ArticlePloS one2013
Effect of mechanical stress on cotton growth and development.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical stimulation in Brachypodium distachyon: Implications for fitness, productivity, and cell wall properties.Plant, cell & environment · 2020Article
- Article
- Xylem sap in cotton contains proteins that contribute to environmental stress response and cell wall development.Functional & integrative genomics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Agricultural crops experience diverse mechanical stimuli, which may affect their growth and development. This study was conducted to investigate the effects of mechanical stresses caused by hanging labels from the flower petioles (HLFP) on plant shape and cotton yields in four cotton varieties: CCRI 41, DP 99B, CCRC 21, and BAI 1. HLFP significantly reduced plant height by between 7.8% and 36.5% in all four lines and also significantly reduced the number of fruiting positions per plant in the CCRI 41, DP 99B and CCRC 21 lines. However, the number of fruiting positions in BAI 1 was unaffected. HLFP also significantly reduced the boll weight for all four cultivars and the seed cotton yields for CCRI 41, DP 99B and BAI 1. Conversely, it significantly increased the seed cotton yield for CCRC 21 by 11.2%. HLFP treatment did not significantly affect the boll count in the fruiting branches of the 1(st) and 2(nd) layers in any variety, but did significantly reduce those on the 3(rd) and 4(th) fruiting branch layers for CCRI 41 and DP 99B. Similar trends were observed for the number of bolls per FP. In general, HLFP reduced plant height and boll weight. However, the lines responded differently to HLFP treatment in terms of their total numbers of fruiting positions, boll numbers, seed cotton yields, etc. Our results also suggested that HFLP responses might be delayed for some agronomy traits of some cotton genotypes, and that hanging labels from early-opening flowers might influence the properties related with those that opened later on.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.