Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Lower planting density improved monopodial branches in cotton by 18% compared with higher planting density.

A claim from Effect of varying planting density on weed infestation, crop phenology, yield, and fiber quality of cotton under different sowing methods · 2020

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lower planting density improved monopodial branches in cotton by 18% compared with higher planting density.

Treatment
lower planting densitye1
Outcome
monopodial branchese1
Direction
improvede1
Value
18%e1
Comparator
higher planting densitye1

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingQualifier

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 42–72
e1

“Higher planting density found to be more efficient in weed reduction, however, lower planting density improved the monopodial branches (18%), total bolls plant -1 (14%), boll weight (16%), seed index (17%), and seed cotton yield (23%) than higher planting density”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1113–1376

Title

Effect of varying planting density on weed infestation, crop phenology, yield, and fiber quality of cotton under different sowing methods

Binish Khan Pure and Applied Biology 2020. doi:10.19045/bspab.2021.100070

Other claims from this paper (14)

Record rev-707ae64fcf0bdbc07b271ccb775ed7de9890ea44b448e5232e9d8b4e551510a9 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 8 in the model’s answer

density · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

46 papers: 39 positive, 7 negative or no effect

38 papers in the same direction as this claim · 7 in the opposite direction

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

37 papers more in this group

See all 46 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.