Refine ·

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics

More filters

Clear filters

Organism: Gossypium hirsutum ✕

Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Climate change was associated with a significant average cotton yield efficiency decrease of 515 kg/ha.

Treatment
climate changee1
Outcome
yield efficiencye0
Direction
decreasee0
Value
515 kg/hae0

Verbatim

t0

“Cotton Production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–45
e0

“on the yield efficiency with an average decrease of 515 kg/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 823–884
e1

“climate change has a significant negative impact at 1% level”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 684–744

Title

Impact of Climate Change on Cotton Production: Case of Savannah Region, Northern Togo

Mawussi Kossivi Soviadan; Egnonto M. Koffi‐Tessio; Anselm A. Enete; et al. RePEc: Research Papers in Economics 2019. doi:10.60692/10n1x-3ay75

Other claims from this paper (8)
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing nutsedge density was associated with a significant linear decrease in seed cotton yield

Treatment
Increasing nutsedge densitye0
Interactor
nutsedgee0weed
Outcome
seed cotton yielde0
Direction
decreasee0

Verbatim

t0

“yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) density on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–104
e0

“Increasing nutsedge density caused a significant linear decrease in seed cotton yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 230–315

Title

Effects of soil moisture and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) density on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Jody E. Moffett; William B. McCloskey Weed Science 1998. doi:10.1017/s0043174500090470

Other claims from this paper (9)
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

A combined analysis found that 20 to 30% terminal bud destruction was required to produce a significant decrease in total yield in cotton.

Treatment
20 to 30% TBDe4
Outcome
total yielde4
Direction
decreasee4

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“Larvae on Cotton Plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–64
e4

“20 to 30% TBD was required to produce a significant decrease in total yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 612–687

Title

Economic Injury Level for Heliothis spp. Larvae on Cotton Plants in the Four-True-Leaf to Pinhead-Square Stage12

Alfred R. Hopkins; Raymond F. Moore; William James Journal of Economic Entomology 1982. doi:10.1093/jee/75.2.328

Other claims from this paper (5)
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

A combined analysis found that 40 to 50% terminal bud destruction was required to produce a significant decrease in first harvest yield in cotton.

Treatment
40 to 50% TBDe4
Outcome
first harvest yielde4
Direction
decreasee4

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“Larvae on Cotton Plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–64
e4

“The combined analysis indicated that 40 to 50% TBD was required to produce a significant decrease in first harvest yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 486–606

Title

Economic Injury Level for Heliothis spp. Larvae on Cotton Plants in the Four-True-Leaf to Pinhead-Square Stage12

Alfred R. Hopkins; Raymond F. Moore; William James Journal of Economic Entomology 1982. doi:10.1093/jee/75.2.328

Other claims from this paper (5)
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Twenty percent drought stress at alternate irrigation could significantly decrease cotton yield by 6% compared with the control treatment.

Treatment
20% drought stress of existing irrigation practice at alternate irrigation (even)e1
Outcome
yielde1
Direction
decreasee1
Value
6%e1
Qualifier
coulde1
Comparator
control treatmente1

Verbatim

t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 13–19
e1

“20% drought stress of existing irrigation practice at alternate irrigation (even) could significantly decrease yield by 6% and reduce IWP by 5% as compared to control treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1468–1644

Title

Responses of cotton yield and water productivity to irrigation management: assessment of economic costs, interactive effects of deficit irrigation water and soil types

Zhangjin; Rajesh Kumar Soothar; Sajid Usman Shar; et al. Discover Life 2025. doi:10.1007/s11084-024-09677-y

Other claims from this paper (8)
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

LRA-5166 showed a significant decrease in shoot proline.

Material
LRA-5166e0
Outcome
shoot prolinee0
Direction
decreasee0

Verbatim

e0

“LRA-5166 was the highest in shoot soluble proteins content and showed significant decrease in shoot proline”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1740–1847
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–101

Title

Hypoxia tolerance studies for yield, fiber and physiological traits in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)

Altaf HUSSAIN; Jehanzeb FAROOQ; Saghir AHMAD; et al. Journal of Cotton Research 2018. doi:10.1186/s42397-018-0008-8

Other claims from this paper (15)
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing shade increased the decrease in boll number, seed cotton and lint yield.

Treatment
Shaded at the flowering periode0
Outcome
boll number per plant,seed cotton and lint yielde0
Direction
decreasinge0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Shaded at the flowering period,decreasing amplitude of boll number per plant,seed cotton and lint yield significandy increased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 462–588
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–82

Title

Effect of Shading on the Growth and Development and the Canopy Structure of Cotton in Flowering - boll Forming Stage

Weihong Shi Xinjiang nongye kexue 2012

Other claims from this paper (13)
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The S-2 regime significantly reduced cotton yield and yield components relative to S-0.

Treatment
Treatment S-2e0
Outcome
yield and yield componentse0
Direction
decreasee0
Comparator
S-0e0

Verbatim

e0

“Treatment S-2 led to significant decrease in yield and yield components compared to S-0”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 787–874
e1

“three cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.) genotypes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 51–99

Title

Potentiality of Some Egyptan Cotton Varieties under Drought Stress Conditions

M. D. H. Dewdar International Journal of Plant & Soil Science 2019. doi:10.9734/ijpss/2019/v27i530086

Other claims from this paper (12)
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

V5 defoliation significantly decreased DES 56 yield each year.

Material
DES 56e0
Treatment
Defoliatione0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
decreasee0
Comparator
nondefoliated controlse1

Verbatim

e0

“Defoliation of DES 56 and DPL 61 at stage V5 caused a significant decrease in yield each year.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1106–1200
e1

“nondefoliated controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 894–916
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–34

Title

Differential Recovery Among Cotton Genotypes Following Early‐Season Defoliation1

C. Wayne Smith; J. J. Varvil Crop Science 1984. doi:10.2135/cropsci1984.0011183x002400010035x

Other claims from this paper (4)
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

V5 defoliation significantly decreased DPL 61 yield each year.

Material
DPL 61e0
Treatment
Defoliatione0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
decreasee0
Comparator
nondefoliated controlse1

Verbatim

e0

“Defoliation of DES 56 and DPL 61 at stage V5 caused a significant decrease in yield each year.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1106–1200
e1

“nondefoliated controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 894–916
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–34

Title

Differential Recovery Among Cotton Genotypes Following Early‐Season Defoliation1

C. Wayne Smith; J. J. Varvil Crop Science 1984. doi:10.2135/cropsci1984.0011183x002400010035x

Other claims from this paper (4)

Lexical search (BM25). All words must match; if nothing does, any word. Organism names also match every spelling of the same organism. No semantic search yet.