View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Association observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Soybean yield did not vary with plant population increases or decrease s.
not influenced e0 increase or decrease in the plant population e0 Not reported Organ / stage
Verbatim
e0 “Soybean yield was not influenced by increase or decrease in the plant population. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 930–1011 Other claims from this paper (3) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Aldicarb alone did not reduce disease or increase yield .
disease or increase yield e0 did not decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Aldicarb and phenamiphos alone did not decrease disease or increase yield . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1132–1206 t0 “Peanuts ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–113 Other claims from this paper (11) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Phenamiphos alone did not reduce disease or increase yield .
disease or increase yield e0 did not decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Aldicarb and phenamiphos alone did not decrease disease or increase yield . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1132–1206 t0 “Peanuts ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–113 Other claims from this paper (11) Intervention effect author interpretation original result no effect projected Claim · model-written summary
Two soybean rows were projected not to reduce sugarcane yield .
soybean interplanting row condition (2 rows) e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Under suitable soybean interplanting row condition (2 rows), the sugarcane yield would not decrease ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1326–1425 Other claims from this paper (8) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
May fertilizer failed to decrease take-all.
Fertilizer applied in May e0 failed to decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Fertilizer applied in May increased weed growth, failed to decrease take‐all ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1358–1434 t0 “WINTER WHEAT ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–106 Other claims from this paper (16) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Direct-drilling through chopped straw did not decrease winter wheat yield on the clay soil.
Direct‐drilling through chopped straw e0 but not on the clay soil e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Direct‐drilling through chopped straw decrease d yield on the silt loam but not on the clay soil ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 676–771 t0 “winter wheat ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–111 Other claims from this paper (7) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
An additional infection incidence of 10% in plots with introduced necrotic strain foci was insufficient to decrease overall seed yield significantly.
narrow-leafed lupin t0 introduced necrotic strain foci e0 overall seed yield e0 Not reported Comparator Direction
Verbatim
t0 “narrow-leafed lupin ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–112 t1 “Bean yellow mosaic virus ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–89 e0 “to decrease overall seed yield significantly. However, an additional incidence of 10% was insufficient to do so in plots with introduced necrotic strain foci ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1072–1229 Other claims from this paper (16) Intervention effect Lupin plants infected early with necrotic BYMV were killed, so there was no seed production. Intervention effect With late infection by necrotic BYMV, shoot dry weight decreased by at least 55%. Intervention effect With late infection by necrotic BYMV, seed yield decreased by at least 80%. Intervention effect With late infection by necrotic BYMV, seed number decreased by at least 74%. Intervention effect With non-necrotic BYMV, shoot dry weight diminished by 27-88% with increasing duration of infection (late to early). Intervention effect With non-necrotic BYMV, seed yield diminished by 48-99% with increasing duration of infection (late to early). Intervention effect With non-necrotic BYMV, seed number diminished by 35-98% with increasing duration of infection (late to early). Intervention effect An additional infection incidence of 28% in plots with introduced non-necrotic strain foci, over plots without introduced foci, significantly decreased overall seed yield. Intervention effect Introducing clover plants infected with non-necrotic BYMV at 4 foci per plot decreased lupin yield by 21-24%. Intervention effect Introducing clover plants infected with non-necrotic BYMV at 8 foci per plot decreased lupin yield by 31-43%. Intervention effect Introducing clover plants infected with non-necrotic BYMV at 16 foci per plot decreased lupin yield by 64-66%. Association Subsequent incidence of infection depended on the magnitude of the initial virus source. Mechanism Across both strain types, yield loss in infected lupin plants was mainly due to failure to produce any seed or fewer seeds, with smaller seed size also contributing. Observation Non-necrotic BYMV strains have considerable yield-limiting potential in narrow-leafed lupin crops despite causing milder symptoms than necrotic strains. Observation No evidence of seed transmission of non-necrotic BYMV was obtained in narrow-leafed lupin. Observation A 0.2% seed transmission rate was detected in yellow lupin (Lupinus luteus ). Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Basal 25% defoliation did not significantly lower seed yield per hectare.
basal 25% defoliation e0 did not decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “basal 25% defoliation did not decrease TDM, seed weight/plant and seed yield /ha significantly ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 774–867 t0 “soybean ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–103 Other claims from this paper (9) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
85% CUI did not decrease tomato output compared with common urea.
didn′t decrease e6 Sunlight Greenhouse t0 Verbatim
t0 “Tomato Fruits in Sunlight Greenhouse ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–88 e2 “Compared with common urea ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–25 e5 “85% of CUI ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 328–338 e6 “didn′t decrease the output ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 339–365 Other claims from this paper (4) Association observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Seed weight did not decrease significantly.
Decreasing seed quality e1 no significant decrease e0 Verbatim
e0 “no significant decrease in seed weight was observed. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1076–1128 t0 “Red Field Bean ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 66–80 e1 “Decreasing seed quality generally culminated in less top and root growth and less seed yield . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 905–998 Other claims from this paper (6) 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.
Glycine maxe0
Arachis hypogaea
Triticum aestivum
Bean yellow mosaic virus
Solanum lycopersicum