Intervention effectmodel-written summary

A long fallow increased wheat yield by 72% over wheat after wheat.

A claim from A comparison of six methods to control take-all in wheat · 1998

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A long fallow increased wheat yield by 72% over wheat after wheat.

Treatment
long fallowe1
Interactor
Gaeumannomyces graminis var. triticiGaeumannomyces triticie2pathogen
Outcome
yield increasese0
Direction
increasese0
Value
72%e0
Comparator
wheat growing after wheate0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingQualifier

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Both methods gave 72% yield increases over wheat growing after wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 796–864
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56
e1

“The most successful control methods were growing wheat after a brassica break crop or a long fallow”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 695–794
e2

“Take-all is a root disease of wheat caused by the fungus Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici (Ggt)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–99

Title

A comparison of six methods to control take-all in wheat

P. A. Gardner; J. F. Angus; P. T. W. Wong; et al. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 1998. doi:10.1071/a98050

Other claims from this paper (13)

Record rev-de00d4dca3ba4fc119849611c7bce85e4a51aa8fef491c29351c9f30fa841557 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 2 in the model’s answer

rotation · Gaeumannomyces tritici · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
See all 5 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.