Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Sulfur application timing did not significantly affect lint yield in 1993.

A claim from Cotton Response to the Rate and Source of Sulfur on a Sandy Coastal Plain Soil · 1998

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulfur application timing did not significantly affect lint yield in 1993.

Treatment
time of S applicatione0
Outcome
Lint yieldse0
Direction
not affectede0
Qualifier
1993e0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValue

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Lint yields were not affected by time of S application in 1993 or 1995”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 924–994
t0

“Cotton Response to the Rate and Source of Sulfur on a Sandy Coastal Plain Soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–78

Title

Cotton Response to the Rate and Source of Sulfur on a Sandy Coastal Plain Soil

G.L. Mullins jpa 1998. doi:10.2134/jpa1998.0214

Other claims from this paper (16)

Record rev-3c58fa6f3fe8ac002c197b8b360fcdc1dd54cd22e4b12fc8725d5a3bbf7d730b · schema claims-v0.9 · position 4 in the model’s answer

sulfur atom · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

19 papers: 16 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this claim · 16 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    Sulfur deficiency reduced bolls per plant in cotton

    Effects of Sulfur Application Rates and Foliar Zinc Fertilization on Cotton Lint Yields and Qualities · 2011

    Opposite directionCites this paperAbout lacking this nutrient, so it counts the other way round

  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
  6. positive
  7. positive
  8. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 19 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.