(2-chloroethyl)phosphonic acid · Quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)
14 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.
- Callus Induction by (2‐Chloroethyl) Phosphonic Acid on Cultured Cotton Ovules (1976)
decreaseEthephon in the medium inhibited normal organ and fibre development of cultured cotton ovules compared with control ovules.
RESPONSE OF COTTON CULTIVAR GIZA 83 TO FOLIAR APPLICATION OF ETHREL (ETHEPHON) IN LOW CONCENTRATIONS UNDER LATE PLANTING CONDITIONS (2003)no changeEthrel did not affect fiber properties.
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 3
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
Abiotic Stress Effects on Plant Growth and Yield Components of 1‐MCP Treated Cotton Plants · 2011
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 8
Termination of Late Season Cotton Fruiting with Growth Regulators as an Insect‐Control Technique · 1973
- negative
- no effect
Callus Induction by (2‐Chloroethyl) Phosphonic Acid on Cultured Cotton Ovules · 1976
- negative
Effect of Irrigation Termination on the Yield, Earliness, and Fiber Qualities of Cotton · 1999
- no effect
Harvest aid combination and application timing effects on lint yield and fiber quality · 2002
- negative
- negative
- no effect
Effect of Ethrel on Yield and Fibre Quality Traits in Upland Cotton · 2010
- no effect
- 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.