Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Row spacing did not significantly alter weed parameters.

A claim from Influence of growing measures on weed interference and water status in maize · 2017

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Row spacing did not significantly alter weed parameters.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
Row spacinge0
Outcome
weed parameterse0
Direction
did not cause significant differencese0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–76
e0

“Row spacing and urea form did not cause significant differences in weed parameters.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1564–1647

Title

Influence of growing measures on weed interference and water status in maize

Milena Simic; Vesna Dragicevic; Milan Brankov Pesticidi i fitomedicina 2017. doi:10.2298/pif1702113s

Other claims from this paper (10)

Record rev-da41d39ec40ca62ed383172935e5874c60824cfb3d6b06775861a9e1f23c3b65 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 3 in the model’s answer

density · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

33 papers: 26 positive, 7 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this claim · 26 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
  6. positive
  7. positive
  8. positive

24 papers more in this group

See all 33 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.