Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Inoculation significantly increased sulfur (S) uptake by 14.4% averaged across cultivars.

A claim from The Symbiotic Performance and Plant Nutrient Uptake of Certain Nationally Registered Chickpea (Cicer ArietinumL.) Cultivars of Turkey · 2014

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculation significantly increased sulfur (S) uptake by 14.4% averaged across cultivars.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
inoculatione2
Outcome
sulfur (S)e2
Direction
significantly increasede2
Value
14.4%e2

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingQualifier

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“An experiment was conducted under greenhouse conditions to test the symbiotic performance and plant nutrient uptake of the twelve nationally registered chickpea cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–170
e2

“Averaged across chickpea cultivars, inoculation also significantly increased sulfur (S) by 14.4%, phosphorus (P) by 1.9%, magnesium (Mg) by 13.8%, potassium (K) by 6.2%, calcium (Ca) by 17.4%, copper (Cu) by 4.5%, iron (Fe) by 16.5%, manganese (Mn) by 10.9% and zinc (Zn) uptake by 9.4%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 570–856

Title

The Symbiotic Performance and Plant Nutrient Uptake of Certain Nationally Registered Chickpea (Cicer ArietinumL.) Cultivars of Turkey

Erdal Elkoca; Tulin Kocli; Adem Gunes; et al. Journal of Plant Nutrition 2014. doi:10.1080/01904167.2014.983123

Other claims from this paper (19)

Record rev-30993cabd36015ccff28fe0e657d60ab58cc7185acaeba4bb1096b34ed2c5b73 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 9 in the model’s answer

inoculation · molecular: metabolites · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 13 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

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

5 papers more in this group

See all 14 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.