Paper · 2019 · Agronomy

Changes in Leaf Structural and Functional Characteristics when Changing Planting Density at Different Growth Stages Alters Cotton Lint Yield under a New Planting Model

Aziz Khan; Jie Zheng; Daniel Kean Yuen Tan; et al.

13
claims
34
verbatim quotes
23
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Manipulation of planting density and choice of variety are effective management components in any cropping system that aims to enhance the balance between environmental resource availability and crop requirements. One-time fertilization at first flower with a medium plant stand under late sowing has not yet been attempted. To fill this knowledge gap, changes in leaf structural (stomatal density, stomatal length, stomata width, stomatal pore perimeter, and leaf thickness), leaf gas exchange, and chlorophyll fluorescence attributes of different cotton varieties were made in order to change the planting densities to improve lint yield under a new planting model. A two-year field evaluation was carried out on cotton varieties—V1 (Zhongmian-16) and V2 (J-4B)—to examine the effect of changing the planting density (D1, low, 3 × 104; D2, moderate, 6 × 104; and D3, dense, 9 × 104) on cotton lint yield, leaf structure, chlorophyll fluorescence, and leaf gas exchange attribute responses. Across these varieties, J-4B had higher lint yield compared with Zhongmian-16 in both years. Plants at high density had depressed leaf structural traits, net photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, intercellular CO2 uptake, quenching (qP), actual quantum yield of photosystem II (ΦPSII), and maximum quantum yield of PSII (Fv/Fm) in both years. Crops at moderate density had improved leaf gas exchange traits, stomatal density, number of stomata, pore perimeter, length, and width, as well as increased qP, ΦPSII, and Fv/Fm compared with low- and high-density plants. Improvement in leaf structural and functional traits contributed to 15.9%–10.7% and 12.3%–10.5% more boll m−2, with 20.6%–13.4% and 28.9%–24.1% higher lint yield averaged across both years, respectively, under moderate planting density compared with low and high density. In conclusion, the data underscore the importance of proper agronomic methods for cotton production, and that J-4B and Zhongmian-16 varieties, grown under moderate and lower densities, could be a promising option based on improved lint yield in subtropical regions.

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 13

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

J-4B had higher lint yield than Zhongmian-16 in both years.

Material
J-4Be0
Outcome
lint yielde0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
Zhongmian-16e0

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

“J-4B had higher lint yield compared with Zhongmian-16 in both years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1016–1083 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Lint Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–140 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

High planting density depressed cotton leaf structural traits.

Treatment
high densitye0
Outcome
leaf structural traitse0
Direction
depressede0

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

“Plants at high density had depressed leaf structural traits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1085–1144 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Lint Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–140 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

High density depressed net photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance and intercellular CO2 uptake.

Treatment
high densitye0
Outcome
net photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, intercellular CO2 uptakee0
Direction
depressede0

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

“Plants at high density had depressed leaf structural traits, net photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, intercellular CO2 uptake”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1085–1217 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Lint Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–140 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

High density depressed qP, ΦPSII and Fv/Fm.

Treatment
high densitye0
Outcome
quenching (qP), actual quantum yield of photosystem II (ΦPSII), and maximum quantum yield of PSII (Fv/Fm)e0
Direction
depressede0

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

“Plants at high density had depressed leaf structural traits, net photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, intercellular CO2 uptake, quenching (qP), actual quantum yield of photosystem II (ΦPSII), and maximum quantum yield of PSII (Fv/Fm)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1085–1324 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Lint Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–140 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Moderate density improved leaf gas exchange traits relative to low and high density.

Treatment
moderate densitye0
Outcome
leaf gas exchange traitse0
Direction
improvede0
Comparator
low- and high-density plantse0e1

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

“Crops at moderate density had improved leaf gas exchange traits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1340–1403 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Lint Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–140 · show in text ↑
e1

“compared with low- and high-density plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1519–1561 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Moderate density improved stomatal density, number and pore perimeter.

Treatment
moderate densitye0
Outcome
stomatal density, number of stomata, pore perimetere0
Direction
improvede0
Comparator
low- and high-density plantse0e1

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

“Crops at moderate density had improved leaf gas exchange traits, stomatal density, number of stomata, pore perimeter”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1340–1456 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Lint Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–140 · show in text ↑
e1

“compared with low- and high-density plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1519–1561 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Moderate density improved stomatal length and width.

Treatment
moderate densitye0
Outcome
length, and widthe0
Direction
improvede0
Comparator
low- and high-density plantse0e1

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

“Crops at moderate density had improved leaf gas exchange traits, stomatal density, number of stomata, pore perimeter, length, and width”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1340–1475 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Lint Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–140 · show in text ↑
e1

“compared with low- and high-density plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1519–1561 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Moderate density increased qP, ΦPSII and Fv/Fm.

Treatment
moderate densitye0e1
Outcome
qP, ΦPSII, and Fv/Fme0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
low- and high-density plantse0

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

“increased qP, ΦPSII, and Fv/Fm compared with low- and high-density plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1488–1561 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Lint Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–140 · show in text ↑
e1

“Crops at moderate density had improved leaf gas exchange traits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1340–1403 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Moderate density increased bolls per square metre relative to low density by 15.9%–10.7%.

Treatment
moderate planting densitye0e1
Outcome
boll m−2e0
Direction
moree0
Value
15.9%–10.7%e0
Comparator
lowe0e1

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

“15.9%–10.7% and 12.3%–10.5% more boll m−2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1631–1672 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Lint Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–140 · show in text ↑
e1

“under moderate planting density compared with low and high density”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1767–1833 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Moderate density increased bolls per square metre relative to high density by 12.3%–10.5%.

Treatment
moderate planting densitye0e1
Outcome
boll m−2e0
Direction
moree0
Value
12.3%–10.5%e0
Comparator
highe0e1

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

“15.9%–10.7% and 12.3%–10.5% more boll m−2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1631–1672 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Lint Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–140 · show in text ↑
e1

“under moderate planting density compared with low and high density”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1767–1833 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Moderate density increased lint yield relative to low density by 20.6%–13.4%.

Treatment
moderate planting densitye0e1
Outcome
lint yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
20.6%–13.4%e0
Comparator
lowe0e1

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

“20.6%–13.4% and 28.9%–24.1% higher lint yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1679–1724 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Lint Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–140 · show in text ↑
e1

“under moderate planting density compared with low and high density”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1767–1833 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Moderate density increased lint yield relative to high density by 28.9%–24.1%.

Treatment
moderate planting densitye0e1
Outcome
lint yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
28.9%–24.1%e0
Comparator
highe0e1

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

“20.6%–13.4% and 28.9%–24.1% higher lint yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1679–1724 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Lint Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–140 · show in text ↑
e1

“under moderate planting density compared with low and high density”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1767–1833 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest J-4B and Zhongmian-16 at moderate and lower densities for improved lint yield.

Material
J-4B and Zhongmian-16e0
Outcome
could be a promising optione0
Setting
subtropical regionse0

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

“J-4B and Zhongmian-16 varieties, grown under moderate and lower densities, could be a promising option based on improved lint yield in subtropical regions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1945–2099 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Lint Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–140 · show in text ↑

density · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

69 papers: 34 positive, 35 negative or no effect

33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

65 papers more in this group

See all 69 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.