Search claims · PlantClaims

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined reclaimed water and deficit irrigation did not decrease olive fruit yield.

Taxon: olive treesOlea europaeae0
Treatment: combination of both stresses (RW and RDI)e4
Outcome: fruit yielde4
Direction: neither did decreasee4
Comparator: control treese1

Verbatim

e4
“The combination of both stresses (RW and RDI) neither did decrease the fruit yield; however, it significantly reduced oil yield (25% less in 2018)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1080–1226

e1
“RW without water restrictions increased the fruit yield by 35% due to a slight increase in the fruit weight and, mainly, to a greater fruit set than the control trees”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 647–813

e0
“olive trees cv Arbosana”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 562–585

Title

Ripening Indices, Olive Yield and Oil Quality in Response to Irrigation With Saline Reclaimed Water and Deficit Strategies

Cristina Romero-Trigueros; Gaetano Alessandro Vivaldi; Emilio Nicolás Nicolás; et al. Frontiers in Plant Science 2019. doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.01243

Other claims from this paper (17)

Intervention effect Reclaimed water without water restriction increased olive fruit yield by 35% compared with control trees.
Intervention effect Reclaimed water without water restriction did not result in higher olive oil yield.
Intervention effect Regulated deficit irrigation did not decrease olive fruit yield.
Intervention effect Regulated deficit irrigation tended to decrease olive weight.
Intervention effect Regulated deficit irrigation increased olive oil yield by about 14.5%.
Intervention effect Combined reclaimed water and deficit irrigation significantly reduced olive oil yield by 25% in 2018.
Intervention effect Combined reclaimed water and deficit irrigation strongly reduced oil content per fruit dry weight by 40%.
Intervention effect Both RDI treatments lowered acidity levels in olive paste compared with full irrigation treatments.
Intervention effect Both RDI treatments reduced oil extractability and fatty yield.
Intervention effect Reclaimed water exposure decreased olive oil quality.
Intervention effect Reclaimed water exposure reduced oleic acid in olive oil.
Intervention effect Reclaimed water exposure increased the C18:2/C18:3 ratio in olive oil.
Intervention effect Reclaimed water exposure increased peroxides in olive oil.
Intervention effect Reclaimed water improved total polyphenols in olive.
Intervention effect Regulated deficit irrigation improved total polyphenols in olive.
Observation In all cases the olive oil parameters met the legislation.
Recommendation Reclaimed water and regulated deficit irrigation have potential to manage olive oil production.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tolerating weeds in turnips did not decrease pest pressure.

Taxon: turnipsBrassica rapa subsp. rapae0
Treatment: tolerating weedse0
Interactor: peste0pest
Outcome: pest pressuree0
Direction: did note0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“tolerating weeds in turnips had strong yield costs, and did not benefit predators or decrease pest pressure”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 899–1006

Title

Weeds Impose Unique Outcomes for Pests, Natural Enemies, and Yield in Two Vegetable Crops

Melina K Madden; Ivy V Widick; Carmen K Blubaugh Environmental Entomology 2020. doi:10.1093/ee/nvaa168

Other claims from this paper (8)

Intervention effect Weeds adjacent to eggplant rows increased predator abundance.
Intervention effect Weeds adjacent to eggplant rows reduced pests.
Intervention effect Relaxed weed management did not reduce eggplant yield.
Intervention effect Tolerating weeds reduced turnip yield.
Intervention effect Tolerating weeds in turnips did not benefit predators.
Association Pest abundance declined as weed diversity rose in both crops.
Intervention effect Weed treatments did not change consumption of weed seeds by soil-surface insects.
Intervention effect Weed treatments did not change consumption of sentinel prey by soil-surface insects.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seed advancement did not decrease plant stand or final yield in any experiment.

Taxon: sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
Treatment: Seed advancemente5
Outcome: plant stand or final yielde5
Direction: did not decreasee5

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“The effect of seed advancement on the early growth of sugar beet was determined in two experiments made under controlled conditions and eight field experiments made between 1974 and 1978”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 8–194

e5
“Seed advancement did not decrease the plant stand or final yield in any experiments”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 862–945

Title

The use of water and some inorganic salt solutions to advance sugar beet seed. II. Experiments under controlled and field conditions

M. J. DURRANT; P. A. PAYNE; J. s. MCLAREN Annals of Applied Biology 1983. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7348.1983.tb02791.x

Other claims from this paper (10)

Intervention effect Seed advancement increased the rate of emergence and seedling dry weight across a wide range of soil moisture contents in growth-room experiments.
Intervention effect Seed advancement increased seedling numbers only under sub‐optimal soil moisture conditions.
Intervention effect Seed advancement resulted in more rapid emergence in most field experiments.
Intervention effect Seed advancement resulted in larger seedlings in most field experiments.
Intervention effect Seed advancement gave up to 16% more plants in four field experiments.
Intervention effect Seed advancement significantly increased final sugar yield by up to 0–7 t h ‐1 in three experiments.
Intervention effect Seed advancement may reduce damage caused by field mice in sugar beet.
Intervention effect Seed advancement may reduce the number of sugar beet plants that bolt.
Association Seed advancement may be particularly beneficial on soils prone to slumping or capping.
Association Advanced seed used for early sowings may slightly increase the risk of frost injury in sugar beet.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Soybean meal + polyethylene did not significantly decrease pepper yield relative to the weed free control.

Taxon: peppere1
Treatment: soybean meal + polyethylenee4
Outcome: yielde4
Direction: no significant decreasee4
Comparator: weed free controle4

Verbatim

e1
“replicated four times in an organic pepper cropping system near Urbana, IL in 2015 and 2016”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 800–891

e4
“There was no significant decrease in yield compared to the weed free control for turkey litter or walnut shell treatments when combined with either bioplastic or polyethylene mulch or for soybean meal + polyethylene plots”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1472–1693

Title

Abrasive grit application for integrated weed and nitrogen management in organic vegetable cropping systems

Emily Elizabeth Braun IDEALS (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) 2017

Other claims from this paper (16)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Potassium fertilization did not decrease soybean seed yield in the strip tillage deep banding system.

Treatment: Potassium fertilizatione0
Outcome: seed yielde0
Qualifier: not in the STDB systeme0

Not reportedTaxonComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0
“Potassium fertilization decreased seed yield in both no‐till systems but not in the STDB system.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1428–1524

Title

No‐Till and Strip‐Till Soybean Production with Surface and Subsurface Phosphorus and Potassium Fertilization

Bhupinder S. Farmaha; Fabián G. Fernández; Emerson D. Nafziger Agronomy Journal 2011. doi:10.2134/agronj2011.0149

Other claims from this paper (9)

Observation Strip tillage with deep banding yielded 3.1 Mg seed ha −1.
Intervention effect Strip tillage with deep banding yielded 10% more than no tillage with broadcast fertilizer.
Intervention effect Strip tillage with deep banding yielded 7% more than no tillage with deep banding.
Intervention effect Phosphorus fertilization increased soybean seed yield, pod number, and trifoliate P concentration and accumulation across fertilizer placements.
Intervention effect Deep banding increased subsurface soil test levels relative to broadcast application.
Intervention effect Potassium fertilization decreased soybean seed yield in both no till systems.
Intervention effect P and K placement produced no differences in soybean outcomes.
Intervention effect Strip tillage with deep banding improved soybean yield and nutrient accumulation relative to no tillage systems.
Recommendation Deep band P fertilization cannot be reduced relative to broadcast without reducing soybean seed yield.

Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In the favourable year 2001, seed sprouting damage caused no decrease in spring triticale yield despite its significant effect on field emergence.

Taxon: spring triticale×Triticosecalee0
Treatment: seed sprouting damagee4
Outcome: yielde4
Direction: no decreasee4
Qualifier: favourable year 2001e4

Verbatim

e0
“effects of spring triticale seed sprouting damage on fi eld emergence”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 83–152

e4
“In the favourable year 2001, in spite of a signifi cant effect of seed sprouting damage on fi eld emergence, the emergence level was so high that no decrease in the investigated elements of the structure of yield and the yield was observed”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 738–977

Title

THE EFFECT OF SEED SPROUTING DAMAGE ON FIELD EMERGENCE AND YIELD OF SPRING TRITICALE

MOŚ, Maria; WÓJTOWICZ, Tomasz University of Zagreb University Computing Centre (SRCE) 2005

Other claims from this paper (3)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At low altitude 28-day irrigation intervals in August and September did not decrease yield.

Taxon: Pima cottone0
Treatment: Fewer irrigations than commonly usede0
Outcome: yieldse0
Direction: did not decreasee0
Value: 28 dayse0
Qualifier: August and Septembere0
Comparator: commonly usede0
Setting: low altitudee0

Verbatim

e0
“Fewer irrigations than commonly used on Pima cotton during August and September (28 days between irrigations) did not decrease yields and, in some cases, significantly increased yields of all cultivars at low altitude.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1089–1307

Title

Pima Cotton Lint Yield as Influenced by Irrigation Schedule, Cultivar and Altitude¹

D. L. Kittock Agronomy Journal 1973. doi:10.2134/agronj1973.00021962006500030043x

Other claims from this paper (7)

Observation At high altitude Pima S-4 and Pima S-3 had similar water requirements.
Observation At high altitude Pima S-4 and Pima S-3 reached maximum lint production with 80 cm water or five irrigations.
Observation At low altitude Pima S-4 yielded more than Pima S-3.
Observation At low altitude Pima S-4 required 150 cm water versus 115 cm for Pima S-3.
Recommendation More frequent May and June irrigation was indicated at low altitude.
Intervention effect At low altitude reduced late-season irrigation significantly increased yield in some cases.
Observation Pima cotton consumptive water use of 103 cm was similar to Upland cotton at 105 cm under similar irrigation.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The largest M. arenaria inoculum did not decrease yield of C724-19-15.

Taxon: runner type peanute1
Material: C724‐19‐15e2
Treatment: the largest inoculum of M. arenaria (2·0 eggs per cm 3 soil)e2
Interactor: M. arenariaMeloidogyne arenariae2pathogen
Outcome: yielde2
Direction: did not decreasee2

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e1
“with the runner type peanut genotypes C724‐19‐15, C724‐19‐25 and Georgia‐02C”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 225–301

e2
“even the largest inoculum of M. arenaria (2·0 eggs per cm 3 soil) did not decrease yield of C724‐19‐15”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1682–1784

Title

The interaction between Meloidogyne arenaria and Cylindrocladium parasiticum in runner peanut

W. B. Dong; T. B. Brenneman; C. C. Holbrook; et al. Plant Pathology 2008. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3059.2008.01932.x

Other claims from this paper (8)

Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield of C1421 did not vary significantly with a 27% increase or decrease in plant population from the optimum.

Taxon: soybeanGlycine maxe0
Material: C1421e1
Treatment: a 27% increase or decrease in plant population from the optimume1
Outcome: Yielde1
Direction: did not vary significantlye1

Verbatim

e0
“Three soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] strains were evaluated in approximately equidistant spacings at 14 population densities”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–136

e1
“Yield of C1421, which was most sensitive to high populations, did not vary significantly with a 27% increase or decrease in plant population from the optimum”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 983–1140

Title

Response of Three Soybean Strains to Equidistant Spacings¹

J. R. Wilcox Agronomy Journal 1974. doi:10.2134/agronj1974.00021962006600030022x

Other claims from this paper (9)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectsimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Replenishing soil to field capacity at 50% critical depletion of soil moisture did not decrease groundnut yield.

Taxon: groundnutArachis hypogaeae1
Treatment: 50% critical depletion of soil moisturee2
Outcome: yielde2
Direction: did not decreasee2

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e1
“The water requirement for groundnut was 362.1 mm, the irrigation requirement for groundnut crops was 323.7 mm, and crop evapotranspiration (ETc) was 373.4 mm during rabi season”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 670–846

e2
“At 50% critical depletion of soil moisture and soil replenishment to field capacity, the yield did not decrease”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 848–959

Title

Assessment of Crop water requirement using FAO CROPWAT 8.0 for Groundnut in South Odisha

Ray Sumit; Rani Barik Bandana; Majumder Sitabhra; et al. Plant Science Today 2024. doi:10.14719/pst.3438

Other claims from this paper (4)

“yield decrease”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics