Paper · 2010

Effects of Insect-proof Coverage on Cowpea Growth

Bing Cao

5
claims
11
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The effects of insect-proof coverage on cowpea generational stage,plant height,internode length,leaf growth and chlorophyll content,quality and yield were investigated.The result showed that the insect-proof coverage cultivation significantly promoted plant growth,and increased the yield,significantly reduced the chlorophyll content of leaf,reduced the chlorophyll content and VC of pod.The effect on protein content in pod was not significant.

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

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Insect-proof coverage cultivation significantly promoted cowpea plant growth.

Treatment
insect-proof coveragee1
Outcome
plant growthe1
Direction
promotede1

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The effects of insect-proof coverage on cowpea generational stage,plant height,internode length,leaf growth and chlorophyll content,quality and yield were investigated”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–167 · show in text ↑
e1

“The result showed that the insect-proof coverage cultivation significantly promoted plant growth,and increased the yield,significantly reduced the chlorophyll content of leaf,reduced the chlorophyll content and VC of pod”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 168–388 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Insect-proof coverage cultivation increased cowpea yield.

Treatment
insect-proof coveragee1
Outcome
yielde1
Direction
increasede1

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The effects of insect-proof coverage on cowpea generational stage,plant height,internode length,leaf growth and chlorophyll content,quality and yield were investigated”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–167 · show in text ↑
e1

“The result showed that the insect-proof coverage cultivation significantly promoted plant growth,and increased the yield,significantly reduced the chlorophyll content of leaf,reduced the chlorophyll content and VC of pod”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 168–388 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Insect-proof coverage cultivation significantly reduced the chlorophyll content of cowpea leaves.

Treatment
insect-proof coveragee1
Outcome
chlorophyll content of leafe1
Direction
reducede1

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The effects of insect-proof coverage on cowpea generational stage,plant height,internode length,leaf growth and chlorophyll content,quality and yield were investigated”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–167 · show in text ↑
e1

“The result showed that the insect-proof coverage cultivation significantly promoted plant growth,and increased the yield,significantly reduced the chlorophyll content of leaf,reduced the chlorophyll content and VC of pod”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 168–388 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Insect-proof coverage cultivation reduced the chlorophyll content and vitamin C (VC) of cowpea pods.

Treatment
insect-proof coveragee1
Outcome
chlorophyll content and VC of pode1
Direction
reducede1

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The effects of insect-proof coverage on cowpea generational stage,plant height,internode length,leaf growth and chlorophyll content,quality and yield were investigated”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–167 · show in text ↑
e1

“The result showed that the insect-proof coverage cultivation significantly promoted plant growth,and increased the yield,significantly reduced the chlorophyll content of leaf,reduced the chlorophyll content and VC of pod”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 168–388 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Insect-proof coverage cultivation had no significant effect on protein content in cowpea pods.

Treatment
insect-proof coveragee1
Outcome
protein content in pode2

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The effects of insect-proof coverage on cowpea generational stage,plant height,internode length,leaf growth and chlorophyll content,quality and yield were investigated”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–167 · show in text ↑
e1

“The result showed that the insect-proof coverage cultivation significantly promoted plant growth,and increased the yield,significantly reduced the chlorophyll content of leaf,reduced the chlorophyll content and VC of pod”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 168–388 · show in text ↑
e2

“The effect on protein content in pod was not significant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 389–445 · show in text ↑

trap barrier · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 3 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

trap barrier · growth · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.