sowing time · Growth · Hordeum vulgare (barley)
30 claims from these papers; 3 citations between them.
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
3 citations between these papers: 2 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 9
Interaction of Planting Date and Fall Fertilization on Winter Barley Performance1 · 1980
- positive
Effects of harvesting programme and sowing date on leaf growth in forage barley in Cyprus · 1988
- positive
- positive
- no effect
- positive
- positive
- positive
Dry matter accumulation of winter wheat and barley at different sowing dates · 2018
- positive
- positive
- positive
Response of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) on different dates of sowing on growth parameters · 2024
- positive
Effect of dates of sowing and varieties on growth and yield of barley (Hordeum vulgare) · 2025
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 11
The influence of cultural factors and mildew on yield of winter barley · 1980
- negative
EFFECT OF SEEDING DEPTH, SEEDING DATE AND SEED SIZE ON COMMON ROOT ROT OF SPRING BARLEY · 1982
- no effect
Barley response to seeding date in central Alberta · 2003
- no effect
- negative
- negative
- negative
Dry matter accumulation and remobilization in winter barley as affected by genotype and sowing date · 2015
- negative
- no effect
Agro-morphological Variability of Barley under Normal and Late Sown Conditions in Chitwan, Nepal · 2019
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- 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.