View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
No significant decrease in photosynthesis ability of the fourth leaf or chlorophyll content was seen under 12 plants m −2 compared with 7.5 plants m −2.
fourth leave e0 12 plants m −2 e1 photosynthesis ability of the fourth leave and chlorophyll content e0 no significant decrease e1 7.5 plants m −2 e1 Verbatim
e0 “The photosynthesis ability of the fourth leave and chlorophyll content both decrease d with increasing plant density ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1612–1727 e1 “but no significant decrease was observed under 12 plants m −2 compared to 7.5 plants m −2 ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1729–1818 t0 “high density cotton ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–101 Other claims from this paper (15) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
SL and SD treatments did not decrease protein content in old common wheat varieties.
SL and SD treatments e1 protein content (PC) e1 without decreasing e1 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
t0 “Old Varieties of Common Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 126–178 e1 “SL and SD treatments significantly increased GY without decreasing the protein content (PC) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 694–785 Other claims from this paper (8) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Favoring pea inoculum did not reduce fababean yield .
not sufficient to reduce e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Favoring the pea inoculum led to a significant decrease in acetylene reduction, but this was not sufficient to reduce yield . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 640–764 t0 “FABABEANS ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–33 Other claims from this paper (4) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Sulfur application had no obvious yield increase.
Sulfur application e0 no obvious yield-increasing effect e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “Sulfur application had no obvious yield -increasing effect, and higher application rate of sulfur could decrease the rape yield significantly. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 654–795 t0 “rape yield significantly ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 770–794 Other claims from this paper (8) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Soil loss below 3.8 kg/ha on 1- to 3-week-old cotton plants did not reduce yield .
1‐ to 3‐weekold e0 soil loss of less than 3.8 kg/ha e0 did not decrease e0 less than 3.8 kg/ha e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “A soil loss of less than 3.8 kg/ha (1.7 tons/acre) on 1‐ to 3‐weekold cotton plants did not decrease yield s ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 332–439 Other claims from this paper (4) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Seed-dressing fungicides did not significantly decrease the final incidence of dead plants.
seed-dressing fungicides e5 final incidence of dead plants e6 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
t0 “Fusarium wilt of chickpea
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–50 e5 “Both seed-dressing fungicides significantly increased seedling emergence in the wilt-infected plot ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1070–1168 e6 “but neither significantly decrease d the final incidence of dead plants, or increased the grain yield in the infected plot or the farmers’ fields ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1170–1314 Other claims from this paper (9) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Neither insecticide changed end-of-season cotton yield for Pima S-1.
neither variety showed a decrease nor increase e0 at the end of the season e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “The Acala 1517C reacted in a somewhat different manner to the treatments but neither variety showed a decrease nor increase in yield of cotton at the end of the season. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 242–410 t0 “Effects of Systemic Insecticide Seed Treatments on Two Varieties of Cotton1 ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–75 e1 “Pima S-1 and Acala 1517C cotton ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 65–96 Other claims from this paper (5) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Reduced and postponed N application did not decrease yield .
reducing and postponing N application e0 farmers' practice e1 Verbatim
e0 “The results show that N accumulation rate is increased under the reducing and postponing N application(N 168 kg/ha,1/5 basal,3/5 topdressing at stalk enlongation stage and 1/5 topdressing at silking stage,respectively) compared with farmers' practice(N 240 kg/ha,1/3 basal and 2/3 topdressing at booting stage,respectively),while N use efficiency,dry biomass accumulation, yield and N accumulation amount are not decrease … ” Show full quote
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 159–581 t0 “summer maize ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–119 e1 “compared with farmers' practice(N 240 kg/ha,1/3 basal and 2/3 topdressing at booting stage,respectively) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 378–482 Other claims from this paper (8) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Applying 112 kg N at high sorghum planting density did not decrease the number, height, or biomass of late-emerging Palmer amaranth.
applying 112 kg N e3 Palmer amaranth e2 weed Palmer amaranth’s number, height, and biomass e3 no_change inferred e3 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e2 “Weedy sorghum was infested with late-emerging Palmer amaranth only ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 599–665 e3 “applying 112 kg N ha −1 did not improve grain yield or decrease Palmer amaranth’s number, height, and biomass ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 790–899 e0 “At the high sorghum planting density ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 728–764 Other claims from this paper (4) Intervention effect observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
The mutant matjan gamma 20 showed no decrease in protein content compared with its parent.
matjan gamma 20 e0 gamma radiation e0 without any decrease e1 Verbatim
e0 “The oil and protein compositions of a groundnut (Arachis hypogeae l.) mutant matjan gamma 20 induced by gamma radiation as well as the parent and three other genotypes were investigated ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–185 e1 “The mutant expressed several important improvements, over it parent including an increase in the oleic:linoleic ratio without increasing the behenic acid content, an increase on oil yield per kernel and an increase in tryptophan content without any decrease in protein content ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 187–463 Other claims from this paper (4) 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.
Gossypium hirsutum
Triticum aestivum
Vicia faba_Brassica_napus_-_Habit.jpg?width=60){kind=small}
Brassica napus
Cicer arietinum
Zea mays
Sorghum
Arachis hypogaea