Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Water soaking did not improve top growth.

A claim from Best duration for submersion of grapevine cuttings of rootstock 41B in water to increase root formation · 2010

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water soaking did not improve top growth.

Taxon
grapevineVitist1
Treatment
Water soakinge0
Outcome
top growth of the cuttingse0
Direction
did not improvee0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

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

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Water soaking and/or IBA, however, did not improve the top growth of the cuttings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 549–630
t1

“grapevine”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–41

Title

Best duration for submersion of grapevine cuttings of rootstock 41B in water to increase root formation

DARDENİZ, ALPER; GÖKBAYRAK, ZELİHA; KAPLAN, Ulas; et al. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University AVESIS 2010

Other claims from this paper (4)

Record rev-8544d75ff6526ff6312e92709ffbdace7685dcd562ec2642c340847050932818 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 4 in the model’s answer

application · growth · VitisPositive and negative results

46 papers: 37 positive, 9 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this claim · 36 in the opposite direction

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

37 papers more in this group

See all 46 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.