View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
The liquid spray did not significantly decrease potato yield .
Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
t0 “Alternative protection of potatoes ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–34 e3 “The liquid spray against the late blight (Phytophthora infestans ) did not signincantly decrease neither occurrence oflate blight or the yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 377–518 Other claims from this paper (4) Observation author interpretation review summary negative basis n/a Claim · model-written summary
Watermelon blight can decrease watermelon yield and quality.
watermelon yields and quality e0 Verbatim
e0 “Watermelon blight,an important soil-borne and seeds-borne disease,could decrease the watermelon yield s and quality ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–114 Observation observed original result negative projected Claim · model-written summary
Climate change was projected to greatly decrease untreated winter oilseed rape yield in southern England.
greatly decrease e0 southern England e1 Verbatim
e0 “greatly decrease yield of untreated winter oilseed rape ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 967–1022 e1 “southern England the combination ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 746–778 Other claims from this paper (3) Intervention effect observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Groundnut tested with the pathogen alone showed a 57% decrease in yield .
pathogen alone e0 pathogen e0 pathogen Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
t1 “groundnut ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–130 e0 “when the pathogen alone was testeds 57% decrease in yield was recorded ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 968–1038 Other claims from this paper (8) Observation observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
The average yield decrease rate of Codonopsis lanceolata was 10%.
average yield decrease rate e1 Verbatim
e0 “damages on Codonopsis lanceolata Trautv at 116 fields of 15 major cultivation areas in Korea ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 71–163 e1 “The average yield decrease rate was 10% ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 674–713 Other claims from this paper (11) Intervention effect observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Both infections tended to decrease yield .
Infection by S. turgidiscabies e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Infection by S. turgidiscabies and S. scabies delayed emergence, had the tendency to decrease the yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 846–949 t0 “potato ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 13–19 Other claims from this paper (7) Association observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Each one percent higher virus incidence corresponded to a 55 or 72 kg/ha yield decrease .
virus e0 pathogen Verbatim
e0 “for each 1% increase in virus incidence, there was a yield decrease of 55 or 72 kg/ha. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1873–1959 t0 “wheat ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–84 Other claims from this paper (18) Association observed original result negative significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Yield decrease was more significant when weed was in rows of maize, in both seasons.
weed in rows of maize e3 in both seasons e3 Verbatim
e3 “Yield was significantly affected by the weed position in both seasons and the decrease was more significant in variants with weed in rows of maize ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 831–977 Other claims from this paper (5) Mechanism author interpretation original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
In wide rows, yield decrease under spurred anoda interference was attributed to reduced boll retention or fruiting sites.
spurred anoda interference e0 spurred anoda e0 weed reduction in boll retention or fruiting sites e0 Verbatim
e0 “The yield decrease as a result of spurred anoda interference in WR was due to reduction in boll retention or fruiting sites (predicated on a decrease in branch weight). ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1070–1238 t0 “cotton ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–83 Other claims from this paper (15) Mechanism author interpretation original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
In ultra narrow rows, yield decrease under spurred anoda interference was attributed to plant mortality.
spurred anoda e0 weed plant mortality e0 Verbatim
e0 “However, in UNR, the yield decrease was due to plant mortality; the plant density of both cotton cultivars decrease d by one plant for each additional spurred anoda, but the yield per plant for surviving plants remained constant. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1239–1467 Other claims from this paper (15) 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.
Solanum tuberosumt0
Citrullus lanatus_Brassica_napus_-_Habit.jpg?width=60){kind=small}
Brassica napus
Arachis hypogaea
Codonopsis lanceolata
Triticum aestivum
Zea mays
Gossypium hirsutum