View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Intervention effect observed original result negative significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Salt stress significantly reduced maize grain yield .
Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Salt stress caused a significant decrease in grain yield which was due to a 50% decrease in kernel number. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 412–518 t0 “maize ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–46 Other claims from this paper (9) Intervention effect observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Unprotected B. napus showed an apparent appreciable yield decrease .
Verbatim
e0 “B. napus , however, suffered an apparent appreciable decrease ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 725–785 t0 “RESPONSE OF FOUR BRASSICA SEED CROP SPECIES TO ATTACK BY THE CRUCIFER FLEA BEETLE, PHYLLOTRETA CRUCIFERAE ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–105 e1 “Nevertheless the unprotected B. juncea treatment yield ed as much as the protected; B. napus , however, suffered an apparent appreciable decrease and B. campestris a significant decrease . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 642–827 Other claims from this paper (7) Intervention effect observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Halilbey had a 29.6% yield decrease with artificial infection.
Treatmentartificially i nfected treatment e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “In the artificially i nfected treatment cv. Halilbey, Edirne, Gala and Tu nca exhibited 29.6%, 14%, 13.5% and 5.1% yield decrease , respectively. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 941–1085 t0 “rice cultivars resulting from rice white tip nematode Aphelenchoides besseyi ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–104 Other claims from this paper (9) Intervention effect observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Gala had a 13.5% yield decrease with artificial infection.
Treatmentartificially i nfected treatment e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “In the artificially i nfected treatment cv. Halilbey, Edirne, Gala and Tu nca exhibited 29.6%, 14%, 13.5% and 5.1% yield decrease , respectively. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 941–1085 t0 “rice cultivars resulting from rice white tip nematode Aphelenchoides besseyi ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–104 Other claims from this paper (9) Intervention effect observed original result negative significant (as stated) projected Claim · model-written summary
Climate change in 2031–2060 is projected to significantly decrease wheat yield versus 1981–2010.
Treatmentclimate change between 2031 and 2060 e0 Comparatorperiod from 1981 to 2010 e0 Verbatim
e0 “climate change between 2031 and 2060 is anticipated to cause a significant decrease in wheat yield and an increase in wheat protein concentration compared to the period from 1981 to 2010 ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 639–825 Other claims from this paper (11) Intervention effect observed original result positive measured Claim · model-written summary
Reducing chemical nitrogen fertilizer by 20% to 40% after milk vetch incorporation did not decrease rice yield .
Treatmentchemical nitrogen fertilizer reduced 20%~40% after ploughing the Chinese milk vetch back e0 Directiondid not decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “The yield of rice and straw did not decrease when chemical nitrogen fertilizer reduced 20%~40% after ploughing the Chinese milk vetch back ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 373–511 Other claims from this paper (14) Intervention effect observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging at the seedling stage caused the greatest wheat yield penalty (10%-15% decrease ).
Organ / stageseedling stage e1 Comparatorthe other stages e1 Verbatim
t0 “Effect of waterlogging on physical traits and yield of wheat in Sichuan,China ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–77 e1 “The greatest yield penalty occurred when waterlogging happened at the seedling stage( 10%- 15% decrease ),and it was alleviated when waterlogging happened at the other stages ”
✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · abstract, characters 317–490 Other claims from this paper (8) Intervention effect observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Decreasing light intensity decrease d shoot fresh yield and dry weight.
Treatmentlight intensity decrease e0 Outcomeshoot fresh yield and dry weight e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “salinity increase and in light intensity decrease led to shoot fresh yield and dry weight decrease ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 719–817 t0 “French Tarragon ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 85–100 Other claims from this paper (8) Intervention effect observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
Rice straw incorporation with 100% RDF caused a slight yield decrease .
Taxonrice-wheat systems t0 TreatmentRS incorporation with 100% RDF e0 Directionslight decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
t0 “rice-wheat systems ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 103–121 e0 “there was a slight decrease in yield with RS incorporation with 100% RDF which could be overcome with 150% RDF application ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1149–1271 Other claims from this paper (8) Intervention effect observed original result mixed measured Claim · model-written summary
Bacterial inoculation changed maize seedling average yield from a 50% decrease to a 70% increase versus controls.
Treatmentbacterial inoculation e0 Interactorbacterial e0 symbiont Value50% decrease to a 70% increase e0 Not reported Direction
Verbatim
e0 “In vitro bacterial inoculation on maize seedlings resulted in changes of average yield ranging from a 50% decrease to a 70% increase over controls. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 340–487 Other claims from this paper (7) 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.