clodinafop-propargyl · Yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)
95 claims from these papers; 13 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.
- Grain yield and NPK uptake of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) as influenced by nitrogen, vermicompost and herbicide (Clodinafop propargyl) (2015)
decreaseClodinafop reduced straw yield from 7.16 to 5.87 g per pot at the lower rate.
Physiological and Yield Responses of Wheat (Triticum aestivum) to Different Herbicide Treatments (2016)increaseClodinafop-propargyl herbicide significantly increased biological yield in wheat.
What separates themTest system: controlled environment · fieldCompare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
13 citations between these papers: 13 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 41
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Effect of clodinafop-propargyl on weeds and wheat yield · 2002
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Efficacy of various herbicides against weeds in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) · 2012
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Comparative efficacy of different post-Emergence herbicides in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). · 2012
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Chemical Weed Control in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in Dongola Locality, Northern State, Sudan · 2013
- positive
- no effect
- positive
- no effect
- positive
Control of complex weed flora in wheat by metribuzin + clodinafop application · 2015
- positive
Physiological and Yield Responses of Wheat (Triticum aestivum) to Different Herbicide Treatments · 2016
- positive
Bioefficacy of clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl against complex weed flora in wheat · 2016
- positive
Optimization rate of pinoxaden + clodinafop-propargyl for weed control in wheat · 2017
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Weed management in wheat by pre-emergence and pre-mix post-emergence combinations of herbicides · 2020
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Effect of different fertiliser levels and herbicide treatments on weeds and wheat · 2021
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Management of complex weed flora of wheat (Triticum aestivum) through appropriate herbicides · 2022
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Effect of nano-urea and herbicides on yield and yield attributes of wheat (Triticum aestivum) · 2023
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Integrated weed management in wheat under conservation agriculture-based maize-wheat-mungbean system · 2023
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Impact of establishment methods and weed control treatments on weed dynamics and yield of wheat · 2025
- positive
- positive
Assessment of tillage practices and weed management methods in wheat crop at Bundelkhand region · 2025
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 4
Bio-efficacy and Persistence of a Herbicide Mixture in Wheat · 2003
- no effect
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
Phenotypic response of wheat under application of combinations of herbicides and nitrogen · 2025
- negative
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.