Search claims · PlantClaims

Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The decrease in kernels per ear largely caused the decrease in maize grain yield.

Taxon: maizeZea mayst0
Outcome: decrease in grain yielde4
Qualifier: largely caused by the decrease in kernels per eare4

Verbatim

t0
“Differential responses of maize yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–37

e4
“The decrease in grain yield was largely caused by the decrease in kernels per ear (r2 = 0.88, P < 0.001)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 909–1013

Title

Differential responses of maize yield to drought at vegetative and reproductive stages

MI Na; Fu CAI; Yushu ZHANG; et al. Plant Soil and Environment 2018. doi:10.17221/141/2018-pse

Other claims from this paper (6)

Intervention effect Progressive drought significantly reduced maize grain yield during either the vegetative or the reproductive stage.
Intervention effect Reproductive-stage progressive drought reduced grain yield by 41.6-46.6%.
Intervention effect Vegetative-stage progressive drought reduced grain yield by 18.6-26.2%.
Intervention effect The grain yield reduction from reproductive-stage drought was greater than that from vegetative-stage drought.
Association The decrease in kernels per ear was associated with the decrease in grain yield (r2 = 0.88, P < 0.001).
Recommendation Guaranteeing water supply for maize during the reproductive stage is crucially important to avoid yield loss.

Method / resourceauthor interpretationoriginal resultsimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Isareg was judged appropriate for estimating grain yield decrease.

Taxon: MAIZEZea mayst0
Outcome: appropriate to estimate the grain yield decreasee0

Not reportedComparatorValue

Verbatim

e0
“The Isareg model is appropriate to estimate the grain yield decrease”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 960–1028

t0
“WATER DEFICIENCY ON THE MAIZE GRAIN YIELD DECREASE IN THE CATARINENSE FAR WEST”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–78

Title

WATER DEFICIENCY ON THE MAIZE GRAIN YIELD DECREASE IN THE CATARINENSE FAR WEST

CLÍSTENES ANTÔNIO GUADAGNIN; EDGAR RICARDO SCHOFFEL; HELVIO DEBLI CASALINHO; et al. Revista Brasileira de Milho e Sorgo 2017. doi:10.18512/1980-6477/rbms.v16n1p61-71

Other claims from this paper (6)

Observation The Isareg model estimated average maize grain yield decrease of 25.1%.
Observation The largest maize yield decrease occurred with early August sowing.
Observation The smallest maize yield decrease occurred with late January to February sowings.
Observation Yield decrease varied by up to 3.9% among maturation cycles.
Method / resource Isareg overestimated yield decrease when relative evapotranspiration exceeded 0.8.
Observation A 40% grain yield decrease had a 10.5% occurrence probability.

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativeprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat yield is projected to decrease across locations.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivume0
Outcome: wheat yielde0
Direction: decreasee0

Verbatim

e0
“wheat yield would decrease across locations.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1247–1291

Title

Effects of a wheat rotation on cotton production in a changing climate: a simulation study

Q Luo; M Bange; P Devoil Climate Research 2016. doi:10.3354/cr01413

Other claims from this paper (6)

Intervention effect For irrigated cotton, three years in and one year out is projected to give the best lint yield.
Intervention effect Cotton yields are projected to decrease under changing climate at most locations across crop sequences.
Intervention effect Wheat yields are projected to decrease more than cotton yields under changing climate.
Intervention effect Rain-fed continuous cotton is projected to perform better at Emerald, Dalby and/or Narrabri with solid and single skip rows.
Intervention effect A cotton-wheat sequence is projected to outperform continuous cotton for lint yields with double skip rows at Emerald, Moree and Narrabri.
Recommendation The authors recommend combining better crop sequences with other adaptation options to maintain production.

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

The Isareg model estimated average maize grain yield decrease of 25.1%.

Taxon: MAIZEZea mayst0
Outcome: grain yielde0
Direction: decreasee0
Value: 25.1%e0

Verbatim

e0
“The model estimated an average grain yield decrease of 25.1%.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 694–755

t0
“WATER DEFICIENCY ON THE MAIZE GRAIN YIELD DECREASE IN THE CATARINENSE FAR WEST”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–78

Title

WATER DEFICIENCY ON THE MAIZE GRAIN YIELD DECREASE IN THE CATARINENSE FAR WEST

CLÍSTENES ANTÔNIO GUADAGNIN; EDGAR RICARDO SCHOFFEL; HELVIO DEBLI CASALINHO; et al. Revista Brasileira de Milho e Sorgo 2017. doi:10.18512/1980-6477/rbms.v16n1p61-71

Other claims from this paper (6)

Observation The largest maize yield decrease occurred with early August sowing.
Observation The smallest maize yield decrease occurred with late January to February sowings.
Observation Yield decrease varied by up to 3.9% among maturation cycles.
Method / resource Isareg was judged appropriate for estimating grain yield decrease.
Method / resource Isareg overestimated yield decrease when relative evapotranspiration exceeded 0.8.
Observation A 40% grain yield decrease had a 10.5% occurrence probability.

Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The decrease in kernels per ear was associated with the decrease in grain yield (r2 = 0.88, P < 0.001).

Taxon: maizeZea mayst0
Organ / stage: eare4
Outcome: kernels per eare4
Direction: decreasee4
Value: r2 = 0.88e4

Verbatim

t0
“Differential responses of maize yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–37

e4
“The decrease in grain yield was largely caused by the decrease in kernels per ear (r2 = 0.88, P < 0.001)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 909–1013

Title

Differential responses of maize yield to drought at vegetative and reproductive stages

MI Na; Fu CAI; Yushu ZHANG; et al. Plant Soil and Environment 2018. doi:10.17221/141/2018-pse

Other claims from this paper (6)

Intervention effect Progressive drought significantly reduced maize grain yield during either the vegetative or the reproductive stage.
Intervention effect Reproductive-stage progressive drought reduced grain yield by 41.6-46.6%.
Intervention effect Vegetative-stage progressive drought reduced grain yield by 18.6-26.2%.
Intervention effect The grain yield reduction from reproductive-stage drought was greater than that from vegetative-stage drought.
Mechanism The decrease in kernels per ear largely caused the decrease in maize grain yield.
Recommendation Guaranteeing water supply for maize during the reproductive stage is crucially important to avoid yield loss.

Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The additive dry matter gain from setaria could compensate for the yield decrease in napiergrass.

Taxon: napiergrassCenchrus purpureuse3
Treatment: setariae3
Outcome: yield decreasee3
Direction: compensatee3

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e3
“additive DM gain from setaria could compensate the yield decrease in DL napiergrass”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1252–1335

Title

雑草防除管理が造成した矮性ネピアグラスの粗飼料の収量,品質および越冬性に及ぼす影響

Ishii, Yasuyuki; Idota, Sachiko; Utamy, Renny Fatmyah; et al. Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) 2012

Other claims from this paper (7)

Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Glyphosate formulation did not interact with yield decrease.

Taxon: soybeanGlycine maxe1
Treatment: formulatione0
Outcome: formulation interaction with yield decreasee0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0
“There was not found any formulation interaction with yield decrease.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1245–1313

e1
“glyphosate-tolerant soybean”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 632–659

Title

Glyphosate Tolerant Soybean Response to Different Management Systems

Alfredo J. P. Albrecht; Leandro P. Albrecht; Arthur A. M. Barroso; et al. Journal of Agricultural Science 2017. doi:10.5539/jas.v10n1p204

Other claims from this paper (1)

Intervention effect Post-emergent glyphosate was associated with a season-dependent 5% soybean yield reduction without visible symptoms.

Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fomesafen did not injure strawberry or decrease yield.

Taxon: strawberryFragaria ×ananassae0
Outcome: injure strawberry or decrease yielde2

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0
“provides PRE weed control in strawberry”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 111–150

e2
“Fomesafen did not injure strawberry or decrease yield.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 776–830

Title

Persistence and Movement of Fomesafen in Florida Strawberry Production

Thomas V. Reed; Nathan S. Boyd; P. Christopher Wilson; et al. Weed Science 2018. doi:10.1017/wsc.2018.48

Other claims from this paper (4)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Thiourea tended to decrease straw yield nonsignificantly.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment: application of TUe0
Outcome: straw yielde0
Direction: decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“While the straw yield showed a decrease trend with the application of TU. Decrease in straw yield, although marginal was statistically insignificant.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1068–1217

t0
“Wheat”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–44

Title

Genetic Expression of Yield Ability in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under Sulphydryl Enriched Biophysio-Environment

PC Gupta; Shiv Narayan; PS Shekhawat; et al. INROADS- An International Journal of Jaipur National University 2013. doi:10.5958/j.2277-4912.2.1.004

Other claims from this paper (8)

Observation The four wheat varieties differed significantly in yield and yield attributes.
Association Variety by thiourea dose interaction was nonsignificant.
Observation Thiourea at 5 and 10 kg/ha tended to increase wheat yield components.
Intervention effect Thiourea at 10 kg/ha increased harvest index by 10.11%.
Observation Thiourea at 20 kg/ha raised harvest index only marginally by 4.75.
Intervention effect Thiourea at 10 kg/ha significantly increased grain yield by 8.0%.
Intervention effect Thiourea at 5 kg/ha slightly increased grain yield over control.
Intervention effect Thiourea at 20 kg/ha slightly increased grain yield over control but reduced it versus 10 kg/ha.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The evaluated herbicides did not decrease durum wheat yield.

Taxon: durum wheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durume0
Treatment: herbicides evaluatede0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: no decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“There was no decrease in durum wheat yield with the herbicides evaluated.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1221–1294

Title

Sensitivity of durum wheat (Triticum turgidum) to various postemergence herbicides

Nader Soltani; Christy Shropshire; Peter H. Sikkema Agricultural Sciences 2011. doi:10.4236/as.2011.24058

Other claims from this paper (13)

Intervention effect dichlorprop/2,4-D produced 0 to 2.4% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect dicamba/MCPA/mecoprop produced 0 to 6% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect clopyralid produced 0 to 0.4% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect bromoxynil/MCPA produced 0 to 1.4% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect pyrasulfotole/bromoxynil produced 0 to 3.5% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect thifensulfuron/tribenuron + MCPA amine produced 0 to 5% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect fluroxypyr + MCPA ester produced 0 to 2.6% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect tralkoxydim produced 0 to 5% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect fenoxaprop-pethyl/safener produced 0.4% to 8% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect dicamba/ MCPA/mecoprop decreased durum wheat height by as much as 5%.
Intervention effect pyrasulfotole/bromoxynil decreased durum wheat height by as much as 4%.
Intervention effect fenoxaprop-pethyl/safener decreased durum wheat height by as much as 6%.
Intervention effect Other evaluated herbicides did not affect durum wheat height.

“yield decrease”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics