Intervention effectmodel-written summary

At 20 mg/liter, urea spray increased cotton number of bolls/plant by 43.92 versus control.

A claim from Effect of Spraying Urea in Yield and Components Properties in Upland Cotton Gossypium Hirsutum · 2011

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

At 20 mg/liter, urea spray increased cotton number of bolls/plant by 43.92 versus control.

Material
Koker 310t1
Treatment
Spraying urea fertilizer in concentration 20 mg/litere0
Outcome
number of bolls/plante0
Direction
exceedede0
Value
43.92e0
Comparator
controle0
Setting
mosul technical institutet1

Not reportedGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleQualifier

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

“Spraying urea fertilizer in concentration 20 mg/liter significantly exceeded from control in plant height , number of fruiting branches , number of bolls/plant , boll weight and seed cotton yield kg/h in percent 63.72 , 24.49 , 43.92 , 8.92 , 42.59% respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 639–901
t0

“Cotton Gossypium Hirsutum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–94
t1

“cotton Koker 310 at summer season 2007 in experiment station of cotton research unit in mosul technical institute”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 213–326

Title

Effect of Spraying Urea in Yield and Components Properties in Upland Cotton Gossypium Hirsutum

Naif S. Saleh; Arshad Th. AL-Niaumi; Fathel R. AL-Kana Kirkuk University Journal-Scientific Studies 2011. doi:10.32894/kujss.2011.42538

Other claims from this paper (8)

Record rev-a3ee969e7e5d6c2a9e2d063a70a4241252f87990566637fffe39a85aabedb8ce · schema claims-v0.9 · position 3 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 →

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

343 papers: 286 positive, 57 negative or no effect

285 papers in the same direction as this claim · 53 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
    Cotton yield did not respond to nitrogen in the Missouri experiments under adverse weather.

    Determination of cotton nitrogen status with a handheld chlorophyll meter · 1992

    Opposite direction

  2. no effect
    Increasing N rate did not affect yield or yield components of irrigated or rain-fed cotton.

    Cotton in Ultra‐Narrow Row Spacing: Plant Density and Nitrogen Fertilizer Rates · 2005

    Opposite direction

  3. no effect
    The two N application methods yielded similarly on all other occasions.

    Nitrogen Application to Cotton on Clay Soil: Timing and Soil Testing · 1988

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Nitrogen deficits had little effect on boll weight, boll period duration and number of main stem nodes.

    Plant Nitrogen Status and Boll Load of Cotton · 1994

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    Nitrogen rates above 112 kg N ha −1 did not significantly increase seed cotton yield in any study year.

    Nitrogen Fertilization of Cotton Cultivars of Differing Maturity · 1993

    Opposite direction

  6. negative
    Higher nitrogen rates reduced first harvest percentage by up to 17.4%.

    Nitrogen and Mepiquat Chloride Effects on the Production of Nonrank, Irrigated, Short‐Season Cotton · 1994

    Opposite direction

  7. negative
    Low N reduced vegetative growth components and number of bolls.

    Evaluation of Nutritional Status of the Cotton Plant with Respect to Nitrogen · 2004

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Nitrogen rate did not affect timing of 30, 60, or 85% harvest.

    Timing of Maturity in Ultra‐Narrow and Conventional Row Cotton as Affected by Nitrogen Fertilizer Rate · 2008

    Opposite direction

334 papers more in this group

See all 343 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.