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 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 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) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
High-rate controlled-release urea (HN) did not significantly decrease rice yield compared with conventional urea (FP).
did not decrease e0 Verbatim
e0 “As compared with FP, HN did not decrease rice yield significantly ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 370–435 Other claims from this paper (7) Association observed original result not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
The maize yield decrease from delayed emergence was not statistically related to yield stability zones.
yield stability zones e0 Not reported Treatment Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “The decrease in maize yield caused by the delay in emergence was not statistically related to yield stability zones ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2129–2244 Other claims from this paper (7) Observation observed original result negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
The grain yield decrease in Ant-Pop was insignificant.
Verbatim
e0 “The decrease in the grain yield of Ant-Pop cultivar was insignificiant ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 536–606 t0 “Maize ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–66 Other claims from this paper (9) Association observed original result negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Full season maize hybrids showed a nonsignificant yield decrease with maturity.
full season hybrids e0 Verbatim
e0 “non-significant decrease in grain yield with relative maturity in full season hybrids ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1045–1130 t0 “Maize (Zea mays L.) Hybrids ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–85 Other claims from this paper (3) 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 original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Reducing potassium to N60P60K30 did not significantly decrease soybean yield .
no 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) Association observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
SS3 did not decrease significantly in protein or oil percentage as seed yield increased.
protein or oil percentage e7 did not decrease e7 Verbatim
e1 “In soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–36 e7 “The identification of a subpopulation (SS3), which did not decrease significantly in protein or oil percentage as seed yield increased ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1521–1655 Other claims from this paper (10) 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) Association observed original result negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
The flour- yield decrease in Bayraktar 2000 was not significant.
Verbatim
e0 “the decrease in flour yield was not significant for cv Bayraktar 2000 ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 857–926 t0 “wheat kernel size ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–28 Other claims from this paper (9) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Excess fertilization did not significantly decrease yield .
excessive fertilization e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “The yield is not significantly decrease d under the excessive fertilization. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1084–1159 t0 “wheat yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 38–49 Other claims from this paper (12)
not stated 16 Observation observed original result negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Lara showed a statistically insignificant straw yield decrease .
Not reported Taxon
Verbatim
e0 “The Lara variety showed an insignificant decrease in the straw yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1139–1207 Other claims from this paper (6) 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) projected Claim · model-written summary
Keeping available water depletion below 25% produced no significant crop- yield decrease .
maintaining AWC depletion below 25% e0 no 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 negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Traffic on extremely compacted soil caused an additional yield decrease that was not significant in the first year.
harvest traffic e0 extremely compacted soil e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “When harvest traffic was applied to alfalfa grown in extremely compacted soil there was an additional decrease in yield . It was not statistically significant the 1st yr ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1290–1458 Other claims from this paper (13) Association observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Total dry matter yield of forage, including weeds, did not decrease significantly with stand age.
age of alfalfa stand e4 Total dry matter yield of forage e4 did not decrease e4 Verbatim
e0 “Iroquois alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) was seeded every spring from 1978 to 1988 ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–79 e4 “Total dry matter yield of forage, including weeds, did not decrease significantly with age of alfalfa stand ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 558–665 Other claims from this paper (16) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
The other seven recombinant strains produced no significant biomass increase or decrease at Hancock.
seven other recombinant strains e0 Not reported Comparator Direction
Verbatim
e0 “no other significant increases or decrease s in alfalfa biomass were observed with the seven other recombinant strains at that site. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1655–1786 t0 “Alfalfa ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–7 Other claims from this paper (4) 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.
no 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 mixed not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
N375 showed no significant difference or a decrease versus N300 for those parameters.
N375 treatment e0 cotton dry matter accumulation, N uptake, and yield e1 no significant difference or decrease e0 N300 treatment e0 Verbatim
e0 “the N375 treatment showed no significant difference or decrease compared to the N300 treatment. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1086–1181 e1 “cotton dry matter accumulation, N uptake, and yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 889–940 Other claims from this paper (12) Intervention effect observed original result negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
The estimated yield decrease of cotton from ambient ozone in water-stressed plots was 7%, not statistically significant.
charcoal‐filtered air plots e3 Verbatim
t0 “Injury and Yield Response of Cotton to Chronic Doses of Ozone and Soil Moisture Deficit ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–87 e2 “ambient O 3 (seasonal 12 h d −1 mean of 0.044 µ L L −1 ) caused a yield decrease of 19% in the WW plots ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–927 e3 “compared to the O 3 level in our charcoal‐filtered air plots ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 928–988 e4 “The comparable estimate for data from the WS plot was 7%, but this regression was not statistically significant ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1035–1146 Other claims from this paper (4) 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 no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Halving organic fertilizer did not significantly decrease tomato yield versus conventional management.
the half amount of organic fertilizer inputs e0 local farmers' conventional management of water and fertilizer e0 Verbatim
e0 “compared with local farmers' conventional management of water and fertilizer,the half amount of organic fertilizer inputs would not significantly decrease the yield of tomato ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 367–541 Other claims from this paper (4) Intervention effect observed original result negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation reduced fruit yield without statistical significance.
Deficit irrigation e1 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “not significant decrease of fruit weight and size, as well as fruit yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1132–1205 t0 “tomato ”
✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 85–91 t1 “tomato ”
✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 85–91 e1 “Deficit irrigation caused significant decrease of water content in fruits ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1054–1127 Other claims from this paper (10) 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) 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.
Delaying application of all 224 kg N ha-1 through V15 e0 did 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) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Short-term conservation tillage did not significantly decrease corn yield .
short-term implementation of conservation tillage e0 did not result in a significant decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “the short-term implementation of conservation tillage did not result in a significant decrease in corn yield . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1920–2029 Other claims from this paper (9) Intervention effect observed original result not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Light deficit during grain filling did not significantly decrease grain yield .
grain filling stage e0 Light water deficit e0 did not significantly decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Light water deficit during the grain filling stage did not significantly decrease grain yield and was significantly associated with improved grain quality and water conservation. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1156–1334 t0 “Winter Wheat ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–89 Other claims from this paper (6) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Ungulate foraging did not significantly decrease winter wheat grain yield .
big game grazing e0 ungulate e2 herbivore did not significantly decrease e2 Verbatim
e0 “The effects of big game grazing of winter wheat on grain yield were studied during 12 trials in northern Utah between 1990-92 ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–125 e1 “plots protected and variously grazed by mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus ), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana ) and Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus ) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–345 e2 “Results indicated that ungulate foraging in these trials did not significantly decrease grain yield s despite high utilization percentages on wheat leaves in fall and early spring ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 652–830 Other claims from this paper (1) Intervention effect observed original result negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Single-dose trinexapac‐ethyl reduced straw yield by 5%, without significance at p = 0.05.
TE was applied in a single dose e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “a 5% decrease (although not significant at p = 0.05) in straw yield when TE was applied in a single dose ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 862–966 t0 “Winter wheat ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–12 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.
Oryza sativa
Zea mays
Glycine max
Triticum aestivum
Medicago sativa
Gossypium hirsutum
Solanum lycopersicum
Zea mays subsp. mays