Intervention effectmodel-written summary

June weed growth in solarization treatments was 0.3 to 0.8 weeds/m 2 versus 22.4 without control.

A claim from Solarization for Weed Control in a Short-season Climate · 1997

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

June weed growth in solarization treatments was 0.3 to 0.8 weeds/m 2 versus 22.4 without control.

Taxon
Weede0
Treatment
solarizatione0
Outcome
Weed growthe0
Direction
lowerinferrede0
Value
0.3 to 0.8 weeds/m 2e0
Qualifier
22.4 weeds/m 2e0
Comparator
no control treatmente0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSetting

Verbatim

e0

“Weed growth on 14 June 1996 ranged from 0.3 to 0.8 weeds/m 2 in the solarization, hand-hoe, and glyphosate treatments and was 22.4 weeds/m 2 in the no control treatment.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 758–927
e1

“any weed control method was significantly better than no control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1170–1234

Title

Solarization for Weed Control in a Short-season Climate

Jo Ann Robbins; Carol Blackburn HortScience 1997. doi:10.21273/hortsci.32.3.429a

Other claims from this paper (12)

Record rev-b8ec5c381bff5b7c2049cc6191c0b87aea269478a2c7721917921157aa7617d8 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 2 in the model’s answer