HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (16) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Reddy, K.R. Articles by Vinyard, B. T. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Reddy, K.R. Articles by Vinyard, B. T. Agricola Articles by Reddy, K.R. Articles by Vinyard, B. T. Related Collections Agroclimatology Crop Growth and Development Cotton Plant and Environment Interactions

Temperature Regime and Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Alter Cotton Boll Development and Fiber Properties

^a Dep. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Box 9555, Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762 USA
^b USDA-ARS Southern Regional Res. Ctr., 1100 Robert E. Lee Blvd., P.O. Box 19687, New Orleans, LA 70179 USA

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1 Daily average temperature regimes for the five treatment conditions represented by five lines in the curves. From the bottom up: the first thin solid line represents 2°C below the 1995 ambient temperature; the next bold line represents the 1995 ambient temperature; the following thin, bold, and thin lines represent 2, 5, and 7°C warmer than the 1995 ambient temperature treatments. An overall bold line not closely following the curve pattern indicates the 42-yr long-term average daily temperature for Stoneville, MS (a site representing the U.S. Mid-South during that time frame; Reddy et al., 1997). Plants were harvested as they reached 50% open bolls; the higher temperature treatments were therefore harvested earlier than the cooler treatments

View larger version (47K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2 Bolls and squares produced and retained by cotton plants grown from emergence to maturity at various temperature deviations from 1995 ambient temperature at Mississippi State, MS. Square and boll counts were made when the plants had 50% of the bolls opened for any given treatment. Error bars indicate 1 SE

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3 Influence of temperature and atmospheric [CO2] on boll maturation period. Circles represent means at ambient CO2 (360 µL L-1) and squares represent means at elevated CO2 (720 µL L-1). The temperatures were averages from flowering to open bolls. Error bars indicate ±1 SE (where larger than symbol size)

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4 Influence of temperature and atmospheric [CO2] on boll growth rate (solid symbols) and mature open boll weight (open symbols). Circles represent means at ambient CO2 (360 µL L-1) and squares represent means at elevated CO2 (720 µL L-1). The temperatures were averages from flowering to open bolls. Error bars indicate ±1 SE

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5 Influence of temperature on (a) fiber length by weight, L(w), and (b) short-fiber content by weight, SFC(w), as a function of temperature for plants grown in ambient (circles) and twice ambient (squares) atmospheric [CO2]. The temperatures were averages from flowering to open bolls. Error bars indicate ±1 SE

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6 Representative histogram of fiber lengths L(w) from bolls at the first position from Node 11 for plants grown in ambient atmospheric [CO2]. Histograms of fiber lengths from bolls grown in 1995 ambient minus 2°C (seasonal average, 20°C) and in 1995 ambient temperatures plus 2°C (seasonal average, 26°C) were based on 10000 and 6343 fibers, respectively. The temperatures were averages from flowering to open bolls

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7 Fiber properties when grown at different temperature: (a) degree of circularity, , (b) cross-sectional area, A(n), and (c) micronafis, which is similar to micronaire as a function of temperature for plants grown in ambient (circles) and twice ambient (squares) atmospheric [CO2]. The temperatures were averages from flowering to open bolls. Error bars indicate ±1 SE