Search claims · PlantClaims

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)projected

Claim · model-written summary

Keeping available water depletion below 25% produced no significant crop-yield decrease.

Treatment: maintaining AWC depletion below 25%e0
Outcome: crop yielde0
Direction: no significant decreasee0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0
“maintaining AWC depletion below 25% resulted in no significant decrease in crop yield and biomass”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2160–2257

Title

Water Productivity of Irrigated Tomatoes in Eastern Canada Based on AquaCrop Simulations

Naresh Kumar Thangaraju Arumugagounder; Samuel Ihuoma; Chandra A. Madramootoo Journal of the ASABE 2022. doi:10.13031/ja.14792

Other claims from this paper (8)

Method / resource Measured seasonal harvest index improved AquaCrop performance over defaults.
Method / resource Calibration dry-yield RMSE was 0.57 ton ha-1.
Method / resource Calibration biomass RMSE was 0.89 ton ha-1.
Method / resource Verification dry-yield RMSE was 0.28 ton ha-1.
Method / resource Verification biomass RMSE was 0.01 ton ha-1.
Intervention effect Keeping available water depletion below 25% produced no significant biomass decrease.
Recommendation The authors recommend maintaining available water depletion below 25% for irrigated tomato production.
Observation Water productivity was highest in fully irrigated fields across soil types.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Vegetative-stage ozone exposure caused no significant fruit yield decrease at final harvest.

Taxon: tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
Treatment: O 3 exposure at the vegetative stagee0
Outcome: fruit yielde0
Direction: no significant decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“O 3 exposure at the vegetative stage, there was no significant decrease in fruit yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 733–819

t0
“Tomato”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18

Title

Recovery of Tomato Plants from Ozone Injury

Albert Z. Tenga; Beverley A. Marie; Douglas P. Ormrod HortScience 1990. doi:10.21273/hortsci.25.10.1230

Other claims from this paper (5)

Intervention effect Ozone exposure caused visible leaf injury at either growth stage.
Intervention effect Ozone exposure reduced leaf area at either growth stage.
Intervention effect Vegetative-stage ozone exposure caused no fruit quality change at final harvest.
Intervention effect Flowering-stage ozone exposure progressively reduced fruit fresh weight.
Intervention effect Flowering-stage ozone exposure reduced fruit titratable acidity to a lesser degree.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grain corn yield did not decrease with cover crops.

Taxon: grain corne5
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 Soybean 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

Winter wheat yield did not decrease with cover crops.

Taxon: winter wheatTriticum aestivume5
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 Soybean 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 effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Reducing potassium to N60P60K30 did not significantly decrease soybean yield.

Taxon: soybeanGlycine maxe0
Treatment: N60P60K30e0
Outcome: soybean yielde0
Direction: no significant decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“There was no significant decrease in soybean yield in the variant of the experiment with a decrease in the proportion of potassium in the composition of complete mineral fertilizer (N60P60K30)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1454–1646

Title

Productivity and quality of soybean seeds with different fertilization on podzolized chernozem

H.M. Hospodarenko; I.V. Prokopchuk; K. P. Leonova; et al. Collected Works of Uman National University of Horticulture 2020. doi:10.31395/2415-8240-2020-97-1-136-144

Other claims from this paper (7)

Intervention effect Different fertilizer regimes increased crop yield by 18–77 %.
Intervention effect N110P60K80 in rotation, including N60P60K60 under soybean, gave the highest seed yield of 3,02 t/ha.
Intervention effect Excluding nitrogen from N60P60K60 reduced yield by 26 %.
Intervention effect Excluding phosphorus from complete fertilizer reduced yield by 17 %.
Intervention effect Excluding potassium from complete fertilizer reduced yield by 11 %.
Intervention effect N60К60 produced the largest 1000-seed mass.
Intervention effect N60P60K60 and N60P60K30 produced the highest seed protein content.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The presence of root hairs did not decrease yield under optimal conditions.

Taxon: barleyHordeum vulgaree0
Treatment: presence of root hairse1
Outcome: yielde1
Direction: did not decreasee1
Qualifier: under optimal conditionse1

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“barley (Hordeum vulgare)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 968–992

e1
“the presence of root hairs did not decrease yield under optimal conditions”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2267–2341

Title

The effect of root hairs under drought in open field conditions

Maria Marin; Deborah S Feeney; Lawrie K Brown; et al. 2021. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-6332

Other claims from this paper (12)

Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Hercules close relatives had no significant decrease in oat grain yield.

Taxon: oatAvena sativae1
Material: Herculese0
Outcome: grain yielde0
Direction: no significant decreasee0

Verbatim

e0
“The cultivar Hercules enhanced the test weight of its close relatives, with no significant decrease in grain yield.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1231–1346

e1
“oat ( Avena saliva L.) genotypes”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 230–262

Title

Prediction of Genotype Performance from Ancestral Relationship in Oat

S. C. Beer; E. Souza; M. E. Sorrells Crop Science 1995. doi:10.2135/cropsci1995.0011183x003500010012x

Other claims from this paper (9)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bromoxynil did not decrease mean yield of the three rice cultivars.

Taxon: RiceOryza sativat0
Treatment: Bromoxynile0
Outcome: average yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“Bromoxynil did not decrease the average yield of any of the three cultivars.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 855–931

t0
“Rice (Oryza sativa)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–41

Title

Varietal Tolerance of Rice (Oryza sativa) to Bromoxynil and Triclopyr at Different Growth Stages

Dan J. Pantone; John B. Baker Weed Technology 1992. doi:10.1017/s0890037x00036551

Other claims from this paper (9)

Observation Tebonnet rice had 15% visible injury after triclopyr, averaged across rates and application times.
Observation Mars rice had 16% visible injury after triclopyr, averaged across rates and application times.
Observation Lemont rice had 25% visible injury after triclopyr, averaged across rates and application times.
Observation Tebonnet rice had 11% visible injury after bromoxynil.
Observation Mars rice had 8% visible injury after bromoxynil.
Observation Lemont rice had 7% visible injury after bromoxynil.
Observation Tebonnet was more tolerant than Lemont to triclopyr, with 6% mean grain yield reduction.
Observation Mars had 9% mean grain yield reduction from triclopyr.
Observation Lemont had 12% mean grain yield reduction from triclopyr.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Moderately conductive irrigation water caused no appreciable yield decrease.

Taxon: cucumbersCucumis sativuse0
Treatment: water with moderate electrical conductivitye0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: without an appreciable decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“The cucumbers are irrigated with water with moderate electrical conductivity without an appreciable decrease in yield.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1228–1346

Title

Agroecological analysis of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) crops in orchards in a Mediterranean environment

Raimundo Jiménez Ballesta; Francisco Jesús García Navarro; R. García-Giménez; et al. Biblos-e Archivo (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) 2018

Other claims from this paper (3)

Observation Huete cucumber appears to tolerate some soil salinity.
Recommendation Loose well-drained local soils were considered preferable for cucumber.
Recommendation The local land was considered apt for sustainable cucumber cultivation.

Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

There was no evidence for a decrease in yield caused by root-zone warming.

Taxon: Rosee0
Treatment: RZWe1
Outcome: yielde1
Direction: decreasee1

Verbatim

e0
“Rose cvs Ilona, Mercedes and Sonia”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 7–41

e1
“There was no evidence for a decrease in yield caused by RZW”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1540–1599

Title

The effects of root-zone warming on the yield and quality of roses grown in a hydroponic system

G. I. Moss Journal of Horticultural Science 1984. doi:10.1080/00221589.1984.11515231

Other claims from this paper (19)

Intervention effect Root-zone warming gave Sonia 44% more blooms than ambient root temperature in Experiment 1.
Intervention effect Root-zone warming increased stem length of Sonia by 26% compared with ambient root temperature in Experiment 1.
Association Ilona gave a yield response to root-zone warming only at a night temperature of 12°C.
Association Root-zone warming resulted in 22% longer stems in Ilona.
Association Root-zone warming gave Mercedes 22% more blooms.
Association Root-zone warming produced 113% more blooms in Mercedes in the second year.
Association Root-zone warming produced 61% more blooms in Sonia in the second year.
Association Root-zone warming produced 42% more blooms in Ilona in the second year.
Observation Stem lengths of the roses increased by 6-7%.
Association Root-zone warming gave Mercedes 61% more blooms in the first-year plants of Experiment 3.
Association Root-zone warming gave Sonia 24% more blooms in the first-year plants of Experiment 3.
Association Root-zone warming gave Ilona 18% more blooms in the first-year plants of Experiment 3.
Association Ilona showed the largest increase in stem length, 24%, under root-zone warming.
Association Root-zone warming increased the amplitude of the growth flushes.
Association Root-zone warming left the frequency of growth flushes unaffected.
Association Summer yields indicate residual effects of the winter root-zone warming treatments.
Association Sonia gave significantly higher yields from root-zone warming in Experiment 1.
Association Mercedes and Sonia gave significantly higher yields from root-zone warming in Experiment 2.
Association Ilona gave a lower summer yield in Experiment 3.

“yield decrease”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics