Abstract
Effective flowering time in Gossypium hirsutum cotton plants was studied with the aim of enhancing decision making on the best varieties to plant according to the planting date under rainfed cropping conditions. Trials were conducted at two sites in a cotton-growing area of Benin in 2002 and 2003. A split-split plot design with three replicates was used to compare 10 cotton varieties, with different growth cycle lengths and morphology, at three stand densities (42 000, 125 000, 167 000 plants ha−1) and two planting dates (standard planting in June and late planting). The flowering period was characterized by the mean first flower opening date (FF), which is an indicator of flowering earliness, and by the opening date of the last flower giving rise to a first-position boll on fruiting branches (LFP1). Effective flowering time (EFT) was calculated as the difference between LFP1 and FF. EFTs differed markedly in the 10 cotton varieties tested and this parameter could not be predicted on the basis of flowering earliness. Late planting and high planting rates delayed first-flower opening, accelerated last-boll development and reduced the effective flowering time. This latter factor should be taken into account in cotton breeding programmes so that varieties adapted to local rainfall constraints can be recommended to growers while also enhancing crop management sequences.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Effective flowering time varied markedly among ten cotton varieties.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Material
- 10 cotton varietiese0
- Outcome
- EFTse0
- Direction
- differed markedlye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“EFTs differed markedly in the 10 cotton varieties tested and this parameter could not be predicted on the basis of flowering earliness.”
Claim · model-written summary
Flowering earliness did not predict effective flowering time.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“this parameter could not be predicted on the basis of flowering earliness.”
Claim · model-written summary
Late planting delayed first flower opening.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Late planting and high planting rates delayed first-flower opening, accelerated last-boll development and reduced the effective flowering time.”
Claim · model-written summary
High planting rates delayed first flower opening.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Late planting and high planting rates delayed first-flower opening, accelerated last-boll development and reduced the effective flowering time.”
Claim · model-written summary
Late planting accelerated last boll development.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Late planting and high planting rates delayed first-flower opening, accelerated last-boll development and reduced the effective flowering time.”
Claim · model-written summary
High planting rates accelerated last boll development.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Late planting and high planting rates delayed first-flower opening, accelerated last-boll development and reduced the effective flowering time.”
Claim · model-written summary
Late planting reduced effective flowering time.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Late planting and high planting rates delayed first-flower opening, accelerated last-boll development and reduced the effective flowering time.”
Claim · model-written summary
High planting rates reduced effective flowering time.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Late planting and high planting rates delayed first-flower opening, accelerated last-boll development and reduced the effective flowering time.”
Claim · model-written summary
Breeding programmes should account for effective flowering time under local rainfall constraints.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- taken into account in cotton breeding programmese0
- Qualifier
- local rainfall constraintse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This latter factor should be taken into account in cotton breeding programmes so that varieties adapted to local rainfall constraints can be recommended to growers while also enhancing crop management sequences.”
The same questions in other papers
sowing time · phenology · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →density · phenology · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 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.