View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Blocking larval access prevented a decline in nodulation and yield .
Treatmentaccess of larvae to the nodules was impeded e0 Outcomenodulation or yield e0 Not reported Interactor Comparator
Verbatim
t0 “Phaseolus vulgaris ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 102–120 e0 “There was no decrease in nodulation or yield when access of larvae to the nodules was impeded. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 614–708 Other claims from this paper (4) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Under high soil fertility, reducing fertilizer supply 20%–40% did not significantly lower maize yield .
Treatmentdecrease 20%-40% fertilizer supply level e0 Directioncould not be significantly lower e0 Settinghigh soil fertility e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “under high soil fertility, decrease 20%-40% fertilizer supply level could not be significantly lower maize yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 619–730 Other claims from this paper (4) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen treatments 2, 3, 4 and 5 caused no decrease in lettuce productivity.
Treatmentthe treatments 2, 3, 4 and 5 e2 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “The objective of this work was to evaluate the lettuce yield under the different management of nitrogen fertilization ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–117 e2 “the treatments 2, 3, 4 and 5 did not difference significantly from each other ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 870–947 e3 “there was no decrease in productivity ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 953–990 Other claims from this paper (3) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage systems did not decrease protein content in pea grains compared with ploughing.
TreatmentNo-tillage systems e3 Outcomeprotein content in pea grains e3 Directiondid not decrease e3 Comparatorpea cultivation in a ploughing system e3 Verbatim
t0 “PEA (Pisum sativum L.) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–99 e3 “No-tillage systems did not decrease protein content in pea grains compared with pea cultivation in a ploughing system ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1105–1222 Other claims from this paper (9) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Reducing N, P, K fertilizer doses did not decrease physiological activity, growth or yield of soybean.
TreatmentDose reduction of fertilizers e5 Outcomephysiological activity, growth, and yield e5 Directiondid not lead to decreasing e5 Verbatim
t0 “soybean (Glycine max L.) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–130 e5 “Dose reduction of fertilizers did not lead to decreasing the physiological activity, growth, and yield of soybeans ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1426–1540 e6 “the use of N, P, K fertilizers in 100%, 75%, 50%, and 0% of recommended doses ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 882–959 Other claims from this paper (6) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Increasing Mo from 0.01 to 0.1 mg/L did not decrease cucumber fruit yield .
Treatmentconcentration of Mo of the nutrient solution e0 Directionwithout decreasing e0 Verbatim
t0 “cucumber in hydroponic culture ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 148–178 e0 “Increasing the concentration of Mo of the nutrient solution from 0.01 to 0.1 mg/L decrease d nitrate concentration of fruits from 1961 to 1703 mg/kg, without decreasing the fruit yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1553–1736 Other claims from this paper (16) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Salt stress before and during spikelet development did not decrease the yield potential of individual Probred spikes.
Treatmentsalt stress prior to and during spikelet development e6 Outcomeyield potential of individual spikes e6 Comparatornonsaline control treatment e2 Not reported Direction
Verbatim
e0 “on two wheat species ( Triticum aestivum L. ‘Probred’ and T. turgidum L. ‘Aldura’) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 317–399 e2 “were compared to a nonsaline control treatment at −0.05 MPa ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 714–773 e6 “salt stress prior to and during spikelet development significantly decrease d the yield potential of individual spikes of Aldura, but not of the more tolerant Probred ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1463–1628 Other claims from this paper (14) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation did not decrease the percentage of crude oil and crude protein of grain.
TreatmentDeficit irrigation e3 Outcomepercentage of crude oil and crude protein e3 Directionno_change inferred e3 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
t0 “Silage Maize ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 112–124 e3 “Deficit irrigation decrease d grain yield and yield components except the percentage of crude oil and crude protein of grain, but improved the efficient use of irrigation water ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 847–1022 Other claims from this paper (9) Observation observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Degeneration of rachis-branches and of spikelets does not explain the decrease in spikelet numbers per panicle.
Outcomedegeneration of rachis-branches e3 Qualifiernor that of spikelets e3 Verbatim
e3 “not by the degeneration of rachis-branches nor that of spikelets ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 581–645 t0 “rice [Oryza sativa ] yield in warmer regions of Japan ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–126 Other claims from this paper (4) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
In 2008-2009 ratoon sugarcane, applying water-retaining agent without water did not significantly decrease cane yield compared with the control.
Organ / stageratoon sugarcane e6 Treatmentapplying water-retaining agent without water e6 Directionno significantly decreased e6 Verbatim
e0 “growth and yield of sugarcane in new planting sugarcane ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 223–278 e6 “Moreover,in 2008 and 2009 year ratoon sugarcane,the cane yield of applying water-retaining agent without water was no significantly decrease d in comparison with the control,but significantly decrease d in comparison with the treatment of applying water-retaining agent with water ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 993–1271 Other claims from this paper (7) 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.