Search claims · PlantClaims

Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The decrease in kernels per ear largely caused the decrease in maize grain yield.

Taxon: maizeZea mayst0
Outcome: decrease in grain yielde4
Qualifier: largely caused by the decrease in kernels per eare4

Verbatim

t0
“Differential responses of maize yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–37

e4
“The decrease in grain yield was largely caused by the decrease in kernels per ear (r2 = 0.88, P < 0.001)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 909–1013

Title

Differential responses of maize yield to drought at vegetative and reproductive stages

MI Na; Fu CAI; Yushu ZHANG; et al. Plant Soil and Environment 2018. doi:10.17221/141/2018-pse

Other claims from this paper (6)

Intervention effect Progressive drought significantly reduced maize grain yield during either the vegetative or the reproductive stage.
Intervention effect Reproductive-stage progressive drought reduced grain yield by 41.6-46.6%.
Intervention effect Vegetative-stage progressive drought reduced grain yield by 18.6-26.2%.
Intervention effect The grain yield reduction from reproductive-stage drought was greater than that from vegetative-stage drought.
Association The decrease in kernels per ear was associated with the decrease in grain yield (r2 = 0.88, P < 0.001).
Recommendation Guaranteeing water supply for maize during the reproductive stage is crucially important to avoid yield loss.

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

The Isareg model estimated average maize grain yield decrease of 25.1%.

Taxon: MAIZEZea mayst0
Outcome: grain yielde0
Direction: decreasee0
Value: 25.1%e0

Verbatim

e0
“The model estimated an average grain yield decrease of 25.1%.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 694–755

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

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.

Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Larger fertilizer applications can decrease plant yield in seasons of poor rainfall.

Taxon: cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
Treatment: larger applicationse0
Outcome: plant yielde0
Direction: decreasee0
Qualifier: seasons of poor rainfalle0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“larger applications can even decrease the plant yield in seasons of poor rainfall”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2217–2298

e1
“corn acreage”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2044–2056

Title

Food Crisis Nears Critical Stages

Barbara Tufty Science News 1966. doi:10.2307/3949861

Other claims from this paper (3)

Observation Annual corn production doubled from 26 to 52 bushels per acre since 1930.
Observation No progress in more successful new corn hybrids was reported since 1930.
Intervention effect Greater fertilizer applications gave farmers a small return.

Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation without intensive nutrient management may decrease maize yield.

Taxon: maizeZea mayst0
Treatment: Irrigatione0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: decreasee0
Comparator: without intensive nutrient managemente0

Verbatim

e0
“Irrigation is not enough in itself without intensive nutrient management, since it may lead to yield decrease.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1512–1622

t0
“maize”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–46

Title

The scientific background of competitive maize production

János Nagy; Adrienn Széles Acta Agraria Debreceniensis 2018. doi:10.34101/actaagrar/150/1700

Other claims from this paper (6)

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In 2023 there was a decrease in yield compared with near-normal precipitation in 2021.

Taxon: cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
Outcome: yielde1
Direction: decreasee1

Verbatim

e1
“there was a decrease in yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1293–1322

t0
“corn”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 35–39

Title

Cover crops did not change optimal corn nitrogen rate over three variable precipitation seasons in the Western Corn Belt

Tauana Ferreira de Almeida; Lucas Pecci Canisares; Emily Robinson; et al. Agronomy Journal 2025. doi:10.1002/agj2.70129

Other claims from this paper (7)

Intervention effect Cover crops did not decrease corn grain yield at the AONR.
Intervention effect Cover crops did not increase the AONR compared with the no-cover crop treatment.
Observation In 2021, with near-normal precipitation, corn yield at the AONR and the AONR were the highest of the three years.
Observation In 2022, with about half the 30-year average rainfall, yield at the AONR decreased across treatments.
Intervention effect In 2023, cover crop treatments had no significant effect on the AONR.
Mechanism Weather was the dominant factor driving the AONR.
Recommendation The results do not support the need for higher N rates after winter cover crops.

Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maize yield tended to decrease above 32°C.

Taxon: MaizeZea mayse0
Outcome: Maize yielde0
Direction: decreasee0
Qualifier: temperatures exceed 32°Ce0
Setting: Upper East regione0

Verbatim

e0
“Maize yield in the Upper East region tends to decrease when temperatures exceed 32°C”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 774–858

Title

Marginal Impact of climate variability on crop yields in Ghana

Samuel Asante Gyamerah; Victor Owusu; Stephen Oppong Kwakye Scientific African 2024. doi:10.1016/j.sciaf.2024.e02314

Other claims from this paper (3)

Association Maximum and minimum temperature were the strongest climate indicators for maize yield.
Association Maize yield tended to increase around 24°C.
Association Across studied districts, maize yield tended to be maximal around 24°C.

Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest ethephon may decrease grain yield without lodging.

Taxon: maizeZea mayst0
Outcome: decrease grain yielde0
Qualifier: in the absence of lodginge0

Verbatim

e0
“may decrease grain yield in the absence of lodging because of its potential deleterious effect on kernel number and growth”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1708–1830

t0
“Maize”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–44

Title

Growth, Yield, and Yield Components of Maize as Influenced by Ethephon

W. J. Cox; H. F. Andrade Crop Science 1988. doi:10.2135/cropsci1988.0011183x002800030023x

Other claims from this paper (11)

Intervention effect Ethephon did not affect phytomass, NAR, or CGR in the dry 1985 season.
Intervention effect Ethephon reduced phytomass, NAR, and CGR in the wet 1986 season.
Association Plant density and hybrid did not influence growth response to ethephon.
Intervention effect Ethephon reduced lodging by 64%.
Intervention effect Ethephon had no overall effect on grain yield.
Intervention effect Ethephon increased Cornell 281 grain yield from 7.78 to 8.24 Mg ha −1.
Intervention effect Ethephon decreased Pioneer 3901 grain yield from 9.63 to 8.56 Mg ha −1.
Intervention effect Ethephon increased Cornell 281 kernel weight from 263 to 266 mg.
Intervention effect Ethephon decreased Pioneer 3901 kernel weight from 282 to 264 mg.
Intervention effect Ethephon significantly decreased kernels per ear in both hybrids from 494 to 474.
Recommendation The authors suggest ethephon may enhance maize yield where lodging is a problem.

Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Poor groundcover suppression may decrease maize grain yield.

Taxon: maizeZea mayse0
Treatment: poor groundcover suppressione0
Outcome: maize grain yielde0
Direction: decreasee0

Verbatim

e0
“poor groundcover suppression may produce unfavorable environmental consequences and decrease maize grain yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1594–1704

Title

Modeling perennial groundcover effects on annual maize grain crop growth with the Agricultural Production Systems sIMulator

C. A. Bartel; S. V. Archontoulis; A. W. Lenssen; et al. Agronomy Journal 2020. doi:10.1002/agj2.20108

Other claims from this paper (10)

Method / resource The integrated model predicted maize aboveground biomass with 13–27% RRMSE.
Method / resource The model predicted groundcover tissue nitrogen concentration with 11–18% RRMSE.
Method / resource The calibrated model captured observed groundcover biomass trends.
Method / resource The calibrated model captured observed soil nitrate trends.
Mechanism Light competition was the primary groundcover-related maize yield penalty.
Association Water affected maize yield later in the growing season.
Association Nitrogen affected maize yield later in the growing season.
Association Effective groundcover suppression produced minimal maize yield loss.
Association Effective groundcover suppression produced significant environmental benefits.
Association Poor groundcover suppression may cause unfavorable environmental outcomes.

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The grain yield decrease in Ant-Pop was insignificant.

Taxon: MaizeZea mayst0
Material: Ant-Pope0
Outcome: grain yielde0
Direction: decreasee0

Verbatim

e0
“The decrease in the grain yield of Ant-Pop cultivar was insignificiant”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 536–606

t0
“Maize”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–66

Title

The Effect of Cutting Use Above The Part of Above The Ear in Maize as Forage on Grain Yield and Development

Mehmet Bilgen; Sadık Çakmakçi DergiPark (Istanbul University) 1999

Other claims from this paper (9)

Intervention effect Removing the portion above the ear reduced maize grain yield by 2.2 to 18.3%.
Intervention effect Cutting yielded 358.78 to 898.12 kg/da of forage.
Observation Tüm 82-6 had the greatest grain yield losses after fertilization and at milk stage.
Observation Ant-90 had the greatest grain yield losses after fertilization and at milk stage.
Intervention effect Cutting after fertilization caused greater grain yield reduction.
Intervention effect Cutting at milk stage caused greater grain yield reduction.
Observation Cutting after fertilization and at milk stage supplied more forage and better forage quality.
Intervention effect Grain yield loss from cutting at hard dough stage was insignificant.
Observation Forage from cutting at hard dough stage had low quality due to over ripeness.

“yield decrease”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics