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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A 20% lower nutrient solution concentration did not affect the number of flowers, flower head diameter or peduncle length

Taxon: miniature gerberae0
Treatment: a 20% decrease in the concentration of nutrient solutione2
Outcome: The number of flowers, the diameter of flower heads and the length of pedunclee2
Direction: were not affectede2
Comparator: standard nutriente1

Verbatim

e0
“The aim of the experiments was to achieve a reduction in the concentration of a nutrient solution used for fertigation of miniature gerbera grown in perlite”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–156

e1
“half of the plants were nourished with the standard nutrient”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 300–360

e2
“The number of flowers, the diameter of flower heads and the length of peduncle were not affected by a 20% decrease in the concentration of nutrient solution”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 532–688

Title

Effect of nutrient solution concentration on yield and quality of gerbera grown in perlite

Włodzimierz Breś; Agata Kozłowska; Tobiasz Walczak Journal of Elementology 2014. doi:10.5601/jelem.2013.18.4.534

Other claims from this paper (4)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial inoculation did not significantly change chickpea protein content (-4.5%).

Taxon: chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment: bacterial inoculatione1
Interactor: Mesorhizobium ciceriMesorhizobium cicerie1symbiont
Outcome: proteine6
Direction: decreaseinferrede6
Value: -4.5%e6
Comparator: without bacterial inoculatione1

Verbatim

t0
“Effectiveness of bacterial inoculation for improving grain yield and quality of chickpea”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–88

e1
“were tested with and without bacterial inoculation (Mesorhizobium ciceri, Pseudomonas spp. and Bacillus spp.)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–422

e6
“number of branches per plant (3.8%), 100 grain weight (1.9%), protein (-4.5%), carbohydrate (0.0%), crude fiber (2.0%) and mineral matter (2.5%)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 830–974

Title

Effectiveness of bacterial inoculation for improving grain yield and quality of chickpea

Muhammad Aslam Avais; Nisar Ahmad; Muhammad Rafique; et al. Soil & Environment 2017. doi:10.25252/se/17/20979

Other claims from this paper (12)

Intervention effect Bacterial inoculation increased chickpea nodulation by 17.5%, a significant increase.
Intervention effect Bacterial inoculation increased chickpea plant height by 4.0%, a significant increase.
Intervention effect Bacterial inoculation increased the number of pods per chickpea plant by 7.8%, a significant increase.
Intervention effect Bacterial inoculation increased chickpea grain yield by 7.5%, a significant increase.
Intervention effect Bacterial inoculation did not significantly change the number of branches per chickpea plant (3.8%).
Intervention effect Bacterial inoculation did not significantly change the 100 grain weight of chickpea (1.9%).
Intervention effect Bacterial inoculation did not change chickpea carbohydrate content (0.0%).
Intervention effect Bacterial inoculation did not significantly change chickpea crude fiber (2.0%).
Intervention effect Bacterial inoculation did not significantly change chickpea mineral matter (2.5%).
Association The interaction between chickpea cultivar or advanced line and microbial inoculation was significant for improving grain yield.
Observation Advanced line D-06052 gave the highest chickpea grain yield (2890 kg ha -1) with bacterial inoculation.
Recommendation The authors recommend bacterial inoculation for better chickpea yield.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ethephon did not improve potato periderm color enough at harvest or in storage to warrant use.

Taxon: potatoSolanum tuberosumt0
Treatment: ethephone0
Outcome: periderm color intensitye0
Direction: did not affecte0
Qualifier: at harvest or throughout storagee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“Base or double-rate foliar applications of either ethephon or 2,4-D resulted in significant U.S. No. 1 yield reductions and did not affect periderm color intensity at harvest or throughout storage sufficiently to warrant their use.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 332–563

t0
“`Norland' Potato”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–103

Title

Ethephon and 2,4-D Do Not Improve Periderm Color and May Decrease Yield in Red-skinned `Norland' Potato

Vincent A. Fritz; James B. Hebel; Alicia M. Borowski; et al. HortScience 1991. doi:10.21273/hortsci.26.5.553

Other claims from this paper (4)

Intervention effect Base and double foliar ethephon applications significantly reduced U.S. No. 1 potato yield.
Intervention effect Base and double foliar 2,4-D applications significantly reduced U.S. No. 1 potato yield.
Intervention effect 2,4-D did not improve potato periderm color enough at harvest or in storage to warrant use.
Recommendation The authors conclude that ethephon and 2,4-D applications do not warrant use for improving potato periderm color.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Boron spray did not significantly change soil pH.

Treatment: foliar boron applicatione0
Outcome: pH valuese0
Direction: no significant changee0
Comparator: without boron sprayinge0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0
“foliar boron application led to a 17.17% decrease in soil electrical conductivity (EC) compared to without boron spraying. However, there was no significant change in pH values”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 665–841

Title

Effect of Boron, Potassium Sources and Rates on Soil Fertility, Sugar Beet Yield and Quality Cultivated in Saline Clay Soil in Egypt

Zeinab M. Abd EL-Rahman; Khaled A. H. Shaban; Mohamed I. Mohaseb; et al. International Journal of Plant & Soil Science 2024. doi:10.9734/ijpss/2024/v36i125214

Other claims from this paper (6)

Intervention effect Boron spray reduced soil electrical conductivity by 17.17%.
Intervention effect Boron at 4 g/L increased available soil nutrients.
Intervention effect K-humate at 12 g/L increased available soil nutrients.
Observation Potassium sources ranked K-humate, K-silicate, then K-sulfate for beet yield, quality and root nutrients.
Intervention effect Boron combined with K-humate at 12 g/L gave the highest root length, root weight, and root and top yields.
Intervention effect Boron combined with K-humate at 12 g/L gave the highest protein, sugar content and sugar yield.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Zeolite with medium or low nitrogen produced similar crude protein content, ADF and NDF to the highest nitrogen dose.

Taxon: silage cornt0
Treatment: zeolite + medium or low nitrogene0
Outcome: crude protein content, ADF, NDFe0
Direction: similare0
Comparator: highest level nitrogen applicatione0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSettingValueQualifier

Verbatim

e0
“the application of zeolite + medium or low nitrogen application produced similar silage yield, dry matter yield, dry matter rate, crude protein content, ADF, NDF, corncob rate, stem rate, plant height and leaf rate in comparison to the highest level nitrogen application”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 720–990

t0
“Silage Corn”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–69

Title

Can Zeolite Application Decrease the Need for Nitrogen in Silage Corn?

Zeynep Gül Alınteri Zirai Bilimler Dergisi 2020. doi:10.47059/alinteri/v35i2/ajas20081

Other claims from this paper (9)

Intervention effect Zeolite plus nitrogen enhanced silage yield by 5.8-18.9%.
Intervention effect Zeolite plus nitrogen enhanced dry matter yield by 4.5-21.4%.
Intervention effect Zeolite plus nitrogen enhanced corncob rate by 6.6%.
Intervention effect Zeolite plus nitrogen enhanced plant height by 3.0-16.1%.
Intervention effect Zeolite plus nitrogen enhanced leaf rate by 17.5%.
Intervention effect Zeolite with medium or low nitrogen produced similar silage yield, dry matter yield and dry matter rate to the highest nitrogen dose.
Intervention effect Zeolite with medium or low nitrogen produced similar corncob rate, stem rate and plant height to the highest nitrogen dose.
Intervention effect Zeolite with medium or low nitrogen produced a similar leaf rate to the highest nitrogen dose.
Recommendation The authors propose zeolite plus nitrogen to increase nitrogen efficiency and reduce nitrogen requirements.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Under low water availability, automated irrigation without compromising total yield.

Taxon: nectarinePrunus persica var. nucipersicat0
Treatment: T-A treatment (subjected to MAD = 10% during pre-harvest and 30% during post-harvest)e0
Outcome: total yielde0
Direction: without compromisinge0
Qualifier: low water availability scenarioe0
Comparator: the controle0

Verbatim

e0
“In the low water availability scenario, the T-A treatment (subjected to MAD = 10% during pre-harvest and 30% during post-harvest) received 43% less water than the control, which promoted moderate plant and soil water deficits, leading to a decrease in vegetative growth (winter pruning weight and tree canopy cover), without compromising the total yield and nectarine fruit quality parameters (including an increase in t…” Show full quote
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1569–2021

t0
“nectarine orchard”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 100–117

Title

Automated soil water content-based irrigation under high and low water availability scenarios for a nectarine orchard

María R. Conesa; Wenceslao Conejero; Juan Vera; et al. 2021. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-11033

Other claims from this paper (11)

Intervention effect Under high water availability, automated and conventional irrigation showed no significant difference in plant-soil water status.
Intervention effect Under high water availability, automated and conventional irrigation showed no significant difference in vegetative growth.
Intervention effect Under high water availability, automated and conventional irrigation showed no significant difference in yield.
Intervention effect Under high water availability, automated and conventional irrigation showed no significant difference in nectarine fruit quality parameters.
Intervention effect Under low water availability, automated irrigation less water by 43%.
Intervention effect Under low water availability, automated irrigation promoted plant and soil water deficits.
Intervention effect Under low water availability, automated irrigation decrease vegetative growth.
Intervention effect Under low water availability, automated irrigation without compromising nectarine fruit quality parameters.
Intervention effect Under low water availability, automated irrigation increase total soluble solid content.
Intervention effect Crop water use efficiency increased by an average of 34%.
Recommendation The authors considered automated MAD-threshold irrigation promising for water-scarce stone fruit orchards.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Removing 50% of leaves had little effect on canopy size.

Taxon: oranget0
Treatment: removal of 50% of the leavese0
Outcome: total canopy sizee0
Direction: little effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“Leaf size of new flush was reduced by removal of 50% of the leaves in both cultivars but there was little effect on total canopy size”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 654–787

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 Up to 50% leaf removal did not change Hamlin soluble solids yield or juice measures.
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 25% of canopy leaves had no measured effects.
Association Fruit weight increased with leaf area per fruit.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

DPX-PE350 at 170 g ae ha −1 did not adversely affect micronaire.

Taxon: CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
Treatment: DPX-PE350 at 170 g ae ha −1e0
Outcome: micronairee0
Direction: did not adversely affecte0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“DPX-PE350 at 170 g ae ha −1 did not adversely affect seed cotton yield, fiber length, fiber length uniformity, or micronaire but did decrease fiber strength.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 259–416

t0
“Cotton”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 62–68

Title

DPX-PE350 Does Not Interact with Early-Season Insecticides in Cotton (Gossypium Hirsutum)

David L. Jordan; Robert E. Frans; Marilyn R. McClelland Weed Technology 1993. doi:10.1017/s0890037x00036939

Other claims from this paper (7)

Intervention effect DPX-PE350 at 170 g ae ha −1 did not adversely affect seed cotton yield, fiber length or fiber length uniformity.
Intervention effect DPX-PE350 at 170 g ae ha −1 decreased cotton fiber strength.
Intervention effect Insecticides did not alter cotton response to DPX-PE350.
Intervention effect DPX-PE350 at 56 g ha −1 controlled entireleaf morningglory by 92%.
Intervention effect DPX-PE350 at 110 g ha −1 controlled entireleaf morningglory by 95%.
Intervention effect DPX-PE350 at 170 g ha −1 controlled entireleaf morningglory by 96%.
Intervention effect Mixing acephate, carbaryl or dimethoate with DPX-PE350 did not affect morningglory control.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

GA 3 did not reduce yield of current or subsequent Valencia orange crops.

Taxon: sweet orangeCitrus sinensise0
Material: ‘Valencia’e0
Treatment: foliar applied GA 3 from September to January (33 mg·L −1 for five applications)e0
Interactor: Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticusCandidatus Liberibacter asiaticuse1pathogen
Outcome: yield of current and subsequent cropse0
Direction: did not cause reductione0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“For ‘Valencia’ sweet orange, although foliar applied GA 3 from September to January (33 mg·L −1 for five applications) resulted in 50% decrease in bloom the following spring (results presented in Tang et al., 2021), this treatment did not cause reduction in yield of current and subsequent crops”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 508–803

t0
“Huanglongbing-affected Sweet Orange Trees”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–82

e1
“Huanglongbing [HLB; Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas)] disease”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 104–173

Title

Effects of Exogenous Gibberellic Acid in Huanglongbing-affected Sweet Orange Trees under Florida Conditions—II. Fruit Production and Tree Health

Sukhdeep Singh; Taylor Livingston; Lisa Tang; et al. HortScience 2022. doi:10.21273/hortsci16277-21

Other claims from this paper (8)

Intervention effect GA 3 increased yield by an average of 30% across four years.
Intervention effect GA 3 increased mature fruit size by 4% to 5% relative to nontreated controls.
Intervention effect GA 3 reduced fruit drop near harvest relative to controls.
Intervention effect GA 3 maintained canopy density, from 90.8% to 90.4% light interception.
Observation Control canopy density declined from 91.6% to 84.0%.
Intervention effect GA 3-treated trees showed enhanced oxidative stress mitigation gene expression.
Intervention effect GA 3-treated trees showed enhanced plant defense response in expression analysis.
Recommendation The authors propose GA 3 as a remedy for sustaining HLB-affected sweet orange tree health.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Retained monopodial branches had no remarkable effect on number of bolls per hectare.

Taxon: cotton plantGossypium hirsutumt0
Treatment: remaining monopodial branchese1
Outcome: number of bolls per hectaree0
Direction: no remarkable effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“there was no remarkable effect on the number of bolls per hectare,boll weight,lint percent and lint yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 843–948

e1
“the remaining monopodial branches could decrease the translocation of 14 C assimilates into main stem and fruiting branches at flowering and fruiting stage”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 547–702

t0
“cotton plant”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 124–136

Title

Effect of remaining monopodial branches on the ~(14)C-assimilation,partitioning of ~(14)C assimilates and lint yield of the cotton plant

Xue Sun Xibei zhiwu xuebao 2000

Other claims from this paper (8)

Intervention effect Retained monopodial branches significantly reduced 14 C assimilation of leaves on the main stem and fruiting branches.
Observation Leaves on monopodial branches had higher 14 C assimilation.
Intervention effect Retained branches had only a small influence on total plant 14 C assimilation.
Intervention effect Retained monopodial branches decreased assimilate translocation into the main stem and fruiting branches.
Intervention effect Retained monopodial branches reduced bolls on fruiting branches.
Intervention effect Retained monopodial branches had no remarkable effect on boll weight.
Intervention effect Retained monopodial branches had no remarkable effect on lint percent.
Intervention effect Retained monopodial branches had no remarkable effect on lint yield.

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