Claim · model-written summary
Sweet sorghum hybrids did not suffer developmental interference from D. nuda.
- Taxon
- sweet sorghume1
- Treatment
- D. nudae1
- Interactor
- D. nudaDigitaria nudae1weed
- Outcome
- developmental interferencee1
- Direction
- did not suffere1
- Comparator
- weed-free controle0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier
Verbatim
e0“weed-free control”
e1“The hybrids of sweet sorghum did not suffer developmental interference from C. rotundus, I. hederifolia or D. nuda”
Title
Interspecific Competition Between Sweet Sorghum and Weeds
P.R.F. GIANCOTTI; M.P. NEPOMUCENO; T.S. OLIVEIRA; et al. Planta Daninha 2019. doi:10.1590/s0100-83582019370100094
Other claims from this paper (8)
- Intervention effect M. aterrima was the only weed whose dry mass was not reduced by the presence of sweet sorghum.
- Intervention effect Sweet sorghum hybrids did not suffer developmental interference from C. rotundus.
- Intervention effect Sweet sorghum hybrids did not suffer developmental interference from I. hederifolia.
- Intervention effect The dry mass of C. rotundus was reduced through competition with sweet sorghum.
- Intervention effect The dry mass of I. hederifolia was reduced through competition with sweet sorghum.
- Intervention effect The dry mass of D. nuda was reduced through competition with sweet sorghum.
- Intervention effect Sweet sorghum cohabiting with B. decumbens had reduced aboveground and leaf dry mass.
- Intervention effect Sweet sorghum cohabiting with M. aterrima had reduced aboveground and leaf dry mass.