Intervention effectmodel-written summary

That FYM, Azotobacter and cowpea treatment reduced wheat yield.

A claim from EFFECT OF FERTILIZER AND MANURE APPLICATION ON SOIL ORGANIC CARBON SEQUESTRATION, SOIL FERTILITY AND YIELD SUSTAINABILITY UNDER MAIZE-WHEAT CROPPING SYSTEM IN SUBTROPICAL MOLLISOLS · 2020

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

That FYM, Azotobacter and cowpea treatment reduced wheat yield.

Treatment
FYM @ 10 t ha + Azotobacter in cowpea intercroppinge0
Outcome
yields of maize and wheate0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

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

e0

“Application of FYM @ 10 t ha + Azotobacter in cowpea intercropping sequestrated maximum SOC (0.14 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 ) but reduced yields of maize and wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1272–1426

Title

EFFECT OF FERTILIZER AND MANURE APPLICATION ON SOIL ORGANIC CARBON SEQUESTRATION, SOIL FERTILITY AND YIELD SUSTAINABILITY UNDER MAIZE-WHEAT CROPPING SYSTEM IN SUBTROPICAL MOLLISOLS

Veer Singh; Amit Bhatnagar; Anil Kumar Pant; et al. Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences 2020. doi:10.18006/2020.8(4).390.401

Other claims from this paper (17)

Record rev-910ed0f6097bf3bf471ab03749d6fb4685999b0bc93eb39d77a03577c5661c77 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 16 in the model’s answer

Azotobacter · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

88 papers: 87 positive, 1 negative or no effect

87 in the opposite direction

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

79 papers more in this group

See all 88 papers →

Vigna unguiculata · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 14 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this claim · 14 in the opposite direction

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

9 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

intercropping · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

189 papers: 131 positive, 58 negative or no effect

57 papers in the same direction as this claim · 131 in the opposite direction

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

180 papers more in this group

See all 189 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.