glufosinate · Quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)
11 claims from these papers; 3 citations 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.
- Glufosinate Safety in WideStrike® Acala Cotton (2014)
no changeGlufosinate treatments had no effect on cotton lint yield in 2008 and 2009 compared with a nontreated control.
Glufosinate tolerance of widestrike and liberty-link cotton varieties and the recoverability of upland cotton following terminal removal (2013)increaseGlufosinate sprayed cotton yielded 105 kg haø_ more lint than unsprayed cotton.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
3 citations between these papers: 3 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 2
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 6
Tolerance of transformed cotton to glufosinate · 2001
- no effect
- no effect
Response of Three Nonglufosinate-Resistant Cotton Varieties to Reduced Rates of Glufosinate · 2007
- negative
- negative
- no effect
Glufosinate Safety in WideStrike® Acala Cotton · 2014
- no effect
Response of LibertyLink and WideStrike Cotton to Varying Rates of Glufosinate · 2015
- no effect
Glufosinate plus Dicamba for Rescue Palmer Amaranth Control in XtendFlexTMCotton · 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.