Try:droughtFusariumnitrogen fertilizerArabidopsisseed germination

“yield decrease”

972 matches

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

1950 ’60 ’70 ’80 ’90 2000 ’10 ’20

plus 6 earlier · 1930s

Refine ·

More filters

Clear filters

Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

An interannual increase in oilseed rape proportion had no significant effect on yield or parasitism rate.

Taxon: oilseed rapeBrassica napuse0
Treatment: interannual increase in the proportion of OSRe4
Outcome: yield or parasitism ratee4
Direction: had no significant effecte4

Verbatim

e0
“the proportion of oilseed rape (OSR) fields in a landscape and the annual increase or decrease in OSR cover”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 430–537

e4
“An interannual increase in the proportion of OSR led to the dilution of pest species, but had no significant effect on yield or parasitism rate”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1380–1523

Title

Biological pest control and yields depend on spatial and temporal crop cover dynamics

Gudrun Schneider; Jochen Krauss; Verena Riedinger; et al. Journal of Applied Ecology 2015. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12471

Other claims from this paper (7)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Up to 50% leaf removal did not change Hamlin soluble solids yield or juice measures.

Taxon: oranget0
Material: Hamline0
Treatment: removal of up to 50% of the leavese0
Outcome: soluble solids yield, juice °Brix, and °Brix to acid ratio of juicee0
Direction: no effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“In `Hamlin', removal of up to 50% of the leaves in late November had no effect on fruit yield, fruit number, fruit size, soluble solids yield, juice °Brix, and °Brix to acid ratio of juice the following year”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–483

t0
“Orange Tree”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–87

Title

Partial Defoliation Can Decrease Average Leaf Size but Has Little Effect on Orange Tree Growth, Fruit Yield and Juice Quality

Rongcai Yuan; Fernando Alferez; Igor Kostenyuk; et al. HortScience 2005. doi:10.21273/hortsci.40.7.2011

Other claims from this paper (7)

Intervention effect Up to 50% leaf removal did not change Hamlin yield, fruit number or fruit size.
Intervention effect Removing 50% of Valencia leaves decreased fruit yield and soluble solids yield.
Intervention effect Removing 50% of Valencia leaves did not affect Brix or Brix-to-acid ratio.
Intervention effect Removing 50% of leaves reduced new-flush leaf size in both cultivars.
Intervention effect Removing 50% of leaves had little effect on canopy size.
Intervention effect Removing 25% of canopy leaves had no measured effects.
Association Fruit weight increased with leaf area per fruit.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Splitting the phosphorus fertilizer caused an insignificant increase in sugar beet root yield.

Taxon: sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
Treatment: Splitting the phosphorus fertilizere2
Outcome: root yielde2
Direction: Increasee2
Setting: Sakha Agricultural Research Station Farme1

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“using sugar beet (Beta vulgares) to asses the effects of seedling methods”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 141–214

e1
“Two field experiments were carried out at Sakha Agricultural Research Station Farm during the two successive winter seasons of 2004 and 2005”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–140

e2
“Splitting the phosphorus fertilizer caused Insignificant Increase in the root yield and significantly decrease in the top yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1338–1465

Title

RESPONSE OF SUGAR BEET TO DIFFERENT SEEDLlNG METHODS, PHOSPHORUS FERTILIZER MANAGEMENT AND SPRAYING WITH SOME NUTRIENTS

R.E. Knany; A.S. M. EI.Saady; R.H. Atia; et al. Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering /Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering 2005. doi:10.21608/jssae.2005.238821

Other claims from this paper (9)

Intervention effect Manual seedling gave higher root yield than mechanical seedling, but the difference was not significant.
Intervention effect Mechanical seedling gave the highest top yield of sugar beet, highly significant.
Intervention effect Manual seedling method gave the highest sugar percent of sugar beet, highly significant.
Intervention effect Splitting the phosphorus fertilizer significantly decreased sugar beet top yield.
Intervention effect Spraying with boron increased sugar beet root yield, significant in the first season and highly significant in the second.
Intervention effect Spraying with MgSO reduced sugar beet root yield in both seasons.
Intervention effect Spraying with MgSO increased sugar beet top yields in both seasons.
Intervention effect Splitting the phosphorus fertilizer significantly reduced Na% in sugar beet juice.
Intervention effect Splitting the phosphorus fertilizer insignificantly reduced K% in sugar beet juice.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reduced and postponed N application did not decrease N use efficiency.

Taxon: summer maizeZea mayst0
Treatment: reducing and postponing N applicatione0
Outcome: N use efficiencye0
Direction: not decreasede0
Comparator: farmers' practicee1

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

Title

Effects of reducing and postponing nitrogen application on soil N supply,plant N uptake and utilization of summer maize

Jiyun Jin Plant Nutrition and Fertilizing Science 2010

Other claims from this paper (8)

Intervention effect Reduced and postponed N application increased maize N accumulation rate over farmers practice.
Intervention effect Reduced and postponed N application did not decrease dry biomass accumulation.
Intervention effect Reduced and postponed N application did not decrease yield.
Intervention effect Reduced and postponed N application did not decrease N accumulation amount.
Intervention effect The treatment improved synchronization of soil N supply and maize demand.
Intervention effect The treatment decreased nitrate N accumulation in the 0-100 cm soil profile.
Intervention effect The treatment reduced apparent field N loss at maturity.
Recommendation Reduced and postponed N application is recommended as feasible and could save 30% N fertilizer versus farmers practice.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reduced and postponed N application did not decrease dry biomass accumulation.

Taxon: summer maizeZea mayst0
Treatment: reducing and postponing N applicatione0
Outcome: dry biomass accumulatione0
Direction: not decreasede0
Comparator: farmers' practicee1

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

Title

Effects of reducing and postponing nitrogen application on soil N supply,plant N uptake and utilization of summer maize

Jiyun Jin Plant Nutrition and Fertilizing Science 2010

Other claims from this paper (8)

Intervention effect Reduced and postponed N application increased maize N accumulation rate over farmers practice.
Intervention effect Reduced and postponed N application did not decrease N use efficiency.
Intervention effect Reduced and postponed N application did not decrease yield.
Intervention effect Reduced and postponed N application did not decrease N accumulation amount.
Intervention effect The treatment improved synchronization of soil N supply and maize demand.
Intervention effect The treatment decreased nitrate N accumulation in the 0-100 cm soil profile.
Intervention effect The treatment reduced apparent field N loss at maturity.
Recommendation Reduced and postponed N application is recommended as feasible and could save 30% N fertilizer versus farmers practice.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reduced and postponed N application did not decrease N accumulation amount.

Taxon: summer maizeZea mayst0
Treatment: reducing and postponing N applicatione0
Outcome: N accumulation amounte0
Direction: not decreasede0
Comparator: farmers' practicee1

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

Title

Effects of reducing and postponing nitrogen application on soil N supply,plant N uptake and utilization of summer maize

Jiyun Jin Plant Nutrition and Fertilizing Science 2010

Other claims from this paper (8)

Intervention effect Reduced and postponed N application increased maize N accumulation rate over farmers practice.
Intervention effect Reduced and postponed N application did not decrease N use efficiency.
Intervention effect Reduced and postponed N application did not decrease dry biomass accumulation.
Intervention effect Reduced and postponed N application did not decrease yield.
Intervention effect The treatment improved synchronization of soil N supply and maize demand.
Intervention effect The treatment decreased nitrate N accumulation in the 0-100 cm soil profile.
Intervention effect The treatment reduced apparent field N loss at maturity.
Recommendation Reduced and postponed N application is recommended as feasible and could save 30% N fertilizer versus farmers practice.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Adding orchardgrass to a forage mixture left total yield about the same.

Taxon: Forage mixturese0
Treatment: orchardgrass was added to a mixturee2
Outcome: total yielde2
Direction: remained about the samee2
Setting: three locations in Illinoise0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“Forage mixtures consisting of one to three legumes and of one to three grasses were established in four experiments at three locations in Illinois”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–155

e2
“When orchardgrass was added to a mixture the grass component was increased but there was a comparable decrease in the legume so the total yield remained about the same”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 655–822

Title

One Hundred Forage Seeding Mixture¹

J. A. Jackobs Agronomy Journal 1967. doi:10.2134/agronj1967.00021962005900050016x

Other claims from this paper (5)

Intervention effect Adding alfalfa to a forage mixture increased total forage yield.
Intervention effect Adding orchardgrass to a forage mixture increased the grass component.
Intervention effect Adding orchardgrass to a forage mixture caused a comparable decrease in the legume component.
Observation Alfalfa and orchardgrass had the greatest influence on the performance of the mixtures.
Observation The amount of alfalfa and orchardgrass seed needed to achieve most of their effects was surprisingly low.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Humic acid did not significantly affect plant or ear height.

Taxon: MAIZEZea mayst0
Treatment: humic acid applicatione0
Outcome: plant height and ear heighte0
Direction: did not affecte0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“humic acid application resulted in significant decrease in days to 50% tasseling and silking but did not affect plant height and ear height.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 723–863

t0
“EFFECT OF HUMIC ACID AND MICRONUTRIENTS FOLIAR FERTILIZATION ON YIELD, YIELD COMPONENTS AND NUTRIENTS UPTAKE OF MAIZE IN CALCAREOUS SOILS”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–137

Title

EFFECT OF HUMIC ACID AND MICRONUTRIENTS FOLIAR FERTILIZATION ON YIELD, YIELD COMPONENTS AND NUTRIENTS UPTAKE OF MAIZE IN CALCAREOUS SOILS

Maha Balbaa; A. Awad Journal of Plant Production 2013. doi:10.21608/jpp.2013.73071

Other claims from this paper (12)

Intervention effect Humic acid significantly decreased days to 50% tasseling and silking.
Intervention effect FZM spraying significantly increased 100-kernel weight.
Intervention effect FZM spraying significantly increased grain yield.
Intervention effect Humic acid and/or micronutrient sprays significantly affected nutrient concentrations in leaves and grains.
Intervention effect Humic acid and/or micronutrient sprays significantly affected grain nutrient uptake.
Intervention effect FZM spraying produced the highest leaf nutrient concentrations.
Intervention effect FZM spraying produced the highest leaf nutrient uptake.
Intervention effect Combined humic acid and micronutrient treatments outperformed treatments excluding humic acid.
Observation The micronutrient mixture with humic acid yielded nearly all prominent increases.
Association Grain yield was highly significantly related to twelve independent variables.
Method / resource The eighteen-variable model explained 78% of grain yield differences.
Method / resource Four variables explained 72% of grain yield variation.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

DCD addition did not change celery nitrate content.

Taxon: celeryApium graveolens Dulce Groupe0
Treatment: DCDe1
Outcome: nitrate contente1
Direction: did note1

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“A pot experiment was carried out to study the effects of NDSA(nitrogen depot with saturated ammonium) fertilization on the N uptake,yield and quality of celery”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–159

e1
“NDSA fertilization could largely decrease nitrate content of celery,while DCD did not”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 674–759

Title

Effects of NDSA fertilization on the N uptake,yield and quality of celery

Yongsong Zhang Plant Nutrition and Fertilizing Science 2006

Other claims from this paper (15)

Intervention effect NDSA fertilization with DCD addition significantly increased celery biomass.
Intervention effect Single NDSA fertilization could not raise celery yield compared with conventional fertilization.
Intervention effect Solo addition of DCD could not raise celery yield compared with conventional fertilization.
Intervention effect NDSA fertilization significantly promoted celery N uptake.
Intervention effect Addition of DCD significantly promoted celery N uptake.
Intervention effect NDSA fertilization increased apparent N recovery of celery.
Intervention effect Addition of DCD increased apparent N recovery of celery.
Intervention effect Combined NDSA fertilization and DCD addition gave an apparent N recovery of 63%, much more pronounced than either alone.
Intervention effect NDSA fertilization largely decreased celery nitrate content.
Intervention effect N application markedly increased Vc content in celery.
Intervention effect The Vc increase from N application was more pronounced when combined with NDSA fertilization and DCD addition.
Observation Vc stored in celery leaf was 10 times higher than in the stem.
Intervention effect Nitrogen application had a slight effect on celery soluble sugar content.
Intervention effect NDSA fertilization had a slight effect on celery soluble sugar content.
Intervention effect DCD addition significantly increased celery soluble sugar content.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectprojected

Claim · model-written summary

With irrigation, both models projected no change in seed yield CV outside Oxford.

Taxon: soya beant0
Treatment: climate changee0
Outcome: coefficient of variation (CV) of seed yieldse0
Direction: nile0
Qualifier: With irrigatione0
Comparator: ambient climatee1

Verbatim

e0
“With irrigation, the change in the coefficient of variation (CV) of seed yields by climate change was nil (except for decrease at Oxford) for both models”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1226–1379

t0
“soya bean”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 18–27

e1
“2050 compared to ambient climate”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 35–67

Title

Comparison of two soya bean simulation models under climate change. II. Application of climate change scenarios

J Wolf Climate Research 2002. doi:10.3354/cr020071

Other claims from this paper (15)

Intervention effect Both models projected a strong increase in irrigated seed yield at Oxford.
Intervention effect At Montpellier and Seville, CROPGRO projected a considerable irrigated yield increase.
Intervention effect At Montpellier and Seville, SOYBEANW projected only a slight irrigated yield increase.
Intervention effect Without irrigation, both models projected a considerable seed yield increase at Oxford.
Intervention effect Without irrigation, both models projected a slight seed yield increase at Montpellier.
Intervention effect Without irrigation, both models projected no seed yield increase at Seville.
Intervention effect Changed climatic variability did not change yield at any site under either irrigation regime or model.
Intervention effect With irrigation, both models projected a decrease in seed yield CV at Oxford.
Intervention effect Without irrigation, climate change effects on seed yield CV varied by site, scenario and model.
Recommendation Modelled crop variety did not need to change under climate change.
Intervention effect Earlier sowing strengthened the projected climate change yield increase only without irrigation.
Intervention effect Irrigation requirements decreased with climate change only with early sowing.
Recommendation The authors recommend advancing sowing dates with climate change.
Association Projected yield change was practically unaffected by crop variety and soil type.
Association Projected yield change may differ with a different growth model or sowing date.

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.

“yield decrease”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics