copper atom · Yield · Allium cepa (onion)

Results differ10 papers: 7 positive, 3 negative or no effect · 4 pairs of papers confirmed to differ

11 claims from these papers.

Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 4

4 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.

How these papers cite each other

None of these papers cites another one here.

Positive resultNegative result or no effect197019801990200020102020
  • 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 7

  1. Crop Responses to Some Micronutrients and Sodium on Sphagnum Peat Soil · 1964

  2. THE RESPONSE OF CARROTS AND ONIONS TO MICRONUTRIENTS ON AN ORGANIC SOIL IN MANITOBA · 1966

  3. A STUDY OF ONIONS GROWN IN MICROPLOTS ON THREE ORGANIC SOILS EACH CONTAINING FOUR LEVELS OF COPPER · 1983

  4. Response of Onion Yield and Its Chemical Content to NPK Fertilization and Foliar Application of Some Micronutrients · 2017

  5. Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on growth and yield of onion (Allium cepa L.) c.v. Agri found dark red · 2017

  6. The influence of humic acids on the productivity and quality of bulb onion on irrigated chestnut soils in the Saratov transvolga region · 2018

  7. Management of bulb rot of onion caused by Erwinia carotovora pv. carotovora · 2020

Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 3

  1. EFFECT OF APPLIED COPPER ON VEGETABLE CROPS GROWN IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND · 1983

  2. RESPONSE OF ONION TO FOLIAR APPLICATION OF SOME MICRONUTRIENTS · 1999

  3. Growth, nutrient accumulation and yield of onion as a function of micronutrient fertilization · 2022

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.

copper atom on Allium cepa (onion) against other targets

copper atom · yield on other organisms