Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Defoliation did not significantly affect final sugar maple seedling biomass.

A claim from Responses of deciduous broadleaf trees to defoliation in a CO2 enriched atmosphere · 2002

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Defoliation did not significantly affect final sugar maple seedling biomass.

Taxon
sugar mapleAcer saccharume1
Treatment
Defoliatione0
Outcome
final seedling biomasse0
Direction
did not significantly affecte0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

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

Acer saccharum
Acer saccharum · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. MPF assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Defoliation did not significantly affect final seedling biomass in either species or CO2 treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 759–857
e1

“sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 255–290

Title

Responses of deciduous broadleaf trees to defoliation in a CO2 enriched atmosphere

J. C. Volin; E. L. Kruger; R. L. Lindroth Tree Physiology 2002. doi:10.1093/treephys/22.7.435

Other claims from this paper (11)

Record rev-908db53a43c0cf85e77a832035158a48247f7999613a74ba5fa99da01c1f3798 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

pruning · growth · Acer saccharum (sugar maple)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative
See all 4 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.