Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Early glufosinate injury did not lead to seed cotton yield loss versus untreated control for three cultivars.

A claim from Effect of Shading, Cultivar, and Application Timing on Cotton Tolerance to Glufosinate · 2016

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Early glufosinate injury did not lead to seed cotton yield loss versus untreated control for three cultivars.

Treatment
glufosinatee1
Outcome
seed cotton yield losse0
Direction
does not translate intoe0
Comparator
untreated controle0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

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

“this injury does not translate into seed cotton yield loss for the three cultivars evaluated, compared to an untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1442–1568
e1

“At two weeks after cotton emergence (WAE), tolerance to glufosinate differed by cultivar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 667–755
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–61

Title

Effect of Shading, Cultivar, and Application Timing on Cotton Tolerance to Glufosinate

Jason K. Norsworthy; Brandon W. Schrage; Tom L. Barber; et al. ˜The œjournal of cotton science/Journal of cotton science 2016. doi:10.56454/kzvi4403

Other claims from this paper (8)

Record rev-3122b4e9c82d3ebcaed1e47d00b8837428fecd33a922dd26f918d5e18c73ebd8 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 8 in the model’s answer

glufosinate · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

18 papers: 8 positive, 10 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this claim · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    Glufosinate-treated LibertyLink cotton yielded slightly more than the nontreated check.

    Response of LibertyLink and WideStrike Cotton to Varying Rates of Glufosinate · 2015 · compared with nontreated check

    Opposite directionCited by this paper

  2. no effect
    Glufosinate or its mixtures did not reduce cotton yield.

    Weed Control and Crop Response to Glufosinate Applied to ‘PHY 485 WRF’ Cotton · 2009

    Same directionCited by this paper

  3. negative
    One bloom-stage glufosinate application reduced yield against weed-free control.

    Evaluation of WideStrike Cotton Response to Repeated Applications of Glufosinate at Various Application Timings · 2015 · compared with weed-free control

    Same directionCited by this paper

  4. positive
    Early postemergence glufosinate generally improved cotton yield relative to mid-postemergence application.

    WEED SCIENCE Management of Annual Grasses and Amaranthus spp. in Glufosinate-resistant Cotton · 2006 · compared with MPOST

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    Cotton yield was at least 30% higher with 2,4-D plus glufosinate than either herbicide alone.

    Controlling Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Cotton with Resistance to Glyphosate, 2,4-D, and Glufosinate · 2014 · compared with systems with either herbicide alone

    Opposite direction

  6. positive
    Glufosinate ammonium at 450 g/ha gave maximum growth, yield and economic profitability of cotton.

    Phytotoxic effects of glufosinate ammonium on cotton and soil micro-flora · 2019

    Opposite direction

  7. positive
    Lower-dose glyphosate 1.025 kg ha −1 followed by HW and glufosinate 0.45 kg ha −1 produced cotton yield comparable to glyphosate 2.05 kg ha −1 followed by HW.

    CHEMICAL WEED CONTROL USING NON-SELECTIVE HERBICIDES IN IRRIGATED COTION (G. HIRSUTUMj · 2002 · compared with glyphosate 2.05 kg ha −1 fb HW

    Opposite direction

  8. positive
    Glufosinate application increased seed cotton yield.

    Weed Control in Cotton(Gossypium hirsutum L.) · 2001

    Opposite direction

9 papers more in this group

See all 18 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.