Abstract
Abstract Since the release of dicamba-tolerant cotton in 2016, preplant and POST applications of dicamba to control glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth have increased. With the increase in area treated with dicamba, the risk of off-target movement to nontarget crops has increased. A field study was conducted at the Texas Tech University New Deal Research Farm equipped with subsurface drip irrigation in 2017 and 2018 to evaluate non-dicamba tolerant cotton response to dicamba when applied at four crop growth stages [first square (FS) + 2 wk, first bloom (FB), FB + 2 wk, and FB + 5 wk]. Dicamba at 0.56 (1×), 0.056 (1/10×), 0.0112 (1/50×), 0.0056 (1/100×), and 0.00112 (1/500×) kg ae ha −1 was applied to ‘FM 1830GLT’ cotton. When applications were made at FS + 2 wk, a shift in boll nodal position was apparent following dicamba at the 1/50× rate in 2017 and at 1/10× in 2018 compared to the nontreated control (NTC). A shift in boll distribution from the 1/50× rate of dicamba was apparent at FB in 2017, but not in 2018. Dicamba applied at the 1× rate at FB + 2 wk resulted in reduced boll numbers. No change in boll number or boll position was apparent following any dicamba rate when applied at FB + 5 wk in both years. Dicamba applied at 1/500×, 1/100×, and 1/50× rates at all timings did not affect yield relative to the NTC. When dicamba was applied at the 1/10× rate, the greatest yield loss was observed at FS + 2 wk followed by FB and FB + 2 wk. Micronaire increased following dicamba applied at 1/10× at FS + 2 wk, FB, and FB + 2 wk in 2017. In 2018, micronaire decreased following dicamba applied at 1/10× at FB + 5 wk.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
Dicamba at the 1/50× rate applied at first square plus 2 weeks shifted boll nodal position in cotton in 2017.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- dicamba at the 1/50× ratee1
- Outcome
- shift in boll nodal positione1
- Qualifier
- in 2017e1
- Comparator
- nontreated control (NTC)e1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate non-dicamba tolerant cotton response to dicamba when applied at four crop growth stages”
e1“When applications were made at FS + 2 wk, a shift in boll nodal position was apparent following dicamba at the 1/50× rate in 2017 and at 1/10× in 2018 compared to the nontreated control (NTC)”
Claim · model-written summary
Dicamba at the 1/10× rate applied at first square plus 2 weeks shifted boll nodal position in cotton in 2018.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- dicambae1
- Outcome
- shift in boll nodal positione1
- Qualifier
- 1/10× in 2018e1
- Comparator
- nontreated control (NTC)e1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate non-dicamba tolerant cotton response to dicamba when applied at four crop growth stages”
e1“When applications were made at FS + 2 wk, a shift in boll nodal position was apparent following dicamba at the 1/50× rate in 2017 and at 1/10× in 2018 compared to the nontreated control (NTC)”
Claim · model-written summary
Dicamba at the 1/50× rate shifted boll distribution at first bloom in 2017 but not in 2018.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- the 1/50× rate of dicambae2
- Outcome
- shift in boll distributione2
- Qualifier
- at FB in 2017, but not in 2018e2
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate non-dicamba tolerant cotton response to dicamba when applied at four crop growth stages”
e2“A shift in boll distribution from the 1/50× rate of dicamba was apparent at FB in 2017, but not in 2018”
Claim · model-written summary
Dicamba at the 1× rate applied at first bloom plus 2 weeks reduced boll numbers in cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Dicamba applied at the 1× ratee3
- Outcome
- boll numberse3
- Direction
- reducede3
- Qualifier
- FB + 2 wke3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate non-dicamba tolerant cotton response to dicamba when applied at four crop growth stages”
e3“Dicamba applied at the 1× rate at FB + 2 wk resulted in reduced boll numbers”
Claim · model-written summary
Dicamba at any rate applied at first bloom plus 5 weeks caused no change in boll number or boll position in either year.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- any dicamba ratee4
- Outcome
- boll number or boll positione4
- Direction
- No changee4
- Qualifier
- FB + 5 wk in both yearse4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate non-dicamba tolerant cotton response to dicamba when applied at four crop growth stages”
e4“No change in boll number or boll position was apparent following any dicamba rate when applied at FB + 5 wk in both years”
Claim · model-written summary
Dicamba at 1/500×, 1/100× and 1/50× rates at all timings did not affect cotton yield relative to the nontreated control.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Dicamba applied at 1/500×, 1/100×, and 1/50× ratese5
- Outcome
- yielde5
- Direction
- did not affecte5
- Qualifier
- at all timingse5
- Comparator
- NTCe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate non-dicamba tolerant cotton response to dicamba when applied at four crop growth stages”
e5“Dicamba applied at 1/500×, 1/100×, and 1/50× rates at all timings did not affect yield relative to the NTC”
Claim · model-written summary
Dicamba at the 1/10× rate caused the greatest yield loss when applied at first square plus 2 weeks.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- dicamba was applied at the 1/10× ratee6
- Outcome
- yield losse6
- Direction
- greateste6
- Qualifier
- at FS + 2 wke6
- Comparator
- FB and FB + 2 wke6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate non-dicamba tolerant cotton response to dicamba when applied at four crop growth stages”
e6“When dicamba was applied at the 1/10× rate, the greatest yield loss was observed at FS + 2 wk followed by FB and FB + 2 wk”
Claim · model-written summary
Dicamba at 1/10× applied at three timings increased micronaire in cotton in 2017.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- dicamba applied at 1/10×e7
- Outcome
- Micronairee7
- Direction
- increasede7
- Qualifier
- at FS + 2 wk, FB, and FB + 2 wk in 2017e7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate non-dicamba tolerant cotton response to dicamba when applied at four crop growth stages”
e7“Micronaire increased following dicamba applied at 1/10× at FS + 2 wk, FB, and FB + 2 wk in 2017”
Claim · model-written summary
Dicamba at 1/10× applied at first bloom plus 5 weeks decreased micronaire in cotton in 2018.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- dicamba applied at 1/10×e1
- Outcome
- micronairee1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Qualifier
- In 2018e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate non-dicamba tolerant cotton response to dicamba when applied at four crop growth stages”
e1“In 2018, micronaire decreased following dicamba applied at 1/10× at FB + 5 wk”
The same questions in other papers
dicamba · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 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.