Search claims · PlantClaims

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In 2007 planting, applying water-retaining agent without water did not significantly decrease cane yield compared with the control.

Taxon: sugarcanee0
Organ / stage: Planting sugarcanee5
Treatment: applying water-retaining agent without watere5
Outcome: cane yielde5
Direction: no significantly decreasede5
Comparator: the controle5

Verbatim

e0
“growth and yield of sugarcane in new planting sugarcane”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 223–278

e5
“Planting sugarcane in 2007,the cane yield of applying water-retaining agent without water was no significantly decreased in comparison with the control,but significantly decreased in comparison with the treatment of applying water-retaining agent with water”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 735–992

Title

Effect of Different Application Process of Water-retaining Agent on Sugarcane Growth and Yield

Tang Hong-qin Zhongguo tangliao 2012

Other claims from this paper (7)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pepper with sweet potato did not change pepper yield.

Taxon: peppere0
Treatment: Intercropping of pepper with sweet potatoe0
Outcome: yield of peppere0
Direction: neither increases nor was decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“Intercropping of pepper with sweet potato neither increases nor was decrease the yield of pepper and LER value one.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1354–1469

Title

Effect Of Intercropping On Aphid Vectors And Yield Of Pepper (Capsicum Annum L.) In Southern Part Of Ethiopia

Alemayehu Chala; Yibrah Beyene International Journal of Technology Enhancements and Emerging Engineering Research 2014

Other claims from this paper (9)

Intervention effect Pepper with maize reduced aphid populations.
Intervention effect Pepper with maize increased marketable pod yield.
Intervention effect Pepper with maize reduced unmarketable yield.
Observation Control plots caught about 25 aphids at each site.
Intervention effect Pepper with maize increased marketable yield by 39% at Mareko and 33% at Meskan.
Intervention effect Pepper with maize increased total yield by 33% at Mareko.
Intervention effect Pepper with maize and sweet potato reduced yield at Mareko by 13%.
Intervention effect Pepper with maize and sweet potato reduced yield at Meskan by 14%.
Recommendation The authors recommend maize intercropping for aphid reduction and yield improvement.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Salinity did not significantly decrease chickpea dry biomass.

Taxon: chickpea (cv. Flip 84-79C)Cicer arietinumt0
Treatment: Salinitye0
Outcome: dry biomasse0
Direction: did not significantly decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“Salinity did not significantly decrease the dry biomass of the plants but the relative shoot growth was more affected than control, P and SP1 treatments.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 629–782

t0
“chickpea (cv. Flip 84-79C)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 410–436

Title

Interactive effects of salinity and two phosphorus fertilizers on growth and grain yield ofCicer arietinumL.

H. Sadji-Ait Kaci; A. Chaker-Haddadj; F. Aid Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B - Soil & Plant Science 2016. doi:10.1080/09064710.2016.1245774

Other claims from this paper (11)

Intervention effect Relative shoot growth was more affected by salinity than by control, P and SP1 treatments.
Intervention effect Salinity reduced chickpea grain yield by 20% relative to controls.
Intervention effect Salinity reduced chickpea nodulation traits relative to controls.
Association Protein, leghemoglobin and MDA content had an inverse relationship with increasing salt concentration.
Association The K/Na ratio had an inverse relationship with increasing salt concentration.
Intervention effect Two phosphorus levels improved growing conditions in saline soil.
Intervention effect The 90 kg P and 150 mM NaCl combination increased leghemoglobin by 92% relative to saline conditions.
Intervention effect The 90 kg P and 150 mM NaCl combination reduced proline content by 69%.
Intervention effect The 90 kg P and 150 mM NaCl combination protected membranes from peroxydation.
Intervention effect Both phosphorus doses under salt stress increased grain yield by about 30% compared with other cases.
Intervention effect Low phosphorus with salinity gave similar and sometimes better plant responses than control plants.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The presence of weeds did not decrease the total number of green ears or grain yield of maize.

Taxon: maizeZea mayse0
Treatment: presence of weedse7
Interactor: weedse0weed
Outcome: total number of green ears and grain yielde7
Direction: no_changeinferrede7
Comparator: two weedingse2

Verbatim

e0
“verify if maize cultivars develop differently, in competition with weeds”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 248–320

e2
“without weeding and two weedings (at 22 and 41 days after sowing)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 533–598

e7
“The presence of weeds decreased the values of all traits employed to assess green corn yield, with the exception of the total number of green ears and grain yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1219–1381

Title

Green ear yield and grain yield of maize cultivars in competition with weeds

P.S.L. Silva; K.M.B. Silva; P.I.B. Silva; et al. Planta Daninha 2010. doi:10.1590/s0100-83582010000100010

Other claims from this paper (6)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Adding Zeastimulin to herbicides did not decrease weed number.

Taxon: CORNZea mays subsp. mayst0
Treatment: herbicides were applied together with PGR Zeastimuline0
Outcome: number of weedse0
Direction: no decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“where herbicides were applied together with PGR Zeastimulin, no decrease in the number of weeds was observed”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1650–1758

t0
“CORN”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 89–93

t1
“HERBICIDES AND PGR OF ZEASTIMULIN ON WEEDING AND YIELD OF CORN”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–93

e1
“the length of maize cobs increased from 17,9 cm to 18,6 cm in the version of weed control by Laudis (0,5 kg/ha)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2146–2257

e2
“which gave a grain yield increase of 2,9 t/ha”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2611–2656

e3
“Stellar herbicide (1,1 l/ha) - for 3,1 t/ha.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2662–2706

e4
“where herbicides were applied together with PGR Zeastimulin, no decrease in the number of weeds was observed”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1650–1758

Title

ESTIMATION OF THE INFLUENCE OF HERBICIDES AND PGR OF ZEASTIMULIN ON WEEDING AND YIELD OF CORN

Svitlana Okrushko Agriculture and Forestry 2020. doi:10.37128/2707-5826-2020-2-9

Other claims from this paper (17)

Intervention effect Laudis reduced weed numbers by 89,7% versus control after treatment.
Intervention effect Laudis reduced weed quantity by 94,7% at harvest.
Intervention effect Laudis reduced weed mass by 655 g/m2 at harvest.
Intervention effect Stellar reduced weed numbers by 93,5% at the first survey.
Intervention effect Stellar reduced weed numbers by 97,0% at the second survey.
Intervention effect Stellar reduced weed numbers by 97,9% at the third survey.
Intervention effect Adding Zeastimulin to herbicides slightly decreased dry weed biomass.
Intervention effect Maize height was 17,3% higher on herbicidal variant 2 than control.
Intervention effect Maize height was 19,8% higher on herbicidal variant 4 than control.
Intervention effect Zeastimulin further increased maize height by 2 cm.
Intervention effect Zeastimulin increased cob length from 17,9 cm to 18,6 cm with Laudis.
Intervention effect Zeastimulin increased cob length from 18,3 cm to 19,4 cm with Stellar.
Intervention effect Weed reduction and Zeastimulin increased maize cob diameter.
Intervention effect Laudis increased maize grain yield by 2,9 t/ha.
Intervention effect Stellar increased maize grain yield by 3,1 t/ha.
Intervention effect Zeastimulin increased yield by 9,5% with Laudis.
Intervention effect Zeastimulin increased yield by 9,2% with Stellar.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation did not significantly change yields in subsoiled plots.

Taxon: soybeanGlycine maxt0
Treatment: irrigated, subsoiled plotse0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: No significant yield increase or decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“No significant yield increase or decrease was observed for the irrigated, subsoiled plots, regardless of the date irrigation began.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1363–1494

t0
“Soybean”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–41

Title

Irrigation and Tillage Effects on Soybean Yield in a Coastal Plain Soil¹

C. K. Martin; D. K. Cassel; E. J. Kamprath Agronomy Journal 1979. doi:10.2134/agronj1979.00021962007100040017x

Other claims from this paper (6)

Observation Without irrigation, conventionally tilled soybean yielded 1,728 kg/ha.
Observation Conventional tillage with irrigation begun 23 June yielded 2,063 kg/ha.
Observation Conventional tillage with irrigation begun 29 July yielded 2,124 kg/ha.
Observation Conventional tillage with irrigation begun 29 September yielded 1,686 kg/ha.
Intervention effect Subsoiling raised mean yield 37% over conventional tillage.
Mechanism Authors infer benefits of subsoiling and bedding beyond water availability.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Half seed rate did not reduce yield compared with full seed rate.

Taxon: winter barleyHordeum vulgaret0
Treatment: half seed ratee0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0
Comparator: full seed ratee0

Verbatim

e0
“Sowing at half seed rate did not decrease yield when compared with the crop sown at the full seed rate on the same date”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 736–855

t0
“winter barley”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–70

Title

The influence of cultural factors and mildew on yield of winter barley

A. Bainbridge; M. E. Finney; J. F. Jenkyn The Journal of Agricultural Science 1980. doi:10.1017/s0021859600029002

Other claims from this paper (14)

Intervention effect Early sowing increased winter barley yield by 79·8% in the first year.
Intervention effect Early sowing increased winter barley yield by 53·9% in the second year.
Intervention effect Late sowing approximately halved plant emergence.
Observation Late-sown plants had more tillers, more grains per ear and larger grain, but these did not compensate for thinner stands.
Observation Extra tillering and larger ears generally compensated for fewer plants in contemporaneous crops.
Intervention effect April nitrogen gave the best yield in early and late crops in 1975–6 and late crops in 1977–8.
Intervention effect March nitrogen gave the best yield in early-sown crops in the second year.
Intervention effect March nitrogen increased ear number in early-sown crops.
Intervention effect Nitrogen application date did not influence ear number in late-sown crops or grains per ear in any crop.
Observation Mildew developed on early and late crops throughout the mild 1975–6 winter.
Intervention effect Single autumn, winter or early spring tridemorph sprays increased yield by 6·3–7·6%.
Intervention effect Two sprays had an additive yield increase.
Intervention effect Late spring spray had no significant effect on yield.
Intervention effect After the colder 1977–8 winter, mildew was almost absent and spraying failed to significantly increase yield.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A small proportion of small seed did not decrease emergence.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment: small proportion of small seedse0
Outcome: percent emergencee0
Direction: in no case decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“A small proportion of small seeds in a seedlot decreased shoot DM in two of six cases, but in no case decreased percent emergence or grain yield.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1140–1285

t0
“‘Roblin’ Wheat”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–48

Title

Seedling Vigor and Grain Yield of ‘Roblin’ Wheat Affected by Seed Size

Yantai Gan; Elmer H. Stobbe Agronomy Journal 1996. doi:10.2134/agronj1996.00021962008800030016x

Other claims from this paper (8)

Intervention effect Uniform large seed increased shoot dry matter in 1990 and 1991.
Intervention effect Uniform large seed did not increase shoot dry matter in 1989.
Intervention effect Uniform large seed increased yield only for early planting in cool soil in 1990.
Intervention effect A small proportion of small seed decreased shoot dry matter in two of six cases.
Intervention effect A small proportion of small seed did not decrease grain yield.
Intervention effect After small seeds were removed, reduced-density seedlots yielded equivalently to the original seedlot.
Recommendation The authors recommend retaining small seeds in commercially cleaned wheat seedlots.
Recommendation The authors recommend reducing seeding rate when uniform large seeds are available.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The soluble solids gain occurred without a decrease in juice viscosity or consistency.

Taxon: tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
Treatment: DLe1
Outcome: juice viscosity or consistency (Bostwick)e0
Direction: without a decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“without a decrease in juice viscosity or consistency (Bostwick)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1453–1516

t0
“tomato”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–17

e1
“The SSC was 2.8;deg;Brix higher in DL, sufficiently so that soluble solids yield/ha was not significantly lower than other treatments.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1304–1438

Title

Processing tomato fruit quality: influence of soil water deficits at flowering and ripening

A. Richard Renquist; Jeff B. Reid Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 2001. doi:10.1071/ar00146

Other claims from this paper (9)

Intervention effect Late deficit accelerated fruit colour change to 97% red at harvest versus 89–93% in the other regimes.
Intervention effect Late deficit reduced fruit yield by 38%.
Intervention effect Late deficit produced 35% smaller fruit.
Intervention effect Fruit soluble solids concentration, total solids and titratable acidity were greater with late deficit.
Intervention effect Late deficit lowered fruit pH.
Intervention effect Late deficit raised soluble solids concentration by 2.8;deg;Brix.
Intervention effect Soluble solids yield per hectare under late deficit was not significantly lower than other treatments.
Method / resource The authors developed simple models to predict effects of soil water deficit on fruit quality.
Recommendation The authors identify irrigation management as an opportunity to improve processing quality and profitability.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

No-tillage did not significantly decrease aggregates smaller than 0.25 mm at 0–10 cm.

Taxon: cropt0
Treatment: NTe0
Outcome: smaller than the 0.25 mm aggregatese0
Direction: did not significantly decreasee0
Qualifier: 0–10 cm layere0
Comparator: CTe0

Verbatim

e0
“NT did not significantly decrease smaller than the 0.25 mm aggregates than CT in the 0–10 cm layer”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1332–1430

t0
“crop”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–45

Title

Impact of no‐tillage on soil quality and crop yield in Asia: A meta‐analysis

Rahmatullah Hashimi; Nobuhiro Kaneko; Masakazu Komatsuzaki Land Degradation and Development 2022. doi:10.1002/ldr.4512

Other claims from this paper (11)

Intervention effect No-tillage significantly increased soil organic carbon versus conventional tillage overall.
Intervention effect No-tillage increased soil organic carbon at 0–10 cm by 77.0%.
Intervention effect No-tillage increased soil carbon accumulation overall by 53.2%.
Intervention effect No-tillage significantly increased mean weight diameter, available P and >2 mm aggregates.
Intervention effect No-tillage increased exchangeable K by 81.0% versus conventional tillage.
Intervention effect No-tillage and conventional tillage had no significant overall crop yield difference.
Intervention effect No-tillage slightly increased soybean yield.
Intervention effect No-tillage slightly increased wheat yield.
Intervention effect Conventional tillage increased rice yield versus no-tillage.
Intervention effect Conventional tillage increased maize yield versus no-tillage.
Recommendation The authors propose no-tillage to improve soil quality and possibly crop yield in Asia.

“yield decrease”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics