Paper · 2023 · Agriculture Association of Textile Chemical and Critical Reviews Journal

Effect of Mepiquat Chloride and Nitrogen levels on yield and economics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton

Sadhana Kumari; Durgesh Kumar; S. G. Rapoot; et al.

5
claims
10
verbatim quotes
0
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted in Bt cotton during the kharif season 2018 at the National Seed Production Area of Choudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar. As cotton has indeterminate growth habit, so to control plant height and encourages the translocation of photosynthesis towards reproductive sinks (growing cotton bolls), which lead to higher yields this experiment was conducted in factorial R.B.D with three replications comprising three levels of Nitrogen (N1: 100% RDF, N2: 125%RDF, N3: 150%RDF) and three different doses of growth retardant (G1: Control, G2: Mepiquat chloride application 20g a.i./ha. at 60 DAS, G3: Mepiquat chloride application 20g a.i./ha at 60 DAS and 75 DAS). The results indicated that several bolls/m2, boll weight (g), and seed cotton yield (kg/ha) was higher at 150% and 125% RDF than 100% RDF. However, seed index is significantly high with 100% RDF. A number of bolls/m2, boll weight (g) and seed cotton yield (kg/ha) was significantly higher with twice the spray of mepiquat chloride at 60 and 75 DAS compared to the control. Similarly highest gross and net return was recorded with 150% RDF level of nitrogen followed by 125% RDF and 100% RDF. Among spraying of mepiquat chloride higher gross returns and net returns was recorded with two sprays of mepiquat chloride (Rs.1,87,138/ha& 95,850/ha) followed by single spray (Rs 1,82,457/ha & Rs 92,473/ha) and control (Rs 1,66,902/ha &Rs 88,364/ha).

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 resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bolls per m2, boll weight and seed cotton yield were higher at 150% and 125% RDF nitrogen than at 100% RDF.

Treatment
150% and 125% RDFe1
Outcome
bolls/m2, boll weight (g), and seed cotton yield (kg/ha)e1
Direction
highere1
Comparator
100% RDFe1

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

t0

“yield and economics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–108 · show in text ↑
e1

“several bolls/m2, boll weight (g), and seed cotton yield (kg/ha) was higher at 150% and 125% RDF than 100% RDF”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 742–852 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Seed index was significantly high at 100% RDF nitrogen.

Treatment
100% RDFe2
Outcome
seed indexe2
Direction
significantly highe2

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

t0

“yield and economics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–108 · show in text ↑
e2

“seed index is significantly high with 100% RDF”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 863–909 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bolls per m2, boll weight and seed cotton yield were significantly higher with two mepiquat chloride sprays at 60 and 75 DAS than in the control.

Treatment
twice the spray of mepiquat chloride at 60 and 75 DASe3
Outcome
bolls/m2, boll weight (g) and seed cotton yield (kg/ha)e3
Direction
significantly highere3
Comparator
the controle3

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

t0

“yield and economics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–108 · show in text ↑
e3

“A number of bolls/m2, boll weight (g) and seed cotton yield (kg/ha) was significantly higher with twice the spray of mepiquat chloride at 60 and 75 DAS compared to the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 911–1086 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Gross and net return were highest at 150% RDF nitrogen, followed by 125% and 100% RDF.

Treatment
150% RDF level of nitrogene4
Outcome
gross and net returne4
Direction
higheste4
Comparator
125% RDF and 100% RDFe4

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

t0

“yield and economics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–108 · show in text ↑
e4

“Similarly highest gross and net return was recorded with 150% RDF level of nitrogen followed by 125% RDF and 100% RDF”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1088–1205 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Gross and net returns were higher with two mepiquat chloride sprays than with the control.

Treatment
two sprays of mepiquat chloridee5
Outcome
gross returns and net returnse5
Direction
highere5
Value
Rs.1,87,138/ha& 95,850/hae5
Comparator
controle5

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

t0

“yield and economics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–108 · show in text ↑
e5

“Among spraying of mepiquat chloride higher gross returns and net returns was recorded with two sprays of mepiquat chloride (Rs.1,87,138/ha& 95,850/ha) followed by single spray (Rs 1,82,457/ha & Rs 92,473/ha) and control (Rs 1,66,902/ha &Rs 88,364/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1207–1457 · show in text ↑

mepiquat chloride · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

70 papers: 59 positive, 11 negative or no effect

58 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

66 papers more in this group

See all 70 papers →

chloride · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

78 papers: 67 positive, 11 negative or no effect

66 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

74 papers more in this group

See all 78 papers →

application · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

283 papers: 253 positive, 30 negative or no effect

252 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

279 papers more in this group

See all 283 papers →

nitrogen · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

343 papers: 286 positive, 57 negative or no effect

285 papers in the same direction as this paper · 53 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

339 papers more in this group

See all 343 papers →

fertilization · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

550 papers: 497 positive, 53 negative or no effect

496 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

546 papers more in this group

See all 550 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.