View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Selection for nematode resistance did not decrease sugar beet root yield .
Selection for resistance to nematode e0 did not decrease e0 Not reported Taxon Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Selection for resistance to nematode did not decrease root yield s. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 183–249 Other claims from this paper (1) Intervention effect author interpretation original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Higher insecticide rates may decrease soybean yield .
higher rates of application e0 may cause foliage injury e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
t0 “Soybeans ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–84 e0 “higher rates of application may cause foliage injury to the extent of decreasing yield . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 173–260 Other claims from this paper (6) Association author interpretation original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Yield is inferred to decrease by ten to thirty per cent in the disease.
Ten to thirty per cent e2 Verbatim
t0 “A Rice Nematode Disease "Senchu Shingare Byo" : Ⅰ. Symptom and Pathogenic Nematode ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–82 e2 “Ten to thirty per cent decrease in yield is inferred ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1094–1146 e1 “The causal nematode, Aphelenchoides oryzae Yokoo, is characteristic in having star shaped, trifurcated mucro at its tail end ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1218–1342 Other claims from this paper (16) Observation observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Mean infection-related leaf area decrease was 4%.
Not reported Taxon
Verbatim
e0 “mean decrease in leaf area was only 4% ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 965–1003 Other claims from this paper (19) Observation observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Mean infection-related net assimilation rate decrease was about 20%.
Not reported Taxon
Verbatim
e0 “mean decrease in NAR by infection was about 20% ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 857–904 Other claims from this paper (19) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
May fertilizer failed to decrease take-all.
Fertilizer applied in May e0 failed to decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Fertilizer applied in May increased weed growth, failed to decrease take‐all ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1358–1434 t0 “WINTER WHEAT ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–106 Other claims from this paper (16) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Pre-emergence spray of 150 g 2,4-D per 10 ares did not decrease soybean yield .
pre-emergence spray of 150 grams of 2, 4-D per 10 ares e0 the yield of soybean e0 without decreasing e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “The pre-emergence spray of 150 grams of 2, 4-D per 10 ares was considerably effective for the weed without decreasing the yield of soybean ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1015–1153 Other claims from this paper (17) Observation Crab grass is a dominant weed in both sweet potato and soybean fields. Observation Crab grass is resistant to 2,4-D. Observation Both sweet potato and soybean are susceptible to 2,4-D. Recommendation Post-emergence 2,4-D spray on these crops cannot be expected to be a practical weed-control means. Intervention effect Sweet potato yield under pre-planting 2,4-D equalled that of the weeded plot. Intervention effect Weeds were reduced to about 1/10 to 1/3 of those in the untreated plot after 2,4-D pre-planting treatment. Intervention effect All sweet potato slips planted after 2,4-D treatment took root and crop growth was not retarded. Intervention effect Sweet potato planted immediately after 2,4-D application was severely injured, particularly in the drought year. Intervention effect Moistening and dusting sweet potato roots with active carbon relieved the 2,4-D injury to some extent. Intervention effect Pre-emergence spray of 150 g 2,4-D per 10 ares was considerably effective against the weeds in soybean. Intervention effect A 2,4-D spray above 150 grams was injurious to soybean growth. Intervention effect Seeds coated with active carbon before sowing were not injured even by a spray of 450 g 2,4-D. Mechanism The absence of injury was attributed to a protecting action of active carbon. Intervention effect Between-row soil treatment with 2,4-D after tillage was more effective on annual weeds than pre-emergence treatment. Intervention effect Soybean was not injured by 100 g 2,4-D per 10 ares on dry soil. Intervention effect Soybean was not injured by 200 g 2,4-D on moist soil. Association Yield decreased as the amount of 2,4-D applied increased. Intervention effect observed original result positive measured Claim · model-written summary
Phosphate decrease d weed yield in the second cut.
Not reported Treatment Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “this was offset by a large decrease in the second cut ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 913–966 e1 “Although the former gave a large increase in weed yield in the first cut ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 840–912 t0 “PERENNIAL RYEGRASS ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–99 Other claims from this paper (8) Observation observed original result mixed measured Claim · model-written summary
Similarly treated plants had the same leaf-area reduction across two years but a much greater net-assimilation decrease in the second year.
reduction of leaf area e0 but the decrease in N.A.R. was much greater in the second e0 Verbatim
e0 “similarly treated plants showed the same reduction of leaf area in two successive years, but the decrease in N.A.R. was much greater in the second. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1046–1193 e1 “Infection with beet yellows virus depressed the dry‐matter yield of sugar‐beet plants ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–85 Other claims from this paper (18) Intervention effect Beet yellows infection depressed sugar-beet dry-matter yield by decreasing leaf area and net assimilation rate, without reducing leaf number. Intervention effect End-of-June yellows infection yellowed 30‐50% of leaf area from mid-August; later infection caused less yellowing. Mechanism Yellowing nearly explained the decrease in net assimilation if yellowed leaf parts do not photosynthesize, although similar carbohydrate fluctuations suggest photosynthesis may be little slowed and respiration may instead increase. Intervention effect Late-sown infected plants had a greater leaf-area reduction but a smaller net-assimilation reduction than early-sown plants. Intervention effect Yellows dry-matter losses were mostly in roots, petiole dry weight also decreased, and leaf-lamina dry weight was little affected. Intervention effect Yellows greatly increased reducing sugars and caused smaller sucrose and starch increases in leaf laminae, beginning with etch symptoms; starch effects peaked then while sugar effects increased with yellowing. Intervention effect Yellows reduced leaf-lamina water content, nitrogen content and arealweight ratio. Mechanism The carbohydrate rise could explain the nitrogen-content change but not the other leaf-lamina changes. Intervention effect Yellows did not affect petiole and root water content but increased their nitrogen content. Mechanism Yellows reduced root sucrose content, while decreased root weight accounted for most sugar-yield loss. Intervention effect Beet mosaic infection decreased sugar-beet dry weight only with nitrogenous fertilizer, through reduced leaf area and net assimilation. Intervention effect Mosaic depressed dry weights of leaf lamina, petiole and root. Intervention effect Mosaic did not affect leaf-lamina carbohydrate content, water content or arealweight ratio. Intervention effect Mosaic did not affect petiole and root water content. Intervention effect Mosaic increased nitrogen content throughout plants receiving no nitrogenous fertilizer, but not in nitrogen-treated plants. Intervention effect Mosaic slightly increased root sucrose content. Intervention effect End-of-June mosaic infection caused a 20 yo sugar-yield loss in nitrogen-fertilized plants. Intervention effect Yellows infection of similar plants at the same date reduced sugar yield by 50%. Mechanism hypothesis original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Yellowing nearly explained the decrease in net assimilation if yellowed leaf parts do not photosynthesize, although similar carbohydrate fluctuations suggest photosynthesis may be little slowed and respiration may instead increase.
decrease in N.A.R. e0 if yellowed parts of leaves do not photosynthesize e0 Verbatim
e0 “The yellowing almost sufficed to account for the decrease in N.A.R., if yellowed parts of leaves do not photosynthesize. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 461–581 e1 “However, the similar diurnal fluctuations of carbohydrate in the laminae of healthy and infected leaves suggests that photosynthesis may not be much slowed by infection; if so, the decrease in N.A.R. indicates a large increase in respiration rate, especially of the root. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 582–853 e2 “Infection with beet yellows virus depressed the dry‐matter yield of sugar‐beet plants ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–85 Other claims from this paper (18) Intervention effect Beet yellows infection depressed sugar-beet dry-matter yield by decreasing leaf area and net assimilation rate, without reducing leaf number. Intervention effect End-of-June yellows infection yellowed 30‐50% of leaf area from mid-August; later infection caused less yellowing. Intervention effect Late-sown infected plants had a greater leaf-area reduction but a smaller net-assimilation reduction than early-sown plants. Observation Similarly treated plants had the same leaf-area reduction across two years but a much greater net-assimilation decrease in the second year. Intervention effect Yellows dry-matter losses were mostly in roots, petiole dry weight also decreased, and leaf-lamina dry weight was little affected. Intervention effect Yellows greatly increased reducing sugars and caused smaller sucrose and starch increases in leaf laminae, beginning with etch symptoms; starch effects peaked then while sugar effects increased with yellowing. Intervention effect Yellows reduced leaf-lamina water content, nitrogen content and arealweight ratio. Mechanism The carbohydrate rise could explain the nitrogen-content change but not the other leaf-lamina changes. Intervention effect Yellows did not affect petiole and root water content but increased their nitrogen content. Mechanism Yellows reduced root sucrose content, while decreased root weight accounted for most sugar-yield loss. Intervention effect Beet mosaic infection decreased sugar-beet dry weight only with nitrogenous fertilizer, through reduced leaf area and net assimilation. Intervention effect Mosaic depressed dry weights of leaf lamina, petiole and root. Intervention effect Mosaic did not affect leaf-lamina carbohydrate content, water content or arealweight ratio. Intervention effect Mosaic did not affect petiole and root water content. Intervention effect Mosaic increased nitrogen content throughout plants receiving no nitrogenous fertilizer, but not in nitrogen-treated plants. Intervention effect Mosaic slightly increased root sucrose content. Intervention effect End-of-June mosaic infection caused a 20 yo sugar-yield loss in nitrogen-fertilized plants. Intervention effect Yellows infection of similar plants at the same date reduced sugar yield by 50%. 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.
Glycine maxt0
Oryza sativat0
Triticum aestivumt0
Lolium perennet0
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1