Search claims · PlantClaims

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Lara yield decrease on optimal sowing dates was not significant.

Taxon: Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
Material: Larae0
Outcome: decreasee0
Direction: decreasee0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

Verbatim

e0
“while with the other two cultivars (Lara and Sara), the decrease was not significant.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 961–1046

t0
“Sugar beet”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–10

t1
“decrease of yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 881–898

Title

Sugar beet root yield and quality as affected by sowing date

Branko Marinković; Jovan Crnobarać; Goran Jačimović; et al. Zbornik radova Instituta za ratarstvo i povrtarstvo 2005

Other claims from this paper (6)

Intervention effect The first sowing date gave the highest root yield across cultivars and years.
Intervention effect First-date yield exceeded other sowing dates by 8.11 tha'1 (12.2%).
Intervention effect Mara yield decreased significantly on optimal sowing dates.
Intervention effect Sara yield decrease on optimal sowing dates was not significant.
Association Sugar content variation was uncorrelated with sowing dates.
Association Root yield was the dominant contributor to sugar yield.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

One cluster had a nonsignificant yield decrease with narrower rows.

Taxon: SoybeanGlycine maxt0
Treatment: RS narrowede0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“one had a nonsignificant yield decrease as RS narrowed.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1128–1183

t0
“Soybean”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–32

Title

Row Spacing in the Early Soybean Production System

Glenn R. Bowers; James L. Rabb; Lanny O. Ashlock; et al. Agronomy Journal 2000. doi:10.2134/agronj2000.923524x

Other claims from this paper (5)

Intervention effect Five environmental clusters had significant yield gains of 17–36% as rows narrowed.
Intervention effect Three other clusters had nonsignificant yield increases with narrower rows.
Intervention effect One cluster had virtually no yield change with narrower rows.
Association Yield responded most to row spacing at 100 to 270 mm July and August rainfall.
Recommendation The authors recommend rows at most 40 cm to optimize ESPS yields in the midsouthern USA.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

cotton yield decrease decrease.

Taxon: cottonGossypium hirsutume0
Treatment: 1–2 me0
Outcome: yield decreasee0
Direction: decreasee0
Value: 11e0
Comparator: 2–3 me0
Setting: FESSe1

Verbatim

e0
“For cotton, a rising water table from 2–3 m to 1–2 m and less than 1 m gave a yield decrease of about 11 and 60% respectively”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 818–943

e1
“Fordwah Eastern Sadiqia South (FESS)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 171–207

Title

Individual and combined effect of waterlogging and salinity on crop yields in the Indus basin

Muhammad Akram Kahlown; Muhammad Azam Irrigation and Drainage 2002. doi:10.1002/ird.62

Other claims from this paper (14)

Intervention effect wheat yield loss loss.
Intervention effect sugarcane yield loss loss.
Intervention effect wheat yield loss loss.
Intervention effect sugarcane yield loss loss.
Intervention effect cotton yield decrease decrease.
Intervention effect rice yield less.
Intervention effect wheat yields decreasing.
Intervention effect sugarcane yields decreasing.
Intervention effect wheat yields complete failures.
Intervention effect sugarcane yields complete failures.
Intervention effect cotton salinity tolerance higher.
Observation Cotton failed to survive high salinity with water table below 1 m.
Intervention effect rice rice crop complete failure.
Intervention effect Combined waterlogging and salinity harmed crop yields more than waterlogging alone.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

cotton yield decrease decrease.

Taxon: cottonGossypium hirsutume0
Treatment: less than 1 me0
Outcome: yield decreasee0
Direction: decreasee0
Value: 60%e0
Comparator: 2–3 me0
Setting: FESSe1

Verbatim

e0
“For cotton, a rising water table from 2–3 m to 1–2 m and less than 1 m gave a yield decrease of about 11 and 60% respectively”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 818–943

e1
“Fordwah Eastern Sadiqia South (FESS)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 171–207

Title

Individual and combined effect of waterlogging and salinity on crop yields in the Indus basin

Muhammad Akram Kahlown; Muhammad Azam Irrigation and Drainage 2002. doi:10.1002/ird.62

Other claims from this paper (14)

Intervention effect wheat yield loss loss.
Intervention effect sugarcane yield loss loss.
Intervention effect wheat yield loss loss.
Intervention effect sugarcane yield loss loss.
Intervention effect cotton yield decrease decrease.
Intervention effect rice yield less.
Intervention effect wheat yields decreasing.
Intervention effect sugarcane yields decreasing.
Intervention effect wheat yields complete failures.
Intervention effect sugarcane yields complete failures.
Intervention effect cotton salinity tolerance higher.
Observation Cotton failed to survive high salinity with water table below 1 m.
Intervention effect rice rice crop complete failure.
Intervention effect Combined waterlogging and salinity harmed crop yields more than waterlogging alone.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Sara yield decrease on optimal sowing dates was not significant.

Taxon: Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
Material: Sarae0
Outcome: decreasee0
Direction: decreasee0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

Verbatim

e0
“while with the other two cultivars (Lara and Sara), the decrease was not significant.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 961–1046

t0
“Sugar beet”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–10

Title

Sugar beet root yield and quality as affected by sowing date

Branko Marinković; Jovan Crnobarać; Goran Jačimović; et al. Zbornik radova Instituta za ratarstvo i povrtarstvo 2005

Other claims from this paper (6)

Intervention effect The first sowing date gave the highest root yield across cultivars and years.
Intervention effect First-date yield exceeded other sowing dates by 8.11 tha'1 (12.2%).
Intervention effect Mara yield decreased significantly on optimal sowing dates.
Intervention effect Lara yield decrease on optimal sowing dates was not significant.
Association Sugar content variation was uncorrelated with sowing dates.
Association Root yield was the dominant contributor to sugar yield.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

When soil water potential continued to decrease, no longer obvious decrease in yield was observed.

Taxon: RiceOryza sativat0
Treatment: SWP continued to be decreasede6
Outcome: yielde2
Direction: no longer obvious decreasee6

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0
“Yield and Quality of Rice”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 27–52

e2
“the yield of two cultivars was decreased significantly before heading stages,especially at panicle formation stage by lower SWP”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 431–558

e6
“but no longer obvious decrease was observed when SWP continued to be decreased”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 559–637

Title

Effect of Soil Moisture on Yield and Quality of Rice

Zheng Gui 2006

Other claims from this paper (7)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maize yield did not decrease with increasing plant diversity.

Taxon: MaizeZea mayse0
Treatment: increasing plant diversitye0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“Maize yield did not decrease with increasing plant diversity.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 860–921

Title

Benefits of a maize–bean–weeds mixed cropping system in Urubamba Valley, Peruvian Andes

Ernesto Gianoli; Isaías Ramos; Armando Alfaro-Tapia; et al. International Journal of Pest Management 2006. doi:10.1080/09670870600796722

Other claims from this paper (7)

Observation The main recorded maize pests were Diabrotica spp., Carpophilus sp. and Pagiocerus frontalis.
Intervention effect Overall pest abundance did not differ among crop diversity treatments.
Intervention effect Crop diversity significantly reduced maximum Carpophilus abundance.
Intervention effect Crop diversity significantly reduced maximum Pagiocerus abundance.
Observation The main beneficial arthropods were Paratriphleps sp., ladybirds and spiders.
Intervention effect Beneficial arthropod density did not differ among treatments.
Recommendation The authors recommend traditional intercropping as a valuable alternative to pesticides for resource-poor Andean farmers.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nei2you 6 yield did not decrease significantly under light water stress.

Material: Nei2you 6e0
Treatment: light water stresse0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0
“yield of Nei2you 6 did not decrease significantly under light water stress”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 170–244

Title

Effects of soil moisture on the accumulation of rice dry matter and yield

Li Hua; Wang DongYin; Defeng Zhu Xi'nan nongye xuebao 2008

Other claims from this paper (8)

Intervention effect Severe water stress reduced Nei2you 6 yield by 15.2%.
Intervention effect Yield of Ⅱyou 7954 increased under soil water stress.
Observation Nei2you 6 was more sensitive to soil water stress than Ⅱyou 7954.
Intervention effect Moderate water stress decreased Nei2you 6 dry matter accumulation by 22.0%.
Intervention effect Light water stress increased Ⅱyou 7954 dry matter accumulation by 8.4%.
Intervention effect Moderate water stress increased Ⅱyou 7954 dry matter accumulation by 4.7%.
Intervention effect Soil water stress lowered dry matter transmission to the panicle in Nei2you 6 relative to the check.
Intervention effect Soil water stress raised dry matter transmission to the panicle in Ⅱyou 7954 relative to the check.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Light water stress did not significantly decrease Nei2you6 yield.

Taxon: riceOryza sativat0
Material: Nei2you6e0
Treatment: light water stresse0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: didn't decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“The results indicated that the yield of Nei2you6 didn't decrease significantly under light water stress”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 201–304

t0
“rice”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–63

Title

Effects of soil moisture on superficial roots and yield of rice

Li Hua; Zhang Yu-ping Ganhan diqu nongye yanjiu 2006

Other claims from this paper (10)

Intervention effect Severe water stress reduced Nei2you6 yield by 15.2%.
Intervention effect Soil water stress increased yield of Ⅱyou7954.
Observation Nei2you6 was more sensitive to soil water stress than Ⅱyou7954.
Intervention effect Light water stress slightly promoted superficial root growth.
Intervention effect Severe water stress reduced superficial root dry weight of Nei2you6 by 10.5%~31.6%.
Intervention effect Severe water stress reduced superficial root dry weight of Ⅱyou7954 by 13%.
Intervention effect Soil water stress enhanced superficial root activity.
Intervention effect Root cutting at panicle initiation caused more yield reduction than at flowering.
Intervention effect Cutting roots at panicle initiation decreased grain number per panicle.
Intervention effect Cutting roots at flowering decreased spikelet fertility rate.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PP333 could increase or decrease yield.

Taxon: soybeanGlycine maxt0
Treatment: PP333e0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: increase or decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“PP333 applied could lead to plant height reduction, leaf smaller, yield increase or decrease”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1073–1168

t0
“soybean”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–56

Title

Effect of culture factors on growth and yield of soybean II. Effect of fertilizer application, watering, growth regulate measures on yield

Wang Wen-xiu Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Scieves 2003

Other claims from this paper (11)

Intervention effect Seedling-stage fertilizer and watering promoted middle organ growth.
Intervention effect Flowering-stage fertilizer and watering increased upper organ growth.
Intervention effect Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers enhanced nutrient absorption in corresponding growth-centre organs.
Intervention effect Nitrogen fertilizer increased soybean nitrogen content.
Intervention effect Nitrogen fertilizer increased soybean phosphorus content.
Intervention effect Nitrogen fertilizer increased soybean potassium content.
Association Later fertilizer application tended to raise seed protein content.
Intervention effect Fertilization from initial flowering to 10 days later produced 15.6%～24.2% higher yield than the check.
Intervention effect PP333 reduced plant height.
Intervention effect PP333 made leaves smaller.
Intervention effect Huafu increased yield by 5.8%.

“yield decrease”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics