Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Clodinafop-propargyl raised effective tillers, grains per spike, and grain weight.

A claim from Efficacy of new herbicides against grass weeds in wheat (Triticum aestivum) under mid-hill conditions of Himachal Pradesh · 2001

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Clodinafop-propargyl raised effective tillers, grains per spike, and grain weight.

Treatment
Clodinafop-propargyl 0.15 kg/hae0
Outcome
number of effective tillers/m row, grains/spike and 1,000-grain weighte0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
diclofop-methyl 0.80 kg/hae0

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

t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 50–75
e0

“Clodinafop-propargyl 0.15 kg/ha being at par with diclofop-methyl 0.80 kg/ha, produced significantly lower weed dry weight and higher number of effective tillers/m row, grains/spike and 1,000-grain weight”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 143–347

Title

Efficacy of new herbicides against grass weeds in wheat (Triticum aestivum) under mid-hill conditions of Himachal Pradesh

J. P. Saini; Kishan Singh Indian Journal of Agronomy 2001

Other claims from this paper (13)

Record rev-ea0433cc8db25009a5aca42463c6117a3ab9ea1377ed1e5946a1e547b3342319 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 2 in the model’s answer

clodinafop-propargyl · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

45 papers: 41 positive, 4 negative or no effect

40 papers in the same direction as this claim · 4 in the opposite direction

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

36 papers more in this group

See all 45 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.