Abstract
Abstract Cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) produces excessive vegetative growth when grown under optimum water and nutrient conditions. The plant growth regulator Mepiquat Chloride (MC); 1,l‐dimethyl piperidinium chloride reduces vegetative growth and can promote early maturity. Its effect on yield has been inconsistent, with some researchers showing an increase while others have indicated a decrease. This variation in yield has often been attributed to environmental factors and variations in water and fertilizer inputs. This study examined the effect of MC on cotton growth, under varying irrigation treatments, to determine if soil moisture interacts with MC. The experiment was conducted in 1987 with two cotton cultivars, Stoneville 825 (‘ST825’) and Deltapine 20 (‘DP20’), grown in pots, with five irrigation treatments [1.2,1.0,0.8,0.6, and 0.4 times previous day's pan evaporation (PE)] each with and without MC applied. Mepiquat Chloride reduced plant height, number of main stem nodes, and internodal length. The effect on boll numbers was mixed between cultivars. In some instances under the same irrigation treatment (1.2 PE), the number of bolls was higher in ST825 with MC applied than with control while in DP20 the control treatment had the higher number of bolls. Mepiquat chloride's effectiveness on vegetative growth tended to decrease as the number of days after application increased. Differences in response within irrigation treatments was attributable to MC. Differences in response between irrigation treatments with MC applied was attributable to irrigation and cultivar differences and not to interaction between soil moisture and MC.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Mepiquat Chloride reduced cotton plant height.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- Mepiquat Chloridee0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mepiquat Chloride reduced plant height, number of main stem nodes, and internodal length.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Mepiquat Chloride reduced cotton number of main stem nodes.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Mepiquat Chloridee0
- Outcome
- number of main stem nodese0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mepiquat Chloride reduced plant height, number of main stem nodes, and internodal length.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Mepiquat Chloride reduced cotton internodal length.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Mepiquat Chloridee0
- Outcome
- internodal lengthe0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mepiquat Chloride reduced plant height, number of main stem nodes, and internodal length.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The effect of mepiquat chloride on boll numbers differed between cultivars.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- boll numberse0
- Direction
- mixede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect on boll numbers was mixed between cultivars.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At 1.2 PE, ST825 had more bolls with MC than its control.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Material
- ST825e0
- Treatment
- MC appliede0
- Outcome
- number of bollse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- 1.2 PEe0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In some instances under the same irrigation treatment (1.2 PE), the number of bolls was higher in ST825 with MC applied than with control while in DP20 the control treatment had the higher number of bolls.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At 1.2 PE, DP20 had fewer bolls with MC than its control.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Material
- DP20e0
- Treatment
- MC appliede0
- Outcome
- number of bollse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- 1.2 PEe0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In some instances under the same irrigation treatment (1.2 PE), the number of bolls was higher in ST825 with MC applied than with control while in DP20 the control treatment had the higher number of bolls.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Mepiquat chloride became less effective against vegetative growth over time.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Mepiquat chloridee0
- Outcome
- effectiveness on vegetative growthe0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Qualifier
- number of days after application increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mepiquat chloride's effectiveness on vegetative growth tended to decrease as the number of days after application increased.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Within irrigation treatments, response differences were attributed to MC.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- MCe0
- Outcome
- Differences in response within irrigation treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Differences in response within irrigation treatments was attributable to MC.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Between irrigation treatments with MC, response differences were attributed to irrigation and cultivar rather than an interaction.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- Differences in response between irrigation treatmentse0
- Qualifier
- not to interaction between soil moisture and MCe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Differences in response between irrigation treatments with MC applied was attributable to irrigation and cultivar differences and not to interaction between soil moisture and MC.”
t0“Cotton”
The same questions in other papers
mepiquat chloride · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →chloride · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
47 papers more in this group
See all 51 papers →mepiquat chloride · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
58 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
66 papers more in this group
See all 70 papers →chloride · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
66 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
74 papers more in this group
See all 78 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.