sowing time · Quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)
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 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
- positive
- positive
- positive
Performance of Quality Protein Maize Under Different Planting Windows · 2016
- positive
- positive
- positive
The Influence of Sowing Date on the Primary Yield Components of Maize · 2024
- positive
- negative
DIFFERENT PRECOCITY CORN HYBRIDS REACTION TO SOWING TIME IN THE MIDDLE URALS · 2025
- positive
Evaluating the Impact of Thermal Variations Due to Different Sowing · 2025
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 6
YIELD, QUALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF FORAGE MAIZE AS INFLUENCED BY DATES OF PLANTING AND HARVESTING · 1983
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
Herbage mass of Teosinte (Euchlaena mexicana) grown as mono and mixed with legumes · 2022
- no effect
- 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.