Search claims · PlantClaims

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Omission of KSZnB did not significantly decrease yield.

Taxon: tefEragrostis teft0
Treatment: omission of KSZnB nutrientse0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“there was no significant (p<0.05) decrease in yield due to the omission of KSZnB nutrients”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 834–924

t0
“tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–48

Title

Response of tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) yield to nutrient management under rainy and irrigation production systems in northwestern Amhara, Ethiopia

Zerfu Bazie; Tadele Amare; Erkihun Alemu; et al. PLoS ONE 2025. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315730

Other claims from this paper (10)

Intervention effect Grain yield varied significantly with nutrient omission.
Intervention effect Unfertilized nitisols had the lowest mean grain yield, 342 kg ha-1.
Intervention effect Unfertilized vertosols had the lowest mean grain yield, 491 kg ha-1.
Intervention effect N omission reduced rainy-season yield in nitisols by 49%.
Intervention effect N omission reduced rainy-season yield in vertosols by 65%.
Intervention effect N omission reduced irrigation-season yield by 19%.
Intervention effect P omission reduced rainy-season yield by 10%.
Observation N was the primary yield-limiting nutrient in both seasons.
Observation P also limited yield in nitisols.
Recommendation Required nutrients should be monitored periodically.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reduced tillage did not decrease sugar beet yield.

Taxon: sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
Treatment: reduced tillage systemse0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: did not result in either a yield decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“The reduced tillage systems in sugar beet cultivation did not result in either a yield decrease or a worse technological quality of roots”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1567–1704

t0
“sugar beets”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–95

Title

Effect of different tillage methods on the nutritional status, yield and quality of sugar beets

Renata Gaj; Jacek Przybył; Anna Budka; et al. Journal of Elementology 2015. doi:10.5601/jelem.2015.20.1.772

Other claims from this paper (9)

Observation At BBCH16/17, plants were well nourished with macroelements.
Observation At BBCH16/17, plants were deficient in microelements, mainly iron and zinc.
Mechanism The authors attributed microelement deficiency to slightly acidic to neutral soil reaction.
Intervention effect No-tillage tended to reduce leaf macronutrient content at BBCH 39/40 versus conventional tillage.
Intervention effect Reduced tillage did not worsen technological root quality.
Intervention effect Cultivation treatment had no significant effect on molassegenic compounds in beet roots.
Intervention effect Alpha-amino nitrogen content tended to decrease versus traditional cultivation.
Intervention effect Potassium content tended to decrease versus traditional cultivation.
Recommendation The authors conclude that cultivation technology is secondary when site conditions are optimal.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Selection for nematode resistance did not decrease sugar beet root yield.

Treatment: Selection for resistance to nematodee0
Interactor: nematodeNematodae0pest
Outcome: root yieldse0
Direction: did not decreasee0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0
“Selection for resistance to nematode did not decrease root yields.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 183–249

Title

Breeding Sugar Beets for Resistance to Nematodes¹

R. E. Finkner; J. F. Swink Agronomy Journal 1956. doi:10.2134/agronj1956.00021962004800090001x

Other claims from this paper (1)

Observation Currently grown sugar beet varieties showed moderate nematode resistance by sugar yield.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Infection beginning at tillering or grain filling caused no observed yield loss or yield-component decrease.

Taxon: riceOryza sativae1
Organ / stage: tillering or grain fillinge0
Treatment: infectione0
Interactor: Rhizoctonia solaniRhizoctonia solanie1pathogen
Outcome: yield loss or decrease in yield componentse0
Direction: Noe0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“No yield loss or decrease in yield components was observed when infection started at tillering or grain filling”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1507–1618

e1
“Sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani) of rice (Oryza sativa)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–57

Title

Effect of Sheath Blight on Yield in Tropical, Intensive Rice Production System

R. M. Cu Plant Disease 1996. doi:10.1094/pd-80-1103

Other claims from this paper (8)

Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Early-rice yield under the different treatments did not significantly increase or decrease with time.

Taxon: RiceOryza sativat0
Outcome: early-rice yielde0
Direction: did not significantly increase or decreasee0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

Verbatim

t0
“Rice Field”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 54–64

e0
“early-rice yield under different treatments did not significantly increase or decrease with time”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 272–368

Title

Yield Trends and Reasons for Their Change in Red-soil Rice Field with Long-term Organic Matter Circling

Xie Xiao-li 2007

Other claims from this paper (8)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pethoxamid did not decrease rice yield

Taxon: riceOryza sativae1
Treatment: pethoxamide1
Outcome: yielde2
Direction: no decreasee2
Comparator: nontreated controle1

Verbatim

e1
“A reduction in rice shoot density and plant height compared to the nontreated control followed the use of pethoxamid”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1100–1216

e2
“however, no decrease in yield resulted”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1218–1256

Title

Weed Control and Selectivity of Pethoxamid Alone and in Mixture as a Delayed Preemergence Application to Rice

John Godwin; Jason K. Norsworthy; Robert C. Scott Weed Technology 2018. doi:10.1017/wet.2018.57

Other claims from this paper (10)

Observation Rice injury was minimal with any treatment assessed
Intervention effect Pethoxamid reduced rice shoot density and plant height compared with the nontreated control
Observation Imazethapyr gave 91% barnyardgrass control near Lonoke
Observation Quinclorac gave 89% barnyardgrass control near Lonoke
Intervention effect Pethoxamid combined with clomazone and quinclorac increased barnyardgrass control compared with clomazone and quinclorac alone
Observation Pethoxamid alone gave 92% barnyardgrass control near Colt
Observation Pethoxamid alone gave 96% barnyardgrass control near Colt
Observation Rice can tolerate pethoxamid when applied DPRE
Observation Adequate barnyardgrass control can be achieved with pethoxamid at the rates evaluated within a program
Recommendation Pethoxamid is suggested as a viable option in rice to allow increased rotation of herbicide sites of action

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

DI and PRD did not significantly decrease yield.

Taxon: lemonCitrus ×limont0
Treatment: DI and PRDe1
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: did not significantly decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“these treatments did not significantly decrease yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1503–1556

t0
“lemon Fino 49 trees”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–77

e1
“DI and PRD decreased stomatal conductance and photosynthesis”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1441–1501

Title

Partial rootzone drying increases water-use efficiency of lemon Fino 49 trees independently of root-to-shoot ABA signalling

J. G. Pérez-Pérez; I. C. Dodd; P. Botía Functional Plant Biology 2012. doi:10.1071/fp11269

Other claims from this paper (8)

Association Stomatal conductance declined as vapour pressure deficit increased.
Association Xylem ABA related to stomatal closure only in well irrigated trees under moderate VPD.
Observation Xylem ABA did not differ among irrigation treatments around rewatering.
Observation Leaf water potential was higher in control trees.
Association Leaf water potential decreased similarly across irrigation treatments as LAVPD increased.
Intervention effect DI and PRD trees had lower stomatal sensitivity to LAVPD than controls.
Intervention effect DI and PRD decreased stomatal conductance and photosynthesis.
Intervention effect PRD increased crop water use efficiency by 83% against control.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At Manhattan in 2008, delayed planting did not decrease yield.

Taxon: CORNZea mays subsp. mayst0
Treatment: delayed plantinge0
Outcome: yieldt1
Direction: did not decreasee0
Qualifier: in 2008e0
Setting: Manhattan, KSt1

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0
“CORN”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–34

e0
“did not decrease at all with delayed planting in 2008”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1073–1126

t1
“delayed planting dates and hybrids of varying maturity revealed that yield at Manhattan, KS”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 907–998

Title

EFFECT OF DELAYED PLANTING ON CORN IN CENTRAL KANSAS

Aaron James Sindelar; Kraig L. Roozeboom K-State Research Exchange (Kansas State University) 2008

Other claims from this paper (4)

Intervention effect At Manhattan in 2007, yield did not decrease significantly until the final planting date.
Intervention effect At Belleville in 2007, later planting increased yield.
Intervention effect At Belleville in 2008, planting date did not affect yield.
Intervention effect At Hutchinson, yield decreased significantly with successive planting dates; the supplied sentence is cut off.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Espalier training with a trellis in high density hedgerows did not decrease yield.

Taxon: olivesOleat0
Treatment: training to an espalier shapee0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: does not decreasee0
Qualifier: with and without a trellise0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0
“olives”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 50–56

e0
“training to an espalier shape, with and without a trellis, in high density hedgerows, does not decrease yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 770–879

Title

Mechanical harvesting of California table and oil olives

Louise Ferguson; Sergio Castro‐García; Joseph Burns; et al. Advances in Horticultural Science 2010

Other claims from this paper (8)

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.

“yield decrease”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics