Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Nitrogen fertilizer recovery rate (NfUE) of coated urea treatment was 16.50–68.72% more than that of common urea treatment.

A claim from Fertilization with a New Type of Coated Urea: Evaluation for Nitrogen Efficiency and Yield in Winter Wheat · 2004

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen fertilizer recovery rate (NfUE) of coated urea treatment was 16.50–68.72% more than that of common urea treatment.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
Treatment
coated ureae4
Outcome
nitrogen fertilizer recovery rate (NfUE)e4
Direction
moree4
Value
16.50–68.72%e4
Comparator
common urea treatmente4

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingQualifier

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Three years field experiments were conducted from 1999 to 2002 to evaluate winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–125
e4

“The coated urea not only resulted in higher yield, but nitrogen fertilizer recovery rate (NfUE) of the treatment was 16.50–68.72% more than that of common urea treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 825–994

Title

Fertilization with a New Type of Coated Urea: Evaluation for Nitrogen Efficiency and Yield in Winter Wheat

Xiaolin Fan; Fangmin Li; Fang Liu; et al. Journal of Plant Nutrition 2004. doi:10.1081/pln-120030675

Other claims from this paper (8)

Record rev-794dc0d090822c8a7ef0f6f6e12baf3b22e8a8637e549839e8ed9e1f1ccf4d54 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 7 in the model’s answer

nitrogen · nutrient: efficiency · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

174 papers: 127 positive, 47 negative or no effect

126 papers in the same direction as this claim · 45 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

165 papers more in this group

See all 174 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.