Intervention effectmodel-written summary

TE and CCC alone and in combination can decrease lodging risk in winter wheat.

A claim from What are the effects of chlormequat and trinexapac-ethyl alone or in combina- tion on lodging, height and yield of winter wheat in Tasmania? · 2015

Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

TE and CCC alone and in combination can decrease lodging risk in winter wheat.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
TE and CCC alone and in combinatione5
Outcome
lodging riske5
Direction
decreasee5

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“winter wheat in Tasmania”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–139
e5

“The results indicate that both TE and CCC alone and in combination can decrease lodging risk”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · abstract, characters 1440–1531

Title

What are the effects of chlormequat and trinexapac-ethyl alone or in combina- tion on lodging, height and yield of winter wheat in Tasmania?

Angela Merry; Geoff Dean; Tina Acuña; et al. eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) 2015

Other claims from this paper (5)

Record rev-b7cff558ca3e388b6de7316e85556b498a91b45226992d27acc4b1394260f01e · schema claims-v0.9 · position 6 in the model’s answer

chlormequat chloride · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

49 papers: 37 positive, 12 negative or no effect

36 papers in the same direction as this claim · 11 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
    Only trinexapac-ethyl and chlormequat reduced wheat plant height, relative to the control without retardant.

    Use of growth retardants in wheat · 2009 · compared with control treatment without growth retardant application

    Same directionCited by this paper

  2. negative
    CCC shortened mature wheat plants to 60% of untreated height.

    Effect of CCC (chlorocholine chloride) on growth and yield of spring wheat in the field · 1965 · compared with untreated plants

    Opposite direction

  3. no effect
    Chlormequat did not protect wheat from biomass loss.

    Plant growth regulators control ozone damage to wheat yield · 2001

    Opposite direction

  4. negative
    CCC reduced inflorescence initiation and development.

    Developmental Responses by Tall and Dwarf Isogenic Lines of Spring Wheat to Applied Gibberellins. · 1995

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    Cycocel left total leaf area of winter wheat largely unchanged.

    An Analysis of the Response of Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Components to Cycocel (Chlormequat) Application · 1996

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    Longest root length and root dry weight were not appreciably reduced after the first week.

    Influence of 2‐Chloroethyltrimethylammonium Chloride (CCC) on Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) When Applied as a Seed Treatment1 · 1966

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Leaf application of chlormequat did not affect wheat seed germination or vigor.

    Growth retardants in wheat and its effect in physiological quality of seeds · 2010 · compared with control treatment without growth retardant application

    Opposite direction

  8. negative
    CCC during seed vernalization inhibited winter wheat ear development.

    INHIBITORY EFFECT OF GROWTH RETARDANTS ON THE INDUCTION OF FLOWERING IN WINTER WHEAT · 1966

    Opposite direction

40 papers more in this group

See all 49 papers →

trinexapac-ethyl · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 4 positive, 9 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
    Only trinexapac-ethyl and chlormequat reduced wheat plant height, relative to the control without retardant.

    Use of growth retardants in wheat · 2009 · compared with control treatment without growth retardant application

    Same directionCited by this paper

  2. no effect
    Trinexapac-ethyl did not change leaf N content or the wet and dry weight of the flag leaf.

    Effect of Nitrogen and Trinexapac-Ethyl Rates on the SPAD Index of Wheat Leaves · 2009

    Opposite direction

  3. no effect
    Gibberellin synthesis inhibitors did not enhance seedling survival under drought.

    Establishment of Wheat Seedlings after Early Sowing and Germination in an Arid Mediterranean Environment · 2002

    Opposite direction

  4. negative
    TE reduced wheat plant height at any growth stage.

    Effects of Trinexapac-Ethyl on different wheat varieties under desert conditions of Mexico · 2012

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    Leaf application of trinexapac-ethyl did not affect wheat seed germination or vigor.

    Growth retardants in wheat and its effect in physiological quality of seeds · 2010 · compared with control treatment without growth retardant application

    Opposite direction

  6. negative
    100 g ha −1 TE reduced seedling dry matter by 7.2% in seeds harvested in Londrina versus control.

    Nitrogen and trinexapac-ethyl effects on wheat grain yield, lodging and seed physiological quality in southern Brazil · 2022 · compared with the control

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Gibberellin synthesis inhibitors did not enhance seedling survival under drought stress.

    Establishment of Wheat Seedlings after Early Sowing and Germination in an Arid Mediterranean Environment · 2002

    Opposite direction

  8. negative
    Reduced dose trinexapac-ethyl and prohexadione-calcium mixtures with adjuvants produced less stem height reduction than full doses in unfavorable weather.

    Biological activity of growth regulators used with adjuvants in winter wheat crops · 2014 · compared with retardants used at the full doses

    Opposite direction

4 papers more in this group

See all 13 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.