Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Inoculation significantly increased calcium (Ca) uptake by 17.4% averaged across cultivars.

A claim from The Symbiotic Performance and Plant Nutrient Uptake of Certain Nationally Registered Chickpea (Cicer ArietinumL.) Cultivars of Turkey · 2014

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculation significantly increased calcium (Ca) uptake by 17.4% averaged across cultivars.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
inoculatione2
Outcome
calcium (Ca)e2
Direction
significantly increasede2
Value
17.4%e2

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingQualifier

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“An experiment was conducted under greenhouse conditions to test the symbiotic performance and plant nutrient uptake of the twelve nationally registered chickpea cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–170
e2

“Averaged across chickpea cultivars, inoculation also significantly increased sulfur (S) by 14.4%, phosphorus (P) by 1.9%, magnesium (Mg) by 13.8%, potassium (K) by 6.2%, calcium (Ca) by 17.4%, copper (Cu) by 4.5%, iron (Fe) by 16.5%, manganese (Mn) by 10.9% and zinc (Zn) uptake by 9.4%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 570–856

Title

The Symbiotic Performance and Plant Nutrient Uptake of Certain Nationally Registered Chickpea (Cicer ArietinumL.) Cultivars of Turkey

Erdal Elkoca; Tulin Kocli; Adem Gunes; et al. Journal of Plant Nutrition 2014. doi:10.1080/01904167.2014.983123

Other claims from this paper (19)

Record rev-8a9f694867ed738c5832a3db182d095d10a698d6035d01a9114dfc99bb7ba3e3 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 13 in the model’s answer

inoculation · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

63 papers: 57 positive, 6 negative or no effect

56 papers in the same direction as this claim · 4 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

54 papers more in this group

See all 63 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.