Abstract
Most of the research investigating the effect of mepiquat chloride (1,1‐dimethylpiperidinium chloride) on the growth of cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) has been limited to well‐irrigated plants and has been focused primarily on the growth of aboveground organs. This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of mepiquat chloride (MC) on the partitioning of biomass in whole cotton plants grown in controlled‐environment test chambers under well‐irrigated and water‐deficient conditions. Single plants of ‘Stoneville 825’ were transferred from a nursery room into test chambers when they reached a leaf area of ≈500 cm 2 and were then exposed to the following treatments: (i) sprayed at a recommended rate for commercial crops with 12 ± 1 mL plant −1 of a MC solution (27.3 mg L −1 a.i.) and maintained well irrigated, (ii) not sprayed with MC and maintained well irrigated, (iii) sprayed with MC and not irrigated, and (iv) not sprayed with MC and not irrigated. Durations of experiments varied from 11 to 14 d. Tests were replicated four times. Environmental conditions in the test chambers were typical of sunny and humid summer days in central Texas. Leaf area was measured daily during the tests. At the end of each test, the plants were harvested and separated into various categories of plant organs, oven‐dried and weighed. Water deficits inhibited the accumulation of plant biomass through inhibition of leaf lamina, petiole, and branch growth. The MC, on the other hand, did not affect the accumulation of biomass on a whole‐plant basis, but did affect biomass partitioning by inhibiting growth of branches and stem and by promoting growth of fine roots; MC also inhibited expansion of leaves and extension of stem internodes and petioles, which led to the development of a more compact canopy structure. These effects of MC on biomass partitioning and size of plant organs may result in decreased plant photosynthesis rates, but also may induce a water‐conservative behavior.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficits inhibited whole-plant biomass accumulation through reduced leaf lamina, petiole and branch growth.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Organ / stage
- leaf lamina, petiole, and branche0
- Treatment
- Water deficitse0
- Outcome
- accumulation of plant biomasse0
- Direction
- inhibitede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton Plants”
e0“Water deficits inhibited the accumulation of plant biomass through inhibition of leaf lamina, petiole, and branch growth.”
Claim · model-written summary
MC did not affect accumulation of biomass on a whole‐plant basis.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- MCe0
- Outcome
- accumulation of biomass on a whole‐plant basise0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton Plants”
e0“The MC, on the other hand, did not affect the accumulation of biomass on a whole‐plant basis, but did affect biomass partitioning by inhibiting growth of branches and stem and by promoting growth of fine roots; MC also inhibited expansion of leaves and extension of stem internodes and petioles, which led to the development of a more compact canopy structure.”
Claim · model-written summary
MC inhibiting growth of branches and stem.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- MCe0
- Outcome
- growth of branches and steme0
- Direction
- inhibitinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton Plants”
e0“The MC, on the other hand, did not affect the accumulation of biomass on a whole‐plant basis, but did affect biomass partitioning by inhibiting growth of branches and stem and by promoting growth of fine roots; MC also inhibited expansion of leaves and extension of stem internodes and petioles, which led to the development of a more compact canopy structure.”
Claim · model-written summary
MC promoting growth of fine roots.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- MCe0
- Outcome
- growth of fine rootse0
- Direction
- promotinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton Plants”
e0“The MC, on the other hand, did not affect the accumulation of biomass on a whole‐plant basis, but did affect biomass partitioning by inhibiting growth of branches and stem and by promoting growth of fine roots; MC also inhibited expansion of leaves and extension of stem internodes and petioles, which led to the development of a more compact canopy structure.”
Claim · model-written summary
MC inhibited expansion of leaves.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- MCe0
- Outcome
- expansion of leavese0
- Direction
- inhibitede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton Plants”
e0“The MC, on the other hand, did not affect the accumulation of biomass on a whole‐plant basis, but did affect biomass partitioning by inhibiting growth of branches and stem and by promoting growth of fine roots; MC also inhibited expansion of leaves and extension of stem internodes and petioles, which led to the development of a more compact canopy structure.”
Claim · model-written summary
MC inhibited extension of stem internodes and petioles.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- MCe0
- Outcome
- extension of stem internodes and petiolese0
- Direction
- inhibitede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton Plants”
e0“The MC, on the other hand, did not affect the accumulation of biomass on a whole‐plant basis, but did affect biomass partitioning by inhibiting growth of branches and stem and by promoting growth of fine roots; MC also inhibited expansion of leaves and extension of stem internodes and petioles, which led to the development of a more compact canopy structure.”
Claim · model-written summary
MC led to a more compact canopy structure.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- MCe0
- Outcome
- a more compact canopy structuree0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton Plants”
e0“The MC, on the other hand, did not affect the accumulation of biomass on a whole‐plant basis, but did affect biomass partitioning by inhibiting growth of branches and stem and by promoting growth of fine roots; MC also inhibited expansion of leaves and extension of stem internodes and petioles, which led to the development of a more compact canopy structure.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest MC effects may decrease photosynthesis rates.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- MCe0
- Outcome
- decreased plant photosynthesis ratese0
- Qualifier
- maye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton Plants”
e0“These effects of MC on biomass partitioning and size of plant organs may result in decreased plant photosynthesis rates, but also may induce a water‐conservative behavior.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest MC effects may induce water-conservative behavior.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- MCe0
- Outcome
- water‐conservative behaviore0
- Qualifier
- maye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton Plants”
e0“These effects of MC on biomass partitioning and size of plant organs may result in decreased plant photosynthesis rates, but also may induce a water‐conservative behavior.”
The same questions in other papers
mepiquat chloride · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →chloride · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
47 papers more in this group
See all 51 papers →drought · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
60 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
82 papers more in this group
See all 86 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.