Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Fertilization treatments showed no statistically significant productivity difference.

A claim from NECTARINE PRODUCTIVITY AND FRUIT QUALITY UNDER SWINE MANURE FERTILIZATION: METHODOLOGIES AND EARLY RESULTS · 2012

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilization treatments showed no statistically significant productivity difference.

Treatment
swine liquid manuree1
Outcome
productivitye0
Direction
no statistically significant differencese0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

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

Prunus persica var. nucipersica
Prunus persica var. nucipersica · Taxon · picture of the speciesAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Using ANOVA no statistically significant differences were found in productivity and fruit quality.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1112–1210
t0

“NECTARINE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–9
e1

“using swine liquid manure as fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1366–1405

Title

NECTARINE PRODUCTIVITY AND FRUIT QUALITY UNDER SWINE MANURE FERTILIZATION: METHODOLOGIES AND EARLY RESULTS

A.K. Cerutti; G.L. Beccaro; G. Bounous Acta Horticulturae 2012. doi:10.17660/actahortic.2012.962.46

Other claims from this paper (1)

Record rev-657aa0e91dffe4f47b51d9d12bc14b5dc0d2a855f94e954653b216f76a2b96d0 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

fertilization · yield · Prunus persica (peach)Results differ

59 papers: 50 positive, 9 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this claim · 50 in the opposite direction

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

50 papers more in this group

See all 59 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.