Try:droughtFusariumnitrogen fertilizerArabidopsisseed germination

“yield decrease”

12,432 matches

Claim types

Direction of the findings

plus 1,248 non-evaluative

Over time

1950 ’60 ’70 ’80 ’90 2000 ’10 ’20

plus 13 earlier · 1920s–1940s

Refine ·

More filters

Clear filters

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Simulated crop yield changed under Decrease in temperature more than 2oC.

Taxon: SoybeanGlycine maxt0
Treatment: Decrease in temperature more than 2oCe0
Outcome: crop yielde0
Direction: decreasese0
Value: 10 to 20 g m-2e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0
“Soybean”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–89

e0
“Decrease in temperature more than 2oC decreases crop yield by 10 to 20 g m-2”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3574–3650

Title

Simulate the Effect of Climate Change on Development, Irrigation Requirements and Soybean Yield in Gorgan

A.R. Nehbandani; A. Soltani DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) 2016. doi:10.22067/jsw.v30i1.37529

Other claims from this paper (9)

Intervention effect Simulated days to maturity changed under Decreasing temperature.
Intervention effect Simulated days to maturity changed under increase in temperature from 1 to 6 oC.
Intervention effect Simulated irrigation water requirement changed under increasing CO2 concentration from 350 to 700 ppm.
Intervention effect Simulated irrigation water requirement changed under Temperature increase from 3 to 8oC.
Intervention effect Simulated crop yield changed under Increasing temperature by 2 to 3 oC.
Intervention effect Simulated crop yield changed under Increase in temperature from 3 to 8 oC.
Intervention effect Increasing CO2 concentration compensated for yield loss under cooling.
Association Higher CO2 postponed heat-related yield reduction.
Association Super-optimal temperature decreased the positive impact of higher CO2.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

In simulation, a 5 C decrease in maximum temperature enhanced yield by up to 19.2%.

Taxon: WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment: a −5°C decreasee0
Outcome: yieldse0
Direction: enhancede0
Value: up to 19.2%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0
“Wheat Yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–63

e0
“a −5°C decrease enhanced yields by up to 19.2%”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1039–1085

Title

Modelling the Effect of Environmental Conditions on Wheat Yield in Gujarat Using APSIM-Wheat Model

R. M. Desai; S. B. Yadav; B. M. Chaudhari; et al. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change 2025. doi:10.9734/ijecc/2025/v15i95027

Other claims from this paper (8)

Intervention effect In simulation, a +5 C rise in maximum temperature reduced wheat grain yield by 19.5-23.1%.
Intervention effect In simulation, elevated minimum temperature reduced wheat productivity.
Intervention effect GW 496 showed the highest loss under elevated Tmin, -27.3% at +5 C.
Intervention effect In simulation, lower minimum temperatures improved wheat yields by up to 10.9%.
Intervention effect Among the varieties, GW 496 exhibited the greatest sensitivity to temperature fluctuations.
Intervention effect All wheat varieties responded positively to increased bright sunshine hours in simulation.
Intervention effect All wheat varieties responded positively to CO2 enrichment in simulation.
Recommendation Strategic management of sowing dates, irrigation and cultivar selection, combined with CO2 fertilisation benefits, could help sustain wheat production.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pethoxamid did not decrease rice yield

Taxon: riceOryza sativae1
Treatment: pethoxamide1
Outcome: yielde2
Direction: no decreasee2
Comparator: nontreated controle1

Verbatim

e1
“A reduction in rice shoot density and plant height compared to the nontreated control followed the use of pethoxamid”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1100–1216

e2
“however, no decrease in yield resulted”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1218–1256

Title

Weed Control and Selectivity of Pethoxamid Alone and in Mixture as a Delayed Preemergence Application to Rice

John Godwin; Jason K. Norsworthy; Robert C. Scott Weed Technology 2018. doi:10.1017/wet.2018.57

Other claims from this paper (10)

Observation Rice injury was minimal with any treatment assessed
Intervention effect Pethoxamid reduced rice shoot density and plant height compared with the nontreated control
Observation Imazethapyr gave 91% barnyardgrass control near Lonoke
Observation Quinclorac gave 89% barnyardgrass control near Lonoke
Intervention effect Pethoxamid combined with clomazone and quinclorac increased barnyardgrass control compared with clomazone and quinclorac alone
Observation Pethoxamid alone gave 92% barnyardgrass control near Colt
Observation Pethoxamid alone gave 96% barnyardgrass control near Colt
Observation Rice can tolerate pethoxamid when applied DPRE
Observation Adequate barnyardgrass control can be achieved with pethoxamid at the rates evaluated within a program
Recommendation Pethoxamid is suggested as a viable option in rice to allow increased rotation of herbicide sites of action

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

DI and PRD did not significantly decrease yield.

Taxon: lemonCitrus ×limont0
Treatment: DI and PRDe1
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: did not significantly decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“these treatments did not significantly decrease yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1503–1556

t0
“lemon Fino 49 trees”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–77

e1
“DI and PRD decreased stomatal conductance and photosynthesis”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1441–1501

Title

Partial rootzone drying increases water-use efficiency of lemon Fino 49 trees independently of root-to-shoot ABA signalling

J. G. Pérez-Pérez; I. C. Dodd; P. Botía Functional Plant Biology 2012. doi:10.1071/fp11269

Other claims from this paper (8)

Association Stomatal conductance declined as vapour pressure deficit increased.
Association Xylem ABA related to stomatal closure only in well irrigated trees under moderate VPD.
Observation Xylem ABA did not differ among irrigation treatments around rewatering.
Observation Leaf water potential was higher in control trees.
Association Leaf water potential decreased similarly across irrigation treatments as LAVPD increased.
Intervention effect DI and PRD trees had lower stomatal sensitivity to LAVPD than controls.
Intervention effect DI and PRD decreased stomatal conductance and photosynthesis.
Intervention effect PRD increased crop water use efficiency by 83% against control.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At Manhattan in 2008, delayed planting did not decrease yield.

Taxon: CORNZea mays subsp. mayst0
Treatment: delayed plantinge0
Outcome: yieldt1
Direction: did not decreasee0
Qualifier: in 2008e0
Setting: Manhattan, KSt1

Not reportedComparator

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

Title

EFFECT OF DELAYED PLANTING ON CORN IN CENTRAL KANSAS

Aaron James Sindelar; Kraig L. Roozeboom K-State Research Exchange (Kansas State University) 2008

Other claims from this paper (4)

Intervention effect At Manhattan in 2007, yield did not decrease significantly until the final planting date.
Intervention effect At Belleville in 2007, later planting increased yield.
Intervention effect At Belleville in 2008, planting date did not affect yield.
Intervention effect At Hutchinson, yield decreased significantly with successive planting dates; the supplied sentence is cut off.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Espalier training with a trellis in high density hedgerows did not decrease yield.

Taxon: olivesOleat0
Treatment: training to an espalier shapee0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: does not decreasee0
Qualifier: with and without a trellise0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0
“olives”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 50–56

e0
“training to an espalier shape, with and without a trellis, in high density hedgerows, does not decrease yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 770–879

Title

Mechanical harvesting of California table and oil olives

Louise Ferguson; Sergio Castro‐García; Joseph Burns; et al. Advances in Horticultural Science 2010

Other claims from this paper (8)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Heavy fertilization prevented a marked vegetable yield decrease in raw subsoil.

Taxon: vegetable cropse0
Treatment: heavily fertilizede0
Outcome: yieldse0
Direction: did not decrease remarkablye0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“the yields of vegetable crops did not decrease remarkably in the raw subsoil when it was heavily fertilized”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1503–1610

Title

The effect of deep plowing on growth and yield of vegetable crops

H. OHTA; T. KODAMA; K. WATANABE Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science 1962. doi:10.2503/jjshs.31.315

Other claims from this paper (11)

Intervention effect Deep plowing favored growth and yield of most vegetable crops.
Intervention effect Heavy fertilizer application made deep plowing more effective.
Intervention effect Raw subsoil was unfavorable to cereal and forage crop growth and yield.
Observation Most heavily fertilized vegetable crops were relatively insensitive to subsoil inhibition.
Intervention effect Frost-exposed, heavily fertilized subsoil supported excellent vegetable growth and yield.
Intervention effect Poor subsoil inhibited growth of most vegetables in pots.
Intervention effect Fertile subsoil with heavy fertilizer supported vigorous growth of most vegetables in pots.
Intervention effect Some crops grew better in subsoil than topsoil with the same fertilizer amount.
Association High yielding crops under deep plowing were less affected by poor subsoil nutrition.
Association Sensitivity to aluminum toxicity and nutrient deficiency was suggested to relate to subsoil adaptation.
Mechanism Good soil aeration after deep plowing was linked to root development and active nutrient uptake.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Regulated deficit irrigation did not decrease olive fruit yield.

Taxon: olive treesOlea europaeae0
Treatment: RDI strategye3
Outcome: fruit yielde3
Direction: did not decreasee3
Comparator: full irrigatione6

Verbatim

e3
“The RDI strategy did not decrease the fruit yield despite the fact that olive weight tended to decrease, and it increased the oil yield by ~14.5%”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 933–1078

e6
“full irrigation (FI, 100% of ETc)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 414–447

e0
“olive trees cv Arbosana”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 562–585

Title

Ripening Indices, Olive Yield and Oil Quality in Response to Irrigation With Saline Reclaimed Water and Deficit Strategies

Cristina Romero-Trigueros; Gaetano Alessandro Vivaldi; Emilio Nicolás Nicolás; et al. Frontiers in Plant Science 2019. doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.01243

Other claims from this paper (17)

Intervention effect Reclaimed water without water restriction increased olive fruit yield by 35% compared with control trees.
Intervention effect Reclaimed water without water restriction did not result in higher olive oil yield.
Intervention effect Regulated deficit irrigation tended to decrease olive weight.
Intervention effect Regulated deficit irrigation increased olive oil yield by about 14.5%.
Intervention effect Combined reclaimed water and deficit irrigation did not decrease olive fruit yield.
Intervention effect Combined reclaimed water and deficit irrigation significantly reduced olive oil yield by 25% in 2018.
Intervention effect Combined reclaimed water and deficit irrigation strongly reduced oil content per fruit dry weight by 40%.
Intervention effect Both RDI treatments lowered acidity levels in olive paste compared with full irrigation treatments.
Intervention effect Both RDI treatments reduced oil extractability and fatty yield.
Intervention effect Reclaimed water exposure decreased olive oil quality.
Intervention effect Reclaimed water exposure reduced oleic acid in olive oil.
Intervention effect Reclaimed water exposure increased the C18:2/C18:3 ratio in olive oil.
Intervention effect Reclaimed water exposure increased peroxides in olive oil.
Intervention effect Reclaimed water improved total polyphenols in olive.
Intervention effect Regulated deficit irrigation improved total polyphenols in olive.
Observation In all cases the olive oil parameters met the legislation.
Recommendation Reclaimed water and regulated deficit irrigation have potential to manage olive oil production.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water deficit at S4 caused a relative yield decrease.

Taxon: SoybeanGlycine maxt0
Organ / stage: pod filling to early maturing (S4)e0
Treatment: water deficite0
Outcome: relative decrease of yielde0
Direction: decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“The water deficit at early vegetative (S1) and pod filling to early maturing (S4) was sensitive to the relative decrease of yield.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1188–1318

t0
“Soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–126

Title

The Effect of Water Deficit at Individual Growth Stages on the Yield and Water Requirement of Soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.)

R.A. Bustomi Rosadi; Afandi; Masateru Senge; et al. Journal of Rainwater Catchment Systems 2005. doi:10.7132/jrcsa.kj00004364683

Other claims from this paper (15)

Observation Soybean was sensitive to water stress especially at flowering and pod filling to maturity.
Observation Critical water content at S3 and S4 was around 50% of available water deficit.
Observation Critical water content at S3 and S4 was 0.26m^3/m^3.
Observation Water stress coefficient at S2 was 0.55.
Observation Water stress coefficient at S3 was 0.57.
Observation Water stress coefficient at S4 was 0.27.
Observation Yield response factor at SI was 0.96.
Observation Yield response factor at S2 was 0.42.
Observation Yield response factor at S3 was 0.46.
Observation Yield response factor at S4 was 1.20.
Intervention effect Water deficit at S1 caused a relative yield decrease.
Intervention effect Full irrigation after S2 could recover S1 water deficit damage.
Intervention effect Even small water deficit at S4 strongly damaged soybean yield.
Intervention effect All tested water deficit levels at S4 decreased yield efficiency extremely.
Recommendation Deficit irrigation after pod filling should not be used.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Delaying all 224 kg N ha-1 through V15 did not decrease corn yield significantly.

Taxon: CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
Treatment: Delaying application of all 224 kg N ha-1 through V15e0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Title

Corn yield following a delayed application of nitrogen

Brian H. Yoder Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) 2018

Other claims from this paper (13)

Intervention effect In corn following soybean, delaying the second half of N to as late as R2 did not cause significant yield loss.
Intervention effect Corn with N applied at R3 yielded 92% of the yield of corn with the second application at V3.
Intervention effect Delaying all 224 kg N ha-1 through V15 reduced corn yield with application at VT, R2 and R3 (12, 19 and 37% less).
Intervention effect In corn following corn, delaying the second half of N to R3 gave 96% of the yield of the second application at V3.
Intervention effect In corn following corn, none of the delayed N timings significantly lowered yield.
Intervention effect Delaying all N to V9 did not significantly decrease corn yield.
Intervention effect Delaying all N to V12 reduced corn yield by 11% relative to earlier timings.
Intervention effect Delaying all N to R3 reduced corn yield by 42%.
Recommendation Without N at planting, N must be applied by mid-vegetative stages to prevent corn yield loss.
Intervention effect When half the N was applied at planting, delaying application until past pollination caused surprisingly little corn yield loss.
Observation Split-N corn treatments recovered healthy leaf color (SPAD) no matter how late N was applied.
Intervention effect With no N at planting, corn plants could not regain full leaf color or yield if N was applied later than mid-vegetative stages.
Recommendation If all N is delayed, application should be made before plants reach mid-vegetative growth stages.

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.

“yield decrease”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics