Paper · 2016 · Journal of Plant Nutrition

Grain and biomass nutrient uptake of conventional corn and their genetically modified isolines

Shannon L. Osborne; R. Michael Lehman; Kurt A. Rosentrater

2
claims
3
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The adoption of genetically engineered crops in the United States has increased dramatically over the past decade. Differences in agronomic characteristics and protein expression between genetically engineered plants and their naturally recombinant non-genetically modified (GM) counterparts are not well-understood. Experimental field plots were established in the spring of 2005 near Brookings, SD with 18 different commonly used corn hybrids including three conventional hybrids and their corresponding transgenic modifications. Specific research objectives were to evaluate in a side by side comparison, the impact of the genetic modifications on agronomic characteristics. Results show that glyphosate or insect resistance resulting from genetic modification, in the absence of significant insect pest or weed pressure and glyphosate application, were not likely to significantly alter productivity or nutrient composition of corn residue or grain. No significant differences were observed among the hybrids in average grain yield or above-ground biomass over the three years of the experiment.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 2

Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Glyphosate or insect resistance from genetic modification was not likely to significantly alter productivity or nutrient composition of corn residue or grain when insect pest or weed pressure and glyphosate application were absent.

Treatment
glyphosate or insect resistance resulting from genetic modificatione3
Outcome
productivity or nutrient composition of corn residue or graine3
Direction
not likely to significantly altere3
Qualifier
in the absence of significant insect pest or weed pressure and glyphosate applicatione3

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e3

“glyphosate or insect resistance resulting from genetic modification, in the absence of significant insect pest or weed pressure and glyphosate application, were not likely to significantly alter productivity or nutrient composition of corn residue or grain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 696–952 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Average grain yield and above-ground biomass did not differ significantly among the corn hybrids over three years.

Outcome
average grain yield or above-ground biomasse2
Setting
near Brookings, SDe1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Experimental field plots were established in the spring of 2005 near Brookings, SD with 18 different commonly used corn hybrids”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 317–444 · show in text ↑
e2

“No significant differences were observed among the hybrids in average grain yield or above-ground biomass over the three years of the experiment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 954–1098 · show in text ↑

glyphosate · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. no effect
See all 2 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.