Search claims · PlantClaims

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

At low versus high sowing density, grain yield in modern wheat cultivars did not decrease significantly.

Taxon: common wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Material: modern cultivarse0
Treatment: low sowing densitye0
Outcome: grain yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0
Comparator: high sowing densitye0

Verbatim

e0
“Compared to high sowing density, in modern cultivars grain yield did not decrease significantly with low sowing density”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 905–1024

t0
“common wheat”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–85

Title

Grain yield and competitive ability against weeds in modern and heritage common wheat cultivars are differently influenced by sowing density

Mariateresa Lazzaro; Ambrogio Costanzo; Dalia Hosam Farag; et al. Italian Journal of Agronomy 2017. doi:10.4081/ija.2017.901

Other claims from this paper (8)

Intervention effect Single cultivars and mixtures did not differ significantly in grain yield and weed suppression.
Intervention effect At low versus high sowing density, grain yield increased 15.6% in heritage wheat cultivars.
Intervention effect Plant lodging in heritage wheat cultivars was 21.5% lower at low sowing density.
Intervention effect Weed biomass increased at low sowing density in heritage wheat crop stands.
Intervention effect Weed biomass increased at low sowing density in modern wheat crop stands.
Association Heritage wheat crop stands had 56% lower weed biomass on average than modern stands.
Association At low sowing density, heritage wheat stands had weed biomass of 6.82±1.50 g m–2, lower than modern stands.
Recommendation The authors advise lower sowing density for heritage wheat crop stands to retain productivity, reduce lodging and control weeds.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield began to decrease at sulfur 6.69 mmol/L.

Taxon: Chinese spring oniont0
Treatment: 6.69 mmol/L(S4)e0
Outcome: yieldse0
Direction: decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“the yields begin to decrease when the sulfur concentration reaches to 6.69 mmol/L(S4)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 782–867

t0
“Chinese spring onion”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–90

Title

Influence of nitrogen and sulfur interaction on growth and quality of Chinese spring onion

Kong Ling-ju Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer 2013

Other claims from this paper (11)

Intervention effect Increasing solution nitrogen significantly increased organ biomass.
Intervention effect Nitrogen at 16.00 mmol/L increased yield by 50.09% relative to 4.00 mmol/L.
Intervention effect Nitrogen at 16.00 mmol/L increased yield by 22.46% relative to 8.00 mmol/L.
Intervention effect Increasing sulfur increased organ biomass, with less sensitivity than nitrogen.
Intervention effect Yield was higher at sulfur 1.68 mmol/L.
Intervention effect Yield was higher at sulfur 3.35 mmol/L.
Intervention effect Increasing nitrogen significantly increased organic sulfur compounds.
Intervention effect Increasing sulfur significantly increased organic sulfur compounds.
Intervention effect Combined nitrogen and sulfur significantly improved overall quality.
Association Nitrogen and sulfur interacted significantly in growth, yield and quality.
Recommendation The analysis identified 16.00 mmol/L nitrogen plus 3.35 mmol/L sulfur as optimal for growth, yield and quality.

Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Factors raising Ca concentration while lowering Mg concentration were associated with reduced yield.

Taxon: winter oilseed rapeBrassica napust0
Compound: Ca but decrease in Mge0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: decreasee0

Verbatim

e0
“each factor leading to increase in Ca but decrease in Mg concentration resulted in yield decrease”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 948–1045

t0
“winter oilseed rape”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–41

Title

Nutritional status of winter oilseed rape in cardinal stages of growth as the yield indicator

W. Szczepaniak; W. Grzebisz; J. Potarzycki; et al. Plant Soil and Environment 2015. doi:10.17221/150/2015-pse

Other claims from this paper (3)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

More aggressive hoeing did not decrease field bean yield.

Taxon: field beant0
Treatment: increase of working speed and hoeing depth, as well as the number of treatmente0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0
“field bean crop”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 38–53

e0
“The increase of working speed and hoeing depth, as well as the number of treatment leads to proved decrease of crop density, but did not decrease the yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 647–802

Title

Optimizing rotary hoe weed control in field bean crop at transition to organic agriculture in Dobrudzha. I. Crop injuries.

И. Илиев; G. Milev Agricultural Science and Technology 2012

Other claims from this paper (3)

Intervention effect More aggressive hoeing reduced field bean crop density.
Intervention effect The most aggressive treatments lowered crop height and lowest pod height.
Intervention effect Rotary hoe working rate and treatment number had no significant influence on 1000 grain weight and harvest moisture.

Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

A cover crop may be used in high-vigour vines to decrease their vigour and yield.

Taxon: Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
Material: HV vinese5
Treatment: Cover crope5
Outcome: decrease their vigour and yielde5

Verbatim

t0
“cv. Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–99

e5
“Cover crop may be used in HV vines to decrease their vigour and yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1202–1271

Title

Influence of vigour on vine performance and berry composition of cv. Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)

Ilaria Filippetti; Gianluca Allegro; Gabriele Valentini; et al. OENO One 2013. doi:10.20870/oeno-one.2013.47.1.1534

Other claims from this paper (12)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A marginal increase in PPFD entailed a sharp decrease in the quantum yield of PS II (FPSII).

Taxon: Stellaria humifusaStellaria humifusae0
Treatment: a marginal increase in PPFDe7
Outcome: quantum yield of PS II (FPSII)e7
Direction: sharp decreasee7

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“functional peculiarities of photosynthetic apparatus of Stellaria humifusa”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 78–152

e7
“the sharp decrease in the quantum yield of PS II (FPSII) entailed by a marginal increase in PPFD”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 766–862

Title

Eco-physiological peculiarities of Stellaria humifusa in West Spitsbergen

Eugenia Fedorovna Markovskaya; Elena Valentinovna Novichonok; Natalya Yurievna Shmakova Czech Polar Reports 2019. doi:10.5817/cpr2019-2-13

Other claims from this paper (11)

Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Low water stress can be allowed in wheat because it gives higher NUE with a non-significant decrease in yield.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Outcome: low water stress can be allowede3
Qualifier: non-significant decrease in yielde3

Verbatim

e3
“low water stress can be allowed which can result in higher NUE and non-significant decrease in yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 729–829

t0
“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–53

Title

Resource conservation in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under different waterand nitrogen stress levels

Rajeev Ranjan; Usha Kiran Chopra; R. N. Sahoo; et al. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation 2015

Other claims from this paper (5)

Intervention effect Under low water level with no nitrogen stress, wheat yield decreased by only 5% compared with the highest yield.
Intervention effect Under low water level with no nitrogen stress, wheat NUE increased from 34 to 38%.
Association Lower water stress resulted in higher wheat NUE.
Association Higher water stress resulted in a decline in wheat NUE.
Association Yield and NUE of wheat were significantly affected by the different water and nitrogen levels.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativeprojected

Claim · model-written summary

A 10 percent reduction in rainfall gave a small decrease in soybean yield under the climatic grid.

Taxon: Glycine maxGlycine maxe0
Treatment: 10 percent reduction in rainfalle1
Outcome: yielde1
Direction: decreasee1
Qualifier: smalle1

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–32

e1
“The climatic grid of 10 percent reduction in rainfall from recent decade 1998-2008 showed small decrease in yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1774–1887

Title

Modeling impacts and adaptations of climate change on soybean (Glycine max) production in Himachal Pradesh, India

RANBIR SINGH RANA; NAVELL CHANDER; ROHIT SHARMA; et al. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 2014. doi:10.56093/ijas.v84i10.44115

Other claims from this paper (12)

Method / resource The validated InfoCrop model had an RMSE of 8.8 days for days to maturity of soybean.
Method / resource The validated InfoCrop model had an RMSE of 190.4 kg/ha for soybean crop yield.
Intervention effect Elevated carbon dioxide at 50 and 100 ppm increased simulated soybean yield by 5.0 to 10.2 percent.
Intervention effect Projected yield losses from a 1 degree C temperature rise alone were 1.3 to 3.5 percent for soybean.
Intervention effect Projected yield losses from a 2 degree C temperature rise alone were 4.5 to 6.0 percent for soybean.
Intervention effect A 1 degree C rise with 50 ppm elevated carbon dioxide increased soybean yield by up to 4.9 percent.
Intervention effect A 1 degree C rise with 50 ppm elevated carbon dioxide shortened the average growing period of soybean by up to 2 days.
Intervention effect A 2 degree C rise with 50 ppm elevated carbon dioxide increased simulated soybean yield by up to 2.3 percent compared with control conditions.
Intervention effect A 1 degree C rise with 100 ppm elevated carbon dioxide increased soybean yield by 8.8 to 10.2 percent in all planting windows.
Intervention effect A 2 degree C rise with 100 ppm elevated carbon dioxide gave a soybean yield gain 3.1 to 3.9 percent lower than a 1 degree C rise.
Intervention effect Soybean yield increased by 5.2 to 8.5 percent with 50 ppm elevated carbon dioxide and a 1 degree C rise, when coupled with the 10 percent rainfall reduction.
Association Rise of temperature with elevated carbon dioxide generally increases soybean yield in the region.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativeprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Short duration cultivar could decrease Chefa chickpea yield by 9% in baseline.

Taxon: chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Material: short duration cultivare0
Treatment: short duration cultivare0
Outcome: grain yielde0
Direction: decreasee0
Value: 9%e0
Setting: Chefae0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“On the other hand, the short duration cultivar at Chefa site could decrease grain yield by 9%, 3% and 3% for the respective time periods.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1285–1422

t0
“chickpea”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–42

Title

Modeling climate change impact on chickpea production and adaptation options in the semi-arid North-Eastern Ethiopia

Adem Mohammed Ahmed; Tamado Tana; Piara Singh; et al. DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) 2016. doi:10.12895/jaeid.2016110.510

Other claims from this paper (19)

Observation Projected chickpea grain yield at Sirinka increases 12% in the 2030s.
Observation Projected chickpea grain yield at Sirinka increases 13% in the 2050s.
Observation Projected chickpea grain yield at Chefa increases 5% in the 2030s.
Observation Projected chickpea grain yield at Chefa increases 7% in the 2050s.
Observation Projected chickpea grain yield at Sirinka increases 20% in the 2030s.
Observation Projected chickpea grain yield at Sirinka increases 34% in the 2050s.
Observation Projected chickpea grain yield at Chefa increases 12% in the 2030s.
Observation Projected chickpea grain yield at Chefa increases 22% in the 2050s.
Intervention effect short duration cultivar changes Sirinka chickpea yield by 11% in baseline versus the standard cultivar.
Intervention effect short duration cultivar changes Sirinka chickpea yield by 10% in 2030s versus the standard cultivar.
Intervention effect short duration cultivar changes Sirinka chickpea yield by 10% in 2050s versus the standard cultivar.
Intervention effect long duration cultivar changes Sirinka chickpea yield by 7% in baseline versus the standard cultivar.
Intervention effect long duration cultivar changes Sirinka chickpea yield by 9% in 2030s versus the standard cultivar.
Intervention effect long duration cultivar changes Sirinka chickpea yield by 10% in 2050s versus the standard cultivar.
Intervention effect Short duration cultivar could decrease Chefa chickpea yield by 3% in 2030s.
Intervention effect Short duration cultivar could decrease Chefa chickpea yield by 3% in 2050s.
Intervention effect Supplemental irrigation could increase chickpea yield at Sirinka by 47% in baseline.
Intervention effect Supplemental irrigation could increase chickpea yield at Sirinka by 47% in 2030s.
Intervention effect Supplemental irrigation could increase chickpea yield at Sirinka by 46% in 2050s.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativeprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Short duration cultivar could decrease Chefa chickpea yield by 3% in 2030s.

Taxon: chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Material: short duration cultivare0
Treatment: short duration cultivare0
Outcome: grain yielde0
Direction: decreasee0
Value: 3%e0
Setting: Chefae0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“On the other hand, the short duration cultivar at Chefa site could decrease grain yield by 9%, 3% and 3% for the respective time periods.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1285–1422

t0
“chickpea”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–42

Title

Modeling climate change impact on chickpea production and adaptation options in the semi-arid North-Eastern Ethiopia

Adem Mohammed Ahmed; Tamado Tana; Piara Singh; et al. DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) 2016. doi:10.12895/jaeid.2016110.510

Other claims from this paper (19)

Observation Projected chickpea grain yield at Sirinka increases 12% in the 2030s.
Observation Projected chickpea grain yield at Sirinka increases 13% in the 2050s.
Observation Projected chickpea grain yield at Chefa increases 5% in the 2030s.
Observation Projected chickpea grain yield at Chefa increases 7% in the 2050s.
Observation Projected chickpea grain yield at Sirinka increases 20% in the 2030s.
Observation Projected chickpea grain yield at Sirinka increases 34% in the 2050s.
Observation Projected chickpea grain yield at Chefa increases 12% in the 2030s.
Observation Projected chickpea grain yield at Chefa increases 22% in the 2050s.
Intervention effect short duration cultivar changes Sirinka chickpea yield by 11% in baseline versus the standard cultivar.
Intervention effect short duration cultivar changes Sirinka chickpea yield by 10% in 2030s versus the standard cultivar.
Intervention effect short duration cultivar changes Sirinka chickpea yield by 10% in 2050s versus the standard cultivar.
Intervention effect long duration cultivar changes Sirinka chickpea yield by 7% in baseline versus the standard cultivar.
Intervention effect long duration cultivar changes Sirinka chickpea yield by 9% in 2030s versus the standard cultivar.
Intervention effect long duration cultivar changes Sirinka chickpea yield by 10% in 2050s versus the standard cultivar.
Intervention effect Short duration cultivar could decrease Chefa chickpea yield by 9% in baseline.
Intervention effect Short duration cultivar could decrease Chefa chickpea yield by 3% in 2050s.
Intervention effect Supplemental irrigation could increase chickpea yield at Sirinka by 47% in baseline.
Intervention effect Supplemental irrigation could increase chickpea yield at Sirinka by 47% in 2030s.
Intervention effect Supplemental irrigation could increase chickpea yield at Sirinka by 46% in 2050s.

“yield decrease”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics