Claim · model-written summary
Plant dry matter weight did not differ significantly among solutions 1, 2 and 3.
- Treatment
- No 3, 2 and 1 nutrient solutionse0
- Outcome
- dry matter weight of plante0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
Not reportedTaxonMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier
Verbatim
e0“The means of dry matter weight of plant in No 3, 2 and 1 nutrient solutions had no significant difference in 5% level.”
Title
Ahmad Mohammadi Ghehsareh; Samira Khosravan; Ali Shahabi Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science 2011. doi:10.5897/jpbcs.9000128
Other claims from this paper (12)
- Intervention effect Fruit yield did not differ significantly among solutions 1, 2 and 3.
- Intervention effect Solution 3 had the greatest effects on leaf colour, stem diameter and plant height versus other solutions.
- Intervention effect Solution 3 had the greatest effect on leaf area index versus other solutions.
- Intervention effect Solution 2 had the greatest effect on plant and fruit dry matter weights and fruit tissue stiffness.
- Intervention effect Plant height did not differ significantly among treatments.
- Intervention effect The text reports a significant stem diameter difference involving solutions 3 and 2, but names solution 2 again as comparator.
- Intervention effect Stem diameter under solutions 3 and 2 did not differ significantly from solution 1.
- Intervention effect Fruit dry matter weight and leaf green intensity did not differ significantly between solutions 3 and 1.
- Intervention effect Fruit dry matter weight and leaf green intensity differed significantly between solutions 3/1 and solution 2.
- Intervention effect Leaf area index did not differ significantly among nutrient solutions.
- Intervention effect Fruit tissue stiffness did not differ significantly between solutions 3 and 1.
- Intervention effect Fruit tissue stiffness differed significantly between solutions 3 and 2.