iron atom · Nutrient: content · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)

Results differ7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect · 1 pair of papers confirmed to differ

16 claims from these papers.

Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 1

1 pair 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.

How these papers cite each other

None of these papers cites another one here.

Positive resultNegative result or no effect201420162018202020222024
  • 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 6

  1. Impact of foliar spraying with iron and magnesium on growth, yield, chemical constituents and storability of broccoli · 2014

  2. Impact of Fortified Nano Zinc and Iron Composite Capsules on Growth, Yields and Nutrients Accumulation in Cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata L.) and Cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis L.) · 2022

  3. Combination Influence of Humic Acid and Chelated Iron on yield and quality of Broccoli (Brassica oleracea L) in Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan Region. · 2023

  4. The Role of Iron Nanoparticles and Humic Acid in Iron Concentration, Growth and Yield of Broccoli (Brassica Oleracea var Italic) · 2023

  5. Effects of soil and foliar applications of iron with or without nitrogen on production and nutritional quality of broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. italica) · 2023

  6. Enrichment of broccoli seedlings with iron and its impact on germination, antioxidant activity, and the level of phenolic compounds · 2024

Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 1

  1. Zinc and iron biofortification of crops grown in a vertical farm · 2024

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.

iron atom on Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage) against other targets

iron atom · nutrient: content on other organisms