Intervention effectmodel-written summary

The same fertiliser formula gave higher fertiliser efficiency than the others, 252.5 kg/(kg·hm2).

A claim from The Effects of Fertilization on Yield and Growth Development in Cotton · 2006

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The same fertiliser formula gave higher fertiliser efficiency than the others, 252.5 kg/(kg·hm2).

Treatment
16∶16∶18 compound fertilizer 450 kg/hm~2 before seeding and 24∶10∶6 compound fertilizer 150 kg/hm~2 during the bud and boll periode0
Outcome
fertilizer efficiencye0
Direction
highere0
Value
252.5 kg/(kg·hm~2)e1
Comparator
the otherse0

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

t0

“The Effects of Fertilization on Yield and Growth Development in Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–70
e0

“Applied 16∶16∶18 compound fertilizer 450 kg/hm~2 before seeding and 24∶10∶6 compound fertilizer 150 kg/hm~2 during the bud and boll period,the yield of seed cotton,fertilizer efficiency and the value cost ratio were higher than the others.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 147–386
e1

“The yield of seed cotton yield was(4 038.0 kg/hm~2),fertilizer use efficiency and the value cost ratio were respectively 252.5 kg/(kg·hm~2) and(24.54∶1).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 386–539

Title

The Effects of Fertilization on Yield and Growth Development in Cotton

Wei Dong; Qi Wang Journal of Hebei Agricultural Sciences 2006

Other claims from this paper (3)

Record rev-7790923b9071bdfd07646349f35f4757706915fbcb46bb18027876515213da5f · schema claims-v0.9 · position 2 in the model’s answer

fertilization · nutrient: efficiency · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

30 papers: 27 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

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

21 papers more in this group

See all 30 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.