Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Foliar compost tea at 75% RDF + 75% CTF gave significantly superior boll weight

A claim from Effect of application of organic formulations on growth, yield and yield attributes of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) grown in vertisols · 2024

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar compost tea at 75% RDF + 75% CTF gave significantly superior boll weight

Treatment
foliar application of compost tea as 75% RDF + 75% CTFe1
Outcome
boll weighte7
Direction
superiore1
Value
15.27 g boll-1e7
Setting
vertisole0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorQualifier

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

“cotton variety Rasi (RCH 386 BG II) as a test crop in vertisol”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 70–132
e1

“foliar application of compost tea as 75% RDF + 75% CTF noted significantly superior growth and yield attributes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 728–839
e7

“boll weight (15.27 g boll-1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 983–1011

Title

Effect of application of organic formulations on growth, yield and yield attributes of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) grown in vertisols

Pranali Patil; SP Zade; PH Vaidya International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research 2024. doi:10.33545/26174693.2024.v8.i10q.2737

Other claims from this paper (8)

Record rev-15dded86e0508a3822aeebde5cb2d11641eca33af70eb9babd05560b6a668adf · schema claims-v0.9 · position 6 in the model’s answer

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

283 papers: 253 positive, 30 negative or no effect

252 papers in the same direction as this claim · 27 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
    Foliar methanol did not increase cotton yield at any location.

    Foliar Methanol Applications to Cotton in the Southeastern United States: Leaf Physiology, Growth, and Yield Components · 1995

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
    Fluazifop at four weeks gave cotton 93% of weed-free yield.

    Growth and Interaction of Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) by Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) · 1991 · compared with weed-free cotton

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Peak flowering spraying somewhat reduced weight of late opening bolls.

    Cotton Flowering and Fruiting Responses to Application Timing of Chemical Growth Retardants1 · 1975

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Foliar fertilizers produced no significant yield response.

    Effects of foliar fertilization of texas southern high plains cotton: Leaf phosphorus, potassium, zinc, iron, manganese, boron, calcium, and yield distribution · 1999

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    First-harvest lint yield was generally unaffected by foliar treatments.

    Influence of surfactants on potassium uptake and yield response of cotton to foliar potassium nitrate · 1995

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    Foliar fertilizers did not significantly affect lint or seed yield.

    Effects of Foliar Fertilization of Texas Southern High Plains Cotton: Leaf Nitrogen and Growth Parameters · 1998

    Opposite direction

  7. negative
    A single 1 mL water spray reduced cotton seed set by 55%.

    Sprinkler‐Induced Flower Losses and Yield Reductions in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) · 2003

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Lint yields were similar with early or early plus midseason glyphosate sprays.

    Timing of Glyphosate Application on Control of Silverleaf Nightshade and Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton Yield · 2006

    Opposite direction

274 papers more in this group

See all 283 papers →

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

550 papers: 497 positive, 53 negative or no effect

496 papers in the same direction as this claim · 47 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
    Cotton yields did not respond to K fertilization above 160 kg K2O/ha.

    Effects of Rate and Time of Potassium Application on Cotton Yield and Quality in Turkey · 2002

    Opposite direction

  2. no effect
    Potassium fertilization did not affect cotton flower production at either planting date.

    Planting Date and Potassium Fertility Effects on Cotton Yield and Fiber Properties · 1998

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    At sympodia 5 through 10, fruiting site 1 boll production fell from 49% at zero nitrogen to 36% at 168 kg ha−1.

    Nitrogen Effects on Boll Production of Field‐Grown Cotton · 1993 · compared with 0 N rate

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Calcium or magnesium salts without liming did not raise low cotton yields.

    Long‐Term Liming Effects on Coastal Plain Soils and Crops · 2001

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    Fertilizer N did not influence cotton yield after pea cover.

    Cotton Yield and Fiber Quality Response to Green Manures and Nitrogen · 1993

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    P fertilizer did not affect cotton lint yield at Lamesa in 2000.

    Influence of Landscape Position, Soil Series, and Phosphorus Fertilizer on Cotton Lint Yield · 2003

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Potassium fertilization had no effect on cotton yield.

    Influence of Boron, Nitrogen, and Potassium on Yield, Nutrient Uptake, and Abnormalities of Cotton · 1969

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Phosphorus fertilizer had no effect on biomass production.

    Phosphorus Use-Efficiency by Cotton Grown in an Alkaline Soil as Determined Using32Phosphorus and33Phosphorus Radio-Isotopes · 2008

    Opposite direction

541 papers more in this group

See all 550 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.