Intervention effectmodel-written summary

FIRB planting significantly increased chickpea root dry weight by 17.6%.

A claim from Performance of chickpea under different planting method, seed rate and irrigation level in Indo-Gangetic Plains of India · 2015

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

FIRB planting significantly increased chickpea root dry weight by 17.6%.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
furrow irrigated raised bed (FIRB) plantinge0
Outcome
root dry weighte0
Direction
increasede0
Value
17.6%e0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingQualifier

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“nodules number (69%), nodule fresh weight (36.6%), nodule dry weight (31.8%), shoot dry weight (16%) and root dry weight (17.6%) increased significantly following furrow irrigated raised bed (FIRB) planting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 298–504
t0

“chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 15–23

Title

Performance of chickpea under different planting method, seed rate and irrigation level in Indo-Gangetic Plains of India

Narendra Kumar; Mukhtiyar Singh; C. S. Praharaj; et al. Journal of Food Legumes 2015

Other claims from this paper (16)

Record rev-eae56ad6ad96974c5059e4359d8836cf1d1b01a9cb84ee4306371679faa22128 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 5 in the model’s answer

irrigation · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ

41 papers: 27 positive, 14 negative or no effect

26 papers in the same direction as this claim · 14 in the opposite direction

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

32 papers more in this group

See all 41 papers →

tillage · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

21 papers: 17 positive, 4 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this claim · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

12 papers more in this group

See all 21 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.