View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Intervention effect observed original result positive measured Claim · model-written summary
Straw returning decrease maize ET.
Straw returning e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Straw returning could decrease ET and increase the water use efficiency( WUE) and yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 840–927 t0 “summer maize ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–104 Other claims from this paper (17) Intervention effect Straw returning significantly decreased soil evaporation, especially early. Observation Straw returning and water supply significantly affected water consumption, leaf water use efficiency, whole-period water use efficiency and yield. Observation Straw returning and water supply significantly affected photosynthetic parameters. Observation The straw returning and water supply interaction significantly affected photosynthetic parameters with an exception for net photosynthetic rate and yield. Intervention effect Straw returning increase maize water use efficiency( WUE). Intervention effect Straw returning increase maize yield. Association Increasing water supply increased maize Yield. Association Increasing water supply decreased maize WUE. Intervention effect At water supply level 1, straw returning increased maize WUE by 35. 32% relative to non-straw returning. Intervention effect At water supply level 2, straw returning increased maize WUE by 33. 74% relative to non-straw returning. Intervention effect At water supply level 3, straw returning increased maize WUE by 51. 88% relative to non-straw returning. Intervention effect At water supply level 4, straw returning increased maize WUE by 29. 69% relative to non-straw returning. Intervention effect At water supply level 1, straw returning increased maize yield by 7. 61%. Intervention effect At water supply level 2, straw returning increased maize yield by 8. 94%. Intervention effect At water supply level 3, straw returning increased maize yield by 18. 29%. Intervention effect At water supply level 4, straw returning increased maize yield by 6. 96%. Observation Straw returning with 70% field soil water capacity supply performed best jointly for ET, yield and WUE. Observation observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
The salinity yield decrease per dS m-1 for the flower crops was between 2.1 and 16.8%.
salinity yield decrease (SYD) values e2 2.1 and 16.8% per dS m‐1 e2 Verbatim
t0 “Salt tolerance of flower crops grown in soilless culture ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–56 e2 “the salinity yield decrease (SYD) values between 2.1 and 16.8% per dS m‐1 ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 627–700 Other claims from this paper (6) Association observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Both drought and excess precipitation caused a decrease of yield and quality of all spring cereals.
drought and excess precipitation e2 yield and quality e2 Verbatim
e1 “protein content of spring cereals over 19 years (1991-2009) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 149–208 e2 “It can be stated that the both stress conditions - drought and excess precipitation caused decrease of yield and quality of all the crops. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 528–666 Other claims from this paper (11) Intervention effect author interpretation original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Cultivating maturity group II varieties without irrigation leads to maximum yield decrease .
maturity group II e1 without irrigation e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “their cultivation without irrigation will lead to a maximum decrease in yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1134–1211 e1 “varieties of the maturity group II ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1089–1123 t0 “Glycine max (L.) Merr.
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 54–76 Other claims from this paper (4) Observation observed original result negative projected Claim · model-written summary
With current April sowing and unchanged management, future sorghum yield was simulated to decrease by 5% to 24%.
future Sorghum yield e0 current sowing window (April) e0 Verbatim
e0 “Keeping the current sowing window (April) and other management activities the same, future Sorghum yield has simulated to decrease between 5% and 24% ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1209–1358 Other claims from this paper (7) Intervention effect observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
A 400 mg Zn·kg−1 soil dose caused a minor decrease in cocksfoot yield .
400 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “A minor effect of zinc on cocksfoot, expressed as a decrease in yield , was observed following the application of 400 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 575–711 Other claims from this paper (13) Association observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
The increased latex yield did not significantly decrease tree growth over three years.
increase of latex yield e0 did not result in a significant decrease e0 over a period of three years e0 Verbatim
t0 “Hevea brasiliensis
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–79 e0 “The increase of latex yield did not result in a significant decrease in the growth of trees over a period of three years. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 524–645 Other claims from this paper (9) Intervention effect observed original result negative significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Salt stress significantly reduced maize grain yield .
Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Salt stress caused a significant decrease in grain yield which was due to a 50% decrease in kernel number. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 412–518 t0 “maize ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–46 Other claims from this paper (9) Observation observed original result negative projected Claim · model-written summary
Under SSP245 and SSP585 climate scenarios, HR17 fruit yield was projected to decrease by around 1.2 Dry Ma/ha.
Climate Change scenarios (SSP245 and SSP585 pathways) e0 Verbatim
e0 “Under Climate Change scenarios (SSP245 and SSP585 pathways), HR17 will decrease its fruit yield by around 1.2 Dry Ma/ha ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1045–1164 Other claims from this paper (5) Intervention effect observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging at the seedling stage caused the greatest wheat yield penalty (10%-15% decrease ).
seedling stage e1 the other stages e1 Verbatim
t0 “Effect of waterlogging on physical traits and yield of wheat in Sichuan,China ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–77 e1 “The greatest yield penalty occurred when waterlogging happened at the seedling stage( 10%- 15% decrease ),and it was alleviated when waterlogging happened at the other stages ”
✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · abstract, characters 317–490 Other claims from this paper (8) Lexical search (BM25). All words must match; if nothing does, any word. Organism names also match every spelling of the same organism. No semantic search yet.
Zea mays
Glycine max
Sorghum.jpg?width=60){kind=small}
Dactylis glomerata
Hevea brasiliensis
Triticum aestivum