copper atom · Yield · Avena sativa (oats)
10 claims from these papers; 2 citations 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.
- Copper nutrition of cereals and forages grown in Prince Edward Island (1989)
no changeCopper treatments did not significantly affect cereal or forage yield.
RESPONSE TO COPPER AND OPTIMUM LEVELS IN WHEAT, BARLEY AND OATS UNDER GREENHOUSE AND FIELD CONDITIONS (1970)increaseSoil copper increased oat kernel yield by about 500% in greenhouse conditions.
What separates themTest system: field · controlled environmentCompare the two papers → - Copper nutrition of cereals and forages grown in Prince Edward Island (1989)
no changeCopper treatments did not significantly affect cereal or forage yield.
Copper Requirements and Deficiency Symptoms of a Number of Field and Vegetable Crops (1956)increaseCopper application raised oat yield to 64 bushels per acre from slightly over 1 bushel per acre without copper.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
2 citations between these papers: 1 on the same side, 1 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 5
Copper Requirements and Deficiency Symptoms of a Number of Field and Vegetable Crops · 1956
- positive
- positive
- no effect
Der Einfluß variierter Düngergaben von Stickstoff, Kupfer und Magnesium auf den Ertrag von Hafer · 1972
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 3
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.