boron atom · Quality: protein · Helianthus annuus (common sunflower)
6 claims from these papers.
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.
- Sunflower response to Boron supply when grown in a silty clay soil (2018)
no changeBoron application did not improve kernel oil or protein content.
EFFECT OF DIFFERENT LEVELS AND TIMING OF BORON FOLIAR APPLICATION ON GROWTH, YIELD AND QUALITY OF SUNFLOWER GENOTYPES (Helianthus annuus L.) (2011)increaseIncreasing boron to 6 mg/l increased seed protein percentage and protein yield in sunflower
What separates themTest system: controlled environment · fieldCompare the two papers → - Sunflower response to Boron supply when grown in a silty clay soil (2018)
no changeBoron application did not improve kernel oil or protein content.
EFFECT OF ZINC AND BORON FOLIAR APPLICATION ON GROWTH, YIELD AND QUALITY OF SOME SUNFLOWER GENOTYPES ( Helianthus annuus L.) (2019)increaseBoron foliar application at 8 mg.L-1 significantly increased protein percentage in both seasons.
What separates themTest system: controlled environment · fieldCompare the two papers →
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 5
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 1
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.