Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Irrigation at 80% field capacity gave the highest bulb weight, yield and retained bulbs.

A claim from EFFECT OF IRRIGATION LEVELS, CULTIVATION METHODS AND PLANT DENSITIES ON PRODUCTIVITY, QUALITY OF ONION CROP AND SOME WATER RELATIONS IN HEAVY CLAY SOILS · 2015

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation at 80% field capacity gave the highest bulb weight, yield and retained bulbs.

Taxon
ONIONAllium cepat0
Treatment
irrigated at 80% of field capacitye0
Outcome
average bulb weight, onion bulbs yield and good quality bulbse0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
traditional irrigatione1

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“plants irrigated at 80% of field capacity, produced the highest average bulb weight, onion bulbs yield and good quality bulbs with the highest values of remainder bulbs% at the end of storage periods”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1027–1226
t0

“ONION”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 97–102
e1

“I0 (Traditional irrigation, like practice by local farmers in the studied region)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 465–546

Title

EFFECT OF IRRIGATION LEVELS, CULTIVATION METHODS AND PLANT DENSITIES ON PRODUCTIVITY, QUALITY OF ONION CROP AND SOME WATER RELATIONS IN HEAVY CLAY SOILS

L. Geries; E. Moursi; A. Abo-Dahab Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering /Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering 2015. doi:10.21608/jssae.2015.43938

Other claims from this paper (19)

Record rev-b1e32acdfcff44aa238b0637755daa193a2b882361581e1c65a9faaa307dc60a · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

irrigation · quality: general · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this claim · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
See all 6 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.