Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Application of P alone had no significant negative influence on grain Zn and Fe content of cowpea

A claim from Iron and zinc levels in Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp under varying phosphorus and fixed nitrogen treatment conditions · 2018

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Application of P alone had no significant negative influence on grain Zn and Fe content of cowpea

Taxon
Vigna unguiculataVigna unguiculatat0
Treatment
Application of P alonee1
Outcome
Zn and Fe content of the grainse1

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingDirectionValueQualifier

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Vigna unguiculata”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–41
e1

“Application of P alone showed no significant ( p > 0.05) negative influence on Zn and Fe content of the grains”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 718–828

Title

Iron and zinc levels in Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp under varying phosphorus and fixed nitrogen treatment conditions

Deborah F. Ayeni; Joseph Ikwebe; Francis N. Onyezili Food and Energy Security 2018. doi:10.1002/fes3.141

Other claims from this paper (4)

Record rev-8a93c68c8aa63cce35f4d521441d4a4c73dc11f24fe5d1f674e93bdc04dcdfa2 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

phosphorus · nutrient: content · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

26 papers: 20 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this claim · 20 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    Phosphorus rates increased soil phosphorus level.

    Phosphorus Fertilization on the Nutrition and Yield of Cowpea Grown in an Arenosols · 2014

    Opposite directionCited by this paper

  2. positive
    Phosphorus application significantly enhanced N and P uptake of cowpea genotypes.

    Phosphorus Response Efficiency in Cowpea Genotypes · 2011

    Opposite direction

  3. positive
    Phosphorus supplementation significantly improved the uptake of N, P and K in cowpea tissues relative to the control.

    Effects of Bradyrhizobium japonicum Inoculation and Supplementation with Phosphorus on Macronutrients Uptake in Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp) · 2014 · compared with control

    Opposite direction

  4. positive
    The combination of lime with SSP significantly increased total shoot N concentration in cowpea.

    Performance of cowpea as influenced by native strain of rhizobia, lime and phosphorus in Samaru, Nigeria · 2017

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    Phosphorus supplementation at 40 kg P/ha significantly increased uptake of some micronutrients.

    Influence of Bradyrhizobium japonicum and Phosphorus on Micronutrient Uptake in Cowpea. A Case Study of Zinc (Zn), Iron (Fe), Copper (Cu) and Manganese (Mn) · 2014

    Opposite direction

  6. positive
    T6 produced significantly higher K content (1.45%) in fodder cowpea or postharvest soil.

    Effect of Organic and Inorganic Nutrient Sources on Growth, Yield, Nutrient Uptake and Economics of Fodder Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] · 2020

    Opposite direction

  7. positive
    Combined fertilizer and Rhizobium plus PSB increased nitrogen uptake to 68.78kg ha-1.

    Effect of inorganic and bio-fertilizers on productivity and nutrients uptake in cowpea [Vigna Unguiculata (L.) Walp] · 2012 · compared with the control

    Opposite direction

  8. positive
    P fertilisation significantly increased chemical composition (N, P, K, Zn and Fe) of cowpea.

    Integrated Effect of Foliar Fertilization of Fe, Zn and Rates of P Fertilization on Growth and Yield of Cowpea · 2017

    Opposite direction

17 papers more in this group

See all 26 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.