Paper · 1994 · UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona)

Effect of Plant Water Status on Defoliation and Yield of Pima Cotton

J. M. Nelson; Gus L. W. Hart

4
claims
7
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

A field study was conducted at the Maricopa Agricultural Center to determine the influence of plant water status at the time of defoliation on the effectiveness of defoliants and the yield of Pima cotton. Irrigation termination dates of 3 and 20 September and 8 October were used to achieve different levels of plant water stress at the time defoliants were applied (26 October). A single application of defoliants was not adequate to defoliate the cotton under the conditions of this test. The 3 September irrigation termination date resulted in the highest percentage of defoliation (63 %). CWSI and plant water content (RWC) measurements indicated that the irrigation termination treatments resulted in large differences in plant water stress at defoliation time. There was a significant increase in the percent defoliation as the CWSI values increased from 0.54 to 0.99.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

One defoliant application was inadequate to defoliate cotton under the test conditions.

Treatment
A single application of defoliantse0
Outcome
defoliate the cottone0
Direction
not adequatee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A single application of defoliants was not adequate to defoliate the cotton under the conditions of this test”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 380–489 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 3 September irrigation termination yielded the highest defoliation, 63%.

Taxon
Pima Cottont0
Treatment
3 September irrigation termination datee0
Outcome
percentage of defoliatione0
Direction
higheste0
Value
63 %e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The 3 September irrigation termination date resulted in the highest percentage of defoliation (63 %)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 491–591 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pima Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–68 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation termination treatments produced large differences in plant water stress at defoliation.

Taxon
Pima Cottont0
Treatment
irrigation termination treatmentse0
Outcome
plant water stresse0
Direction
large differencese0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“CWSI and plant water content (RWC) measurements indicated that the irrigation termination treatments resulted in large differences in plant water stress at defoliation time”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 593–765 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pima Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–68 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Percent defoliation significantly increased as CWSI increased from 0.54 to 0.99.

Taxon
Pima Cottont0
Treatment
CWSIe0
Outcome
percent defoliatione0
Direction
increasee0
Qualifier
CWSI values increased from 0.54 to 0.99e0

Verbatim

e0

“There was a significant increase in the percent defoliation as the CWSI values increased from 0.54 to 0.99”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 767–873 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pima Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–68 · show in text ↑

defoliant · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 1 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect
See all 4 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.