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.
Organism groups follow NCBI Taxonomy: the spellings of one organism are merged, a claim naming several organisms sits in each group, and claims whose value names no organism are under “not stated”.
not stated 2396 Intervention effect observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
KCl tended to decrease yield in all cultivars.
Not reported Taxon Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “In KCl treatment yield tended to decrease in all cultivars. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 971–1030 Other claims from this paper (12) Intervention effect observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Damage around tasseling-anthesis caused the greatest yield decrease in forage maize.
tasseling‐anthesis e0 Not reported Taxon Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Decrease of yield was the highest when treatments were applied around tasseling‐anthesis ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 247–335 Other claims from this paper (2) 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 negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Thiourea tended to decrease straw yield nonsignificantly.
application of TU e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “While the straw yield showed a decrease trend with the application of TU. Decrease in straw yield , although marginal was statistically insignificant. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1068–1217 t0 “Wheat ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–44 Other claims from this paper (8) Intervention effect author interpretation original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Excessive sulfur amendment could decrease grain yield .
Excessive S-amendment e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Excessive S-amendment could even induce the decrease of grain yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2113–2180 t0 “winter wheat ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–87 Other claims from this paper (15) Intervention effect RCU and conventional urea did not differ significantly in plant dry matter accumulation. Intervention effect RCU and conventional urea did not differ significantly in grain yield. Intervention effect At 43.2 mg x kg(-1) available soil S, SRCU and SU did not significantly differ in post-anthesis dry matter accumulation and allocation. Intervention effect At 43.2 mg x kg(-1) available soil S, SRCU and SU did not significantly differ in grain yield. Intervention effect At the lower soil S level, SRCU and SU allocated more post-anthesis assimilates to grain than RCU. Intervention effect At the lower soil S level, SRCU and SU had a higher mid-stage grain-filling rate than RCU. Intervention effect At the lower soil S level, SRCU and SU had higher 1000-grain weight than RCU. Intervention effect At the lower soil S level, SRCU and SU had higher grain yield than RCU. Intervention effect At the higher soil S level, SRCU yield exceeded SU yield. Intervention effect At the higher soil S level, SRCU yield did not significantly differ from RCU and U. Intervention effect The authors interpreted nitrogen release from SRCU as regulating dry matter and yield like split-applied conventional urea. Intervention effect At 43.2 mg x kg(-1) soil S, released sulfur promoted post-anthesis dry matter accumulation. Intervention effect At 43.2 mg x kg(-1) soil S, released sulfur promoted grain filling. Intervention effect At 43.2 mg x kg(-1) soil S, released sulfur significantly increased grain yield. Intervention effect At 105.1 mg x kg(-1) soil S, sulfur released from SRCU did not significantly increase grain yield. Intervention effect observed original result positive measured Claim · model-written summary
Wheat plants did not show a yield decrease after pathogen inoculation.
pathogen inoculation e0 don’t show a yield decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
t0 “in Wheat ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–126 e0 “the plants don’t show a yield decrease after pathogen inoculation ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1439–1504 Other claims from this paper (2) 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 negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Greater shade tended to decrease grain yield .
Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “The shade levels tend to decrease grain yield and increase unfilled grain. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 667–741 t0 “upland rice ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 50–61 Other claims from this paper (3) 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) Intervention effect observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield did not decrease with increasing plant diversity.
increasing plant diversity e0 did not decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Maize yield did not decrease with increasing plant diversity. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 860–921 Other claims from this paper (7) Intervention effect author interpretation original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation without intensive nutrient management may decrease maize yield .
without intensive nutrient management e0 Verbatim
e0 “Irrigation is not enough in itself without intensive nutrient management, since it may lead to yield decrease . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1512–1622 t0 “maize ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–46 Other claims from this paper (6) Intervention effect observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Yield started to decrease considerably in later years without fertilization.
without fertilization e2 decrease considerably e2 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “comprising winter wheat and summer maize as an annual rotation ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 479–541 e2 “The yield did not decrease in the first year without fertilization but started to decrease considerably in later years ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1046–1164 Other claims from this paper (11) Intervention effect observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
A 58% population decrease caused only a 12% soybean yield decrease .
58% population decrease e0 164 000 plants ha −l e0 Verbatim
e0 “A 58% population decrease from 164 000 plants ha −l resulted in a yield decrease of only 12% ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 880–972 e1 “Soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–33 Other claims from this paper (8) 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) Intervention effect observed review summary negative basis n/a Claim · model-written summary
Under low plant density the overall soybean yield may slightly decrease .
Low plant density e3 may slightly decrease e3 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
t0 “Soybean ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 53–60 e3 “Low plant density helps improve individual plant growth and nutrient use efficiency, although the overall yield may slightly decrease ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 288–421 Other claims from this paper (6) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Cluster pruning did not decrease total yield across cultivars.
unpruned control e0 Verbatim
e0 “There was no decrease in total yield , across all cultivars, between treatments and the unpruned control. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1976–2080 t0 “Tomato ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 Other claims from this paper (7) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Reducing substrate volume per plant by one third did not considerably decrease tomato yield .
Reduction of substrate volume per plant by 1/3 e0 without considerable yield decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Reduction of substrate volume per plant by 1/3 without considerable yield decrease ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–82 t0 “TOMATO YIELD ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–12 Other claims from this paper (2) 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 measured Claim · model-written summary
cotton yield decrease decrease .
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 Other claims from this paper (14) Intervention effect observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
cotton yield decrease decrease .
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 Other claims from this paper (14) Intervention effect author interpretation review summary negative basis n/a Claim · model-written summary
Temperatures above optimum decrease cotton yield .
increase in temperatures above optimum e0 Verbatim
e0 “In contrast, increase in temperatures above optimum decrease cotton yield due to increased boll abscission and smaller boll size. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 325–454 Other claims from this paper (10) Intervention effect observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Combined drought and heat gave the largest tuber yield decrease .
largest decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “The largest decrease was recorded in the case of applying both stresses simultaneously ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 912–998 t0 “potato plants ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 27–40 Other claims from this paper (5) Intervention effect observed original result positive measured Claim · model-written summary
Captafol did not decrease potato yield .
did not decrease e0 Verbatim
e0 “The most effective chemical was captafol, which was as effective as quintozene and, unlike quintozene, did not decrease yield . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 566–692 t0 “potato ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–51 Other claims from this paper (5) 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 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
The presence of root hairs did not decrease yield under optimal conditions.
presence of root hairs e1 did not decrease e1 under optimal conditions e1 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “barley (Hordeum vulgare ) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 968–992 e1 “the presence of root hairs did not decrease yield under optimal conditions ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2267–2341 Other claims from this paper (12) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Hardy, P with biofertilizers practically did not decrease barley yield .
drug Hardy, P with biofertilizers e0 practically does not decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “with the combined use of the drug Hardy, P with biofertilizers, the yield of barley practically does not decrease ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 640–753 Other claims from this paper (4) Intervention effect observed original result positive measured Claim · model-written summary
Early ethephon application caused less yield decrease than later application.
Early application e0 less yield decrease e0 later timings e0 Verbatim
e0 “Early application showed less yield decrease than later timings. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1121–1185 t0 “Corn ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–51 Other claims from this paper (10) Intervention effect author interpretation original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Larger fertilizer applications can decrease plant yield in seasons of poor rainfall.
larger applications e0 seasons of poor rainfall e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “larger applications can even decrease the plant yield in seasons of poor rainfall ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2217–2298 e1 “corn acreage ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2044–2056 Other claims from this paper (3) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Delaying all N to V9 did not significantly decrease corn yield .
Delaying all the N to V9 e0 did not significantly decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
t0 “Corn yield following a delayed application of nitrogen ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–54 e0 “Delaying all the N to V9 did not significantly decrease yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1064–1125 Other claims from this paper (13) 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 aestivum
Oryza sativa
Zea mays
Glycine max
Solanum lycopersicum
Gossypium hirsutum
Solanum tuberosum.jpg?width=60){kind=small}
Hordeum vulgare
Zea mays subsp. mays