Abstract
Abstract An inbred line of geranium seedlings was treated with CEPA and ABA sprays, CCC and CBBP drenches, and combinations of sprays and drenches. CEPA, CCC, and CBBP were physiologically active in altering the growth habits of geranium seedlings. ABA was relatively inactive. The earliest observable responses were dwarfing, stimulation of basal branching, and development of darker green leaves. CEPA alone or in combination with CCC or CBBP stimulated the greatest number of basal branches, but inhibited flower initiation for 70 days. Dwarfing effect was long-lasting in treatments with combinations of CEPA and CCC or CBBP. None of the growth retardant treatments had an effect on fruit development, seed germination, or seedling growth.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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
CEPA altered geranium seedling growth habits.
GeraniumNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Geranium Seedlings”
e0“CEPA, CCC, and CBBP were physiologically active in altering the growth habits of geranium seedlings.”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC altered geranium seedling growth habits.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CEPA, CCC, and CBBP were physiologically active in altering the growth habits of geranium seedlings.”
Claim · model-written summary
CBBP altered geranium seedling growth habits.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CEPA, CCC, and CBBP were physiologically active in altering the growth habits of geranium seedlings.”
Claim · model-written summary
ABA was relatively inactive on geranium seedlings.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Geranium Seedlings”
e0“ABA was relatively inactive.”
Claim · model-written summary
Initial responses included dwarfing, basal branching stimulation, and darker green leaves.
- Outcome
- dwarfing, stimulation of basal branching, and development of darker green leavese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Geranium Seedlings”
e0“The earliest observable responses were dwarfing, stimulation of basal branching, and development of darker green leaves.”
Claim · model-written summary
CEPA alone stimulated the greatest number of basal branches.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Geranium Seedlings”
e0“CEPA alone or in combination with CCC or CBBP stimulated the greatest number of basal branches, but inhibited flower initiation for 70 days.”
Claim · model-written summary
CEPA with CCC stimulated the greatest number of basal branches.
- Treatment
- CEPA alone or in combination with CCCe0
- Outcome
- number of basal branchese0
- Direction
- greateste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Geranium Seedlings”
e0“CEPA alone or in combination with CCC or CBBP stimulated the greatest number of basal branches, but inhibited flower initiation for 70 days.”
Claim · model-written summary
CEPA with CBBP stimulated the greatest number of basal branches.
- Treatment
- CEPA alone or in combination with CCC or CBBPe0
- Outcome
- number of basal branchese0
- Direction
- greateste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Geranium Seedlings”
e0“CEPA alone or in combination with CCC or CBBP stimulated the greatest number of basal branches, but inhibited flower initiation for 70 days.”
Claim · model-written summary
CEPA alone or with CCC or CBBP inhibited flower initiation for 70 days.
- Treatment
- CEPA alone or in combination with CCC or CBBPe0
- Outcome
- flower initiatione0
- Direction
- inhibitede0
- Value
- 70 dayse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Geranium Seedlings”
e0“CEPA alone or in combination with CCC or CBBP stimulated the greatest number of basal branches, but inhibited flower initiation for 70 days.”
Claim · model-written summary
CEPA with CCC or CBBP caused long-lasting dwarfing.
- Treatment
- combinations of CEPA and CCC or CBBPe0
- Outcome
- Dwarfing effecte0
- Direction
- Dwarfinge0
- Qualifier
- long-lastinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Geranium Seedlings”
e0“Dwarfing effect was long-lasting in treatments with combinations of CEPA and CCC or CBBP.”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth retardant treatments did not affect fruit development, seed germination, or seedling growth.
- Treatment
- growth retardant treatmentse0
- Outcome
- fruit development, seed germination, or seedling growthe0
- Direction
- Nonee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Geranium Seedlings”
e0“None of the growth retardant treatments had an effect on fruit development, seed germination, or seedling growth.”
The same questions in other papers
chlormequat chloride · phenology · GeraniumResults differ
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →class · growth · GeraniumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.