pruning · Quality: general · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)
24 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 14
- positive
- negative
- positive
- positive
- positive
Studies on the Leaf Position Characters Regarding Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco · 1994
- positive
- positive
Influence of Harvesting Time on Quality of Lower Stalk Position Flue-cured Tobacco Leaves · 2001
- positive
- negative
Technique on High-cutting Bottom Leaf and Double Tip-pruning of Tobacco · 2002
- positive
- positive
Measures to Improve the Quality of Upper Tobacco Leaf · 2002
- positive
- positive
- positive
Effects of Girdling on Physical Characters and Smoking Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco Leaves · 2011
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Prospects for optimizing the drying process of Virginia 202 tobacco leaves · 2021
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 5
- negative
- negative
- no effect
Impacts of lower‐leaf removal timing, number, and nitrogen application to flue‐cured tobacco · 2020
- no effect
The Effect of Suckercide Product and Application Rate on Chemical Topping of Burley Tobacco · 2020
- no effect
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.