Intervention effectmodel-written summary

The four-irrigation treatment had a significant edge over all other irrigation schedules, except the three-irrigation schedule.

A claim from Response of late-sown wheat (Aticum aestivum) to irrigation schedules · 2001

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The four-irrigation treatment had a significant edge over all other irrigation schedules, except the three-irrigation schedule.

Treatment
4 irrigations at crown-root-initiation, maximum tillering, boot and milk stagese1
Outcome
graine1
Direction
significant edgee2
Qualifier
except the crop receiving 3 irrigations at maximum tillering, boot and milk stagese3
Comparator
all other irrigation schedulese2
Setting
Ranchie0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleValue

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

“A field experiment was conducted during the winter seasons of 1995-97 on acidic sandy-loam soil at Ranchi”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–105
e1

“Wheat receiving 4 irrigations at crown-root-initiation, maximum tillering, boot and milk stages gave maximum grain (2,707 kg/ha) and straw (4,164 kglha) yields, with net return of Rs 1 1,855lha and net benefit of Rs 1.31 on each rupee investment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 293–538
e2

“This treatment showed significant edge over all other irrigation schedules”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 540–614
e3

“except the crop receiving 3 irrigations at maximum tillering, boot and milk stages (2,523 kg/ha grain yield, and Rs 10,474lha net return with 1.23 benefit : cost ratio)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 615–783

Title

Response of late-sown wheat (Aticum aestivum) to irrigation schedules

R. THAKUR; S.K. PAL; M.K. SINGH; et al. Indian Journal of Agronomy 2001. doi:10.59797/ija.v45i3.3419

Other claims from this paper (11)

Record rev-371a34d52f7dab21a7780f8ae10312fbbe4dcc691e28f8be43275a2ec4721acd · schema claims-v0.9 · position 2 in the model’s answer

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

989 papers: 798 positive, 191 negative or no effect

797 papers in the same direction as this claim · 184 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

980 papers more in this group

See all 989 papers →

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

1,414 papers: 1,116 positive, 298 negative or no effect

1,115 papers in the same direction as this claim · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

1,405 papers more in this group

See all 1,414 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.