Abstract
Abstract Fruiting of cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) was evaluated by main stem node and branch position in 11 experiments over a 4‐yr period to determine if mepiquat chloride (MC) (1,1‐dimethylpiperidinium chloride) altered fruiting position development or retention. Fruiting events were monitored for main stem nodes 7 to 20 for first fruiting position on sympodial branches (SB1), secondary fruiting positions on sympodial branches (SB>1), and fruiting positions on monopodial branches (MB). Ten consecutive plants were plant mapped from each of four replications in each experiment and combined as a 40‐plant total for analysis of treatment and node effects using experiments as replications. Mepiquat chloride was applied at 49 g ha −1 when average plant height was 0.57 m and plants averaged 0.9 white blooms m −2 . Summed across nodes, plant zones SB1, SB>1, and MB accounted for 60, 26, and 13% of all harvestable bolls, produced 37, 46, and 17% of all fruiting positions, and set 45, 16, and 23% of all fruiting positions as harvestable bolls, respectively. Application of MC did not increase total number of bolls. The interaction of MC treatment and nodes was significant for SB1 and SB>1, with MC treated plants setting more bolls at lower nodes but fewer at upper nodes. The maximum cumulative benefit occurred at node 12 where MC treated plants had 15% more bolls matured than control plants (58.3 and 50.6 bolls m −2 , respectively). This advantage from MC treatment was not maintained as upper nodes matured fewer bolls than control plants. Plants treated with MC produced 3.1% fewer (P = 0.07) fruiting positions than control plants (288 and 279 m −2 respectively). Treatment by node interactions were significant for SB1 and SB>1, with MC increasing fruiting positions up to node 15 at SB1 and up to node 9 for SB>1, but having fewer at the remaining nodes. Early boll load was stimulated by MC. Late season boll load was decreased, apparently not by limited initiation of fruiting positions, but rather by increased abortion of fruiting forms. Use of MC according to the rate and timing of these tests would be of benefit when length of the season is a primary constraint to yield potential. In full‐season, non‐rank cotton, however, the early benefit in boll load is lost.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Mepiquat chloride application did not increase the total number of bolls.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- Application of MCe1
- Outcome
- total number of bollse1
- Direction
- did not increasee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Application of MC did not increase total number of bolls”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The interaction of mepiquat chloride treatment and node was significant for SB1 and SB>1: treated plants set more bolls at lower nodes but fewer at upper nodes.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- MC treatmente1
- Outcome
- bollse1
- Direction
- more bolls at lower nodes but fewer at upper nodese1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The interaction of MC treatment and nodes was significant for SB1 and SB>1, with MC treated plants setting more bolls at lower nodes but fewer at upper nodes”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The maximum cumulative benefit occurred at node 12, where mepiquat chloride treated plants had 15% more bolls matured than control plants.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- MCe1
- Outcome
- bolls maturede1
- Direction
- moree1
- Value
- 15%e1
- Qualifier
- at node 12e1
- Comparator
- control plantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The maximum cumulative benefit occurred at node 12 where MC treated plants had 15% more bolls matured than control plants”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Plants treated with mepiquat chloride produced 3.1% fewer fruiting positions than control plants (P = 0.07).
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- treated with MCe1
- Outcome
- fruiting positionse1
- Direction
- fewere1
- Value
- 3.1%e1
- Qualifier
- P = 0.07e1
- Comparator
- control plantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Plants treated with MC produced 3.1% fewer (P = 0.07) fruiting positions than control plants”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment by node interactions were significant for SB1 and SB>1: mepiquat chloride increased fruiting positions up to node 15 at SB1 and up to node 9 for SB>1 but gave fewer at the remaining nodes.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- MCe1
- Outcome
- fruiting positionse1
- Direction
- increasinge1
- Qualifier
- up to node 15 at SB1 and up to node 9 for SB>1, but having fewer at the remaining nodese1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Treatment by node interactions were significant for SB1 and SB>1, with MC increasing fruiting positions up to node 15 at SB1 and up to node 9 for SB>1, but having fewer at the remaining nodes”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Early boll load was stimulated by mepiquat chloride.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- MCe1
- Outcome
- Early boll loade1
- Direction
- stimulatede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Early boll load was stimulated by MC”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Late season boll load was decreased by mepiquat chloride.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- MCe1
- Outcome
- Late season boll loade2
- Direction
- decreasede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Early boll load was stimulated by MC”
e2“Late season boll load was decreased”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest the late season boll load decrease was apparently due to increased abortion of fruiting forms rather than limited initiation of fruiting positions.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- Late season boll loade1
- Qualifier
- increased abortion of fruiting formse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Late season boll load was decreased”
e2“apparently not by limited initiation of fruiting positions, but rather by increased abortion of fruiting forms”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant zone SB1, SB>1 and MB accounted for 60, 26 and 13% of all harvestable bolls.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- harvestable bollse1
- Value
- 60, 26, and 13%e1
- Qualifier
- SB1, SB>1, and MBe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“plant zones SB1, SB>1, and MB accounted for 60, 26, and 13% of all harvestable bolls”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The zones SB1, SB>1 and MB produced 37, 46 and 17% of all fruiting positions.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- fruiting positionse1
- Value
- 37, 46, and 17%e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“produced 37, 46, and 17% of all fruiting positions”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The zones SB1, SB>1 and MB set 45, 16 and 23% of fruiting positions as harvestable bolls.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- harvestable bollse1
- Value
- 45, 16, and 23%e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“set 45, 16, and 23% of all fruiting positions as harvestable bolls”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Use of mepiquat chloride at the tested rate and timing would be beneficial when season length is the primary constraint to yield potential.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- benefit when length of the season is a primary constraint to yield potentiale1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Use of MC according to the rate and timing of these tests would be of benefit when length of the season is a primary constraint to yield potential”
t0“Cotton”
The same questions in other papers
chloride · phenology · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →mepiquat chloride · phenology · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →mepiquat chloride · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 59 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
66 papers more in this group
See all 70 papers →chloride · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 67 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
74 papers more in this group
See all 78 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.