chlormequat chloride · Growth · Vitis
14 claims from these papers; 1 citation between them.
Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 1
1 pair of papers on this question report results that differ: an effect in one paper, the opposite effect or no effect in the other. Two model reviewers reading both claims accepted each pair.
- Control of Elongation and Thickening Growth of Primary Shoots and Primary Lateral Shoots in ^|^lsquo;Kyoho^|^rsquo; Grapes by CCC (1980)
decreaseCCC retarded elongation of primary shoots in Kyoho grapevines.
Physiological Effects of CCC on the Growth of Grapevine (1979)no changeCCC did not affect shoot elongation or shoot dry weight.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
1 citation between these papers: 1 on the same side, 0 across the two sides.
- Positive result
- Negative result or no effect
- Citation, pointing to the cited paper
- Citation across the two sides
- Larger circle: more citations overall
Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.
Papers reporting a positive result 4
- positive
- positive
- positive
Physiological Effects of CCC on the Growth of Grapevine · 1979
- positive
- no effect
Der Einfluß von Wachstumsinhibitoren auf die Langzeitlagerung von in-vitro-Kulturen der Rebe · 2015
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 5
Fruit Set in Grape Vines: The Mechanism of the CCC Effect · 1970
- negative
- negative
- negative
Promotion of Berry Set in Grapes by Growth Retardants · 1981
- no effect
- no effect
Effect of Growth Modulator on Grape Branch Growth · 2001
- negative
The Effects of Different Mass Concentrations of PP_(333) and CCC on Growth of Grape Tube-plantlets · 2012
- negative
A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.