Paper · 1986 · Agronomy Journal

Yield and Fiber Quality of Cotton Following Applicatioin of 2‐Chloroethyl Phosphonic Acid1

C. Wayne Smith; J. T. Cothren; J. J. Varvil

5
claims
6
verbatim quotes
12
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract The indeterminate growth habit of cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) forces producers to harvest more than once or to postpone harvest for several weeks. Ethephon (2‐chloroethyl phosphonic acid) causes immature bolls to open, resulting in a greater percent of the crop harvested at first harvest or in once‐over harvest. The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of ethephon on seedcotton yields and fiber quality relative to the physiological stage of maturity at treatment with ethephon. ‘Stoneville 213’ and ‘CAMD‐E’ were planted on three dates in 1980 and Stoneville 213 on four dates in 1981 in Calloway silt loam, a Glossaquic Fragiudalf. Ethephon was applied at 1.12 kg ai. ha −1 and compared with no ethephon treatment in 1980 when plants ranged from 19 to 62% opened bolls. Stoneville 213 ranged from 12 to 72% opened when treated in 1981. The statistical design was a split‐block, split‐plot of a randomized complete block with four replications. Ethephon significantly reduced seed cotton yield when applied to cotton with 48 to 62% opened bolls in 1980 but not when applied to cotton averaging 22% opened. In 1981, no consistent effects of ethephon on seed cotton yields were detected. Over years, ethephon applied to cotton with 12 to 25% opened bolls did not reduce seed cotton yields relative to application to cotton with 48 to 72% opened bolls. No consistent detrimental effects on fiber quality were detected for fiber from first harvest or from once over harvest.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Ethephon significantly reduced cotton yield at 48 to 62% opened bolls in 1980.

Treatment
Ethephone0
Outcome
seed cotton yielde0
Direction
reducede0
Qualifier
48 to 62% opened bolls in 1980e0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Ethephon significantly reduced seed cotton yield when applied to cotton with 48 to 62% opened bolls in 1980”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 980–1087 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Ethephon did not significantly reduce yield at an average of 22% opened bolls in 1980.

Treatment
Ethephone0
Outcome
seed cotton yielde0
Direction
note0
Qualifier
22% openede0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Ethephon significantly reduced seed cotton yield when applied to cotton with 48 to 62% opened bolls in 1980 but not when applied to cotton averaging 22% opened”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 980–1139 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No consistent effect of ethephon on cotton yield was detected in 1981.

Treatment
ethephone0
Outcome
seed cotton yieldse0
Direction
no consistent effectse0

Not reportedComparator

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

“In 1981, no consistent effects of ethephon on seed cotton yields were detected”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1141–1219 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Across years, applying ethephon at 12 to 25% opened bolls did not reduce yield relative to applying it at 48 to 72%.

Treatment
ethephon applied to cotton with 12 to 25% opened bollse0
Outcome
seed cotton yieldse0
Direction
did not reducee0
Comparator
application to cotton with 48 to 72% opened bollse0

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

“ethephon applied to cotton with 12 to 25% opened bolls did not reduce seed cotton yields relative to application to cotton with 48 to 72% opened bolls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1233–1383 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No consistent detrimental ethephon effect on fiber quality was detected in first or once over harvest.

Outcome
fiber qualitye0
Direction
No consistent detrimental effectse0
Qualifier
first harvest or from once over harveste0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

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

“No consistent detrimental effects on fiber quality were detected for fiber from first harvest or from once over harvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1385–1504 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 27–33 · show in text ↑

(2-chloroethyl)phosphonic acid · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

20 papers: 13 positive, 7 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

16 papers more in this group

See all 20 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.