Abstract
SALINITY is one of a great environmental stresses limiting productivity of crops. Moringa leaf extract (MLE) is considered as bio-stimulant and eco-friendly fertilizer, which being rich in amino acids, minerals, and growth hormones. A pot experiment was conducted in 2020 and 2021 seasons at greenhouse of Plant Physiology Department, Cotton Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt. This experiment design was split-plot with three replications, which the main plots were devoted to salinity water irrigation (SWI) concentrations (0, 6000 and 10000ppm), while the sub-plots were randomly of MLE foliar application concentrations (10, 20 and 30%) at three times (squaring, beginning and top flowering stages) to investigate the effective concentration of MLE foliar application on chemical constituents, growth, yield and fiber parameters under SWI concentrations on Giza 97 cotton cultivar. MLE foliar application enhanced significantly chemical constituent, enzymes activity, growth, yield and fiber properties as compared with untreated plants under different SWI concentrations. The best results were recorded by spraying MLE at concentration of 30% about (15.30 and 16.61%) for number of opened bolls/plant, (15.27 and 10.56%) for boll weight and (31.36 and 33.56%) for seed cotton yield as compared to untreated plants in both seasons, respectively. On the other hand, salinity conditions caused significantly reduction in pigments contents, growth and yield. However, it caused significantly increasing in osmolyte compounds and enzymes activity on cotton. The interaction between SWI and MLE treatments effected significantly on chemical constituents, enzymes activity, growth, yield characters, while did not affect significantly on fiber properties.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar MLE enhanced chemical constituents and enzyme activity of cotton compared with untreated plants under salinity irrigation.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume2 - Material
- Giza 97e2
- Treatment
- MLE foliar applicatione1
- Outcome
- chemical constituent, enzymes activitye1
- Direction
- enhancede1
- Comparator
- untreated plantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“MLE foliar application enhanced significantly chemical constituent, enzymes activity, growth, yield and fiber properties as compared with untreated plants”
e2“on Giza 97 cotton cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar MLE enhanced growth, yield and fiber properties of cotton compared with untreated plants under salinity irrigation.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Material
- Giza 97e2
- Treatment
- MLE foliar applicatione1
- Outcome
- growth, yield and fiber propertiese1
- Direction
- enhancede1
- Comparator
- untreated plantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“MLE foliar application enhanced significantly chemical constituent, enzymes activity, growth, yield and fiber properties as compared with untreated plants”
e2“on Giza 97 cotton cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying MLE at 30% increased the number of opened bolls per plant compared with untreated plants.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume3
- Material
- Giza 97e3
- Treatment
- spraying MLE at concentration of 30%e2
- Outcome
- number of opened bolls/plante1
- Direction
- increaseinferrede1
- Value
- 15.30 and 16.61%e1
- Comparator
- untreated plantse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The best results were recorded by spraying MLE at concentration of 30% about (15.30 and 16.61%) for number of opened bolls/plant”
e2“spraying MLE at concentration of 30%”
e3“on Giza 97 cotton cultivar”
e4“as compared to untreated plants in both seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying MLE at 30% increased boll weight compared with untreated plants.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume3
- Material
- Giza 97e3
- Treatment
- spraying MLE at concentration of 30%e2
- Outcome
- boll weighte1
- Direction
- increaseinferrede1
- Value
- 15.27 and 10.56%e1
- Comparator
- untreated plantse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“(15.27 and 10.56%) for boll weight”
e2“spraying MLE at concentration of 30%”
e3“on Giza 97 cotton cultivar”
e4“as compared to untreated plants in both seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying MLE at 30% increased seed cotton yield compared with untreated plants.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume3
- Material
- Giza 97e3
- Treatment
- spraying MLE at concentration of 30%e2
- Outcome
- seed cotton yielde1
- Direction
- increaseinferrede1
- Value
- 31.36 and 33.56%e1
- Comparator
- untreated plantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“(31.36 and 33.56%) for seed cotton yield as compared to untreated plants in both seasons”
e2“spraying MLE at concentration of 30%”
e3“on Giza 97 cotton cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Salinity irrigation reduced pigment content, growth and yield of cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Material
- Giza 97e2
- Treatment
- salinity conditionse1
- Outcome
- pigments contents, growth and yielde1
- Direction
- reductione1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“salinity conditions caused significantly reduction in pigments contents, growth and yield”
e2“on Giza 97 cotton cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Salinity irrigation increased osmolyte compounds and enzyme activity in cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Material
- Giza 97e2
- Treatment
- salinity conditionse3
- Outcome
- osmolyte compounds and enzymes activitye1
- Direction
- increasinge1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“it caused significantly increasing in osmolyte compounds and enzymes activity on cotton”
e2“on Giza 97 cotton cultivar”
e3“salinity conditions caused significantly reduction in pigments contents, growth and yield”
Claim · model-written summary
The interaction between SWI and MLE significantly affected chemical constituents and enzyme activity of cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Material
- Giza 97e2
- Treatment
- interaction between SWI and MLE treatmentse1
- Outcome
- chemical constituents, enzymes activitye1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The interaction between SWI and MLE treatments effected significantly on chemical constituents, enzymes activity, growth, yield characters, while did not affect significantly on fiber properties”
e2“on Giza 97 cotton cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
The interaction between SWI and MLE significantly affected growth and yield characters of cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Material
- Giza 97e2
- Treatment
- interaction between SWI and MLE treatmentse1
- Outcome
- growth, yield characterse1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The interaction between SWI and MLE treatments effected significantly on chemical constituents, enzymes activity, growth, yield characters, while did not affect significantly on fiber properties”
e2“on Giza 97 cotton cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
The interaction between SWI and MLE did not significantly affect fiber properties of cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Material
- Giza 97e2
- Treatment
- interaction between SWI and MLE treatmentse1
- Outcome
- fiber propertiese1
- Direction
- did not affect significantlye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The interaction between SWI and MLE treatments effected significantly on chemical constituents, enzymes activity, growth, yield characters, while did not affect significantly on fiber properties”
e2“on Giza 97 cotton cultivar”
The same questions in other papers
salinity · physiology: pigments · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- negative
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →botanical · physiology: enzyme activity · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
botanical · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 papers →application · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
57 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
73 papers more in this group
See all 77 papers →application · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
252 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 papers →application · physiology: enzyme activity · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
botanical · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
7 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 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.