Search claims · PlantClaims

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Spraying against late blight did not significantly decrease yield.

Taxon: BIOPOTATOESt0
Treatment: liquid spraye0
Interactor: Phytophthora infestansPhytophthora infestanse0pathogen
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“The liquid spray against the late blight (Phytophthora infestans) did not significantly decrease neither occurrence of late blight or the yield.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 384–528

t0
“BIOPOTATOES”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–36

Title

ALTERNTIVE PROTECTION OF BIOPOTATOES IN ORGANIC FARMING

Jaroslav Tomášek; Petr Dvořák Organic Eprints (International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems, and Research Institute of Organic Agriculture) 2010

Other claims from this paper (6)

Intervention effect Botanical water extracts did not significantly reduce Colorado potato beetle adult attack versus control.
Observation Botanical extracts showed a trend of lower egg laying.
Observation Botanical extracts showed a trend of lower larval occurrence.
Intervention effect Spraying against late blight did not significantly reduce late blight occurrence.
Observation Organic potato production represented 0,2 % of total Czech potato production.
Recommendation Authors propose water extracts for potato protection and yield and quality improvement.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

OSIRI did not significantly decrease sugarcane yield compared with the control method.

Taxon: sugarcanet0
Treatment: OSIRIt0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“without a significant decrease in yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1133–1172

t0
“OSIRI : a decision-marking tool for irrigation of sugarcane”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 15–74

Title

Field tests of OSIRI : a decision-marking tool for irrigation of sugarcane farms in Reunion

Jean-Louis Chopart; Lionel Le Mézo; J. Antoir; et al. Agritrop (Cirad) 2007

Other claims from this paper (5)

Method / resource OSIRI reasonably simulated actual evapotranspiration in sugarcane.
Method / resource OSIRI reasonably simulated drainage below the sugarcane root zone.
Intervention effect OSIRI saved about 26% of irrigation delivery compared with the control method.
Intervention effect OSIRI increased irrigation water productivity by 25%.
Method / resource A survey of 25 farmers found OSIRI well accepted as a valuable decision-making tool.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Paclobutrazol caused no apparent decrease in fruit yield.

Taxon: Nectarine TreesPrunus persica var. nucipersicat0
Treatment: paclobutrazole0
Outcome: fruit yielde0
Direction: no apparent decreasee0
Comparator: controlse0

Verbatim

e0
“The paclobutrazol treatment resulted in a 67.9% decrease in annual extension shoot growth compared to controls and no apparent decrease in fruit yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 395–545

t0
“Nectarine Trees”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 60–75

Title

Leaf Gas Exchange and Growth Responses of Mature ‘Fantasia’ Nectarine Trees to Paclobutrazol

T. M. DeJong; J. F. Doyle Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 1984. doi:10.21273/jashs.109.6.878

Other claims from this paper (10)

Intervention effect Paclobutrazol reduced annual extension shoot growth by 67.9% versus controls.
Intervention effect Paclobutrazol caused no apparent decrease in leaf photosynthetic rate.
Intervention effect Paclobutrazol reduced total tree leaf area by an estimated 54.5%.
Association Fruit presence had no apparent effect on leaf CO 2 assimilation.
Association Fruit maturity stage had no apparent effect on leaf CO 2 assimilation.
Intervention effect Treated extension shoots had shorter internodes and larger diameters than untreated shoots.
Intervention effect Treated shoots had larger diameters than untreated shoots.
Intervention effect Treated shoots had more flower buds per unit length.
Intervention effect Treated shoots had higher specific shoot dry weights.
Intervention effect Treated shoots had fewer buds per unit shoot dry weight.

Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Although some cultivars showed initial lower growth rates, crop yield did not decrease.

Taxon: some cultivarse0
Outcome: crop yielde0
Direction: no decreasee0

Verbatim

e0
“Although some cultivars had shown initial signs of lower growth rates, there was no decrease in crop yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3034–3140

Title

Weed interference and weed control in cole crops and onion

Bitterlich, Iris cIRcle (University of British Columbia) 2010. doi:10.14288/1.0098094

Other claims from this paper (19)

Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Relay cropping chili and watermelon showed no decrease in yield.

Taxon: chilie0
Interactor: watermelonCitrullus lanatuse0other
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: no decreasee0

Verbatim

e0
“The relay cropping of chili and watermelon plants was effective simultaneously, and there was no decrease in yield.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1475–1590

Title

Study of Synthetic Fertilizer Chili and Organic Fertilizer Watermelon on Relay Cropping Fields

Avisema Sigit Saputro; Dewi Ratna Nur Hayati Jurnal Agrinika Jurnal Agroteknologi dan Agribisnis 2023. doi:10.30737/agrinika.v7i2.4614

Other claims from this paper (5)

Observation chili and watermelon could be harvested simultaneously without competition.
Observation watermelon and chili could be harvested simultaneously without competition.
Observation There was no interaction between chilies and watermelon.
Intervention effect Colombus chili with NPK Mahkota had the highest weight.
Intervention effect Baginda watermelon at 60 ml/liter liquid organic fertilizer had the highest weight.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reducing seed rate did not decrease cane yield.

Taxon: sugarcanet0
Treatment: reduction in seed ratee0
Outcome: Cane yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“Cane yield did not decrease due to reduction in seed rate”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1157–1214

t0
“sugarcane”
✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 97–106

t1
“sugarcane”
✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 97–106

Title

Effect of Sett Size, Seed Rate and Sett Treatment on Yield Attributes and Productivity of Spring Sugarcane in Subtropical India

Yadav R.D; Dheer Singh; Amit Bhatnagar Madras Agricultural Journal 2013. doi:10.29321/maj.10.001389

Other claims from this paper (8)

Intervention effect Two budded setts gave significantly higher yield attributes.
Intervention effect Two budded and one bud setts were at par for cane length.
Intervention effect Two and three budded setts were at par for internodes, millable canes and individual weight.
Intervention effect One budded sett had significantly more cane girth than two budded sett.
Intervention effect Two budded sett yielded 71.2 t ha-1, significantly above one and three budded setts.
Intervention effect High seed rate increased cane length and millable canes per hectare.
Intervention effect Low seed rate gave significantly higher average cane weight.
Intervention effect Carbendazim sett treatment improved yield attributes and cane productivity.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing orchard density did not significantly decrease yield.

Taxon: SOUR CHERRYPrunus cerasust0
Treatment: increasing the densitye0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: does not decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0
“SOUR CHERRY”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–91

e0
“increasing the density in the orchard, the yield does not decrease significantly”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1858–1938

Title

THE EFFECT OF ROOTSTOCK AND SPACING ON THE GROWTH AND YIELD OF 'KÁNTORJÁNOSI 3' SOUR CHERRY VARIETY IN INTENSIVE ORCHARD

L. Magyar; K. Hrotkó Acta Horticulturae 2013. doi:10.17660/actahortic.2013.981.58

Other claims from this paper (13)

Observation Slender spindle crowns were applicable on medium and strong rootstocks across spacings.
Recommendation The authors recommend large spacing with vigorous Prunus mahaleb rootstocks under extensive conditions.
Observation Magyar was suitable under extensive conditions at reduced spacing.
Observation Prob lacked sufficient vigour for the applied spacing and slender spindle training.
Observation Prob produced one of the best fruit sizes.
Recommendation The authors do not recommend Colt for Kantorjanosi 3.
Recommendation The authors do not recommend Pi-Ku 2 for Kantorjanosi 3.
Observation Branches died and leaves yellowed on Pi-Ku 2.
Observation CEMA gave better yield.
Observation Korponay gave better yield.
Observation Magyar was suitable at higher tree density.
Intervention effect Larger spacing significantly increased yield.
Intervention effect Specific yield index did not differ significantly across spacings.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Withholding nitrogen after flowering did not decrease green soybean yield.

Taxon: green soybeane1
Treatment: withholding nitrogen after floweringe0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: no decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“there was no decrease in yield in treatments withholding nitrogen after flowering”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 471–552

e1
“In green soybean”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 201–217

Title

Effects of nitrogen supplied in various growth stages on the growth and yield of several vegetable crops

M. IWATA; A. UTADA Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science 1968. doi:10.2503/jjshs.37.57

Other claims from this paper (10)

Intervention effect Withholding nitrogen in the first half delayed green soybean flowering.
Intervention effect Withholding nitrogen in the first half delayed green soybean harvest.
Intervention effect Stopping nitrogen for 2-3 weeks before flowering reduced green soybean pod yield.
Intervention effect Withholding nitrogen during rapid outer leaf growth reduced autumn cabbage head weight.
Intervention effect Withholding nitrogen after early June did not significantly change cabbage head weight versus continuous supply.
Intervention effect Withholding nitrogen in winter did not significantly change cabbage head weight versus continuous supply.
Intervention effect Stopping nitrogen at any growth stage suppressed turnip top growth.
Intervention effect Stopping nitrogen at any growth stage suppressed turnip root yield.
Intervention effect Withholding nitrogen for 2 weeks before harvest improved turnip root yield versus control.
Intervention effect Withholding nitrogen immediately before harvest suppressed cauliflower curd growth.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soybean yield did not decrease with cover crops.

Taxon: soybeanGlycine maxe5
Treatment: with CCe5
Outcome: yielde5
Direction: did not decreasee5

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e5
“Cover crops significantly increased vegetable crop yields and decreased the silage corn yield; however, grain corn, soybean, and winter wheat yield did not decrease with CC”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1013–1185

Title

Do Cover Crops Increase Subsequent Crop Yield in Temperate Climates? A Meta-Analysis

Inderjot Chahal; Laura L. Van Eerd Sustainability 2023. doi:10.3390/su15086517

Other claims from this paper (15)

Intervention effect Legume cover crop species increased subsequent crop yield significantly more than grass, by 14%.
Intervention effect Legume cover crop species increased subsequent crop yield significantly more than nonlegume broadleaves, by 7%.
Intervention effect Legume cover crop species increased subsequent crop yield significantly more than mixtures, by 2%.
Intervention effect Incorporating cover crop residue into soil increased crop yield by about 15% compared with leaving the residue on the soil surface.
Intervention effect Grass cover crops enhanced crop yield by 14% relative to no cover crop in non-organic vegetable systems.
Intervention effect Legume cover crops enhanced crop yield by 19% relative to no cover crop in non-organic vegetable systems.
Intervention effect Legume cover crops increased crop yield by 18% relative to no cover crop in coarse textured soil.
Intervention effect Legume cover crops increased crop yield by 4% relative to no cover crop in medium textured soil.
Intervention effect Legume cover crops increased crop yield by 11% relative to no cover crop under high precipitation.
Intervention effect Cover crops significantly increased vegetable crop yields.
Intervention effect Cover crops decreased silage corn yield.
Intervention effect Grain corn yield did not decrease with cover crops.
Intervention effect Winter wheat yield did not decrease with cover crops.
Intervention effect Cover crops in no-tillage and plow tillage systems increased crop yield compared with the no-CC control.
Recommendation Crop yield response to cover crops might become more robust when pedo-climatic and agronomic factors are considered.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

POST treatments did not decrease leafy crop yield versus a hand-weeded check.

Taxon: leafy crope0
Treatment: POST treatmentse0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0
Comparator: hand-weeded checke0

Verbatim

e0
“POST treatments did not decrease leafy crop yield compared with the hand-weeded check”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 991–1076

Title

Evaluation of Imazethapyr for Weed Control in Leafy Vegetable Crops

Joan A. Dusky; William M. Stall Weed Technology 1996. doi:10.1017/s0890037x00039907

Other claims from this paper (11)

Observation PRE imazethapyr sensitivity ranked Boston above bibb, crisphead, romaine, leaf, escarole and endive.
Association POST imazethapyr crop injury increased with application rate, similarly across leafy crops.
Intervention effect Surfactant addition increased imazethapyr phytotoxicity.
Intervention effect PRE imazethapyr at 0.067 kg ai/ha controlled livid amaranth by over 80%.
Intervention effect PRE imazethapyr at 0.067 kg ai/ha controlled common purslane by over 80%.
Intervention effect PRE imazethapyr at 0.067 kg ai/ha controlled flatsedge by over 80%.
Intervention effect PRE imazethapyr at 0.067 kg ai/ha controlled common lambsquarters by over 80%.
Intervention effect POST imazethapyr with surfactant controlled all weed species by over 85%.
Intervention effect POST imazethapyr at 0.017 kg/ha controlled spiny amaranth by over 85%.
Intervention effect Surfactant did not improve spiny amaranth control with imazethapyr.
Intervention effect PRE imazethapyr reduced crop yield relative to POST and hand-weeded controls.

“yield decrease”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics