botanical · Growth · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)

Positive and negative results9 papers: 6 positive, 3 negative or no effect

19 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 resultNegative result or no effect200020052010201520202025
  • 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 6

  1. EFFECT OF SEED HARDENING AND PELLETING ON SEED QUALITY IN RAGI · 1998

  2. Induction of stress tolerance in fingermillet by Chromolaena odorata · 2005

  3. Allelopathic Effects of Lantana (Lantana camara L.) Leaf Extracts on Germination and Early Growth of three Agricultural Crops in Ethiopia · 2014

  4. PHYTOTOXIC EFFECT OF TECTONA GRANDIS(L.f.) LEAF EXTRACTS ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL CHANGES OF PENNISETUM GLAUCUM (L.) R.BR. AND ELEUSINE CORACANA (Gaertn) · 2017

  5. Comparative Evaluation of Neem-coated Urea and Nano Urea on the Growth and Physiological Attributes of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L. Gaertn) · 2023

  6. RESPONSE OF ECO-FRIENDLY SEED COATING TECHNIQUES ON PHYSIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES OF FINGER MILLET VARIETIES · 2025

Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 3

  1. Minimizing Allelopathic Effect of Grewia optiva on Germination and Growth of Finger Millet Using Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria · 2022

  2. Allelopathic potential of Annona muricata (L.) on physiological and biochemical changes of Vigna radiata (L.) and Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn · 2022

  3. Study on impact of neem (Azadiracha indica) leaf extract on growth of field crops · 2025

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.

botanical on Eleusine coracana (finger millet) against other targets

botanical · growth on other organisms