Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Wheat seed germination was lower after F. graminearum infestation than after B. sorokiniana infestation at both sites in both years.

A claim from ROOT ROT PATHOGENS OF WHEAT IN SOUTH DAKOTA AND THEIR AFFECT ON SEED GERMINATION AND SEEDLING BLIGHT IN SPRING WHEAT CULTIVARS · 2016

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat seed germination was lower after F. graminearum infestation than after B. sorokiniana infestation at both sites in both years.

Treatment
F. graminearum infested seede0
Interactor
F. graminearumFusarium graminearume0pathogen
Second interactor
B. sorokinianaBipolaris sorokinianae0pathogen
Outcome
seed germinatione0
Direction
lowe0
Comparator
B. sorokiniana infested seede0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSettingValueQualifier

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 ↗
Fusarium graminearum
Fusarium graminearum · InteractorScot Nelson from Honolulu, USA · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bipolaris sorokiniana
Bipolaris sorokiniana · Second interactorJie-Hao Ou · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“low seed germination was observed in F. graminearum infested seed as compared to B. sorokiniana infested seed at both locations in both years.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2955–3097
t0

“ROOT ROT PATHOGENS OF WHEAT IN SOUTH DAKOTA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–43

Title

ROOT ROT PATHOGENS OF WHEAT IN SOUTH DAKOTA AND THEIR AFFECT ON SEED GERMINATION AND SEEDLING BLIGHT IN SPRING WHEAT CULTIVARS

Navjot Kaur Open PRAIRIE (South Dakota State University) 2016. doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.21157.09443

Other claims from this paper (19)

Record rev-1766c3883f739b87c17e8a91fda2051247c5ca044054c07322f40d1226496021 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 11 in the model’s answer

Fusarium graminearum · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 1 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this claim · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative
  4. negative
See all 5 papers →

infection · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

59 papers: 13 positive, 46 negative or no effect

45 papers in the same direction as this claim · 13 in the opposite direction

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

50 papers more in this group

See all 59 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.