Abstract
Three mepiquat chloride (MC) concentrations - 40, 70, and 100 g a.i./ha - were used to spray cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L., cultival McNair 220) plants to determine whether or not MC would increase their cold tolerance. Seven to ten days after the spray, the plants were exposed to three different cold treatments. No important difference in cold damage was noticed between the control and the MC-treated plants when they were exposed repeatedly to 4.5 C. No plants died when exposed to 0.5 C for 12 h; however, 90% of the 1st and 2nd leaves of the control plants were damaged. This was three times more damage than those leaves of plants treated with 70 and 100 g a.i./ha MC concentrations; 60% f the control and 10-20% of the MC-treated plants died when the plants were subjected to a cold hardening process with 15.5 C day (12 h) and 1.7 C night (12 h) for 10 days, and then, held at -2.2 C for 24 hours. The electrolyte leakage and reflectance measurement data showed that the cell membranes of the MC-treated plants sustained much less damage than those of the control. Freezing injury was easily assessed by reflectance measurements at the 1.65 micrometer wavelength.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Mepiquat chloride-treated cotton plants showed no important difference in cold damage from controls when repeatedly exposed to 4.5 C.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume2 - Material
- McNair 220e2
- Treatment
- MC-treated plantse1
- Outcome
- cold damagee1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
- Qualifier
- when they were exposed repeatedly to 4.5 Ce1
- Comparator
- the controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“No important difference in cold damage was noticed between the control and the MC-treated plants when they were exposed repeatedly to 4.5 C”
e2“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L., cultival McNair 220)”
Claim · model-written summary
No cotton plants died when exposed to 0.5 C for 12 h.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Material
- McNair 220e2
- Outcome
- plants diede1
- Qualifier
- when exposed to 0.5 C for 12 he1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“No plants died when exposed to 0.5 C for 12 h”
e2“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L., cultival McNair 220)”
Claim · model-written summary
Control cotton leaves had three times more damage than leaves of plants treated with 70 and 100 g a.i./ha MC; 90% of control leaves were damaged.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Material
- McNair 220e2
- Organ / stage
- 1st and 2nd leavese1
- Treatment
- 70 and 100 g a.i./ha MCe1
- Outcome
- damagee1
- Direction
- moree1
- Value
- three timese1
- Qualifier
- 90% of the 1st and 2nd leaves of the control plants were damagede1
- Comparator
- control plantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“90% of the 1st and 2nd leaves of the control plants were damaged. This was three times more damage than those leaves of plants treated with 70 and 100 g a.i./ha MC concentrations”
e2“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L., cultival McNair 220)”
Claim · model-written summary
After cold hardening and holding at -2.2 C, 10-20% of MC-treated cotton plants died versus 60% of controls.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Material
- McNair 220e2
- Treatment
- MCe1
- Outcome
- plants diede1
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede1
- Value
- 10-20%e1
- Qualifier
- 60% f the controle1
- Comparator
- the controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“60% f the control and 10-20% of the MC-treated plants died when the plants were subjected to a cold hardening process with 15.5 C day (12 h) and 1.7 C night (12 h) for 10 days, and then, held at -2.2 C for 24 hours”
e2“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L., cultival McNair 220)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cell membranes of MC-treated cotton plants sustained less damage than those of controls, per electrolyte leakage and reflectance data.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Material
- McNair 220e2
- Organ / stage
- cell membranese1
- Treatment
- MC-treated plantse1
- Outcome
- damagee1
- Direction
- lesse1
- Qualifier
- electrolyte leakage and reflectance measurement datae1
- Comparator
- the controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The electrolyte leakage and reflectance measurement data showed that the cell membranes of the MC-treated plants sustained much less damage than those of the control”
e2“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L., cultival McNair 220)”
Claim · model-written summary
Freezing injury in cotton was easily assessed by reflectance measurements at the 1.65 micrometer wavelength.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume2
- Material
- McNair 220e2
- Outcome
- Freezing injurye1
- Value
- 1.65 micrometere1
- Qualifier
- reflectance measurementse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Freezing injury was easily assessed by reflectance measurements at the 1.65 micrometer wavelength”
e2“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L., cultival McNair 220)”
The same questions in other papers
chloride · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →mepiquat chloride · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.