drought · Yield · Lolium arundinaceum (tall fescue)
15 claims from these papers; 3 citations between them.
Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 6
6 pairs 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.
- Compensatory Growth of Tall Fescue Following Drought1 (1979)
increaseFollowing drought stress, spring tiller density and forage yield were higher.
30 PGPR, drought, and nitrogen effects in Schedonorus arundinaceus on yield, CP, ADF, aNDF, and Lignin (2025)decreaseDrought reduced yield across all tall fescue treatments.
What separates themTest system: field · controlled environmentCompare the two papers → - Genotypic variation and selection of traits related to forage yield in tall fescue under irrigated and drought stress environments (2012)
decreaseWater stress reduced forage yield and most measured morphological traits.
Yield, composition and quality of tall fescue as influenced by N fertility and soil water availability (1984)no changeTotal forage yield of tall fescue was not significantly affected by soil water stress.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Drought-tolerance indices in a tall fescue population and its polycross progenies (2012)
decreaseSoil moisture stress significantly reduced forage yield.
Yield, composition and quality of tall fescue as influenced by N fertility and soil water availability (1984)no changeTotal forage yield of tall fescue was not significantly affected by soil water stress.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Compensatory Growth of Tall Fescue Following Drought1 (1979)
increaseFollowing drought stress, spring tiller density and forage yield were higher.
Establishment of Tall Fescue and White Clover: Effects of Seeding Method and Weather1 (1968)decreaseSpring drought reduced yields from most 1964 seedings.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Yield, composition and quality of tall fescue as influenced by N fertility and soil water availability (1984)
no changeTotal forage yield of tall fescue was not significantly affected by soil water stress.
Genotypic‐specific response to exogenous applied salicylic acid in tall fescue under different irrigation conditions (2020)decreaseDrought reduced height, crown diameter, and forage yield.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Yield, composition and quality of tall fescue as influenced by N fertility and soil water availability (1984)
no changeTotal forage yield of tall fescue was not significantly affected by soil water stress.
30 PGPR, drought, and nitrogen effects in Schedonorus arundinaceus on yield, CP, ADF, aNDF, and Lignin (2025)decreaseDrought reduced yield across all tall fescue treatments.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
3 citations between these papers: 3 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
Compensatory Growth of Tall Fescue Following Drought1 · 1979
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 13
Establishment of Tall Fescue and White Clover: Effects of Seeding Method and Weather1 · 1968
- negative
Response of Four Tall Fescue Cultivars Grown at Two Nitrogen Levels to Low Soil Water Availability1 · 1982
- negative
- no effect
Compensatory growth of tall fescue following drought stress · 2002
- negative
- negative
Drought-tolerance indices in a tall fescue population and its polycross progenies · 2012
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- 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.