stage · Growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)
18 claims from these papers.
Papers here report positive and negative or no-effect results. No pair of them has been accepted in the claim-by-claim check.
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 11
Rapid generation turnover · 1979
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Effect of zinc biofortification on growth, yield and economics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) · 2020
- positive
Effect of nano dap on growth and economics in chickpea · 2024
- positive
- positive
Effect of seaweed treatments on growth and quality of chickpea in western Uttar Pradesh · 2025
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 4
- negative
- negative
- no effect
Response Of Chickpea (Cicer Arietinum L.) Genotypes To Drought Stress At Different Growth Stages · 2017
- negative
- 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.