Search claims · PlantClaims

Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The decrease in seed setting rate was the main contribution to the decrease in grain yield.

Taxon: riceOryza sativat0
Outcome: grain yieldse7
Direction: decreasee7
Qualifier: decrease in seed setting ratee7

Verbatim

t0
“elevated temperature effects on rice”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 122–158

e7
“The main contribution to the significant decrease of the grain yields was the decrease in seed setting rate”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1369–1476

Title

A hot-blast warming facility for simulating global warming in low-stature crop systems and its application case to assess elevated temperature effects on rice in Central China

Zuolin Zhang; Zhiyuan Yang; Shah Fahad; et al. Plant Methods 2020. doi:10.1186/s13007-020-00598-1

Other claims from this paper (11)

Method / resource The facility could increase rice canopy temperature by up to 1–2 °C.
Method / resource The facility had a power consumption of 0.164 kW/m2.
Method / resource The facility power consumption was 80% lower than that of Free Air Temperature Increase.
Method / resource The facility built a 25 m2 homogeneous heating area.
Intervention effect The facility had little effect on relative humidity in a paddy field.
Intervention effect Warming treatments significantly reduced rice grain yield by 4.4–22.7% in 2015 compared with the control.
Intervention effect Warming treatments significantly reduced rice grain yield by 30.8–61.9% in 2016 compared with the control.
Mechanism A reduction of 1000-grain weight led to a decline in grain yield.
Method / resource The increasing ranges of the temperature simulated by HBWF were stable across years.
Association Differences among elevated treatments in rice growth were mainly decided by the basic atmospheric temperature.
Recommendation The new warming facility is suitable for field trials assessing elevated temperature combinations.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Heavy fertilization prevented a marked vegetable yield decrease in raw subsoil.

Taxon: vegetable cropse0
Treatment: heavily fertilizede0
Outcome: yieldse0
Direction: did not decrease remarkablye0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“the yields of vegetable crops did not decrease remarkably in the raw subsoil when it was heavily fertilized”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1503–1610

Title

The effect of deep plowing on growth and yield of vegetable crops

H. OHTA; T. KODAMA; K. WATANABE Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science 1962. doi:10.2503/jjshs.31.315

Other claims from this paper (11)

Intervention effect Deep plowing favored growth and yield of most vegetable crops.
Intervention effect Heavy fertilizer application made deep plowing more effective.
Intervention effect Raw subsoil was unfavorable to cereal and forage crop growth and yield.
Observation Most heavily fertilized vegetable crops were relatively insensitive to subsoil inhibition.
Intervention effect Frost-exposed, heavily fertilized subsoil supported excellent vegetable growth and yield.
Intervention effect Poor subsoil inhibited growth of most vegetables in pots.
Intervention effect Fertile subsoil with heavy fertilizer supported vigorous growth of most vegetables in pots.
Intervention effect Some crops grew better in subsoil than topsoil with the same fertilizer amount.
Association High yielding crops under deep plowing were less affected by poor subsoil nutrition.
Association Sensitivity to aluminum toxicity and nutrient deficiency was suggested to relate to subsoil adaptation.
Mechanism Good soil aeration after deep plowing was linked to root development and active nutrient uptake.

Observationauthor interpretationreview summarynegativebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Imidazolinone herbicides decrease yield of subsequent rotation crops.

Taxon: subsequent cropse0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: decreasinge0

Verbatim

e0
“decreasing in the yield of subsequent crops in crop rotations”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 572–633

Title

Negative Effects of Imidazolinone Herbicides Usage: Problems and Desicions

V. V. Bychkova; I. A. Sazonova; P. S. Pidenko; et al. Агрохимия 2023. doi:10.31857/s0002188123020060

Other claims from this paper (2)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Regulated deficit irrigation did not decrease olive fruit yield.

Taxon: olive treesOlea europaeae0
Treatment: RDI strategye3
Outcome: fruit yielde3
Direction: did not decreasee3
Comparator: full irrigatione6

Verbatim

e3
“The RDI strategy did not decrease the fruit yield despite the fact that olive weight tended to decrease, and it increased the oil yield by ~14.5%”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 933–1078

e6
“full irrigation (FI, 100% of ETc)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 414–447

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 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 did not decrease olive fruit yield.
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.

Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativeprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Without CO2 fertilization, wheat yield in the 2050s would decrease 2.5%.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivume1
Treatment: without CO2 fertilizatione1
Outcome: wheat yielde1
Direction: decreasee1
Value: 2.5%e1
Qualifier: In 2050se1

Verbatim

e1
“In 2050s, wheat yield would increase 14.8% (decrease 2.5% without CO2 fertilization) , and ET would decrease 2.1% under RCP4.5”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 737–863

Title

[Evaluating the response of yield and evapotranspiration of winter wheat and the adaptation by adjusting crop variety to climate change in Huang-Huai-Hai Plain].

Shi Hu; Xing-guo Mo; Zhong-hui Lin PubMed 2015

Other claims from this paper (8)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water deficit at S4 caused a relative yield decrease.

Taxon: SoybeanGlycine maxt0
Organ / stage: pod filling to early maturing (S4)e0
Treatment: water deficite0
Outcome: relative decrease of yielde0
Direction: decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“The water deficit at early vegetative (S1) and pod filling to early maturing (S4) was sensitive to the relative decrease of yield.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1188–1318

t0
“Soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–126

Title

The Effect of Water Deficit at Individual Growth Stages on the Yield and Water Requirement of Soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.)

R.A. Bustomi Rosadi; Afandi; Masateru Senge; et al. Journal of Rainwater Catchment Systems 2005. doi:10.7132/jrcsa.kj00004364683

Other claims from this paper (15)

Observation Soybean was sensitive to water stress especially at flowering and pod filling to maturity.
Observation Critical water content at S3 and S4 was around 50% of available water deficit.
Observation Critical water content at S3 and S4 was 0.26m^3/m^3.
Observation Water stress coefficient at S2 was 0.55.
Observation Water stress coefficient at S3 was 0.57.
Observation Water stress coefficient at S4 was 0.27.
Observation Yield response factor at SI was 0.96.
Observation Yield response factor at S2 was 0.42.
Observation Yield response factor at S3 was 0.46.
Observation Yield response factor at S4 was 1.20.
Intervention effect Water deficit at S1 caused a relative yield decrease.
Intervention effect Full irrigation after S2 could recover S1 water deficit damage.
Intervention effect Even small water deficit at S4 strongly damaged soybean yield.
Intervention effect All tested water deficit levels at S4 decreased yield efficiency extremely.
Recommendation Deficit irrigation after pod filling should not be used.

Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Energy yield from gasification of switchgrass did not decrease on a unit biomass basis.

Taxon: SwitchgrassPanicum virgatumt0
Outcome: Energy yield from gasificatione1
Qualifier: did not decrease on a unit biomass basise1

Verbatim

t0
“Biomass Yield and Biofuel Quality of Switchgrass Harvested in Fall or Spring”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–76

e1
“Energy yield from gasification did not decrease on a unit biomass basis”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1029–1100

Title

Biomass Yield and Biofuel Quality of Switchgrass Harvested in Fall or Spring

Paul R. Adler; Matt A. Sanderson; Akwasi A. Boateng; et al. Agronomy Journal 2006. doi:10.2134/agronj2005.0351

Other claims from this paper (9)

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.

Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativeprojected

Claim · model-written summary

The rate of wheat yield decrease is higher under full irrigation than under deficit irrigation.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivume1
Treatment: full irrigatione0
Outcome: decrease rate of yielde0
Direction: highere0

Verbatim

e1
“impact of climate change on wheat yield was simulated using SWAP in Myandoab, Iran”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 18–100

e0
“this decrease rate of yield is higher in full irrigation”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1167–1223

Title

Climate change impacts modeling on winter wheat yield under full and deficit irrigation in Myandoab-Iran

Nasrin Azad; Javad Behmanesh; Vahid Rezaverdinejad; et al. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 2017. doi:10.1080/03650340.2017.1373187

Other claims from this paper (8)

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The screenhouse climate corresponded to a 50% decrease in cucumber fruit yield during spring/summer.

Taxon: CucumberCucumis sativust0
Outcome: crop fruit yielde0
Direction: decreasee0
Value: 50%e0
Qualifier: spring/summer periode0

Verbatim

e0
“These differences resulted in a 50% decrease in crop fruit yield during the spring/summer period”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1260–1356

t0
“Cucumber Fruit Yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–49

Title

Analysis of Microclimate and Cucumber Fruit Yield in a Screenhouse and an Evaporatively Cooled Greenhouse in a Semi-Arid Location

Yaseen A. Al-Mulla; Mohammed I. Al-Balushi; Hamad A. Al-Busaidi; et al. Transactions of the ASABE 2018. doi:10.13031/trans.12144

Other claims from this paper (12)

Intervention effect Cooling reduced greenhouse air temperature by about 4.5°C relative to outside.
Observation Cooling kept leaf temperature close to greenhouse air temperature.
Observation Greenhouse leaf and air temperatures reached 25.8°C and 25.9°C, respectively.
Observation Screenhouse leaf and air temperatures were higher than outside by 1.0°C and 1.3°C.
Observation Screenhouse mean leaf and air temperatures reached 32.8°C and 31.8°C.
Observation Greenhouse air VPD remained below 1.1 kPa with cooling.
Observation Screenhouse mean air VPD reached 4.5 kPa.
Observation Radiation use efficiency was similar between structures in winter/spring and higher in the greenhouse in spring/summer.
Observation Overall summer WUE was equal between structures after including wet-pad evaporation.
Intervention effect Cooling improved fruit dry matter content relative to the screenhouse.
Intervention effect Cooling improved fruit firmness and chroma in spring/summer.
Intervention effect Cooling did not significantly affect fruit weight, soluble solids, or juice pH.

“yield decrease”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics