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 .
TreatmentSelection for resistance to nematode e0 Directiondid 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) Observation observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Slightly damaged wheat fields had no actual yield decrease .
Settingslightly 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.
Organ / stageflower organ e1 Directionhardly 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) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Night temperature 2°C below natural from the maximum stage did not promote Akiochi or decrease grain yield .
Not reported Comparator Direction
Verbatim
t0 “Rice Plant ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–65 e0 “but 2°C 1ower plots did not ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 323–350 Other claims from this paper (5) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
With 10 or 15 cm deep water, rice yield showed no decrease compared with 3 cm submergence.
Treatment10 or 15 cm. deep water e0 Comparator3 cm. submergence e0 Verbatim
e0 “With 10 or 15 cm. deep water, growth of rice plant was suppressed at the early stage of tillering period, but afterwards it was recovered and became better than that under 3 cm. submergence, showing no decrease in yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 580–799 Other claims from this paper (5) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
May fertilizer failed to decrease take-all.
TreatmentFertilizer applied in May e0 Directionfailed 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 .
Treatmentpre-emergence spray of 150 grams of 2, 4-D per 10 ares e0 Outcomethe yield of soybean e0 Directionwithout 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 author interpretation original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Sulphate of ammonia dressings did not decrease the yield of lucerne.
Treatmentsulphate of ammonia e0 Outcomethe yield of lucerne e1 Directionwithout decreasing e1 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “An experiment, carried out to determine the effect of dressings of sulphate of ammonia on an established lucerne-cocksfoot ley grown in narrow rows on heavy gault clay soil, is described and the results discussed ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–212 e1 “The results suggest that it is possible to increase the yield s of grass and total produce without decreasing the yield of lucerne but that no marked increase in the yield of nitrogen per acre is to be expected ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 315–524 Other claims from this paper (3) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Neither insecticide changed end-of-season cotton yield for Acala 1517C.
Directionneither variety showed a decrease nor increase e0 Qualifierat the end of the season e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “The Acala 1517C reacted in a somewhat different manner to the treatments but neither variety showed a decrease nor increase in yield of cotton at the end of the season. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 242–410 t0 “Effects of Systemic Insecticide Seed Treatments on Two Varieties of Cotton1 ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–75 Other claims from this paper (5) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Neither insecticide changed end-of-season cotton yield for Pima S-1.
Directionneither variety showed a decrease nor increase e0 Qualifierat the end of the season e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “The Acala 1517C reacted in a somewhat different manner to the treatments but neither variety showed a decrease nor increase in yield of cotton at the end of the season. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 242–410 t0 “Effects of Systemic Insecticide Seed Treatments on Two Varieties of Cotton1 ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–75 e1 “Pima S-1 and Acala 1517C cotton ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 65–96 Other claims from this paper (5) 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.