Try:droughtFusariumnitrogen fertilizerArabidopsisseed germination

“yield decrease”

111 matches

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

1950 ’60 ’70 ’80 ’90 2000 ’10 ’20

plus 1 earlier · 1930s

Refine ·

More filters

Clear filters

Organism: Zea mays ✕

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 effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield did not decrease in the first year without fertilization.

Taxon: winter wheat and summer maizeTriticum aestivum Zea mayse0
Treatment: without fertilizatione2
Outcome: yielde2
Direction: did not decreasee2

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“comprising winter wheat and summer maize as an annual rotation”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 479–541

e2
“The yield did not decrease in the first year without fertilization but started to decrease considerably in later years”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1046–1164

Title

Long-term legacy impacts of nitrogen fertilization on crop yield, nitrate accumulation, and nitrogen recovery efficiency

Shuang Lei; Sajjad Raza; Annie Irshad; et al. European Journal of Agronomy 2025. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2025.127513

Other claims from this paper (11)

Intervention effect N fertilization increased grain yield compared with the control.
Intervention effect DCD addition caused additional increases in grain yield, mainly at 500 kg N ha-1.
Intervention effect Yield started to decrease considerably in later years without fertilization.
Intervention effect N fertilization increased grain N uptake by more than 100 % compared with the control in fertilized years and the first unfertilized year.
Intervention effect Grain N uptake decreased strongly in the second year without fertilization.
Intervention effect Cumulative fertilizer N recovery did not differ among N fertilized treatments during fertilized years.
Intervention effect Cumulative fertilizer N recovery increased strongly when N uptake in unfertilized years was incorporated.
Intervention effect Cumulative fertilizer N recovery in N340 + DCD increased from 37 %–44 % in fertilized years to 74 %–80 % in unfertilized years.
Observation A residual nitrate accumulation of 237–489 kg N ha-1 accumulated in the soil profile after two years of fertilization.
Intervention effect Residual N accumulation decreased by 31 %–41 % in the first unfertilized year.
Observation Soil N accumulation became less than 60 kg ha-1 after four years of cropping without fertilization, with no difference among treatments including control.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At Manhattan in 2008, delayed planting did not decrease yield.

Taxon: CORNZea mays subsp. mayst0
Treatment: delayed plantinge0
Outcome: yieldt1
Direction: did not decreasee0
Qualifier: in 2008e0
Setting: Manhattan, KSt1

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0
“CORN”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–34

e0
“did not decrease at all with delayed planting in 2008”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1073–1126

t1
“delayed planting dates and hybrids of varying maturity revealed that yield at Manhattan, KS”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 907–998

Title

EFFECT OF DELAYED PLANTING ON CORN IN CENTRAL KANSAS

Aaron James Sindelar; Kraig L. Roozeboom K-State Research Exchange (Kansas State University) 2008

Other claims from this paper (4)

Intervention effect At Manhattan in 2007, yield did not decrease significantly until the final planting date.
Intervention effect At Belleville in 2007, later planting increased yield.
Intervention effect At Belleville in 2008, planting date did not affect yield.
Intervention effect At Hutchinson, yield decreased significantly with successive planting dates; the supplied sentence is cut off.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Delaying all 224 kg N ha-1 through V15 did not decrease corn yield significantly.

Taxon: CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
Treatment: Delaying application of all 224 kg N ha-1 through V15e0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0
“Corn yield following a delayed application of nitrogen”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–54

e0
“Delaying application of all 224 kg N ha-1 through V15 did not decrease yield significantly”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 695–785

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 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 V9 did not significantly decrease corn 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 effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A 25% to 30% irrigation reduction did not decrease maize seed yield.

Taxon: maizeZea mayst0
Treatment: reduction of 25% ~ 30% in irrigation amounte0
Outcome: seed yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“reduction of 25% ~ 30% in irrigation amount did not decrease seed yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1809–1880

t0
“hybrid seed yield of maize”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–68

Title

Effects of irrigation stage and amount on hybrid seed yield of maize and water use of maize in Hexi Corridor of Gansu

Fan Ting-l Ganhan diqu nongye yanjiu 2014

Other claims from this paper (14)

Intervention effect Reducing irrigation by 56.2% from 480 to 210 mm decreased average maize seed yield by 41.6%.
Association Each additional millimeter of irrigation increased seed yield by 14.05 kg per hectare.
Intervention effect At 360 mm, yield declined by 0.47% to 8.26% versus 480 mm.
Intervention effect At 330 mm, yield declined by 8.66% to 24.90% versus 480 mm.
Intervention effect At silking, 60 mm irrigation reduced yield by 6.5% relative to tasselling.
Intervention effect At silking, 60 mm irrigation reduced yield by 7.2% relative to middle grain filling.
Intervention effect At silking, 30 mm irrigation reduced yield by 11.2% relative to tasselling.
Intervention effect At silking, 30 mm irrigation reduced yield by 8.5% relative to middle grain filling.
Association Water use efficiency increased with irrigation amount and evapotranspiration.
Observation Moderate irrigation gave high WUE, whereas high irrigation gave high yield.
Intervention effect Reduced irrigation at maternal silking decreased WUE and IWUE.
Intervention effect Reduced irrigation at tasselling or middle grain filling did not reduce WUE and IWUE.
Observation The authors identify maternal silking as the most irrigation sensitive stage.
Recommendation The authors recommend irrigation before silking and during middle to late grain filling.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Short-term conservation tillage did not significantly decrease corn yield.

Taxon: cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
Treatment: short-term implementation of conservation tillagee0
Outcome: corn yielde0
Direction: did not result in a significant decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“the short-term implementation of conservation tillage did not result in a significant decrease in corn yield.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1920–2029

Title

Effects of Tillage and Sowing Methods on Soil Physical Properties and Corn Plant Characters

Ying Wang; Sen Yang; Jian Sun; et al. Agriculture 2023. doi:10.3390/agriculture13030600

Other claims from this paper (9)

Intervention effect PTS lowered 10–40 cm soil penetration resistance by 11.9% to 18% versus other treatments.
Intervention effect NTS soil moisture averaged 2.7% higher than PTS.
Intervention effect NTS soil moisture averaged 1.4% higher than RTS.
Intervention effect STS lowered soil temperature by 5.6% to 8.6% during late corn growth.
Intervention effect RTS significantly reduced surface-soil bulk density.
Association High soil penetration resistance impeded early crop growth.
Association High soil penetration resistance did not impact mid-crop development.
Association Low soil temperature affected late corn growth as temperatures decreased.
Recommendation The authors regard short-term NTS sowing as feasible in Mollisol regions.

Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Increased corn yield did not decrease drainage nitrate exports.

Taxon: CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
Outcome: drainage nitrate exportse0
Direction: no_changeinferrede0
Comparator: Increased corn yieldse0

Verbatim

e0
“Increased corn yields did not result in a decrease in drainage nitrate exports”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–234

t0
“Corn”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4

Title

Corn Yield Increase Under Constant Fertilizer Did Not Reduce Nitrate Export

Chelsea Connair Clifford; Emily R. Waring; Carl H. Pederson; et al. Journal of the ASABE 2023. doi:10.13031/ja.15538

Other claims from this paper (5)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

At Manhattan in 2007, yield did not decrease significantly until the final planting date.

Taxon: CORNZea mays subsp. mayst0
Treatment: delayed planting datest1
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0
Qualifier: final planting date in 2007e0
Setting: Manhattan, KSe0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0
“CORN”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–34

e0
“yield at Manhattan, KS, did not decrease significantly until the final planting date in 2007”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 976–1068

t1
“delayed planting dates and hybrids of varying maturity revealed that yield at Manhattan, KS”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 907–998

Title

EFFECT OF DELAYED PLANTING ON CORN IN CENTRAL KANSAS

Aaron James Sindelar; Kraig L. Roozeboom K-State Research Exchange (Kansas State University) 2008

Other claims from this paper (4)

Intervention effect At Manhattan in 2008, delayed planting did not decrease yield.
Intervention effect At Belleville in 2007, later planting increased yield.
Intervention effect At Belleville in 2008, planting date did not affect yield.
Intervention effect At Hutchinson, yield decreased significantly with successive planting dates; the supplied sentence is cut off.

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)simulated

Claim · model-written summary

The controller caused no significant decrease in simulated maize yield relative to constant irrigation.

Taxon: maizeZea mayse1
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: without any significant decreasee0
Comparator: constant irrigation method of the DSSAT modele0

Verbatim

t0
“Precision Irrigation”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–64

e0
“almost 40% decrease in water consumption is achieved in comparison to constant irrigation method of the DSSAT model without any significant decrease in yield and leaf area index.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2249–2427

e1
“DSSAT (Decision Support System for Agro-technology Transfer) maize crop simulation model”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1911–1999

Title

Reinforcement Learning Based Controller For Precision Irrigation

Shivaram Irukula OakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries) 2015

Other claims from this paper (2)

Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Legumes did not decrease maize yield in the intercrops.

Taxon: maizeZea mayse1
Treatment: legumese1
Outcome: yieldse1
Direction: decreasede1

Verbatim

e1
“Neither the legumes decreased yields of maize nor roselle”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 778–835

Title

Exploring Maize-Legume Intercropping Systems in Southwest Mexico

D. Flores-Sanchez; A. Pastor; E. A. Lantinga; et al. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 2013. doi:10.1080/21683565.2013.763888

Other claims from this paper (8)

Association Legumes did not decrease roselle yield in the intercrops.
Observation Legume intercropping reduced weed biomass by 24–55%.
Observation Total aboveground biomass returned to the soil increased by up to 36% in the legume intercrops.
Observation Total N uptake increased by 52% on average in the legume intercrops.
Observation P uptake increased by 24% on average in the legume intercrops.
Observation K uptake increased by 30% on average in the legume intercrops.
Mechanism Legumes act as N-fixing crops that prevent N and K leaching.
Association Canavalia showed agronomic advantages over mucuna as an intercrop.

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.

“yield decrease”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics