View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Taxon groups are the verbatim names found in the abstracts (case-insensitive), not normalised: maize, corn and Zea mays are separate groups here. The Organism view merges them through NCBI Taxonomy.
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.
TreatmentSWP continued to be decreased e6 Directionno 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.
Comparatorcontinuous 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 no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Light water stress did not significantly decrease Nei2you6 yield .
Treatmentlight water stress e0 Directiondidn'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) Association observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Glyphosate formulation did not interact with yield decrease .
Outcomeformulation 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) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Soybean yield did not decrease with cover crops.
Directiondid 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 not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Reducing potassium to N60P60K30 did not significantly decrease soybean yield .
Directionno significant decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “There was no significant decrease in soybean yield in the variant of the experiment with a decrease in the proportion of potassium in the composition of complete mineral fertilizer (N60P60K30) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1454–1646 Other claims from this paper (7) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
A 25% to 30% irrigation reduction did not decrease maize seed yield .
Treatmentreduction of 25% ~ 30% in irrigation amount e0 Directiondid not decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “reduction of 25% ~ 30% in irrigation amount did not decrease seed yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1809–1880 t0 “hybrid seed yield of maize ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–68 Other claims from this paper (14) 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.
Directionwithout any significant decrease e0 Comparatorconstant 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) Association observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Legumes did not decrease maize yield in the intercrops.
Verbatim
e1 “Neither the legumes decrease d yield s of maize nor roselle ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 778–835 Other claims from this paper (8) Observation observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
The 4M:6S ratio did not decrease subsequent wheat yield .
Directiondid not decrease e0 Verbatim
e0 “but it did not decrease yield of wheat. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1740–1779 Other claims from this paper (14) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Chlorsulfuron did not decrease mature grain nutrient concentrations or grain yield .
TreatmentChlorsulfuron treatment e0 Outcomenutrient concentrations in mature grain or grain yield e0 Directiondid not decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Chlorsulfuron treatment did not decrease nutrient concentrations in mature grain or grain yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 639–734 t0 “wheat ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–75 Other claims from this paper (11) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
The four legume species did not decrease intercropped wheat grain yield .
Treatmentthe four species e0 Directiondid not decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “the four species did not decrease intercropped wheat grain yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 943–1007 Other claims from this paper (4) 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 .
TreatmentDelaying all the N to V9 e0 Directiondid 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) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
At Manhattan in 2008, delayed planting did not decrease yield .
Treatmentdelayed planting e0 Directiondid not decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
t0 “CORN ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–34 e0 “did not decrease at all with delayed planting in 2008 ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1073–1126 t1 “delayed planting dates and hybrids of varying maturity revealed that yield at Manhattan, KS ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 907–998 Other claims from this paper (4) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Delaying all 224 kg N ha-1 through V15 did not decrease corn yield significantly.
TreatmentDelaying application of all 224 kg N ha-1 through V15 e0 Directiondid not 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 application of all 224 kg N ha-1 through V15 did not decrease yield significantly ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 695–785 Other claims from this paper (13)
not stated 24 Observation observed original result no effect simulated Claim · model-written summary
Simulated foliar damage alone did not decrease grain yield .
Directiondid not decrease e0 Qualifierfoliar 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 not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Nei2you 6 yield did not decrease significantly under light water stress.
Treatmentlight water stress e0 Directiondid 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) projected Claim · model-written summary
Keeping available water depletion below 25% produced no significant crop- yield decrease .
Treatmentmaintaining AWC depletion below 25% e0 Directionno significant decrease e0 Not reported Taxon Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “maintaining AWC depletion below 25% resulted in no significant decrease in crop yield and biomass ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2160–2257 Other claims from this paper (8) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Cluster pruning did not decrease total yield across cultivars.
Comparatorunpruned 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 .
TreatmentReduction of substrate volume per plant by 1/3 e0 Directionwithout 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.
TreatmentO 3 exposure at the vegetative stage e0 Directionno 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 no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Winter wheat yield did not decrease with cover crops.
Directiondid 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
Tine cultivation did not decrease winter wheat yield .
TreatmentTine cultivation e0 Directiondid not decrease e0 Verbatim
e0 “Tine cultivation incorporated less straw than ploughing, decrease d plant establishment and early growth but did not decrease yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 544–674 t0 “winter wheat ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–111 Other claims from this paper (7) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
The treatments did not decrease weed competition or wheat yield losses in the treatment year.
Treatmentboth treatments e0 Outcomeweed competition and yield losses e0 Directiondid not decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “both treatments did not decrease weed competition and yield losses in the year of treatment ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2680–2771 t0 “Impact of Panicle Cutting and Chaff Milling on the Panicle and Seed Density of Three Grass Weeds and Grain Yield of Winter Wheat ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–128 Other claims from this paper (12) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Cotton seed yield did not decrease under PRI or CDI relative to FULL.
Treatmentdeficit treatments (PRI and CDI) e0 DirectionNo seed yield decrease e0 ComparatorFULL irrigation e0 Verbatim
e0 “No seed yield decrease was evident for cotton with the deficit treatments (PRI and CDI) compared with FULL irrigation ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 799–916 Other claims from this paper (8) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Seed cotton yield did not decrease under deficient irrigation.
Treatmentdeficient irrigation e1 Outcomeseed cotton yield e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “neither seed cotton yield nor lint quality were decrease d. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 272–330 e1 “cotton to deficient irrigation ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–82 Other claims from this paper (3) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
DT6 cotton yield did not decrease significantly versus DT2.
Directionno significant decrease e0 Verbatim
e0 “no significant decrease in biomass and cotton yield was observed compared to the DT2 sample. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1210–1302 e1 “The DT6 plants (60% Urea + DCD + NBPT + cotton straw) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1111–1164 Other claims from this paper (9) 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 .
Treatmentzinc sulphate and zinc oxide e0 Directionlittle 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) Observation observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Jelica line 4 had no significant decrease in tuber yield under field conditions.
MaterialOCI/OCII Jelica line 4 e0 Directiondid not exhibit a significant decrease e0 Verbatim
e0 “the OCI/OCII Jelica line 4 did not exhibit a significant decrease in tuber yield . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1256–1337 t0 “Phenotypic performance of transgenic potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) plants with pyramided rice cystatin genes (OCI and OCII) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–123 Other claims from this paper (5) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Lower nitrogen rates in low yield potential zones caused no yield decrease .
Settinglow yield potential zones e4 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e4 “There were no yield decrease s with lower N rates in the low yield potential zones ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 827–908 t0 “On-Farm variable rate nitrogen management in irrigated potato ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–61 Other claims from this paper (10) 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.