Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Inorganic fertilizer gave higher yields than organic fertilizer for squash, cucumber and okra in Eufaula, AL.

A claim from Assessing the Impacts of Inorganic and Organic Fertilizer on Crop Performance Under a Microirrigation-Plastic Mulch Regime · 2015

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inorganic fertilizer gave higher yields than organic fertilizer for squash, cucumber and okra in Eufaula, AL.

Taxon
squash (Cucurbita pepo L.), cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.), and okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L. Moench)Cucumis sativusCucurbita pepoAbelmoschus esculentuse3
Treatment
Inorganic fertilizere0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
organic fertilizere0
Setting
Eufaula, ALe1

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleValueQualifier

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

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Cucurbita pepo
Cucurbita pepo · TaxonFrank Vincentz · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Abelmoschus esculentus
Abelmoschus esculentus · TaxonKristine Paulus from New York, United States · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The results showed that the inorganic fertilizer had higher yields (lbs/acre) than organic fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 609–710
e1

“This study was conducted at S & B Farm located in Eufaula, AL in 2014”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–69
e3

“the following crops squash (Cucurbita pepo L.), cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.), and okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L. Moench) were directly seeded”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 432–575

Title

Assessing the Impacts of Inorganic and Organic Fertilizer on Crop Performance Under a Microirrigation-Plastic Mulch Regime

Omidire, Niyi S.; Shange, Raymon; Khan, Victor; et al. Tuskegee Scholarly Publications (Tuskegee University) 2015. doi:10.22004/ag.econ.236891

Other claims from this paper (3)

Record rev-d8dc074dc8ca94e802928b492b4dc37d4a8679affa844e344fcc5a5a9d5ccc5c · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

fertilization · yield · Cucurbita pepoPositive and negative results

31 papers: 28 positive, 3 negative or no effect

27 papers in the same direction as this claim · 3 in the opposite direction

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

22 papers more in this group

See all 31 papers →

fertilization · yield · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results

288 papers: 263 positive, 25 negative or no effect

262 papers in the same direction as this claim · 19 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

279 papers more in this group

See all 288 papers →

fertilization · yield · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)Positive and negative results

373 papers: 355 positive, 18 negative or no effect

354 papers in the same direction as this claim · 14 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

364 papers more in this group

See all 373 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.