sulfur atom · Quality: protein · Brassica juncea (Indian mustard)
5 claims from these papers.
Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 2
2 pairs of papers on this question report results that differ: an effect in one paper, the opposite effect or no effect in the other. Two model reviewers reading both claims accepted each pair.
- Effect of sulphur nutrition on productivity, nutrient uptake and economics of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum)-Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) cropping system (2017)
increaseSulphur up to 45 kg/ha significantly increased protein content and yield in mustard.
Effect of Sulphur Levels on Growth and Yield of Indian Mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern.] (2023)no changeSulphur dosage did not significantly affect nitrogen or protein content.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Effect of sulphur fertilization on growth, yield and quality of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) genotypes (2002)
increaseProtein content and production increased progressively with sulphur level.
Effect of Sulphur Levels on Growth and Yield of Indian Mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern.] (2023)no changeSulphur dosage did not significantly affect nitrogen or protein content.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
None of these papers cites another one here.
- 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 4
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 1
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.