Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Silicate spray significantly increased grain and straw N, P and K.

A claim from SILICON MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE WHEAT PROUDUCTION UNDER RAIN – FED SOIL · 2014

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Silicate spray significantly increased grain and straw N, P and K.

Treatment
spraying silicate solutione0
Outcome
N, P & K contents of grain and strawe0
Direction
increasese0
Comparator
control (without addition any silicate)e0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

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

t0

“WHEAT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 35–40
e0

“spraying silicate solution achieved significant increases in wheat yield and its components as well as N, P & K contents of grain and straw compared to the control (without addition any silicate)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1058–1253

Title

SILICON MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE WHEAT PROUDUCTION UNDER RAIN – FED SOIL

A. K. Khatab; M. M. Elkholy Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering /Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering 2014. doi:10.21608/jssae.2014.49599

Other claims from this paper (6)

Record rev-a7ee758e424ffa50cf80e05537a1b1e74fc2c091beb511459ef8367f2b093368 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 3 in the model’s answer

silicate(4-) · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 11 positive, 1 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this claim · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

3 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

application · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

275 papers: 257 positive, 18 negative or no effect

256 papers in the same direction as this claim · 17 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

266 papers more in this group

See all 275 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.