Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Wheat grain yield was significantly lower under conventional sowing than under FIRBS with 2 rows and with 3 rows.

A claim from Influence of methods of sowing and N management strategies on yield attributes and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivumL.) · 2013

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat grain yield was significantly lower under conventional sowing than under FIRBS with 2 rows and with 3 rows.

Treatment
FIRBS (2 rows) and FIRBS (3 rows)e0
Outcome
Grain yielde0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
conventional sowinge0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

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

“Grain yield was recorded significantly lower under conventional sowing as compared FIRBS (2 rows) and FIRBS (3 rows)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 327–443
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–97

Title

Influence of methods of sowing and N management strategies on yield attributes and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivumL.)

Mahesh Kumar; Ashok Yadav; Anil Kumar Mehta Agricultural Science Digest - A Research Journal 2013. doi:10.5958/j.0976-0547.33.4.025

Other claims from this paper (4)

Record rev-e3e40e5b1db4c6cb524fe704aa774fdb4aa6ad77d7064daec71fe7d84fe23b97 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 3 in the model’s answer

irrigation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

989 papers: 798 positive, 191 negative or no effect

797 papers in the same direction as this claim · 184 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
    Minimum irrigation lowered average winter wheat yield by 14% versus full irrigation.

    Performance of Double‐Cropped Winter Wheat–Summer Maize under Minimum Irrigation in the North China Plain · 2006 · compared with fully irrigated treatment (FI)

    Opposite direction

  2. no effect
    Moderately saline water substituted for good quality water during part of the season maintained total wheat grain yield.

    Time of Salt Stress Affects Growth and Yield Components of Irrigated Wheat · 1994 · compared with good quality water

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Saline irrigation caused soil salinization and reduced wheat growth and yield.

    Effect of Straw Biochar on Soil Properties and Wheat Production under Saline Water Irrigation · 2019

    Opposite direction

  4. negative
    Deficit irrigation in salt-affected soil reduced wheat productivity.

    Collaborative Impact of Compost and Beneficial Rhizobacteria on Soil Properties, Physiological Attributes, and Productivity of Wheat Subjected to Deficit Irrigation in Salt Affected Soil · 2022

    Opposite direction

  5. negative
    Wastewater irrigation decreased plant height, leaf area and grain yield in wheat.

    Effect of Wastewater Irrigation on Photosynthesis, Growth, and Anatomical Features of Two Wheat Cultivars (Triticum aestivum L.) · 2020

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    An additional 33 mm of irrigation did not increase grain yield.

    Source–sink balance and manipulating sink–source relations of wheat indicate that the yield potential of wheat is sink-limited in high-rainfall zones · 2010

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    DI water saving had no effect on wheat yield.

    Yield and water productivity of maize and wheat under deficit and raised bed irrigation practices in Egypt · 2012

    Opposite direction

  8. negative
    Limited irrigation yielded 99% of full irrigation for winter wheat.

    Cropping Systems for Stretching Limited Irrigation Supplies · 1993 · compared with fully irrigated

    Opposite direction

980 papers more in this group

See all 989 papers →

tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

1,414 papers: 1,116 positive, 298 negative or no effect

1,115 papers in the same direction as this claim · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
    No N application at tillering stage decreased spikes number per m2 and seeds per spike.

    Wheat yield and grain protein response to nitrogen amount and timing. · 2011

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
    Grain yield under stress during tillering and jointing was 27% lower than under the nonstressed treatment I‐1.

    Winter Wheat Response to Nitrogen and Irrigation · 1988 · compared with nonstressed (I‐1)

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    NT likely decreased wheat yield.

    The impacts of conservation agriculture on crop yield in China depend on specific practices, crops and cropping regions · 2014

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Tillage treatments had no residual effect on subsequent sunflower and wheat yields.

    Tillage and Residue Effects on Wheat, Sorghum, and Sunflower Grown in Rotation · 1984

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    Tillage system had no significant wheat yield effect from 1977 to 2016.

    Long-term effects of crop succession, soil tillage and climate on wheat yield and soil properties · 2019

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    Wheat grain yield was unaffected by tillage and cover crop management.

    Crop and cattle responses to tillage systems for integrated crop–livestock production in the Southern Piedmont, USA · 2007

    Opposite direction

  7. negative
    Reduced tillage decreased wheat yield by 14%.

    Tillage effects on weed communities in an organic winter wheat–sunflower–spelt cropping sequence · 2011

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    RB had no significant effect on wheat yield.

    Yield and water productivity of maize and wheat under deficit and raised bed irrigation practices in Egypt · 2012

    Opposite direction

1,405 papers more in this group

See all 1,414 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.