application · Control · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)
17 claims from these papers.
Papers here report positive and negative or no-effect results. No pair of them has been accepted in the claim-by-claim check.
How these papers cite each other
None of these papers cites another one here.
- 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 11
Effectiveness of Several Insecticides against the Boll Weevil, Bollworm, and Cotton Leafworm · 1958
- positive
Chemical control of soilborne fungal pathogen complex of seedling cotton · 1988
- positive
- no effect
Methodology of the application of pyrethroids against cotton boll weevil and pink bollworm · 1991
- positive
- positive
- positive
Integrated Management of Cotton Pests with Emphasis on Bollworms · 1995
- positive
Integrated Research of Key Cultivation Techniques of CCRI 41 · 2006
- positive
- positive
DANTOP: A Promising New Molecule for the Management of Cotton Sap Feeding Insects · 2010
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 4
Sulfur for Suppression or Control of Tetranychid Mites on Cotton · 1967
- no effect
Influence of Placement of Charcoal on Protection of Cotton(Gossypium hirsutum)from Diuron · 1978
- negative
Fungicidal control of Rhizoctonia solani in soil amended with organic manures · 1982
- negative
Spraying Technologies for Cotton: Deposition and Efficacy · 1996
- no effect
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.