magnesium sulfate · Growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)
17 claims from these papers.
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.
- Supplying Calcium and Magnesium for Cotton on Sandy, Low Cation Exchange Capacity Soils1 (1965)
no changeAdditions of MgSO4 at different pH levels did not increase cotton growth.
Direct and Indirect Stimulation of Primary Root Growth of Cotton Seed Imbibed at a Low Temperature by Calcium Sulfate (1987)increaseCotton radicle growth at 15 C was stimulated when water-moistened seed rolls were adjacent to dilute magnesium sulfate solution in sealed chambers.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
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 8
The Effect of Ammonium Phosphate and Other Chemicals on the Germination of Cotton and Wheat Seeds · 1964
- positive
- no effect
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Yield response of cotton by foliar nutrients under rainfed condition · 2025
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 2
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.