Search claims · PlantClaims

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Aluminium addition did not significantly change yield of tolerant garden pea genotypes, despite lower soil pH.

Taxon: Garden PeaLathyrus oleraceust0
Material: tolerant genotypese3
Treatment: addition of Ale2
Outcome: yielde3
Direction: no_changeinferrede3
Qualifier: despite a decrease in soil pH and an imbalance of nutrientse3

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0
“Genotypes of Garden Pea”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 62–85

e2
“The addition of Al caused decrease in soil pH causing a negative effect on the yield of susceptible pea genotypes”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 450–563

e3
“in tolerant genotypes, there was no significant effect on yield, despite a decrease in soil pH and an imbalance of nutrients”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 574–698

Title

Impact of Aluminium on Nutrient Profile of Soil under Various Genotypes of Garden Pea

Mohd Talha Ansari; Pranabjyoti Sarma; A. S. Mailappa; et al. International Research Journal of Pure and Applied Chemistry 2020. doi:10.9734/irjpac/2020/v21i2330298

Other claims from this paper (3)

Intervention effect Aluminium application in soil significantly decreased soil nutrient availability of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.
Intervention effect Aluminium addition decreased soil pH in garden pea culture.
Intervention effect Aluminium addition had a negative effect on the yield of susceptible garden pea genotypes.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-tillage systems did not decrease protein content in pea grains compared with ploughing.

Taxon: peaLathyrus oleraceust0
Treatment: No-tillage systemse3
Outcome: protein content in pea grainse3
Direction: did not decreasee3
Comparator: pea cultivation in a ploughing systeme3

Verbatim

t0
“PEA (Pisum sativum L.)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–99

e3
“No-tillage systems did not decrease protein content in pea grains compared with pea cultivation in a ploughing system”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1105–1222

Title

THE EFFECT OF LONG-TERM TILLAGE SYSTEMS ON SOME SOIL PROPERTIES AND YIELD OF PEA (Pisum sativum L.)

Irena Małecka-Jankowiak; A. Blecharczyk; D. Swędrzyńska; et al. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Agricultura 2016

Other claims from this paper (9)

Intervention effect Pea yield was highest after reduced tillage.
Intervention effect Conventional tillage decreased pea grain yield by 7.5% relative to reduced tillage.
Intervention effect Direct sowing decreased pea grain yield by 11.0% relative to reduced tillage.
Mechanism Differences in pea grain yield between tillage systems mainly resulted from different plant density before harvest.
Intervention effect Direct sowing interrupted with reduced tillage had no beneficial effect on pea yield.
Intervention effect Long-term reduced tillage and direct sowing increased soil moisture.
Intervention effect Long-term reduced tillage and direct sowing increased soil bulk density.
Intervention effect Long-term reduced tillage and direct sowing decreased soil capillary water capacity.
Intervention effect Long-term reduced tillage and direct sowing stimulated soil enzyme activity to 10 cm depth.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pre-blossom severe stress did not reduce yield when water was ample afterward.

Taxon: peaLathyrus oleraceuse0
Treatment: Severe water stress prior to blossome0
Outcome: pea yielde0
Direction: did not cause a decreasee0
Qualifier: ample soil moisture was made available after blossome0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“Severe water stress prior to blossom did not cause a decrease in pea yield if ample soil moisture was made available after blossom”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 830–960

Title

RESPONSE OF PEAS TO ENVIRONMENT: IV. EFFECT OF FIVE SOIL WATER REGIMES ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF PEAS

A. R. Maurer; H. F. Fletcher; D. P. Ormrod Canadian Journal of Plant Science 1968. doi:10.4141/cjps68-025

Other claims from this paper (6)

Intervention effect Minimal stress allowed luxuriant growth through harvest.
Intervention effect Irrigation at 60% versus 88% available water did not reduce pea yield or height.
Intervention effect Irrigation at 60% versus 88% available water reduced fresh weight and dry matter.
Intervention effect Severe post-blossom stress reduced yield regardless of earlier water regime.
Intervention effect Previously well-watered plants wilted under severe post-blossom stress.
Observation Plants stressed before and after blossom did not wilt.

Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dry seed protein, starch and sugar contents did not decrease in susceptible versus resistant peas.

Taxon: peaLathyrus oleraceust0
Material: varieties susceptible to Fusarium oxysporumt0
Organ / stage: dry seedse0
Outcome: protein, nor the starch or sugar contentse0
Direction: decreasede0
Comparator: the resistant onese0

Verbatim

t0
“Micronutrients and yield quality of pea (Pisum sativum L.) varieties susceptible to Fusarium oxysporum”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–102

e0
“neither the protein, nor the starch or sugar contents of the dry seeds decreased in comparison to the resistant ones.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1542–1659

Title

Micronutrients and yield quality of pea (Pisum sativum L.) varieties susceptible to Fusarium oxysporum

E. Nemeskéri; Z. Győri Acta Agronomica Hungarica 2005. doi:10.1556/aagr.53.2005.2.9

Other claims from this paper (12)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The second application level left bulk density unchanged.

Taxon: peaLathyrus oleraceust0
Outcome: bulk densitye0
Direction: no changee0
Qualifier: second levele0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

Verbatim

e0
“A significant decrease in bulk density was observed, to first and third level. With percent of decrease 15% and 10% respectively. In the seam time. The second level no change was observed”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 785–972

t0
“THE EFFECT OF USING THE SHENBLAN PLANT AS A SOIL CONDITIONER IN SOME SOIL PROPERTIES AND YIELD OF PEA CERATOPHLAM DEMERESM L. UNDER THE RAIN CIRCUMSTANCE OF RAMADI CITY.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–169

Title

THE EFFECT OF USING THE SHENBLAN PLANT AS A SOIL CONDITIONER IN SOME SOIL PROPERTIES AND YIELD OF PEA CERATOPHLAM DEMERESM L. UNDER THE RAIN CIRCUMSTANCE OF RAMADI CITY.

Wathib Al-Nuaymy Anbar Journal of Agricultural Sciences 2004. doi:10.32649/ajas.2004.177200

Other claims from this paper (15)

Intervention effect The first shemblan level increased soil mean weight diameter by 42% versus control.
Intervention effect The second shemblan level increased soil mean weight diameter by 79% versus control.
Intervention effect The third shemblan level increased soil mean weight diameter by 108% versus control.
Intervention effect The first level decreased soil bulk density by 15%.
Intervention effect The third level decreased soil bulk density by 10%.
Intervention effect Penetration declined at the first application level.
Intervention effect The first level increased pea seed emergence by 27%.
Intervention effect The second level increased pea seed emergence by 16%.
Intervention effect The third level increased pea seed emergence by 26%.
Intervention effect The first level increased pea pod yield by 385%.
Intervention effect The second level increased pea pod yield by 130%.
Intervention effect The third level increased pea pod yield by 198%.
Intervention effect The first level increased pea dry matter by 70%.
Intervention effect The second level increased pea dry matter by 50%.
Intervention effect The third level increased pea dry matter by 105%.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

ABA-deficient wilty pea stomatal conductance did not respond to liming.

Taxon: peaLathyrus oleraceuse0
Material: wiltye0
Treatment: liminge0
Outcome: g(s)e0
Direction: unresponsivee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“g(s) of the ABA-deficient mutant pea wilty was unresponsive to liming”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1354–1423

Title

Liming can decrease legume crop yield and leaf gas exchange by enhancing root to shoot ABA signalling

Shane A. Rothwell; E. David Elphinstone; Ian C. Dodd Journal of Experimental Botany 2015. doi:10.1093/jxb/erv042

Other claims from this paper (12)

Intervention effect Recommended liming reduced field bean pod yield by about 30%.
Intervention effect Liming reduced V. faba stomatal conductance by 63%.
Intervention effect Liming reduced bean stomatal conductance by 26%.
Intervention effect Liming reduced pea stomatal conductance by 59%.
Intervention effect Liming reduced shoot dry biomass by 16–24% across the three legume species.
Observation Liming decreased phosphorus concentration in root xylem sap and leaves.
Association Lower phosphorus concentration correlated with lower stomatal conductance.
Intervention effect Superphosphate partly reversed the phosphorus decline.
Intervention effect Superphosphate partly reversed the stomatal-conductance decline.
Mechanism In pea, lime-induced low phosphorus appeared to raise systemic ABA and reduce leaf gas exchange.
Intervention effect Synthetic ABA supplied through the transpiration stream reduced detached pea-leaf transpiration.
Recommendation The authors question current liming recommendations.

“yield decrease”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics