dicamba · Growth · Glycine max (soybean)
41 claims from these papers; 37 citations between them.
Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 6
6 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.
- Dicamba Effects on Soybean (Glycine max) Growth, Yield, and Offspring (2018)
decreaseDicamba at R1 reduced mature height by 35 cm in an indeterminate cultivar.
Phytotoxicity of 2,4,5-T, Picloram, and Dicamba, Alone and in Mixtures in Tissue Culture (1974)increaseDicamba at 10 −6 and 10 −8 M stimulated soybean tissue growth.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Soybean reproductive physiology as affected by sublethal rates of auxin mimic herbicides (2025)
decreasedicamba at 1/100x reduced reproductive biomass by 30%.
Response of dicamba-resistant soybean cultivars to postemergence dicamba dose exposure (2025)no changeDicamba applied from 288 to 864 g ae ha⁻¹ caused no significant biomass reduction in soybean.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Phytotoxicity of 2,4,5-T, Picloram, and Dicamba, Alone and in Mixtures in Tissue Culture (1974)
increaseDicamba at 10 −6 and 10 −8 M stimulated soybean tissue growth.
Simulated drift of dicamba and 2,4-D on soybeans: effects of application dose and time (2020)decreaseDicamba underdoses damaged soybean vegetative growth.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Phytotoxicity of 2,4,5-T, Picloram, and Dicamba, Alone and in Mixtures in Tissue Culture (1974)
increaseDicamba at 10 −6 and 10 −8 M stimulated soybean tissue growth.
Simulated rainfall following the preplant application of 2,4-D and dicamba in soybean (2020)decreaseDicamba residual reduced soybean establishment at the lower rainfall volumes.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Phytotoxicity of 2,4,5-T, Picloram, and Dicamba, Alone and in Mixtures in Tissue Culture (1974)
increaseDicamba at 10 −6 and 10 −8 M stimulated soybean tissue growth.
Interaction of contact herbicides and timing of dicamba exposure on soybean (2021)decreaseDicamba at 5.6 g ae ha −1 reduced soybean height.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Phytotoxicity of 2,4,5-T, Picloram, and Dicamba, Alone and in Mixtures in Tissue Culture (1974)
increaseDicamba at 10 −6 and 10 −8 M stimulated soybean tissue growth.
Simulated drift of dicamba and 2,4-D on soybeans: effects of application dose and time (2020)decreaseDicamba underdoses damaged vegetative growth.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
37 citations between these papers: 33 on the same side, 4 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 10
Comparative Effects and Concentration of Picloram, 2,4,5-T and Dicamba in Tissue Culture · 1972
- positive
Phytotoxicity of 2,4,5-T, Picloram, and Dicamba, Alone and in Mixtures in Tissue Culture · 1974
- positive
Control of glyphosate resistant Canada fleabane with saflufenacil plus tankmix partners in soybean · 2016
- positive
- positive
- positive
Efficacy of Halauxifen-Methyl for Management of Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds and Soybean Crop Safety · 2017
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed with Group 4 herbicides in soybean · 2022
- positive
- positive
- positive
Triangular Greenness Index to Evaluate the Effects of Dicamba in Soybean · 2022
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 20
Response of Soybeans to 2,4-D, Dicamba, and Picloram · 1969
- negative
Evaluation of Seedling Progeny of Soybeans Treated with 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, and Dicamba · 1973
- negative
Dicamba use and Injury on Soybeans(Glycine max)in South Dakota · 1978
- negative
Dicamba Effects on Soybean (Glycine max) Growth, Yield, and Offspring · 2018
- negative
- negative
- negative
Drift of 2,4-D and dicamba applied to soybean at vegetative and reproductive growth stage · 2018
- negative
- negative
Injury Criteria Associated with Soybean Exposure to Dicamba · 2018
- no effect
- negative
Glyphosate‐Resistant Soybean Response to Micro‐Rates of Three Dicamba‐Based Herbicides · 2019
- negative
Effect of soybean growth stage on sensitivity to sublethal rates of dicamba and 2,4-D · 2019
- negative
Changes in Soybean Yield Components in Response to Dicamba · 2019
- negative
- negative
Simulated drift of dicamba and 2,4-D on soybeans: effects of application dose and time · 2020
- negative
- negative
Simulated rainfall following the preplant application of 2,4-D and dicamba in soybean · 2020
- negative
Simulated drift of dicamba and 2,4-D on soybeans: effects of application dose and time · 2020
- negative
- negative
Dicamba Injury on Soybean Assessed Visually and with Spectral Vegetation Index · 2021
- negative
Interaction of contact herbicides and timing of dicamba exposure on soybean · 2021
- negative
Can pre- and/or post-emergent herbicide application affect soybean seed quality? · 2023
- negative
Response of soybean, cotton, and tobacco to volatility of 2,4-D and dicamba formulations in humidome · 2023
- negative
Soybean reproductive physiology as affected by sublethal rates of auxin mimic herbicides · 2025
- negative
Response of dicamba-resistant soybean cultivars to postemergence dicamba dose exposure · 2025
- negative
- negative
- no effect
- 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.