Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Foliar application of 0.9 g L -1 nano iron oxide with supplementary irrigation at booting increased grain yield by 38.43% compared to no foliar application under rain fed condition.

A claim from Effects of nano iron oxide on yield, chlorophyll fluorescence indices and some physiological traits of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under rain fed and supplementary irrigation conditions · 2018

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar application of 0.9 g L -1 nano iron oxide with supplementary irrigation at booting increased grain yield by 38.43% compared to no foliar application under rain fed condition.

Treatment
Foliar application of 0.9 g L -1 nano iron oxide and supplementary irrigation at booting stagee1
Outcome
grain yielde1
Direction
increasede1
Value
38.43%e1
Comparator
no foliar applicatione1

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

e1

“Foliar application of 0.9 g L -1 nano iron oxide and supplementary irrigation at booting stage increased grain yield 38.43% compared to no foliar application under rain fed condition”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1054–1236
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 103–131

Title

Effects of nano iron oxide on yield, chlorophyll fluorescence indices and some physiological traits of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under rain fed and supplementary irrigation conditions

Hamed Narimani; Raouf Seyed sharifi; Razieh khalilzadeh; et al. DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) 2018. doi:10.22108/ijpb.2018.110895.1098

Other claims from this paper (3)

Record rev-8398047ccc6b26698404686c40fe0c548a0d8b5396360dd62314477f007b77c4 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 3 in the model’s answer

iron oxide · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this claim · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
    Iron oxide waste at 5 or 25 g per kg soil did not significantly change the yield of young wheat in either soil.

    Acidic iron oxide waste as a conditioner for calcareous soils · 2002

    Opposite direction

  2. positive
    Spike length, plant height and grain weight per spike increased with iron oxide levels.

    Effect of Iron Oxides (Ordinary and Nano) and Municipal Solid Waste Compost (MSWC) Coated Sulfur on Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Plant Iron Concentration and Growth · 2011

    Same direction

  3. positive
    Nano iron oxide and supplementary irrigation increased wheat grain yield by 38.43.

    Effects of Nano Iron Oxide on the Yield and Some Physiological and Biochemical Traits of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under Rainfed and Supplementary Irrigation Conditions · 2020 · compared with no application of nano iron oxide under rainfed conditions

    Same direction

See all 4 papers →

nanoparticle · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

260 papers: 242 positive, 18 negative or no effect

241 papers in the same direction as this claim · 18 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    Supplementary irrigation with B + Mn + Zn nano-chelates gave the highest grain yield of 2528.33 kg/ha−1.

    Mitigation of drought stress effects on wheat yield via the foliar application of boron, zinc, and manganese nano-chelates and supplementary irrigation · 2022

    Same directionCites this paper

  2. negative
    The higher nano iron oxide rate decreased those three traits.

    Effect of foliar application of nano-iron oxidase, iron chelate and iron sulphate rates on yield and quality of wheat. · 2013

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Nitrogen fertilizer treatments showed significant annual wheat yield declines of 76 to 114 kg ha−1 yr−1.

    Effects of Inorganic Fertilizer Inputs on Grain Yields and Soil Properties in a Long‐Term Wheat–Corn Cropping System in South China · 2008

    Opposite direction

  4. negative
    Wheat yield declined by 84.7 kg/ha/yr under NP fertilization

    Trends in grain yields and soil organic C in a long‐term fertilization experiment in the China Loess Plateau · 2008

    Opposite direction

  5. negative
    Under 100% NP, wheat grain yield fell 19% in 1994 to 1998 relative to 1973 to 1977.

    EFFECTS OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF FERTILIZER USE ON MAIZE AND WHEAT YIELDS AND QUALITY OF AN ACIDIC SOIL IN THE WESTERN HIMALAYAS · 2003 · compared with 1973 to 1977

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    Nano-N with 75% conventional N gave wheat and maize grain yield at par with full conventional fertilizer.

    Changes in microbial community structure and yield responses with the use of nano-fertilizers of nitrogen and zinc in wheat–maize system · 2024 · compared with N 100 PK

    Opposite direction

  7. negative
    65 kg ha –1 plus nano urea foliar sprays reduced wheat grain yield by 10.7 %.

    Relative performance of granulated and nano urea on productivity and nitrogen use efficiency of wheat–rice sequence · 2024

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Nanoselenium and sodium selenite also had no significant effect on wheat yield.

    Humic acid chelated selenium is suitable for wheat biofortification · 2023

    Opposite direction

251 papers more in this group

See all 260 papers →

application · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

877 papers: 795 positive, 82 negative or no effect

794 papers in the same direction as this claim · 75 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
    Supplementary irrigation with B + Mn + Zn nano-chelates gave the highest grain yield of 2528.33 kg/ha−1.

    Mitigation of drought stress effects on wheat yield via the foliar application of boron, zinc, and manganese nano-chelates and supplementary irrigation · 2022

    Same directionCites this paper

  2. no effect
    Foliar N applications showed no consistent increase or decrease in grain yield, straw yield or straw N.

    Influence of Late‐Season Foliar Nitrogen Applications on Yield and Grain Nitrogen in Winter Wheat · 2002

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Boot-stage foliar N significantly reduced grain yield of hard red spring wheat by 5%.

    Foliar Nitrogen Application Timing Influence on Grain Yield and Protein Concentration of Hard Red Winter and Spring Wheat · 2003

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    soil application of Fe-EDDHA did not significantly affect wheat dry matter yield.

    Interaction of Iron with Copper, Zinc, and Manganese in Wheat as Affected by Iron and Manganese in a Calcareous Soil · 2008

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    One and two fungicide sprays did not differ significantly in increasing wheat grain yield.

    Reduction of Winter Wheat Yield Losses Caused by Stripe Rust through Fungicide Management · 2016 · compared with One

    Opposite direction

  6. negative
    Boot stage foliar nitrogen reduced spring wheat grain yield by 5%.

    Foliar Nitrogen Application Timing Influence on Grain Yield and Protein Concentration of Hard Red Winter and Spring Wheat · 2003

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Foliar Zn had no significant effect on wheat grain yield.

    Foliar zinc fertilization improves the zinc nutritional value of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grain · 2011

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Nano-N plus nano-Zn with 75% conventional N gave wheat and maize grain yield at par with full conventional fertilizer.

    Changes in microbial community structure and yield responses with the use of nano-fertilizers of nitrogen and zinc in wheat–maize system · 2024 · compared with N 100 PK

    Opposite direction

868 papers more in this group

See all 877 papers →

3 of 4 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.