View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper 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) 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
Yield did not significantly decrease through the eight-day irrigation interval.
continuous flooding (W) e1 Verbatim
e0 “without any significant decrease in yield up to 8W ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 905–955 t0 “RICE ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 64–68 e1 “continuous flooding (W) without any significant decrease ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 881–937 Other claims from this paper (17) 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) 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 .
no 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) 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) 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
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) 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) 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) Mechanism author interpretation original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Greater accumulation of organic osmotica was probably not enough to decrease the osmotic potential of the tolerant accession.
organic osmotica e6 osmotic potential e6 probably not enough e6 Verbatim
t0 “pigeon pea ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 90–100 e6 “relatively greater accumulation of organic osmotica was probably not enough to decrease the osmotic potential of the tolerant accession ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1478–1613 Other claims from this paper (11) 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.
Triticum turgidum subsp. durume0
Oryza sativa
Glycine max
Avena sativa_single2.jpg?width=60){kind=small}
Fragaria
Zea mays
Cicer arietinum
Cajanus cajan