Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Fresh forage yield did not differ significantly between full irrigation without humic acid and 80% irrigation with 6 L/ha humic acid.

A claim from Improving Alfalfa Forage Yield and Water Use Efficiency Under Irrigation Water Stress and Humic Acid Applications in Calcareous Soil · 2020

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fresh forage yield did not differ significantly between full irrigation without humic acid and 80% irrigation with 6 L/ha humic acid.

Taxon
AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
Treatment
80% water requirement with 6 L/ha humic acide0
Outcome
fresh or dry forage yieldse0
Direction
No significant differencese0
Comparator
100% water requirement without humic acide0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

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

“No significant differences were found between the fresh or dry forage yields or leaf/stem ratio under 100% water requirement without humic acid and 80% water requirement with 6 L/ha humic acid.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 680–873
t0

“Alfalfa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 10–17

Title

Improving Alfalfa Forage Yield and Water Use Efficiency Under Irrigation Water Stress and Humic Acid Applications in Calcareous Soil

Mofeeda Seiam; A. allam Egyptian Academic Journal of Biological Sciences, H. Botany/Egyptian Academic Journal of Biological Sciences, H. Botany 2020. doi:10.21608/eajbsh.2020.141242

Other claims from this paper (4)

Record rev-759c71b95db5dbd54f9c493ff2eb1ef9252d8aca59bbe89c41b315931f75fa1c · schema claims-v0.9 · position 2 in the model’s answer

other · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 13 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this claim · 13 in the opposite direction

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

7 papers more in this group

See all 16 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.