View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Association observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Glyphosate formulation did not interact with yield decrease .
formulation interaction with yield decrease e0 Not reported Direction
Verbatim
e0 “There was not found any formulation interaction with yield decrease . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1245–1313 e1 “glyphosate-tolerant soybean ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 632–659 Other claims from this paper (1) Observation observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Fomesafen did not injure strawberry or decrease yield .
injure strawberry or decrease yield e2 Not reported Direction
Verbatim
e0 “provides PRE weed control in strawberry ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 111–150 e2 “Fomesafen did not injure strawberry or decrease yield . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 776–830 Other claims from this paper (4) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
The evaluated herbicides did not decrease durum wheat yield .
herbicides evaluated e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “There was no decrease in durum wheat yield with the herbicides evaluated. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1221–1294 Other claims from this paper (13) 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 measured Claim · model-written summary
Relay cropping chili and watermelon showed no decrease in yield .
Verbatim
e0 “The relay cropping of chili and watermelon plants was effective simultaneously, and there was no decrease in yield . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1475–1590 Other claims from this paper (5) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Soybean yield did not decrease with cover crops.
did not decrease e5 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e5 “Cover crops significantly increased vegetable crop yield s and decrease d the silage corn yield ; however, grain corn, soybean, and winter wheat yield did not decrease with CC ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1013–1185 Other claims from this paper (15) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
When soil water potential continued to decrease , no longer obvious decrease in yield was observed.
SWP continued to be decreased e6 no longer obvious decrease e6 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
t0 “Yield and Quality of Rice ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 27–52 e2 “the yield of two cultivars was decrease d 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 decrease d ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 559–637 Other claims from this paper (7) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Nei2you 6 yield did not decrease significantly under light water stress.
light water stress e0 did not decrease e0 Not reported Taxon Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “yield of Nei2you 6 did not decrease significantly under light water stress ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 170–244 Other claims from this paper (8) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Light water stress did not significantly decrease Nei2you6 yield .
light water stress e0 didn't decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
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 Other claims from this paper (10) Observation observed original result no effect simulated Claim · model-written summary
Simulated foliar damage alone did not decrease grain yield .
did not decrease e0 foliar damage alone e0 Not reported Taxon
Verbatim
e0 “foliar damage alone did not decrease grain yield but decrease d straw yield . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 679–754 Other claims from this paper (8) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Delayed autumn ploughing did not decrease grain yield .
delayed autumn ploughing e0 did not decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Because delayed autumn ploughing did not decrease the grain yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 902–967 e1 “grain yield of spring barley ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 628–656 Other claims from this paper (7) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
POST treatments did not decrease leafy crop yield versus a hand-weeded check.
POST treatments e0 did not decrease e0 hand-weeded check e0 Verbatim
e0 “POST treatments did not decrease leafy crop yield compared with the hand-weeded check ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 991–1076 Other claims from this paper (11) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Paclobutrazol caused no apparent decrease in fruit yield .
no apparent decrease e0 Verbatim
e0 “The paclobutrazol treatment resulted in a 67.9% decrease in annual extension shoot growth compared to controls and no apparent decrease in fruit yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 395–545 t0 “Nectarine Trees ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 60–75 Other claims from this paper (10) Association observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
There was no evidence for a decrease in yield caused by root-zone warming.
Verbatim
e0 “Rose cvs Ilona, Mercedes and Sonia ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 7–41 e1 “There was no evidence for a decrease in yield caused by RZW ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1540–1599 Other claims from this paper (19) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Paclobutrazol did not decrease tart cherry yield in any season.
no_change inferred e5 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
t0 “paclobutrazol-treated tart cherry trees ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–104 e5 “In no season did paclobutrazol decrease yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1607–1652 Other claims from this paper (12) 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 measured Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen did not decrease legume yield .
tropical grass-legume t0 Nitrogen fertilizer e0 did not decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Nitrogen fertilizer did not decrease the yield of legume ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 613–669 t0 “tropical grass-legume ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 86–107 Other claims from this paper (7) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Zinc sulphate and zinc oxide caused little or no decrease in tuber yield .
zinc sulphate and zinc oxide e0 little or no decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “zinc sulphate and zinc oxide caused little or no decrease in tuber yield . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1880–1953 t0 “potato mop‐top virus ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–71 Other claims from this paper (19) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Selection for nematode resistance did not decrease sugar beet root yield .
Selection for resistance to nematode e0 did 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 .
slightly 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.
flower organ e1 hardly 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
Withholding nitrogen after flowering did not decrease green soybean yield .
withholding nitrogen after flowering e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “there was no decrease in yield in treatments withholding nitrogen after flowering ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 471–552 e1 “In green soybean ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 201–217 Other claims from this paper (10) Association observed original result no effect simulated Claim · model-written summary
With overdominance, using the parental variety as tester will at least not decrease maize yield .
parental variety e5 Verbatim
t0 “Synthetic Varieties of Maize ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–79 e5 “if the parental variety is used as tester the yield will at least not decline ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 709–786 Other claims from this paper (8) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Those insecticide treatments did not alter seed set or yield .
These treatments e0 seed set or yield e0 did not increase or decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “These treatments did not increase or decrease seed set or yield but the use of parathion indicated some increase in seed viability. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1375–1506 t0 “Flower Thrips on Onion ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 10–32 Other claims from this paper (17) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Sulphur dioxide did not decrease alfalfa yield under any of the conditions studied.
sulphur dioxide treatment e0 yield of alfalfa e0 no_change inferred e0 under none of the conditions studied e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Under none of the conditions studied did sulphur dioxide treatment decrease the yield of alfalfa ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 419–515 Other claims from this paper (9) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Minor leaf injuries did not significantly decrease yield .
Minor leaf injuries e0 did not result in significant decreases e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Minor leaf injuries which were designed to upset the elaboration and translocation of synthesized plant food did not result in significant decrease s in yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1392–1549 t0 “corn plant ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–85 Other claims from this paper (19) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Under most conditions sulphur dioxide had no significant effect on alfalfa yield .
sulphur dioxide e0 no significant effect e1 under most of the conditions e1 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Under none of the conditions studied did sulphur dioxide treatment decrease the yield of alfalfa ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 419–515 e1 “under most of the conditions it had no significant effect on yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 517–583 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.
Glycine maxe1_single2.jpg?width=60){kind=small}
Fragaria
Triticum turgidum subsp. durum
Citrullus lanatus
Oryza sativa.jpg?width=60){kind=small}
Hordeum vulgare
Prunus persica var. nucipersica
Solanum tuberosum
Triticum aestivum
Zea mays
Allium cepa
Medicago sativa
Zea mays subsp. mays