Abstract
Abstract Partial root‐zone drying irrigation (PRD) can improve water‐use efficiency (WUE) without reductions in photosynthesis; however, the mechanism by which this is attained is unclear. To amend that, PRD conditions were simulated by polyethylene glycol 6000 in a root‐splitting system and the effects of PRD on cotton growth were studied. Results showed that PRD decreased stomatal conductance ( g s ) but increased mesophyll conductance ( g m ). Due to the contrasting effects on g s and g m , net photosynthetic rate ( A N ) remained unaffected, while the enhanced g m / g s ratio facilitated a larger intrinsic WUE. Further analyses indicated that PRD‐induced reduction of g s was related to decreased stomatal size and stomatal pore area in adaxial and abaxial surface which was ascribed to lower pore length and width. PRD‐induced variation of g m was ascribed to the reduced liquid‐phase resistance, due to increases in chloroplast area facing to intercellular airspaces and the ratio of chloroplast surface area to total mesophyll cell area exposed to intercellular airspaces, as well as to decreases in the distance between cell wall and chloroplast, and between adjacent chloroplasts. The above results demonstrate that PRD, through alterations to stomatal and mesophyll structures, decoupled g s and g m responses, which ultimately increased intrinsic WUE and maintained A N .
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
PRD decreased stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- PRDe0
- Outcome
- stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PRD decreased stomatal conductance ( g s ) but increased mesophyll conductance ( g m ).”
t0“cotton leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD increased mesophyll conductance.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- PRDe0
- Outcome
- mesophyll conductancee0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PRD decreased stomatal conductance ( g s ) but increased mesophyll conductance ( g m ).”
t0“cotton leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Net photosynthetic rate remained unaffected under PRD.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- PRDe0
- Outcome
- net photosynthetic ratee0
- Direction
- unaffectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PRD decreased stomatal conductance ( g s ) but increased mesophyll conductance ( g m ). Due to the contrasting effects on g s and g m , net photosynthetic rate ( A N ) remained unaffected”
t0“cotton leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD increased intrinsic water-use efficiency.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- PRDe0
- Outcome
- intrinsic WUEe0
- Direction
- largere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PRD decreased stomatal conductance ( g s ) but increased mesophyll conductance ( g m ). Due to the contrasting effects on g s and g m , net photosynthetic rate ( A N ) remained unaffected, while the enhanced g m / g s ratio facilitated a larger intrinsic WUE”
t0“cotton leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD reduced stomatal size and pore area on both leaf surfaces.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Organ / stage
- adaxial and abaxial surfacee0
- Treatment
- PRDe0
- Outcome
- stomatal size and stomatal pore areae0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PRD‐induced reduction of g s was related to decreased stomatal size and stomatal pore area in adaxial and abaxial surface”
t0“cotton leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower pore length and width explained reduced stomatal size and area.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- pore length and widthe0
- Qualifier
- lower pore length and widthe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“which was ascribed to lower pore length and width”
t0“cotton leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD reduced liquid-phase resistance.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- PRDe0
- Outcome
- liquid‐phase resistancee0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PRD‐induced variation of g m was ascribed to the reduced liquid‐phase resistance”
t0“cotton leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Chloroplast area facing intercellular airspaces and exposed chloroplast surface ratio increased.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- chloroplast area facing to intercellular airspaces and the ratio of chloroplast surface area to total mesophyll cell area exposed to intercellular airspacese0
- Direction
- increasese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increases in chloroplast area facing to intercellular airspaces and the ratio of chloroplast surface area to total mesophyll cell area exposed to intercellular airspaces”
t0“cotton leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Distances between cell wall and chloroplast and between adjacent chloroplasts decreased.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- distance between cell wall and chloroplast, and between adjacent chloroplastse0
- Direction
- decreasese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreases in the distance between cell wall and chloroplast, and between adjacent chloroplasts”
t0“cotton leaves”
The same questions in other papers
processing · disease · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
irrigation · physiology: gas exchange · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →processing · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →irrigation · disease · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →irrigation · physiology: photosynthesis · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
109 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
127 papers more in this group
See all 131 papers →irrigation · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
100 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
140 papers more in this group
See all 144 papers →processing · physiology: photosynthesis · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.