Search claims · PlantClaims

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The cultivar had a significant decrease in grain yield.

Taxon: triticale×Triticosecalet0
Outcome: grain yielde0
Direction: decreasee0

Verbatim

e0
“which resulted in a significant decrease in its grain yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 881–940

t0
“triticale”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–108

Title

Rapid plant rehydration initiates permanent and adverse changes in the photosynthetic apparatus of triticale

Tomasz Hura; Katarzyna Hura; Agnieszka Ostrowska; et al. Plant and Soil 2015. doi:10.1007/s11104-015-2607-1

Other claims from this paper (9)

Intervention effect Rehydration further increased hydrogen peroxide in the cultivar that did not fully recover.
Intervention effect Rehydration inhibited photosynthetic apparatus activity compared with drought in that cultivar.
Observation On day 42 of rehydration, flag leaf photosynthetic activity was reduced.
Intervention effect Rapid rehydration lowered total peroxidase activity in its first week.
Intervention effect Rapid rehydration lowered catalase activity in its first week.
Observation Gradual restoration of leaf water content compensated increased hydrogen peroxide.
Observation Gradual leaf water restoration prevented further decline in photosynthetic apparatus activity.
Mechanism Rapid rehydration intensified physiological processes associated with reactive oxygen species overproduction.
Mechanism The authors suggest electron leakage from an overloaded electron transport chain causes hydrogen peroxide overproduction.

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositiveprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Probability of a yield decrease declined from 1.5 to 2.0 °C warming.

Outcome: probability of a crop yield decreasee0
Direction: decreasee0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0
“the probability of a crop yield decrease would decrease”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2124–2179

Title

Impacts of climate change and climate extremes on major crops productivity in China at a global warming of 1.5 and 2.0 °C

Yi Chen; Zhao Zhang; Fulu Tao Earth System Dynamics 2018. doi:10.5194/esd-9-543-2018

Other claims from this paper (15)

Observation Climate change projected shorter crop growth duration.
Observation Climate change projected more extreme events.
Observation Moderate climate change could enhance canopy photosynthesis.
Observation Moderate climate change could enhance biomass accumulation and yields.
Observation Moderate change slightly worsened the maize growth environment.
Observation Moderate change made the wheat growth environment more appropriate.
Observation Moderate change made the rice growth environment more appropriate.
Observation Wheat yield was projected to change +3.9% at 1.5 °C.
Observation Wheat yield was projected to change +8.6% at 2.0 °C.
Observation Rice yield was projected to change +4.1% at 1.5 °C.
Observation Rice yield was projected to change +9.4% at 2.0 °C.
Observation Maize yield was projected to change +0.2% at 1.5 °C.
Observation Maize yield was projected to change −1.7% at 2.0 °C.
Observation Yield variability increased from 1.5 to 2.0 °C warming.
Recommendation The authors consider 2.0 °C warming more suitable for crop production in China.

Observationobservedoriginal resultsimulated

Claim · model-written summary

A 40% grain yield decrease had a 10.5% occurrence probability.

Taxon: MAIZEZea mayst0
Outcome: probability of occurrencee0
Value: 10.5%e0
Qualifier: 40% of grain yield decreasee0

Verbatim

e0
“The levels of 40% of grain yield decrease present 10.5% of probability of occurrence.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1116–1201

t0
“WATER DEFICIENCY ON THE MAIZE GRAIN YIELD DECREASE IN THE CATARINENSE FAR WEST”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–78

Title

WATER DEFICIENCY ON THE MAIZE GRAIN YIELD DECREASE IN THE CATARINENSE FAR WEST

CLÍSTENES ANTÔNIO GUADAGNIN; EDGAR RICARDO SCHOFFEL; HELVIO DEBLI CASALINHO; et al. Revista Brasileira de Milho e Sorgo 2017. doi:10.18512/1980-6477/rbms.v16n1p61-71

Other claims from this paper (6)

Observation The Isareg model estimated average maize grain yield decrease of 25.1%.
Observation The largest maize yield decrease occurred with early August sowing.
Observation The smallest maize yield decrease occurred with late January to February sowings.
Observation Yield decrease varied by up to 3.9% among maturation cycles.
Method / resource Isareg was judged appropriate for estimating grain yield decrease.
Method / resource Isareg overestimated yield decrease when relative evapotranspiration exceeded 0.8.

Observationauthor interpretationreview summarymeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Diseases may decrease marketable root yield.

Taxon: table beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
Outcome: yield of marketable rootse0
Direction: decreasee0

Verbatim

e0
“decrease the yield of marketable roots”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 275–313

t0
“table beet”
✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 107–117

Title

Challenges and Prospects for Building Resilient Disease Management Strategies and Tactics for the New York Table Beet Industry

Sarah J. Pethybridge; Julie R. Kikkert; Linda E. Hanson; et al. Agronomy 2018. doi:10.3390/agronomy8070112

Other claims from this paper (12)

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

The largest maize yield decrease occurred with early August sowing.

Taxon: MAIZEZea mayst0
Treatment: initial sowing of Auguste0
Outcome: decreasee0
Direction: biggeste0
Setting: Auguste0

Verbatim

e0
“The biggest decrease took place in the initial sowing of August”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 756–819

t0
“WATER DEFICIENCY ON THE MAIZE GRAIN YIELD DECREASE IN THE CATARINENSE FAR WEST”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–78

Title

WATER DEFICIENCY ON THE MAIZE GRAIN YIELD DECREASE IN THE CATARINENSE FAR WEST

CLÍSTENES ANTÔNIO GUADAGNIN; EDGAR RICARDO SCHOFFEL; HELVIO DEBLI CASALINHO; et al. Revista Brasileira de Milho e Sorgo 2017. doi:10.18512/1980-6477/rbms.v16n1p61-71

Other claims from this paper (6)

Observation The Isareg model estimated average maize grain yield decrease of 25.1%.
Observation The smallest maize yield decrease occurred with late January to February sowings.
Observation Yield decrease varied by up to 3.9% among maturation cycles.
Method / resource Isareg was judged appropriate for estimating grain yield decrease.
Method / resource Isareg overestimated yield decrease when relative evapotranspiration exceeded 0.8.
Observation A 40% grain yield decrease had a 10.5% occurrence probability.

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Late-rice yield tended to decrease with time compared with early-rice yield.

Taxon: RiceOryza sativat0
Outcome: late-rice yielde0
Direction: decreasee0
Comparator: early-rice yielde0

Not reportedTreatment

Verbatim

t0
“Rice Field”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 54–64

e0
“late-rice yield tended to decrease, compared with early-rice yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 374–440

Title

Yield Trends and Reasons for Their Change in Red-soil Rice Field with Long-term Organic Matter Circling

Xie Xiao-li 2007

Other claims from this paper (8)

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The largest barley monoculture yield decrease occurred in years three to five.

Taxon: barleyHordeum vulgaree0
Outcome: yield decreasee0
Direction: decreasee0
Qualifier: 3rd to 5th yeare0

Verbatim

e0
“Experiments have further shown that the biggest yield decrease occurs in the 3rd to 5th year of barley monoculture.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1463–1578

Title

Danish Experiences with Cereals in Monoculture¹

A. Jensen EPPO Bulletin 1975. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2338.1975.tb02477.x

Other claims from this paper (19)

Intervention effect Cereal monoculture led to yield depletion.
Mechanism take‐all was a main factor in cereal yield loss.
Mechanism eyespot was a main factor in cereal yield loss.
Observation New barley varieties were highly resistant to the cereal cyst nematode.
Mechanism The named parasites did not explain all yield losses.
Observation Barley monoculture yield declining the first 2–4 years.
Observation Barley monoculture yield remains stable after that.
Observation Barley monoculture take‐all declines after that.
Intervention effect Adding straw to the soil had little effect on barley yield or disease.
Intervention effect burning it had little effect on barley yield or disease.
Intervention effect Postharvest soil treatments had little effect.
Observation Barley monoculture yield decrease was usually minor on fertile soils in Denmark.
Intervention effect Postharvest soil treatment had little effect on disease and yield except on heavily weed infested land.
Observation The cereal root nematode remained a threat to oat and spring wheat.
Intervention effect Monocultures of different host plants reduced nematode populations.
Intervention effect Benomyl successfully controlled eyespot in winter wheat.
Intervention effect Benomyl successfully controlled eyespot in winter rye.
Observation Field chemical control of take-all appeared infeasible despite good laboratory tests.
Observation Breeding for take-all resistance was judged difficult and of doubtful economic value.

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Branch pod compensation limited per plant seed yield decrease to 52%.

Outcome: per-plant seed yield decreasee0
Direction: decreasee0
Value: 52%e0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0
“partial compensation by pods on the branches reduced mean per-plant seed yield decrease to 52%”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 999–1093

Title

Response of three Brassica species to high temperature stress during reproductive growth

S. V. Angadi; H. W. Cutforth; P. R. Miller; et al. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 2000. doi:10.4141/p99-152