Intervention effectmodel-written summary

125 kg N ha-1 with 30 kg sulphur ha-1 produced significantly higher grain yield of 42.47q ha-1.

A claim from Productivity and Economics of Irrigated Wheat as Influenced by Nitrogen and Sulphur Levels · 2020

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

125 kg N ha-1 with 30 kg sulphur ha-1 produced significantly higher grain yield of 42.47q ha-1.

Treatment
125 kg N ha-1 along with sulphur 30 kg ha-1e0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
42.47q ha-1e0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingQualifier

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

“application of 125 kg N ha-1 along with sulphur 30 kg ha-1 has recorded significantly higher grain yield (42.47q ha-1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 446–564
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–45

Title

Productivity and Economics of Irrigated Wheat as Influenced by Nitrogen and Sulphur Levels

Zamir Muradi; T. Sudha International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 2020. doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2020.910.358

Other claims from this paper (8)

Record rev-2757dba01e90625bef61d077e0d18853e130fd7c27959be4aeec298a9bea59ff · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

sulfur atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

148 papers: 124 positive, 24 negative or no effect

123 papers in the same direction as this claim · 23 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
    Sulfur application yielded hardly any benefit.

    Landscape positions dictating crop fertilizer responses in wheat-based farming systems of East African Highlands · 2020

    Opposite direction

  2. no effect
    Sulphur fertiliser had little effect on grain yield or grain nitrogen and sulphur concentration and uptake.

    Management of nitrogen and sulphur fertiliser for improved bread wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) quality · 2001

    Opposite direction

  3. no effect
    Sulfur rate, source and timing did not affect yield on soils with SOM above 20 g kg −1.

    Do Hard Red Spring Wheat Varieties Vary in Their Response to Sulfur? · 2019

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Sulfur did not increase winter wheat grain yield at any site.

    In‐Season Application of Nitrogen and Sulfur in Winter Wheat · 2019

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    Sulfur source treatments had a nonsignificant residual effect on wheat grain yield.

    Effect of Direct and Residual Effects of Different Sulfur Fertilizers on Groundnut and Wheat Cropping System on Typic Haplaquent Soils · 2003

    Opposite direction

  6. negative
    Sulfur reduced lentil and wheat yields.

    Evaluation of soil pH manipulation on crop production in northern idaho · 1986

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Zinc and sulfur treatments did not affect wheat biomass production or yield.

    Increasing the supply of sulphur increases the grain zinc concentration in bread and durum wheat · 2009

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Additional S fertilizer produced no observed winter wheat yield response at any location.

    On‐Farm Winter Wheat Response to Nitrogen‐, Phosphorus‐, Potassium‐, and Sulfur‐Rich Strips in Oklahoma · 2017 · compared with farmer's fertility practice

    Opposite direction

139 papers more in this group

See all 148 papers →

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

2,061 papers: 1,737 positive, 324 negative or no effect

1,736 papers in the same direction as this claim · 285 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
    Nitrogen at 120 or 150 kg N/ha with irrigation 25 days after germination gave more tillers than control and other treatments.

    The effect of nitrogen application rates and timings of first irrigation on wheat growth and yield. · 2014 · compared with control and other treatments

    Same directionCited by this paper

  2. negative
    The lowest N rates reduced grain number per square metre at any given photothermal quotient.

    The effects of radiation and nitrogen on number of grains in wheat · 1995

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Severe drought with low nitrogen reduced grain yields.

    Nitrogen Nutrition Improves the Potential of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to Alleviate the Effects of Drought Stress during Vegetative Growth Periods · 2016

    Opposite direction

  4. negative
    Low nitrogen reduced grain yield to 4.3 t/ha.

    The Effects of Prolonged Drought and Nitrogen Fertilizer on Root and Shoot Growth and Water Uptake by Winter Wheat · 1989 · compared with both N and water

    Opposite direction

  5. negative
    Terminal spikelet production was delayed by about 2 d at these N treatments in Aroona.

    Leaf Emergence, Tiller Growth, and Apical Development of Nitrogen‐Dificient Spring Wheat · 1993

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    Nitrogen level, N timing and seeding rate had no significant effect on spring wheat grain yield across environments.

    Seeding Rate and Nitrogen Management Effects on Spring Wheat Yield and Yield Components · 2007

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    ear weight changed with two nitrogen treatments.

    Effect of source‐sink relations and nitrogen nutrition on senescence and N remobilization in the flag leaf of wheat · 1991

    Opposite direction

  8. negative
    In some environments, higher nitrogen rates lowered wheat yield.

    Graphic Analysis of Genotype, Environment, Nitrogen Fertilizer, and Their Interactions on Spring Wheat Yield · 2004

    Opposite direction

2,052 papers more in this group

See all 2,061 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.