glyphosate · Quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)
16 claims from these papers; 2 citations between them.
Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 4
4 pairs 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.
- Yield and Physiological Response of Nontransgenic Cotton to Simulated Glyphosate Drift1 (2005)
decreaseGlyphosate at 140 g/ha reduced lint yield by 4% versus nontreated cotton across locations.
Investigation of alternate herbicides for effective weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton (2019)increaseGlyphosate applied once increased lint yield by 136–185% over weedy control.
What separates themSituation: not stated · weed infestationCompare the two papers → - Effects of Glyphosate on Weed Management and Reproductive Biology of Glyphosate-Resistant Corn (2004)
decreaseGlyphosate drift reduced cotton lint yield by 4, 49, 72, and 87% at 140, 280, 560, and 1,120 g/ha.
Bed preparation techniques and herbicide tolerance technology for tropical dry season cotton production 233 (2016)increaseGlyphosate increased lint yield from 1728 to 1864 kg ha-1 through weed control.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Effects of Glyphosate on Weed Management and Reproductive Biology of Glyphosate-Resistant Corn (2004)
decreaseGlyphosate drift reduced cotton lint yield by 4, 49, 72, and 87% at 140, 280, 560, and 1,120 g/ha.
Investigation of alternate herbicides for effective weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton (2019)increaseGlyphosate applied once increased lint yield by 136–185% over weedy control.
What separates themSituation: not stated · weed infestationCompare the two papers → - Yield and Physiological Response of Nontransgenic Cotton to Simulated Glyphosate Drift1 (2005)
decreaseGlyphosate at 140 g/ha reduced lint yield by 4% versus nontreated cotton across locations.
Bed preparation techniques and herbicide tolerance technology for tropical dry season cotton production 233 (2016)increaseGlyphosate increased lint yield from 1728 to 1864 kg ha-1 through weed control.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
2 citations between these papers: 1 on the same side, 1 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 7
- positive
Round Ready Flex Cotton: Glyphosate Tolerance and Weed Management 2002-2003 · 2004
- positive
Studies on the Judging Technique and Controlling Results for the Seed Purity of Upland Hybrid Cotton · 2006
- positive
- positive
- positive
Investigation of alternate herbicides for effective weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton · 2019
- positive
- positive
Impact of irrigation levels on herbicide activity in the cotton production system · 2026
- positive
Weed Technology · 2026
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 7
Responses of Selected Weeds and Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton and Soybean to Two Glyphosate Salts1 · 2003
- no effect
Effects of Glyphosate on Weed Management and Reproductive Biology of Glyphosate-Resistant Corn · 2004
- negative
- no effect
Weed Management Systems in Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton · 2005
- negative
Yield and Physiological Response of Nontransgenic Cotton to Simulated Glyphosate Drift1 · 2005
- negative
Potassium salt based glyphosate effect on cotton yield and quality · 2015
- no effect
Non–2,4-D–resistant cotton response to glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline tank contamination · 2019
- 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.