Paper · 1990 · PLANT PHYSIOLOGY

Influence of Water Deficits on the Abscisic Acid and Indole-3-Acetic Acid Contents of Cotton Flower Buds and Flowers

Gene Guinn; James R. Dunlap; Donald L. Brummett

8
claims
16
verbatim quotes
30
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during the summer of 1988 to test the hypothesis that water deficit affects the abscisic acid (ABA) and indole acetic acid (IAA) concentrations in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) flower buds in ways that predispose young fruits (bolls) that subsequently develop from them to increased abscission rates. Water deficit had little effect on the ABA content of flower buds but increased the ABA content of flowers as much as 66%. Water deficit decreased the concentrations of free and conjugated IAA in flower buds during the first irrigation cycle but increased them during the second cycle. Flowers contained much less IAA than buds. Water deficit slightly increased the conjugated IAA content of flowers but had no effect on the concentration of free IAA in flowers. Because water deficit slightly increased the ABA content but did not decrease the IAA content of flowers, any carry-over effect of water deficit on young boll shedding might have been caused by changes in ABA but not from changes in IAA.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water deficit had little effect on flower-bud ABA content.

Organ / stage
flower budse0
Treatment
Water deficite0
Outcome
ABA contente0
Direction
little effecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Water deficit had little effect on the ABA content of flower buds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 335–400 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water deficit increased flower ABA content by as much as 66%.

Organ / stage
flowerse0
Treatment
Water deficite0
Outcome
ABA contente0
Direction
increasede0
Value
66%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Water deficit had little effect on the ABA content of flower buds but increased the ABA content of flowers as much as 66%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 335–456 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water deficit decreased free and conjugated IAA in flower buds during the first irrigation cycle.

Organ / stage
flower budse0
Treatment
Water deficite0
Outcome
concentrations of free and conjugated IAAe0
Direction
decreasede0
Qualifier
first irrigation cyclee0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Water deficit decreased the concentrations of free and conjugated IAA in flower buds during the first irrigation cycle”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 458–576 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water deficit increased free and conjugated IAA in flower buds during the second irrigation cycle.

Organ / stage
flower budse0
Treatment
Water deficite0
Outcome
free and conjugated IAAe0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
second cyclee0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Water deficit decreased the concentrations of free and conjugated IAA in flower buds during the first irrigation cycle but increased them during the second cycle”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 458–619 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–92 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Flowers contained much less IAA than buds.

Organ / stage
Flowerse0
Outcome
IAAe0
Direction
much lesse0
Comparator
budse0

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

“Flowers contained much less IAA than buds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 621–662 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water deficit slightly increased conjugated IAA in flowers.

Organ / stage
flowerse0
Treatment
Water deficite0
Outcome
conjugated IAA contente0
Direction
slightly increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Water deficit slightly increased the conjugated IAA content of flowers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 664–734 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water deficit had no effect on free IAA concentration in flowers.

Organ / stage
flowerse0
Treatment
Water deficite0
Outcome
concentration of free IAAe0
Direction
no effecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Water deficit slightly increased the conjugated IAA content of flowers but had no effect on the concentration of free IAA in flowers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 664–796 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–92 · show in text ↑
Mechanismhypothesisoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest that carry-over effects on young boll shedding may involve ABA changes.

Treatment
water deficite0
Compound
ABAe0
Outcome
young boll sheddinge0
Qualifier
might have been causede0

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 carry-over effect of water deficit on young boll shedding might have been caused by changes in ABA but not from changes in IAA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 904–1034 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–92 · show in text ↑

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

6 papers: 2 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

drought · molecular: metabolites · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

22 papers: 2 positive, 20 negative or no effect

19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

18 papers more in this group

See all 22 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.