Abstract
The influence of several chemical growth modifiers on suppression of undesirable late fruiting and on yield of cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum , L.) was studied in 1972 and 1973. Plant responses were critically dependent on timing of application. With application at first flower, two compounds had no effect on rate of flowering, but reduced boll retention from 3rd and 4th week flowers. A third compound reduced both flowering and boll retention during weeks 4 and 5. Yield was significantly reduced in each case. A fourth compound was evaluated at three dates of application: Jul. 23, Aug. 8 (peak of flowering), and Aug 23. Yield was reduced by treatment at the early and intermediate dates. Treatment Aug. 23 did not reduce yield significantly but effectively suppressed late boll set. Comparisons of yield responses to growth retardants for both years revealed that the 1973 crop with generally higher yield, was the more sensitive to yield reduction. Application in early to mid‐August at peak of flowering reduced yield significantly in 1973, whereas application 2 weeks later did not. Boll weight was reduced somewhat in late opening bolls from plots sprayed at peak of flowering. Thus chemical growth retardants that suppress late boll set may also impair full development of the last bolls that mature. Therefore, application timing is a compromise between the desired earlier termination of fruit set and the possible loss in yield and quality of late‐opening bolls.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Two compounds applied at first flower did not change flowering rate.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- two compoundse0
- Outcome
- rate of floweringe0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Qualifier
- first flowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With application at first flower, two compounds had no effect on rate of flowering”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The same compounds reduced retention of third and fourth week bolls.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- two compoundse1
- Outcome
- boll retentione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- 3rd and 4th week flowerse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but reduced boll retention from 3rd and 4th week flowers”
e1“With application at first flower, two compounds had no effect on rate of flowering”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
A third compound reduced flowering and boll retention in weeks four and five.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- A third compounde0
- Outcome
- flowering and boll retentione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- weeks 4 and 5e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A third compound reduced both flowering and boll retention during weeks 4 and 5”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield was significantly reduced in each of those cases.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- chemical growth modifierse1
- Outcome
- Yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield was significantly reduced in each case”
e1“The influence of several chemical growth modifiers on suppression of undesirable late fruiting and on yield of cotton”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Early and intermediate application of a fourth compound reduced yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- treatment at the early and intermediate datese0
- Outcome
- Yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield was reduced by treatment at the early and intermediate dates”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
August 23 application did not significantly reduce yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Treatment Aug. 23e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- did not reducee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Treatment Aug. 23 did not reduce yield significantly”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
August 23 application suppressed late boll set.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Treatment Aug. 23e1
- Outcome
- late boll sete0
- Direction
- suppressede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but effectively suppressed late boll set”
e1“Treatment Aug. 23 did not reduce yield significantly”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The higher yielding 1973 crop was more sensitive to yield reduction than 1972.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Material
- 1973 crope0
- Outcome
- sensitive to yield reductione0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- 1972e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the 1973 crop with generally higher yield, was the more sensitive to yield reduction”
e1“was studied in 1972 and 1973”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Peak flowering application significantly reduced 1973 yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Application in early to mid‐Auguste0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- 1973e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application in early to mid‐August at peak of flowering reduced yield significantly in 1973”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Application two weeks later did not significantly reduce 1973 yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- application 2 weeks latere0
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- did note0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“whereas application 2 weeks later did not”
e1“Application in early to mid‐August at peak of flowering reduced yield significantly in 1973”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Peak flowering spraying somewhat reduced weight of late opening bolls.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Organ / stage
- late opening bollse0
- Treatment
- sprayed at peak of floweringe0
- Outcome
- Boll weighte0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Boll weight was reduced somewhat in late opening bolls from plots sprayed at peak of flowering”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Application timing requires balancing earlier fruit set termination against yield and quality losses.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- compromise between the desired earlier termination of fruit set and the possible loss in yield and quality of late‐opening bollse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“application timing is a compromise between the desired earlier termination of fruit set and the possible loss in yield and quality of late‐opening bolls”
t0“Cotton”
The same questions in other papers
stage · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 38 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 papers →application · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 253 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 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.