calcium atom · Yield · Prunus avium (sweet cherry)
5 claims from these papers; 4 citations between them.
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.
- Calcium Hydroxide Reduces Splitting of ‘Lambert’ Sweet Cherry (1986)
no changeCalcium applications did not affect fruit size.
Enhancing Sweet Cherry Quality Through Calcium and Ascophyllum nodosum Foliar Applications (2025)increaseCalcium foliar treatment improved sweet cherry fruit size.
What separates themTest system: laboratory · fieldCompare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
4 citations between these papers: 4 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 4
An Early Calcium Loading during Cherry Tree Dormancy Improves Fruit Quality Features at Harvest · 2021
- positive
Different calcium applications effects on fruit quality of 0900 Ziraat (Prunus avium) · 2022
- positive
Effects of Calcium- and Seaweed-Based Biostimulants on Sweet Cherry Profitability and Quality · 2024
- positive
Enhancing Sweet Cherry Quality Through Calcium and Ascophyllum nodosum Foliar Applications · 2025
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 1
Calcium Hydroxide Reduces Splitting of ‘Lambert’ Sweet Cherry · 1986
- 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.