View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper A claim can belong to several research areas, so group counts add up to more than the total.
Intervention effect observed original result negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Lara yield decrease on optimal sowing dates was not significant.
Not reported Treatment Comparator
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 Other claims from this paper (6) Intervention effect observed original result negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
One cluster had a nonsignificant yield decrease with narrower rows.
Not reported Comparator
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 Other claims from this paper (5) Observation observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
These combinations did not significantly decrease yield .
Verbatim
e0 “without a significant decrease in yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 986–1025 t0 “Isabella grape variety ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 488–510 Other claims from this paper (10) 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.
O 3 exposure at the vegetative stage e0 no 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) Intervention effect observed original result negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Ear shading caused a slightly greater yield decrease for Proctor and Herta, without significant varietal differences.
shading the ears e0 Not reported Taxon Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “the decrease in grain yield by shading the ears was slightly greater for Proctor and Herta, the differences were not significant. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1652–1781 Other claims from this paper (19) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Basal 25% defoliation did not significantly decrease dry matter or seed yield per plant.
basal 25% defoliation e0 TDM and seed yield plant-1 e0 did not significantly decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “basal 25% defoliation did not significantly decrease TDM and seed yield plant-1 ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 761–840 t0 “mungbean ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–78 Other claims from this paper (6) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
The liquid spray did not significantly decrease potato yield .
Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
t0 “Alternative protection of potatoes ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–34 e3 “The liquid spray against the late blight (Phytophthora infestans ) did not signincantly decrease neither occurrence oflate blight or the yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 377–518 Other claims from this paper (4) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Spraying against late blight did not significantly decrease yield .
Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “The liquid spray against the late blight (Phytophthora infestans ) did not significantly decrease neither occurrence of late blight or the yield . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 384–528 t0 “BIOPOTATOES ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–36 Other claims from this paper (6) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Rizoplan can be used without a significant decrease in biological efficiency and yield indicators.
biological efficiency and yield indicators e3 without a significant e3 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
t0 “GRAPEVINE RESISTANCE ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–78 e3 “The possibility of using Rizoplan without a significant decrease in biological efficiency and yield indicators was established ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 535–661 Other claims from this paper (5) Observation observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
These combinations did not significantly decrease yield .
Verbatim
e0 “without a significant decrease in yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 986–1025 t0 “Isabella grape variety ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 488–510 Other claims from this paper (10) Observation observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Thinning treatments did not significantly decrease yield per tree.
‘Wilking’ mandarins t0 yield in kg per tree e0 without significant decrease e0 Verbatim
e0 “without significant decrease of yield in kg per tree. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 243–296 t0 “‘Wilking’ Mandarins ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–74 Other claims from this paper (9) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Increasing orchard density did not significantly decrease yield .
increasing the density e0 does not decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
t0 “SOUR CHERRY ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–91 e0 “increasing the density in the orchard, the yield does not decrease significantly ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1858–1938 Other claims from this paper (13) Observation observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
In the no-reduction yield type after nitrogen decrease , the number of big and small vascular bundles of panicle necks and penultimate internodes in a stem did not differ significantly.
nitrogen decrease treatment e2 number of big and small vascular bundles of panicle necks and penultimate internodes in a stem e1 Verbatim
e1 “there was not significant differences in the number of big and small vascular bundles of panicle necks and penultimate internodes in a stem ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2073–2212 e2 “After nitrogen decrease treatment ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1784–1817 e0 “erect panicle type rice variety ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 101–132 Other claims from this paper (14) Observation observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
In the no-reduction yield type after nitrogen decrease , the area of big vascular bundles of penultimate internodes (per stem and per plant) and the number of stems and branches did not differ significantly.
nitrogen decrease treatment e2 area of big vascular bundles of penultimate internodes in a stem and in a plant, and number of stems and branches e1 Verbatim
e1 “the area of big vascular bundles of penultimate internodes in a stem and in a plant, and number of stems and branches ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2214–2331 e2 “After nitrogen decrease treatment ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1784–1817 e0 “erect panicle type rice variety ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 101–132 Other claims from this paper (14) Association observed original result not significant (as stated) projected Claim · model-written summary
Days to flowering and days to maturity may decrease in the 2030s and 2050s under both RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, relative to the simulated baseline period 1981-2010, but the decrease is not statistically significant.
RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios e4 days to flowering and days to maturity e4 simulated values for the baseline period (1981–2010) e4 Amhara Region, Ethiopia t0 Verbatim
t0 “Future climate change impacts on common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) phenology and yield with crop management options in Amhara Region, Ethiopia ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–144 e4 “The impact analysis showed that both days to flowering and days to maturity may decrease in 2030s and 2050s at both sites and under both RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios as compared to the simulated values for the baseline period (1981–2010) but the decrease is not statistically significant ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1406–1692 Other claims from this paper (15) Method / resource observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) simulated Claim · model-written summary
The controller caused no significant decrease in simulated maize yield relative to constant irrigation.
without any significant decrease e0 constant irrigation method of the DSSAT model e0 Verbatim
t0 “Precision Irrigation ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–64 e0 “almost 40% decrease in water consumption is achieved in comparison to constant irrigation method of the DSSAT model without any significant decrease in yield and leaf area index. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2249–2427 e1 “DSSAT (Decision Support System for Agro-technology Transfer) maize crop simulation model ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1911–1999 Other claims from this paper (2) Method / resource observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Using SNP subsets based on functional annotation did not significantly decrease chickpea grain- yield prediction accuracy.
prediction accuracy for grain yield e0 did not significantly decrease e0 whole SNP dataset e0 Not reported Value
Verbatim
e0 “Compared with the whole SNP dataset, a subset of SNPs did not significantly decrease prediction accuracy for grain yield despite consisting of a smaller number of SNPs. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1672–1840 e1 “chickpea breeding lines ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 333–356 Other claims from this paper (7) Method / resource observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) simulated Claim · model-written summary
The controller caused no significant decrease in simulated maize leaf area index relative to constant irrigation.
without any significant decrease e0 constant irrigation method of the DSSAT model e0 Verbatim
e0 “almost 40% decrease in water consumption is achieved in comparison to constant irrigation method of the DSSAT model without any significant decrease in yield and leaf area index. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2249–2427 e1 “DSSAT (Decision Support System for Agro-technology Transfer) maize crop simulation model ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1911–1999 Other claims from this paper (2) Method / resource observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Using SNP subsets based on functional annotation did not significantly decrease chickpea grain- yield prediction accuracy.
prediction accuracy for grain yield e0 did not significantly decrease e0 whole SNP dataset e0 Not reported Value
Verbatim
e0 “Compared with the whole SNP dataset, a subset of SNPs did not significantly decrease prediction accuracy for grain yield despite consisting of a smaller number of SNPs. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1672–1840 e1 “chickpea breeding lines ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 333–356 Other claims from this paper (7) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Applying one, two or three kinds of nucleosides did not significantly decrease aberration frequency.
one, two or three kinds of nucleosides e0 aberration frequency e0 did not bring about any significant decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Simultaneous application of one, two or three kinds of nucleosides did not bring about any significant decrease in aberration frequency ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 454–589 e1 “The influence of mitomycin C, chloramphenicol, ATP and various nucleosides on the yield of X-ray-induced chromosome aberrations was examined with the ovular tissue cells of Trillium kamtschaticum . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–196 Other claims from this paper (8) 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.
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
Glycine max
Solanum lycopersicum.jpg?width=60){kind=small}
Vigna radiata
Solanum tuberosum
Phytophthora infestans
Vitis
Prunus cerasus
Oryza sativa
Phaseolus vulgaris
Zea mays
Cicer arietinum
Trillium camschatcense