Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Weed infestation increased at 75 cm x 10 cm spacing versus wider spacing.

A claim from Influence of Crop Geometries and Growth Regulators on Weed Growth and Yield of Machine Sown High Density Cotton · 2022

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weed infestation increased at 75 cm x 10 cm spacing versus wider spacing.

Treatment
75 cm x 10 cm spacinge0
Interactor
Weede0weed
Outcome
Weed infestatione0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
wider spacinge0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSecond 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

“Weed infestation in cotton increased with 75 cm x 10 cm spacing compared to wider spacing.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1172–1262

Title

Influence of Crop Geometries and Growth Regulators on Weed Growth and Yield of Machine Sown High Density Cotton

Uma Maheswari M; Kavitha MP Madras Agricultural Journal 2022. doi:10.29321/maj.10.000719

Other claims from this paper (1)

Record rev-d4e343d6e4066c3297026280a513d2a477ee6d05d5173e2fc8b735ac3dbdeae9 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

density · weed · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 6 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this claim · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    Narrow 50 cm rows lowered weed growth by 55% relative to 100 cm rows.

    Effect of narrow row-spacing and weed crop competition duration on cotton productivity · 2020 · compared with wide (100 cm) row-spacing

    Opposite direction

  2. positive
    Higher density was more efficient at reducing weeds.

    Effect of varying planting density on weed infestation, crop phenology, yield, and fiber quality of cotton under different sowing methods · 2020

    Opposite direction

  3. positive
    Closer cotton spacings reduced weed density and dry matter production.

    Effect of plant geometry on light interception and weed density in cotton under rainfed vertisols · 2017

    Opposite direction

  4. positive
    Higher planting density was more efficient than lower planting density in reducing weeds in cotton.

    Effect of varying planting density on weed infestation, crop phenology, yield, and fiber quality of cotton under different sowing methods · 2020 · compared with lower planting density

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    Narrow rows lowered weed density by 33.71 percent.

    Integrated Weed Management of Cotton Planting in Conventional and Ultra-Narrow Row Space · 2021 · compared with conventional row spacing

    Opposite direction

  6. positive
    Weed population was lowest under wider spacing and higher in the weedy check.

    Effect of Intra Row Spacing and Weed Management in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) under South Gujarat ConditionsBrinjal at Trans Yamuna Region of Prayagraj (U.P.) · 2020 · compared with weedy check (W1)

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Cotton row spacing had little effect on weed control.

    Effect of Row Spacing on Weed Management in Glufosinate-resistant Cotton · 2007

    Same direction

  8. no effect
    Row spacing did not change early-season weed control.

    Herbicide, Leaf Type, and Row Spacing Response in Cotton · 1974

    Same direction

See all 9 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.