pruning · Yield · Lolium arundinaceum (tall fescue)
17 claims from these papers; 2 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
2 citations between these papers: 2 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 1
Relationship Between Tillering and Forage Yield of Tall Fescue. I. Yield1 · 1983
- positive
- positive
- no effect
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 11
Effects of defoliation on populations of Festuca arundinacea Schreb. sown in spring and autumn · 1971
- negative
- negative
THE AGRONOMIC EVALUATION OF SYN 1 TALL FESCUE IN THE WEST OF SCOTLAND · 1972
- negative
THE YIELD RESPONSE OF A TALL FESCUE/WHITE CLOVER SWARD TO NITROGEN RATE AND HARVESTING FREQUENCY · 1973
- no effect
Maintaining Tall Fescue Stands in Association with Bahiagrass1 · 1978
- negative
Effects of N Fertilization and Cutting Schedules on Stockpiled Tall Fescue. I. Forage Yield1 · 1981
- no effect
Nitrogen and Date of Defoliation Effects on Seed Yield and Seed Quality of Tall Fescue1 · 1982
- no effect
- negative
- negative
The production and persistency of different grass species cut at different heights · 1983
- negative
Tall Fescue Rhizome Production as Influenced by Bermudagrass Competition and Cutting Frequency · 1989
- no effect
Post‐harvest and autumn management of tall fescue seed fields · 1993
- no effect
- negative
- 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.