Paper · 2012 · International journal of agriscience.

Evaluation of 2, 4-D application at different stages of wheat (Tritium astivum L.) growth on yield, yield components and weed population

Fatemeh Mohajeri; I. Aladadi; Gholam Abbas Akbari; et al.

7
claims
26
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

This experiment was conducted at the Abooreihan campus in the growing season of 2005-2006. Tests were done in split plots with four replications. 3 wheat cultivars were tested in the main plots; Shiraz, Pishtaz and the newly introduced cultivar M79. Herbicide applications were tested in subplots; herbicide treatments of 2, 4-D applied at different times relating to growth stages of wheat; a control (without herbicide), at last tillering, at stem elongation, at booting and flag leaf sheath opening; Zadoks codes 27, 32, 40 and 47, respectively. Analysis of variance showed that between the different treatments there was significant difference for biomass, grain yield, 1000seed weight, number of fertile spikelet in each cluster and number of fertile tillers. Analysis of variance showed no significant difference between cultivars for biological yield, grain yield, 1000-seed weight, number of seeds per spikelet, number of fertile and infertile spikelet in each cluster and number of fertile and infertile tillers. Herbicide treatment at stages of tillering, stem elongation, booting and flag leaf sheath opening in comparison with the control treatment recorded reduced weight of weeds Fumaria vailanrii Loisel and number of weeds. Numbers of Sinapis arvensis weeds showed no significant differences between treatments for dry weight weed last tillering but significant difference was recorded at the booting stage.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 7

Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

2,4-D application at different wheat growth stages significantly affected biomass, grain yield and 1000-seed weight.

Treatment
2, 4-D applied at different times relating to growth stages of wheate1
Outcome
biomass, grain yield, 1000seed weighte2
Setting
Abooreihan campuse0

Not reportedDirection

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 (Tritium astivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–82 · show in text ↑
e0

“This experiment was conducted at the Abooreihan campus in the growing season of 2005-2006”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–89 · show in text ↑
e1

“herbicide treatments of 2, 4-D applied at different times relating to growth stages of wheat; a control (without herbicide)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 298–421 · show in text ↑
e2

“Analysis of variance showed that between the different treatments there was significant difference for biomass, grain yield, 1000seed weight, number of fertile spikelet in each cluster and number of fertile tillers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 549–763 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

2,4-D application at different wheat growth stages significantly affected the number of fertile spikelets per cluster and the number of fertile tillers.

Treatment
2, 4-D applied at different times relating to growth stages of wheate1
Outcome
number of fertile spikelet in each cluster and number of fertile tillerse2
Setting
Abooreihan campuse0

Not reportedDirection

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 (Tritium astivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–82 · show in text ↑
e0

“This experiment was conducted at the Abooreihan campus in the growing season of 2005-2006”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–89 · show in text ↑
e1

“herbicide treatments of 2, 4-D applied at different times relating to growth stages of wheat; a control (without herbicide)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 298–421 · show in text ↑
e2

“Analysis of variance showed that between the different treatments there was significant difference for biomass, grain yield, 1000seed weight, number of fertile spikelet in each cluster and number of fertile tillers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 549–763 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat cultivars did not differ significantly in biological yield, grain yield or 1000-seed weight.

Material
Shiraz, Pishtaz and the newly introduced cultivar M79e5
Outcome
biological yield, grain yield, 1000-seed weighte3
Direction
no_changeinferrede3
Setting
Abooreihan campuse0

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 (Tritium astivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–82 · show in text ↑
e0

“This experiment was conducted at the Abooreihan campus in the growing season of 2005-2006”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–89 · show in text ↑
e3

“no significant difference between cultivars for biological yield, grain yield, 1000-seed weight”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 793–888 · show in text ↑
e5

“3 wheat cultivars were tested in the main plots; Shiraz, Pishtaz and the newly introduced cultivar M79”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 146–248 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat cultivars did not differ significantly in seeds per spikelet, fertile and infertile spikelets per cluster, or fertile and infertile tillers.

Material
Shiraz, Pishtaz and the newly introduced cultivar M79e5
Outcome
number of seeds per spikelet, number of fertile and infertile spikelet in each cluster and number of fertile and infertile tillerse4
Direction
no_changeinferrede4
Setting
Abooreihan campuse0

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 (Tritium astivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–82 · show in text ↑
e0

“This experiment was conducted at the Abooreihan campus in the growing season of 2005-2006”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–89 · show in text ↑
e4

“number of seeds per spikelet, number of fertile and infertile spikelet in each cluster and number of fertile and infertile tillers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 890–1020 · show in text ↑
e5

“3 wheat cultivars were tested in the main plots; Shiraz, Pishtaz and the newly introduced cultivar M79”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 146–248 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Herbicide treatment at tillering to flag leaf sheath opening reduced the weight of Fumaria vailanrii Loisel weeds and the number of weeds compared with the control treatment.

Treatment
Herbicide treatment at stages of tillering, stem elongation, booting and flag leaf sheath openinge6
Interactor
Fumaria vailanrii Loisele6weed
Outcome
weight of weedse6
Direction
reducede6
Qualifier
and number of weedse6
Comparator
the control treatmente6
Setting
Abooreihan campuse0

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 (Tritium astivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–82 · show in text ↑
e0

“This experiment was conducted at the Abooreihan campus in the growing season of 2005-2006”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–89 · show in text ↑
e6

“Herbicide treatment at stages of tillering, stem elongation, booting and flag leaf sheath opening in comparison with the control treatment recorded reduced weight of weeds Fumaria vailanrii Loisel and number of weeds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1022–1238 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Numbers of Sinapis arvensis weeds did not differ significantly between herbicide treatments at last tillering.

Interactor
Sinapis arvensisMutarda arvensise7weed
Outcome
Numbers of Sinapis arvensis weedse7
Direction
no_changeinferrede7
Qualifier
last tilleringe7
Setting
Abooreihan campuse0

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 ↗
Mutarda arvensis
Mutarda arvensis · InteractorNo machine-readable author provided. TeunSpaans assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“wheat (Tritium astivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–82 · show in text ↑
e0

“This experiment was conducted at the Abooreihan campus in the growing season of 2005-2006”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–89 · show in text ↑
e7

“Numbers of Sinapis arvensis weeds showed no significant differences between treatments for dry weight weed last tillering”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1240–1361 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Sinapis arvensis dry weight differed significantly between herbicide treatments at the booting stage.

Interactor
Sinapis arvensisMutarda arvensise7weed
Outcome
dry weighte7
Qualifier
at the booting stagee6
Setting
Abooreihan campuse0

Not reportedDirection

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 ↗
Mutarda arvensis
Mutarda arvensis · InteractorNo machine-readable author provided. TeunSpaans assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“wheat (Tritium astivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–82 · show in text ↑
e0

“This experiment was conducted at the Abooreihan campus in the growing season of 2005-2006”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–89 · show in text ↑
e7

“Numbers of Sinapis arvensis weeds showed no significant differences between treatments for dry weight weed last tillering”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1240–1361 · show in text ↑
e6

“but significant difference was recorded at the booting stage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1362–1422 · show in text ↑

tillage · weed · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

183 papers: 126 positive, 57 negative or no effect

125 papers in the same direction as this paper · 56 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

179 papers more in this group

See all 183 papers →

herbicide · weed · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

401 papers: 362 positive, 39 negative or no effect

361 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

397 papers more in this group

See all 401 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.