View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Observation observed original result negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
The grain yield decrease in Ant-Pop was insignificant.
Verbatim
e0 “The decrease in the grain yield of Ant-Pop cultivar was insignificiant ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 536–606 t0 “Maize ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–66 Other claims from this paper (9) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Vegetative-stage ozone exposure caused no significant fruit yield decrease at final harvest.
TreatmentO 3 exposure at the vegetative stage e0 Directionno significant decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “O 3 exposure at the vegetative stage, there was no significant decrease in fruit yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 733–819 t0 “Tomato ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 Other claims from this paper (5) Association observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Hercules close relatives had no significant decrease in oat grain yield .
Directionno significant decrease e0 Verbatim
e0 “The cultivar Hercules enhanced the test weight of its close relatives, with no significant decrease in grain yield . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1231–1346 e1 “oat ( Avena saliva L.) genotypes ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 230–262 Other claims from this paper (9) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Two cuts per year did not significantly decrease seed yield or quality.
Taxonpearl millet ✕ elephantgrass t0 TreatmentTwo cuts per year e0 Outcomeseed yield and seed quality e0 Directiondid not decrease e0 Qualifiermid‐June and early August e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Two cuts per year (mid‐June and early August) did not decrease seed yield and seed quality significantly ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1216–1320 t0 “pearl millet ✕ elephantgrass ”
✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 49–77 Other claims from this paper (12) Intervention effect observed original result negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Traffic on extremely compacted soil caused an additional yield decrease that was not significant in the first year.
Treatmentharvest traffic e0 Qualifierextremely compacted soil e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “When harvest traffic was applied to alfalfa grown in extremely compacted soil there was an additional decrease in yield . It was not statistically significant the 1st yr ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1290–1458 Other claims from this paper (13) Observation author interpretation original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield might not decrease significantly when Zaoxian A is used as a parent.
Taxonindica-japonica hybrid rice e1 Directionmight not decrease e0 Verbatim
e0 “Using male sterile line Zaoxian A with a dominant earnness gene as a parent could reduce growth period duration for about 17 days, while grain yield might not decrease significantly. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 167–349 e1 “indica-japonica hybrid rice ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 30–57 Other claims from this paper (1) Association observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
SS3 did not decrease significantly in protein or oil percentage as seed yield increased.
Outcomeprotein or oil percentage e7 Directiondid not decrease e7 Verbatim
e1 “In soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–36 e7 “The identification of a subpopulation (SS3), which did not decrease significantly in protein or oil percentage as seed yield increased ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1521–1655 Other claims from this paper (10) Association observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Total dry matter yield of forage, including weeds, did not decrease significantly with stand age.
Treatmentage of alfalfa stand e4 OutcomeTotal dry matter yield of forage e4 Directiondid not decrease e4 Verbatim
e0 “Iroquois alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) was seeded every spring from 1978 to 1988 ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–79 e4 “Total dry matter yield of forage, including weeds, did not decrease significantly with age of alfalfa stand ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 558–665 Other claims from this paper (16) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
For Seneca, removal of all primary, secondary or tertiary buds did not significantly decrease yield compared with control plots.
Treatmentremoval of all primary, secondary, or tertiary buds e5 Directiondid not significantly decrease e5 Comparatorcontrol plots e5 Verbatim
t0 “Compensatory Ability of Strawberries to Bud and Flower Removal ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–62 e5 “For ‘Seneca’ and ‘Kent’, removal of all primary, secondary, or tertiary buds did not significantly decrease yield compared with control plots ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–965 Other claims from this paper (9) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
For Kent, removal of all primary, secondary or tertiary buds did not significantly decrease yield compared with control plots.
Treatmentremoval of all primary, secondary, or tertiary buds e5 Directiondid not significantly decrease e5 Comparatorcontrol plots e5 Verbatim
t0 “Compensatory Ability of Strawberries to Bud and Flower Removal ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–62 e5 “For ‘Seneca’ and ‘Kent’, removal of all primary, secondary, or tertiary buds did not significantly decrease yield compared with control plots ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–965 Other claims from this paper (9) 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.