metolachlor · Yield · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)
5 claims from these papers; 1 citation between them.
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 S-metolachlor (dual gold 960 EC) on weed control and yields in different crops (2003)
increaseS-Metolachlor increased cauliflower yield compared with weedy plots.
Evaluation of Acetanilide Injury and Its Potential for Yield Reduction in Cabbage,Brassica oleraceaL. (1988)decreaseIncorporated metolachlor reduced cabbage yield.
What separates themSituation: weed infestation · not statedCompare the two papers → - Effect of S-metolachlor (dual gold 960 EC) on weed control and yields in different crops (2003)
increaseS-Metolachlor increased cauliflower yield compared with weedy plots.
Response of Early-Maturing Cabbage (Brassica oleraceavar.capitata) to Metolachlor (1989)decreasePretransplant metolachlor often reduced cabbage yields.
What separates themSituation: weed infestation · not statedCompare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
1 citation between these papers: 1 on the same side, 0 across the two sides.
- 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 1
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 2
- negative
- negative
Response of Early-Maturing Cabbage (Brassica oleraceavar.capitata) to Metolachlor · 1989
- no effect
- negative
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.