Paper · 2017 · ˜The œjournal of cotton science/Journal of cotton science

Stress Responses of Commercial Cotton Cultivars to Reduced Irrigation at Flowering and Maximization of Yields under Sub-Optimal Subsurface Drip Irrigation

John J. Burke; Mauricio Ulloa

10
claims
19
verbatim quotes
6
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The gradual depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer in the Southern High Plains of Texas has resulted in reduced well capacities for cotton (Gossypium spp.) irrigation. This study investigated cotton cultivar responses to reduced irrigation from flowering to harvest (2013); and then evaluated season long water deficits and the impact of the timing and amount of irrigation (2014). In 2013, field-grown cotton irrigated with 5 mm per day irrigation showed relatively low stress levels as exemplified by efficiency of quantum yield values between 0.17 and 0.23. Reducing irrigation levels from 5 mm per day to 2.5 mm per day at flowering produced a range of stress levels of Fv/Fm from 0.28 to 0.54. In 2014, four of the commercial cultivars were grown in replicated plots receiving either 2.5 mm of irrigation per day or 17.5 mm of irrigation once a week. Cultivar differences in plant stress were detected for the daily and weekly irrigation strategies. Changes in plant size, boll production, and timing of cutout were observed. FM 2484B2F and Phytogen 72 exhibited no yield differences between the irrigation regimes, while All-Tex Edge and Phytogen 367 showed yield decreases (20% and 25%) under the 2.5 mm daily irrigation regime. Alteration of the timing for the limited irrigation can impact existing stress sensitivities by reducing stress levels and increasing yields.

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

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 5 mm daily irrigation, field cotton had low stress with quantum yield efficiency of 0.17 to 0.23.

Treatment
5 mm per day irrigatione0
Outcome
efficiency of quantum yielde0
Value
0.17 and 0.23e0

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

“field-grown cotton irrigated with 5 mm per day irrigation showed relatively low stress levels as exemplified by efficiency of quantum yield values between 0.17 and 0.23”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 386–554 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reducing irrigation at flowering produced Fv/Fm stress values of 0.28 to 0.54.

Organ / stage
floweringe0
Treatment
2.5 mm per daye0
Outcome
stress levels of Fv/Fme0
Value
0.28 to 0.54e0
Comparator
5 mm per daye0

Not reportedDirection

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

“Reducing irrigation levels from 5 mm per day to 2.5 mm per day at flowering produced a range of stress levels of Fv/Fm from 0.28 to 0.54”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 556–692 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–47 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cultivars differed in plant stress under daily and weekly irrigation.

Treatment
daily and weekly irrigation strategiese0
Outcome
plant stresse0

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

“Cultivar differences in plant stress were detected for the daily and weekly irrigation strategies”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 851–948 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–47 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation strategies changed plant size, boll production, and timing of cutout.

Outcome
plant size, boll production, and timing of cutoute0

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

“Changes in plant size, boll production, and timing of cutout were observed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 950–1024 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

FM 2484B2F showed no yield difference between irrigation regimes.

Material
FM 2484B2Fe0
Treatment
irrigation regimese0
Outcome
yield differencese0
Direction
no yield differencese0
Comparator
irrigation regimese0

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

“FM 2484B2F and Phytogen 72 exhibited no yield differences between the irrigation regimes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1026–1114 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phytogen 72 showed no yield difference between irrigation regimes.

Material
Phytogen 72e0
Treatment
irrigation regimese0
Outcome
yield differencese0
Direction
no yield differencese0
Comparator
irrigation regimese0

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

“FM 2484B2F and Phytogen 72 exhibited no yield differences between the irrigation regimes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1026–1114 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All-Tex Edge yield decreased 20% under daily 2.5 mm irrigation.

Material
All-Tex Edgee0
Treatment
2.5 mm daily irrigation regimee0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
decreasese0
Value
20%e0

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

“All-Tex Edge and Phytogen 367 showed yield decreases (20% and 25%) under the 2.5 mm daily irrigation regime”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1122–1229 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phytogen 367 yield decreased 25% under daily 2.5 mm irrigation.

Material
Phytogen 367e0
Treatment
2.5 mm daily irrigation regimee0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
decreasese0
Value
25%e0

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

“All-Tex Edge and Phytogen 367 showed yield decreases (20% and 25%) under the 2.5 mm daily irrigation regime”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1122–1229 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Changing limited-irrigation timing can reduce stress.

Treatment
Alteration of the timing for the limited irrigatione0
Outcome
stress levelse0
Direction
reducinge0

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

“Alteration of the timing for the limited irrigation can impact existing stress sensitivities by reducing stress levels and increasing yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1231–1371 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Changing limited-irrigation timing can increase yields.

Treatment
Alteration of the timing for the limited irrigatione0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
increasinge0

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

“Alteration of the timing for the limited irrigation can impact existing stress sensitivities by reducing stress levels and increasing yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1231–1371 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–47 · show in text ↑

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

399 papers: 304 positive, 95 negative or no effect

303 papers in the same direction as this paper · 86 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

395 papers more in this group

See all 399 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.