Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Drip fertigation increased sugarcane yield by 31.9% compared with conventional fertilization without drip irrigation.

A claim from Effects of sub-soil drip fertigation on sugarcane in field conditions. · 2010

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drip fertigation increased sugarcane yield by 31.9% compared with conventional fertilization without drip irrigation.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
drip fertigatione2
Outcome
yielde1
Direction
increasede1
Value
31.9e1
Comparator
conventional fertilization without drip irrigatione1

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingQualifier

Verbatim

t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–49
e1

“and increased yield with 31.9 and 22.8% with 2205.6 and 78.2 Yuan RMB/ha of income as compared to the conventional fertilization without drip irrigation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 717–869
e2

“The treatments of drip fertigation and conventional fertilization with drip irrigation promoted faster and earlier growth of sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 490–624

Title

Effects of sub-soil drip fertigation on sugarcane in field conditions.

Chen GuiFen; Huang YuYi; Bin Liu; et al. Guangxi nongye kexue 2010

Other claims from this paper (7)

Record rev-e515fadefaf9acd9a905261cdcb043199f3fbce332275a24a1686010e35ea70c · schema claims-v0.9 · position 4 in the model’s answer

irrigation · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

142 papers: 129 positive, 13 negative or no effect

128 papers in the same direction as this claim · 9 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

133 papers more in this group

See all 142 papers →

fertilization · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

346 papers: 312 positive, 34 negative or no effect

311 papers in the same direction as this claim · 28 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

337 papers more in this group

See all 346 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.