Search claims · PlantClaims

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The evaluated herbicides did not decrease durum wheat yield.

Taxon: durum wheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durume0
Treatment: herbicides evaluatede0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: no decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“There was no decrease in durum wheat yield with the herbicides evaluated.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1221–1294

Title

Sensitivity of durum wheat (Triticum turgidum) to various postemergence herbicides

Nader Soltani; Christy Shropshire; Peter H. Sikkema Agricultural Sciences 2011. doi:10.4236/as.2011.24058

Other claims from this paper (13)

Intervention effect dichlorprop/2,4-D produced 0 to 2.4% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect dicamba/MCPA/mecoprop produced 0 to 6% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect clopyralid produced 0 to 0.4% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect bromoxynil/MCPA produced 0 to 1.4% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect pyrasulfotole/bromoxynil produced 0 to 3.5% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect thifensulfuron/tribenuron + MCPA amine produced 0 to 5% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect fluroxypyr + MCPA ester produced 0 to 2.6% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect tralkoxydim produced 0 to 5% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect fenoxaprop-pethyl/safener produced 0.4% to 8% visible injury in durum wheat.
Intervention effect dicamba/ MCPA/mecoprop decreased durum wheat height by as much as 5%.
Intervention effect pyrasulfotole/bromoxynil decreased durum wheat height by as much as 4%.
Intervention effect fenoxaprop-pethyl/safener decreased durum wheat height by as much as 6%.
Intervention effect Other evaluated herbicides did not affect durum wheat height.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

When soil water potential continued to decrease, no longer obvious decrease in yield was observed.

Taxon: RiceOryza sativat0
Treatment: SWP continued to be decreasede6
Outcome: yielde2
Direction: no longer obvious decreasee6

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0
“Yield and Quality of Rice”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 27–52

e2
“the yield of two cultivars was decreased 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 decreased”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 559–637

Title

Effect of Soil Moisture on Yield and Quality of Rice

Zheng Gui 2006

Other claims from this paper (7)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield did not significantly decrease through the eight-day irrigation interval.

Taxon: RICEOryza sativat0
Treatment: 8We0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: decreasee0
Comparator: 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

Title

IRRIGATION REGIME AND POTASSIUM LEVELS EFFECTS ON YIELD OF SOME RICE GENOTYPES, WATER USE EFFICIENCY (WUE) AND ECONOMIC RETURNS

Howida El-Habet Journal of Plant Production 2014. doi:10.21608/jpp.2014.53654

Other claims from this paper (17)

Observation Giza179 had higher grain yield and yield attributes than GZ7112 under continuous flooding.
Intervention effect Twelve-day irrigation significantly reduced rice yield.
Intervention effect At 4W, Giza179 saved 10.36% and 8.37% irrigation water in 2012 and 2013.
Intervention effect At 4W, GZ7112 saved 10.50% and 10.36% irrigation water.
Intervention effect At 8W, Giza179 saved 17.81% and 23.66% water.
Intervention effect At 8W, GZ7112 saved 13.33% and 18.44% water.
Intervention effect At 12W, irrigation water savings were 23.91% and 27.90% across the two seasons.
Intervention effect At 12W, grain yield was reduced about 22.42% and 24.71% in 2012 and 2013.
Observation Giza179 yielded 9.70 t/ha across both seasons.
Observation GZ7112 yielded 9.33 t/ha across both seasons.
Observation Giza179 saved 20.73% water across both seasons.
Observation GZ7112 saved 15.88% water across both seasons.
Observation Giza179 water use efficiency was 0.90 kg/m3.
Observation GZ7112 water use efficiency was 0.81 kg/m3.
Observation With Giza179 at 8W, total water input was reported as 11260.88 and 10006.80 m3/ha.
Intervention effect Potassium application up to 108 K2O/ha significantly increased rice yield.
Intervention effect Potassium application up to 108 K2O/ha mitigated water stress and increased WUE and water savings.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nei2you 6 yield did not decrease significantly under light water stress.

Material: Nei2you 6e0
Treatment: light water stresse0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0
“yield of Nei2you 6 did not decrease significantly under light water stress”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 170–244

Title

Effects of soil moisture on the accumulation of rice dry matter and yield

Li Hua; Wang DongYin; Defeng Zhu Xi'nan nongye xuebao 2008

Other claims from this paper (8)

Intervention effect Severe water stress reduced Nei2you 6 yield by 15.2%.
Intervention effect Yield of Ⅱyou 7954 increased under soil water stress.
Observation Nei2you 6 was more sensitive to soil water stress than Ⅱyou 7954.
Intervention effect Moderate water stress decreased Nei2you 6 dry matter accumulation by 22.0%.
Intervention effect Light water stress increased Ⅱyou 7954 dry matter accumulation by 8.4%.
Intervention effect Moderate water stress increased Ⅱyou 7954 dry matter accumulation by 4.7%.
Intervention effect Soil water stress lowered dry matter transmission to the panicle in Nei2you 6 relative to the check.
Intervention effect Soil water stress raised dry matter transmission to the panicle in Ⅱyou 7954 relative to the check.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Light water stress did not significantly decrease Nei2you6 yield.

Taxon: riceOryza sativat0
Material: Nei2you6e0
Treatment: light water stresse0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: didn't decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Title

Effects of soil moisture on superficial roots and yield of rice

Li Hua; Zhang Yu-ping Ganhan diqu nongye yanjiu 2006

Other claims from this paper (10)

Intervention effect Severe water stress reduced Nei2you6 yield by 15.2%.
Intervention effect Soil water stress increased yield of Ⅱyou7954.
Observation Nei2you6 was more sensitive to soil water stress than Ⅱyou7954.
Intervention effect Light water stress slightly promoted superficial root growth.
Intervention effect Severe water stress reduced superficial root dry weight of Nei2you6 by 10.5%~31.6%.
Intervention effect Severe water stress reduced superficial root dry weight of Ⅱyou7954 by 13%.
Intervention effect Soil water stress enhanced superficial root activity.
Intervention effect Root cutting at panicle initiation caused more yield reduction than at flowering.
Intervention effect Cutting roots at panicle initiation decreased grain number per panicle.
Intervention effect Cutting roots at flowering decreased spikelet fertility rate.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Delaying all N to V9 did not significantly decrease corn yield.

Taxon: CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
Treatment: Delaying all the N to V9e0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: did not significantly decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

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

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 did not decrease corn yield significantly.
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 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.

Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Low combined pest densities did not decrease canola yield.

Taxon: Brassica napus L.Brassica napust0
Treatment: low combined densitiese0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: do not decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“low combined densities do not decrease yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1078–1122

t0
“Brassica napus L.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 78–95

Title

Effect of Insect Herbivory on the Architecture and Seed Production of Canola, Brassica napus L.

H.A. Cárcamo Journal of Entomological Science 2012. doi:10.18474/0749-8004-47.1.44

Other claims from this paper (7)

Intervention effect Intermediate combined insect density reduced canola grain yield under severe dryness.
Intervention effect High combined insect density reduced canola grain yield under severe dryness.
Intervention effect Intermediate combined insect density reduced raceme number and pods per raceme under severe dryness.
Intervention effect High combined insect density reduced raceme number and pods per raceme under severe dryness.
Intervention effect In more humid 2002 conditions, weevil damage at 20 adults per cage was more apparent than in 2000.
Intervention effect At low or moderate densities, late-season pests did not appear to stimulate canola overcompensation.
Observation The study found no indication of competition between the two insect pests.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Halving insect visits caused little decrease in sunflower yield.

Taxon: sunflowerHelianthus annuuse1
Treatment: insect visits were reduced by 50%e0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: little decreasee0
Value: 50%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“little decrease in yield when insect visits were reduced by 50%”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 630–693

e1
“in sunflower”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 208–220

Title

Supplementary material from "Pollination benefits are maximized at intermediate nutrient levels"

Tamburini, Giovanni; Lami, Francesco; Marini, Lorenzo Figshare 2017. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3827959.v2

Other claims from this paper (5)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot 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).

Taxon: riceOryza sativae0
Treatment: HNe0
Outcome: rice yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0
Comparator: FPe0

Verbatim

e0
“As compared with FP, HN did not decrease rice yield significantly”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 370–435

Title

[Effects of seeding-box total fertilization on rice yield and nitrogen loss].

Ru-Liang Liu; You-Hong Li; Ai-Ping Zhang; et al. PubMed 2012

Other claims from this paper (7)

Intervention effect Medium-rate controlled-release urea (MN) increased the two-year average nitrogen use efficiency of rice by 26.2% compared with FP.
Intervention effect High-rate controlled-release urea (HN) increased the two-year average nitrogen use efficiency of rice by 20.7% compared with FP.
Intervention effect Total N concentration in surface water peaked 7-9 days after urea application in MN and HN, versus 1-3 days in FP.
Intervention effect Total N concentration in surface water in MN and HN was significantly lower than in FP throughout the rice growth period.
Intervention effect Nitrogen leaching loss occurred mainly at tillering stage in FP but was delayed to the tillering-flowering stage in MN and HN.
Observation In all treatments NO3(-)-N loss accounted for 59.7%-64.2% of the total N loss.
Intervention effect HN decreased total N leaching loss by 51.8% compared with FP.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Delayed autumn ploughing did not decrease grain yield.

Taxon: spring barleyHordeum vulgaree1
Treatment: delayed autumn ploughinge0
Outcome: grain yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Title

The effect of incorporation time of different crops on the residual effect on spring cereals

H. KÄNKÄNEN; A. KANGAS; T. MELA Agricultural and Food Science 1999. doi:10.23986/afsci.5629

Other claims from this paper (7)

Intervention effect Barley grain yield after legumes was similar to yield after barley despite 40 kg ha-1 less N fertilization.
Intervention effect Autumn ploughing gave good barley yield more reliably than spring incorporation.
Recommendation The authors recommend delayed autumn ploughing for its potential to reduce nitrogen leaching.
Recommendation Spring ploughing could be used except on clay soils.
Intervention effect Reduced tillage spring incorporation of ryegrass often decreased barley yield.
Intervention effect Reduced tillage spring incorporation of red clover often decreased barley yield.
Intervention effect Incorporation timing had no consistent effect on oats grain yield in year three.

“yield decrease”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics