inoculation · Nutrient: content · Morus (mulberry trees)

Results agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

11 claims from these papers.

How these papers cite each other

None of these papers cites another one here.

Positive resultNegative result or no effect20002005201020152020
  • Positive result
  • Negative result or no effect
  • Citation, pointing to the cited paper
  • Citation across the two sides
  • Larger circle: more citations overall

Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.

Papers reporting a positive result 5

  1. EFFECT OF VESICULAR ARBUSCULAR MYCORRHIZAL ASSOCIATION ON 'S 1' MULBERRY (MORUS SP) AT NURSERY STAGE · 1999

  2. Efficacy of Cyanobacterial Biofertilizer (CBB) on Leaf Yield and Quality of Mulberry and its Impact on Silkworm Cocoon Characters · 2006

  3. Effect of cyanobacterial biofertilizer on soil nutrients and mulberry leaf quality and its impact on silkworm crops · 2015

  4. Effects of Biochar and AM Fungi on Growth, Mineral Elements and Cadmium Uptake of Mulberry under Cadmium Stress · 2021

  5. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Adjusts Root Architecture to Promote Leaf Nitrogen Accumulation and Reduce Leaf Carbon–Nitrogen Ratio of Mulberry Seedlings · 2023

A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.

inoculation on Morus (mulberry trees) against other targets

inoculation · nutrient: content on other organisms