Paper · 2010

Comparison of Stance TM and Mepiquat Chloride Plant Growth Regulators on DPL 164B2RF Cotton in the Palo Verde Valley, 2006

Michael D. Rethwisch; Joe Van Dyke; Michael L. Williams; et al.

10
claims
15
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

An experiment to determine response of DPL 164B2RF cotton to the plant growth regulators Stance TM and Mepiquat Chloride 4.2 was initiated in early July 2006 when crop was at four boll stage of development. Increasing amounts of mepiquat chloride active ingredient resulted in increasing levels of leaf chlorophyll content as measured with a Minolta SPAD 502 meter only on July 17. Stance TM treatments resulted in significantly lower leaf chlorophyll levels on July 24, al though on August 2 significantly higher levels of leaf chlorophyll was noted in cotton treated with 2 oz./acre rate of Stance or Mepiquat Chloride 4.2 than untreated cotton. Plant height and node measurement data on August 2 indicated that DPL164BR cotton heights increased and nodes per plant decreased a s level of mepiquat chloride active ingredient per acre increased. No statistical differences were noted for retention percentages or numbe rs of fruiting structures per plant. Treatments did effect certain cotton lint parameters, such as reducing micronaire by 0.1, as well as reducing lint fiber uniformity. Stance TM treatments resulted in

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing mepiquat chloride increased cotton leaf chlorophyll on July 17.

Treatment
mepiquat chloride active ingrediente0
Outcome
leaf chlorophyll contente0
Direction
increasinge0
Qualifier
only on July 17e0

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

“Increasing amounts of mepiquat chloride active ingredient resulted in increasing levels of leaf chlorophyll content as measured with a Minolta SPAD 502 meter only on July 17”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 207–380 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 85–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Stance treatments lowered cotton leaf chlorophyll on July 24.

Treatment
Stance TM treatmentse0
Outcome
leaf chlorophyll levelse0
Direction
lowere0
Qualifier
July 24e0

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

“Stance TM treatments resulted in significantly lower leaf chlorophyll levels on July 24”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 382–469 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 85–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton treated with 2 oz./acre Stance had higher leaf chlorophyll than untreated cotton on August 2.

Treatment
2 oz./acre rate of Stancee0
Outcome
leaf chlorophylle0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
on August 2e0
Comparator
untreated cottone0

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

“on August 2 significantly higher levels of leaf chlorophyll was noted in cotton treated with 2 oz./acre rate of Stance or Mepiquat Chloride 4.2 than untreated cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 481–646 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton treated with 2 oz./acre Mepiquat Chloride 4.2 had higher leaf chlorophyll than untreated cotton on August 2.

Treatment
2 oz./acre rate of Stance or Mepiquat Chloride 4.2e0
Outcome
leaf chlorophylle0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
on August 2e0
Comparator
untreated cottone0

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

“on August 2 significantly higher levels of leaf chlorophyll was noted in cotton treated with 2 oz./acre rate of Stance or Mepiquat Chloride 4.2 than untreated cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 481–646 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton height increased as mepiquat chloride active ingredient per acre increased.

Treatment
mepiquat chloride active ingredient per acree0
Outcome
cotton heightse0
Direction
increasede0

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

“DPL164BR cotton heights increased and nodes per plant decreased a s level of mepiquat chloride active ingredient per acre increased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 714–845 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton nodes per plant decreased as mepiquat chloride active ingredient per acre increased.

Treatment
mepiquat chloride active ingredient per acree0
Outcome
nodes per plante0
Direction
decreasede0

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

“DPL164BR cotton heights increased and nodes per plant decreased a s level of mepiquat chloride active ingredient per acre increased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 714–845 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatments showed no statistical difference in cotton retention percentages.

Treatment
Plant Growth Regulatorst0
Outcome
retention percentagese0
Direction
No statistical differencese0

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

“No statistical differences were noted for retention percentages or numbe rs of fruiting structures per plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 847–955 · show in text ↑
t0

“Plant Growth Regulators on DPL 164B2RF Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatments showed no statistical difference in cotton fruiting structures per plant.

Treatment
Plant Growth Regulatorst0
Outcome
numbe rs of fruiting structures per plante0
Direction
No statistical differencese0

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

“No statistical differences were noted for retention percentages or numbe rs of fruiting structures per plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 847–955 · show in text ↑
t0

“Plant Growth Regulators on DPL 164B2RF Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatments reduced cotton lint micronaire by 0.1.

Treatment
Treatmentse0
Outcome
micronairee0
Direction
reducinge0
Value
0.1e0

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

“Treatments did effect certain cotton lint parameters, such as reducing micronaire by 0.1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 957–1045 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatments reduced cotton lint fiber uniformity.

Treatment
Plant Growth Regulatorst0
Outcome
lint fiber uniformitye0
Direction
reducinge0

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

“as well as reducing lint fiber uniformity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1047–1088 · show in text ↑
t0

“Plant Growth Regulators on DPL 164B2RF Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–91 · show in text ↑

mepiquat chloride · physiology: pigments · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

8 papers: 8 positive, 0 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

chloride · physiology: pigments · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

10 papers: 10 positive, 0 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

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

6 papers: 3 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 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.