Abstract
The growth regulator mepiquat chloride (MC) (1,1‐dimethylpiperidinium chloride) inhibits leaf expansion, reduces leaf diffusive resistance, and reduces leaf photosynthetic rates when applied to cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.). Whole‐plant studies in a controlled environment were conducted to evaluate the effect of MC on the C and water economies of ‘Stoneville 825’ cotton plants growing under well‐watered and water‐deficient conditions. Single, well‐irrigated plants were transferred from a nursery room into test chambers when they reached a leaf area of 0.05 m 2 and were exposed to the following combinations of treatments: treated or not treated with MC and maintained well irrigated or not irrigated. MC treatment consisted of spraying 12 ± 1 mL plant −1 of a solution with a concentration of 27.3 mg a.i. L −1 . Environmental conditions were typical of sunny humid days in central Texas. Carbon exchange rates and water loss rates were monitored hourly; leaf area, leaf water potential, and leaf osmotic potential were measured daily. Mepiquat chloride inhibited plant leaf area expansion, daily transpiration, daily gross C uptake, daily C loss, and daily net C gains in both water regimes; however, transpiration, gross C uptake, and net C gains of water‐stressed plants were less inhibited in MC‐treated plants than in nontreated plants toward the end of the water stress cycle. Mepiqnat chloride did not affect C‐use efficiency of cotton plants under either water regime nor the water use efficiency (WUE) of well‐watered plants, but reduced WUE of water‐stressed plants, which indicates a possible inhibition of the leaf internal photosynthetic capacity. Mepiquat chloride did not affect leaf water and osmotic potentials of well‐watered plants, but helped to maintain leaf turgor potential in water‐stressed plants. It was concluded that MC induces a water‐conservative behavior in cotton through its effect on plant leaf area and delays the onset of water stress in plants growing under water‐deficient conditions.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Mepiquat chloride inhibited cotton leaf area expansion, transpiration, gross carbon uptake, carbon loss and net carbon gains in both water regimes.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- Mepiquat chloridee0
- Outcome
- plant leaf area expansion, daily transpiration, daily gross C uptakee0
- Direction
- inhibitede0
- Qualifier
- in both water regimese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mepiquat chloride inhibited plant leaf area expansion, daily transpiration, daily gross C uptake, daily C loss, and daily net C gains in both water regimes;”
t0“Cotton Plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Near the end of the stress cycle, mepiquat-treated water-stressed cotton had less inhibition of transpiration, carbon uptake and net carbon gain than untreated plants.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- MC‐treatede0
- Outcome
- transpiration, gross C uptake, and net C gainse0
- Direction
- less inhibitede0
- Qualifier
- toward the end of the water stress cyclee0
- Comparator
- nontreated plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“transpiration, gross C uptake, and net C gains of water‐stressed plants were less inhibited in MC‐treated plants than in nontreated plants toward the end of the water stress cycle.”
t0“Cotton Plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Mepiquat chloride did not affect cotton carbon-use efficiency in either water regime.
- Taxon
- cotton plantsGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Mepiqnat chloridee0
- Outcome
- C‐use efficiencye0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mepiqnat chloride did not affect C‐use efficiency of cotton plants under either water regime”
t0“Cotton Plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Mepiquat chloride did not affect water-use efficiency of well-watered cotton.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Mepiqnat chloridee1
- Outcome
- water use efficiency (WUE)e0
- Direction
- did not affecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“nor the water use efficiency (WUE) of well‐watered plants”
t0“Cotton Plants”
e1“Mepiqnat chloride did not affect C‐use efficiency of cotton plants under either water regime nor the water use efficiency (WUE) of well‐watered plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Mepiquat chloride reduced water-use efficiency in water-stressed cotton.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Mepiqnat chloridee1
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but reduced WUE of water‐stressed plants”
t0“Cotton Plants”
e1“Mepiqnat chloride did not affect C‐use efficiency of cotton plants under either water regime nor the water use efficiency (WUE) of well‐watered plants, but reduced WUE of water‐stressed plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Mepiquat chloride did not affect leaf water and osmotic potentials in well-watered cotton.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Mepiquat chloridee0
- Outcome
- leaf water and osmotic potentialse0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mepiquat chloride did not affect leaf water and osmotic potentials of well‐watered plants”
t0“Cotton Plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Mepiquat chloride helped maintain leaf turgor in water-stressed cotton.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Mepiquat chloridee1
- Outcome
- leaf turgor potentiale0
- Direction
- helped to maintaine0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but helped to maintain leaf turgor potential in water‐stressed plants.”
t0“Cotton Plants”
e1“Mepiquat chloride did not affect leaf water and osmotic potentials of well‐watered plants, but helped to maintain leaf turgor potential in water‐stressed plants.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude mepiquat chloride conserves water through reduced leaf area and delays water stress onset.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- MCe0
- Outcome
- water‐conservative behaviore0
- Qualifier
- through its effect on plant leaf areae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MC induces a water‐conservative behavior in cotton through its effect on plant leaf area and delays the onset of water stress in plants growing under water‐deficient conditions.”
The same questions in other papers
mepiquat chloride · physiology: gas exchange · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
chloride · physiology: gas exchange · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
mepiquat chloride · physiology: water · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
chloride · physiology: water · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.