Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield alone explained 0·62 of variation in chickpea P fix.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume1 - Organ / stage
- graine0
- Outcome
- P fixe0
- Value
- 0·62e0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentComparatorSettingDirectionQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Simple regression coefficients (r2) for P fix were 0·26 with shoot N as the independent variable, 0·59 with soil nitrate, and 0·62 with grain yield”
e1“N of chickpea”
Title
D. F. Herridge; H. Marcellos; M. B. Peoples; et al. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 1997. doi:10.1071/a97068
Other claims from this paper (8)
- Association Shoot N alone explained 0·26 of variation in chickpea P fix.
- Association Soil nitrate alone explained 0·59 of variation in chickpea P fix.
- Method / resource Soil nitrate plus shoot N gave a chickpea P fix multiple-regression coefficient of 0·74.
- Method / resource Soil nitrate plus grain yield gave a chickpea P fix multiple-regression coefficient of 0·82.
- Method / resource For total N2 fixed, the soil nitrate and grain-yield regression coefficient was lower at 0·68.
- Method / resource The nitrate and grain-yield equation best predicted chickpea P fix in independent data with r squared 0·83.
- Method / resource The functions predicted total chickpea N2 fixed poorly.
- Recommendation The authors recommend further development of chickpea N2 fixation functions to improve accuracy and precision and extend them to other species.