Intervention effectmodel-written summary

CRI+tillering+flowering+dough irrigation increased wheat ear-bearing tillers relative to other irrigation regimes.

A claim from Effect of Irrigation and Nitrogen Levels on Grassy Weed Competition in Wheat and Comparative Eco-Physiology of Phalaris minor Retz. and Avena sterilis ssp. ludoviciana Dur. in Wheat · 2007

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

CRI+tillering+flowering+dough irrigation increased wheat ear-bearing tillers relative to other irrigation regimes.

Treatment
CRI+tillering+flowering+dough irrigationse0
Outcome
ear-bearing tillerse0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
at par with CRI+tillering+floweringe0
Comparator
other irrigation regimese0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValue

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

“CRI+tillering+flowering+dough irrigations being at par with CRI+tillering+flowering recorded significantly higher dry weight, crop growth rate (CGR), ear-bearing tillers and grain yield of wheat than other irrigation regimes.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 477–702

Title

Effect of Irrigation and Nitrogen Levels on Grassy Weed Competition in Wheat and Comparative Eco-Physiology of Phalaris minor Retz. and Avena sterilis ssp. ludoviciana Dur. in Wheat

T. K. Das; N. T. Yaduraju Indian Journal of Weed Science 2007

Other claims from this paper (19)

Record rev-391c669f77f5b3f9d38210eec5ab5d9ad0fa395765c528029b2dbace0b959b8d · schema claims-v0.9 · position 9 in the model’s answer

crown compound · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

37 papers: 30 positive, 7 negative or no effect

29 papers in the same direction as this claim · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

28 papers more in this group

See all 37 papers →

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

160 papers: 95 positive, 65 negative or no effect

94 papers in the same direction as this claim · 63 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

151 papers more in this group

See all 160 papers →

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 →

3 of 4 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.