Abstract
Ethylene plays a key role in square and boll abscission in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). When subjected to stress, cotton plants synthesize higher rates of ethylene which can result in the loss of immature fruit. The ethylene action inhibitor 1- methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) is used in many fruit, vegetable, and floriculture crops to counter the effects of ethylene. Protecting a cotton crop from ethylene through its early reproductive stages may boost yields by increasing fruit retention. A two-year field study was conducted in 2005 and 2006 at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station in Burleson County, Texas to evaluate the effects of 1-MCP concentration and timing on cotton growth and yield components. The study was designed as a randomized complete block with 4 replications. Three rates of 1-MCP (250, 500, and 1250 g ha-1 of actual product) were applied as a foliar spray at a delivery rate of 93.50 L -1 ha. Each rate was applied at pinhead-square and fourteen days after pinhead-square; pinhead-square, fourteen days after pinheadsquare, and early bloom; early bloom and fourteen days after early bloom; early bloom, fourteen days after early bloom, and twenty-eight days after early bloom. Plant heights, total number of nodes per plant, percent square abscission, nodes above white flower (NAWF), relative chlorophyll content, fruit number, fruit size, and fruit distribution were not affected by 1-MCP. In 2006, electrolytic leakage was significantly increased by two, 250 g ha-1, 1-MCP treatments. In 2005, yield was significantly increased by six of the 1- MCP treatments and suggests an increase in boll retention, boll size, seed number, or seed size. The analysis of yield components conducted through box-mapping, however, failed to explain the observed yield response. In 2006, 1-MCP did not significantly influence yield.
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
1-MCP did not affect cotton Plant heights.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“upland cotton”
e0“Plant heights, total number of nodes per plant, percent square abscission, nodes above white flower (NAWF), relative chlorophyll content, fruit number, fruit size, and fruit distribution were not affected by 1-MCP.”
Claim · model-written summary
1-MCP did not affect cotton total number of nodes per plant.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“upland cotton”
e0“Plant heights, total number of nodes per plant, percent square abscission, nodes above white flower (NAWF), relative chlorophyll content, fruit number, fruit size, and fruit distribution were not affected by 1-MCP.”
Claim · model-written summary
1-MCP did not affect cotton percent square abscission.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“upland cotton”
e0“Plant heights, total number of nodes per plant, percent square abscission, nodes above white flower (NAWF), relative chlorophyll content, fruit number, fruit size, and fruit distribution were not affected by 1-MCP.”
Claim · model-written summary
1-MCP did not affect cotton nodes above white flower (NAWF).
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“upland cotton”
e0“Plant heights, total number of nodes per plant, percent square abscission, nodes above white flower (NAWF), relative chlorophyll content, fruit number, fruit size, and fruit distribution were not affected by 1-MCP.”
Claim · model-written summary
1-MCP did not affect cotton relative chlorophyll content.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“upland cotton”
e0“Plant heights, total number of nodes per plant, percent square abscission, nodes above white flower (NAWF), relative chlorophyll content, fruit number, fruit size, and fruit distribution were not affected by 1-MCP.”
Claim · model-written summary
1-MCP did not affect cotton fruit number.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“upland cotton”
e0“Plant heights, total number of nodes per plant, percent square abscission, nodes above white flower (NAWF), relative chlorophyll content, fruit number, fruit size, and fruit distribution were not affected by 1-MCP.”
Claim · model-written summary
1-MCP did not affect cotton fruit size.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“upland cotton”
e0“Plant heights, total number of nodes per plant, percent square abscission, nodes above white flower (NAWF), relative chlorophyll content, fruit number, fruit size, and fruit distribution were not affected by 1-MCP.”
Claim · model-written summary
1-MCP did not affect cotton fruit distribution.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“upland cotton”
e0“Plant heights, total number of nodes per plant, percent square abscission, nodes above white flower (NAWF), relative chlorophyll content, fruit number, fruit size, and fruit distribution were not affected by 1-MCP.”
Claim · model-written summary
Two 250 g ha-1 1-MCP treatments significantly increased electrolytic leakage in 2006.
- Taxon
- upland cottont0
- Treatment
- 250 g ha-1, 1-MCP treatmentse1
- Outcome
- electrolytic leakagee1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Qualifier
- In 2006e1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“upland cotton”
e1“In 2006, electrolytic leakage was significantly increased by two, 250 g ha-1, 1-MCP treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Six 1-MCP treatments significantly increased cotton yield in 2005.
- Taxon
- upland cottont0
- Treatment
- 1- MCP treatmentse2
- Outcome
- yielde2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Qualifier
- In 2005e2
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“upland cotton”
e2“In 2005, yield was significantly increased by six of the 1- MCP treatments and suggests an increase in boll retention, boll size, seed number, or seed size.”
Claim · model-written summary
Box mapping of yield components did not explain the yield response.
Verbatim
t0“upland cotton”
e3“The analysis of yield components conducted through box-mapping, however, failed to explain the observed yield response.”
Claim · model-written summary
1-MCP did not significantly influence cotton yield in 2006.
- Taxon
- upland cottont0
- Treatment
- 1-MCPe4
- Outcome
- yielde4
- Direction
- did not significantly influencee4
- Qualifier
- In 2006e4
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“upland cotton”
e4“In 2006, 1-MCP did not significantly influence yield.”
The same questions in other papers
1-methylcyclopropene · physiology: pigments · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
1-methylcyclopropene · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →1-methylcyclopropene · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 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.