Paper · 2021 · Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

Partial Root Zone Drying Irrigation Improves Water Use Efficiency but Compromise the Yield and Quality of Cotton Crop

Rashid Iqbal; Muhammad Aown Sammar Raza; Muhammad Adil Rashid; et al.

10
claims
20
verbatim quotes
16
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Water shortage is the main limitation for agricultural production in many parts of the world. Drought or unavailability of water may seriously limit plant growth as well as yield. A pot experiment was carried out to evaluate the effects of various irrigation strategies, i.e., Full (FI), deficit (DI) and partial root-zone drying (PRD) on physiological, biochemical and yield-related attributes of cotton crop. Irrigation treatments started 60 days after planting and lasted for 60 days. For FI and DI, 100% and 50% of evapotranspiration (ET) was replaced by irrigating the entire pot surface every 4–5 days. For PRD, root system was split into two equal halves and during each irrigation event, only one-half of the root system was irrigated with the same amount of water as applied to DI, and subsequently, irrigation was switched to the second half.PRD irrigation significantly improved WUE, which was 21% and 26% higher than FI and DI, respectively. Higher ABA production under PRD reduced stomatal conductance and net photosynthesis. The activity of antioxidant enzymes namely superoxide dismutase, peroxidase, catalase and ascorbate peroxidase was significantly higher under PRD than DI and FI. Magnitude of osmotic adjustment (i.e. total sugar and proline content) was lowest and highest under FI and PRD, respectively. However, PRD reduced chlorophyll content index, seed cotton yield and fiber quality (fiber strength, fiber length, fiber fineness) as compared to FI. The results indicated that despite improving the WUE, PRD tended to compromise the yield and quality of cotton crop. Results imply that PRD treatment can be an option under water shortage; however, its suitability and efficacy should further be tested under field conditions by applying irrigation water in alternate rows.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

PRD raised cotton water use efficiency by 21% over FI.

Taxon
Cotton CropGossypium hirsutumt0
Treatment
PRDe0
Outcome
WUEe0
Direction
highere0
Value
21%e0
Comparator
FIe0

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

“PRD irrigation significantly improved WUE, which was 21% and 26% higher than FI and DI, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 852–953 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–117 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

PRD raised cotton water use efficiency by 26% over DI.

Taxon
Cotton CropGossypium hirsutumt0
Treatment
PRDe0
Outcome
WUEe0
Direction
highere0
Value
26%e0
Comparator
DIe0

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

“PRD irrigation significantly improved WUE, which was 21% and 26% higher than FI and DI, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 852–953 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–117 · show in text ↑
Mechanismobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Higher ABA production under PRD reduced stomatal conductance.

Taxon
Cotton CropGossypium hirsutumt0
Treatment
PRDe0
Compound
ABAe0
Outcome
stomatal conductancee0
Direction
reducede0

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

“Higher ABA production under PRD reduced stomatal conductance and net photosynthesis.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 954–1038 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–117 · show in text ↑
Mechanismobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Higher ABA production under PRD reduced net photosynthesis.

Taxon
Cotton CropGossypium hirsutumt0
Treatment
PRDe0
Compound
ABAe0
Outcome
net photosynthesise0
Direction
reducede0

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

“Higher ABA production under PRD reduced stomatal conductance and net photosynthesis.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 954–1038 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–117 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

PRD raised antioxidant enzyme activity relative to DI and FI.

Taxon
Cotton CropGossypium hirsutumt0
Treatment
PRDe0
Gene
superoxide dismutase, peroxidase, catalase and ascorbate peroxidasee0
Outcome
activity of antioxidant enzymese0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
DI and FIe0

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

“The activity of antioxidant enzymes namely superoxide dismutase, peroxidase, catalase and ascorbate peroxidase was significantly higher under PRD than DI and FI.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1039–1200 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–117 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Osmotic adjustment was lowest under FI and highest under PRD.

Taxon
Cotton CropGossypium hirsutumt0
Treatment
PRDe0
Outcome
Magnitude of osmotic adjustment (i.e. total sugar and proline content)e0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
FIe0

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

“Magnitude of osmotic adjustment (i.e. total sugar and proline content) was lowest and highest under FI and PRD, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1201–1326 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–117 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PRD reduced cotton chlorophyll content index against FI.

Taxon
Cotton CropGossypium hirsutumt0
Treatment
PRDe0
Outcome
chlorophyll content indexe0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
FIe0

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

“PRD reduced chlorophyll content index, seed cotton yield and fiber quality (fiber strength, fiber length, fiber fineness) as compared to FI.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1336–1476 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–117 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PRD reduced seed cotton yield against FI.

Taxon
Cotton CropGossypium hirsutumt0
Treatment
PRDe0
Outcome
seed cotton yielde0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
FIe0

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

“PRD reduced chlorophyll content index, seed cotton yield and fiber quality (fiber strength, fiber length, fiber fineness) as compared to FI.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1336–1476 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–117 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PRD reduced cotton fiber strength, length and fineness against FI.

Taxon
Cotton CropGossypium hirsutumt0
Treatment
PRDe0
Outcome
fiber strength, fiber length, fiber finenesse0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
FIe0

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

“PRD reduced chlorophyll content index, seed cotton yield and fiber quality (fiber strength, fiber length, fiber fineness) as compared to FI.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1336–1476 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–117 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest PRD as an option under water shortage, subject to field testing.

Taxon
Cotton CropGossypium hirsutumt0
Outcome
PRD treatment can be an option under water shortagee0
Qualifier
suitability and efficacy should further be tested under field conditions by applying irrigation water in alternate rowse0

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

“Results imply that PRD treatment can be an option under water shortage; however, its suitability and efficacy should further be tested under field conditions by applying irrigation water in alternate rows.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1594–1799 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–117 · show in text ↑

irrigation · physiology: pigments · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 6 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

irrigation · physiology: water · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

131 papers: 110 positive, 21 negative or no effect

109 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

127 papers more in this group

See all 131 papers →

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

134 papers: 73 positive, 61 negative or no effect

60 papers in the same direction as this paper · 73 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

130 papers more in this group

See all 134 papers →

irrigation · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

399 papers: 304 positive, 95 negative or no effect

94 papers in the same direction as this paper · 304 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. positive

395 papers more in this group

See all 399 papers →

irrigation · physiology: antioxidant enzymes · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 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.