Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Pea, faba bean, lentil and chickpea were the least responsive to starter fertilizer in 30-day biomass, with no benefit above 10 kg N per ha.

A claim from Effect of starter fertilizer in seed-row on emergence, biomass and nutrient uptake by six pulse crops grown under controlled environment conditions · 2020

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pea, faba bean, lentil and chickpea were the least responsive to starter fertilizer in 30-day biomass, with no benefit above 10 kg N per ha.

Taxon
pea, faba bean, lentil and chickpeaCicer arietinumLens culinarisLathyrus oleraceusVicia fabae0
Treatment
the starter fertilizer applicationse0
Outcome
30-day biomass responsee0
Direction
least responsivee0
Qualifier
no benefit increasing above the 10 kg N ha−1 ratee0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValue

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 ↗
Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Vicia faba
Vicia faba · TaxonRahmaziz · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In terms of 30-day biomass response, soybean and black bean were most responsive to fertilization, while pea, faba bean, lentil and chickpea were least responsive to the starter fertilizer applications, with no benefit increasing above the 10 kg N ha−1 rate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1216–1473

Title

Effect of starter fertilizer in seed-row on emergence, biomass and nutrient uptake by six pulse crops grown under controlled environment conditions

Wasanthika Harshini Galpottage Dona; Jeff J. Schoenau; Tom King Journal of Plant Nutrition 2020. doi:10.1080/01904167.2020.1711945

Other claims from this paper (6)

Record rev-9fd8da03bc16b2713735461561993bd728df806b49edb53fcc761fda6ceeec76 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 7 in the model’s answer

fertilization · growth · Lens culinaris (lentil)Positive and negative results

26 papers: 24 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this claim · 24 in the opposite direction

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

17 papers more in this group

See all 26 papers →

fertilization · growth · Vicia faba (faba bean)Positive and negative results

73 papers: 67 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this claim · 67 in the opposite direction

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

64 papers more in this group

See all 73 papers →

fertilization · growth · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

97 papers: 86 positive, 11 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this claim · 86 in the opposite direction

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

88 papers more in this group

See all 97 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.