Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Nitrogen use efficiency was higher under alternate wetting and drying irrigation than under continuous flooding irrigation.

A claim from Effects of Water and Fertilizer on Nitrogen Use Effeciency and Balance in Lowland Rice Field · 2009

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen use efficiency was higher under alternate wetting and drying irrigation than under continuous flooding irrigation.

Treatment
alternative wetting and drying irrigatione5
Outcome
nitrogen use efficiencye5
Direction
highere5
Comparator
continuous flooding irrigatione5

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Lowland Rice Field”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–92
e5

“the nitrogen use efficiency under alternative wetting and drying irrigation was higher than that under continuous flooding irrigation by the two methods”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 659–811

Title

Effects of Water and Fertilizer on Nitrogen Use Effeciency and Balance in Lowland Rice Field

Pingcang Zhang Journal of Irrigation and Drainage 2009

Other claims from this paper (9)

Record rev-c38aabec1c3aa4f49451d595cb5090a1f04ea4bdb9a42c449c6cb64453ba479a · schema claims-v0.9 · position 5 in the model’s answer

processing · nutrient: efficiency · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 8 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
  6. positive
  7. positive
  8. positive
See all 9 papers →

irrigation · nutrient: efficiency · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

36 papers: 32 positive, 4 negative or no effect

31 papers in the same direction as this claim · 2 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

27 papers more in this group

See all 36 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.