View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Observation observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Slightly damaged wheat fields had no actual yield decrease .
slightly damaged field e0 Verbatim
e0 “Actual decrease in yield was not found in the slightly damaged field ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1794–1862 t0 “wheat plants ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 23–35 Other claims from this paper (16) Observation observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Yield decrease at flower organ differentiation was hardly recognized.
flower organ e1 hardly recognized e0 Verbatim
e0 “But the yield decrease was hardly recognized, because of the few abnormality in ears and the good fertility in seeds. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 452–569 t0 “naked barley "Hashirihadaka" caused by the unusual low temperature ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 39–105 e1 “Damages of plants at the differentiation stage of flower organ. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 295–358 Other claims from this paper (9) 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) Observation observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Cypsela yield fell 10% in the 64-stool plot.
Lactuca dracoglossa t0 Verbatim
e0 “The percentage of decrease of cypsela yield was 10% in the plot which consisted of 64 stools ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1423–1515 t0 “Lactuca dracoglossa ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–30 Other claims from this paper (13) Observation observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Intermediate damage reduced wheat yield by about 30%.
intermediately suffered e0 Verbatim
e0 “decrease of about 30% and 70% in yield was found in the intermediately suffered and severely suffered field respectively. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1868–1989 t0 “wheat plants ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 23–35 Other claims from this paper (16) Observation observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Severe damage reduced wheat yield by about 70%.
severely suffered field e0 Verbatim
e0 “decrease of about 30% and 70% in yield was found in the intermediately suffered and severely suffered field respectively. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1868–1989 t0 “wheat plants ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 23–35 Other claims from this paper (16) Observation observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Repeated cropping reduced mean yield from 27 to 15 and 10 cwt per acre.
15 and 10 cwt./acre e0 Verbatim
e0 “decrease in mean yield from 27 cwt. in the first, to 15 and 10 cwt./acre in the second and third crops ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 552–654 t0 “WINTER WHEAT ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–106 Other claims from this paper (16) 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%. Observation observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Weight of grain per ear decrease d strikingly.
weight of grain per ear e0 Verbatim
e0 “striking decrease in weight of grain per ear ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 753–797 t0 “WINTER WHEAT ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–106 Other claims from this paper (16) 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.
Triticum aestivumt0
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris