Paper · 1990 · Agronomy Journal

Temperature and Mepiquat Chloride Effects on Cotton Canopy Architecture

V. R. Reddy; D. N. Baker; H. F. Hodges

8
claims
17
verbatim quotes
98
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Cotton, ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) when grown in a fertile, well‐watered, and suitable environment, produces excessive vegetative growth. Such luxuriant growth causes several production problems. A plant growth regulator, mepiquat chloride 1 (1,1‐dimethylpiperidinium chloride; BASF Wyandotte Corp., Parsippany, NJ) has been found to reduce vegetative growth, but the crop responses to it appears to be temperature sensitive. An experiment was conducted to determine the crop responses to temperature in naturally lighted, temperature‐ and CO 2 ‐controlled plant growth chambers. The experiment was conducted at five temperatures and measurements were made of several plant parameters. A preliminary experiment showed that mepiquat chloride (MC) caused a dramatic reduction in plant height and number of main‐stem nodes. A more detailed study showed that the impact of MC on main‐stem elongation was temperature dependent, with the greatest effect occurring at 35/25 °C day/night temperatures. The application of MC also caused a reduction in mainstem, vegetative‐branch and fruiting‐branch node formation. Leaf area was reduced on plants treated with MC at each of the temperatures. Specific leaf area (m 2 kg −1 ) was also reduced on leaves from various positions on the plants. It appears that MC affects more than one physiological process. The primary effects were reduction in stem elongation, node formation, and leaf expansion. The reduced stem growth and leaf area development also caused greater leaf densities—probably a secondary or tertiary effect.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mepiquat chloride reduced cotton plant height and main stem node number.

Treatment
mepiquat chloride (MC)e0
Outcome
plant height and number of main‐stem nodese0
Direction
reductione0

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

“mepiquat chloride (MC) caused a dramatic reduction in plant height and number of main‐stem nodes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 730–826 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–51 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The effect of MC on main stem elongation was greatest at 35/25 °C.

Treatment
MCe0
Outcome
main‐stem elongatione0
Direction
greateste0
Value
35/25 °Ce0

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

“the impact of MC on main‐stem elongation was temperature dependent, with the greatest effect occurring at 35/25 °C day/night temperatures”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 862–999 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–51 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

MC reduced cotton main stem node formation.

Treatment
MCe0
Outcome
mainsteme0
Direction
reductione0

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

“The application of MC also caused a reduction in mainstem, vegetative‐branch and fruiting‐branch node formation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1001–1112 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–51 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

MC reduced vegetative branch node formation.

Treatment
MCe0
Outcome
vegetative‐branche0
Direction
reductione0

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

“The application of MC also caused a reduction in mainstem, vegetative‐branch and fruiting‐branch node formation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1001–1112 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–51 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

MC reduced fruiting branch node formation.

Treatment
MCe0
Outcome
fruiting‐branch node formatione0
Direction
reductione0

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

“The application of MC also caused a reduction in mainstem, vegetative‐branch and fruiting‐branch node formation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1001–1112 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–51 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

MC reduced leaf area at every tested temperature.

Treatment
MCe0
Outcome
Leaf areae0
Direction
reducede0
Qualifier
at each of the temperaturese0

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

“Leaf area was reduced on plants treated with MC at each of the temperatures”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1114–1189 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–51 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

MC reduced specific leaf area at various leaf positions.

Treatment
MCe1
Outcome
Specific leaf areae0
Direction
reducede0
Qualifier
various positions on the plantse0

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

“Specific leaf area (m 2 kg −1 ) was also reduced on leaves from various positions on the plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1191–1286 · show in text ↑
e1

“plants treated with MC”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1139–1161 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–51 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reduced stem growth and leaf area resulted in greater leaf density.

Outcome
greater leaf densitiese0
Direction
greatere0
Qualifier
reduced stem growth and leaf area developmente0

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

“The reduced stem growth and leaf area development also caused greater leaf densities—probably a secondary or tertiary effect”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1443–1567 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–51 · show in text ↑

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

10 papers: 7 positive, 3 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

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

12 papers: 9 positive, 3 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

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

49 papers: 38 positive, 11 negative or no effect

37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

45 papers more in this group

See all 49 papers →

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

51 papers: 40 positive, 11 negative or no effect

39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

47 papers more in this group

See all 51 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.