Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Hand weeding maximized lentil growth traits, followed by oxyfluorfen and propaquizafop.

A claim from Effect of new generation herbicides on the growth, yield and economics of lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) · 2025

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Hand weeding maximized lentil growth traits, followed by oxyfluorfen and propaquizafop.

Taxon
lentilLens culinarist0
Treatment
hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DASe0
Outcome
plant height, number of branches plant-1, number of leaves plant-1e0
Direction
maximume0
Comparator
Oxyfluorfen (23.5% EC) 150 g a.i. ha-1 PE fb Propaquizafop (10% EC) 100 g a.i. ha-1 at 20 DASe0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“growth attributing characters viz., plant height, number of branches plant-1, number of leaves plant-1, leaf area plant-1, dry matter accumulation, as well as seed yield, stover yield and harvest index were found to be maximum under hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS followed by Oxyfluorfen (23.5% EC) 150 g a.i. ha-1 PE fb Propaquizafop (10% EC) 100 g a.i. ha-1 at 20 DAS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 826–1200
t0

“lentil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–80

Title

Effect of new generation herbicides on the growth, yield and economics of lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.)

Arumughan N; Saomya Dubey; GK Shrivastava International Journal of Research in Agronomy 2025. doi:10.33545/2618060x.2025.v8.i1se.2385

Other claims from this paper (5)

Record rev-42a5ff2ce498f10f7e549c0dc29d5ed8f063400e0f349b7c14b8d7501932d7ed · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

herbicide · yield · Lens culinaris (lentil)Results differ

47 papers: 36 positive, 11 negative or no effect

35 papers in the same direction as this claim · 8 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

38 papers more in this group

See all 47 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.