Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Fermented cow dung promoted alfalfa growth.

A claim from Effects of fermented cow dung and dry powdered sludge from papermaking waste on mycorrhizoremediation of PAH-contaminated soils · 2011

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fermented cow dung promoted alfalfa growth.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativae0
Treatment
FDe1
Outcome
growthe0
Direction
promotee0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“could promote growth of alfalfa (p0.05).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 364–404
t0

“Effects of fermented cow dung and dry powdered sludge from papermaking waste on mycorrhizoremediation of PAH-contaminated soils”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–127
t1

“Effects of fermented cow dung and dry powdered sludge from papermaking waste on mycorrhizoremediation of PAH-contaminated soils”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–127
e1

“A greenhouse pot-experiment was carried out to investigate the effects of fermented cow dung (FD) and dry powdered sludge of papermaking waste (PP) on phytoremediation of PAH-contaminated farmland soils by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) infected alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–279

Title

Effects of fermented cow dung and dry powdered sludge from papermaking waste on mycorrhizoremediation of PAH-contaminated soils

Jing Zhang Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae 2011

Other claims from this paper (8)

Record rev-bbc9cffb6fc0e002c1a658a76816fc2513196ee79db93f931d7631666bd5f9b1 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 2 in the model’s answer

processing · growth · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results

24 papers: 15 positive, 9 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this claim · 8 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

15 papers more in this group

See all 24 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.