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
Reducing N rates did not significantly decrease yield .
reducing N application rates e0 without significantly decreasing e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “The NUE could be improved by reducing N application rates without significantly decreasing yield . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 448–545 e1 “rice (Oryza sativa L.) yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 254–282 Other claims from this paper (5) Intervention effect observed original result negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Replacing pre-winter ploughing with cultivatoring gave a statistically insignificant spring wheat yield decrease of 4.3%.
replacing pre-winter ploughing with cultivatoring e1 pre-winter ploughing e1 Verbatim
e1 “replacing pre-winter ploughing with cultivatoring (B) or heavy harrowing (C) resulted in a statistically insignificant yield decrease , by 4.3 % and 7.1 % respectively ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1145–1311 e2 “Autumn tillage under spring wheat, cultivar Helia ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 644–693 Other claims from this paper (1) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
The same treatment did not significantly decrease yield the following spring.
a foliage spray of Benzyladenine solution with thermal retention treatment e0 yield the following spring e0 without any significant decrease e0 Not reported Taxon Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “a combination of a foliage spray of Benzyladenine solution with thermal retention treatment in autumn prolonged the harvest period to the end of November without any significant decrease in yield the following spring ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 663–879 Other claims from this paper (5) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) simulated Claim · model-written summary
Simulated maize planting could extend to early December with no nitrogen without significant yield decrease .
early December e0 without a significant decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “planting can be extended to early December, late December, early January and late January without a significant decrease in yield by adding no nitrogen, 15, 30 and 60 kg ha-1, respectively ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 892–1080 t0 “maize ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 Other claims from this paper (6) Association observed original result negative not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Lee 74 soybean had a nonsignificant numerical yield decrease with higher BPMV infection.
Verbatim
e0 “There was a numerical reduction in yield as BPMV infection levels increased with ‘Lee 74’ variety soybean, but the differences were not statistically significant ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 335–496 Other claims from this paper (6) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) simulated Claim · model-written summary
Simulated maize planting could extend to late December with 15 kg ha-1 nitrogen without significant yield decrease .
without a significant decrease e0 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “planting can be extended to early December, late December, early January and late January without a significant decrease in yield by adding no nitrogen, 15, 30 and 60 kg ha-1, respectively ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 892–1080 t0 “maize ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 Other claims from this paper (6) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
For Seneca, removal of all primary, secondary or tertiary buds did not significantly decrease yield compared with control plots.
removal of all primary, secondary, or tertiary buds e5 did not significantly decrease e5 control plots e5 Verbatim
t0 “Compensatory Ability of Strawberries to Bud and Flower Removal ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–62 e5 “For ‘Seneca’ and ‘Kent’, removal of all primary, secondary, or tertiary buds did not significantly decrease yield compared with control plots ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–965 Other claims from this paper (9) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
For Kent, removal of all primary, secondary or tertiary buds did not significantly decrease yield compared with control plots.
removal of all primary, secondary, or tertiary buds e5 did not significantly decrease e5 control plots e5 Verbatim
t0 “Compensatory Ability of Strawberries to Bud and Flower Removal ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–62 e5 “For ‘Seneca’ and ‘Kent’, removal of all primary, secondary, or tertiary buds did not significantly decrease yield compared with control plots ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–965 Other claims from this paper (9) Observation observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Under severe stress, bacteroid proline catabolism had no significant effect on the drought-related seed yield decrease .
drought imposed decrease in seed yield e0 no significant effect e0 when stress was severe e0 Verbatim
e0 “when stress was severe there was no significant effect of the ability of bacteroids to catabolize proline on drought imposed decrease in seed yield . ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1303–1451 e1 “When water stress was mild, soybean plants inoculated with bacteria unable to catabolize proline ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1077–1173 Other claims from this paper (4) Intervention effect observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Sowing 0.5% CMV-infected seed did not significantly decrease lupin grain yield .
narrow‐leafed lupins e0 sowing 0.5% infected seed e3 did not significantly decrease e3 Not reported Comparator
Verbatim
e0 “narrow‐leafed lupins ( Lupinus angustifolius ) ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 41–87 e1 “sowing seed with 5% and 0.5% cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) infection ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 129–195 e3 “The spread of CMV infection resulting from sowing 0.5% infected seed did not significantly decrease yield ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 776–881 Other claims from this paper (18) 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.
Oryza sativae1
Triticum aestivum
Zea mays
Glycine max_single2.jpg?width=60){kind=small}
Fragaria
cucumber mosaic cucumovirus