Abstract
Abstract Field trials were conducted near Lubbock, TX, in 2013, 2014, and 2015 to evaluate non–2,4-D–resistant cotton response to low rates of glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline. Cotton was treated with five rates of glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline (0.0183, 0.183, 1.83, 18.3, and 183 g ae ha −1 ) at two application timings (nine leaf and first bloom). These rates correspond to contamination rates of 0.0008%, 0.008%, 0.08%, 0.8%, and 8%, respectively. Visual cotton injury, boll retention, lint yield, and fiber properties were recorded. When averaged over contamination rates, visual injury after applications made to nine-leaf cotton was greater than for first-bloom cotton in three of 3 yr and yield loss was greater when applications were made to nine-leaf cotton when compared with first-bloom cotton in two of 3 yr. Averaged over application timing, lint yield in 2013, 2014, and 2015 after glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline contamination rates of 0.0008% and 0.008% were not different than that of the nontreated control, whereas contamination rates of 0.08%, 0.8%, and 8% decreased yield by 3% to 20%, 45% to 58%, and 80% to 96%, respectively. Contamination rates of 0.0008%, 0.008%, 0.08%, and 0.8% rarely affected fiber quality; however, a contamination rate of 8% frequently decreased micronaire, fiber length, fiber length uniformity, and fiber strength. This decrease in fiber quality also resulted in a reduction in cotton loan value and potential financial return. Although decreases in fiber quality parameters were not observed with the 0.8% contamination rate, significant reductions in financial return occurred due to yield loss caused by injury from glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Visual injury was greater after nine-leaf than first-bloom application in all three years.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- applications made to nine-leaf cottone0
- Outcome
- visual injurye0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- three of 3 yre0
- Comparator
- first-bloom cottone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“visual injury after applications made to nine-leaf cotton was greater than for first-bloom cotton in three of 3 yr”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield loss was greater after nine-leaf than first-bloom application in two of three years.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- applications were made to nine-leaf cottone0
- Outcome
- yield losse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- two of 3 yre0
- Comparator
- first-bloom cottone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield loss was greater when applications were made to nine-leaf cotton when compared with first-bloom cotton in two of 3 yr.”
Claim · model-written summary
The 0.0008% contamination rate did not change lint yield relative to the untreated control.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline contamination rates of 0.0008%e0
- Outcome
- lint yielde0
- Direction
- not differente0
- Comparator
- nontreated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“lint yield in 2013, 2014, and 2015 after glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline contamination rates of 0.0008% and 0.008% were not different than that of the nontreated control”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The 0.008% contamination rate did not change lint yield relative to the untreated control.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- 0.008%e0
- Outcome
- lint yielde0
- Direction
- not differente0
- Comparator
- nontreated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“lint yield in 2013, 2014, and 2015 after glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline contamination rates of 0.0008% and 0.008% were not different than that of the nontreated control”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At 0.08% contamination, lint yield fell by 3% to 20%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“contamination rates of 0.08%, 0.8%, and 8% decreased yield by 3% to 20%, 45% to 58%, and 80% to 96%, respectively.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At 0.8% contamination, lint yield fell by 45% to 58%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“contamination rates of 0.08%, 0.8%, and 8% decreased yield by 3% to 20%, 45% to 58%, and 80% to 96%, respectively.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At 8% contamination, lint yield fell by 80% to 96%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“contamination rates of 0.08%, 0.8%, and 8% decreased yield by 3% to 20%, 45% to 58%, and 80% to 96%, respectively.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Contamination at 0.0008%, 0.008%, 0.08%, and 0.8% rarely affected fiber quality.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Contamination rates of 0.0008%, 0.008%, 0.08%, and 0.8%e0
- Outcome
- fiber qualitye0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Contamination rates of 0.0008%, 0.008%, 0.08%, and 0.8% rarely affected fiber quality;”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At 8% contamination, micronaire, length, uniformity and strength frequently decreased.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- a contamination rate of 8%e0
- Outcome
- micronaire, fiber length, fiber length uniformity, and fiber strengthe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a contamination rate of 8% frequently decreased micronaire, fiber length, fiber length uniformity, and fiber strength.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced fiber quality reduced cotton loan value and potential financial return.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- cotton loan value and potential financial returne0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Comparator
- fiber qualitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This decrease in fiber quality also resulted in a reduction in cotton loan value and potential financial return.”
Claim · model-written summary
The 0.8% contamination rate significantly reduced financial return through yield loss.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- 0.8%e1
- Outcome
- financial returne0
- Direction
- reductionse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significant reductions in financial return occurred due to yield loss caused by injury from glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline.”
t0“cotton”
e1“Although decreases in fiber quality parameters were not observed with the 0.8% contamination rate, significant reductions in financial return occurred due to yield loss caused by injury from glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline.”
The same questions in other papers
glyphosate · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →choline · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
2,4-D · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.