Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Irrigation cost was higher under flood than border strip irrigation.

A claim from Impact of Border Strip and Flood Method of Irrigation on Wheat Cultivation in the Malaprabha Command Area of Karnataka · 2015

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation cost was higher under flood than border strip irrigation.

Treatment
flood method of irrigatione0
Outcome
cost of irrigatione0
Direction
higheste0
Value
Rs. 2898.47/hae0
Qualifier
Rs. 2051.13/hae0
Comparator
border strip method of irrigatione0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSetting

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest cost of irrigation was found in flood method of irrigation (Rs. 2898.47/ha) compared to border strip method of irrigation (Rs. 2051.13/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 400–550
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–62

Title

Impact of Border Strip and Flood Method of Irrigation on Wheat Cultivation in the Malaprabha Command Area of Karnataka

Shreeshail Rudrapur; B. L. Patil Journal of Agricultural Studies 2015. doi:10.5296/jas.v3i2.7939

Other claims from this paper (3)

Record rev-0267f16d9201cf38bed17c7602fe87f41c203b2bd6352bc078f1e577980f0c77 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 3 in the model’s answer

flooding · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

102 papers: 17 positive, 85 negative or no effect

84 papers in the same direction as this claim · 17 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
  6. positive
  7. positive
  8. positive

93 papers more in this group

See all 102 papers →

irrigation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

989 papers: 798 positive, 191 negative or no effect

191 papers in the same direction as this claim · 797 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
  6. positive
  7. positive
  8. positive

980 papers more in this group

See all 989 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.