glyphosate · Growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)
18 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.
- Biological Response of Soybean and Cotton to Aerial Glyphosate Drift (2011)
decreaseShoot dry weight in both crops was reduced by 5–13% at 35.4 m downwind.
Response of nonglyphosate-resistant cotton to reduced rates of glyphosate (2004)no changeGlyphosate did not affect cotton dry weight at nine nodes.
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
Evaluation of Glyphosate as a Harvest‐Aid Chemical on Cotton1 · 1977
- positive
- positive
- positive
Association of Mechanical and Chemical Methods for Cotton Stalk Destruction · 2019
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 9
- negative
- negative
- negative
Response of nonglyphosate-resistant cotton to reduced rates of glyphosate · 2004
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
Transgenic Cotton with Improved Resistance to Glyphosate Herbicide · 2004
- negative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
Biological Response of Soybean and Cotton to Aerial Glyphosate Drift · 2011
- negative
- negative
- no effect
Manganese in RR Cotton as Affected by Glyphosate · 2017
- 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.