Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Fertilizer application increased alfalfa crude protein by 7.7% compared with non-fertilized controls.

A claim from Yield and quality of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) in response to fertilizer application in China: A meta-analysis · 2022

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilizer application increased alfalfa crude protein by 7.7% compared with non-fertilized controls.

Taxon
Medicago sativaMedicago sativae0
Treatment
fertilizer applicatione1
Outcome
crude protein (CP)e3
Direction
increasinge3
Value
7.7%e3
Comparator
non-fertilizer controle2

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingQualifier

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Medicago sativa L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 33–51
e1

“fertilizer application not only increased alfalfa yield by 19.2%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 707–771
e3

“increasing crude protein (CP) by 7.7%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 809–846
e2

“non-fertilizer control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 951–973

Title

Yield and quality of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) in response to fertilizer application in China: A meta-analysis

Weifan Wan; Yuejin Li; Haigang Li Frontiers in Plant Science 2022. doi:10.3389/fpls.2022.1051725

Other claims from this paper (9)

Record rev-6e800fefbcdf7ca3055af121588d9ff67df4fb2b012534dbf38560e864964607 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 2 in the model’s answer

fertilization · quality: protein · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results

36 papers: 33 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

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

27 papers more in this group

See all 36 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.