View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Observation observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
There was no evidence that fungal diseases were involved in the herbage yield decrease at Rothamsted.
no evidence that fungal diseases were involved e1 Verbatim
t0 “Grass Swards ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–73 e1 “There was no evidence that fungal diseases were involved ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1126–1182 Other claims from this paper (15) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
The Opt treatment did not decrease tuber yield or NUE compared with the N-NI treatment.
tuber yield or NUE e1 did not result in a decrease e1 Verbatim
e0 “compared with the F, the Opt treatment facilitated potato N uptake, with a 33-40% increase in plant N accumulation ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 821–935 e1 “Compared with the N-NI, the Opt treatment did not result in a decrease in tuber yield or NUE ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1168–1260 Other claims from this paper (6) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation every 30 days (I3) did not significantly decrease wheat grain yield compared with the traditional irrigation treatment (I2).
Irrigation treatment I3 e1 wheat grain yield e1 no significant decrease e1 traditional irrigation treatment (I2) e1 Verbatim
t0 “FOR WHEAT USING RICE STRAW COMPOST ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–93 e1 “Irrigation treatment I3 was the best treatment since it save water irrigation of about 10.8% (286 m3) and had no significant decrease in wheat grain yield compared to the traditional irrigation treatment (I2) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1025–1233 Other claims from this paper (10) Intervention effect author interpretation original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
A threshold of 600 mites per leaf would not decrease yield compared with sprayed and unsprayed plots.
would not decrease e4 unsprayed plots e4 Verbatim
e1 “eggplants ( Solanum melongena ) are very tolerant to damage caused by the two-spotted spider mite , Tetranychus urticae ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 44–163 e4 “Based on a preliminary comparison of yield in both sprayed and unsprayed plots and on a three-year qualitative assessment, a tentative action threshold of 600 two-spotted spider mites per leaf would not decrease yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 363–580 Other claims from this paper (5) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
A 50% fertilizer reduction with AMF caused no significant yield decrease .
reduction in the top dressing fertilizer dose by 50% e0 yield of peppers e0 did not cause a statistically significant decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “In the experimental units with AMF, the reduction in the top dressing fertilizer dose by 50% and 75% did not cause a statistically significant decrease in the yield of peppers ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1222–1397 t0 “Sweet Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 116–149 Other claims from this paper (13) Observation observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Sugar yield showed neither a significant increase nor decrease before 1980.
no_change inferred e4 Verbatim
e0 “Florida is the largest producer of sugarcane ( Saccharum spp.) in the United States ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–83 e4 “Before 1980, sugarcane yield significantly decrease d ( P < 0.05), whereas sugar yield showed neither a significant increase nor decrease . For 1980 to 2018, both sugarcane and sugar yield s significantly increased ( P < 0.01) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 918–1141 Other claims from this paper (10) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) simulated Claim · model-written summary
Simulated maize planting could extend to late January with 60 kg ha-1 nitrogen without significant yield decrease .
without a significant decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “planting can be extended to early December, late December, early January and late January without a significant decrease in yield by adding no nitrogen, 15, 30 and 60 kg ha-1, respectively ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 892–1080 t0 “maize ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 Other claims from this paper (6) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
The same cover cropping did not significantly decrease barley yield .
drilling FF in strips between SB rows e2 “no-FF” practices e2 Not reported Direction
Verbatim
e0 “without a significant decrease in SB yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1460–1502 e1 “Spring barley (SB) (Hordeum vulgare L.) cultivar ‘Ūla’ ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–54 e2 “drilling FF in strips between SB rows reduced the amount of weeds by 1.79 times in relation to “no-FF” practices ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1347–1459 Other claims from this paper (2) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Night temperature 2°C below natural from the maximum stage did not promote Akiochi or decrease grain yield .
Not reported Comparator Direction
Verbatim
t0 “Rice Plant ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–65 e0 “but 2°C 1ower plots did not ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 323–350 Other claims from this paper (5) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Drought stress did not decrease main-stem grain yield relative to control.
determinate soybean e0 Drought stress e3 grain yield of the main stem e3 did not decrease e3 Verbatim
e0 “The effect of drought Stress on branch and main stem yield and yield components of determinate soybean ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–102 e1 “at the Greenhouse of Agriculture Faculty of Shahr-e- Kord UniverSity in 2005 ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 219–295 e2 “three drought stress levels; control; irrigate at 50% (S1); and at 25% available water (S2) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 399–490 e3 “Drought stress did not decrease grain yield of the main stem but decrease d it in the branches severely ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 492–594 Other claims from this paper (8) 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.
Solanum tuberosum
Triticum aestivum
Solanum melongena
Capsicum annuum
Zea mays.jpg?width=60){kind=small}
Hordeum vulgare
Oryza sativa