Abstract
In greenhouse experiments, soil-incorporated combinations of 0,0 -diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)-methyl]-phosphorodithioate (phorate) or 0,0 -diethyl S -[2-(ethylthio)-ethyl]-phosphorodithioate (disulfoton) with a,a,a -trifluoro-2,6-dinitro- N,N -dipropyl- p -toluidine (trifluralin) resulted in increased cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) seedling growth as compared to trifluralin used alone. This result apparently was due to the greater numbers of secondary roots in the zone of incorporation. Phorate was more effective than disulfoton in overcoming the inhibitory effect of trifluralin on secondary root development. A comparison of granular and emulsifiable phorate showed no advantage for either formulation. The combination of phorate and trifluralin in a 1-inch soil core, into which seeds of cotton were planted and surrounded by trifluralin-treated soil, also increased secondary root development as compared to using trifluralin alone.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Phorate combined with trifluralin increased cotton seedling growth relative to trifluralin alone.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- phoratee0
- Outcome
- seedling growthe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- trifluralin used alonee0
- Setting
- greenhousee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil-incorporated combinations of 0,0 -diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)-methyl]-phosphorodithioate (phorate) or 0,0 -diethyl S -[2-(ethylthio)-ethyl]-phosphorodithioate (disulfoton) with a,a,a -trifluoro-2,6-dinitro- N,N -dipropyl- p -toluidine (trifluralin) resulted in increased cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) seedling growth as compared to trifluralin used alone”
e1“In greenhouse experiments”
Claim · model-written summary
Disulfoton combined with trifluralin increased cotton seedling growth relative to trifluralin alone.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- disulfotone0
- Outcome
- seedling growthe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- trifluralin used alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil-incorporated combinations of 0,0 -diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)-methyl]-phosphorodithioate (phorate) or 0,0 -diethyl S -[2-(ethylthio)-ethyl]-phosphorodithioate (disulfoton) with a,a,a -trifluoro-2,6-dinitro- N,N -dipropyl- p -toluidine (trifluralin) resulted in increased cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) seedling growth as compared to trifluralin used alone”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors attributed improved cotton growth to more secondary roots in the incorporation zone.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Organ / stage
- secondary rootse0
- Outcome
- greater numbers of secondary rootse0
- Qualifier
- apparentlye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This result apparently was due to the greater numbers of secondary roots in the zone of incorporation”
t0“Seedling Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Phorate better overcame trifluralin inhibition of cotton secondary root development than disulfoton.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Organ / stage
- secondary roote0
- Treatment
- Phoratee0
- Outcome
- secondary root developmente0
- Direction
- more effectivee0
- Comparator
- disulfotone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Phorate was more effective than disulfoton in overcoming the inhibitory effect of trifluralin on secondary root development”
t0“Seedling Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Granular and emulsifiable phorate formulations showed no advantage over each other.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- granulare0
- Outcome
- advantagee0
- Direction
- no advantagee0
- Comparator
- emulsifiable phoratee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A comparison of granular and emulsifiable phorate showed no advantage for either formulation”
t0“Seedling Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Phorate and trifluralin in a one-inch soil core increased cotton secondary root development compared with trifluralin alone.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Organ / stage
- secondary roote0
- Treatment
- combination of phorate and trifluralin in a 1-inch soil coree0
- Outcome
- secondary root developmente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- trifluralin alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The combination of phorate and trifluralin in a 1-inch soil core, into which seeds of cotton were planted and surrounded by trifluralin-treated soil, also increased secondary root development as compared to using trifluralin alone”
The same questions in other papers
disulfoton · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →phorate · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →trifluralin · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
8 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.