Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Methyl bromide generally outperformed calcium phosphide and avermectin for tomato yield.

A claim from Managing Meloidogyne incognita with calcium phosphide as an alternative to methyl bromide in tomato crops · 2012

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Methyl bromide generally outperformed calcium phosphide and avermectin for tomato yield.

Treatment
MeBre0
Outcome
plant yielde0
Direction
superiore0
Comparator
treatments including Ca 3 P 2 and avermectine0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“tomato crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–105
e0

“MeBr was generally superior to the treatments including Ca 3 P 2 and avermectin, which in turn were superior to the control, for increasing plant growth, inhibiting Meloidogyne incognita infestation and improving plant yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 977–1201

Title

Managing Meloidogyne incognita with calcium phosphide as an alternative to methyl bromide in tomato crops

Kang Qiao; Huan Zhang; Haiming Duan; et al. Scientia Horticulturae 2012. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2012.10.015

Other claims from this paper (9)

Record rev-2ad71fc2eb4e3fc2836eaed1b5fb56903e7edd57d0430b1815455eea28ec1cbe · schema claims-v0.9 · position 3 in the model’s answer

bromomethane · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 10 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
  6. positive
  7. positive
  8. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 11 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.