Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Full irrigation and high nitrogen inputs increased tillering enough to compensate for poor primary shoot establishment.

A claim from HIGH INPUT SUGARCANE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS CAN MASK THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF POOR SOIL HEALTH · 2007

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Full irrigation and high nitrogen inputs increased tillering enough to compensate for poor primary shoot establishment.

Taxon
SUGARCANEt0
Treatment
full irrigation and high inputs of nitrogen fertilisere0
Outcome
tilleringe0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
poor primary shoot establishmente0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValue

Verbatim

e0

“with full irrigation and high inputs of nitrogen fertiliser, tillering can be increased to the extent that poor primary shoot establishment can be compensated by the production of more tillers.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 296–489
t0

“SUGARCANE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–20

Title

HIGH INPUT SUGARCANE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS CAN MASK THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF POOR SOIL HEALTH

A. L. Garside; M. J. Bell; P. W. Moody; et al. Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries archive of scientific and research publications (Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) 2007

Other claims from this paper (7)

Record rev-99e6c052d1177b90341425fa8952586f160d21ee5efc275717c73ddf88fe7c6f · schema claims-v0.9 · position 3 in the model’s answer

irrigation · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

54 papers: 47 positive, 7 negative or no effect

46 papers in the same direction as this claim · 7 in the opposite direction

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

45 papers more in this group

See all 54 papers →

fertilization · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

147 papers: 129 positive, 18 negative or no effect

128 papers in the same direction as this claim · 14 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

138 papers more in this group

See all 147 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.