Paper · 1996 · Weed Science

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Response to Imazaquin and Imazethapyr Soil Residues

David H. Johnson; Ronald E. Talbert

5
claims
7
verbatim quotes
18
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The effects of imazaquin and imazethapyr on cotton planted the year following application to soybean were studied on one silt loam and two clay soils in Arkansas from 1989 to 1991. Imazaquin was applied to soybean at 0.07 kg ai ha −1 PPI and POST, 0.14 kg ha −1 PPI, PRE, and POST, and sequentially PPI or PRE followed by POST at 0.14 kg ha −1 per application. Imazethapyr was applied at 0.035 kg ha −1 PPI and POST, 0.07 kg ha −1 PPI, PRE, and POST, and sequentially PPI or PRE followed by POST at 0.07 kg ha −1 per application. Soil residues of 0.07 kg ha −1 imazaquin and imazethapyr did not injure cotton at any location. Residues of 0.14 kg ha −1 imazaquin applied sequentially reduced cotton shoot dry weight for 6 wk after emergence on clay but not on silt loam soil. The PPI followed by POST sequential imazaquin treatment (0.28 kg ha −1 total imazaquin) delayed initiation of fruiting and reduced yield and lint quality.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Residues of 0.07 kg ha −1 imazaquin did not injure cotton at any location.

Treatment
0.07 kg ha −1 imazaquine0
Outcome
injure cottone0
Direction
did not injuree0

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

“Soil residues of 0.07 kg ha −1 imazaquin and imazethapyr did not injure cotton at any location.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 530–625 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Residues of 0.07 kg ha −1 imazethapyr did not injure cotton at any location.

Treatment
imazethapyre0
Outcome
injure cottone0
Direction
did not injuree0

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

“Soil residues of 0.07 kg ha −1 imazaquin and imazethapyr did not injure cotton at any location.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 530–625 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sequential 0.14 kg ha −1 imazaquin residues reduced cotton shoot dry weight for 6 weeks on clay but not silt loam soil.

Treatment
0.14 kg ha −1 imazaquin applied sequentiallye0
Outcome
cotton shoot dry weighte0
Direction
reducede0
Qualifier
for 6 wk after emergence on clay but not on silt loam soile0

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

“Residues of 0.14 kg ha −1 imazaquin applied sequentially reduced cotton shoot dry weight for 6 wk after emergence on clay but not on silt loam soil.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 626–774 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sequential PPI then POST imazaquin delayed initiation of fruiting in cotton.

Treatment
PPI followed by POST sequential imazaquin treatment (0.28 kg ha −1 total imazaquin)e0
Outcome
initiation of fruitinge0
Direction
delayede0

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 PPI followed by POST sequential imazaquin treatment (0.28 kg ha −1 total imazaquin) delayed initiation of fruiting and reduced yield and lint quality.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–929 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–6 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sequential PPI then POST imazaquin reduced cotton yield and lint quality.

Treatment
PPI followed by POST sequential imazaquin treatment (0.28 kg ha −1 total imazaquin)e0
Outcome
yield and lint qualitye0
Direction
reducede0

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 PPI followed by POST sequential imazaquin treatment (0.28 kg ha −1 total imazaquin) delayed initiation of fruiting and reduced yield and lint quality.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–929 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–6 · show in text ↑

imazaquin · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

imazaquin · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

imazaquin · phenology · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

Imazethapyr · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

3 papers: 0 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
  2. negative
See all 3 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.