Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Mepiquat chloride spray raised bolls per plant, boll weight and seed cotton yield relative to control.

A claim from Influence of mepiquat chloride on growth, yield and quality of cotton. · 2000

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Mepiquat chloride spray raised bolls per plant, boll weight and seed cotton yield relative to control.

Treatment
mepiquat chloride spraye1
Outcome
Bolls plant−1, boll weight, seed cotton yielde1
Direction
highere1
Comparator
controle1

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

t0

“quality of cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–69
e1

“Bolls plant−1, boll weight, seed cotton yield and fibre strength were significantly higher in mepiquat chloride spray compared to control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 109–246

Title

Influence of mepiquat chloride on growth, yield and quality of cotton.

Mahaveer Prasad; Ram Prakash Pesticide Research Journal 2000

Other claims from this paper (3)

Record rev-8c893522977509b2e45db70b009ac29f4882d21d6b175e05af3f3f3dadf81c66 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 2 in the model’s answer

mepiquat chloride · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

70 papers: 59 positive, 11 negative or no effect

58 papers in the same direction as this claim · 11 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
    Mepiquat chloride did not alter the number of bolls per plant.

    Modification of Cotton Water Relations and Growth with Mepiquat Chloride1 · 1984

    Opposite direction

  2. no effect
    Mepiquat chloride application did not increase the total number of bolls.

    Cotton Fruiting Modification with Mepiquat Chloride1 · 1986

    Opposite direction

  3. no effect
    Seed-applied mepiquat chloride did not significantly affect cotton dry matter production, root length, shoot-to-root ratio, or leaf-area-to-root-length ratio.

    Cotton root and shoot growth as affected by application of mepiquat chloride to cotton seeds · 2011

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Treatment with mepiquat chloride did not influence cotton yield in a consistent manner

    Impact of Cotton Production Systems on Management of Hoplolaimus columbus. · 2003

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    Mepiquat chloride did not affect cotton yield.

    Cotton Response to Sub‐Surface Drip Irrigation, Planting Date, Cultivar, and Mepiquat Chloride · 2012

    Opposite direction

  6. negative
    Mepiquat chloride reduced cotton dry matter yield regardless of rainfall interval.

    Growth regulator losses from cotton plants due to rainfall · 2010

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Mepiquat chloride on dicamba-injured cotton gave yields similar to untreated cotton in 2017.

    Efficacy of Recovery Sprays to Synthetic Auxin Injured Cotton and Comparison of Multiple and Single Pass Harvest Systems Effect on Cotton Yield and Fiber Quality · 2020 · compared with untreated cotton

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Slow-release mepiquat chloride had little effect on cotton yield

    Chemical treatment of slow-release mepiquat chloride from coated cotton seed in south Xinjiang. · 2010

    Opposite direction

61 papers more in this group

See all 70 papers →

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

78 papers: 67 positive, 11 negative or no effect

66 papers in the same direction as this claim · 11 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
    Mepiquat chloride did not alter the number of bolls per plant.

    Modification of Cotton Water Relations and Growth with Mepiquat Chloride1 · 1984

    Opposite direction

  2. no effect
    Mepiquat chloride application did not increase the total number of bolls.

    Cotton Fruiting Modification with Mepiquat Chloride1 · 1986

    Opposite direction

  3. no effect
    Seed-applied mepiquat chloride did not significantly affect cotton dry matter production, root length, shoot-to-root ratio, or leaf-area-to-root-length ratio.

    Cotton root and shoot growth as affected by application of mepiquat chloride to cotton seeds · 2011

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Treatment with mepiquat chloride did not influence cotton yield in a consistent manner

    Impact of Cotton Production Systems on Management of Hoplolaimus columbus. · 2003

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    Mepiquat chloride did not affect cotton yield.

    Cotton Response to Sub‐Surface Drip Irrigation, Planting Date, Cultivar, and Mepiquat Chloride · 2012

    Opposite direction

  6. negative
    Mepiquat chloride reduced cotton dry matter yield regardless of rainfall interval.

    Growth regulator losses from cotton plants due to rainfall · 2010

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Mepiquat chloride on dicamba-injured cotton gave yields similar to untreated cotton in 2017.

    Efficacy of Recovery Sprays to Synthetic Auxin Injured Cotton and Comparison of Multiple and Single Pass Harvest Systems Effect on Cotton Yield and Fiber Quality · 2020 · compared with untreated cotton

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Slow-release mepiquat chloride had little effect on cotton yield

    Chemical treatment of slow-release mepiquat chloride from coated cotton seed in south Xinjiang. · 2010

    Opposite direction

69 papers more in this group

See all 78 papers →

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 →

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.