered conditions, by 28% and 37% of that of the non-defoliated control, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Under ample water, 67% defoliation reduced cotton seed and lint yield by 37%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- 67% defoliatione0
- Outcome
- reproductive yields (seed and lint)e0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 37%e0
- Qualifier
- under well-watered conditionse0
- Comparator
- non-defoliated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For cotton, the reproductive yields (seed and lint) with 33% and 67% defoliation (conducted 43 days after emergence) were reduced, under well-watered conditions, by 28% and 37% of that of the non-defoliated control, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Defoliated cotton lost fewer fruiting forms under water stress than non-defoliated cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Defoliatede0
- Outcome
- fruiting forms (squares and young bolls)e0
- Direction
- lost lesse0
- Qualifier
- during water stresse0
- Comparator
- non-defoliated plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Defoliated cotton plants lost less fruiting forms (squares and young bolls) than non-defoliated plants during water stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Under water stress, 67% defoliation doubled cotton harvestable product versus non-defoliated controls.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- 67% defoliatione0
- Outcome
- harvestable producte0
- Direction
- doublee0
- Qualifier
- under water stresse0
- Comparator
- non-defoliated control plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under water stress the harvestable product of cotton plants with 67% defoliation was double that of non-defoliated control plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-defoliated cotton had a second flowering flush and compensatory fruit set after water stress.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- non-defoliatede0
- Outcome
- a second flush of floweringe0
- Qualifier
- after release from water-stresse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In non-defoliated cotton plants, a second flush of flowering after release from water-stress permitted further compensatory fruit set and boll harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
Defoliated cotton showed less compensatory fruit set and boll harvest after water stress.
- Treatment
- Defoliatede0
- Outcome
- compensatory fruit set and boll harveste1
- Direction
- did not show such levelse0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Defoliated plants did not show such levels of compensation”
e1“compensatory fruit set and boll harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
Defoliation significantly reduced maize water use.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Defoliation significantly reduced water use by maize and cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Defoliation significantly reduced cotton water use.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Defoliatione0
- Outcome
- water usee0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Defoliation significantly reduced water use by maize and cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors attribute defoliated plants’ yield advantage during water stress to improved water status, photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- plantsViridiplantaee0
- Treatment
- defoliatione0
- Outcome
- relative yield advantagee0
- Qualifier
- improvement in water status as reflected in measures of photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductancee0
Verbatim
e0“The relative yield advantage of defoliated plants under water-stress conditions can be attributed to defoliation-induced improvement in water status as reflected in measures of photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors propose defoliation as a drought-management practice, subject to field testing.
- Outcome
- defoliation could be an important management practicee0
- Qualifier
- this needs to be tested under field conditionse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Under anticipated drought stress, defoliation could be an important management practice to reduce drought-induced yield decrease, but this needs to be tested under field conditions”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 49 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
72 papers more in this group
See all 76 papers →pruning · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →pruning · phenology · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →pruning · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
85 papers in the same direction as this paper · 86 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
170 papers more in this group
See all 174 papers →pruning · physiology: water · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- 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.