Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Drip irrigation and fertilization increased grape yield compared with the CK and CG treatments.

A claim from Optimizing drip fertigation management to simultaneously improve the yield, water productivity and fertilizer agronomic utilization efficiency of grapes in different precipitation year patterns · 2024

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drip irrigation and fertilization increased grape yield compared with the CK and CG treatments.

Taxon
grapee1
Treatment
drip irrigation and fertilization treatmente1
Outcome
grape yielde1
Direction
increasede1
Comparator
CK and CG treatmentse1
Setting
Yangling, Shaanxi, Chinae0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleValueQualifier

Verbatim

e0

“Field experiments were conducted in Yangling, Shaanxi, China from 2019 to 2021”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 525–603
e1

“The results showed that, compared with the CK and CG treatments, the drip irrigation and fertilization treatment increased grape yield and significantly improved water productivity and fertilizer agronomic use efficiency”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 829–1049

Title

Optimizing drip fertigation management to simultaneously improve the yield, water productivity and fertilizer agronomic utilization efficiency of grapes in different precipitation year patterns

Xuelian Peng; Dianyu Chen; Zhenjiang Zhou; et al. Agricultural Water Management 2024. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2024.108749

Other claims from this paper (9)

Record rev-e4f8fc7e4165d8974a566d1f069090100812b7e38d176a8d29fb929668fc9290 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

irrigation · yield · VitisResults differ

83 papers: 52 positive, 31 negative or no effect

51 papers in the same direction as this claim · 28 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

74 papers more in this group

See all 83 papers →

fertilization · yield · VitisResults differ

107 papers: 97 positive, 10 negative or no effect

96 papers in the same direction as this claim · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

98 papers more in this group

See all 107 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.