Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Combined nutrient and Rhizobium treatment gave maximum Sulphur content in chickpea compared with NPK alone.

A claim from Superimposition of Sulphur and Boron on Production and Quality of Chickpea (Cicer arietirum L.) · 2019

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined nutrient and Rhizobium treatment gave maximum Sulphur content in chickpea compared with NPK alone.

Taxon
Chickpea (Cicer arietirum L.)Cicer arietinumt0
Treatment
NPK (20:60:20 kg ha-1) + Sulphur (25 kg ha-1) + Boron (1.0 kg ha-1) + FYM (5.0 t ha-1) + Rhizobium inoculatione0
Interactor
RhizobiumRhizobiume0symbiont
Outcome
Sulphur contente0
Direction
maximume0
Value
0.61% and 0.63%e0
Comparator
NPK only (control) treatmente0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingQualifier

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Rhizobium
Rhizobium · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ninjatacoshell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Chickpea (Cicer arietirum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 66–95
e0

“Among different treatments superimposed doses of NPK (20:60:20 kg ha-1) + Sulphur (25 kg ha-1) + Boron (1.0 kg ha-1) + FYM (5.0 t ha-1) + Rhizobium inoculation treatment recorded maximum grain yield (1348.14 kg ha-1 and 1873.21 kg ha-1), Nitrogen content (3.34% and 3.37%), Phosphorus content (1.46% and 1.47%), Potash content (0.65% and 0.67%), Sulphur content (0.61% and 0.63%) and Boron content (57 ppm and 58 ppm) in grain during 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively compared to NPK only (control) treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1163–1671

Title

Superimposition of Sulphur and Boron on Production and Quality of Chickpea (Cicer arietirum L.)

V.K. Verma; Jitendra Yadav; Ram Pyare; et al. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 2019. doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2019.803.203

Other claims from this paper (5)

Record rev-ddbc1fd08bd2b79b23cb8c8990c3e08f40bb4cb44c390ceb325a3b0de63c6e92 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 5 in the model’s answer

Rhizobium · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

26 papers: 25 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

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

17 papers more in this group

See all 26 papers →

boron atom · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this claim

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
See all 6 papers →

sulfur atom · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

17 papers: 17 positive, 0 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this claim

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

8 papers more in this group

See all 17 papers →

3 of 5 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.