Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Imazethapyr gave net returns of 22625.76 and a B:C ratio of 2.35.

A claim from Impact of Fertility Levels and Weed Management Practices on Weed Dynamics and Yield of Lentil (Lens culinaris Medikus) under Eastern U.P. Conditions · 2017

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Imazethapyr gave net returns of 22625.76 and a B:C ratio of 2.35.

Taxon
LentilLens culinarist0
Treatment
imazethapyr 37.5 g/hae0
Outcome
net returns 22625.76 and B: C ratioe0
Value
2.35e0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingDirectionQualifier

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

“net returns 22625.76 and B: C ratio (2.35) was recorded with imazethapyr 37.5 g/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1889–1971
t0

“Lentil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–93

Title

Impact of Fertility Levels and Weed Management Practices on Weed Dynamics and Yield of Lentil (Lens culinaris Medikus) under Eastern U.P. Conditions

Pradeep Kumar; J.P. Singh; M.K. Singh; et al. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 2017. doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2017.610.044

Other claims from this paper (19)

Record rev-5a19fb54ebee39133402a28b54c0e7c943154a6e08a5e07718006c543af42177 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 17 in the model’s answer

Imazethapyr · yield · Lens culinaris (lentil)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 15 positive, 3 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this claim · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
    Imazethapyr significantly harmed lentil growth and yield attributes.

    Genetic variation for tolerance to post-emergence herbicide, imazethapyr in lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) · 2018

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
    The minimum imazethapyr dose reducing lentil yield in 1993 was 20 g a i ha −1, with 31% yield loss.

    Lentil (Lens culinaris) and fababean (Vicia faba) tolerance to post-emergence applications of imazethapyr · 1996

    Opposite direction

  3. no effect
    Sequential or continuous Pendimethalin (PE) and Imazethapyr (POE) application was statistically at par with Pendimethalin+MW for density and dry matter of broadleaved weeds and grasses.

    Integration of Chemical and Manual Weed Management on Weed Density, Yield and Production Economics of Lentil (Lens culinaris Medikus) · 2013 · compared with Pendimethalin+MW

    No difference from an alternative

  4. positive
    Late imazethapyr/imazamox application raised lentil grain yield 30% over early application.

    Herbicide Choice and Timing for Weed Control in Imidazolinone-Resistant Lentil · 2011 · compared with early application of these herbicides

    Same direction

  5. positive
    Imazethapyr at 25 and 40 g/ha improved lentil grain yield

    Weed management in lentil with post-emergence herbicides · 2014

    Same direction

  6. positive
    Imazethapyr increased mean seed yield of lentil by 0% in 1988 and 930% in 1989 over the check.

    Performance of Imazethapyr on Pulse Crops · 1990 · compared with the check

    Same direction

  7. positive
    Pendimethalin 205 g/ha plus imazethapyr 14 g/ha pre-emergence gave higher crop growth, seed yield and yield attributing characters in lentil.

    Integrated weed management in lentil (Lens culinaris) in calcareous alluvial soils of Bihar · 2001

    Same direction

  8. positive
    The maximum B:C ratio (3.42) was obtained with pre-emergence pendimethalin 205 g/ha + imazethapyr 14 g/ha.

    Weed dynamics and performance of lentil as affected by weed management practices under rainfed conditions · 2018

    Same direction

9 papers more in this group

See all 18 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.