Abstract
Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is subject to stress and yield reducing factors throughout the growing season. The loss of Delta and Pine Land 555 Bollgard® Roundup Ready® (DPL 555 BR) cotton in September 2009 removes a variety from the commercial market that proved to be a useful tool for farmers. This true full-season variety gave producers in regions of the U.S. Cotton Belt, where long growing season windows are established, the opportunity to take full advantage of extended growing days until harvest. The potential to delay the maturity of a mid-full season upland cotton variety, to that of the established full season variety, DPL 555 BR, may be possible through the determent of stress with fungicides. A two-year field study was conducted at the Texas AgriLife Research Farm in Burleson County in 2008 and 2009. The study evaluated the impact of pyraclostrobin, Headline®, and azoxystrobin, Quadris®, fungicides and their effect on yield and maturity after application to a mid-full season upland cotton variety, Stoneville 4554 Bollgard II® Roundup Ready Flex® (STV 4554 B2RF). These fungicides, along with commercially available tank-mix compounds, were applied to the study area at two defined growth stages: Early Bloom (EB), and Early Bloom +14 days (EB+14). Data analyzed over the years of both studies indicated statistical and numerical differences for fungicidal treatments. Statistical differences were noted in measurements throughout the years of both Study 1 and Study 2. Final plant mapping measurements and fiber properties for both studies failed to show improvements of increased nodes or plant height, as well as the measurements obtained from HVI analysis, due to the additions of either pyraclostrobin or azoxystrobin compounds. Combining these strobilurin fungicides with the labeled compounds of mepiquat chloride or mepiquat chloride did not yield results detrimental to plant characteristics measured in these studies. The treatment timing of EB+14 that contained the pyraclostrobin compound increased lint yield versus the untreated control by 213 kg ha^(-1).
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicidal treatments produced statistical and numerical differences in cotton measurements across years.
- Taxon
- Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- fungicidal treatmentse1
- Outcome
- measurementse2
- Setting
- Texas AgriLife Research Farm in Burleson Countye6
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
e1“Data analyzed over the years of both studies indicated statistical and numerical differences for fungicidal treatments”
e2“Statistical differences were noted in measurements throughout the years of both Study 1 and Study 2”
e6“A two-year field study was conducted at the Texas AgriLife Research Farm in Burleson County in 2008 and 2009”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding pyraclostrobin or azoxystrobin did not improve cotton plant height, nodes or HVI fiber measurements.
- Taxon
- Gossypium hirsutumGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- additions of either pyraclostrobin or azoxystrobin compoundse3
- Outcome
- increased nodes or plant height, as well as the measurements obtained from HVI analysise3
- Direction
- failed to show improvementse3
- Setting
- Texas AgriLife Research Farm in Burleson Countye6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
e3“Final plant mapping measurements and fiber properties for both studies failed to show improvements of increased nodes or plant height, as well as the measurements obtained from HVI analysis, due to the additions of either pyraclostrobin or azoxystrobin compounds”
e6“A two-year field study was conducted at the Texas AgriLife Research Farm in Burleson County in 2008 and 2009”
Claim · model-written summary
Combining strobilurin fungicides with mepiquat chloride did not harm the plant characteristics measured.
- Taxon
- Gossypium hirsutumGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Combining these strobilurin fungicides with the labeled compounds of mepiquat chloridee4
- Outcome
- plant characteristics measurede4
- Direction
- did not yield results detrimentale4
- Setting
- Texas AgriLife Research Farm in Burleson Countye6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
e4“Combining these strobilurin fungicides with the labeled compounds of mepiquat chloride or mepiquat chloride did not yield results detrimental to plant characteristics measured in these studies”
e6“A two-year field study was conducted at the Texas AgriLife Research Farm in Burleson County in 2008 and 2009”
Claim · model-written summary
Pyraclostrobin applied at EB+14 increased cotton lint yield by 213 kg ha^(-1) relative to the untreated control.
- Taxon
- Gossypium hirsutumGossypium hirsutume0
- Organ / stage
- EB+14e5
- Treatment
- treatment timing of EB+14 that contained the pyraclostrobin compounde5
- Outcome
- lint yielde5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Value
- 213 kg ha^(-1)e5
- Comparator
- untreated controle5
- Setting
- Texas AgriLife Research Farm in Burleson Countye6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
e5“The treatment timing of EB+14 that contained the pyraclostrobin compound increased lint yield versus the untreated control by 213 kg ha^(-1)”
e6“A two-year field study was conducted at the Texas AgriLife Research Farm in Burleson County in 2008 and 2009”
The same questions in other papers
pyraclostrobin · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
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.