Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Under the T10 irrigation regime with beverage effluent, barley number of tillers was significantly higher at 60 DAS than under the other treatments (199.6).

A claim from Effect of Beverage Industry Effluent Irrigation on Growth and Yield of Barley · 2017

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Under the T10 irrigation regime with beverage effluent, barley number of tillers was significantly higher at 60 DAS than under the other treatments (199.6).

Treatment
cycle of 1 irrigation with fresh water + 2 irrigations with beverage industry effluent + RDF + gypsume3
Outcome
number of tillerse4
Direction
significantly highere3
Value
199.6e4
Qualifier
at 60 DASe3
Comparator
Among the treatmentse2
Setting
near Bengalurue1

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor role

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

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“growth and yield of barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 171–197
e1

“A field experiment was conducted in the premises of Pepsico Pvt. Ltd., near Bengaluru”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–85
e2

“Among the treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 434–454
e3

“were significantly higher in the treatment receiving cycle of 1 irrigation with fresh water + 2 irrigations with beverage industry effluent + RDF + gypsum (T10) at 60 DAS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 656–826
e4

“number of tillers (199.6)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 503–528

Title

Effect of Beverage Industry Effluent Irrigation on Growth and Yield of Barley

T.S. Punith Raj C.A. Srinivasamurthy; S. Bhaskar Prabhudev Dhumgond; S.S. Prakash International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 2017. doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2017.604.280

Other claims from this paper (16)

Record rev-3eef5bf5a3a1ed0361b6e3905c046e82e5318f6131da279543ee5c7353122789 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 7 in the model’s answer

lime · yield · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Results differ

54 papers: 53 positive, 1 negative or no effect

52 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

45 papers more in this group

See all 54 papers →

irrigation · yield · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Results differ

109 papers: 83 positive, 26 negative or no effect

82 papers in the same direction as this claim · 26 in the opposite direction

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

100 papers more in this group

See all 109 papers →

fertilization · yield · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results

550 papers: 473 positive, 77 negative or no effect

472 papers in the same direction as this claim · 66 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

541 papers more in this group

See all 550 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.