Abstract
ABSTRACT: Water deficit may affect the expression of lepidoptera-controlling proteins in cotton. However, it is unknown if there is a differential response of conventional and Bt cotton cultivars to water deficit, what could potentially affect the plant competition with weeds. The objective of this work was to investigate the response of Bt cotton cultivars to water deficit compared with their conventional near-isolines. The experiment was conducted in a greenhouse, where the cotton cultivars FMT 705, FMT 709 and IMACD 8276, with and without the Bt gene, were grown under two water regimens: 100% and 50% (moderate water deficit) of available soil water. Cotton phenology was severely affected by moderate water deficit, with a reduction in shoot and root dry matter production, root length and diameter, plant height and leaf area. No effect of the Bt gene was observed. Water deficit during cotton flowering decrease stomatal conductance, net assimilation of CO2 and transpiration rates. The leaf water potential is lower in plants exposed to a moderate water deficit compared with non-stressed plants. However, the introgression of the Bt gene does not modify cotton physiological and phenotypic response to water deficit.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Moderate water deficit reduced cotton shoot and root dry matter, root length and diameter, height and leaf area.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- moderate water deficite0
- Outcome
- shoot and root dry matter production, root length and diameter, plant height and leaf areae0
- Direction
- reductione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton phenology was severely affected by moderate water deficit, with a reduction in shoot and root dry matter production, root length and diameter, plant height and leaf area.”
Claim · model-written summary
Bt gene introgression had no observed effect on the reported cotton traits.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No effect of the Bt gene was observed.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit during flowering decreased stomatal conductance, net CO2 assimilation and transpiration.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Organ / stage
- floweringe0
- Treatment
- Water deficite0
- Outcome
- stomatal conductance, net assimilation of CO2 and transpiration ratese0
- Direction
- decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water deficit during cotton flowering decrease stomatal conductance, net assimilation of CO2 and transpiration rates.”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderately water stressed plants had lower leaf water potential than unstressed plants.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- moderate water deficite0
- Outcome
- leaf water potentiale0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- non-stressed plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The leaf water potential is lower in plants exposed to a moderate water deficit compared with non-stressed plants.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Bt gene introgression did not modify the physiological and phenotypic cotton response to water deficit.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- introgression of the Bt genee0
- Outcome
- physiological and phenotypic response to water deficite0
- Direction
- does not modifye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the introgression of the Bt gene does not modify cotton physiological and phenotypic response to water deficit.”
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
- negative
- negative
- positive
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 papers →drought · physiology: gas exchange · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →drought · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
62 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 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.